Why 2030-Isn.t-The-Magic-Year-For-Electric-Vehicles

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-2030-Isnt-The-Magic-Year-For-Electric-Vehicles.html#comment_added

This article brings up a lot of valid points IMHO. I did submit a comment regarding the lack of consideration of natural gas vehicles since there are twice as many as there are electric and they do heavy work. RCW

[markslawson + 1,057]

I have no time at all for the current obsession with electric cars. Market experience to date indicates that sales depend on government subsidies and not much else. Norway is a case in point. They've got electrics taken a big chunk of new car sales but only through subsidies that amount to half of the car price, according to a Financial Times estimate.. even then basically the electric is a second car for the better-off families. Its indulging the upper middle class who have the money for this nonsense while the poor have to pay. If the current obsession with carbon continues then hybrids are a better bet all round, and you can stick self-drive electronics on hybrids just as easily as on electrics - in fact more easily as there is less chance of running out of power..  

[Prometheus1354 + 178]

On 3/9/2020 at 5:32 PM, markslawson said:

I have no time at all for the current obsession with electric cars. Market experience to date indicates that sales depend on government subsidies and not much else. Norway is a case in point. They've got electrics taken a big chunk of new car sales but only through subsidies that amount to half of the car price, according to a Financial Times estimate.. even then basically the electric is a second car for the better-off families. Its indulging the upper middle class who have the money for this nonsense while the poor have to pay. If the current obsession with carbon continues then hybrids are a better bet all round, and you can stick self-drive electronics on hybrids just as easily as on electrics - in fact more easily as there is less chance of running out of power..  

I concur.  Here in California; the Bill Mill has set the ship on a coarse by which the state will in the year 2040, no longer 'allow' any sales of New ICE autos.  Only EV's, Hybrids and Hydrogen fuel cell powered cars/trucks will be allowed on the lots of auto dealerships.  If you 'want' an ICE powered vehicle then you will have too go across state lines.  But here's the rub; the Gumps haven't told DMV if they can register a vehicle that is from out of state if ICE powered.  If not, it's my presumption they haven't factored in the lost revenues from those vehicles being registered in NV, OR, AZ etc...  

Of the millions of vehicles on the highways up & down the state; less than 3% are EV's or hybrids. Hydrogen fuel cell cars number less than 8K total. 

Another aspect that needs to be considered, Gov. Newsom last year signed an executive order forbidding any 'new wells' that would be fracked. The oil industry was able to for stall his attempts too forbid Any fracking. Thus existing wells that already are being fracked can continue, just no new wells will be permitted.  The rub here, the oil industry has been 'fracking' wells here in our oil patch for over 40 years.  Not one well has caused any pollution too ground water tables.  In fact the Massive agriculture industry across SoCal and the southern San Joaquin valley, has used treated flowback/produced water for irrigation needs during several droughts the state has experienced during that period. At no time has the use of this treated flowback for irrigation caused any issue where the crops grown were deemed unsafe for consumption by either the state or Fed EPA's.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

In California, we buy EVs because they are allowed in the HOV lanes. Period. Everything else is secondary. Nobody wants to admit this.

However, we also want our neighbors to buy EVs because our geography causes the worst air pollution in the nation. Road traffic creates the overwhelming majority of this pollution. Even if you consider the pollution caused by the production of electricity, that happens somewhere else and does not contribute to local pollution. Traffic pollution is real, it's huge, and it's objectively damaging our health.

OK, we are also all greenies, and we really do want to use wind and solar to reduce our carbon footprint, and we all tell each other that's why we love EVs, but it's secondary.

We have learned during lockdown that cars are not the biggest traffic polluters. To really drive down the pollution, we need electric local delivery and service trucks, and we need electric semis.  I suppose we could require the Port of Oakland the the Port of Los Angeles to ban non-electric semis and move the containers inland on electric trains for transfer to long-haul semis elsewhere.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

In California, we buy EVs because they are allowed in the HOV lanes. Period. Everything else is secondary. Nobody wants to admit this.

However, we also want our neighbors to buy EVs because our geography causes the worst air pollution in the nation. Road traffic creates the overwhelming majority of this pollution. Even if you consider the pollution caused by the production of electricity, that happens somewhere else and does not contribute to local pollution. Traffic pollution is real, it's huge, and it's objectively damaging our health.

OK, we are also all greenies, and we really do want to use wind and solar to reduce our carbon footprint, and we all tell each other that's why we love EVs, but it's secondary.

We have learned during lockdown that cars are not the biggest traffic polluters. To really drive down the pollution, we need electric local delivery and service trucks, and we need electric semis.  I suppose we could require the Port of Oakland the the Port of Los Angeles to ban non-electric semis and move the containers inland on electric trains for transfer to long-haul semis elsewhere.

However CA HOV lanes are being turned into HOT lanes so you can use them with your ICE vehicle for a fee. And some HOT lanes aren't free for EV such as SR237 in the very center of Silicon Valley, toll is 50% of what ICE pays.

I disagree that power production happens somewhere else. Our fossil fuel power plants (all natural gas, except a few petroleum peaker plants) are primarily located in our urban areas:

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

However CA HOV lanes are being turned into HOT lanes so you can use them with your ICE vehicle for a fee. And some HOT lanes aren't free for EV such as SR237 in the very center of Silicon Valley, toll is 50% of what ICE pays.

I disagree that power production happens somewhere else. Our fossil fuel power plants (all natural gas, except a few petroleum peaker plants) are primarily located in our urban areas:

Sorry, I was oversimplifying. Yes, Many NG plants are in urban areas. They do contribute to global warming, but not much to air pollution by comparison to  ICE, So EVs are already a big win even before we shift from NG to solar, wind, and batteries.  An EV pays half for most tolls, including the SR237 flyover and the bridges.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Dan Clemmensen
add missing wd

[BradleyPNW + 282]

I only own one PHEV. My other cars are gas. I chose PHEV because it allows me to refuel at home not because it is green or efficient. If battery prices beat gasoline on price by 2025 then my 2030 cars will be PHEV/EV. I won't pay more for a gasoline engine. However, I'm not the market. 

I'm ok with general market forecasts up to 2030 but when they reach out to 2040 and 2050 they lose utility. After 2030 they should forget market forecasts and start fictionalizing lifeway narratives. Talk about how 2040 employees work from home controlling remote robots to mine mid-ocean ridges. At least that way it emphasizes how unpredictable markets are as time moves further out. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

6 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

I only own one PHEV. My other cars are gas. I chose PHEV because it allows me to refuel at home not because it is green or efficient. If battery prices beat gasoline on price by 2025 then my 2030 cars will be PHEV/EV. I won't pay more for a gasoline engine. However, I'm not the market. 

I'm ok with general market forecasts up to 2030 but when they reach out to 2040 and 2050 they lose utility. After 2030 they should forget market forecasts and start fictionalizing lifeway narratives. Talk about how 2040 employees work from home controlling remote robots to mine mid-ocean ridges. At least that way it emphasizes how unpredictable markets are as time moves further out. 

Except the laws being passed for the end of new ICE sales in 2035, 2040, etc. provide a rather high degree of certainty for long range forecasts. After a ban the installed fleet of ICE in that market will decrease by about 5% a year for 20 years until they are all gone.

 

[Meredith Poor + 894]

If EV growth follows a linear trajectory then this article is reasonably valid. If it follows an exponential trajectory then this article will be a laughingstock by 2030. The exponential trajectory is more likely.

If something improves at a fixed percentage rate each year, then it is following an exponential path, regardless of how shallow that is. Something as complex has a car generally has multiple exponential growth rates - energy density, durability, safety, cost, and so forth. If one is just looking at batteries, then growth would seem to be slow. If, on top of that, frame and body fabrication improvements result in easier manufacturing and/or lighter weight, then the battery improvements are multiplied by other influences. If the control electronics becomes more effective or cheaper, this affects desirability further. If cars become part of the 'power storage' infrastructure, there may be further financial incentive to own one. If the 'self-driving' infrastructure matures, car ownership and use may be transformed.

It is also worth pointing out electric cars have fewer high-temperature components (engines, exhaust, cooling lines, etc) therefore they tend to last longer. A car with a lifespan of 50 years changes the economics of car ownership pretty significantly. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Except the laws being passed for the end of new ICE sales in 2035, 2040, etc. provide a rather high degree of certainty for long range forecasts. After a ban the installed fleet of ICE in that market will decrease by about 5% a year for 20 years until they are all gone.

 

Good point. I'd counter with grocery store delivery. During COVID Walmart rapidly expanded Grocery Store delivery service. Personally, I think it's preferable to self service grocery shopping. The grocery pullers choose better produce than I do when I go to the store (part of their training.) The service is popular due to COVID. It could change long term consumer habit. Especially if Costco was forced to do it through competition. 

Road miles shifted from me to the Walmart service. We don't know who will be driving miles after 2030. Maybe 80% of city miles driven will be driven by corporations rather than individuals. 

Edited May 25, 2020 by BradleyPNW

[BradleyPNW + 282]

6 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

A car with a lifespan of 50 years changes the economics of car ownership pretty significantly. 

Isn't that untrue in the case of EV? As I understand it EV motors are getting smaller and cheaper. A high quality EV today could be obsolete in 5 years because all the new EVs have motors located inside each wheel. I don't feel like there's value in a car that lasts longer than 10 years (excluding collector cars.) 

[Meredith Poor + 894]

1 hour ago, BradleyPNW said:

Isn't that untrue in the case of EV? As I understand it EV motors are getting smaller and cheaper. A high quality EV today could be obsolete in 5 years because all the new EVs have motors located inside each wheel. I don't feel like there's value in a car that lasts longer than 10 years (excluding collector cars.) 

A 'normal lifespan' might be ten years. However, cars find secondary uses, in some cases kept 'forever' 'out in the boonies'. Some friends of mine had a WW II Jeep with no license that they drove around on their ranch.

Someone living a 'bohemian' lifestyle might own one with non-functioning air conditioning, for example, simply to putter around town. Think of the stuff done with Volkswagen buses, for example.

Electric cars have a lot more room for such playing around.Thing is, we need a new generation of hippies. Millennials don't do this kind of thing.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

12 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

Isn't that untrue in the case of EV? As I understand it EV motors are getting smaller and cheaper. A high quality EV today could be obsolete in 5 years because all the new EVs have motors located inside each wheel. I don't feel like there's value in a car that lasts longer than 10 years (excluding collector cars.) 

Sunk costs are sunk. You don't replace it unless the running-cost savings for the new one exceeds the cost of the new car. This is why people don't replace an old home heating system with a new, more efficient one: they wait for it to fail. Of course, folks buy new cars for other reasons, not just cost-effectiveness.

Except at the very low end, most EVs have all the performance anyone can legally use already, so no need to trade up for that. I enjoy driving my little six-year-old BMW i3 up next to an ICE muscle car at a stop light and then shutting him down when the light turns green.  Currently, you need to trade up an old EV to get decent range and battery life, not performance.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

On 5/24/2020 at 2:56 PM, Meredith Poor said:

If EV growth follows a linear trajectory then this article is reasonably valid. If it follows an exponential trajectory then this article will be a laughingstock by 2030. The exponential trajectory is more likely.

If something improves at a fixed percentage rate each year, then it is following an exponential path, regardless of how shallow that is. Something as complex has a car generally has multiple exponential growth rates - energy density, durability, safety, cost, and so forth. If one is just looking at batteries, then growth would seem to be slow. If, on top of that, frame and body fabrication improvements result in easier manufacturing and/or lighter weight, then the battery improvements are multiplied by other influences. If the control electronics becomes more effective or cheaper, this affects desirability further. If cars become part of the 'power storage' infrastructure, there may be further financial incentive to own one. If the 'self-driving' infrastructure matures, car ownership and use may be transformed.

It is also worth pointing out electric cars have fewer high-temperature components (engines, exhaust, cooling lines, etc) therefore they tend to last longer. A car with a lifespan of 50 years changes the economics of car ownership pretty significantly. 

Find me a car greater than 20 years old that does not have massive mice problems...  With electric it is actually possible to have cars last a long long time.  Just need those batteries.  Give me a battery that holds power density today at 250Wh/kg, 10,000 cycles, and without Cobalt, Nickel?  Then we have possibilities.  Until then we will be constrained wholly by battery material availability and it is physically not possible to have exponential growth.  Can have a couple step functions, but exponential?  No.  For that we need 1000 Tesla Giga Factories producing batteries and the Cobalt/Nickel/Graphite materials therein.  Also need to create a true battery recycle process.  Have a couple crude ones currently, but nothing akin to lead acid battery recycle system which is ~100% effective. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

16 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

A 'normal lifespan' might be ten years. However, cars find secondary uses, in some cases kept 'forever' 'out in the boonies'. Some friends of mine had a WW II Jeep with no license that they drove around on their ranch.

Someone living a 'bohemian' lifestyle might own one with non-functioning air conditioning, for example, simply to putter around town. Think of the stuff done with Volkswagen buses, for example.

Electric cars have a lot more room for such playing around.Thing is, we need a new generation of hippies. Millennials don't do this kind of thing.

The problem currently is that TESLA, the premier Evehichle manufacturer has literally hardwired their inverters etc to NOT function by anyone but themselves.  Thus there will be NO ONE doing anything other than via official TESLA channels.  So all of the multitude secondary functions, farm equipment(water pumps, tractors, tillers, sprayers etc), hot rods, boating will NEVER be made because TESLA utterly lacks the vision and are too power hungry tight fisted assholes.  Unfortunately all car manufacturers are currently pretty close to TESLA in their thinking as well.  This will have gigantic problems in a couple decades when all of the ancillary industries which USE car/truck parts for their basic business start dying as they are not allowed to use these 2nd hand parts which means they CANNOT make the 1st Widget to sell cheaply which is where all of these ancillary manufacturers started to begin with.  Used parts, allowing the business founder to tinker, create a new product that is needed without BEGGING a GIANT car manufacturer for some parts to TRY and build an ancillary business associated with the car industry. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

3 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

The problem currently is that TESLA, the premier Evehichle manufacturer has literally hardwired their inverters etc to NOT function by anyone but themselves.  Thus there will be NO ONE doing anything other than via official TESLA channels.  So all of the multitude secondary functions, farm equipment(water pumps, tractors, tillers, sprayers etc), hot rods, boating will NEVER be made because TESLA utterly lacks the vision and are too power hungry tight fisted assholes.  Unfortunately all car manufacturers are currently pretty close to TESLA in their thinking as well.  This will have gigantic problems in a couple decades when all of the ancillary industries which USE car/truck parts for their basic business start dying as they are not allowed to use these 2nd hand parts which means they CANNOT make the 1st Widget to sell cheaply which is where all of these ancillary manufacturers started to begin with.  Used parts, allowing the business founder to tinker, create a new product that is needed without BEGGING a GIANT car manufacturer for some parts to TRY and build an ancillary business associated with the car industry. 

In contrast to an ICE, you can buy the core parts of an electric car (motors, batteries, electronics) from non-automotive manufacturers and build whatever you want from them. An EV is otherwise a very simple machine. The Tesla magic is mostly in the design and implementation of the factory, which allows for efficient mass production, and discarding the dealership model. But the little guy is doing customs stuff, not mass production. It is easy to build an ICE car with highly complex proprietart interfaces between its complex and essential parts. It's tough to make the interface to an electric motor or a battery complex.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

5 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

In contrast to an ICE, you can buy the core parts of an electric car (motors, batteries, electronics) from non-automotive manufacturers and build whatever you want from them. An EV is otherwise a very simple machine. The Tesla magic is mostly in the design and implementation of the factory, which allows for efficient mass production, and discarding the dealership model. But the little guy is doing customs stuff, not mass production. It is easy to build an ICE car with highly complex proprietart interfaces between its complex and essential parts. It's tough to make the interface to an electric motor or a battery complex.

Your ignorance of basic mechanical engineering costs is beyond belief in your statements.  Lets just leave it at that.