Could EVs Become Cheaper than ICE Cars by 2023?

On ‎11‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 6:43 PM, markslawson said:

I don't disagree with the other posters but there is no reason for consumers to buy these cars. If EV sale prices were comparable with petrol cars to begin with you may be able to construct a case that it cost far less, overall. But at the moment they cost far more upfront - a huge barrier. The Tesla 3 basic model is priced at something like double the price of a bottom end petrol car. Then there is the range problem. All that means is that the vast bulk of EV sales to date are the result of massive government subsidies or intervention in the market. Its not like the original Model T Ford which was sold at a price that people could afford so they bought them because they had distinct advantages over the horse-drawn alternatives of the time, and got better. There was a substantial market in cars before the Model T, please note, again totally without government intervention. EVs are in  a different category in that in order to get production volumes to any level they have to be subsidised and yet more infrastructure built. The demand has to be created. So the question should be just how long can we keep pumping money into this sector before it become self-sustaining, if it ever does? 

Mark,

 

The subsidies supporting sales of Teslas will end in Dec 2019  The Federal tax rebate (available to every manufacturer) of $7500 per vehicle falls to half ($3750) on Dec 31 2018, and falls by half again ($1875) on June 30, 2019 and then to zero on Dec 31, 2019 for Tesla vehicles.  This assumes current law is unchanged between now and Dec 31, 2019.  As to other government subsidies to Tesla, some of these have been property tax deals not unlike what Amazon will get when it opens a new facility somewhere in North America.  Cities and states are free to give these deals to attract businesses.  Low interest government start up loans for Tesla have been paid in full.

 

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/18/tesla-subsidized-whats-truth-claims-tesla-spacex-elon-musk-wealth-exist-subsidies/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2018 at 6:16 PM, markslawson said:

 or the result of subsidies/market interference (Norway, Denmark, China some US states). There is no real chance of EVs threatening the petrol car's dominance of the market unless governments pay out big time in subsidies/market interference. 

DING DING DING Winner Winner Winner Give the man a prize!!!!!

You hit the nail on the head precisely.

Only in certain head-up-their-asses American States do politicians and their supporters think that preserving free market economics is more important than maintaining a sustainable earth.

Your 'European countries, China, some US states', and India pretty much total the bulk of all future auto sales, and they have decreed that if it takes subsidies and market interference to protect our environment, then so be it. Better the destruction of the entire free market economic system than to destroy the earth, and human existence with it.

Free market economic policies will not determine the fate of EVs. Rather it will be the realization that life on earth will no longer exist as we know it if we do not do something about CO2 poisoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Justin Thyme said:

DING DING DING Winner Winner Winner Give the man a prize!!!!!

You hit the nail on the head precisely.

Only in certain head-up-their-asses American States do politicians and their supporters think that preserving free market economics is more important than maintaining a sustainable earth.

Your 'European countries, China, some US states', and India pretty much total the bulk of all future auto sales, and they have decreed that if it takes subsidies and market interference to protect our environment, then so be it. Better the destruction of the entire free market economic system than to destroy the earth, and human existence with it.

Free market economic policies will not determine the fate of EVs. Rather it will be the realization that life on earth will no longer exist as we know it if we do not do something about CO2 poisoning.

Yes and No. Yes their is quite a large part of business and politics that are totally focused on short term profit and to hell with the damage it does to the environment or people. The reality is this is horrendous business practice, if it isn't sustainable at some point your economic model collapses. This is why regulations are required. Quite an interesting person was Gustave Gilbert a phycologist that interviewed the Nazi's at the Nuremburg trails, he showed that the Nazi's used the same mental methods to justify their actions as people do in business.

To makes sure an economy is healthy and evolving it is often necessary to interfere in the market to bring in new and better tech and products. The large entrenched companies don't want any sort of rapid change as they have large investments that will become so much scrap.

The great thing about EV's and renewable energy is they are now entering a point were they are able to stand alone in the market place and be the best economic choice over the stagnated old industries. It's economics that will bring in the sustainable industries as they are beginning to make the largest profit to be the cheapest product. It's by no means across all the markets but they are moving out of the niche markets and starting to take over the more main stream markets.

A while back on Australian ABC radio was an interview with a Norwegian professor that was instrumental in bringing higher education to be available to the masses. The idea was not just a more educated population but a population that would make better more logical decisions to use critical thinking, it didn't work out like that. What happened was people still justified their opinions by cherry picking data and ignoring what went against their believes, but were even more arrogant about it as they had a degree. You see that in allsorts of fields but especially in the fossil fuel world. It becomes a type of religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

A little bit of government incentive does go along way... just like with the solar incentives the gov offered here in Australia, now more than 1/3 of all homes have rooftop solar installed. If the gov offered some kind of incentive for EVs purchases like norway does - im sure we would see a huge swing towards increasing their market share - Norway EV sales already outnumber ICE new car sales. The gov subsidy are seen by some as free market manipulation - however this already occurs in favour of the ICE by the enormous corporations involved in oil and existing car makers which are not interested in EV successes. Historicially, big money invested in these types industries prevents progress in others as they seek to preserve their own profits... hence gov incentives can offer a balance to those market forces.

Once the market share of EVs increases - so will the cost of production reduce, and make them more competitive with ICE and eventually the subsidies can be rolled back and the industry left to stand on its own merits. I think this will happen in many countries reasonably soon. As with the solar industry- now you can buy a 300W solar panel for $100 -without any subsidy. These kinds of prices were nothing but a pipe dream 10 years ago...

The lack of convenience and waiting for charging on extended journeys is a problem that many will not like. Many people will not care and simply use the time to take a break - great. But battery technology is constantly improving in many ways... For example, a Japanese company is working a new type of lithium carbon battery which not only has equal or slightly better energy density to current lithium batteries - it is also reported able to be fully charged in 5 mins and 100% recyclable. These kinds of advances are a real game changer and whilst they are not in the market yet - they will come over time and eventually EVs will dominate the market, relegating ICE cars to antique collectable status.

This also creates another problem - where will the supporting auto service industry go? Millions of mechanics and grease monkeys will be out of work due to much lower maintenance on EVs. Sure some maintenance will be required and auto mechanics retrained in electrical component repairs similar to a normal electrician, but far less of them will be required and thus the industry of workshops and service centers must shrink. Also oil disposal and recyling facilities will be also be out of work, replaced by battery recycling facilities.

I hope we are paying attention here - many good investment opportunities are coming :)

Edited by catch22
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 hours ago, catch22 said:

Once the market share of EVs increases - so will the cost of production reduce, and make them more competitive with ICE and eventually the subsidies can be rolled back and the industry left to stand on its own merits. 

- it is also reported able to be fully charged in 5 mins and 100% recyclable. 

 Millions of mechanics and grease monkeys will be out of work due to much lower maintenance on EVs. 

Interesting points. They lead to some interesting discussions.

I believe that, for 80% plus of the world (non-American-centric) markets, there is now a belief in the fair market forces, not unfettered free market forces. There is a difference. For instance, unfettered free market forces believe that under catch-and-kill intellectual property rights protection it is fair game to buy a competing product patent, and then sit on it so that no one else can market it. On the other hand, fair market forces adherents (China, for instance) believe in catch-and-release intellectual property rights. That is, if innovative intellectual property right patents are not acted on, then they become fair game for someone else to develop. 

Under fair market forces, anti-competitive activities by those who are protecting their territories by using their power, might, and money to eliminate competitive ideas are vigorously nullified from the get-go, not years after the damage is done. Microsoft was famous for their suppression of competitive, but technologically superior, products. They ultimately lost in court, if they did not just out-finance the court challenges until the other side ran out of money, but the end result either way was that the competition was effectively eliminated through costly legal process attrition and stalling. A fair market system would act right from the beginning. The European courts have, for instance, reacted decisively and quickly in recent anti-competitive remedies against predatory American IT companies, and the process is snowballing. China is learning, from the LTE experience, how to counter and work around American court actions that protect predatory legal maneuvering.

And I think the philosophy is tending away from the carrot (incentives) and is being replaced by the stick (disincentives). There is a point at which offering a government incentive (be it a government subsidy or extremely low interest rates) is no longer effective, as it only leads to the price being inflated by the same amount as the incentive. The seller gets the incentive as profit, instead of the buyer keeping the incentive. Taxes and licensing fees, on the other hand, like a carbon tax, allow the non-targeted product to have a competitive advantage in pricing. That is, until the non-disincentivized product prices are raised to just below the disincentivized products. For instance, the Trump 25% tariffs on imported major appliances lead directly to American manufacturers raising THEIR prices to just below the new tariffed prices. effectively raising prices for the American consumer right across all lines,.

A scientific-physical safety consideration with the fast-charging of batteries. If they are fast-charged electrically (as opposed to chemically, that is replacing depleted chemicals) then either the current or the voltage or both have to be enormous. That is, the electrical charge to power a car for hours has to be replaced in seconds. Huge amounts of 'electricity' (electrons) have to be transferred almost instantaneously, and if the safety measures are not bullet proof, the energy explosion from the resulting spark would blow the car, the garage, and a major portion of the entire block off the face of the earth. Think about the spark from shorting a lead-acid battery, and make it hundreds of times greater.

There are more 'blacksmiths' (farriers) today than there were in 1900. They now service race track and equestrian centers. The job of a mechanic will still exist, it will just morph into another implementation. Retraining, of course, will be involved.

Edited by Justin Thyme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DA? said:

Yes and No. Yes their is quite a large part of business and politics that are totally focused on short term profit and to hell with the damage it does to the environment or people. The reality is this is horrendous business practice, if it isn't sustainable at some point your economic model collapses. 

To makes sure an economy is healthy and evolving it is often necessary to interfere in the market to bring in new and better tech and products. 

The great thing about EV's and renewable energy is they are now entering a point were they are able to stand alone in the market place and be the best economic choice over the stagnated old industries. 

A while back on Australian ABC radio was an interview with a Norwegian professor that was instrumental in bringing higher education to be available to the masses. 

You might be interested in my response to Catch22, as it addresses many of these points.

They are all valid. 

It started when Friedman economic baffledegab has taken over in the American corporate boardroom. The corporate objective that puts  profit above all else, and social responsibility is the purview of governments, not corporations. In the 80's, it was still possible to find American corporations with a conscience, but with the rise of hedge funds and takeovers they are few and far between today, However, the financialization of the American economy has morphed this into short-term planning instead of long term suitability and sustainability. Corporations are now expendable over short-term profit. The objective is no longer long-term sustainability (witness Sears - the mew corporate board bought back six billion dollars in shares, then essentially went bankrupt with six billion in debt.) but to milk the company for every penny of profit, then abandon it. Even Apple appears to be positioning itself, with their enormous debt load to fund stock buy-backs, to collapse as a corporation in the near future. They are pricing the iPhone out of the market, and sales are in rapid decline, with nothing down the line to keep the company going. They are milking the iPhone for everything it is worth, before the company collapses. And I have no doubt that the current board and shareholders of Tesla America will also follow the same tactic - milk the company for every short-term profit penny they can, and then let the company rot. The list of American companies that are doing this keeps getting longer and longer. GE, Harley Davidson, KMart, , American hedge funds, even Freddy Mack and Fannie Mae, even Wells Fargo (in fact, pretty much every American bank and financial institution).

Long-term sustainability is no longer an American corporate board consideration. Get the money and get out.

To ensure that the economy is healthy, evolving, and sustainable is now solely in the hands of government and politicians.

I am reminded of the adage that, in ensuring psychopaths remain in the classroom and receive every educational advantage despite their deviant personality, moral and ethical value stance, all we are doing is producing very educated psychopaths instead of limiting them as marginally smart ones. The trick is to bring values education back into the schools, and to restrict access and progress based more on social responsibility factors than on purely educational factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Justin Thyme said:

Long-term sustainability is no longer an American corporate board consideration. Get the money and get out

I'd say one of the main problems is the way of paying the big cheeses with stocks. Rather than looking at the long term they will be thinking about increasing the value of the stock to peak when they want to cash in. It's interesting to see how little outside money is coming in to the USA stock market, one of the few explanations is that the companies are buying back large amounts of their own shares. This is artificially pushing the value of these companies up making the management vast amount of wealth but in a totally unsustainable way. If I had much invested in the stock market I'd keep a close eye on those paid large amounts in stocks starting to sell off, it could mean the stocks have peaked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

41 minutes ago, DA? said:

It's interesting to see how little outside money is coming in to the USA stock market, one of the few explanations is that the companies are buying back large amounts of their own shares. This is artificially pushing the value of these companies up making the management vast amount of wealth but in a totally unsustainable way. 

To be open about conflicts of interest and to declare a bias, I should state right up front that I am Canadian.

I have looked in depth at the so-called repatriation of offshore money back into America, and I have found some interesting facts. It is a lot more complex than it appears.

With the hundreds of billions of dollars going into stock buy-backs,  stocks are an absolute risk free investment. As long as companies are buying back their own stock, there is a ready market. Any stock holder is assured that any stock they own will be bought back at above the purchase price, by the corporation itself. Thus, buying stocks has a lower risk and greater guaranteed return than puting money into a bank account. This has been going on since 2005. Thus, corporations are using the stock market as their bank. Their excess money is safer in buying the stock of other corporations than in any other investment. In fact, for many American corporations, including Apple and Alphabet Soup, a substantial portion of their income is now not from product sales, but from corporate dividends from their stock portfolio. If they stopped selling a single product, they would still be profitable. It is called the financialization of the American economy. It is easier to make money on money than on making a product.

So the corporations are not bringing their offshore cash back. It is not even, in fact, in cash in the first place. Offshore corporate holdings are in stocks and bonds of other corporations. Remember, the dividends from these immense offshore stock holdings is  almost tax free if kept off shore. And it is a significant portion of their income. These foreign owned stocks show on in the asset side of the balance sheet as income generating. If they were to sell them, then the value of their company goes down. If the value of their company goes down, the stock price goes down, So instead of cashing in the stocks and bringing them back, they are borrowing on them in America. The loans show up as a liability, on the OTHER side of the balance sheet. The one that does not affect stock value.

Now the corporations are using their offshore stock holdings as leverage for loans, that they are using to buy back their own stock. Previously, in order to use these offshore stock holdings as leverage for a loan, the lending institution discounted their value by over 50%, to account for the taxes that would have to be paid if they had to call in the leverage. Now, with the tax holiday, they can borrow the full value of offshore holdings, because first the financial sources in America can now bring back the leverage, if needed, at the low tax rate and second the value of the leverage will always be retained as long as the corporations continue with the stock buybacks.  So then they use this borrowed money to buy back their stock. It just keeps the cycle going. 

Edited by Justin Thyme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alas we digress from the EV subject...

I do not agree with your somewhat marxist philisophy of the free market @Justin Thyme China is by no means an ideal model of how free markets should be run - their track record shows a raft of huge problems inherent within their system - corruption being a big one. Whenever a body has power to control anything - naturally the forces of corruption will infiltrate it.

It is not correct to assume that a government will always act the counties best interests either. Just about every 3rd world country in existence is testament to government corruption hindering the development of the nation. Governments are notoriously bad at managing anything due to the simple reason of a lack of incentive to perform. If their is no financial reward ( or similar reward of value) people do not have incentive to work hard at what they do or ensure that productivity is maintained because public servants get paid regardless of productivity. In general - i beleive that we should have minimal government ...  however sometimes a little push in the right direction is needed to effect change. A small concession in the form of removing the sales tax on more environmentally friendly cars is all thats needed to give it a push as it will not only incentivize consumers - but also the existing manufacturers and the market will transition itself naturally and gradually over time with minimal cost to all parties. Once people accept change and the technology prooves itself, the sales taxes can be reintroduced if need be and we all continue on none the poorer.

With regard to fast charging - yes huge amounts of electrical current will be required to charge an EV pack quickly. This is not a safety issue tho, its an infrastructure issue. Large currents are safely used in industry everyday, you are just not used to seeing it domestically no do we currently have the required infrastructure within our typical home electrical supply. This is another major problem to the growth of the EV industry BTW - and it oddly has nothing to do with the cars itself. Ill continue on this later. The carbon batteries i referred to previously - the technology allows the batteries to be charged in 5 mins SAFELY - thats the whole idea behind the breakthrough technology. You can charge a std lithium battery fast - but the faster you do it the more heat you generate and the shorter the lifespan of the battery and the more dangerous it becomes. This is where the improvements to batteries are going - solving 2 key issues ;

1. Improving energy density to provide more range between charges and reducing weight/size of the pack.

2. Increasing the safe charging rate to provide greater convenience and utility.

Now back to the problem i mentioned earlier which has nothing to do with EVs but is absolutely essential to its success and will be a major hurdle to overcome. The electrical infrastructure required to charge EVs will become astronomical if we all had them in our garages and dumped ICE cars in wholesale fashion. The amount of electrical energy required for charging them all will place enormous burdon on the electrical grid - and in its current form, would not be able to cope. As an electrician - this is something which i understand better than most. In addition to the grid infrastructure - electrical upgrades would need to be installed within peoples homes and workplaces and also public places where charging stations are to be located. Large electrical currents for fast charging need large electrical installations to cope with the demand and also incur considerably large installation costs. If the currents are kept small, then so must be the rate of charging and the lack of convenience must be suffered as a consequence of that lack of investment in electrical infrastructure...

So to improve the uptake of EVs - the electrical supply industry must also develop enourmously in conjunction with EV industry as the entire energy thats consumed by burning all those billions of gallons of fuel - now must be carried along the wires of the electrical grid. And so far - the left hand is not talking to right hand on that...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, catch22 said:

alas we digress from the EV subject...

I do not agree with your somewhat marxist philisophy of the free market @Justin Thyme China is by no means an ideal model of how free markets should be run

This is not a safety issue tho, its an infrastructure issue. Large currents are safely used in industry everyday, 

Now back to the problem i mentioned earlier which has nothing to do with EVs but is absolutely essential to its success and will be a major hurdle to overcome. The electrical infrastructure required to charge EVs will become astronomical if we all had them in our garages and dumped ICE cars in wholesale fashion. The amount of electrical energy required for charging them all will place enormous burdon on the electrical grid - and in its current form, would not be able to cope. As an electrician - this is something which i understand better than most. In addition to the grid infrastructure - electrical upgrades would need to be installed within peoples homes and workplaces and also public places where charging stations are to be located. Large electrical currents for fast charging need large electrical installations to cope with the demand and also incur considerably large installation costs. If the currents are kept small, then so must be the rate of charging and the lack of convenience must be suffered as a consequence of that lack of investment in electrical infrastructure...

So to improve the uptake of EVs - the electrical supply industry must also develop enourmously in conjunction with EV industry as the entire energy thats consumed by burning all those billions of gallons of fuel - now must be carried along the wires of the electrical grid. And so far - the left hand is not talking to right hand on that...

 

 

 

Yes, we digress, but nonetheless the dialogue addresses the fundamental issues of both the EV industry and coal.  

The answer to both of these rest not with America but the rest of the world. Trying to predict their future, based on an American centric narcissistic viewpoint, is pointless.

Your viewpoint that China is still a corrupt nation is just a bit off base, Today, America is more corrupt than China. Just look at what is happening in the last election, and all the proclamations of 'fake news'.  The corruption is all part of the growing pains of decentralizing authority. When one eases up on the reins of power, with no real experience in oversight, there will always be people who naturally try to take advantage. The trick is how quickly it is cleaned up and effective oversight is implemented.

I am not in any way suggestion that the Chinese system is the 'best' system, only that it is currently the most successful system. Year over year growth in excess of 5% can not be ignored. Whether you agree with their system or not, you can not dismiss the reality of its effectiveness. China is at the point that America was in the 60's. Maybe it will end up as economically rotten as America is now, maybe it will avoid the pitfalls that America has succumbed to. Time will tell. But with over one billion people, at least half of which have new found economic clout, the Chinese government is much more responsive to the people than America currently is, The government just can't take a chance on pissing off one billion people. There isn't an army big enough to control them. They can't even take a chance on pissing off one percent, because that is still  ten million discontents. The big difference between China and America is that America still has a hangup over Marxism, and thus is refusing to implement any if its strengths or benefits, including the ability to unify the middle class into a socially responsible force with a common goal. For better or worse, China is a factor that can not be ignored or dismissed.

Do you have any idea of the size of the wires needed to carry the necessary current for fast charging? I have a conventional 240 volt fast charger, and the wiring is the same gauge as that to a stove or dryer. What makes industrial voltages safe, is the isolation of the circuits. But we are talking about electrical buses made of two inch solid copper square rods or greater, locked up in special closets, with on-site high voltage transformers. Not something that is retrofitted into your average home. I really do not think the solution will be in rapid electrical charging, and certainly nothing beyond a 240 volt 40 amp system in the short term, 500 volt in the near future..

I am not sure of what your concept or knowledge of the demands for charging an electric vehicle are, but two hour charging puts no more of a load on the electrical system than does an electrical dryer, and seven hour charging about the equivalent load of a vacuum cleaner. An electrically heated house draws more electrical power than charging an electric vehicle. The electrical distribution system itself will require just minor upgrades, provided ultra-fast charging is not considered. It will be like upgrading a system in a house built in the 1940's to one that is compliant with today's demands.

But there are technologies that will work around even this increase in demand.

Fuel cells will allow the direct conversion of methane (natural gas) into electricity without burning. Current units can be installed in every home with a natural gas line, and generate the needed electricity without burning the gas nor emitting CO2. These units can directly provide the necessary energy for a short term measure (decades, until other solutions are found) without modification to the electric grid. There are subdivisions in the planning stage that have no electrical wires, only a gas line. The fuel cells provide the needed electricity for operating lights and motors. All heating appliances (stoves, dryers, furnaces) use gas. Not yet completely CO2 free, but they will provide usable economic data.

Another trick that Musk is also considering is battery banks in the home itself, as electrical storage. That is, the home battery pack would be charged over time, like a capacitor, then discharged in a shorter time into the car. The home battery pack would draw the current over a long time span, requiring less demand on the electrical infrastructure and lower supply voltages. But again, I doubt if the charging time will be reduced to less than fifteen minutes. Too much will be lost in restive heat. Very inefficient. 

And this is where countries outside of America have the advantage. They do not yet have the infrastructure, so they are building from scratch to the new standards, not playing catch up to existing systems. Building a new home with a charging system built in has an advantage over retrofiring. Wiring new subdivisions with 500 volt lies is much cheaper than retrofitting existing ones. Residential feed lines are kilovolt lines that are reduced down to 240 volts by local transformers.serving a local neighborhood. Most multi-story apartment buildings and large office buildings have kilovolt lies already feeding them. Having the residents all charging their cars would be no more of a draw than all of them cooking dinner at the same time. However, I can see that charging in these buildings would be by peak/off peak time payment plans and would definitely be on timers. It is not as if these EVs are drawing their current load ALL the time, or all at once. After all, when we fill up with a tank of gas, it is done once and lasts for at least a few days, unless on a long trip. It's not as if we are dragging the gas station along behind us, continuously filling up the car.

But going back to the first point - I think for America the decision will be made for it. Emerging markets will, as I said, not have to upgrade but will be built to EV support standards from the get-go. Building codes will be amended (as they are in some jurisdictions) to accommodate the required infrastructure, and by 2025 all new subdivisions, apartment buildings, and office building garages will be built to the new standards, Everything else will just be dragged along, the same way inner cities built in the 30's and 40's have been dragged into upgrading to 100 amp service from 40 amp and even 20 amp service, and from nob and tube wiring in the homes to 20 amp lines to the kitchen. Upgrading two wire systems to three. Same thing as retrofitting to indoor plumbing and central heating in the 60's and 70's in rural America. It will be upgrade or be left behind, with an unsalable house.

 

 

 

Edited by Justin Thyme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Justin Thyme said:

Free market economic policies will not determine the fate of EVs. Rather it will be the realization that life on earth will no longer exist as we know it if we do not do something about CO2 poisoning.

CO2 is not a poison.

Math is hard.

Something is not quite adding up here.

Math is hard.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Justin Thyme said:

Free market economic policies will not determine the fate of EVs. Rather it will be the realization that life on earth will no longer exist as we know it if we do not do something about CO2 poisoning.

Justin - this is wild exaggeration. CO2 is not a poison. We breath it out in higher concentrations that we could possibly reach in several lifetimes in the atmosphere, assuming even the worst of the projections. Professional glasshouse systems  are routinely deliberately taken above 1000 parts per million (we are now around 400) to encourage plant growth. What I think you mean is that  the forecast higher temperatures may  be a problem. I don't think anyone credible has suggested the world will end. Then there is the problem that switching EVs in many places would make CO2 emissions worse, not better. It depends on how they generate their electricity. Leave it with you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

The Chinese system is full of  problems - everything from human rights violations, capitol controls, market controls, hell it wasnt even that long ago and you had family controls limiting child births... Its a bit rich writing from a democratic country where we enjoy all the freedoms and fairness our democracy provides us and praise a communist system which sacrifices their environment, civil liberties, and freedoms in favour of censorship, pollution, capitol control and oppression in a myopic desire for economic growth... No way id want to live there...

You dont really need to school me on the electrical infrastructure details either - like i said - im fully qualified electrician.

There is a big problem in coping with the charging of EVs - even at low rates of charge. Remember the capacity of these batteries in these Cars is getting bigger and bigger year by year. 60kwh is about std now - in another 5 years it will be 100kwh i reckon. This will then give an EV similar range to a std ICE car.  So everyone drives home from work and then not only plugs in the car to charge but also starts cooking, turning on their air conditioning and other applicances etc... there will be a massive energy demand spike and the grid- at least here in australia - will not be able to cope with so much extra load placed on the grid by everyones EV charging ON TOP OF the existing loads. Our electricity grid is already at full capacity generation and transmission. Massive upgrades in new capacity will be required, not to mention possible maximum demand problem in peoples local submain cabling size feeding your home from the street (your problem not the utilities). Id hazard a guess its a similar story throughout the world as its not financially responsible to over engineer the generation and transmission electrical network when you can meet the demand for minimal cost. My point was - no forward planning has been done on this potential enormous extra load. I doubt many countries have thought about it yet... wait and see what happens when EV sales start accelerating - there will be power brown outs and outages everywhere - mark my words. Then they will try to play catch up game of adding capacity to the electrical network but there will not be a skilled workforce large enough to keep pace with the growing number of EVs hitting the roads...

The only way of mitigating the problem whilst we play catch up over decades, will be to manage the power to EV chargers via smart controlled tarriff supply - controlled by the energy utiltity. They will be able to switch certain areas on and off and keep the load spread across a broader time period throughout the night.

Thats the other problem with the energy demand curve - most people will want to charge at night in their garage dock unless their car space at work can charge it for them (employers wont want to pay for all that infrastructure) and so there is not the extra capacity of solar available to the grid either at night. Most of it will have to come from baseload sources... So its a big dillemma - and ive not heard of anyone addressing it yet. I wonder if a case study on Norway has been done and how theyve managed the EVs charging load?

Edited by catch22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are talking about EV charging assuming that EV's will be charged at home while parked in the garage.

But other solutions can emerge. We could have for instance EV charging directly from the road (they are already testing this on a 2 km road in Sweden). in this case no need to stop to charge the car and no need to fast chargers.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/12/worlds-first-electrified-road-for-charging-vehicles-opens-in-sweden

Most of the private cars are used each day  for less than 2 hours and sitting on a parking lot or garage for the remaining 22 hours.  If you install induction charging in the parkings charging could turn in something very easy.  When you park your car somewhere it will tell you if induction charge is available and what the cost is and then you can choose if you want  your car to charge or not. No need to plug a cable. And it could help to avoid the peaks in energy demand related to charging cars at home.

http://www.thedrive.com/tech/19995/wireless-electric-car-charging-is-coming-and-it-could-help-stabilize-the-power-grid

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, catch22 said:

The Chinese system is full of  problems - everything from human rights violations, capitol controls, market controls, hell it wasnt even that long ago and you had family controls limiting child births... Its a bit rich writing from a democratic country where we enjoy all the freedoms and fairness our democracy provides us and praise a communist system which sacrifices their environment, civil liberties, and freedoms in favour of censorship, pollution, capitol control and oppression in a myopic desire for economic growth... No way id want to live there...

Well said/written!  How many times I have wanted to say exactly that, but I couldn't put the words together as eloquently as you just did and so I chose not to.  To your point, and to expand, this applies to the people who would rather BELIEVE China or Russia or any other oppressive dictatorial government, and I use the word government loosely, over their own democracy and over their own people, irrespective of their flaws and impurities.

You will see me have opinions on this site, but you will never see me choosing another form of government over Democracy.  You will never see me choosing other nationals over my own.  Together with my own, entirely possible, but not guaranteed.  I respect other countries and I respect the fact that the people from those countries may have other opinions.  The debates we get into can be about individuals in our government being assholes or not, and about our flaws.  That is our right.  One of the many rights that people around the world do NOT enjoy, yet.  But I believe deeply in my soul that we should keep the debate civil and respectful as befits the nation we strive to continue building and the values that we all seem to espouse. 

The vast majority of Americans are good, civil, helpful, caring, giving honest people who are proud of their nation and their communities, and who feel compassion for others who do not have it or cannot participate in it.  But there is a subtle distinction in what I just wrote: that is that we care about our own first, and then we look outward.  There is also a subtle meaning to what I've just said there:  "and then we look outward".  No other nation on earth looks outward as generously as Americans do.  Most of what we read or see in the news about America turning inward and America not being fair really just translates into "why is America taking away what they have been giving to us in the past".  No other nation on earth that tries to bring freedom with all its flaws and possibilities to others around the world.  We always have and hopefully we always will.  If you believe Donald Trump is an asshole, we believe you have the right to say so, and we will defend against anyone who tries to stop you.  But when you tell us that our country will fail because of one perceived asshole, or 100, or 10,000, you insult the entire nation and that is not acceptable.

Tough times, real tough times, will come to our world and that is when we need to keep some perspective, take care of our families, and then reach outward to help others.

Just to add my additional two cent's worth!

Thanks for the opportunity, Catch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, catch22 said:

The Chinese system is full of  problems - everything from human rights violations, capitol controls, market controls, hell it wasnt even that long ago and you had family controls limiting child births... Its a bit rich writing from a democratic country where we enjoy all the freedoms and fairness our democracy provides us and praise a communist system which sacrifices their environment, civil liberties, and freedoms in favour of censorship, pollution, capitol control and oppression in a myopic desire for economic growth... No way id want to live there...

You dont really need to school me on the electrical infrastructure details either - like i said - im fully qualified electrician.

There is a big problem in coping with the charging of EVs - even at low rates of charge. Remember the capacity of these batteries in these Cars is getting bigger and bigger year by year. 60kwh is about std now - in another 5 years it will be 100kwh i reckon. This will then give an EV similar range to a std ICE car.  So everyone drives home from work and then not only plugs in the car to charge but also starts cooking, turning on their air conditioning and other applicances etc... there will be a massive energy demand spike and the grid- at least here in australia - will not be able to cope with so much extra load placed on the grid by everyones EV charging ON TOP OF the existing loads. Our electricity grid is already at full capacity generation and transmission. Massive upgrades in new capacity will be required, not to mention possible maximum demand problem in peoples local submain cabling size feeding your home from the street (your problem not the utilities). Id hazard a guess its a similar story throughout the world as its not financially responsible to over engineer the generation and transmission electrical network when you can meet the demand for minimal cost. My point was - no forward planning has been done on this potential enormous extra load. I doubt many countries have thought about it yet... wait and see what happens when EV sales start accelerating - there will be power brown outs and outages everywhere - mark my words. Then they will try to play catch up game of adding capacity to the electrical network but there will not be a skilled workforce large enough to keep pace with the growing number of EVs hitting the roads...

The only way of mitigating the problem whilst we play catch up over decades, will be to manage the power to EV chargers via smart controlled tarriff supply - controlled by the energy utiltity. They will be able to switch certain areas on and off and keep the load spread across a broader time period throughout the night.

Thats the other problem with the energy demand curve - most people will want to charge at night in their garage dock unless their car space at work can charge it for them (employers wont want to pay for all that infrastructure) and so there is not the extra capacity of solar available to the grid either at night. Most of it will have to come from baseload sources... So its a big dillemma - and ive not heard of anyone addressing it yet. I wonder if a case study on Norway has been done and how theyve managed the EVs charging load?

Be a bit careful about knocking anyone country, take a look at the history and even present state of the country you live in. In my experience of the countries I've lived, worked and stayed in they all have many issues.

Now I to have been a qualified electrician (although not in Oz, but have lived there and am about to return) and Australia does have issues with it's electricity (thanks to governmental meddling mainly) but it grid was updated quite recently to deal with expected demand. A demand that never occurred, so is capable of quite a bit more demand than is at present expected. When people often talk about charging EV's it's as if they expect everyone to be charging the battery from 0% everyday at the same time. Never look at a technology in isolation, many changes will occur as EV's become mainstream. For a start smart systems are being developed connecting from the generator to the appliance, with smart pricing of electricity this will flatten out loading considerably. Then storage, if those involved with the grid don't want to loose a massive part of their clientele they will need to add local storage. If not as battery systems become cheaper many will cut the their connection and just go for solar/battery. These local batteries will store solar feed into the system and feed out later, it'll be the cheapest option to keep the grid operating. Although I will be hopefully self building a house in Oz soon and I won't be connecting to the grid.

Cars normally aren't driven very far meaning a trickle charge is all that is required over night once a week for most users. Now this brings us to another tech that's rapidly been developed, self driving vehicles. This changes every thing, really when you start looking into it the changes on society are amazing. But for charging vehicles it means a massive change as well. These cars will of course be EV's, hardly anyone will own a car as the driverless taxi will be the cheapest option by far. So the companies owning these cars will tend to charge them at dedicated charging centres, probably in industrial park type areas being the sensible choice. These places already have large power lines meaning minimal installation of new wiring, but also have their own large onsite batteries to even out demand.

Norway so far doesn't really have an issue, although one of the people involved with the grid did ask that not everyone charges up on a Thursday night. Again thinking solar is the only renewable energy source is misguided, Australia has wind and hydro in the mix at present, complimenting each other. Although investment will have to be made in connecting in these sources to the grid. The Snowy system also shows how demand and supply can be smoothed out using it as a storage device, only one station can do this at present but looks like another larger one will be built (I'll find out soon as that's near where I'm going back to). I also heard about another hydro storage system been expanded somewhere near Sydney.

This problem is already been worked on for a number of years and utilities on the main part seem happy about investing money to charge these EV's as it means more profit potentially for them. As always theres lots of FUD from various sources about EV's and renewable energy, everything they say is impossible has been easily overcome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found a thesis on the EV and fast chargers integration in Norway. Perhaps some of you could find it interesting. Here is the abstract and the link.

Abstract
Given a renewable power supply, the replacement of conventional vehicles with
electric alternatives has the potential to significantly reduce climate gas emissions
from the transport sector. Norway has implemented economic incentives over several
years to encourage a transition from conventional vehicles to electric cars (EVs),
and has now the largest share of EVs per capita in the world. The power levels
required to charge this fleet may constitute a significant strain on the existing power
grid, especially at a low voltage level. The deployment of fast chargers may further
aggravate this. More knowledge about the challenges ahead will be advantageous.
This thesis explores the effects of increasing EV penetration levels in a Norwegian
distribution grid, by analyzing real power measurements obtained from household
smart meters. The implications of installing a fast charger in the grid has been
assessed, an optimal location for it has been proposed, and the potential for reactive
power injection to reduce the voltage deviations caused by it has been investigated.
After presenting the theoretical groundwork, data set and methodology, the model
is presented in detail and the following results are described. Results show that
the EV hosting capacity of the grid is good for a majority of the end-users, but
that the weakest power cable would be overloaded at a 20 % EV penetration level.
The network tolerated an EV penetration of 50 % with regards to the voltage
levels at all end-users. Injecting reactive power at the location of an installed fast
charger proved to significantly reduce the voltage deviation otherwise imposed by
the charger.

https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2497394/18218_FULLTEXT.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

CO2 is not a poison.

Math is hard.

Something is not quite adding up here.

Math is hard.jpg

Above a certain PPM concentration in air it is deadly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

CO2 is not a poison.

Math is hard.

Something is not quite adding up here.

Math is hard.jpg

CO2 does kill, one guy almost got it at a place were I worked (before I was there) after the CO2 firefighting system accidentally went off with him in the room.

If you add enough it becomes deadly, simple as maths.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DA? said:

CO2 does kill, one guy almost got it at a place were I worked (before I was there) after the CO2 firefighting system accidentally went off with him in the room.

If you add enough it becomes deadly, simple as maths.  

Indeed - many toxins work in this fashion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

Indeed - many toxins work in this fashion. 

Indeed - water works in this fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Indeed - water works in this fashion.

Except you would struggle to ingest the sort of amounts of water necessary to be toxic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

Except you would struggle to ingest the sort of amounts of water necessary to be toxic. 

Just being a PITA.  Sorry.  Couldn't resist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NickW said:

Indeed - many toxins work in this fashion. 

 

2 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Indeed - water works in this fashion.

Not quite like water. From OSH

Inhalation: Low concentrations are not harmful. Higher concentrations can affect respiratory function and cause excitation followed by depression of the central nervous system.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites