Simple question: What is the expected impact in electricity Demand when EV deployment exceeds 10%

[turbguy + 1,398]

27 minutes ago, RichieRich216 said:

THE GRID CRASHES, because all the stupid greenies didn’t think that far in advance......

Don't forget the NE grid collapsed (partially) in 1965.  There were not many "greenies" around at the time.There were a few more when it re-occurred in 2003.

Do you mean "rolling blackouts" (load shedding) instead of crash?   Believe me, you don't want a complete grid collapse.

Edited April 8, 2021 by turbguy

[markslawson + 1,042]

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Germany Plugin Electric Share Hits 22.5% In March — 2.4× Year-On-Year Share Growth

Jay - those are new car registrations. The Norway stuff is for 12 per cent of total cars on the road.. the equivalent German figure is 1.3 per cent at least according to Wikipedia Of course if the sales figures for new cars in that single month continue for many years Germany would get to 10 per cent and more. As I noted I would be surprised if that happened but so be it.. let's hope they have their electrical grid ready for the enormous extra demand..  

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

17 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

...not every Californian can afford brand new EV equipment...

This is a straw man for several reasons:
1) Economic impact does not require everyone to afford a new EV. It's sufficient for some percentage of people to replace their vehicles.
2) Within five years, EVs will be cheaper than ICEs - not only in total lifecycle cost, but in purchase price.
3) Auto loans are cheap and plentiful. When lenders realize they can take a piece of the oil industry's pie by offering loans on EVs, they'll aggressively pitch those loans to cost-conscious consumers.

17 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

...even the brand new (today) vehicles will age, specifically the batteries and their capacity. I guarantee the 120 mile vehicles are not going to be 120 miles next year, and will decline at least 10% every year.

This is the outdated information I'm talking about. In fact, I don't think that figure was ever correct - but let's assume for the sake of argument it is.

"End of life" for a battery is defined as the point at which its capacity declines to X%. I believe it's around 80%, which means the total degradation over the entire life of the battery cannot exceed about 20%. 10% per year? Maybe the 1st-gen, air-cooled batteries Nissan made a decade ago and foolishly sold to people in deserts. The current generation of liquid-cooled batteries? No.

Tesla is already making batteries that go 500k+ miles and perform well in commercial service. I.e. batteries are already more durable than consumer ICEs.

 

The mistake you just made is a teachable moment for everyone: technology changes fast, and the changes are accelerating. Back in the 1980's, an engineer's knowledge had a shelf life of 10ish years; after a decade, he needed to think about learning something new. Today, the shelf life of that knowledge is <3 years. He must be learning constantly just to stay afloat.

How does this apply to economic arguments? Do not rely solely on past information. At a bare minimum, it's necessary to consider the most recent technologies in the field - but even that's not enough. To truly know what's going on, it's necessary to know what's coming down the R&D pipeline. The technologies being developed today typically don't reach the market for 5-10 years. Good luck with that though. R&D pipelines are closely guarded secrets, which is why those attempting to predict the future resort to learning curves and extrapolation.

I can say this for certain though: anyone whose analysis relies solely on past data will be woefully wrong. Technology is moving too fast for that.

[turbguy + 1,398]

5 hours ago, BenFranklin&#x27;sSpectacles said:

This is a straw man for several reasons:
1) Economic impact does not require everyone to afford a new EV. It's sufficient for some percentage of people to replace their vehicles.
2) Within five years, EVs will be cheaper than ICEs - not only in total lifecycle cost, but in purchase price.
3) Auto loans are cheap and plentiful. When lenders realize they can take a piece of the oil industry's pie by offering loans on EVs, they'll aggressively pitch those loans to cost-conscious consumers.

This is the outdated information I'm talking about. In fact, I don't think that figure was ever correct - but let's assume for the sake of argument it is.

"End of life" for a battery is defined as the point at which its capacity declines to X%. I believe it's around 80%, which means the total degradation over the entire life of the battery cannot exceed about 20%. 10% per year? Maybe the 1st-gen, air-cooled batteries Nissan made a decade ago and foolishly sold to people in deserts. The current generation of liquid-cooled batteries? No.

Tesla is already making batteries that go 500k+ miles and perform well in commercial service. I.e. batteries are already more durable than consumer ICEs.

 

The mistake you just made is a teachable moment for everyone: technology changes fast, and the changes are accelerating. Back in the 1980's, an engineer's knowledge had a shelf life of 10ish years; after a decade, he needed to think about learning something new. Today, the shelf life of that knowledge is ❤️ years. He must be learning constantly just to stay afloat.

How does this apply to economic arguments? Do not rely solely on past information. At a bare minimum, it's necessary to consider the most recent technologies in the field - but even that's not enough. To truly know what's going on, it's necessary to know what's coming down the R&D pipeline. The technologies being developed today typically don't reach the market for 5-10 years. Good luck with that though. R&D pipelines are closely guarded secrets, which is why those attempting to predict the future resort to learning curves and extrapolation.

I can say this for certain though: anyone whose analysis relies solely on past data will be woefully wrong. Technology is moving too fast for that.

Said another way, "We ain't seen nothin' yet".

[RichieRich216 + 454]

Turbguy:

No I mean this entire modern day culture of everything from All fossil fuels are going to kill the world to the Cancel Culture, all this is a never ending game payed by certain groups that are all tunnel vision! Every decade and generation get more stupid, less informed of Real News, not what they stare at their phones for endless hours per day and believe what they read instead of putting any do diligence into finding out the facts! They are all followers being manipulated and most are just social idiots a product of there liberal college teachers! If anyone thinks China, India, Arabia Counties are going to GO GREEN, They are truly stupid! This is just another coordinated effort to bring what some people view as justice to America. And these young people are the useful idiots that will help the United States fall behind! They didn’t have to live through the embargo in the 70’s and have no grasp on real world other then the make believe ones in the own minds.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

19 minutes ago, RichieRich216 said:

Turbguy:

No I mean this entire modern day culture of everything from All fossil fuels are going to kill the world to the Cancel Culture, all this is a never ending game payed by certain groups that are all tunnel vision! Every decade and generation get more stupid, less informed of Real News, not what they stare at their phones for endless hours per day and believe what they read instead of putting any do diligence into finding out the facts! They are all followers being manipulated and most are just social idiots a product of there liberal college teachers! If anyone thinks China, India, Arabia Counties are going to GO GREEN, They are truly stupid! This is just another coordinated effort to bring what some people view as justice to America. And these young people are the useful idiots that will help the United States fall behind! They didn’t have to live through the embargo in the 70’s and have no grasp on real world other then the make believe ones in the own minds.

This Looney ideology has gone as far as it can go, albeit the momentum still has some enthusiasm the legs have just been broken. 

Joe Manchin just crushed liberals' dream for Joe Biden's first term

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/08/politics/joe-manchin-filibuster-gun-control-voting-rights/index.html

Biden faces steep challenges to reach renewable energy goals

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-us-news-environment-global-trade-climate-change-b2f99e932cc42d78fb6d8724f3b49571

Mid terms are right around the corner, Manchin being the veteran politician he is...is finally fracturing the insanity for the sake of what's left of the Democratic party.

Democratic divisions on Biden's agenda broader than just Manchin

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/25/politics/democratic-senate-divisions-filibuster-manchin/index.html

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

7 hours ago, BenFranklin&#x27;sSpectacles said:

This is a straw man for several reasons:
1) Economic impact does not require everyone to afford a new EV. It's sufficient for some percentage of people to replace their vehicles.
2) Within five years, EVs will be cheaper than ICEs - not only in total lifecycle cost, but in purchase price.
3) Auto loans are cheap and plentiful. When lenders realize they can take a piece of the oil industry's pie by offering loans on EVs, they'll aggressively pitch those loans to cost-conscious consumers.

This is the outdated information I'm talking about. In fact, I don't think that figure was ever correct - but let's assume for the sake of argument it is.

"End of life" for a battery is defined as the point at which its capacity declines to X%. I believe it's around 80%, which means the total degradation over the entire life of the battery cannot exceed about 20%. 10% per year? Maybe the 1st-gen, air-cooled batteries Nissan made a decade ago and foolishly sold to people in deserts. The current generation of liquid-cooled batteries? No.

Tesla is already making batteries that go 500k+ miles and perform well in commercial service. I.e. batteries are already more durable than consumer ICEs.

 

The mistake you just made is a teachable moment for everyone: technology changes fast, and the changes are accelerating. Back in the 1980's, an engineer's knowledge had a shelf life of 10ish years; after a decade, he needed to think about learning something new. Today, the shelf life of that knowledge is ❤️ years. He must be learning constantly just to stay afloat.

How does this apply to economic arguments? Do not rely solely on past information. At a bare minimum, it's necessary to consider the most recent technologies in the field - but even that's not enough. To truly know what's going on, it's necessary to know what's coming down the R&D pipeline. The technologies being developed today typically don't reach the market for 5-10 years. Good luck with that though. R&D pipelines are closely guarded secrets, which is why those attempting to predict the future resort to learning curves and extrapolation.

I can say this for certain though: anyone whose analysis relies solely on past data will be woefully wrong. Technology is moving too fast for that.

Dude, you took an engineering discussion and moved the goal posts to economics. Now I can "fix" your economics mistakes by pointing out things like lenders make money on interest rate charged and have no interest in "taking a piece of the oil industy's pie". Car loans are car loans and the vast majority of those are backed by the auto manufacturer themselves. They subsidize the interest rate so the consumer sees a zero interest loan while the real finance charge is closer to 8%. Cars aren't houses (which appreciate in value) so the rates need to be higher to compensate for the multiple risks. 

I've been in high tech my whole life. Yes things move very quickly but the laws of thermodynamics don't. There is no Tesla on the planet that has actually gone 500k miles. That's poppycock, it's a number based on a scientific wild assed guess concerning battery cycle rates seen under lab conditions. You don't have to take my word for this, just take a good hard look at your notebook computer battery. Same technology and regardless of what the vendor claimed, the real life utility of a notebook battery is 3 years. Period. Cell phones? You tell me, and remember your opinion is likely subjective but Apple had to pay a class action lawsuit on this. 

I'm all for technical advancement, but government putting its thumb on the scale and picking winners and losers is economic malpractice and any legitimate economist knows it. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

Said another way, "We ain't seen nothin' yet".

With advertising like this who needs to see anymore? 55k and 90 mile range?...

Tesla starts advertising Model 3 with 93 miles of range on its website in Canada

https://electrek.co/2021/04/09/tesla-starts-advertising-model-3-93-miles-range-website-canada/

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

On 4/8/2021 at 12:04 PM, Ward Smith said:

Why do do per capita at all? Why not just say there are xx million vehicles times 10% times those vehicles' power consumption? Or since you've unnecessarily added factors, multiply 1.x kwh/day by 40 million citizens. That's 40gwh times 365, coming from where? @RichieRich216 wonders if it can be "green". Does anyone here believe adding 2GW of power supply will cover it completely? 

I converted from per-vehicle to per capita because the grid serves electricity to people, so the easy-to-find statistics are per capita. Feel free to use whatever methodology you are comfortable with. You asked the original question, and I attempted to provide an answer, together with a brief explanation of my methodology. My answer is worth every cent you paid for it.😀

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

4 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

With advertising like this who needs to see anymore? 55k and 90 mile range?...

Tesla starts advertising Model 3 with 93 miles of range on its website in Canada

https://electrek.co/2021/04/09/tesla-starts-advertising-model-3-93-miles-range-website-canada/

Those are Canadian dollars, and the whole thing is a workaround to a Canadian law: to qualify for the Canadian federal $5000 rebate, a car must have a base price below $45,000 Canadian before options. By offering this model, all Model 3's in Canada qualify for the rebate, including the ones with a 338 mile EPA range.

[turbguy + 1,398]

4 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

 

I've been in high tech my whole life. Yes things move very quickly but the laws of thermodynamics don't. There is no Tesla on the planet that has actually gone 500k miles. That's poppycock, it's a number based on a scientific wild assed guess concerning battery cycle rates seen under lab conditions. You don't have to take my word for this, just take a good hard look at your notebook computer battery. Same technology and regardless of what the vendor claimed, the real life utility of a notebook battery is 3 years. Period. Cell phones? You tell me, and remember your opinion is likely subjective but Apple had to pay a class action lawsuit on this. 

 

There is nothing in the laws of thermodynamics that prevents energy storage from becoming cheaper, smaller, and very durable. 

Someday, we could be driving EV's that use supercaps rather than batteries.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

22 hours ago, markslawson said:

Jay - those are new car registrations. The Norway stuff is for 12 per cent of total cars on the road.. the equivalent German figure is 1.3 per cent at least according to Wikipedia Of course if the sales figures for new cars in that single month continue for many years Germany would get to 10 per cent and more. As I noted I would be surprised if that happened but so be it.. let's hope they have their electrical grid ready for the enormous extra demand..  

So what year do you predict EV sales will begin to decline and what will be their peak new vehicle market share?

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

27 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Those are Canadian dollars, and the whole thing is a workaround to a Canadian law: to qualify for the Canadian federal $5000 rebate, a car must have a base price below $45,000 Canadian before options. By offering this model, all Model 3's in Canada qualify for the rebate, including the ones with a 338 mile EPA range.

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Eyes Wide Open

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

5 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

I've been in high tech my whole life. Yes things move very quickly but the laws of thermodynamics don't. There is no Tesla on the planet that has actually gone 500k miles.

See:

https://insideevs.com/news/449156/tesla-model-s-far-exceeds-one-million-miles/

[Prometheus1354 + 178]

On 4/6/2021 at 11:26 AM, Ward Smith said:

TBH Norway has tremendous advantages over the US. First a tiny population of largely homogeneous people, second a very small footprint of cities and finally, lots and lots of money. They couldn't have s grid problem when they're already exporting power, versus say Kalifornistan, which needs imported power just to keep its head above water. So naturally they're overreaching on an already overtaxed system. 

TBH;  I didn't know whether to vote (lol) or the way I did at first.  You hit the nail squarely on the head.

The Gumps here have mandated that NO, I repeat No ICE vedhicle be Allowed to be sold within the borders of Commiefornia after Jan 1, 2035.  It was orginally going to be 2045 but the Eco's have manuvered it so the timeline was quitely moved up via XO from Heir Newsom    And he wonders WHY we want to Re-call him???  yeah...

I speak from Deep behind enemy lines here in Commiefornia.  Must type quickly then drop off line lest the Newsom squad find me and then it's off too a "re-education" camp...

[markslawson + 1,042]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So what year do you predict EV sales will begin to decline and what will be their peak new vehicle market share?

I couldn't even begin to guess. The massive surge in EV sales this year is policy driven.. note this .. (article linked)

Sparkling electric car sales in Germany can be largely ascribed to its reduced VAT and stimulus packages - and it is stimuli which has ignited growth in Europe as states seek to meet their carbon reduction pledges.

State support can’t underpin the electric car transition for long, however, said Prof. Dr. Frithjof Staiß, managing director of German sustainable energy firm ZSW.

“To achieve the German government’s goal of putting seven to 10 million electric cars on the road by 2030 in an efficient way, these subsidised stimuli will have to gradually transition to market-driven growth,” he said.

“That will take around one million newly registered electric cars a year on average. The new EU climate action goal – which we can expect to be even more ambitious – is likely to require a far larger share of electric cars than previously targeted.

“That’s why [2020's] success is just a start.”

 As with almost everything else in EVs it all depends on government action and political will. If you can tell me what's going to happen in German politics over the next 20 years or so, then I might be able to say something useful about the state of the EV market. 10 per cent is a huge proportion of the market but if you throw enough taxpayer money at a problem then anything could happen.. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

7 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So what year do you predict EV sales will begin to decline and what will be their peak new vehicle market share?

 

Based solely on current trends and demographics, peak new vehicle market share will be 100% EV, by about 2040. Sales will begin to decline when the human population reaches max, in about 2100. However, there will almost certainly be some completely disruptive changes before either of those dates which will basically render this question meaningless.

[Wombat + 1,028]

Ward, you may be interested in this:

A Tiny Particle’s Wobble Could Upend the Known Laws of Physics - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Do you remember me saying that there may be other forces or types of mass in the universe that we do not yet know about? Well this proves it in my opinion. Could even be evidence of those gravitons I was telling you about. If so, it could not only provide us with a proper theory of everything, but perhaps lead to exotic technology like anti-gravity machines one day. Neither of us will be around to see it, but heck, good to know that progress is finally being made in Physics for the first time in a century

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

17 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

See:

https://insideevs.com/news/449156/tesla-model-s-far-exceeds-one-million-miles/

Gee I guess you missed the very first sentence!

Quote

There are some caveats here, however, including several motor and battery replacements over the years.

But thanks for making my point

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

52 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Gee I guess you missed the very first sentence!

But thanks for making my point

Ward, that's a 2014 model S and was driven hard. I was responding only to your comment in the narrowest sense: there is a Tesla on the planet that has gone 500,000 miles.

Here is a model X that went at least 400,000 miles without a motor or drive battery replacement:

https://jalopnik.com/this-tesla-model-x-has-driven-over-400-000-miles-here-1841761190

(for some strange reason Teslas have a small 12V lead-acid battery in addition to the drive battery. The damn 12V battery craps out after 2 or 3 years, more or less like the 12V battery in an ICE.)

A typical ICE gets junked after 200,000 miles, but the record-breaking ICE passenger vehicle has gone 3 million miles or more. I think we can expect most Teslas made after (say) 2016 will make it past 200,000 miles without needing a motor or a main battery, and a few will make it to 500,000 miles, but we have so few examples of 100,000 mi/yr Teslas that we just don't know.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Ward, that's a 2014 model S and was driven hard. I was responding only to your comment in the narrowest sense: there is a Tesla on the planet that has gone 500,000 miles.

Here is a model X that went at least 400,000 miles without a motor or drive battery replacement:

https://jalopnik.com/this-tesla-model-x-has-driven-over-400-000-miles-here-1841761190

(for some strange reason Teslas have a small 12V lead-acid battery in addition to the drive battery. The damn 12V battery craps out after 2 or 3 years, more or less like the 12V battery in an ICE.)

A typical ICE gets junked after 200,000 miles, but the record-breaking ICE passenger vehicle has gone 3 million miles or more. I think we can expect most Teslas made after (say) 2016 will make it past 200,000 miles without needing a motor or a main battery, and a few will make it to 500,000 miles, but we have so few examples of 100,000 mi/yr Teslas that we just don't know.

To be clear, we're discussing the fiction that the battery will last 500k. Tesla themselves only say the battery is good for 150k. 

Quote

There were some issues with the battery and charging system. The high voltage battery itself lasted all the way up to 317,000 miles, but was traded for a fresh one after users found themselves running out of charge despite a nonzero indicated range, hence the line item “Vehicle died with 56 miles.”

“This is a recurring issue with high mileage Model Xs and Model Ss,” Sonnad said, “which is that they would die when they still display range. This is between 0 miles and I think 60 was the highest we ever saw, where it would say ‘hey, you have 60 miles left,’ and it would just die.” Sonnad says Tesla’s warranty technically shouldn’t cover such battery degradation, but he told me his team was able to convince the company that what was happening was essentially a failure, because having a range that’s not accurate severely hinders the car’s usability. 

“We’ve used that justification for warranty on all of the cars that we’ve had high voltage [batteries] replaced,” he told me, saying his understanding is that this inaccurate range readout has been fixed on more recent Model 3s.

It’s worth mentioning that Tesla says its battery warranty is “8 years or 150,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.” Per Electrek, this is a recently-revised warranty, with the EV-focused news site say that, previously, the battery was guaranteed for an infinite number of miles, and battery degradation was not covered.

 

[Bob D + 562]

On 3/18/2021 at 1:44 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

PLEASE NOTE: Most of these numbers are totally made up by me. I think they are mostly good to maybe one digit of precision.

By "deployment" let's assume you mean 10% of all vehicles of all types on the road. For ease of computation, let's assume all non-commercial vehicles are charged all the time at "home" (L2 chargers on the distributed residential grid) and all commercial vehicles are charged on high-wattage chargers DC.  In the real world, there's a lot of crossover each way. Further assume as a crude approximation that The total energy is split 50-50 between these: I have no idea how that works out in reality.

OK, for the non-commercial, we get maybe 40 miles/day at maybe .25 kWh/mi = 10 kWh/day. There are about 1.4 billion vehicles on the road. Assume 80% are non-commercial, so 11.2 billion. 10% is 112 million, so 112 GWh/day non-commercial and 112 GWh/day commercial, world wide.

The following numbers are slightly better. The BIG made-up factor here is the assumption that as much energy will be consumed by the commercial fleet as the personal fleet.

Looking at this per capita, in California:

https://alankandel.scienceblog.com/2014/02/07/annual-per-capita-california-driving-1-5-times-the-national-average/

we have 22 million drivers and each driver goes 13,500 miles/yr (37 mi/day or about 9.25 kWh/day), with a population of 39 million total. 22/39=0.56, so we need about 5.2 kWh/day "residential" and 5.2 kWh/day "commercial" for each person in the state at 100% EV, or 1.04 kWh/day per capita at 10% market penetration.

The hourly, daily, weekly, and yearly distributions will be somewhat lumpy, but there are a lot of ways that this will be mitigated. In particular, at the daily scale, home charging will not occur during the peak 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM period, and neither will most commercial charging. It's just too easy to shift your charging to non-peak for almost everybody, and time-of-day metering is pretty much the default if you have a home charger.

This computation does not factor in any electricity saved by NOT using gasoline. I do not know how to compute that.

 

Dan

This made me laugh.  You used "made up" and "precision" in the same sentence about the same data set.  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 4/9/2021 at 4:25 AM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

This is a straw man for several reasons:
1) Economic impact does not require everyone to afford a new EV. It's sufficient for some percentage of people to replace their vehicles.
2) Within five years, EVs will be cheaper than ICEs - not only in total lifecycle cost, but in purchase price.
3) Auto loans are cheap and plentiful. When lenders realize they can take a piece of the oil industry's pie by offering loans on EVs, they'll aggressively pitch those loans to cost-conscious consumers.

I couldn't pass up a NEW $8000 Chevrolet Aveo in 2007. It has an automatic transmission.  A comparable car today is close to $24,000. The Aveo is still running  after several small repairs. One of my daughters uses it.  Americans need cheap car choices, not $24,000 cheap. 

This is the outdated information I'm talking about. In fact, I don't think that figure was ever correct - but let's assume for the sake of argument it is.

"End of life" for a battery is defined as the point at which its capacity declines to X%. I believe it's around 80%, which means the total degradation over the entire life of the battery cannot exceed about 20%. 10% per year? Maybe the 1st-gen, air-cooled batteries Nissan made a decade ago and foolishly sold to people in deserts. The current generation of liquid-cooled batteries? No.

Tesla is already making batteries that go 500k+ miles and perform well in commercial service. I.e. batteries are already more durable than consumer ICEs.

 

The mistake you just made is a teachable moment for everyone: technology changes fast, and the changes are accelerating. Back in the 1980's, an engineer's knowledge had a shelf life of 10ish years; after a decade, he needed to think about learning something new. Today, the shelf life of that knowledge is ❤️ years. He must be learning constantly just to stay afloat.

How does this apply to economic arguments? Do not rely solely on past information. At a bare minimum, it's necessary to consider the most recent technologies in the field - but even that's not enough. To truly know what's going on, it's necessary to know what's coming down the R&D pipeline. The technologies being developed today typically don't reach the market for 5-10 years. Good luck with that though. R&D pipelines are closely guarded secrets, which is why those attempting to predict the future resort to learning curves and extrapolation.

I can say this for certain though: anyone whose analysis relies solely on past data will be woefully wrong. Technology is moving too fast for that.

There is also the fact that it takes new technologies a long time to get to market.  I think it was Edison and Henry Ford that sold the first electric cars. GM gave up on them decades ago. 

Here we go again. China can now make a useful small four seater EV for under $10,000. Will Americans ever have an option for such an EV price? Not likely. Asians that can't afford  better ones will. 

Edited April 12, 2021 by ronwagn
add

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

42 minutes ago, Bob D said:

Dan

This made me laugh.  You used "made up" and "precision" in the same sentence about the same data set.  

😀  "totally made up" means I surfed around at reputable web sites (EIA, ca.gov) and then didn't bother to provide the URLs of my sources. "One digit of precision" is another way to say "probably accurate to 10%".

[-trance + 114]

7 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

😀 "One digit of precision" is another way to say "probably accurate to 10%".

Not really. 

Precision is how tightly the data is clustered, accuracy is how close the data is to the true value.

Hitting 3 double 20's in darts is awesome precision, but terrible accuracy if you were actually aiming for the bullseye.

Edited April 12, 2021 by -trance