ICE Engines Hear to Stay Regardless of War Against

[NickW + 2,714]

On 12/10/2020 at 8:46 PM, Enthalpic said:

Toyota was/is a leader in hybrid.  They have the tech and know-how to switch to full EV.

Toyota seemed to loose their way a decade or so ago. 

They did a deal with BMW - they swapped all their intellectual property on EV's and Hybrids for BMW's intellectual property on diesels🤔

[John Foote + 1,135]

11 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Tesla has sales and service centers, not dealerships. They are adding them strategically. They do not need to add them more quickly because they already sell all the cars they can produce. In the US, several state legislatures (controlled by auto dealers) have prohibited car sales except through dealerships, so yes, Tesla centers are "few and far between" in some places.

I am probably biased, here. I absolutely hated the dealership experience. I always felt like I was being scammed or cheated. To buy a Tesla, you go online and click on some buttons, and the car is delivered to you. No hassle, no haggle, all costs known in advance.

Dealerships in the USA have been a thorn in the automakers side for years. If there is group I most detest it's the Toyota folks who control the Gulf States, Gulf States Toyota, much to the chagrin of Toyota themselves. The set up goes back a long ways when Toyota was getting going in the US and hooked up with dealers GM had kicked to the curb. I once traveled 1,200 miles to save a couple of grand and avoid that particular cartel.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 12/8/2020 at 8:29 AM, Old-Ruffneck said:

Not sure why "Cadillac is a dead franchise", explain how you came to that conclusion please. I would say alot of dealers whether its a GM or Ford or Dodge will respect what the public wants and if electric cars don't come down in price folks will keep driving big SUV's with ICE engines. As long as gasoline stays range bound lower than 2.75usa$ gallon.....why not. I live in rural small town in central Illinois and did buy a Toyota Rav4 hybrid 6 months ago, it's been towed to the dealer 30 miles away because of dead battery issues twice. Wife says trade off on regular ICE please.... So a fully electric car isn't in my future anytime soon. 

You have me confused Ruffneck, do you mean "flat battery" or actual "dead battery" as in battery needs replacement due to failure? I thought a hybrid would solve the first problem, perhaps even the latter? Does your wife not put any gas in the tank? If she is using only the battery without putting gas in the tank, that would kill the battery very quickly according to those on this site who seem to know about lithium battery characteristics.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 12/8/2020 at 9:09 AM, markslawson said:

A similar story was posted on this forum maybe a couple of weeks ago at most and I'll post much the same comment. Of course the story's right, but there is simply no telling the hard-core EV enthusiasts this. There is no evidence that EVs will be anything more than a niche market, without serious government support. In Australia, where I live, there are no concessions at all for EVs and sales are less than 1 per cent of the market. This is about what you'd expect from well-heeled greenies in a wealthy country. In Norway, in contrast, government support mainly in road tolls and taxes foregone amounts to about half the cost of the car. As a result, and I can only point to anecdotal evidence, wealthy Norwegian families have two cars - an EV for commuting and an ICE for serious travel. Poor families have to make do with aging clunkers on which they pay taxes to subsidise the EVs of the rich but who cares about the poor, right, when there is posturing over the environment to be done. Attempts to limit the sale of new cars will all sorts of unintended effects, such as boosting the used car, restoration and renovation markets. In many countries EV policies amount to unrestrained lunacy.  

Mark, there is no point in having EV's here yet because we still get 75% of our electricity via coal. Give it 10 years and EV's for Australia will make sense. If you read the latest investor briefing by Origin Energy, there is a graph from the AEMO (Australian Energy Market Operator), that shows the amount of coal-fired generation over the next 20 years. It goes from 50 GW to about 8GW by 2040, in a series of downward steps as each coal station closes, starting with AGL's Liddell station in NSW in 2 years time. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 12/9/2020 at 3:40 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

Sales of all vehicle types fell dramatically this year in California, due to Covid-19. Sales of Teslas fell less than others, and the loss of sales was primarily due to the six-week Covid-19 factory shutdown.

 

Dan, as you know, the price of an EV battery has fallen to $100/KWH. Yet a home battery or a grid-scale battery (which is supposedly cheaper and easier to make), still costs $1000/KWH! How long do you think this rip-off will last? I understand that battery manufacturers are not interested in giving electricity consumers cheap batteries because they can charge prices based on whatever the electricity price makes it worthwhile, but I suspect the battery makers are gouging home/grid battery operators to cross-subsidise the EV batteries. Your thoughts?

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 12/11/2020 at 2:14 AM, Rob Plant said:

I actually think the opposite 

Most countries are committed to net zero Co2 emissions by 2050 and having millions of ICE cars on the road in each country isnt going to do that!

The political will is for EV's so Ev's we will get.

Soon we wont need to even own a car as there will be driver less taxis everywhere unless you live in the middle of nowhere and that's where ICE vehicles will cling on to an ever reducing market.

There are a number of innovative companies already looking at cheaper viable alternatives than the current "buy a very expensive EV for $70K" as can be seen by the article posted on Oil Price 

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Electric-Car-Boom-Is-About-To-Get-Even-Hotter.html

There may well be a reduction in EV sales late in this decade as we all realise we actually dont need the cost outlay of a car as we can summon one on an app in 2 minutes to take us wherever we want to go. No costly outlay, no costly repairs, no costly insurance etc we only  pay for the use of a car whilst we are in it and that's all. 

Sound cheaper?

Yeah, cheap and nasty. Utopia gives me nightmares. I prefer to own something, especially my "freedom machine". When I get too old to drive, I may change my mind

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 12/11/2020 at 9:26 PM, Rob Plant said:

Yeah and dont you think Tesla havent thought of that

They make the taxis for a small profit (your $2-10K) and then sell them to a sister Tesla company that is in effect a huge taxi fleet firm based around an app and make far more profit than just making cars could ever offer. You are selling the car over and over again in effect.

There are already driver less taxi companies Waymo (owned by Alphabet which is owned by Google) , and Robotaxi for example

In fact Tesla as you would expect have already moved ahead with their own driver less taxi

https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/22/tesla-plans-to-launch-a-robotaxi-network-in-2020/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGJKCrZk0A1bxIuJC4OkAeg7etyNGI-vgT82Q7kgy3_dwKulrse4cEvShFFOKdwS29Z0eIBa739VpphrfMs0t8u_iAncWMvT4P19SSJAkzrYS396Oq6bGfpPJorPrBATGqaAsDzi5u5MyKfmbanurBXJFzzDsJjfSG-1v0RA56wo

So, now you are saying that Tesla will rip more money out of consumers pockets than what the ICE car industry (including the govt thru registration and dealerships etc)? Doesn't sound cheap to me. You cannot have it both ways. Either Tesla makes lots of money coz their "service" is expensive, or they don't coz it cheap? Personally, I would like to buy a brand new Toyata Prius for $10,000 or less. That would be cheap. Unfortunately, no company, Tesla included, wants their product to be cheap. Not even Chinese or Indian businesses want that. Never again will VW produce a "bug" that is car for the masses. As I say, no country will do it.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

5 hours ago, Wombat said:

You have me confused Ruffneck, do you mean "flat battery" or actual "dead battery" as in battery needs replacement due to failure? I thought a hybrid would solve the first problem, perhaps even the latter? Does your wife not put any gas in the tank? If she is using only the battery without putting gas in the tank, that would kill the battery very quickly according to those on this site who seem to know about lithium battery characteristics.

Battery was totally dead 2 times after leaving alone for weekend. Went to start and unit was completely dead, first time happened they said back up camera was stuck on. yet the dash screen was off. 2nd time had to do with wifi module. Guess in 24 hours it drained battery to zero. So she now knows how to jump the car and get it started with a battery pack though she's miff'd i traded in the 16 Tacoma for this car. It does get 40+ mpg and is all wheel drive. I think software issues needed more research before putting the car out for sale. And I did google both causes of the dead battery and seems to be a common theme.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

5 hours ago, Wombat said:

Dan, as you know, the price of an EV battery has fallen to $100/KWH. Yet a home battery or a grid-scale battery (which is supposedly cheaper and easier to make), still costs $1000/KWH! How long do you think this rip-off will last? I understand that battery manufacturers are not interested in giving electricity consumers cheap batteries because they can charge prices based on whatever the electricity price makes it worthwhile, but I suspect the battery makers are gouging home/grid battery operators to cross-subsidise the EV batteries. Your thoughts?

You bring up quite a interesting point of interest. The Telsa tractor was rather ingenious priced at a point that would have made it dominate the market. Actually ice tractors would become obsolete overnight.

Yet it is now going to be a novelty only, I give you only battery availability and cost of the battery kept it from the market. 

While I have no inclination of the battery size in a tractor, it would be quite reasonable to assume it is the same size as a house battery. Now that would certainly qualify as cheap selling 10s of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of batterys....

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

3 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

You bring up quite a interesting point of interest. The Telsa tractor was rather ingenious priced at a point that would have made it dominate the market. Actually ice tractors would become obsolete overnight.

Yet it is now going to be a novelty only, I give you only battery availability and cost of the battery kept it from the market. 

While I have no inclination of the battery size in a tractor, it would be quite reasonable to assume it is the same size as a house battery. Now that would certainly qualify as cheap selling 10s of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of batterys....

 

My best guess is that a Tesla 3 has a house battery (Tesla Powerwall2) in it, which produces 13 KWH of power. A tractor would have about 10 of them. Note that EV's are supposedly expensive due to the battery, which supposedly costs about $13K for a Tesla 3 (or about $130K for a tractor). They must be lying when they say that EV batteries only cost $100/KWH. If that were true, EV's would already be half the price of an ICE vehicle, yet that is the price that the media constantly touts. As a Physicist, I could do the math and work out how much power is required to push a vehicle for 300 miles but I am a bit lazy and do not have the time as I have so many other interests. All I know is that I have asked both Jay McKinsey and Dan Clemenson why they think that EV batteries cost $100/KWH and home batteries $1000/KWH but have not got a meaningful response from either of them. I like to think of myself as a "hardcore environmentalist" but I don't like BS on any issue. I am becoming wary of EV's and would like to know why I can't get a Tesla Powerwall for $1300. Why does it cost $13,000 if EV batteries are only $100/KWH? Somebody is telling porkies and I am getting tired of it.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

8 hours ago, Wombat said:

Dan, as you know, the price of an EV battery has fallen to $100/KWH. Yet a home battery or a grid-scale battery (which is supposedly cheaper and easier to make), still costs $1000/KWH! How long do you think this rip-off will last? I understand that battery manufacturers are not interested in giving electricity consumers cheap batteries because they can charge prices based on whatever the electricity price makes it worthwhile, but I suspect the battery makers are gouging home/grid battery operators to cross-subsidise the EV batteries. Your thoughts?

This is complicated. The "100/kWh" is at the cell or module level, I think, and is valid as part of the COGs of a car. The 1000/kWh is (probably) your calculation that a 13 kWh Tesla PowerWall costs $13,000, installed. The power company has little to do with this. It's more about the electrician's union. The power companies do force the installation to include some (possibly) overcomplicated interface equipment, I don't know what the overall cost allocation is.

The PowerWall initially came into existence to absorb the excess battery production capacity of the original megafactory, which makes cells optimized for cars. Almost by definition the cell cost for a PowerWall component will be about the same as a car component, so that $13K PowerWall will have a $1300 battery inside.   As of 2020-11-17, The 13.5 kWh battery-containing unit costs $7000 while the "gateway" plus installation costs $4500.

https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/is-the-tesla-powerwall-the-best-solar-battery-available

To bring down the cost of a home battery, you first need to increase the volumes, and then you need to shift away from a car-oriented Li-ion battery technology to a cheaper system that is not constrained by weight or volume densities. But until the volumes go up, you cannot amortize the R&D effort, and in any event the actual cells are are already only 10% of the installed cost and that percentage will continue to go down even when using the abundant car-oriented batteries. My guess: The installed home system cost will get stuck at about $10,000, but the capacity will grow as the battery cost goes down.

Utility scale battery deployments will finally drive the development of really cheap cells and modules, because the volumes are higher. Once those cells are available, they will be used in home systems also. My purely uneducated guess is that sodium-ion batteries (NIB) will win out for non-vehicle use, because they use universally-available sodium and aluminum instead of harder-to-get lithium, cobalt, and copper.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

6 minutes ago, Wombat said:

My best guess is that a Tesla 3 has a house battery (Tesla Powerwall2) in it, which produces 13 KWH of power. A tractor would have about 10 of them. Note that EV's are supposedly expensive due to the battery, which supposedly costs about $13K for a Tesla 3 (or about $130K for a tractor). They must be lying when they say that EV batteries only cost $100/KWH. If that were true, EV's would already be half the price of an ICE vehicle, yet that is the price that the media constantly touts. As a Physicist, I could do the math and work out how much power is required to push a vehicle for 300 miles but I am a bit lazy and do not have the time as I have so many other interests. All I know is that I have asked both Jay McKinsey and Dan Clemenson why they think that EV batteries cost $100/KWH and home batteries $1000/KWH but have not got a meaningful response from either of them. I like to think of myself as a "hardcore environmentalist" but I don't like BS on any issue. I am becoming wary of EV's and would like to know why I can't get a Tesla Powerwall for $1300. Why does it cost $13,000 if EV batteries are only $100/KWH? Somebody is telling porkies and I am getting tired of it.

It's just business, as to the batteries there is a simple method of cost averaging. Deep in the bowels of Telsa I'm quite sure the battery mfg is the true cash cow, they would have the ability  to determine who gets what battery at what cost

 Automotive gets battery A for 100

Housing gets battery b for 1000

Industrial gets battery c for 100000

Is it that simple yes of course been there done that. Then one day demand for battery c becomes greater in demand than supply. So a slight adjustments towards internal costing occurs

Meanwhile the battery division is reaping the rewards of success. Once tooling and manufacturing are in place, cost of size/capacity are trivial....Now selling size brings on a whole new light as we all know. What the market will bear does come to mind.

 

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

@Dan Clemmensen, I see now alot of panels going on roofs here in central Illinois but the panel are usually on east or west sides where you get 3 month of decent sun and then the sun day by day heads back to the south. So where is the magic line where one actually is getting the best benefit from the not so pretty panels thrown up on roofs. As a roofer I can tell you the avg life span of shingle roofs they are installing today is 15-18 years. So if roof is 4 years old and gets new panels on the roof and then needs replaced in 12 years the cost I would guess is going to be high to remove, install roof, reinstall panels. Or is my thinking this far north the panels only produce "X" amount of electricity and takes longer for panels and batteries to pay off? And if that is the case, how long do the batteries last?  Or am I thinking too far into the future?

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, Wombat said:

My best guess is that a Tesla 3 has a house battery (Tesla Powerwall2) in it, which produces 13 KWH of power. A tractor would have about 10 of them. Note that EV's are supposedly expensive due to the battery, which supposedly costs about $13K for a Tesla 3 (or about $130K for a tractor). They must be lying when they say that EV batteries only cost $100/KWH. If that were true, EV's would already be half the price of an ICE vehicle, yet that is the price that the media constantly touts. As a Physicist, I could do the math and work out how much power is required to push a vehicle for 300 miles but I am a bit lazy and do not have the time as I have so many other interests. All I know is that I have asked both Jay McKinsey and Dan Clemenson why they think that EV batteries cost $100/KWH and home batteries $1000/KWH but have not got a meaningful response from either of them. I like to think of myself as a "hardcore environmentalist" but I don't like BS on any issue. I am becoming wary of EV's and would like to know why I can't get a Tesla Powerwall for $1300. Why does it cost $13,000 if EV batteries are only $100/KWH? Somebody is telling porkies and I am getting tired of it.

My Tesla Model Y has a 320 mile nominal range at a nominal 4.1+ mi/kWh, with a 75 kWh battery and a cost of about $50,000. The cost of the cells would be $7500 at $100/kWh.  The accepted wisdom that battery cost drives the cost of the vehicle is out of date. It was true five years ago, but no longer. Tesla builds and sells high-end cars because they can. They have no reason to build cheaper cars when they can sell all the high-end cars they can produce.

Tesla has about a 25% gross margin on its cars, so COGS for the model Y must be about $37,500: $7500 for batteries, $30,000 for the rest. a true mass-market cheap car would have maybe half the non-battery COGS , so $22,500 total COGS with that same 75 kWh battery, and a price of maybe $27,500 (lower gross margin). This is still not a toy town car as it still has 300 mi range.

Pre-2020 Tesla Model 3s (or Model Ys)  do not incorporate the same modules as a PowerWall. The PowerWall modules use the same cells as the cars, not the same modules. (a cell is about the size of a AA battery, I think). newer cars use a new cell and the newer call will probably be used by newer PowerWalls, but again in different modules. A model Y with a 75 kWh battery uses the came number of cells as about 5.5 13.5 kWh Powerwalls.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

@Dan Clemmensen, I see now alot of panels going on roofs here in central Illinois but the panel are usually on east or west sides where you get 3 month of decent sun and then the sun day by day heads back to the south. So where is the magic line where one actually is getting the best benefit from the not so pretty panels thrown up on roofs. As a roofer I can tell you the avg life span of shingle roofs they are installing today is 15-18 years. So if roof is 4 years old and gets new panels on the roof and then needs replaced in 12 years the cost I would guess is going to be high to remove, install roof, reinstall panels. Or is my thinking this far north the panels only produce "X" amount of electricity and takes longer for panels and batteries to pay off? And if that is the case, how long do the batteries last?  Or am I thinking too far into the future?

I'm not really an expert. There are a whole mess of "solar calculators" on the web for calculating the best sun angle.

Putting solar on your roof is a tradeoff. If you have the land, (like on a farm) it is probably much better to build a standalone structure for the panels and optimize everything. Cheap if at ground level, slightly more expensive if you raise it an use it as a shed or patio.  The angles depend on when you expect to have max demand (both season of year and time of day). For time of day, this depends in turn on whether or not you will have a battery. The theoretical best elevation angle for a year-round average is your latitude: the sun hits the panel straight on at the equinox. The theoretical best azimuth is a little bit west of south. If, however, you consume more power in winter, you would want to tilt them steeper. If you consume more in the afternoon (and do not have big batteries) aim them more to the west.

Roof: Yep, to gain the advantage of using your roof structure instead of building a new structure, the tradeofs are accepting a suboptimal angle and messing with the shingles. The traditional approach is to just live with it as you described: pain in the butt. The alternatives are a "solar roof" system (the roof tiles are little modular solar panels) or using the bid standard solar panels as the actual weather roof instead of shingles.

[markslawson + 1,042]

12 hours ago, Wombat said:

Mark, there is no point in having EV's here yet because we still get 75% of our electricity via coal. Give it 10 years and EV's for Australia will make sense. If you read the latest investor briefing by Origin Energy, there is a graph from the AEMO (Australian Energy Market Operator), that shows the amount of coal-fired generation over the next 20 years. It goes from 50 GW to about 8GW by 2040, in a series of downward steps as each coal station closes, starting with AGL's Liddell station in NSW in 2 years time. 

Wombat - you've charged off on a tangent to my point. I fully agree about there being no reason to encourage EV sales in Australia, but my point was that without incentives there are no sales - in contrast to Norway where there are heaps of sales because there are enormous incentives. Whether there is any reason to throw good tax money at EVs in Australia in the future is a matter for future governments, it just is not relevant to the present discussion.. leave it with you.  

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

3 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

[...] Or is my thinking this far north the panels only produce "X" amount of electricity and takes longer for panels and batteries to pay off? And if that is the case, how long do the batteries last?  Or am I thinking too far into the future?

Further north: less total sun, but more in summer. Yes solar in California makes a lot more sense than solar in Illinois. The computation for battery size is independent of the computation for the panels. Less insolation: buy more panels. Suboptimal angles: buy more panels. It will often make sense to pay for more panels rather than paying for the structure that provides the best angles, especially when is not a new-built house. If I owned the rented house I live in, my tradoff would be (roughtly) $20,000 for panels on the existing roof, or $10,000 for a new patio roof structure plus $10,000 for panels. About $10,000 for the battery in either case.

So, it takes longer for the panels to pay off, but not the batteries.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

I still enjoy these conversations and it does feel like any of us could enter the solar market to do a lot of good on our properties.  Not to the point of "easy" yet though, are we?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 12/10/2020 at 10:47 AM, Rob Plant said:

 

"Those companies (GM, Fiat-Crysler, Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc.) will fade away, because they cannot catch up with Tesla's 10-year head start."

Maybe they will maybe they wont.

All they need to do is get with the latest tech as in buy it or copy it.

These companies are huge so dont underestimate them just yet.

You are correct that batteries are the key and until someone can develop a graphene battery (or similar) as the car's shell (therefore eliminating a lot of the weight from the vehicle) then all bets are off.

If solar cells keep advancing, shouldn't we see solar cells on the tops of the hoods, roofs, and trunks? Why not? I would expect more solar power everywhere. Why pay for electricity?

[Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas + 96]

So far, ridesharing has done way more for the environment than electric vehicles.
Any company that tries to copy Tesla's success is in for a surprise.
The main reason people buy Tesla is not because Tesla cars are electric but because they are exotic.
Tesla cars are arguably bad for the environment.
Tesla cars are heavy and consume lots of energy due to high weight and high performance.
Bicycle and motorcycle subsidies would help the environment a lot more than EV subsidies.
What happened to all the ultra-efficient three-wheeled vehicles I used to see on youtube?
Three-wheels is a good compromise between a motorcycle and a car.

 

 

[Rob Plant + 2,608]

On 12/12/2020 at 6:45 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

I am probably biased, here. I absolutely hated the dealership experience. I always felt like I was being scammed or cheated. To buy a Tesla, you go online and click on some buttons, and the car is delivered to you. No hassle, no haggle, all costs known in advance.

Not in the UK it isnt

If you buy a Tesla you have to go to their "service centre" and have a 30 minute instruction with a load of other buyers on how the car works.

It is inconvenient as you have to pick the car up which can be a 100+ mile round trip to the nearest service centre/dealership. The after sales service is also appalling.

If you buy/lease any other make of car you can have it delivered to your door, so its the opposite of your "no hassle, no haggle" scenario with Tesla. Obviously it must be a very different experience in USA.

Dan I can only comment on what i actually see and that is very few Teslas on the road compared to other EV / Hybrid brands such as Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, VW etc.

With a plethora of new models being launched in 2021 by the existing and importantly trusted brands I don't see them being outsold by Tesla any time soon.

Also rightly or wrongly to own a badge with BMW or Mercedes is somewhat of a status symbol and therefore more desirable for the consumer. Tesla is a relatively new brand and doesnt attract the same Kudos for owning one.

[Rob Plant + 2,608]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

If solar cells keep advancing, shouldn't we see solar cells on the tops of the hoods, roofs, and trunks? Why not? I would expect more solar power everywhere. Why pay for electricity?

Ron there are some cars with "sun roofs" that have solar cells in them already although they are very inefficient.

https://www.buyacar.co.uk/cars/871/cars-with-solar-panels

The real win will be when the actual car body panels are the battery itself and some companies are working on graphene batteries (very light) that will do just that which would be a game changer on distance and general performance of the EV.

https://www.torquenews.com/2250/electric-car-without-batteries-powered-its-body-panels-long-way

[Wombat + 1,028]

13 hours ago, markslawson said:

Wombat - you've charged off on a tangent to my point. I fully agree about there being no reason to encourage EV sales in Australia, but my point was that without incentives there are no sales - in contrast to Norway where there are heaps of sales because there are enormous incentives. Whether there is any reason to throw good tax money at EVs in Australia in the future is a matter for future governments, it just is not relevant to the present discussion.. leave it with you.  

My point is that Norway gets most of its electricity from hydropower, so it makes sense for them to go big on EV's. Ditto for France, which gets most of it's electricity from nuclear. Both countries can slash their carbon footprint whilst killing their imports of oil. Win-win for them?

 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

2 hours ago, Wombat said:

My point is that Norway gets most of its electricity from hydropower, so it makes sense for them to go big on EV's. Ditto for France, which gets most of it's electricity from nuclear. Both countries can slash their carbon footprint whilst killing their imports of oil. Win-win for them?

 

Thats what I always wondered.  For Britain.  As they banned ice 2030. Same with Quebec... that has plenty of hydro power. I saw an article that Egyptian gov subsidized nat gas ice conversion after their big gas find.... is there not a economic and responsible way to implement green ? I feel alot of copy and paste going on. I ask about Britain since its recently coal free at times.

Here in Canada solar power really can't pay off.  The reason is winter. They want us to use electric heating and are imposing taxes to do it. Like 11$ carbon tax per mcf vs gas that is worth 3$ (2030 tax rate) . But you swap cars and house heating to E from FF and my 500kwh house is at 2000kwh in sept with no sun . And a roof that could mabey supply 1200kwh 100% covered and with sunny side of garage covered. So doesnt make sense.  We have tons of room water and  NG so a proper mix of hydro nuclear and gas should have us plenty clean and cheap. And NG vehicles would do alot also if you could find one and not get ripped on for propane or compression (filling) . 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

10 hours ago, ronwagn said:

If solar cells keep advancing, shouldn't we see solar cells on the tops of the hoods, roofs, and trunks? Why not? I would expect more solar power everywhere. Why pay for electricity?

You get a theoretical maximum of about 3 kW per square meter of panel in the middle of a summer day, worse at any other time, That square meter will get you enough energy to go about 12 miles each hour under theoretically perfect conditions, but in reality less than 30 miles in a full day, because the panel is not perpendicular to the sun, the day is not cloudless, the panel efficiency is not at theoretical max, your parking place is in the shade, etc. Therefore, your best bet is to put ten square meters of panel on your house roof and store the energy in a house battery, then charge from that battery.

Current solar panel advances are mostly in the dramatic decrease in $/W, with only a small advances in W/sq meter, Even the very most efficient (and expensive) new stuff in the labs can convert about 30% of the sunlight into electricity, and there are theoretical reasons that this will not improve or get cheaper. By contrast, the $/W is still decreasing rapidly. Up to now, this was driven by cheaper photovoltaic elements, but those elements are now such a small part of the total that new improvements will be in the electronics, economies of scale, mechanical engineering, and business models. In particular, the most spectacular recent gain was when Tesla bombed the price of a home installation by abandoning the traditional sales model (with its expensive marketing through installation companies) and went to web-based direct-to-customer sales.