Why the Electric-Car Revolution May Take a Lot Longer Than Expected (technologyreview.com) 254
New submitter magzteel shares a report from MIT Technology Review: A new report from the MIT Energy Initiative warns that EVs may never reach the same sticker price so long as they rely on lithium-ion batteries, the energy storage technology that powers most of today's consumer electronics. In fact, it's likely to take another decade just to eliminate the difference in the lifetime costs between the vehicle categories, which factors in the higher fuel and maintenance expenses of standard cars and trucks. The findings sharply contradict those of other research groups, which have concluded that electric vehicles could achieve price parity with gas-powered ones in the next five years. The lingering price difference predicted by the MIT report could stunt the transition to lower-emission vehicles, requiring governments to extend subsides or enact stricter mandates to achieve the same adoption of EVs and cuts in climate pollution.
The problem is that the steady decline in the cost of lithium-ion batteries, which power electric vehicles and account for about a third of their total cost, is likely to slow in the next few years as they approach limits set by the cost of raw materials. Current lithium-ion battery packs are estimated to cost from around $175 to $300 per kilowatt-hour. (A typical midrange EV has a 60/kWh battery pack.) A number of commercial and academic researchers have projected that the costs of such batteries will reach $100/kWh by 2025 or before, which many proclaim is the "magic number" where EVs and gas-fueled vehicles reach retail price parity without subsidies. And they would continue to fall from there. But reaching the $100 threshold by 2030 would require material costs to remain flat for the next decade, during a period when global demand for lithium-ion batteries is expected to rise sharply, MIT's "Insights into Future Mobility" study notes. It projects that costs will likely fall only to $124 per kilowatt-hour by then. At that point, the "total cost of ownership" between the categories would be about the same, given the additional fuel and maintenance costs of gas-fueled vehicles. The price of an EV with 200 miles of range "would still run thousands of dollars more than a comparable gas-fueled vehicle in many areas," the report adds. "While closing the gap on total cost of ownership would be a solid step for electric vehicles, the average consumer is very sensitive to the upfront price tag -- and what it equates to in monthly payments."
The problem is that the steady decline in the cost of lithium-ion batteries, which power electric vehicles and account for about a third of their total cost, is likely to slow in the next few years as they approach limits set by the cost of raw materials. Current lithium-ion battery packs are estimated to cost from around $175 to $300 per kilowatt-hour. (A typical midrange EV has a 60/kWh battery pack.) A number of commercial and academic researchers have projected that the costs of such batteries will reach $100/kWh by 2025 or before, which many proclaim is the "magic number" where EVs and gas-fueled vehicles reach retail price parity without subsidies. And they would continue to fall from there. But reaching the $100 threshold by 2030 would require material costs to remain flat for the next decade, during a period when global demand for lithium-ion batteries is expected to rise sharply, MIT's "Insights into Future Mobility" study notes. It projects that costs will likely fall only to $124 per kilowatt-hour by then. At that point, the "total cost of ownership" between the categories would be about the same, given the additional fuel and maintenance costs of gas-fueled vehicles. The price of an EV with 200 miles of range "would still run thousands of dollars more than a comparable gas-fueled vehicle in many areas," the report adds. "While closing the gap on total cost of ownership would be a solid step for electric vehicles, the average consumer is very sensitive to the upfront price tag -- and what it equates to in monthly payments."
No problem (Score:2)
Another coup [commondreams.org] or two and that'll be stitched up.
Re:No problem (Score:5, Informative)
Another coup [commondreams.org] or two and that'll be stitched up.
That was a painful read.
It goes on about how Morales nationalized their mining industry but then mentions Bolivia paid compensation to the mining companies so now the nationalization should be history as far as anyone is concerned. It makes a link without any evidence whatsoever, that there was a link between Bolivia offering the Lithium to the Chinese and Morales being removed from power, but I can't imagine the Chinese would have done anything other than use it to produce batteries as cheaply as possible which would have benefited Tesla just as much.
The reality is that the people of Bolivia rejected his attempt to extend the presidential term limits through a referendum but he ran again anyways. Half of Bolivia wanted him gone, but the article mentions none of that.
And then there was this: "After the coup, Tesla’s stock rose astronomically." The implication here being, that the change in leadership caused Tesla's stock price to jump. The author can't come out and say it, since it would be a complete lie, but the author implies it.
Shoddy journalism at it's finest
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We have to do better than batteries that are too dangerous to fly with and which use a single-source element. This is economically coming to be petroleum all over again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So the entire globe can now share in lithium resources without a ethno-nationalist leader who only cares about the interests his own people getting in the way?
That is actually horse shit. He wasn't against selling it. He only wanted the sale to benefit the people of his nation. Now that won't happen, and you're celebrating, because to you the ends justify any means.
Re: (Score:3)
Morales was the president of Bolivia. It sounds like he pissed off a lot of transnational corporations by nationalizing his countries resources for the benefit of the citizens of Bolivia.
The salt flats in Bolivia happen to have people living there and like it or not, but it is their land and no one else has any right to it but them. They should not have to cut a deal with anyone if they don't see a benefit to themselves. Morales actually sounded like he was doing his job by not ignoring the current property
Yeah, about that.. (Score:5, Informative)
VW says they are paying 100$/kWh for batteries today. Not 2025 or 2030.
Re:Yeah, about that.. (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the link that backs you up: https://www.businessinsider.com/vw-electric-cars-battery-costs-versus-tesla-2019-9
Too bad the authors of the original study and of the MIT Tech Review didn't know how to use, you know, Google?
Re:Yeah, about that.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah... will never hire another MIT engineer. To be fair, the paper is referring to module rather than cell cost, but the idea that module integration would add that much and be unable to improve economy is just stupid.
The roadmap suggests $85-90 will come soon, without major innovations. The article also ignores the dramatic reduction in engineering and manufacturing complexity associated with EVs.
What we might not see are 500-mile range EVs that can recharge completely in 15 minutes being at price parity with ICE vehicles... but even that is on the horizon.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if the pricing weren't totally off the study would still be wrong. What we are learning is that EVs with proper battery management systems have a much longer working life than an ICE. Tesloop has Model Ss which are approaching 500k miles without major issues. People are getting the message too -- a recent study showed that young people are willing to spend more on an EV because they understand the running costs (fuel, maintenance) are lower and they have a much longer working life.
Re: (Score:2)
The report ignores one major advantage. When was the last time you took raw oil and turned it into tax free petrol or diesel, well for by far the majority of you NEVER EVER. So how about an electric vehicle, can you create you own tax free energy, OF COURSE, roof solar panels and batteries, all tax free. So as a capital investment on your suburban home, solar panels with batteries and an electric car with batteries, get a far better return than putting it in the bank and you could borrow that money and gene
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yeah, about that.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a Model 3 that I use to commute here in the Boston area. It's a 50 mile round trip and I use around 10% each way, so about 15 kWh each week day. Weekend probably isn't that different. Using a solar panel sizing website says that I need between 5000 and 6000 watt system to generate that much electricity. So doable, but certainly non-trivial cost to set up. When I just look at my electric bill, it's costing me a LOT less than my previous car ( Subaru ). I leased a BEV similar to a a Leaf before I got the Model 3, and I would go to great lengths to avoid using the heat in the winter, but that's just not an issue in the Tesla. I keep the cabin at 70 degrees all winter long and it's fine... A big battery makes it a non issue for me.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Gas powered cars typically become unreliable around 150k miles.
That's such bullshit. My 10+ year old Toyota is a bit under that, and it's still running fine. Now granted I just put $600 of repairs in it and I need new brakes, exhaust system, the heat shield has rusted out, I badly need a radiator flush and some new hoses, and the water pump may or may not make it another couple of years, but it's a good car! Sure it has some dents and rust, and the fuel efficiency keeps slipping a bit every year, but it's not unreliable. Right?
Re: Yeah, about that.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
TL;DR,
You beat the living fuck out of your vehicles and then wonder why they're going for a shit. My first car a '96(bought '97) Saturn SW2 failed at 540k miles, not KM. Those cars were nothing short of amazing, 1M, 2M mile saturns from the '90s are still on the road today. And it wasn't the drive train that went, it was the front subframe(engine and transmission mount) that failed after I hit a road crater and tore it away causing the engine to hit the freeway at 110km/h. That car lasted until 2011. My seco
Re: (Score:2)
Given your general posting history, I'm going to take those numbers with a massive pinch of salt and mentally divide them by 10 for realistic values.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like to believe the numbers, but his turbo diesel Golf's 780,000 km works out to something like 8,000 engine hours at 60 mph, and it's very likely he doesn't drive it only at 60 mph. It's probably closer to 10,000 engine hours.
That's a shit ton of engine hours out of any engine and usually only the kind of engine hours you see out of a heavy duty commercial truck or marine engine that's been well maintained.
If it's true, what's really impressive is that the turbocharger has lasted that long.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Electric vehicle batteries should be readily removable by an automated service
This idea was considered and rejected a decade ago for plenty of good reasons.
Today, with billions invested in charging infrastructure, the idea of battery swapping is totally dead.
Re: (Score:2)
shanghai? you obviously know nothing about NIO, who is ALL ABOUT battery-swap.
and shanghai is their home town.
I don't know, bill, I've seen your posts a lot, over the years, but I now doubt you know a fucking thing at all.
Re: (Score:2)
N18 has one model that can swap. 95% of their cars can not.
They have a total of 18 swap-stations, all on the same road. So far it is just a pilot program. There is little reason to believe they will succeed where so many others have failed.
There are over 400,000 EV charging stations in China [renewableenergyworld.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At the end of the day, the only people who complain about charging times are people who don't use the superchargers. They imagine the process to be something that it isn't, and/or have already made up their mind about electric cars and just want to justify their decision
Indeed. Many ICE-people way overestimate the "range problem".
My family has a Model-S and a Honda minivan.
I gas up the Honda at Costco twice a month. It takes me about 15 minutes each time. That is 24*(15/60) = 6 hours of waiting. Add another hour for oil changes twice a year.
My spouse drives our daughter to college twice a year, with a 20 minute supercharge in each direction. That is 1.33 hours. So the EV has much LESS total waiting time.
But what if you have to drive long distances regularly, and you
Re: (Score:3)
I gas up the Honda at Costco twice a month. It takes me about 15 minutes each time.
Why does it take so long?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time you were in China?
About a year ago. But I was in Sanya, not Shanghai. Sanya is usually one of the last places to get new tech, so I didn't see any electric taxis.
But I may not have noticed since I didn't use any taxis. I took a bus from the airport, and then used the bicycle I had left in my MIL's condo.
Sanya is the Key West of China ... or maybe the Kona of China.
Beautiful city. Very clean air since the winds blow in from the ocean. Watch for pickpockets.
Sanya, Hainan [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The report ignores one major advantage. When was the last time you took raw oil and turned it into tax free petrol or diesel, well for by far the majority of you NEVER EVER. So how about an electric vehicle, can you create you own tax free energy, OF COURSE, roof solar panels and batteries, all tax free.
Every piece of hardware in your charging setup is taxed.
So as a capital investment on your suburban home, solar panels with batteries and an electric car with batteries, get a far better return than putting it in the bank and you could borrow that money and generate a return over and above interest paid.
That isn't how math works.
Re: (Score:2)
Every piece of hardware in your charging setup is taxed.
Yes, once. Not over and over again.
That isn't how math works.
You're conflating recurring costs with initial investments and you want to talk about how math works?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That means the United States of Awesomness will have those roads as the last country in the world, if at all.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that governments at all levels won't look to replace gas taxes with equivalent on electric vehicles, and second won't implement those taxes on your "free" power, just take another toke and relax...
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that governments at all levels won't look to replace gas taxes with equivalent on electric vehicles, and second won't implement those taxes on your "free" power, just take another toke and relax...
It's already the case everywhere in the US that I'm aware of that residential solar power installations must be integrated with the utility power and what you don't use is sold to the utility. All that would be needed is building ordinances (or a Federal law or regulation) forbidding connecting residential solar power directly to a vehicle charger as that's essentially illegal tax avoidance. Charging an EV means that the power is taxed and fees paid through your utility bill. As the amount of taxes from fue
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
VW says...
Yeah, about that...
(whips out VW's Guide to Winning with Emissions)
And the sponsors of the MIT project include ... (Score:5, Informative)
Aramco, Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron and Shell. (+ Toyota and a few others).
http://energy.mit.edu/research/mobilityofthefuture/
Re:And the sponsors of the MIT project include ... (Score:5, Insightful)
And faulty logic regardless of who sponsors it.
the average consumer is very sensitive to the upfront price tag -- and what it equates to in monthly payments."
The fact that people make monthly payments eliminates consumer's sensitivity to up front price tags. That's why so many cars ares sold by their monthly price.
If they are pricing cars by monthly payments then you can easily say "$300/mo loan + $10mo electrcity = $310/mo for EV vs $250/mo loan + $100mo gasoline = $350/mo for ICE"
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you can believe that a bunch of companies who are heavily involved in fossil fuels would sponsor a real independent study, but consider this:
"Current lithium-ion battery packs are estimated to cost from around $175 to $300 per kilowatt-hour. (A typical midrange EV has a 60/kWh battery pack.)"
This is fiction. Both VW and Tesla are down to $100/kWh for their batteries. I don't believe it costs between $75 and $200 per kWh to assemble the batteries into packs.
The study is flawed and (based on the inclusi
Re: And the sponsors of the MIT project include .. (Score:2)
There are a lot of variables, but if you're paying $100 a month for gas, then $25-$50 a month for an electric is a lot more realistic than $10, and still pretty dang good.
Re: (Score:2)
At least until they start adding the transportation taxes to electricity used for vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, that is a retarded calculation. An EV only needs one fivs of the energy an ICE needs. On top of that, depending on country on taxes that energy costs not even a tenth of gasoline.
If you burn $250 for gasoline, the same amount for an EV is indeed $10 - $25.
Re: (Score:2)
Also as Vehicle to Grid becomes more widely available people will be able to use their vehicle for more than just transport. Nissan has been using Leafs for whole-house UPS for a decade now, and in Europe we are seeing V2G trials where the vehicle's battery is used to supply energy back to the grid at peak times.
Even if the vehicle does cost a bit more to buy that cost will quickly be recovered.
Re: And the sponsors of the MIT project include .. (Score:2)
That's why you have salesmen in the first place. And marketing. It's not that hard to sell the average consumer on paying $50 more per month on the financing/lease when you can promise to save them $150 per month on fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Aramco, Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron and Shell. (+ Toyota and a few others).
http://energy.mit.edu/research... [mit.edu]
I work for one of the companies you listed so let me help you explain why it is you may see that list of companies. You see part of our core business is to understand how people use our products. We start projects that may 5-10 years to start producing revenue and even longer to produce results. As such we join in consortium and pay money to researchers and universities to help us understand how the future will affect our products.
You see this as some evil conspiracy, however the investment in this research
Re: (Score:2)
Also note the odd wording in the summary, "could stunt the transition to lower-emission vehicles". This seems as if they're assuming EV is the only way to lower emissions. Never mind that we've been steadily lowering auto emissions since the 70s. There are still choices in between getting a pure electric vehicle and going for large SUV or truck for commuter purposes. There are many gasoline powered vehicles that have far lower emissions than the average auto sold in the US. More MPG means fewer emission
Seriously? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It looks pretty cool to me. Most of the people who drive pickups and care what they look like are basically five year olds.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of truck do you think could be designed by a bunch of hipsters from the Silicone Valley.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
Which describes EVERY pickup with an "industry standard 6.5 ft" bed. If you can't fucking drop a stack of plywood or sheetrock into it, it's a play truck not a work truck.
If you can't drop some 6"x6"x10' pressure treated posts into it without worrying they'll fall out, that's not a work truck.
And the icing on the cake, if you're talking about putting more than 2 people into it, it's not a work truck. Every time I see one of these fucking "supercab with a 6' bed" monstrosities advertised, I'm like, "What you want is a Suburban with the back seats out and maybe a roof-rack."
That's what this is competing with. It fucking seats 6!!!!
Re: Seriously? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you can't fucking drop a stack of plywood or sheetrock into it, it's a play truck not a work truck.
No lie. You can literally load full sheets of plywood into a Chrysler Pacifica, and that's not even really a minivan any more, it's more like a cab forward station wagon. It's super low-roof.
And the icing on the cake, if you're talking about putting more than 2 people into it, it's not a work truck.
No, you're wrong about that part. More seats means you can take more people to the job site. The best configuration for a work truck is a four door long (or flat) bed 4x4. Then it can go places, take people there, and carry materials. Sure, it's cumbersome, but so what? It's a work truck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people aren't comprehending the need to limit demand for the first model. This is exactly the sort of design they need; something distinctive enough to stand out for the serious fans, but practical enough only for some small segment of the market. Then they can make the body nicer after they have the manufacturing up to speed.
People are talking about the design and the problem of it being ugly or whatever, but the real question that remains is will it be accepted by the public that it is a "truck?"
Translation: We're Making Things Up As We Go. (Score:3, Interesting)
The lifetime cost of EVs is already lower than the lifetime cost of gasoline-powered vehicles.
Total savings: $45,750 – $49,750 versus non-hybrid cars, $28678 – $32678 versus hybrid cars.
That's considerably more than the cost of replacing the battery, even if it only lasts 300k miles.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I guess your numbers might work, if I went to the Cadillac dealer to get my brake job. The Mercedes dealer for an oil change. Hell, there's probably a Jaguar mechanic in my metro area who I could hire to change wiper blades.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess your numbers might work, if I went to the Cadillac dealer to get my brake job. The Mercedes dealer for an oil change. Hell, there's probably a Jaguar mechanic in my metro area who I could hire to change wiper blades.
Clever post. Of course, we might consider that the wiper change by a *Jaguar dealership (*I pronounce it in my head in the British fashion) could plausible affect the operational cost of an elkectric vehicle... nontheless, the opportunity cost of an ICE might be more than we can sustain, as Earthly citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, there's probably a Jaguar mechanic in my metro area who I could hire to change wiper blades.
EVs need wiper blades too, so that wouldn't matter.
Also, because of their rapid acceleration, EV tires may need replacing more frequently than ICEs. If you drive conservatively, this isn't an issue, but half the fun of owning an EV is the performance.
Re: (Score:2)
EV tires may need replacing more frequently than ICEs
EVs are heavier so they will require tires more frequently then ICEs. Or possibly more expensive tires - either way it will cost more.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, which probably roughly cancels out the oil changes, ignoring the value of all the time you spend waiting for oil changes. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rain, too. Also, in an accident, you're much less likely to flip one because of the low CoG.
Re: (Score:3)
My last brake job was IIRC $750 from Jiffy Lube. That $500 estimate is actually towards the bottom end of the cost range for brake replacement if they replace the rotors, which these days, most shops do.
Sure, you can save money by turning the rotors once before replacing them, but you run the risk of squealing and, possibly, warping, which is why this is becoming less and less common.
Re: (Score:2)
Jiffy Lube charged you $600 to install $150 worth of parts.
Re: (Score:2)
At least for my car, the four rotors alone run over $200, plus pads, so it is probably closer to $300 in parts. In other words, they charged $450 to install $300 in parts. That's California for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you drive some sort of super exotic car, you got (extremely) ripped off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I have a 3rd gen Toyota Prius that cost 25K when new. The car now has 140K miles on odo. The only service it ever needed is new tires, oil change, and coolant change once. It still has the original brakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Translation: We're Making Things Up As We Go. (Score:4, Informative)
there are other cost-lowering things. for a lot of companies (bay area, at least), they are now offering free charging for employees. its goodwill, it does not cost that much, its win/win for everyone.
I recently switched to an electric; partially due to the free charging we get at work.
the $300/mo I would have spent on gas - its now mine to use as I wish. this was a big motivator for me.
Re:Translation: We're Making Things Up As We Go. (Score:4, Insightful)
Transmission: ~100k miles on average for non-hybrid gasoline-powered cars; never for EVs. Savings per 300k miles: $3,500
Wow you are really pulling numbers out of your nether regions. This isn’t the 1970s. If you take care of your transmission, there’s a good chance it’s going to still be functional at 300K.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, I've had three transmissions fail before 100k out of the two ICE cars that I've owned personally. You can get lucky and make it 300k on an automatic transmission, but the odds are not in your favor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Translation: We're Making Things Up As We Go. (Score:2)
My sunday car is 2002 oldsmobile Aurora
What brand of adult diapers do you prefer?
Naive (Score:2)
Now add 5% compound capital gains on that initial price differential. And besides it's not like shit doesn't break with electric cars. Suspension can still crap out. AC, electronics, etc. And all of it is specialized in an electric car. I mean I get it, you got a Tesla, I'm happy for you. But don't pretend this shit is cheaper than a gasoline car at this point. That's simply not true for most people, same as it was a decade ago with hybrids.
Re:Translation: We're Making Things Up As We Go. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're pulling numbers out of your ass. Are you saying transmissions are only good for 100,000 miles? Most don't even need a fluid change until that number.
Re: (Score:3)
thats very generous towards the ev not needing things like bearings, engine work, shafts, powertrain etc work. you know the stuff that usually junks a car at 300k. whats the depreciation for chevy volts like? or nissan leafs?
Ev makes sense already in some countries(for the consumer) where the ev has a lot, a loooot less tax on it(it having no co2 tax).
you want to know how fscking much a corvette costs in finland? tesla doesn't cost _that_ much more than in usa, but the vette is in the double what it woul
Re:Translation: We're Making Things Up As We Go. (Score:4, Informative)
Brakes:About $240 per job [autoservicecosts.com], average, so about $1200 instead of $2500 over 300K miles
Transmission:About $150 per service [transmissi...tguide.com], or $450 for that 300K mile range
Sensors: Huh? Like an EV doesn't have sensors? Let's just say you mean the O2 sensor. That would cost about $850 [repairpal.com], but it's 100% warrantied (by law) for 100K/10 years (emissions control), so that's maybe once in 300K miles?
Oil changes: $32 average per change [nerdwallet.com], and one ever 7500 miles or so, meaning $1280 for 300K miles
Fuel costs: About 25 MPG is the current average [foxnews.com], so those 300K miles will use about 12,000 gallons of gas. At $4 per gallon (California), that's $48,000. For electricity, expect $0.171 minimum per kWh [desertsun.com], at least in California. for those 100,000 kWh that's another $17,000
Using REAL numbers, we see the ICE will run you about $34,700 more. Now factor in the EV price differential (say an entry Tesla model 3 at $45000 versus a similar sized/class ICE vehicle, the Toyota Camry, at $24,000 [toyota.com]), and the EV "wins" by $10,000 - OVER A 300K LIFETIME.
Assuming the average 13,500 miles annually [mycarinsurance123.com], you're talking about saving about $450 per YEAR for 22 years. With the initial price differential of $20,000, and assuming we amortize those extra ICE costs annually ($34,700 divided by 22 years, or $1600 per year), it will take you about 12 YEARS before you 'break even' on the initial cost of the vehicle.
In other words, your analysis might have stroked your ego for choosing as you did, but in the real world - it doesn't work out.
PS: I won't talk about the $10,000 cost "win" over 300K, as being less than the price to swap out the battery...
Assuming lithium goes up and oil goes down.... (Score:2)
They're assuming the cost of lithium goes up and oil goes down. The latter doesn't seem terribly likely, and lithium has been dropping pretty much constantly since a high in 2018. There's a lot of lithium around, so the price is probably strongly affected by how fast new mining operations can ramp up to meet supply.
I bought a new car last year. I looked at a model 3 and the TCO seemed considerably lower than gas already, before subsidies. Gas is more expensive in Canada though.
The up front price sensitivity
Re: (Score:2)
They're assuming the cost of lithium goes up and oil goes down. The latter doesn't seem terribly likely...
Why, because the price of oil has never fluctuated? You feel those selling oil won't respond with the most obvious tactic to curtail progress or destroy the competition? They barely make any profit on it?
Give me a fucking break. With the amount of wealth in oil, they could probably whip out the Amazon playbook and sell that shit at a loss just to prove an arrogant point.
Fun game to play at parties (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually read the thing.
It was helpful that they mentioned this near the bottom of the summary page:
-----
The consortium members included:
Alfa
Aramco
BP
Chevron
Equinor
ExxonMobil
Ferrovial
General Motors
Shell
Toyota Mobility Foundation
Also, conclusion: Fuel cells make more sense than batteries in the long run.
The interesting thing is that I keep reading these dire predictions that say "This thing that everyone thinks is the future, isn't. It's a too-hard problem that we won't figure out." In the last couple months, these categories include: Widespread adoption of electric vehicles, quantum computers, autonomous driving, any sort of habitation on Mars, human-level AGI, prevention of climate change. You know why Moore's law worked/works? Nothing to do with silicon per se. It just comes down to the amount of effort people are willing to put into improving a thing, when technical improvements can be made without too much cost, people will aim to double the value on each iteration of improvement. Battery tech hit an inflection point a few years ago that made it possible to grow an enormous industry around lithium ion. As the scale goes up, so will the research. More money and effort will be poured into making them better, not less. Innovation and economies of scale will drive costs down repeatedly.
Look back 100 years and notice the total transformation of our economies and societies. How silly all of the predictions from 100 years ago looked. Now look forward 100 years and expect the same scale of change. So long as civilization is relatively stable, we'll get there. Maybe we'll just blow ourselves up or back into the stone age. If we don't, it'll be way way different than all of the straight-line predictions.
What about new battery technologies? (Score:2)
UMPOSSIBLE (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean to tell me every other post on here and reddit proclaiming how altenergy is already cheaper and easier to use than standard fuel is a lie? Can't have it both ways.
This reminds me of a joke...
Do you know what a physician calls alternative medicine that works? They call it medicine.
Alternative energy is called an alternative because it doesn't work. Perhaps it is a matter of availability or difficulty to produce but this is just different ways to describe the fact that it costs more.
The growth in solar and wind power is not keeping up with growth in demand, meaning we are still building natural gas power plants. It's because new natural gas has been replacing old co
Re: (Score:2)
The reason you call it "alternative energy" is because you are a dinosaur. Everyone else calls it "renewable energy", because the point is that there is always more of it, unlike other energy forms that involve burning things that are going to run out.
Funnily enough, natural gas is one of the few non-renewable energy sources that could eventually become "renewable", if we can strike a balance with nature: it is readily produced in nature, and if we can capture it and burn it at a rate similar to the rate t
Don't externalize (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't just look at one price tag for issues like this.
Electric cars have far fewer moving parts. That means much less service requirement and longer life. There are some Teslas with car leasing companies with over 400K miles on them, still going strong.
Even if they're on an electric grid powered by coal and oil, it is more efficient to turn electricity into kinetic energy than heat. This is a situation that can only improve as prices on renewables continue to fall.
As other posters have noted, battery prices are falling faster than this article claims, and R&D on new battery technologies (some of which don't depend on lithium) and supercapacitators is really ramping up now.
But finally: the impact on health and safety and climate are not to be ignored. We subsidize oil directly to the oil companies, and implicitly with an entire foreign policy and wars. Air pollution too is an oft-overlooked killer, and there are huge savings on health care costs to be had from clean air and water. To complete this interconnected relationship, the Pentagon's on the record as considering climate change a national security threat and a likely cause of war as agriculture loses its stable base, water becomes more scarce, and large populations get stressed. So, count those lives and dollars too. None of these factors are isolated from each other.
Step back and look at the big picture. Switching from ICE to electric is the right thing to do for so many reasons, and if we *were* subsidizing electric vehicles and renewables anywhere near the level we've been subsidizing oil, it would be a very positive thing.
Given this, it seems nonsensical to only go electric if it costs the same in terms of what fits on one small piece of paper.
Re: (Score:3)
Can we have nuclear power to charge up our electric cars now? If the answer is no then people are not taking the threat of global warming seriously. If nuclear power, the safest energy source we have seen in human history, is a greater threat than global warming then why is there any fear of global warming? If global warming is in fact a serious threat then nuclear power, no matter how dangerous you might think it is to people, should sound far more preferable.
Peak Lithium (Score:5, Insightful)
This is kind of the same story we've been hearing about peak oil for so many decades. Sure, if the current known global reserves of lithium don't change then the prices will start going up. But in materials mining, demand often creates supply.
Truthfully, nobody knows -- but there's no reason to panic yet. Of course, if lithium does prove a problem, there are plenty of other ways to build a battery. It's probably in our best interest to have a variety of them on the market at once so that all the varied battery technologies have an economic incentive to develop faster. No need for all eggs in one basket.
Musk solved it (Score:3)
All high end cars will be Cybertrucks in two years, the groudswell from that alone will be massive.
Cybertruck is the new Hummer.
It's a tradeoff (Score:3)
Higher capital costs (electrics) vs higher operating costs (petrol). You choose which one fits your budget.
Now would be the best time to buy an EV. Before the left gets into power and inflation/interest rates go through the roof.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Or.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Or just use ethanol and the problem goes away. And unlike electric cars, properly sourced ethanol can be a carbon negative fuel.
Define "properly".
Re: (Score:2)
Or just use ethanol and the problem goes away.
No, I'm pretty sure that there simply is not enough arable land to produce enough ethanol to replace the amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel consumed today. Ethanol fuel is an environmental and economic disaster, a fuel that exists today only because it is subsidized by politicians to buy votes and launder campaign funds.
And unlike electric cars, properly sourced ethanol can be a carbon negative fuel.
There's debate on if ethanol fuel is even energy positive, as in if we get more energy out than we put in. There's a lot of diesel fuel burned to plant, harvest, and transport the plant m
Re: (Score:2)
You go on our nerves with your rants about gasolkne etc. made with nuclear power frlm sea water and CO2, and are to stupid to know that ethanol is made the same wayË?
Re: (Score:2)
Ethanol can be CO2 neutral, not negative. To where exactly would the cafbon vanish? Into a hyperspace pocket?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when the compact fluorescent lights (CFL) hit the market. They cost $10 retail (vs. $0.50 for incandescents), and came with a long explanation about how I'd gain that back over 10 years from all the burned-out incandescents that I wasn't replacing and all the electricity I was saving. Then the CFLs started failing within a few years.
Not when they cost $10 a pop they didn't. When the price came down and the race to the bottom started then they started failing more. Either way they (a) used less el