Israel Aims To Ban Gasoline, Diesel Vehicles By 2030 (cleantechnica.com) 330
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CleanTechnica: 2030 seems like a long way off, but it's really just around the corner. And when the bell tolls at midnight on December 31, 2030, you may not be able to buy a gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicle in Israel. After that date, all passenger cars will be electric and all trucks will be powered by electricity or compressed natural gas, if a proposal currently under consideration gets approved by the government. A final decision is expected by the end of this year. Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz [told Reuters last month] the biggest challenge will be creating a "critical mass" of electric and CNG powered vehicles before the deadline arrives. "We are already encouraging [the transition] by funding ... more than 2,000 new charging stations around the country," he says. The plan was set in motion one day after the United Nations issued its latest climate assessment that finds nations must do far more than they are currently doing in order to stave off warmer global average temperatures that will put the environment at risk. In order to reach the goal, the Israeli government will "reduce taxation on electric cars to almost zero, so they are going to be much cheaper," Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz said. He expects there will be about 177,000 electric cars on Israeli roads around 2025. By 2030, the expectation is that there will be nearly 1.5 million EVs in the country. The country has a ways to go though, as there are less than 100 electric cars on the roads today.
Real Reason (Score:5, Funny)
Fossil fuels were put in the ground by Satan to confuse innocent God-fearing creationists. Emissions such as sulfur dioxide are harmful to humans because they originate from Hell. Global warming is actually a plot by Satan to terraform Earth to more resemble his domain. /s
Go Israel! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Go Israel! (Score:2)
This is exactly why we should be switching out its use where we can.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Go Israel! (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't have said so even a few months ago, but a recent visit to Shenzhen forced a mental recalibration. Anyone visiting there, keep an eye out for green number plates, all these buses, cars and small delivery trucks are electric and most of them weren't there a year ago. Blue is gasoline and yellow is diesel. Never mind the electric bikes etc, these are old news. When we look back at history a decade from now, we'll mark 2018 as the year that electric cars really started going mainstream. It'll take years to get to world scale and reach every corner, never mind phasing out majority of gasoline cars, but right now is the moment this process really takes off.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like the market for blacksmiths and horse feed dried up and became a small niche, but it won't happen overnight... Currently a lot of electricity is still produced from fossil fuel sources.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Go Israel! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Fossil fuels are going nowhere unless we get a major attitude shift towards nuclear reactors or by some miracle fusion becomes viable."
Such a stupid thing to say. Renewables are cheaper than nukes, so nukes won't help more than they will. The obvious solution is to put solar panels over parking lots. It's cheap to put them there, and doing so actually extends the life of the paving surface. This would work especially well in Israel, where there is plenty of insolation. And you don't need storage to go with it, because the cars are the storage.
Re: (Score:3)
Nukes are useful, necessary even for a number of reasons. First and foremost nukes deliver power and lots of it all the time, which heavy industry absolutely requires;
Bullshit [nwenergy.org]. And also bullshit [nytimes.com].
batteries are not yet capacious or cheap enough to store power in sufficient quantity to make up for the patchiness of renewables.
Bullshit [thinkprogress.org].
Secondly, the world still has a lot of high-level nuclear waste that really needs destroying in fast-neutron reactors;
They are expensive and dangerous. It would make more sense to just drop the waste into a subduction (The word "subduction" is not in the Moz dictionary... WTF) zone and wave goodbye to it.
Finally, apart from vehicle fuel much of the world's energy requirement is heat, rather than electrical or chemical power. Small, sealed-for-life nuclear reactors powering district steam heating would go a long way towards replacing gas as a heating fuel.
Heat comes from a number of sources. Much of that energy requirement could be substantially reduced by simply implementing more insulation, which doesn't have to be done every day like heating a space does.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Personal automotive EV transportation will never go mainstream
Already happening, perhaps not everywhere at the same pace but it's happening. In the end it will boil down to cost, the cheapness of charging vs fueling is what will sell it for most of the world. It certainly is making the sale in China and you won't find a bigger lot of penny pinchers anywhere in the world.
Re:Go Israel! (Score:5, Insightful)
Personal automotive EV transportation will never go mainstream.
There's a lot of "X will never happen" quotes that became famous for the wrong(ness) reason, but it really takes a special person to make such a comment just as that X in question is slowly happening.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have any idea how many amps it take to charge an EV?!
Yes. It takes 40 amps @ 240 volts to charge a Tesla Model S overnight from dead empty. A larger modern home is typically built with 200 amp service. Your typical electric clothes dryer is on a 30 amp circuit @ 240 volts. Charging a modern battery electric vehicle takes just 33% more than running a dryer, and is well within the capabilities of the main service panel for any home likely to have a Model S parked in its garage.
There's no nice way of putting it, so I'll say it - you're a fucking moron if you actually think EV is the future. NO FUCKING WAY!
If you could actually do basic arithmetic, you might be able to construct some so
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Petroleum is too valuable to burn. It may not be wortheless in our lifetimes but at the rate we are going it may become priceless.
Re: (Score:2)
Something like 97% of the value of crude oil comes from the 3% we don't burn. That is turning oil in products like plastic etc. has far more value than burning it.
Re: Go Israel! (Score:2)
As the other guy pointed out, the vast majority of that comes from coal and natural gas. Israel has control of some rather large NG reserves, so it's mostly self sufficient for electrical production.
Those figures also don't account for solar-thermal water heating which eliminates a significant chunk of a typical households electrical needs.
While solar photovoltaic production in Israel is minimal due to cheap NG, they do have a stated goal of increasing PV usage over the coming decades.
Ban the SALE (Score:4, Informative)
The interesting point will be when the filling stations are mostly all electric charging stations, and driving your vintage car across the country gets to be pretty challenging.
Re: (Score:2)
Petrol stations won't become charging stations, they will just go out of business.
Most charging will be done at home or at work or at destinations like shops and restaurants. For long distances there will be rapid chargers at service areas on major roads.
The days of going out of your way just to fill up are coming to a close. 99% of the infrastructure is already there, it just needs the last few metres sorting out with sockets on lamp posts and in car parks etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Burning ethanol in a car engine is alcohol abuse. Ethanol is for drinking, not driving. I cry a little inside when I can't find fuel at a filling station without ethanol blended in. You can abuse alcohol if you must, just don't force me to participate.
This has nothing to do with climate (Score:2)
This is about autarky, but autarky is a dirty word when spoken by non-Israelis ... so lets say climate instead.
Makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Israel is small enough that current EVs should be able to go border-to-border on a single charge. Given that range anxiety is one of the major reasons why people don't want EVs, it seems a small country can convert much more easily.
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
It also pins their hopes on a proven but not entirely mature technology, and it just happens they've got a pretty big investment in battery chemistry research. Maybe they know something the public doesn't, or maybe they just like the idea of selling more domestically made vehicles and shutting down the purchase of vehicles from neighboring countries -- unless those countries are also going electric. They have enough financial pull in the region that others might lean the same direction for purely pragmatic reasons. Even if nearby nations don't, individual businesses will, if they can sell across the border.
Twenty years ago it was stupid to drive an EV unless you were out to prove something, or you lived in Avalon. Now it's viable, but not ideal for everyone. By the end of the 32-bit Unix time epoch, 20 years hence, internal combustion vehicles will be like CD players or chrome tapes. We'll remember what they're for, and be glad we no longer require them, even though they were nice at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't yet seen a domestically-manufactured car in Israel, and I've been living here for 6 years now, as of today.
Re: (Score:2)
You will probably see domestically assembled cars once the market turns electric though. The batteries could be produced locally while the rest of the car comes from China or whatever, because they are heavy, and critical to performance, and the first place an unscrupulous Chinese company will cut corners, knowing it may be years before people notice.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to see a susita [wikipedia.org] over by the qiriyah... That was a couple decades ago so no idea if it's still there. But no, there's currently no domestic vehicle industry to speak of.
Re: (Score:2)
There are people with CD players (and they use them) even now, so yes, there will still be internal combustion vehicles. They just won't be what most commuters want or need.
And don't be a fuckwad. I can be a dick too, but I try very hard to aim it only at targets that deserve it. Fuck off, you puling, pusilannimous pissant.
Re: (Score:2)
Israel is small enough that current EVs should be able to go border-to-border on a single charge. Given that range anxiety is one of the major reasons why people don't want EVs, it seems a small country... surrounded by enemies... can convert much more easily.
There, fixed that for you... Somehow I think that the family vacation to the outback of Iraq is not a frequent event.
Re: (Score:2)
Much of Israel is mountainous, so I'm not sure if that affects range in any very meaningful ways (but I suspect it does). But yeah, if you drive from Katsrin in the Golan to Eilat, it's under 500 km.
Re: (Score:2)
Mountainous terrain will hurt distance, but with regenerative breaking, it hurts an EV's mileage significantly less than a gas powered car.
Re: (Score:2)
Google maps tells me 540km from Eilat to Mount Hermon. But it's over six hours so a comfort break and a supercharger will see you through no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope it's 570km to drive from border with Egypt just south of Eilat to the car park at the Mount Hermon ski area according to Google Maps. Remember you can't just zip through the West Bank. Well you probably can but it is not terribly sensible. You can even go a bit further north in theory to the Shebba farm area, though I have no idea if this is open to the public (being disputed Syrian/Lebanese land currently occupied by Israel). However as Google Maps won't let me drop the pin in the relevant location I
and Palestinians (Score:2)
by 2020
12 years (Score:2)
It always seems to be 12 years off ...
Well, hopefully all the pieces will be there and it will be affordable for most by then. We're getting there.
I've dreamed of electric vehicles since I was a kid; nothing against them. I do have something against commissars ordering me into one though.
Looks like they'll in reality eventually become pervasive by actually being better, not truly by fiat, which is good. 12 years from now they'll either be actually affordable and have all the pieces in place, or else the
Liquid fuels generally unavailable (Score:2)
Israel has a good case for eliminating readily used and transported flammable fuels - her neighbors. Not about sticking it to the oil-rich, but denying* those who would make firebombs a common fuel for such things. It won't solve everything, but it makes sense to take away what can be taken away. And auto/truck bombs don't work so well if the answer to them is to cut power so EVs cannot be (re)charged in lawless areas.
* or at least making acquisition more difficult for...
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly. There is a pipeline that runs right across the middle of Israel and is the primary method that Russia exports oil to Asia. They bring it in by tanker at Ashkelon, run it through the pipe right across Israel and then load it onto a tanker at Eilat.
And then there is the Bazan group which has an absolutely massive oil refining complex in Israel.
Re: Good (Score:2)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Definitely Ashkelon. Its the location the trans-israel pipeline.
Also that path is shorter and cheaper to operate than going round africa or via the Suez so it carries huge quantities of oil.
Re: (Score:3)
It is only cheaper than Suez because the Egyptians charge exorbitant transit fees. An oil tanker pays a transit fee of about $400k.
Re:Switching to EVs does very little good if (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't necessarily require the renewables / nuclear first. If you have more and more EVs on your network they act as storage capacity. Combine with smart meters and you can use EVs for load shedding vs dumping to heat. Even if you don't ever recover any energy from the evs increasing or decreasing charge rates will allow you to stabilise the network.
Once you have that stabilisation effect in place you can increase your % of renewables.
Re: Switching to EVs does very little good if (Score:5, Informative)
Ev cars are full everytime you get in them in the morning.
Theres no getting in the car with the fuel light on. For most people and most usage cases a daily range of 450km is more than enough. It doesnt really matter if it takes 6 hrs to charge if youre asleep.
The only time charge time matters is when you exceed 450km in a day.
You would also get a choice. Cheaper power to allow car to be storage or more expensive for not. Same options as ive got for hotwater systems and aircon
Re: Switching to EVs does very little good if (Score:5, Insightful)
Theres no getting in the car with the fuel light on. For most people and most usage cases a daily range of 450km is more than enough. It doesnt really matter if it takes 6 hrs to charge if youre asleep.
The only time charge time matters is when you exceed 450km in a day.
Also remember this article is about Israel. Haifa to Eilat is 450km, and there's pretty much nothing longer you could drive. Any two places excluding the Negev desert you can do round trip, including e.g. Haifa to Beersheba. The borders to Lebanon and Syria are closed. Theoretically you can drive to Jordan and Egypt, but almost no one ever does. So, while in the US 300 miles might not be all one ever drives in a day, in Israel I'm pretty sure it covers most use cases :)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the source of power... If a lot of solar is being used, then the grid won't have much surplus power at night - if your car is being used to offset the lack of generation from solar plants then your car could even be empty in the morning.
That results in an unreliable vehicle, that might not be charged when you expect it to be. If your gasoline car has the fuel light on in the morning it's solely because you didn't full it up - entirely within your control.
Re: Switching to EVs does very little good if (Score:3)
Pretty trivial to solve tbh. If its a smart meter for an ev then having it charge to 75% and then go into storage mode would be simple. That gives you a min range level. (Configurable ofcourse)
As for charging at night vs day you would nornally do a mix of renewables with a base load generator. Solar will be offline at night but wind wont be, and power demand is a lower at night as well meaning smaller changes in supply have bigger effects.
During the day there will still be a % of evs connected to the networ
Re: (Score:3)
Noting that the longest possible journey you can make in Israel (I just checked on Goggle maps) is from say Eilat on the Red Sea to Mount Hermon in the Golan Heights. It comes in at 540km which avoids the West Bank. I can't imagine that many people in Israel make that journey very often, and it's a 6.5 hour trip so there is going to be some comfort and food breaks in there which will get you over the capacity limit. So unless you like driving around in circles current EV's are more than adequate for Israel
Re: Switching to EVs does very little good if (Score:4, Informative)
The average commute time in th United States is 26 minutes one way. Yes, there are plenty of exceptions, but the fact is that an EV would be suitable vehicle for most Americans. Not all, but most.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are in a nation where a large percentage of your electric supply comes from natural gas, such as Isreal, USA, UK, Japan, ...
You lost your audience somewhere between "such as" and UK or Japan
Natural gas looks to me like a great fuel for cars.
It is. Most transportation in Thailand is done with LPG. (Technically not the same as "natural gas"), however your "refueling times" are way off. Refueling a Truck takes +30minutes, refueling a bus about 20 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
You lost your audience somewhere between "such as" and UK or Japan ...
So sad that the loss of my audience didn't include you.
Refueling a Truck takes +30minutes, refueling a bus about 20 minutes.
That would be relevant if I stated that natural gas was a great fuel for buses and trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
So sad that the loss of my audience didn't include you.
Maybe he doesn't find you as boring and repetitive as the rest of your audience does.
Re: Switching to EVs does very little good if (Score:2)
Well I live in Australia now and almost no houses have direct gas connections, and i lived in the uk for 4 years from 2004 and none of the areas i lived had gas connections to the houses.
So while the concept of home fueling of an lng car would be awesome the infrastructure for large scale fueling at home isnt there and would cost an absolute fortune to deploy.
I even have a gas hotwater system and gas stove and they are run off 45kg bottles.
Re: (Score:2)
The cities and towns all have gas connections, some smaller villages might not, and some apartment buildings might not have the internal pipework to support it.
In a lot of rental properties the infrastructure is all in place, it's just not used because having a gas supply introduces addition liabilities for the landlord and while electric heating is usually a lot more expensive this isn't the landlord's problem as the tenant pays for heating costs.
Re: Switching to EVs does very little good if (Score:2)
Must have been because they were rentals in the uk then.
Its not something used here is aus though
Re: (Score:2)
A nuclear power plant on the other hand can be put inside a sturdy bunker.
Which is exactly why NPP's have high capital costs, the huge amount of concrete for thermal containment. Now you propose more so basically you're proposing a NPP that will never be built.
Re: (Score:2)
Storage is gasoline is much easier and cheaper than storage of electricity... You can gain some level of control by purchasing it in advance and holding it in containers.
If the grid is using your electric vehicle for storage, then it will increase the wear on your battery and could result in the battery being depleted when you expect to use the car.
If a country is using solar power for generation then not only will it generate nothing at night, the power usage will be higher due to heating in cooler countri
Re:Switching to EVs does very little good if (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit!
CO2 emissions are lower for EVs that are charged using power generated using natural gas than ICE vehicles power by gasoline.
Re: (Score:2)
CNG does produce less CO2 per BTU/joule/calorie than gasoline. However Natural Gas powered engines tend to run hot which means more NO2. Unlike CO2, NO2 is visible and fairly toxic. Even with compression, Natural Gas tends to take up a lot of volume -- which often mean somewhat less payload space. One other drawback is that Natural Gas is probably more likely to catch fire in an accident than gasoline or diesel.
Presumably all that can be dealt with.
But all in all CNG is probably a perfectly OK vehicle f
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Switching to EVs does very little good if (Score:5, Insightful)
All you're doing is shifting the CO2 emissions from the tailpipe to the smokestack.
Think about that "all" for a bit. Also the "CO2" in front of "emissions".
You get to shift 100% of tailpipe emissions of all types, not just CO2, out of city centres and suburbs to large scale powerplants that can run at maximum efficiency with much more effective scrubbers. That's a set of major gains right there.
Re: (Score:3)
All you're doing is shifting the CO2 emissions from the tailpipe to the smokestack.
Think about that "all" for a bit. Also the "CO2" in front of "emissions". You get to shift 100% of tailpipe emissions of all types, not just CO2, out of city centres and suburbs to large scale powerplants that can run at maximum efficiency with much more effective scrubbers. That's a set of major gains right there.
... and then you can swap out that set of large scale fossil fuel burning power plant for something with a much lower carbon footprint and enjoy an even large set of major gains.
Re:Switching to EVs does very little good if (Score:5, Informative)
Electric vehicles are 4 to 5 times as efficient as internal combustion engines.
So shifting from gasoline cars to coal powered power plants saves minimum 50% of the fuel (coal powered plants are only ~42% efficient, cars are below 20%)
Re:Switching to EVs does very little good if (Score:5, Informative)
From https://www.theguardian.com/fo... [theguardian.com]: (with a nice infographic :) )
For every 100km travelled in a petrol car ... ... it takes 26 megajoules to get petrol out of the ground and transport it to the car ... ... and the car itself uses 142 megajoules to move itself around.
For the same distance in an electric car, using electricity generated in an oil-fired power plant ... it takes 74 megajoules to generate and transport the electricity to the car ... ... which then uses just 38 megajoules to move itself and its passengers
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Passenger car diesel engines have energy efficiency of up to 41% but more typically 30%, and petrol engines of up to 37.3%, but more typically 20%
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Gasoline engines effectively use only 15% of the fuel energy content to move the vehicle or to power accessories, and diesel engines can reach on-board efficiency of 20%, while electric vehicles have on-board efficiency of over 90%, when counted against stored chemical energy, or around 80%, when counted against required energy to recharge
And finally, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]:
Typical thermal efficiency for utility-scale electrical generators is around 37% for coal and oil-fired plants[4], and 56 – 60% (LEV) for combined-cycle gas-fired plants.
I couldn't find good statistics on energy costs of mining and transporting coal, pumping up and refining oil, and pumping up gas but I'm sure they're on the wiki somewhere :). Also, no idea of the energy cost of assembling the batteries vs an ICE but I would assume over the total lifetime of the car it should be negligible.
In any case, the most "optimistic" comparison (from the EV point of view) it gets total fossil-to-wheels efficiency of .6*.8=48%. The most pessimistic is .37*.8=30%. The former figure is lower than total ICE efficiency, while the latter figure is comparable. The statistics from the Guardian link above (which have the ICE use 3.7 times the energy per distance traveled) seems to be close to the 20% vs 80% comparison.
All in all, there does seem evidence for assuming that an EV will get better total energy efficiency, but it will be more like 1.5-2x as efficiency and not an order of magnitude better. Of course, an EV fleet gives better options for generating power - ICEs can only use fossil fuels or biofuels (which are problematic in many cases), while EVs can use anything that generates electricity. Especially solar seems a good idea for Israel.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Switching to EVs does very little good if 95% of your electricity generation is via fossil fuels [www.lnrg.technology].
Ah yes. Can't talk about EVs on Slashdot without somebody claiming that they pollute as much or more than gasoline burning cars because, whatever. And again, I point out that there are excellent reasons for moving to electric vehicles that have nothing to do with pollution reduction. I guess I'm going to have to spell this out for you, but given how many petroleum producing countries aren't friendly to Israel and at least one questions its right to even exist, it seems logical to me for Israel to move a
Re: (Score:2)
While they are less efficient than the large generators used in power plants, you are converting chemical energy directly into (mostly) kinetic energy...
For a power plant you are converting chemical energy into heat, converting the heat into kinetic energy, converting the kinetic energy into electrical energy, transmitting the electrical energy a long distance, storing it in a battery and finally converting it into kinetic energy.
Each of these steps introduces inefficiencies, so the overall difference isnt
Re:The poor get screwed (Score:5, Insightful)
Shocking story but powertrains in vehicles fail to. And most EVs seem to have warranties on batteries of 10 years
Re: (Score:2)
Shocking story but powertrains in vehicles fail to. And most EVs seem to have warranties on batteries of 10 years
10 years seems like a good long warranty until you realize the average car on the road in the USA is already older than that. The average age of a vehicle in the USA is 11.6 years (yes, I realize TFA is about Israel).
Yes, the engine/transmission in an I.C. vehicle can crap out, but there's a lot of cheap(ish) ways to get a broken I.C. car back on the road.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Toyota now gives a lifetime warranty on the Prius batteries, even on my old car (they upgraded the warranty). They would never do that if it would cost them real money.
As for my car : my batteries are now a decade old, the car is parked outside in winter and when skiing, as well as in summer. There is no noticeable degradation of the batteries.
The whole fear of battery degradation is overblown.
Re:The poor get screwed (Score:4, Insightful)
If they can't afford to get to work, who's going to clean toilets and flip burgers? Will toilets go uncleaned and burgers unflipped, or will employers be forced to pay more for low wage jobs?
Re: (Score:3)
Israeli law requires employers to pay travel expenses to and from the job site.
Re: (Score:3)
Israel has about a third [wikipedia.org] the rate of car ownership of the USA. I can see that the 'poor', and even the middle-class, might find the cost of a private vehicle becomes uneconomic. Maybe. It's an interesting thought.
And, BTW, what is going on in San Marino? With its land area, pretty everywhere appears to be within walking distance, and yet there's 1.3 cars per person!
Re:The poor get screwed (Score:4, Informative)
Israel charges 150% tax on personal automobiles. Reducing this tax to (near) zero for CNG and EVs will make them cheaper than most new cars currently on the road.
Re:The poor get screwed (Score:5, Informative)
As someone who lives in Israel I can confirm, car ownership is more of an upper middle class family thing.
A monthly pass for public transportation in the local metropolitan area costs about $80, half that if you're a student or senior citizen.
And you'd probably get on the bus you need within 15 minutes if you're in a city.
Re:The poor get screwed (Score:5, Informative)
Not pure EVs but I've got two 12 year old hybrid vehicles (2006 Toyota Highlander Hybrid and 2006 Lexus RX400H) and their batteries are still going strong. And these are practically first generation electric hybrids so you'd think the batteries have gotten better since then.
Re:The poor get screwed (Score:4, Informative)
The elephant in the room with EVs is that they become economically unfeasible to keep on the road once the battery pack sufficiently degrades.
Bullcrap. The first Prius went on sale in 1997, and many of them have more than 300k miles. They are mostly still running fine.
Re:The poor get screwed (Score:5, Informative)
One second-gen Prius I was familiar with made it upwards of 200k. What finally did it in was the piston rings. Considering what it was supposed to represent, death by burning oil is kind of ironic. Can't really complain about the service lifetime, though. I would not be the least bit surprised if the battery pack and drive train were sold before they even got it back to the scrapyard. The Prius uses a very conservative power cycle range, because the batteries were still a bit of an unknown in practice. It turns out the batteries were as good as claimed or slightly better, and Toyota's over-engineering means they'll live decades.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, the battery pack of my mother's civic hybrid failed at 68k km.
Re:The poor get screwed (Score:5, Informative)
Nissan Leafs have air cooled battery packs rather than liquid cooled and that's why their lifespan has been relatively short. Teslas and even Chevy Volts have much more sophisticated cooling systems and degradation so far is almost non-existant.
In fact a 2011 Chevy Volt had racked up over 450,000 miles as of this last Summer with no noticeable degradation of battery life.
Re: (Score:2)
Nissan suxx because of perfect storm they had: new and untested battery chemistry, hot climate, bad cooling, no over-provisioning.
E6 has air cooled brick batteries, close to no over-provisioning, and manages to do better than Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
And it is mostly sold in hot places, on top of that.
Re: (Score:2)
False choice. You don't have to choose between the environment and "giving the middle finger to the poor", and how is trashing the environment NOT giving everyone, including the poor, the middle finger?
Having the poor drive our most polluting cars hardly seems like the right way to go about it. Cars are an arbitrary solution anyway, not clear why we need to figure out how keep the poor in cars, or anyone else for that matter. Need to see the bigger picture.
Re: (Score:2)
And once EVs become a significant portion of vehicles on the road, there will be a market for pack replacements. Junk yards will salvage packs from relatively ne
Re: (Score:2)
What do you call an ICE vehicle with 200,000 miles on it? Typically: "scrap".
EV batteries will last over 200,000 miles and EVs don't have as many moving parts to wear out. EVs are much more likely to be running at high mileage and years than an ICE.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that chemicals in batteries don't go anywhere and just need to be separated and re-textured into desired structure again right?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know when they figure out how to do that with these new battery chemistries.
The old lead-acid batteries are recycled all the time unlike those used in electric vehicles and laptops. They can be recycled into new raw materials but not always to the purity needed for new batteries. More likely the batteries are recycled into steel alloys than anything. Photovoltaic cells are the same way, they can't be recycled into new solar panels but they might be good for use as metallurgical grade silicon.
Re: (Score:2)
Run me through the logic of EVs becoming economically infeasible once the pack degrades again? Because packs that have been going for 100k miles are still showing 80% or better SoH, and charging is still something a large proportion of folks could in principle do at home with off-street wall-boxes, and night-time electricity is pretty damn cheap.
Re:The poor get screwed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yet another delusional autistic grammar fuck who is ignorant of the fact that the little book Robert Lowth shat out in 1762 was merely a proposal of restrictions on English grammar using Latin rules and other random brain farts he thought would be wonderful. Creative writing has ignored it often since then to the present day. Loath the Lowth, set your puny little mind free.
Re: (Score:3)
Long live Stannis Baratheon, the one true king of grammar.
Re: (Score:2)
While that may be true, I think "less than 100" does sound more awkward.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any particular reason for lying? Are you trying to make a stupid joke, or are you just a bigot?
Re: (Score:2)
He means that the word for bomb in Hebrew is , while the word for war is , and as you can see they share only one letter, .
So what did you mean by this? It's like a sub-David Brent witticism. At least he was right about "team" and "me".
Re:But bombs are okay (Score:4, Interesting)
Because you can't spell war without bomb. (In Hebrew.)
If you think about it, Israel is the perfect country to go all electric. Small enough that you can drive the entire country in one charge. Best of all, none of your neighbors like you so you don't have to worry about taking a road trip to neighboring areas. It's like the US, but on a smaller scale.
Re: But bombs are okay (Score:3)
Best of all, none of your neighbors like you
Tell that to our neighbors who're so desperate to come here; apparently they didn't get your memo.
Re: (Score:2)
Soooo....you know how you don't like absurd over-simplifications? And you know how you then said "Happiness is EARNED"? Don't you think that might be an, um, absurd over-simplification? Or do you think babies should not be happy?
Re:Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
I wanted to see someone from outside the system take the reins for a while and shake things up.
How's that going? Is the swamp drained yet?
Re:Trump (Score:5, Funny)
I wanted to see someone from outside the system take the reins for a while and shake things up.
How's that going? Is the swamp drained yet?
Yup, he drained it straight into his administration. One of Trump's greatest achievements.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a EE and I also have a JD ( law degree, patent law ) and I voted for Trump. Not all who voted for Trump were idiots,
True. Some were merely morally corrupt shitbags who figured he'd make them richer, and who didn't give a crap anyone anyone but themselves. Every single person who decided to support Trump is also supporting racism and rape, and there's literally no way around that simple fact.
I voted for Trump because I wanted to see someone from outside the system take the reins for a while and shake things up.
And it was okay with you if they were a racist rapist who even before they became president cost the USA millions of dollars in court costs through deliberately manipulative and fraudulent business practices.
Re: Trump (Score:3)
Nobody who can actually afford an accountant would be stupid enough to ask that question.
Re: Trump (Score:5, Informative)
You're seriously claiming that legal tax-evasion via tax-havens is not a thing? Are you living under a rock? Sure, if you make all your income as a salary from a corporation, then reducing taxes on that is difficult, If you however own a corporation tax-evasion becomes easier the larger that corporation is. I mean, what do you think is the reason for basically all major multinational companies owning subsidiaries in the Caymans or other small nations with low taxes? Why do you think it is that basically all megacorps have a lower effective tax-rate on their billions of profit than you do as a employee making a million [marketwatch.com] if creative accounting doesn't exist?
The way the game works when you get to the big-league depends a bit on where you're located and what you're selling but the basic idea is pretty simple and same everywhere: you setup a couple of companies, one in whichever country you're conducting business in (company A), another in a country with suitably lax tax-laws (company B). You then for example make sure that the licensing rights of the software or whatever it is that you're selling are held by the company in the tax-haven. You then do some math and figure out that after operating expenses and salaries and all, the profit of your actual company (company A) is say 100 million. Okay, you don't want to pay taxes on all of that. Well great, you just make a contractual arrangement so that company A has to pay licensing fees to company B to the tune of say, 95 million, and suddenly the profit of company A goes down to 5 million, and the 95 million gets moved to your tax-haven company that pays next to no tax on it.
Variations of this model are so common it's basically a public secret. It's how Apple & al have been dodging billions in taxes for years now. The most common of these arrangements used by US corporations especially to shield around a hundred billion from american taxation a year was known as the Double Irish [wikipedia.org] that used to be combined with what the accountants call a Dutch sandwhich [wikipedia.org]. Basically using Irish and Dutch tax and IP law to move massive amounts of profits from the EU to Bermuda and other tax-havens.
These schemes were forced to be closed by the European Union (American officials and government seemed not to care one bit even though the existence and use of these schemes was known for decades and even though it cost the US a lot in lost tax-revenue.) in 2014. However, Ireland, not wanting to lose all the corporate business especially on the IT-side that this loophole had brought them basically just re-instated the loophole (now known as the 'single malt' [wikipedia.org] arrangement and used by for example Microsoft and probably Facebook) with slightly changed wording and application, but it's essentially still there and still used.
Hell, there's an entire wiki article on Ireland as a tax-haven [wikipedia.org], which states at the very beginning:
And Ireland is by far not the only country with such (intentional) loopholes in the laws, it's just the most commonly used. But yeah, clearly because you personally cannot avoid paying taxes on your million or so of (presumably wage) income, that means it must be impossible,
Re: (Score:3)
by good fortune you mean hard work? Ofc there is always an element of fortune but that is useless if no work has been done.
The strongest correlator to financial success is who your parents are and what their social status is. It has little to nothing to do with hard work. If hard work were the best predictor of success then the world would be dominated by single mothers, maintenance workers, and jizz moppers.