Electric Vehicles Are Overwhelmingly More Energy Efficient(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Electric Vehicles Are Overwhelmingly More Energy Efficient
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-15/electric-vehicles-are-overwhelmingly-more-energy-efficient
147 comments
Already happened here in Norway.
And range anxiety is something that mostly afflicts those who do not have an electric car. Once you have one it turns into what I call range awareness. You cease to be anxious about it, you simply reorganize things a little.
> the only thing holding them back from Mass adoption (IMHO) is the price of batteries.
I think it is a combination of price and the belief that one needs a lot of range. Here where electric cars are comparable prices to equivalent ICE cars people buy them but in the UK where they are typically a lot more expensive people don't
> lack of charging infrastructure
Experience here in Norway suggests that this is a minor problem for most people, most of the time, because most electric cars are fully charged by morning every day. It's only when you use the car to travel more than half the range away from home that it becomes a problem for most drivers and as most daily uses are considerably less than the range of even a first generation leaf this is fairly rare.
And of course the infrastructure is being created, petrol stations here are staring to install chargers (Circle K in particular). And plenty of local authorities and even supermarkets are installing chargers in parking bays (usually 7 to 11 kW).
And range anxiety is something that mostly afflicts those who do not have an electric car. Once you have one it turns into what I call range awareness. You cease to be anxious about it, you simply reorganize things a little.
> the only thing holding them back from Mass adoption (IMHO) is the price of batteries.
I think it is a combination of price and the belief that one needs a lot of range. Here where electric cars are comparable prices to equivalent ICE cars people buy them but in the UK where they are typically a lot more expensive people don't
> lack of charging infrastructure
Experience here in Norway suggests that this is a minor problem for most people, most of the time, because most electric cars are fully charged by morning every day. It's only when you use the car to travel more than half the range away from home that it becomes a problem for most drivers and as most daily uses are considerably less than the range of even a first generation leaf this is fairly rare.
And of course the infrastructure is being created, petrol stations here are staring to install chargers (Circle K in particular). And plenty of local authorities and even supermarkets are installing chargers in parking bays (usually 7 to 11 kW).
On charging infrastructure, here where I live in London, a lot of the light poles now have EV charging points. They are very subtle: just a blue LED, a small black charger cover and a small Siemens logo. Everything else is inside the preexisting pole (diameter about 4 inches).
I would never have thought of doing this. But once you've seen it, it's an obvious cheap, quick and non-intrusive solution.
I would never have thought of doing this. But once you've seen it, it's an obvious cheap, quick and non-intrusive solution.
Yes, that sounds like a nice/simple/clever solution. Parking meters could also a good option for this sort of fit out.
The other obvious option is paying an extra fee at multi level car parks.
The thing I really want governments to mandate is for new apartment buildings with underground carparks to be built with provisions in place to move it way to get charging to a apartments reserved spot. With a bit of forward planning, a lot of money/effort will saved.
The other obvious option is paying an extra fee at multi level car parks.
The thing I really want governments to mandate is for new apartment buildings with underground carparks to be built with provisions in place to move it way to get charging to a apartments reserved spot. With a bit of forward planning, a lot of money/effort will saved.
... some places already mandate that that new construction has to have EV charging. Palo Alto is one example.
Is this the one deployed? https://evannex.com/blogs/news/lamp-post-charging-is-coming-...
These seem to be the ones deployed by Siemens: https://www.electrive.com/2018/08/16/london-siemens-ubitrici...
>it is hard for me to imagine it will take almost 20 years
You are drastically over-estimating the propensity for change of the majority of the population. In Europe we have diesel versus gasoline wars with supporters of each side declaring that the other is pure crap. The idea these people would just run the numbers, see that electric is more efficient and go to the dealers to pickup an electric car is funny.
We aren't even in the first phases of consumer adoption, we haven't seen the first waves of cheap knock-offs that try to capitalize on the trend and possibly set the public expectations about electrics to low levels. What we have is an american tech startup building a highly advanced and expensive car, and the major manufacturers hedging their bets and announcing electric models to make sure they are not caught off guard.
You are drastically over-estimating the propensity for change of the majority of the population. In Europe we have diesel versus gasoline wars with supporters of each side declaring that the other is pure crap. The idea these people would just run the numbers, see that electric is more efficient and go to the dealers to pickup an electric car is funny.
We aren't even in the first phases of consumer adoption, we haven't seen the first waves of cheap knock-offs that try to capitalize on the trend and possibly set the public expectations about electrics to low levels. What we have is an american tech startup building a highly advanced and expensive car, and the major manufacturers hedging their bets and announcing electric models to make sure they are not caught off guard.
I think you are drastically under-estimating it.
Diesel's growth for private vehicles here in Europe came about purely from changed incentives, and changed sales rates almost immediately. That's for a switch to an alternative with all the refuelling and associated infrastructure already in place.
As electric infrastructure - and crucially vehicle choice - continues to expand, with comparable incentives there's no reason it couldn't achieve as significant a switch in similar time. For most it's the car that makes the sale, not the fuel or number of cylinders.
It's my most petrol-headed friends who also seem to have become the most enthusiastic about EVs.
Diesel's growth for private vehicles here in Europe came about purely from changed incentives, and changed sales rates almost immediately. That's for a switch to an alternative with all the refuelling and associated infrastructure already in place.
As electric infrastructure - and crucially vehicle choice - continues to expand, with comparable incentives there's no reason it couldn't achieve as significant a switch in similar time. For most it's the car that makes the sale, not the fuel or number of cylinders.
It's my most petrol-headed friends who also seem to have become the most enthusiastic about EVs.
Today's "highly advanced and expensive car" is tomorrow's cheap knock off. The sunk costs have been made by the Teslas of this world and economy of scale is about to deliver its magic.
It's ironic reading something like this on a technology website, an industry where scale and rapid development have delivered astounding value. Cars are just the latest product to be gobbled up by the same hyper-efficient industry.
My prediction is the car industry will look like the PC industry in the future. Complicated drive trains have been replaced by simple motors close to the wheel. You don't have to architect a car around them anymore. Scaling will produce more generic and interchangeable parts at much better prices. Soon we'll be talking about our latest build, but it will be a car, not a computer.
This has already started with enthusiasts transplanting reclaimed Tesla innards into other shells:
https://youtu.be/o-7b1waoj9Q?t=291
It's ironic reading something like this on a technology website, an industry where scale and rapid development have delivered astounding value. Cars are just the latest product to be gobbled up by the same hyper-efficient industry.
My prediction is the car industry will look like the PC industry in the future. Complicated drive trains have been replaced by simple motors close to the wheel. You don't have to architect a car around them anymore. Scaling will produce more generic and interchangeable parts at much better prices. Soon we'll be talking about our latest build, but it will be a car, not a computer.
This has already started with enthusiasts transplanting reclaimed Tesla innards into other shells:
https://youtu.be/o-7b1waoj9Q?t=291
It's also ironic reading on technology websites how important everyone thinks the engine is in a car. While in fact engines are the least specialized and least failure-prone part of a modern car.
Your link to people transplanting Tesla innards into other shells: people have done this since the 1930s. Back then it was called a Hot Rod, today aftermarket parts in the US alone is a $300+ billion industry.
Your link to people transplanting Tesla innards into other shells: people have done this since the 1930s. Back then it was called a Hot Rod, today aftermarket parts in the US alone is a $300+ billion industry.
There's something you overlook: Electric cars aren't so damned noisy. In a few years, lots of people will have experience with that and some of them will want to get the damned noisy traffic out of their neighbourhood.
Assuming that you want a diesel, do you still want it if you don't know whether you'll be permitted to drive that thing in the place where you want to go on vacation?
Assuming that you want a diesel, do you still want it if you don't know whether you'll be permitted to drive that thing in the place where you want to go on vacation?
From my "experience" (if you can say that about this) the fuel that wins pub debates is always the currently cheaper one - one day electric cars will start winning significantly, with no downsides they have today.
They do mention that all the growth being in EVs means traditional vehicles get less investment. This is somewhat understating the problem for existing manufacturers. Basically what is going on is that EV manufacturers like Tesla are growing straight into what are the most profitable and lucrative segments of the market. This is why they are so disruptive.
This is creating a lot of demand in a market that is supply limited (e.g. batteries). So that means that short term they have less of a need to actually be in a hurry to scale down to cheaper models.
Margins at the high end are pretty sweet and Tesla has shown pretty convincingly people are willing to buy their products at a premium. Like Apple is not interested in selling cheap phones, Tesla may not be that interested in selling lots of cheap cars with much smaller margins.
The drama around the 35K $ Tesla has shown Tesla dragging their heels there. Technically it's a software limited version of a product they sell at much higher prices. The only way it makes sense for them to not take the extra money is if they would have a demand problem for those more expensive models. They don't. Everything they build ships and they are building and shipping as fast as they can already in a market that is outgrowing their capacity to grow.
So, I think 2038 is pretty reasonable. In the time between then and now, many existing manufacturers will disappear allowing the remaining ones to milk the market a bit longer. E.g. GM closing many of their product lines last year helps other manufacturers as it removes a competitor from the market. Meanwhile it just takes time and major investments to ramp up new production capacity. This won't happen overnight. IMHO much of that capacity may end up being created by new companies. ICE production capacity is a liability at this point. GM did the right thing of ripping off that band-aid and taking that pain early.
This is creating a lot of demand in a market that is supply limited (e.g. batteries). So that means that short term they have less of a need to actually be in a hurry to scale down to cheaper models.
Margins at the high end are pretty sweet and Tesla has shown pretty convincingly people are willing to buy their products at a premium. Like Apple is not interested in selling cheap phones, Tesla may not be that interested in selling lots of cheap cars with much smaller margins.
The drama around the 35K $ Tesla has shown Tesla dragging their heels there. Technically it's a software limited version of a product they sell at much higher prices. The only way it makes sense for them to not take the extra money is if they would have a demand problem for those more expensive models. They don't. Everything they build ships and they are building and shipping as fast as they can already in a market that is outgrowing their capacity to grow.
So, I think 2038 is pretty reasonable. In the time between then and now, many existing manufacturers will disappear allowing the remaining ones to milk the market a bit longer. E.g. GM closing many of their product lines last year helps other manufacturers as it removes a competitor from the market. Meanwhile it just takes time and major investments to ramp up new production capacity. This won't happen overnight. IMHO much of that capacity may end up being created by new companies. ICE production capacity is a liability at this point. GM did the right thing of ripping off that band-aid and taking that pain early.
> Like Apple is not interested in selling cheap phones, Tesla may not be that interested in selling lots of cheap cars with much smaller margins.
Except Elon Musk stating his intention is the exact opposite.
He sees ICE cars as a threat to the future of this planet and want them replaced by something less harmful as quickly as possible, and Tesla is the means to that end.
Everything they’ve built so far has been done to prepare for decent mass-market EVs, like the Model 3.
The high-end market is lucrative though and therefore this is where he’s starting to get competition from traditional auto-vendors, now that he has proven for them the viability of selling luxury EVs.
Except Elon Musk stating his intention is the exact opposite.
He sees ICE cars as a threat to the future of this planet and want them replaced by something less harmful as quickly as possible, and Tesla is the means to that end.
Everything they’ve built so far has been done to prepare for decent mass-market EVs, like the Model 3.
The high-end market is lucrative though and therefore this is where he’s starting to get competition from traditional auto-vendors, now that he has proven for them the viability of selling luxury EVs.
A funny thing with the Model 3 is that people seem to select the more expensive models where most of the differentiation with the lower priced models is software.
Basically what that means is they build the same car and price it a few thousand more to toggle a few software switches.
Turning off those features only makes sense when you can't sell at the higher price. Basically you sacrifice margins for volume. Turns out that so far they get away with not needing to do that and they definitely need the cash. So they built the 35K model 3 and then realized they could be selling it for 45K+. As long as they can sell as fast as they can build these things, why would they lower their prices?
Turning off those features only makes sense when you can't sell at the higher price. Basically you sacrifice margins for volume. Turns out that so far they get away with not needing to do that and they definitely need the cash. So they built the 35K model 3 and then realized they could be selling it for 45K+. As long as they can sell as fast as they can build these things, why would they lower their prices?
It isn't accurate to describe it this way at all. The low-end versions have a smaller battery pack, a smaller inverter, one motor and differential instead of two, AND software limitations that do things like disable some of the speakers.
It's not a sound way of doing things at all, but it helps Teslas short-term objectives. Delivery takes a long time to Europe and China when the cars are made in California and Nevada. By limiting the hardware variation (but not eliminating it, as you seem to believe) you can make cars and ship them before they are ordered and be reasonably sure somebody will buy cars that match, perhaps with different software configuration (a different license, really).
As you say yourself, it wouldn't make sense to sell the lower-priced versions unless you've run out of demand for the more expensive ones. Why you don't conclude like everyone else that they have indeed fulfilled the demand for the more expensive versions is unclear. I'm pretty sure they have.
What's more, they now have the problem today their cheapest model is also the best. Model 3 is especially a much better grand tourer than the S or X, it's efficiency making it go farther and charge faster.
A company improving its products so fast that they cannibalise the old ones isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it works better if you've made back the investment you made on the old product first!
I really hope Tesla makes it through the storm (I own one, so it would be something of a catastrophe for me if they don't!), but it's much more important that regulators follow through and ensure EVs are adopted ASAP. They are good for the national economy as well as the environment, at least if you're not Germany.
It's not a sound way of doing things at all, but it helps Teslas short-term objectives. Delivery takes a long time to Europe and China when the cars are made in California and Nevada. By limiting the hardware variation (but not eliminating it, as you seem to believe) you can make cars and ship them before they are ordered and be reasonably sure somebody will buy cars that match, perhaps with different software configuration (a different license, really).
As you say yourself, it wouldn't make sense to sell the lower-priced versions unless you've run out of demand for the more expensive ones. Why you don't conclude like everyone else that they have indeed fulfilled the demand for the more expensive versions is unclear. I'm pretty sure they have.
What's more, they now have the problem today their cheapest model is also the best. Model 3 is especially a much better grand tourer than the S or X, it's efficiency making it go farther and charge faster.
A company improving its products so fast that they cannibalise the old ones isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it works better if you've made back the investment you made on the old product first!
I really hope Tesla makes it through the storm (I own one, so it would be something of a catastrophe for me if they don't!), but it's much more important that regulators follow through and ensure EVs are adopted ASAP. They are good for the national economy as well as the environment, at least if you're not Germany.
But they have slowed down their drive towards lower priced cars significantly. The model Y was supposed to be ~25k. Instead they chose to go after the much more expensive SUV market. Makes perfect sense, Tesla needs to improve their financials before they can ask for more money to make new factories. Battery supply is limited and the costs are still fairly high so they are focusing on a higher margin product. At the same time I think they might be holding off for better autopilot before they make the truly cheap model.
What Elon had said means nothing. He also said BFR would be great for point to point travel on Earth, in front of a cheering audience. I invite you to square that with his statements about "transitioning the world to sustainable energy". Or just with reality. We're talking here about transportation roughly a million times as risky as ordinary flight. The noise alone is one reason spaceports must be so far from civilization; the energy onboard being in the ballpark of the Hiroshima bomb, coupled with rickets tendency to explode fairly often, is another. Even if we disregard all that, it could only fly when the weather at the destination was clear, so you can't have a schedule. The logistical nightmare of boarding and disembarking would be another show-stopper. And even if ALL of these absolutely massive problems could somehow be solved, it just directly contradicts the goal of transitioning to sustainable energy.
His hyperloop is similarly a scam, with massive technical problems nobody knows how to solve. It's also a 150 year old idea Elon just rebranded and pretended was his own!
In 2013 he told investors, as Tesla CEO, they wouldn't need to raise more capital. Then they raised more capital. He did it again in 2016. And again in 2018.
In his latest idiotic play, he says Tesla cars would appreciate and used ones would be worth $250,000. I own a Model 3, so I have every reason to wish it was true. But I'm not a moron. If he could demonstrate to financial institutions that his cars will no worth just $100k, why should he have Tesla pay 6-8% on the bonds Tesla issued in this last round (the biggest so far, three months after Elon said they didn't need any capital)? It makes no sense, and the reason is that it's nonsense.
He said a Tesla would drive autonomously from coast to coast by the end of 2017. He said from the beginning the cars had the hardware to be fully autonomous; we now know for sure the version one, two, and two point five hardware can't, and don't know if version three can.
He said Tesla's acquisition of SolarCity was a "no-brainer". It is still a drag on the balance sheet and the income statement.
He said he had secured the funding for taking Tesla private. He hadn't discussed it seriously with anyone.
He said a British diver taking part in the rescue operations in Thailand was a pedophile, seemingly to just say something hurtful back after said diver said Elon should put his sub where the sun doesn't shine.
He's revealed in biographies and interviews that Tesla was very close to insolvency on several occasions. He never said so at the time, to his investors, whose money he is supposed to be managing in their best interest (that is the law, whatever the company might say about its goal being to save the planet).
In short, Elon routinely says big things and note often than not it just isn't true, and pretty often it is sufficiently ridiculous that anyone with a skeptical bone in their body who does a minimum of fact-checking quickly comes to the conclusion he doesn't even believe his own words. Which is to say he is quite simply a liar. If you can somehow square his rocket talk with the sustainable energy tune, I think you may need to ask yourself if you are just a little bit too enthusiastic.
Elon-rant done.
The high-end market in the US has definitely felt the impact of Tesla. Here in Norway, too, but that hardly matters because it's about the same scale as the car market of Hamburg. But there's an important perspective missing in what you're saying. Nobody, including Tesla, which has the biggest scale, is yet making any money on making and selling EVs. (Just to be clear, I use EV in the only proper sense, which is BEV. Hybrids, including plugin hybrids, are hybrids, not electric vehicles.) The expectation of everyone is that electric cars will take over, as a matter of necessity because we all need to make huge cuts in our GHG emissions.
If the external costs of vehicles are included, EVs are already much cheaper than ICE vehicles. Fossil fuels are at least as expensive to burn as they are to extract, refine, and distribute, but only the latter costs show up in the accounts. That will change, because the external costs are becoming obvious and much greater than they used to be.
So while Tesla may be playing some role in pushing incumbents in the car industry towards EVs, there are very good reasons to think that the regulatory context and how that's expected to change has much more to do with it. Norway's parliament has adopted a resolution establishing as a goal that only zero-emission vehicles should be on sale from 2025 onwards. Sweden's parliament has outlawed fossil cars from 2030, and is trying to get the rest of the EU to follow its lead. The European commission has grown very impatient with the auto industry's all to successful lobbying and evading of regulation — first by gaming the NEDC norm and type approval system, and then by pulling new tricks out of the hat with the new norm WLTP, undermining the regulations enacted by the commission. It has even sued several member countries for failing to enforce emissions regulations, after dieselgate prompted investigations revealing far greater problems than the much-publicised VW scandal.
If you want EVs to be adopted faster, you'd be a lot more useful if you placed the responsibility and your hopes for a solution where it actually belongs. It's the government's job to regulate markets so that capitalism works as intended — i.e. to ensure that it's profitable for corporations to do what's profitable for society. It's the job of corporations — by law, no less! — to maximize the profits to their investors. Being a fanboy for a company may not do much damage in itself, but the cultural norm that has taken hold where people are pointing fingers at corporations, and failing to hold regulators accountable, is a disease that paves the road for lobbying corporations keen to prevent any major changes.
His hyperloop is similarly a scam, with massive technical problems nobody knows how to solve. It's also a 150 year old idea Elon just rebranded and pretended was his own!
In 2013 he told investors, as Tesla CEO, they wouldn't need to raise more capital. Then they raised more capital. He did it again in 2016. And again in 2018.
In his latest idiotic play, he says Tesla cars would appreciate and used ones would be worth $250,000. I own a Model 3, so I have every reason to wish it was true. But I'm not a moron. If he could demonstrate to financial institutions that his cars will no worth just $100k, why should he have Tesla pay 6-8% on the bonds Tesla issued in this last round (the biggest so far, three months after Elon said they didn't need any capital)? It makes no sense, and the reason is that it's nonsense.
He said a Tesla would drive autonomously from coast to coast by the end of 2017. He said from the beginning the cars had the hardware to be fully autonomous; we now know for sure the version one, two, and two point five hardware can't, and don't know if version three can.
He said Tesla's acquisition of SolarCity was a "no-brainer". It is still a drag on the balance sheet and the income statement.
He said he had secured the funding for taking Tesla private. He hadn't discussed it seriously with anyone.
He said a British diver taking part in the rescue operations in Thailand was a pedophile, seemingly to just say something hurtful back after said diver said Elon should put his sub where the sun doesn't shine.
He's revealed in biographies and interviews that Tesla was very close to insolvency on several occasions. He never said so at the time, to his investors, whose money he is supposed to be managing in their best interest (that is the law, whatever the company might say about its goal being to save the planet).
In short, Elon routinely says big things and note often than not it just isn't true, and pretty often it is sufficiently ridiculous that anyone with a skeptical bone in their body who does a minimum of fact-checking quickly comes to the conclusion he doesn't even believe his own words. Which is to say he is quite simply a liar. If you can somehow square his rocket talk with the sustainable energy tune, I think you may need to ask yourself if you are just a little bit too enthusiastic.
Elon-rant done.
The high-end market in the US has definitely felt the impact of Tesla. Here in Norway, too, but that hardly matters because it's about the same scale as the car market of Hamburg. But there's an important perspective missing in what you're saying. Nobody, including Tesla, which has the biggest scale, is yet making any money on making and selling EVs. (Just to be clear, I use EV in the only proper sense, which is BEV. Hybrids, including plugin hybrids, are hybrids, not electric vehicles.) The expectation of everyone is that electric cars will take over, as a matter of necessity because we all need to make huge cuts in our GHG emissions.
If the external costs of vehicles are included, EVs are already much cheaper than ICE vehicles. Fossil fuels are at least as expensive to burn as they are to extract, refine, and distribute, but only the latter costs show up in the accounts. That will change, because the external costs are becoming obvious and much greater than they used to be.
So while Tesla may be playing some role in pushing incumbents in the car industry towards EVs, there are very good reasons to think that the regulatory context and how that's expected to change has much more to do with it. Norway's parliament has adopted a resolution establishing as a goal that only zero-emission vehicles should be on sale from 2025 onwards. Sweden's parliament has outlawed fossil cars from 2030, and is trying to get the rest of the EU to follow its lead. The European commission has grown very impatient with the auto industry's all to successful lobbying and evading of regulation — first by gaming the NEDC norm and type approval system, and then by pulling new tricks out of the hat with the new norm WLTP, undermining the regulations enacted by the commission. It has even sued several member countries for failing to enforce emissions regulations, after dieselgate prompted investigations revealing far greater problems than the much-publicised VW scandal.
If you want EVs to be adopted faster, you'd be a lot more useful if you placed the responsibility and your hopes for a solution where it actually belongs. It's the government's job to regulate markets so that capitalism works as intended — i.e. to ensure that it's profitable for corporations to do what's profitable for society. It's the job of corporations — by law, no less! — to maximize the profits to their investors. Being a fanboy for a company may not do much damage in itself, but the cultural norm that has taken hold where people are pointing fingers at corporations, and failing to hold regulators accountable, is a disease that paves the road for lobbying corporations keen to prevent any major changes.
I travelled to a middle of nowhere Australian town for a Medieval fair a couple of weeks ago. As I was approaching a tin shed brewery backed onto an open field, I pulled into their nearly full dirt carpark and spot two free spaces. I go to pull in, and it's two Tesla charging stations nestled amongst the gum trees.
It is hard to explain just how unexpected it was, having lived in rural towns most of my youth there was simply no part of my experience that said "better hope there isn't a tesla charging station underneath those gum trees"
It is hard to explain just how unexpected it was, having lived in rural towns most of my youth there was simply no part of my experience that said "better hope there isn't a tesla charging station underneath those gum trees"
They are about twice as expensive, and as an apartment dweller I can't charge it at home.
You can't have charging stations at the same level you have gas stations today, because it takes half an hour to charge (at a minimum) but only a couple minutes to get a tank full of gas, which means you need at least 10 times the number of charging stations that you currently have gas pumps.
An electric car powered by nuclear power would be awesome -- effectively unlimited range, completely clean, but anything powered by less will just suck.
If we are really going to do something drastic for the environment, lets ban offices and enforce 100% remote in knowledge work. That should drastically cut down on CO2 due to transportation and free up time.
You can't have charging stations at the same level you have gas stations today, because it takes half an hour to charge (at a minimum) but only a couple minutes to get a tank full of gas, which means you need at least 10 times the number of charging stations that you currently have gas pumps.
An electric car powered by nuclear power would be awesome -- effectively unlimited range, completely clean, but anything powered by less will just suck.
If we are really going to do something drastic for the environment, lets ban offices and enforce 100% remote in knowledge work. That should drastically cut down on CO2 due to transportation and free up time.
Model 3 in UK and many other countries is counted as luxury car and is taxed more.
Meanwhile in US(seen as pillar of pollution by most EU countries) you somehow get huge rebates.
How we are not making EV’s tax free is beyond me.
Meanwhile in US(seen as pillar of pollution by most EU countries) you somehow get huge rebates.
How we are not making EV’s tax free is beyond me.
EVs are road tax free. The only reason the model 3 counts as a luxury car and has to pay luxury car road tax is its price (over £40k). There is a pile of subsidies for Teslas : https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/support/incentives
That's exactly what OP meant I'm sure. I'm personally baffled by that policy - it means that the most modern, most innovative vehicles end up paying more tax because......they happen to cost over £40k? What's the logic there? It was supposed to be a tax on emissions - and instead it ends up being a tax on lifestyle.
Well... it's a luxury tax. You can't argue that a car which costs more than the annual salary of 80% of people isn't a luxury. Other electric cars are more cheaply available. There's no particular reason for the UK to subsidise a US car manufacturer when the Nissan Leaf is made in the UK! (+)
VED has a complex history but the emissions part is fairly recent, and the luxury part even more recent (this year!).
(+) I think this is still true at time of writing but may be affected by Brexit
VED has a complex history but the emissions part is fairly recent, and the luxury part even more recent (this year!).
(+) I think this is still true at time of writing but may be affected by Brexit
I mean, I don't disagree. But it doesn't just touch electric cars - hybrids are affected too. And it's just bizzare to me that you could have a £39k diesel or a £40k hybrid and the latter will actually pay more in annual tax despite being more ecologically friendly, purely because of the purchase price. If I was in the market for a vehicle like that the extra "luxury" tax would probably steer me towards the non-hybrid option, and that's not what we want customers to do, is it? I don't know. Maybe I just can't relate to the whole idea of this tax, the only intuitive way that I understand it is "how dare you buy an expensive car, fuck you, here's extra tax"(despite the fact that obviously VAT applies equally so the more expensive the car the more tax you pay anyway....)
Different taxes are applied for different reasons. The luxury tax is applied in the belief that those who have a higher financial status should be contributing more to the public funds. The pollution tax is applied in the belief that those who pollute more should also pay more and to potentially discourage people from buying polluting cards( in the presence of a better alternative, but for most people the model 3 might as well not exist right now because it's too expensive).
The truth is that there just aren't enough people who can afford a model 3 to make a dent in global warming. The model 3's effect is in terms of dealing with the risks involved with mass production without investing the amount of money needed for a truly disruptive model( think 15-25k cost, that would take A LOT more orders).
The truth is that there just aren't enough people who can afford a model 3 to make a dent in global warming. The model 3's effect is in terms of dealing with the risks involved with mass production without investing the amount of money needed for a truly disruptive model( think 15-25k cost, that would take A LOT more orders).
Indeed it's odd. It sounds like "if you can spend 40k on a car then you're filthy rich and thus must be able to spend 40k plus a hefty tax". When put this way it appears to resonate with one of the common ways to see the world.
Yes, that's pretty much it? Perhaps surprisingly, it was introduced by the 2015 Conservative government. https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/industry-hits-ou...
The tax free thing only works while they're a small percentage of cars. It might help drive early adoption, but at some point quite soon you have to start taxing otherwise income significantly falls.
You are absolutely right. The only way EVs are not going to overtake by 2030 would be if battery technology somehow stopped improving despite both investments in battery research and investments in battery manufacturing capacity are increasing exponentially.
Already today, the expensive versions of Model S drives 370 miles / 600 km on one charge. If you live in a country with superchargers on main roads, this will be enough for all driving scenarios, whether it's the daily commute to and from work or it's the long vacation drive in mountainous regions or cold weather.
In 3-4 years, similar range will be achieved by mid prized cars, and in 6-8 years, the higher end of the low prized cars will have that range.
And at the same time charging networks expand rapidly, with Tesla's just being one of several.
So around 2030, if you buy a cheap EV, range will simply not be an issue.
Already today, the expensive versions of Model S drives 370 miles / 600 km on one charge. If you live in a country with superchargers on main roads, this will be enough for all driving scenarios, whether it's the daily commute to and from work or it's the long vacation drive in mountainous regions or cold weather.
In 3-4 years, similar range will be achieved by mid prized cars, and in 6-8 years, the higher end of the low prized cars will have that range.
And at the same time charging networks expand rapidly, with Tesla's just being one of several.
So around 2030, if you buy a cheap EV, range will simply not be an issue.
I think you’re right. This year Nissan said their plan is for their Infinity brand to go all-electric by 2022. Most forecasters today are looking at the straight line trend and underestimating the upward curve.
However cars do tend to last a while so I imagine the lag between “most new cars sold are electric” and “most cars on the road are electric” will take a while, and “all cars are electric” may take a lot longer, or not happen at all if you consider niche vehicles.
However cars do tend to last a while so I imagine the lag between “most new cars sold are electric” and “most cars on the road are electric” will take a while, and “all cars are electric” may take a lot longer, or not happen at all if you consider niche vehicles.
Yep, agreed that it will take a while for all the petrol cars to come off the road, but the reports prediction is specifically talking about new car sales, and only the majority (which I read as > 50 %) by 2038.
I just feel that the prediction is almost laughably conservative.
My prediction: When the price hits parity (my gut says in less than 5 years), the convenience of electric will see mass adoption over a period of a few years. It will be the transition from film to digital cameras all over again and the change will be rapid. More than 50% of new car sales will be EV sometime before 2030.
I just feel that the prediction is almost laughably conservative.
My prediction: When the price hits parity (my gut says in less than 5 years), the convenience of electric will see mass adoption over a period of a few years. It will be the transition from film to digital cameras all over again and the change will be rapid. More than 50% of new car sales will be EV sometime before 2030.
Cars cost much more than cameras (one or two zeroes more) so old cars are going to stay around for a longer time. The other problem is building the energy distribution network. The street road I'm looking at now is filled with parked cars and no recharge points. There is a gas station. Any of those cars can spend five minutes there and go on for hundreds of km. None of them could be recharged if they were electric. There is a car sharing service with electric cars in this city. They have their own recharge points. They drive their cars there at night. They use portable car batteries to move cars with completely empty batteries. My guess is that's going to take much more than five years to get to the point where people can be confident of being able to recharge their batteries anytime they need it. Some EU countries set the late 2030s as a target to stop selling gas and that's also my guess.
> Cars cost much more than cameras (one or two zeroes more) so old cars are going to stay around for a longer time.
I feel that in both my comments I have been quite clear that I have been talking about new car sales only.
At the risk of repeating myself, I agree that it will take a while for all petrol cars to come off the road, even when the majority of new car sales are EV.
I feel that in both my comments I have been quite clear that I have been talking about new car sales only.
At the risk of repeating myself, I agree that it will take a while for all petrol cars to come off the road, even when the majority of new car sales are EV.
> It will be the transition from film to digital cameras all over again and the change will be rapid.
What a fantastic comparison. Early electric cars like the Leaf feel like the really early 0.3 MP digital cameras or 32 MB MP3 players or Windows Mobile 3.1 telephones.
Once you can buy a Model 3 type car for the price of a VW Polo then Ford will be the new Kodak.
What a fantastic comparison. Early electric cars like the Leaf feel like the really early 0.3 MP digital cameras or 32 MB MP3 players or Windows Mobile 3.1 telephones.
Once you can buy a Model 3 type car for the price of a VW Polo then Ford will be the new Kodak.
Maybe... But, because this industry wide shift is playing out on a much longer time scale, it looks like most of the existing big auto companies are aware of, and going to make the shift. Case in point, the Nissan plan I mentioned above.
Getting cars off of the road will need some (local) government involvement.
For example here in Rotterdam getting a parking permit is already subject to emission levels. Car too old? No permit for you!
There also used to be an incentive where you would get a “wrecking bonus” if you let your old, more polluting, car be dismantled and buy a new more efficient one.
I think that plus investment in (public/private) charging infrastructure in cities would have people switch a lot quicker.
However, concerning cities, I’d like to see a lot of emphasis on _not_ driving a car at all in the city
However, concerning cities, I’d like to see a lot of emphasis on _not_ driving a car at all in the city
I'm of the opinion that once a certain number of cars are EVs, a lot of pertrol stations will find themselves unprofitable. These will then close. People will see this happening and desire EVs even more. This will cause uptake of EVs to accelerate, causing more pressure on petrol stations, creating a vicious cycle that will make it harder and harder to keep using a ICE vehicle.
I also predict that there will be a healthy aftermarket converting ICE vehicles into EVs (or maybe even official manufacturer solutions).
I also predict that there will be a healthy aftermarket converting ICE vehicles into EVs (or maybe even official manufacturer solutions).
I agree. While EVs are nice, and the reduced noise is a real blessing in the city, and even better blessing would be not needing cars at all.
Not only noise but also the reduction in emission is huge. Consider the recent court case in London where the question is whether air pollution killed a girl as well as a recent research indicating that air pollution, especially in cities, is impacting health much more then previously thought
I’m really not sure what’s supposed to be so much more convenient about electric cars.
At present about once a week I stop and get gas. It’s no big deal if I ever forget because filling up is a five minute process. Twice a year I get an oil change.
If I get an EV I have to remember to plug it in every night. If I forget, it is a much longer process to recharge.
What exactly is the incredible added benefit I as a consumer am getting from an EV? People tout reliability, but Tesla isn’t selling me on that and the powertrain is not a high failure item in the first place - you can easily expect 250-300k miles with minimal maintenance. The stuff that goes wrong in cars is invariably the other crap - electronics, sensors, computers, anti-theft systems, climate control, power windows. Getting an EV doesn’t save me from that.
At present about once a week I stop and get gas. It’s no big deal if I ever forget because filling up is a five minute process. Twice a year I get an oil change.
If I get an EV I have to remember to plug it in every night. If I forget, it is a much longer process to recharge.
What exactly is the incredible added benefit I as a consumer am getting from an EV? People tout reliability, but Tesla isn’t selling me on that and the powertrain is not a high failure item in the first place - you can easily expect 250-300k miles with minimal maintenance. The stuff that goes wrong in cars is invariably the other crap - electronics, sensors, computers, anti-theft systems, climate control, power windows. Getting an EV doesn’t save me from that.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Far more charging stations will be needed. In the US, we see a few chargers in one place, maybe. Here's a taxi charging station in Shenzhen.[1] That's what scale looks like.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-16/the-world...
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-16/the-world...
Perhaps they borrowed some numbers from the International Energy Agency - https://steinbuch.wordpress.com/2017/06/12/photovoltaic-grow...
I agree it will be a lot sooner. The tipping point is going to start around 2025, when EV's become as cheap as ICE's for the largest autos, and will progress from there.
There are a number of forces pushing the change. For one, EV's are just better, including a much lower operating cost. Secondly, governments are pushing the change because of global climate change, and also because it reduces local pollution, and also having to pay for gas imports for the great majority of countries that produce little or no petroleum. Finally China is pushing EV's hard because it wants to dominate the auto industry.
I am sure the Bloomberg New Energy Finance people are quite aware the revolution is going to come much earlier. I think they are pretending it won't because they are under pressure from auto and petroleum advertisers.
There are a number of forces pushing the change. For one, EV's are just better, including a much lower operating cost. Secondly, governments are pushing the change because of global climate change, and also because it reduces local pollution, and also having to pay for gas imports for the great majority of countries that produce little or no petroleum. Finally China is pushing EV's hard because it wants to dominate the auto industry.
I am sure the Bloomberg New Energy Finance people are quite aware the revolution is going to come much earlier. I think they are pretending it won't because they are under pressure from auto and petroleum advertisers.
[deleted]
Cheaper and lighter. The dry electrolyte from maxwell that T acquired can do both.
Beyond charging infrastructure, I wonder whether the main obstacle to get over is base power generation. If the bulk of the transportation system electrifies, we're going to need a lot more power stations.
Now more than ever we need fusion to be less than 50 years away - by the sounds of it, much less... .
Now more than ever we need fusion to be less than 50 years away - by the sounds of it, much less... .
In my country average age of a car is not that far away from that number. And people do love diesel cars here. So no wonder it will take a looong time.
people including journalists generally rarely grasp exponential change (nor sigmoidal).
Deep statement. Made me think about how to differentiate btw the two. Are there any natural exponential growth at all? Because at least every closed system will reach a limit at a point. Of course the initial burst could be exponential but the core question is about whether there is an upper limit or a convergence against a constant limit.
total cost of ownership is already less. the problem is just that the sticker price is higher to buy the battery upfront.
Tesla (not mentioned in the article) deserves a lot of credit in accelerating the shift towards battery powered cars.
You are not wrong, but on HN, at least, I feel Tesla gets more credit than it deserves and Nissan doesn't get enough. I was an early fan; the roadster made me believe it was possible, but in the meantime, Nissan produced a mass market car and sold it worldwide in the hundreds of thousands. Only now, with the model 3, is Tesla arguably entering the same market . . . at the same time as everyone else, really. I will grant that they are producing on a larger scale than anyone else, but I'm not convinced they can keep that advantage long.
The leaf is good and certainly helped, but in a way it alone (without the tesla model s/x) may have held back the mainstream adoption of electric cars as it had not dramatically addressed the challenges of battery degradation, charging infrastructure, 'atttactive' design, and range. Tesla showed the world electric cars could be had with almost no compromises by tackling those areas head on. This is what will move them from niche to mainstream, especially now with the cost making it accessible to most.
I agree that Nissan was definitely more significant in the (early) mass-market electric segment. However, for the people I know who purchased Teslas, a lot of their decision had to do with a Tesla not seeming like a quirky or weird electric car with compromises. The range of most Tesla models far exceeds that of the Leaf, and while they obviously cost more partly as a result, a lot of people would prefer a vehicle that makes EVs seem usable, normal, futuristic, and "cool" though expensive rather than one that makes EVs accessible to people already interested in them who are willing to change their habits and preferences somewhat. It seems like a distinction in branding that Tesla seemed to hit the mark on, in my view.
Other brands did try and make great EV but it's only with a bold 'EV only and no more fossil fuel ever' pitch that the polarization effect was there.
I'm sure Tesla will receive more than enough credit in all the 1000s of articles yet to be written about it, and has already received lots of credit.
Not every article about EVs needs to mention Tesla.
Not every article about EVs needs to mention Tesla.
Quite a bit of the total energy consumed by/through any vehicle is in its manufacture. Due to their relative simplicity, I believe electric vehicles offer a clearer path to a more consistent high-mileage lifecycle, with the battery pack as the primary wear item. I’d love to see million miles become the norm.
It will be interesting to see where the long term "wear items" are in an electric vehicle. Right now, I predict the most serious "wear item" is going to be cabin electronics (touch screen etc) and actuators (door handles, locks, gull wings, steering column etc).
Battery packs—Tesla have shown that with sufficient battery management (stable thermals, avoiding charge state extremes) their packs can last extremely long distances. And they wear very gradually; an electric car with 70% of its original range is still a very useful item.
Motors—I recall these were a high-fault item in earlier models, but as far as I'm aware these problems have been mostly solved and the reliable units have long lifespans. (And if they don't, they're comparatively trivial to swap out compared to an ICE drivetrain anyway.)
Seats/Interior materials—I have no idea how durable Tesla's materials are compared to the competition. Does anyone have any insights on this?
The models with all-aluminium chassis (because it's more valuable than steel and has an inherently long lifespan) makes them worth refurbishing. It would be cool if Telsa could license a third party to perform refurbishing on existing models—replacing older parts with newer equivalents. The benefit to Tesla is that improving a car's residuals increases its value and therefore "lowers the price" compared to competitor cars.
Battery packs—Tesla have shown that with sufficient battery management (stable thermals, avoiding charge state extremes) their packs can last extremely long distances. And they wear very gradually; an electric car with 70% of its original range is still a very useful item.
Motors—I recall these were a high-fault item in earlier models, but as far as I'm aware these problems have been mostly solved and the reliable units have long lifespans. (And if they don't, they're comparatively trivial to swap out compared to an ICE drivetrain anyway.)
Seats/Interior materials—I have no idea how durable Tesla's materials are compared to the competition. Does anyone have any insights on this?
The models with all-aluminium chassis (because it's more valuable than steel and has an inherently long lifespan) makes them worth refurbishing. It would be cool if Telsa could license a third party to perform refurbishing on existing models—replacing older parts with newer equivalents. The benefit to Tesla is that improving a car's residuals increases its value and therefore "lowers the price" compared to competitor cars.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rhbD44jXffY
Review of wear on Model S with 450k miles.
Review of wear on Model S with 450k miles.
Maybe this is a bit extreme. But I would love to see car makers be required to offer long term (5 years +, 100k+ miles) warranties for free. Force them to use higher quality components and be up front about long term costs. But allow them to exclude battery packs from the warranty.
Quite a lot already do: https://myioniq.com/hyundai-ioniq-warranty/
Tesla model 3: 4 yr/50,000 mi basic, 8 yr/100,000 mi powertrain
Looking around urban streets in the UK, the biggest blocker to widespread electric car adoption is almost certainly charging infrastructure.
Most people in cities here live in flats, terraced houses or other houses without driveways. Charging therefore needs to be on-street or in centralised locations. We have a handful of electric car charging points, but these are often full even now, when electric cars make up a tiny proportion of the fleet.
The amount of investment needed in street charging and supercharger like stations before electric cars can be the majority is absolutely vast here. It's going to need a lot of political will to happen.
I think the situation is similar across much of Europe and the rest of the world. The US model - a driveway for every house across most of the country - is quite unique globally.
Most people in cities here live in flats, terraced houses or other houses without driveways. Charging therefore needs to be on-street or in centralised locations. We have a handful of electric car charging points, but these are often full even now, when electric cars make up a tiny proportion of the fleet.
The amount of investment needed in street charging and supercharger like stations before electric cars can be the majority is absolutely vast here. It's going to need a lot of political will to happen.
I think the situation is similar across much of Europe and the rest of the world. The US model - a driveway for every house across most of the country - is quite unique globally.
(I just posted this in reply to a different comment. But it is more relevant here.)
On charging infrastructure, here where I live in London, a lot of the light poles now have EV charging points. They are very subtle: just a blue LED, a small black charger cover and a small Siemens logo. Everything else is inside the preexisting pole (diameter about 4 inches).
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/car-industry-news/2018/08/2...
I would never have thought of doing this. But once you've seen it, it's an obvious cheap, quick and non-intrusive solution.
On charging infrastructure, here where I live in London, a lot of the light poles now have EV charging points. They are very subtle: just a blue LED, a small black charger cover and a small Siemens logo. Everything else is inside the preexisting pole (diameter about 4 inches).
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/car-industry-news/2018/08/2...
I would never have thought of doing this. But once you've seen it, it's an obvious cheap, quick and non-intrusive solution.
That's a smart solution, but it doesn't solve the whole problem.
Since I became aware of lamppost charging I've been counting the lamppost to car ratio. It's generally somewhere around 7-10:1. Even if you convert every lamppost you're still only 15% of the way there.
There's also the power distribution problem. To charge a lot of cars takes a lot of power. A typical residential house uses 4760kWh/year in the UK - that's about 500W average. It's maybe 3x as much in the US - call it 2kW. The most basic, 13A electric car charger will draw maybe 3.1kW. A more reasonable electric car charger might draw 7kW. A supercharger is somewhere between 50 and 150kW. at the very least, you're doubling the amount of power you need to distribute to residential streets, at worse you're increasing it by a factor of 75.
Total UK electricity production is around 300TWh/year. We consume 46 billion litres of transport fuel a year - that's around 51GW, or 447TWh/year. Even accounting for the improved efficiency of electric cars, you're still looking at doubling the electricity production, and distributing that to 30 million cars, each of which is down a very long wire.
I'm all for electric cars, but there's some serious infrastructure issues we have to deal with before they're physically able to be ubiquitous.
Since I became aware of lamppost charging I've been counting the lamppost to car ratio. It's generally somewhere around 7-10:1. Even if you convert every lamppost you're still only 15% of the way there.
There's also the power distribution problem. To charge a lot of cars takes a lot of power. A typical residential house uses 4760kWh/year in the UK - that's about 500W average. It's maybe 3x as much in the US - call it 2kW. The most basic, 13A electric car charger will draw maybe 3.1kW. A more reasonable electric car charger might draw 7kW. A supercharger is somewhere between 50 and 150kW. at the very least, you're doubling the amount of power you need to distribute to residential streets, at worse you're increasing it by a factor of 75.
Total UK electricity production is around 300TWh/year. We consume 46 billion litres of transport fuel a year - that's around 51GW, or 447TWh/year. Even accounting for the improved efficiency of electric cars, you're still looking at doubling the electricity production, and distributing that to 30 million cars, each of which is down a very long wire.
I'm all for electric cars, but there's some serious infrastructure issues we have to deal with before they're physically able to be ubiquitous.
If you own the lamppost, perhaps you could own orchestration of power delivery as well?
If load exceeds tolerances, the EV plugs apply a "rolling blackout" that oscillates through the network every N minutes, to give every car at least some juice?
Also, typical EV eMPG is double an ICE. LEAFs are 124/90 eMPG City/Highway, for example. That makes your math for doubling electrical production a bit less scary. The fact that EV charging is commonly off peak also makes it more convenient for the grid.
If load exceeds tolerances, the EV plugs apply a "rolling blackout" that oscillates through the network every N minutes, to give every car at least some juice?
Also, typical EV eMPG is double an ICE. LEAFs are 124/90 eMPG City/Highway, for example. That makes your math for doubling electrical production a bit less scary. The fact that EV charging is commonly off peak also makes it more convenient for the grid.
That makes a lot more sense in the UK with 220V, where standard wall juice has some kick.
In countries with 110V, the car charger that comes with your EV is a trickle charger. Non-teslas (like a LEAF) only charge at 3-6 miles of range per hour, and Teslas are almost half that, over standard 110V.
In countries with 110V, the car charger that comes with your EV is a trickle charger. Non-teslas (like a LEAF) only charge at 3-6 miles of range per hour, and Teslas are almost half that, over standard 110V.
Nobody in the UK has a petrol pump in the front of their house, it didn't stop petrol cars taking off
I imagine people will charge at work, or supercharge for 20mins once a week
I imagine people will charge at work, or supercharge for 20mins once a week
Agreed. Imagine if reality was inverted and electric cars were as common as gas cars are now and you proposed moving people to gas cars. Everyone would be incredulous- what? I have to drive somewhere a mile away to refill? With a highly toxic liquid? Instead of using a pervasive charge network which is connected to everyone's home already?
Petrol takes 5 minutes
Sure - maybe supermarkets will become the new place to charge for example? You’re in there for 30 minutes anyway so you’ve just saved that 5 minutes. It could be the next differentiating factor for a lot of business.
This only applies if you happen to live at a gas station.
The issue is current charging stations are big dedicated things that cost thousands of dollars.
They have screens and card readers, and loads of relays and switches inside. Some models (like Tesla superchargers) have a lot of very expensive power electronics in.
They'll only be successful when someone can come up with a sub-$100 model which is integrated into a kerbstone.
They have screens and card readers, and loads of relays and switches inside. Some models (like Tesla superchargers) have a lot of very expensive power electronics in.
They'll only be successful when someone can come up with a sub-$100 model which is integrated into a kerbstone.
I could easily do a sub-$100 AC charger; installation cost is the real problem.
There are cheap plugin ones but they take all night
maybe you guys should push for electric bicycles?
"Only about one in four or five of those gallons of gasoline you pump and pay for provide energy you actually use, and perhaps 60-70% of what statisticians call the world’s primary energy use is really just waste"
Interesting.
Interesting.
Totally interesting! It's not waste for no reason. Energy transfers have thermodynamic efficiencies and at practical temperatures the transformation of chemical energy into shaft horsepower is like 30% efficient in a small engine. Making electricity from fossil or nuclear fuel in large plants is between that and 60% efficient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake-specific_fuel_consumptio...
Yes, it's in the 30s for typical petrol engines, and over 50% for large 2-stroke diesels.
Yes, it's in the 30s for typical petrol engines, and over 50% for large 2-stroke diesels.
I was wondering how much then is lost in transport. Turns out to be only 2-4%. The same article also confirms that efficiency in large plants is about 60%:
http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-...
No all plants are combined cycle plants, even if improves efficiency a lot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant
Or even something better Cogeneration plants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration
Or even something better Cogeneration plants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration
> at practical temperatures the transformation of chemical energy into shaft horsepower is like 30% efficient in a small engine
Does that also hold for hybrid electric vehicles?
Does that also hold for hybrid electric vehicles?
Yes. That is the percentage of fuel energy that gets to your wheels. The rest is made into heat, and is why fuel engines need such big radiators - for every HP going to your wheels, a minimum of 2 go to the radiator.
Hybrids just recapture the heat from the brakes, another major loss point, but unrelated to the engine. If you want to actually get better energy efficiency you need plug-in hybrid or fully electric.
Hybrids just recapture the heat from the brakes, another major loss point, but unrelated to the engine. If you want to actually get better energy efficiency you need plug-in hybrid or fully electric.
Many gas hybrid run the atkinson cycle vs the otto cycle, this improves efficiency some at the expense of torque, which the electric motors make up for.
Hybrids are much better in the city due to the stop and go nature allowing lots of braking regeneration and idle savings.
On the highway much of their advantage is lost especially if comparing to say a diesel.
Hybrids are much better in the city due to the stop and go nature allowing lots of braking regeneration and idle savings.
On the highway much of their advantage is lost especially if comparing to say a diesel.
Mostly. The efficiency of a gasoline engine varies widely depending on rpm and power output. Hybrids keep the engine in it's most efficient operating range. It's also why hybrids produce about a fifth the pollution as straight gasoline engines.
I think hybrids can also make some trade offs losing power density and torque for higher efficiency.
I think hybrids can also make some trade offs losing power density and torque for higher efficiency.
What are the environmental and energy costs of producing and replacing batteries? How abundant are the resources required?
1 Billion cars require about 20% of the known reserves of lithium and recycling can be done with low losses. New types of batteries are developed that use less lithium or other materials.
At current prices and technology, the raw material price for lithium carbonate is around $600 per car, (60Kg at about $10 per Kg) and that price can give you an idea of the environmental impact, probably on par with the 1 - 1.5 tonnes of steel required to build the car and costing similarly.
Of course, "environmental impact" doesn't really mean anything unless you put it in perspective. We could talk about CO2 emissions during mining and refining - and we could reduce that to near zero by using electric mining equipment and clean energy. We could talk about the impact mining companies have on some beautiful South American salty desert, and I really have no answer there because it's all relative to how you value desert landscapes compared to urban mobility. Some people will surely claim it's unacceptable and we should all switch to bikes.
At current prices and technology, the raw material price for lithium carbonate is around $600 per car, (60Kg at about $10 per Kg) and that price can give you an idea of the environmental impact, probably on par with the 1 - 1.5 tonnes of steel required to build the car and costing similarly.
Of course, "environmental impact" doesn't really mean anything unless you put it in perspective. We could talk about CO2 emissions during mining and refining - and we could reduce that to near zero by using electric mining equipment and clean energy. We could talk about the impact mining companies have on some beautiful South American salty desert, and I really have no answer there because it's all relative to how you value desert landscapes compared to urban mobility. Some people will surely claim it's unacceptable and we should all switch to bikes.
I bet some people would complain about the environmental impact of wooden bicycles because they use nails made out of steel which was recycled from old bikes.
>> 20% of the known reserves
You just answered 3 questions I had pending in my head, love HN!
> How abundant are the resources required?
Lithium is very abundant, and I have read that it is easily recycled. Not sure about the other inputs to the mix.
Lithium is very abundant, and I have read that it is easily recycled. Not sure about the other inputs to the mix.
Worn lithium batteries are still highly valuable for grid storage because at even half their original capacity, they still have much better specifications than cheaper batteries like lead acid.
Expect to see old EV cells redeployed into large scale grid storage rather than recycled for their raw materials.
Expect to see old EV cells redeployed into large scale grid storage rather than recycled for their raw materials.
Let's assume used car batteries can extend their lives 2x as grid storage - dubious, since the probability of cascading failure increases exponentially after some point.
Even then, it doesn't mean they won't get recycled close to 100%, just that you will have a rolling lithium stock twice as big. At some future point, they will still be removed from grid storage and recycled for raw materials.
Even then, it doesn't mean they won't get recycled close to 100%, just that you will have a rolling lithium stock twice as big. At some future point, they will still be removed from grid storage and recycled for raw materials.
I suspect within 20 years, the technology for automated recycling of standard lithium cells (e.g. 18650) will be quite advanced. The question is whether it will be more cost effective (or more carbon effective) than to continue using virgin materials. Lithium is abundant, after all.
We can't answer that question on economics, but surely one of the two will happen, either mass recycling or lithium abundance. We won't get to the point of "running out".
There was supposed to be mass recycling of glass and plastic, but we're not close to running out of the raw virgin materials for that stuff.
The question is going to be whether lithium batteries are going to be more like aluminium (recycling is cheaper and better for environment) or more like plastics (recycling is more expensive and more carbon intensive).
The question is going to be whether lithium batteries are going to be more like aluminium (recycling is cheaper and better for environment) or more like plastics (recycling is more expensive and more carbon intensive).
I don't think that will happen. Companies don't want to connect a hundred batteries of dubious quality to build grid storage. Recycling works so well that building new batteries is far more profitable.
> Companies don't want to connect a hundred batteries of dubious quality
I'm not suggesting companies are going to start making grid storage out of random cells. I'm suggesting that they will take EV batteries with precisely known origins and integrate them into grid storage because it will be so cost effective.
When the supply of old battery packs becomes a seriously meaningful number (in 5—15 years) this will be a big issue.
> Recycling works so well
Does it? I have read varying reports on the cost effectiveness of recycling these batteries.
Remember, they've only lost N% of their inherent value. I doubt it is economically feasible to recycle and re-manufacture lithium batteries to merely double their capacity. Remember, only a fraction of the battery material will be recyclable and if that fraction is less than N% then you've failed economically before you've spent the first dollar.
I'm not suggesting companies are going to start making grid storage out of random cells. I'm suggesting that they will take EV batteries with precisely known origins and integrate them into grid storage because it will be so cost effective.
When the supply of old battery packs becomes a seriously meaningful number (in 5—15 years) this will be a big issue.
> Recycling works so well
Does it? I have read varying reports on the cost effectiveness of recycling these batteries.
Remember, they've only lost N% of their inherent value. I doubt it is economically feasible to recycle and re-manufacture lithium batteries to merely double their capacity. Remember, only a fraction of the battery material will be recyclable and if that fraction is less than N% then you've failed economically before you've spent the first dollar.
I would imagine that batteries' total cost of production over its lifetime is lower than the total cost of production of the equivalent energy in petroleum
Five years from now, it will be clear to anyone buying a new car that if it's legacy tech, its resale value is going to be essentially zero. Past that point, the trend towards electric will go exponential.
Yes that's already happening right now. The premise of buying an expensive car is that you can sell it a few years later for a predictable price. Once that price collapses, things get ugly very quickly. Once new buyers suspect there is an issue there, they will be very reluctant.
So, the luxury car market will shift to full EV a lot sooner than 2038. IMHO that's happening right now and will largely have happened by 2025 already. It's the rest of the market that will take a bit longer. Not because of a lack of demand but a lack of supply: it will that long to build enough production capacity. And while capacity is limited, the high end of the market is more lucrative to use the capacity for. A Tesla model 3 with 20% margins selling for 40-60K is more interesting than say the equivalent of a Ford Pinto for 15K with 5% margins. The economics of that are different if you have enough capacity to do both of course but that is not the case yet. As long as battery production is a bottleneck, people will be looking to put them in high margin products rather than low margin products.
So, the luxury car market will shift to full EV a lot sooner than 2038. IMHO that's happening right now and will largely have happened by 2025 already. It's the rest of the market that will take a bit longer. Not because of a lack of demand but a lack of supply: it will that long to build enough production capacity. And while capacity is limited, the high end of the market is more lucrative to use the capacity for. A Tesla model 3 with 20% margins selling for 40-60K is more interesting than say the equivalent of a Ford Pinto for 15K with 5% margins. The economics of that are different if you have enough capacity to do both of course but that is not the case yet. As long as battery production is a bottleneck, people will be looking to put them in high margin products rather than low margin products.
I wish I could afford an electric car, but the real cost of ownership for one is so far beyond my gassed Honda Fit that I can never justify it. Instead I just try to use my bicycle and e-bike as much as possible. Maybe when the Honda finally dies I can justify an electric car, but I doubt it unless they get a LOT cheaper.
Here is a link that criticizes the BNEF report and argues EV adoption will be far faster
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/19/bnefs-latest-embarrassi...
No one talks about the used car market for EVs. The battery is by far the most expensive part and the most volnurable to fail. So much so that buying a used EV is a much riskier bet.
It isn't that hard to test if it is toast though. The rest of the drive train should be much more robust than an ICE. Much fewer parts and less to go wrong. I can't see a battery being any more expensive to replace than say a diesel engine.
A diesel engine will do an order of magnitude more miles.
Not without a lot of very expensive maintenance. The cost of that easily adds up to battery replacements/servicing. Batteries are expensive now but will drop in price over time as economies of scale kick in and current technology gets replaced by any of the better things currently stuck in the R&D stages of the many startups working on this.
Diesel engines are not getting cheaper/better by a similar rate. Worse, investments in that are at this point being shelved in favor of EV investments. Diesels right now are about as good as they will ever be.
Diesel engines are not getting cheaper/better by a similar rate. Worse, investments in that are at this point being shelved in favor of EV investments. Diesels right now are about as good as they will ever be.
1000 cycles at 400km per charge. Hmmm... I don't think that is an order of magnitude
How about replacing the battery? And paying minus the battery?, I see it's much less riskier as there are lesser mechanical parts that are difficult to replace.
Also there could be a used EVs marketplace where the battery can be serviced or even rented out (making it less riskier)
Also there could be a used EVs marketplace where the battery can be serviced or even rented out (making it less riskier)
I dare say it’s quite the opposite. Just write off and replace the battery and the rest is practically pristine.
The dashboard will be scratched up, the interior might start smelling, the tires may be worn out. The wipers may need to be replaced. At some point you're replacing everything.
A new battery will be pretty close to the price of the entire used car. Im not sure that is a valid economic proposition.
Citation please! This is FUD otherwise.
For a LEAF, $2.3k for a refurb, and >$6k for new. https://electrek.co/2018/03/26/nissan-leaf-battery-pack-repl...
Unfortunately, that's in the ballpark for a used LEAF.
Unfortunately, that's in the ballpark for a used LEAF.
I can find e-Ups for 10000€ (new 26000€). A new battery will most likely cost 10000€ too.
Tesla battery is $6500. I doubt other EVs can get much lower.
not FUD if it is true even without citation (you are allowed to do research on your own)
I’m sure that will create a market for certified battery replacement workshops.
But Teslas have chronic reliability issues according to Consumer Reports
Why not transition to EV motorcycles?
Because I don’t want to die in what would be a mild collision in a four wheel vehicle
It's sad that this "article" is not going more in-depth.
What bugged me most was:
> [...] it matters where the electrons going into an EV come from; coal-fired power is [...] less than 40% efficient on average. [If ...] we lost 6% in transmission, it would still add up to only 10 million barrels a day in oil terms. The efficiency gain is overwhelming.
No! What about losses in the electric grid? What about losses in the battery? As far as efficiency is concerned, electric cars are just as bad as ICE cars, given their electricity comes from thermal power plants. Plus, a lot of rare earths are required to manufacture them, mainly for the permanent magnets in the synchronous motors and the batteries.
What bugged me most was:
> [...] it matters where the electrons going into an EV come from; coal-fired power is [...] less than 40% efficient on average. [If ...] we lost 6% in transmission, it would still add up to only 10 million barrels a day in oil terms. The efficiency gain is overwhelming.
No! What about losses in the electric grid? What about losses in the battery? As far as efficiency is concerned, electric cars are just as bad as ICE cars, given their electricity comes from thermal power plants. Plus, a lot of rare earths are required to manufacture them, mainly for the permanent magnets in the synchronous motors and the batteries.
Combustion engines are anywhere from 20% to 30% generally
Toyota's new Dynamic Force Engine is 40 percent efficient which very good .
But that's over half of the energy wasted .
Compared to EV it can go up to 98% and depending where you live it's from 8 to 15 percent . Regarding cobalt ,current batteries use much less of it and with newer tech we wouldn't need it anymore .
Toyota's new Dynamic Force Engine is 40 percent efficient which very good .
But that's over half of the energy wasted .
Compared to EV it can go up to 98% and depending where you live it's from 8 to 15 percent . Regarding cobalt ,current batteries use much less of it and with newer tech we wouldn't need it anymore .
Sorry that's a myth. Internal combustion engines are MUCH less efficient than any combustion based power plant. Ever notice how your engine is hot? That's all lost energy. Cars are only 25% efficient or so and the rest is lost as heat. Natural gas plants are 43% efficient and Coal is 32% efficient.
Battery losses are extremely minimal and the rare earth thing is a red herring. There aren't any rare earths in batteries btw.
Battery losses are extremely minimal and the rare earth thing is a red herring. There aren't any rare earths in batteries btw.
>There aren't any rare earths in batteries btw.
they're common in motor design, especially motor-in-hub designs.
To play devils' advocate : batteries are filled with so-called 'conflict materials', and the places that export things like lithium and cobalt have famously bad worker conditions.[0] The popularity of such materials is only going to make their conditions worse unless they're accommodated somehow.
[0]: https://blog.ucsusa.org/josh-goldman/electric-vehicles-batte...
they're common in motor design, especially motor-in-hub designs.
To play devils' advocate : batteries are filled with so-called 'conflict materials', and the places that export things like lithium and cobalt have famously bad worker conditions.[0] The popularity of such materials is only going to make their conditions worse unless they're accommodated somehow.
[0]: https://blog.ucsusa.org/josh-goldman/electric-vehicles-batte...
Some car manufacturers are working to reduce the use of rare earths in their motors. BMW's fifth generation motor doesn't use any rare earths:
https://www.bmwblog.com/2018/12/28/upcoming-electric-motors-...
Car manufacturers are also making an effort to reduce the amount of cobalt used in batteries and are trying to increase the transparency of the supply chain to avoid sourcing cobalt from conflict regions. Volkswagen and others are using IBM's Blockchain Platform to document the cobalt supply chain:
https://www.electrive.com/2019/04/23/volkswagen-joins-blockc...
The problems are real but car manufacturers are working on them.
https://www.bmwblog.com/2018/12/28/upcoming-electric-motors-...
Car manufacturers are also making an effort to reduce the amount of cobalt used in batteries and are trying to increase the transparency of the supply chain to avoid sourcing cobalt from conflict regions. Volkswagen and others are using IBM's Blockchain Platform to document the cobalt supply chain:
https://www.electrive.com/2019/04/23/volkswagen-joins-blockc...
The problems are real but car manufacturers are working on them.
So what's your solution?
Carry on with IC cars? I'm sure those same Africans will thank you when climate change destroys the lives, livelihoods, and nation in various ways.
Car manufacturing and battery production aren't fly by night operations. As such it will be relatively easy for western consumers to put pressure on these companies to do something about the situation. Also I believe Tesla at least are intending to remove all cobalt from their batteries at some point.
Carry on with IC cars? I'm sure those same Africans will thank you when climate change destroys the lives, livelihoods, and nation in various ways.
Car manufacturing and battery production aren't fly by night operations. As such it will be relatively easy for western consumers to put pressure on these companies to do something about the situation. Also I believe Tesla at least are intending to remove all cobalt from their batteries at some point.
Perhaps I am naive, but I would be surprised if it takes that long.
There are so many obvious benefits* to electric cars that the only thing holding them back from Mass adoption (IMHO) is the price of batteries. With such significant investments being made, and such steady progress being made, it is hard for me to imagine it will take almost 20 years to get to this point.
* Yes, range anxiety, cold weather's affect on performance and lack of charging infrastructure are all problems, but they start going away when cheaper batteries make electric cars cheaper to own/run, and more cars are on the road to justify businesses to start installing charge stations in carparks.