When Can Electric Cars Compete on Cost with ICE

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

It takes approximately 4 years for an EV to start to improve in Co2 emissions than an ICE due to the amount of Co2 it takes to make the battery.

a hybrid like the one I have probably never    Outperforms an ICE on Co2 in its lifetime

still I save £8k per annum on tax and the greens love me

what a fu**in joke!

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 12/8/2019 at 3:39 PM, remake it said:

It seemed an unusual point given vehicle manufacture infrastructure is mature and also that BEV charging can and is mostly undertaken at home, which leaves battery gigafactories as the fly in the ointment except that these are planned to coincide with major auto manufacturers' rolling out their new BEV offerings over the next few years.

Vehicle manufacturing infrastructure is mature, but switching from ICE to EV changes it somewhat.  Batteries, power electronics, and electric motors require somewhat different materials and manufacturing equipment.  I see your point though: the changes are minor relative to the resources we can throw at them. 

The question is still, "How long will it take to increase EV production?", and I think an accurate answer requires expert input. 

[remake it + 288]

On 12/9/2019 at 8:46 AM, Rob Plant said:

It takes approximately 4 years for an EV to start to improve in Co2 emissions than an ICE due to the amount of Co2 it takes to make the battery.

The metrics are almost entirely dependent on energy sources as if the production phase is powered by renewables and the separate operating (aka driving) phase draws electricity from renewables then the CO2 footprint becomes vastly different.

[SERWIN + 749]

On 11/9/2019 at 7:53 PM, Jan van Eck said:

I would disagree that "subsidies" are the inherently bad thing you indicate.  Subsidies create the possibility (I shudder to say the "environment") for new innovations to be adopted.  

But the "subsidies" for a car as expensive and, from a mechanical standpoint, useless as a Tesla are really subsidizing the wealthy. A Leaf I could see, dealers everywhere and parts readily available, but Tesla should have been scrutinized a lot more than it was. With parts and repair shops not available it wasn't a good move to offer a subsidy on that particular car mfg. One of the requisites should have been nationwide availability, both with dealerships and parts. Now someone gets in a minor wreck with one and can't get it fixed, so do you think they will buy another one? I would be so discouraged I would go back to ICE, at least I could go anywhere and get it refueled and get work performed when needed..... These subsidies were for the wealthy, not the working class

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, SERWIN said:

But the "subsidies" for a car as expensive and, from a mechanical standpoint, useless as a Tesla are really subsidizing the wealthy. A Leaf I could see, dealers everywhere and parts readily available, but Tesla should have been scrutinized a lot more than it was. With parts and repair shops not available it wasn't a good move to offer a subsidy on that particular car mfg. One of the requisites should have been nationwide availability, both with dealerships and parts. Now someone gets in a minor wreck with one and can't get it fixed, so do you think they will buy another one? I would be so discouraged I would go back to ICE, at least I could go anywhere and get it refueled and get work performed when needed..... These subsidies were for the wealthy, not the working class

The issue of "subsidies" is relevant where they exist internationally and that is not everywhere and not always very much as a percentage of final price however many forget the massive tax subsidy that many Western nations afford to vehicle purchases ostensibly attributable to business use.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 11/11/2019 at 9:42 PM, Douglas Buckland said:

Think about the energy required to haul a fully loaded 18 wheeler over the Continental Divide..

A good reason to drill a tunnel!

[remake it + 288]

6 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

A good reason to drill a tunnel!

Would you like some references from Chinese companies with impeccable pedigrees having built hundreds of them in the most difficult terrain?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

A good reason to drill a tunnel!

You mean like the Eisenhower Tunnel on I-70 west of Denver? That box has been ticked.

It is still a hell of a climb to the tunnel portals coming from the east or the west.

Are you suggesting boring a tunnel say from Denver to Rifle and avoiding any significant incline/decline? That would be an engineering marvel, incredibly expensive and a maintenance nightmare...if it was even possible.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

52 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Are you suggesting boring a tunnel say from Denver to Rifle and avoiding any significant incline/decline? That would be an engineering marvel, incredibly expensive and a maintenance nightmare...if it was even possible.

More a series of short tunnels through the folds of the Appalachians, which would be easy enough to do. The older mountains of the Rockies, which present more gradual and thus longer slopes, going up to much higher peaks, represent much different challenges.  Tunnelling the North-South I-5 route, however, should be entirely doable, assuming that they can be done earthquake-resistant. 

The US builds excellent tunnel-boring machines, that technology is mature and sophisticated, setting up a bore machine and letting her rip is no longer a gigantic challenge.  I think the machines used in the Channel Tunnel under the English Channel were built in the USA.  There is no real reason taht the US cannot go to tunnels to dramatically reduce fuel use.  By my calculations, building some 100 tunnels on the busiest roads would drop aggregate diesel consumption by about 40%.  That is a lot of fuel.  Cheers. 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

4 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

More a series of short tunnels through the folds of the Appalachians, which would be easy enough to do. The older mountains of the Rockies, which present more gradual and thus longer slopes, going up to much higher peaks, represent much different challenges. 

No offense, Jan, but the way I read your comment, you got these reversed. According to "Annals of the Former World" by John McPhee, the Rocky Mountains are actually much younger mountains than the Appalachians. The Rockies still have sharp points and are thought to be about 50 million years old (toddlers by geologic standards). The Appalachians have been eroded quite a bit, enough to lose their points. They're thought to be over 400 million years old. Probably doesn't matter to the content of your explanation. Maybe I have these reversed in my mind but I don't think so. If I'm wrong, you can hammer me. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

On 12/28/2019 at 8:09 AM, Gerry Maddoux said:

No offense, Jan, but the way I read your comment, you got these reversed. A...

Don't worry: Jan has never driven on I-5 either as there is no "pass" to tunnel under as Grants Pass  is actually a VERY long transverse valley among many other valleys.  The tunnel would literally have to be on the order of 100 miles from Shasta Lake(CA) to Grants pass and then probably another dozen tunnels from Grants Pass to Eugene Oregon for his "shallow incline".  May as well propose a tunnel on I-80 under all of Wyoming/Utah, Nevada/E. CA to get to Sacramento...   If you do this, put it at sea level so we can use the MUCH larger tunnel for barge traffic and transporting fresh water from the Columbia/Mississippi etc rivers to the Great plains.  This is as likely... It would get rid of trains for the most part as well.  Just "think" of all the "fuel" you would save...

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

25 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Jan has never driven on I-5 either

I have driven the I-5 from Portland to Sacramento, then out the I-80 from there to New Jersey.  This was in an overloaded rental truck pulling a car trailer.  What impressed me about the I-5 was how many times I went crawling up one side of a hill and down the other.  All that low gear counting the blades of grass left me a lot of time to think about the logic of building roads over ridges.  Not much logic, except of course you don't pay to build the tunnel.  You, Mr. Foote, are very good at crabbing, not so good in producing solutions. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Years ago, the Eisenhower Tunnel on I-70 through the Continental Divide was an engineering marvel much appreciated by those who used to have to go over Loveland Pass, especially in the winter.

It is now a bottleneck due to the increase in traffic over the years, especially in ski season. The only option that I see would be to bore more tunnels and widen the highway in both directions. This is problematic due to the topography.

As I said earlier, even when the Eisenhower Tunnel was new, the approaches from either direction were long and steep. If you made it to the tunnel without overheating, you were good to go.

Tunnels definitely have a place in the scheme of things, but keep in mind that they made it easier for Californians to migrate to the Front Range and eventually destroy a great State....be careful what you wish for...😂

[remake it + 288]

On topic by around 2025 all major manufacturers will have a range of EV options and by around 2030 most manufacturers will have abandoned ICE manufacture except for niche markets and these timings will largely be influenced by the capacity of battery gigafactories to satisfy the market.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I have driven the I-5 from Portland to Sacramento, then out the I-80 from there to New Jersey.  This was in an overloaded rental truck pulling a car trailer.  What impressed me about the I-5 was how many times I went crawling up one side of a hill and down the other.  All that low gear counting the blades of grass left me a lot of time to think about the logic of building roads over ridges.  Not much logic, except of course you don't pay to build the tunnel.  You, Mr. Foote, are very good at crabbing, not so good in producing solutions. 

I gave you the superior solution: It was just slightly more absurd than yours...  Want tunnels?  Do it at sea level or 1m above sea level for fresh water distribution, barge traffic everywhere, roads, etc.  Of course it would cost approx ~$0.5B/mile for such an enormous tunnel...

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I gave you the superior solution

Your solution is utterly ridiculous.

[NickW + 2,714]

On 1/1/2020 at 9:00 AM, remake it said:

On topic by around 2025 all major manufacturers will have a range of EV options and by around 2030 most manufacturers will have abandoned ICE manufacture except for niche markets and these timings will largely be influenced by the capacity of battery gigafactories to satisfy the market.

The EV's with regenerative braking will partly resolve the fuel loss issue raised by Jan, at least for cars and smaller goods vehicles. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

6 minutes ago, NickW said:

The EV's with regenerative braking will partly resolve the fuel loss issue raised by Jan, at least for cars and smaller goods vehicles. 

Agreed, however the key to EV's, as has been stated many times before, is batteries!

The race to develop new technologies in this field is staggering and the diverse nature and materials being used is astonishing.

For me a graphene battery, if proven, and proven to be safe is the future, but who knows?

https://www.pocket-lint.com/gadgets/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air