And why it won’t matter when they do…
Guest mockery by David Middleton
CEO of world’s largest oil company says it will be ‘decades’ before electric cars become real threat
- It will be decades before electric vehicles make up a significant percentage of the global car fleet, Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser said.
- Electric cars accounted for about 0.2 percent of all the light-duty vehicles on the road in 2016.
- Crude oil demand will remain robust in the shipping, aviation and petrochemicals business even as electric cars erode demand, Nasser said.
CNBC.com
CEO of world’s biggest oil firm is not too worried about electric carsSaudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser, who runs the world’s largest oil company, is taking the rise of electric vehicles in stride.
Growing adoption of electric vehicles stands to put a big dent in oil demand in the coming years. Barclays recently forecast that cleaner-burning cars could wipe out crude consumption nearly equal to annual output from Iran, OPEC’s third-biggest oil producer, by 2025.
But while electric vehicle manufacturers are making “good progress,” battery and hybrid cars still account for just a fraction of the overall market, Nasser told CNBC in an exclusive interview. They won’t account for a significant part of the global fleet for years to come, he said.
“Electric vehicles will continue to grow. They will take good market share, but it will be decades before they shoulder a significant percentage of the energy mix.”The number of electric vehicles grew to just more than 2 million in 2016, up nearly 60 percent from the previous year, according to the International Energy Agency. They now make up about 0.2 percent of all cars on the road — a “very small percentage,” in Nasser’s view.
Nasser also points out that hybrid-electric vehicles with gas engines make up a big chunk of the total. There were about 805,000 plug-in hybrid electric cars in the world in 2016, according to IEA. That’s 40 percent of all electric vehicles.By 2030, IEA projects the electric fleet could grow to 160 million, he noted. By that time, there will be 2 billion vehicles overall, Nasser estimates.
[…]
60% growth 2015-2016 –> 0.2% “of all cars on the road.”
160,000,000 / 2,000,000,000 = 8.0% “of all cars on the road.”
Will that save us from Gorebal Warming? Apparently not…
The Number of Electric Cars on the World’s Roads Doubled Last Year
To 2 million.
The number of electric vehicles on roads worldwide rose to a record high of 2 million last year, but has a long way to go to reach levels needed to help limit an increase in global temperatures, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Wednesday.
In 2015, the number of electric cars, including battery-electric, plug-in hybrid electric and fuel cell electric passenger light-duty vehicles, was 1 million, the IEA said in a report.
Even though that doubled last year, the global electric car stock is only 0.2% of the total number of passenger light-duty vehicles in circulation.
“They have a long way to go before reaching numbers capable of making a significant contribution to greenhouse gas emission reduction targets,” the IEA said.
“In order to limit temperature increases to below 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, the number of electric cars will need to reach 600 million by 2040,” it added.
[…]
- EV = Electric Vehicles
- PEV = Plugin Electric Vehicles
- HEV = Hybid Electric Vehicles
- ICE = Internal Combustion Engine
Will 600 million EV’s save us from Gorebal Warming? Not if the total number of vehicles continues to grow at the current rate. By 2040, there will be 2.7 billion vehicles. If 600 million of them will be EV’s, the better part of 2.1 billion will be ICE (1.1 billion more than the current climate-killing total…
“But… but… the world gubmint will save us from Gorebal Warming by banning ICE-powered vehicles! France, the UK, China, Volvo and the Peoples Republic of California have already banned them!”
Sorry, my well-intentioned green friend, but “that dog don’t hunt”…
Why Petrol Powered Cars Aren’t Going Anywhere
By Peter Tertzakian – Oct 19, 2017
Internal combustion engines keep accumulating at a rate of tens of millions per year. When is the earliest date that we could expect to see “peak piston”?
Your intuition may be taxed when I say this, but more electric vehicle sales does not quickly equate to declining piston-fired cars on the world’s roadways.
Banning All Engines
In my last column, I pitched an aggressive de-carbonization scenario for transportation—a simultaneous, global ban on the sale of all new internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles by 2040. In other words, I imagined that every country in the world, from Brazil, to Nigeria, to Russia, to China, rapidly accelerates their electric vehicle (EV) sales starting in the early 2020s. And within 25 years each and every country would commit to stop selling spark plug machines.
Even under such heavy-handed government restriction, the global fleet of purely petroleum-powered cars wouldn’t start to decline until 2030 at the earliest. By 2050, it’s quite likely that there would still be the same number of ICE vehicles on the road as today.
[…]
In mature economies like the U.S., the scrappage rate was just over 4.0 percent of the fleet, but it’s been declining over time (see Figure 1). Today, it’s half of what it was in the 1970s and falling. Globally, the trend line is the same, but the rate is lower, at 3.0 percent. Car-owners in less wealthy countries can’t afford to swap their cars out, so they tend to keep their wheels for longer.
Yes, EVs are coming in, but new ICE cars are still accumulating by tens of millions per year, and are being driven for longer.
[…]
Even under an aggressive EV adoption scenario, our second figure shows that peak piston isn’t likely to occur before 2030. That’s because of the residual sales momentum and retention of petroleum power vehicles. By 2050, 60 percent of the global fleet of personal vehicles could be composed of EVs, but the number of ICE vehicles remaining on the roads would not likely to be much less than today.
But… but… but… Tony Stark Elon Musk will save us from Hydra Gorebal Warming by building 500,000 Iron Legionnaires Tesla Model 3 vehicles per year!!! He promised us!!!
Sorry, my Tesla cultist green friend, but there’s a cobalt cliff waiting for the Tesla Model 3… assuming Tesla can ever figure out how to weld steel. (How did he ever make that Iron Man suit, if he can’t weld steel?)…
The Cobalt Cliff Will Cap Tesla’s Model 3 Production Capacity At 250,000 Units Per Year
Oct.23.17 | About: Tesla Motors (TSLA)
John Petersen
Long-term horizon, nano-cap, micro-cap, alternative energy
Summary
- From a geopolitical perspective, there are two classes of cobalt supplies; metal refined in China that’s unavailable to non-Chinese customers and metal refined outside China that’s available to anyone.
- From an economic perspective, there are two classes of cobalt users – industrial users that represent half of global demand and battery manufacturers that scarf the leftovers.
- From a battery manufacturing perspective, there are two end-use segments – high-value consumer products and low-value transportation and stationary storage products.
- When one separates cobalt refined in China from cobalt refined elsewhere and further separates non-Chinese cobalt based on end use, it becomes clear there’s almost no cobalt for non-Chinese automakers.
- Tesla has no cobalt supply chain of its own and Panasonic’s supply chain can’t support the production of more than 250,000 Model 3s per year.
Introduction
Tesla (TSLA) has a problem that may be a company killer. Elon Musk has promised stakeholders a Model 3 run rate of 500,000 cars per year by the end of 2018, but Panasonic’s (OTCPK:PCRFF) cathode powder supply chain can’t support more than half of that volume. More importantly, expansion of Panasonic’s supply chain would be a Herculean task because its cathode powder supplier, Sumitomo Metal Mining (OTCPK:SMMYY), already is using 100% of its cobalt production to satisfy Panasonic’s cathode powder requirements.
While I would consider a sustained run rate of 250,000 Model 3s per year a major accomplishment, I don’t think a market that expects multiples of that production volume next year would share my admiration. Some of my readers will delight in observing that Tesla has a long history of ambitious promises backed by small and late deliveries, but that kind of criticism mutes the ugly reality that a 250,000 car per year run rate on the Model 3 won’t be enough to stem the tide of red ink or put Tesla in a position to service its debts.
We all know what happens when companies are chronically incapable of making a buck without the kind financial gimmickry that pervades Tesla’s financial reporting.
[…]
As usual, any and all sarcasm was purely intentional.
Addendum: “How commodity demand would change in a 100% EV World
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
David
Spot on as usual.
Since there is no C in AGW there is no driving need for EVs, but if for some reason they become more practical and affordable than gas powered vehicles the world as it always does will find a way to make the transition quicker than anyone could predict, but of course who cares one way or the other if that’s the case.
That Impact On Commodities chart doesn’t say whether induction motors or permanent magnet motors are assumed (Likely in the rare earths bar). There’s a big difference in Neodymium consumption. I believe Tesla has been using induction motors and the others use PM.
I agree with Bob Boder!
You done yourself proud David!
Love it!
How about a change from Gorebal Warming, to GoreBull Warming.
And the energy to charge all those batteries would be coming from where?
The average U.S. vehicle is driven 15,000 miles per year. The average PEV consumes 30 kWh per 100 miles. This works out to 4,500 kWh/yr per PEV. 600 million PEV’s would consume 2.7 million GWh/yr of electricity… about 11% of the global electricity generation on 2016.
Trebla, you should think out of the box. Ideally, we should develop a self-charging electric car. Damn the law of conservation of energy. Damn the physics. Mathematics has been already shown to be inherently racist. Be assured that university professors in equity departments are already busy working on the problem.
And how many hundreds of thousands of wind turbines will it take to supply that power?
It would be an insincere act to drive an EV without having the power for that EV supplied by wind or solar.
I do not think people realize how many turbines would clutter the landscape just providing the necessary power for these added EV’s.
I also wonder if anyone has ever considered the effects of taking that much energy out of the wind and the negative effects it would have on our environment. Wind has an important role in how our world works.
Lots of wind turbines and solar panels if you believe Griff, E-cats if you believe Rossi and they are running about the same odds with the bookies.
“Open Up Your Heart (and Let the Sunshine In)” Song Lyrics …
Or…
Aquarius (Let the Sunshine in) – YouTube
Now, ain’t that energizin’ enough?
SMS – “Wind has an important role in how our world works.“. An idle thought: the global warming from an El Nino is started by weakened trade winds. If we put up too many wind turbines then we might reduce wind speeds which would lead to global warming – permanent warming, not temporary like an El Nino.
Mike & SMS,
How ’bout:
The (wind) energy removed from the system will “stagnate” the system and it will heat up (temporarily).
The correction, back to the equilibrium state, would then be greater and there would be more/greater force hurricanes.
🙂
The answer my friend is blowin in the wind, the answer is blowin in the wind. 😉 (sarc)
I am planting “current bushes” in my backyard as a hedge.
Think of diesel-electric loco’s . The power will come from fuels cells, or lpg, petrol or diesel engines.
Close, but I believe the correct reflection of the propaganda involved here is Goebbels Warming.
Not just material supply chain!
17 Oct, 2017 11:36am
New Tesla Model 3: production problems mount with welding issue rumours
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/tesla/model-3/87867/new-tesla-model-3-prices-specs-news
If Mazda has perfected the Compression Ignition gasoline engine as they claim they have, the electric car is doomed.
Compression ignition? as in the diesel cycle? I think somebody has beaten them to it.
Here’s a link to my long comment / quote / links on Mazda’s innovative engine:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/19/road-trip-2/#comment-2585831
Compression ignition is not a cure all, or necessarily helpful. Diesels improve fuel economy at the expense of producing soot and NOx compounds. Compression assisted engines, like the SkyAtiv designs also produce more real pollutants also. Both have to meet the same emissions levels and require multiple post combustion pollution controls, filters, catalytic converters, etc. Direct injection engines all produce more soot because the fuel has less time to mix with the air and droplets can decompose under high temperature/pressure directly into solid carbon and hydrogen. Spark ignition loses efficiency from lower combustion pressures. Too high a compression will cause knocking and make the engine much less efficient and even destroy it.
Mazda’s current generation of direct injection SkyAtiv engines already produce over 40mpg(2.5gal/100mile) in some of their compact cars.. 20-30% more efficiency either means ~50 mpg or ~1.9gal/100 miles. Hybrid vehicles can recover energy from regenerative braking, load balancing on hills to maintain fuel economy, and other tactics. t
Mazda’s proposed motors are a significant improvement, but still use spark plugs when necessary. Even so saving half a gallon/100 miles is probably worth it.
Overall, including hybrid vehicles, the fuel to road efficiency is getting pretty close to neutral between fossil fuels and electricity. Taking into account the efficiencies in electric vehicles- 40-60% loss at the power plant, 10-15% in the grid, 10-15% in the vehicle, and 5-10% in charging at least for automobiles it looks like the overall differences are getting close to zero between modern engines, hybrids, and electric. For my money hybrid seems to be the way to go for any vehicle. A modern locomotive is a hybrid- diesel electric. Add in a tender full of batteries and it would be even more efficient.
David:
You reversed your equation and added a zero to the number of EV’s. Should be 2,000,000/160,000,000=1.25% not 8%
Sorry, it’s too early. Didn’t see it was numbers for 2030. Mods–>you can delete my previous post.
I didn’t label those numbers very clearly… Kind of a “train-of-thought” set of equations following the quote from the article.
2,000,000,000 is the total number of passenger vehicles in 2030 according to Aramco’s CEO.
160,000,000 is the total number of EV’s in 2030 according to the IEA.
160 million is 8% of 2 billion.
Montreal Gazette, July 27, 2017
‘Quebec’s electric car quota is a disguised tax on dealerships, consumers: groups’
Government creating a market for EVs.
http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebecs-electric-car-quota-is-a-disguised-tax-on-dealerships–consumers-groups
‘Ontario And Quebec Continue Collaboration At International Climate Change Conference’ Copenhagen, December 13, 2009
Re: Promotion of EVs
At:
http://mddelcc.gouv.qc.ca/communiques_en/2009/c20091213-copenhague.htm
Decreasing the number of ice trucks will also increase the traffic via rail. It will be further decades before RR are electrified. It will also be further decades before the electrical power for RRs is supplied by Renewables, and the costs of electrifying RRs will be staggering. Prices of goods will also be staggering.
usurbrain-
You quite wrong on everything you wrote. Try google if you don’t know your subject. For my own studies, I know that railroads are 4 to 5 times as fuel efficient as trucks per ton mile of cargo carried. So, the price of goods would actually go down if more goods were hauled by rail. A quick look at the wikipedia article on railway electrification shows that electrification is increasing, and of 2012, electrified tracks account for nearly one third of total tracks globally.
I used to have this argument with a famous railway engineer. I answered his claim of superior efficiency by pointing out that railways the world over need hefty subsidies to be economic. It has to do with the need for additional secondary transport (to and from freight depots to the supplier/customer), track utilisation rates (capital utilisation) and track maintenance. Also, a unit of rolling stock is almost the same cost as a far more versatile truck.
Now if you had argued for coastal and international shipping I would agree with you, but they achieve their remarkable efficiency and low unit transport cost by burning cheap bunker fuel and by being big. And we don’t have to maintain the oceans.
I have a gas/electric hybrid. For the majority of my driving, short trips under 20 miles I run on electricity, which is actually addictive given the vehicle characteristics.
I love not buying gas! Given in the past a very large amount of my traveling was on motorcycles my lifetime gas usage is pretty low compared to most.
But, I’ll never forget 1973, sitting in line (actually not sitting, pushing) with a 69 494ci Camaro, which got about 6mpg with heavy tailwind.
When the mideast burns I’ll laugh, of course it wasn’t all their fault. But I’ll still laugh, back to the 7th century you SOBs.
Tesla’s in Puerto Rico are now running on diesel – the power grid is down, and the only electricity available is from diesel backup generators.
The whole idea of an electric vehicle being “zero emission” is an illusion.
That’s apropos… coming from Walt D(isney)!
Disney’s First Law: Wish and it will come true.
From EIA:
– Petroleum products fuel transportation, electricity generation, and industry in Puerto Rico, supplying three-fourths of the energy consumed in the commonwealth.
– In 2016, 47% of Puerto Rico’s electricity came from petroleum, 34% from natural gas, 17% from coal, and 2% from renewable energy.
– Two wind farms supplied nearly half of Puerto Rico’s renewable generation in 2016; one of them, the 95-megawatt Santa Isabel facility, is the largest wind farm in the Caribbean.
– As of June 2017, Puerto Rico had 127 megawatts of utility-scale solar photovoltaic generating capacity and 88 megawatts of distributed (customer-sited, small-scale) capacity. In the first six months of 2017, more renewable electricity came from solar energy than any other source.
-Electricity fuel surcharges have decreased with world crude oil prices, but, in mid-2017, Puerto Rico’s retail consumers still paid more for their power than consumers in any state except Hawaii.
Last Updated: September 21, 2017
So 2% of PR’s grid electricity comes from renewables. Those Teslas will still be running on F for a long time.
From EIA:
– Petroleum products fuel transportation, electricity generation, and industry in Puerto Rico, supplying three-fourths of the energy consumed in the commonwealth.
– In 2016, 47% of Puerto Rico’s electricity came from petroleum, 34% from natural gas, 17% from coal, and 2% from renewable energy.
– Two wind farms supplied nearly half of Puerto Rico’s renewable generation in 2016; one of them, the 95-megawatt Santa Isabel facility, is the largest wind farm in the Caribbean.
– As of June 2017, Puerto Rico had 127 megawatts of utility-scale solar photovoltaic generating capacity and 88 megawatts of distributed (customer-sited, small-scale) capacity. In the first six months of 2017, more renewable electricity came from solar energy than any other source.
=============
So 2% of PRs grid power is from renewable wind and solar PV. Those Tesla’s EVs there will be running on FF for the foreseeable future.
Santa Isabel is offline until the grid comes back up.
I hate to be a pest but:
Any word on what the installed capacity is now, after the hurricanes went through?
“Santa Isabel facility, is the largest wind farm in the Caribbean.”
Is it still ? I’ve seen pix of the hurricane damage that looked like it would require rather massive repair time and cost .
Gasoline was getting expensive. I was seriously thinking about an electric project pickup truck. link Then I found out about fracking.
The choice to buy an electric car or a hybrid is mostly economic. To get the size and performance of a Prius, I can buy a conventional car at half the price.
On the other hand … if you have a city driven vehicle that is on the road for 12 hours a day, hybrids actually make sense. link
Penetration of electric vehicles into the market is all about economics. Until batteries get a lot better and cheaper, or unless gas gets a lot more expensive, EVs and hybrids won’t be practical except in specific cases.
“unless gas gets a lot more expensive”
And that’s where taxes come in…
Until? How about “unless?”
Hybrids only make sense if you drive aggressively.
Back when drove to work I could never get around school buses or Fedex trucks. I just was not willing to put the metal to the peddle to get to the next stoplight 5 seconds before the school bus.
Quote:Terzakian “Yes, EVs are coming in, but new ICE cars are still accumulating by tens of millions per year, and are being driven for longer.”
Neatly sums-up conclusions I had a little while ago as I observed the many tidy looking ten-plus-year-old cars
in daily use on the roads I frequent.
RM,
Cuba is a good example of how cars can be kept running for a long time. I bought a brand-new 1970 4WD IH Scout for my thesis field work. I kept it running reliably until I sold it a couple of years ago, with about a half-million miles on it (And, the original limited-slip differential never being touched; the original engine block had been re-built twice, the last time shortly before selling it.). I only, reluctantly, sold it to someone who wanted to restore it, because of the salt damage from the roads out here in Ohio. Had I stayed in California, I would probably still be driving it.
Our 1974 IH Travel All was the best tow vehicle and family car I have ever owned. Too bad the body rusted out.
This was before they put the sport into utility vehicle.
Kit P,
I taught at Foothill College (Los Altos Hills, CA) in the 1970s. Our fieldtrip vehicle was an IH TravelAll. It rode a little rough from the stiff springs, but was a very durable vehicle, like the Scout. From my experience, I’m not convinced that new cars are better or necessarily being driven longer.
Does the count of EV’s include hybrids?
Yep…
Old’un
Whilst you may be correct on the hybrid battery issue, having just had a ride in one I would comment they are much more complicated than ordinary vehicles, which in themselves are becoming far too clever for their own good.
I would query whether a sophisticated hybrid will make the 8 year battery replacement time scale without having had some sort of major electrical system break down first.
Tonyb
If they are going to permit hybrids, then the drop in gasoline usage is not going to be that great.
If the ICE were to be banned, the scrappage rate of the current fleet would drop dramatically as people who prefer usable cars would do whatever it takes to keep their current cars on the road.
Just look at how many 1950’s era cars are still on the road in Cuba.
Very good point!
Indeed, plenty of work for the likes of these guys (making Triumph Stags better than new, which is just as well since they were terrible when new!)
http://www.favershamclassics.co.uk/
I had a friend wth a triumph stag. It was brilliant and only Broke down once a month. Assuming it was only driven once a month of course.
It came to a sticky end when it was run into by ….A Stag!
I seem to remember there were many crossed lines with his insurance company when he tried to claim
Tonyb
I thought that the whole idea behind having a British automobile was so that you’d have a hobby as a mechanic.
My sister had an MG. You probably get the crack that Lucas invented darkness:-)
In case you’ve mislaid your Lucas smoke.
http://www3.telus.net/bc_triumph_registry/smoke.htm
I have a friend who has an MG. He calls Lucas the Prince of Darkness.
And here in Mexico…pre 2000 cars prevail…
Recognize that a government ignorant enough to ban the production of ICEs is also ignorant enough to ban the production of what they run on. It just takes a little more re-education and applying “second hand smoke” to exhaust fumes. People MAY hang onto their gas driven car, but without gas, well, it does make an interesting lawn ornament.
Full EVs aren’t even needed. Even a Suburban at highway speeds only needs <40hp. So for a Suburban you could put in a 40hp ICE, pair it with a relatively small battery, and then work off of electric motors for the wheels. Mazda is approaching this with a rotary powered ICE due to it's size, and will be using HCCI. Basically you can have an air cooled 300cc engine to run a midsize sedan that will have an apparent 150hp or more. If you want electric charging – great. We'll put in a 50 mile battery that will cover almost all drivers' daily commute, while eliminating range anxiety. This is probably going to deliver a car that is only minimally more expensive than today's ICE cars (battery is small, and offset by the smaller engine and removed cooling system), deliver better driving experience (high torque at low rpm) and potentially deliver 60+ mpg.
Rotaries aren't as resilient? Well, if you're only using them half the time and at half the stress (since they will always be operating at near optimal conditions) then you only need 1/4 the resiliency in order to deliver the same calendar life.
Saudi Arabia can then go drown in their oil.
It’s called the Chevy Volt. A marketplace loser. Too expensive. Chevrolet is NOT seen as fashionable bling for the wel-off wanting to show their neighbors they have money to throwaway on a novelty.
I read that recently the subsidy for the Bolt was increased by $5000, leading to a jump in sales.
“Full EVs aren’t even needed. Even a Suburban at highway speeds only needs <40hp."
Until you get to a hill.
Or tow something.
Or have to pass something.
If electric cars are going to save us from the impending CAGW catastrophe, maybe Trump should nationalize TESLA (without shareholders’ compensation). That way the people concerned about the climate, the Mann, Gore and Di Caprio types can work in the factory for free, to save the environment, for our children.
We can send some cameras to film their virtually signalling aura.
That is what Ecojesus would do.
The Dept of Redundancy Department has awarded the Seal of Approval Stamp Award to the phrase
“CAGW Catastrophe”
There are many different kinds of CAGW catastrophe. We have CAGW hurricanes, CAGW flooding, CAGW sea level rise and CAGW drought to name just 4.
That PEV adoption rate is not possible. It would require a massive build out of electric power production and distribution that is not possible in today’s regulatory environment.
Let’s not forget improvements on the petrol engine like the Mazda Spark-injection reported to be 30% more efficient than diesel and perhaps the best solution Hydrogen, either as a fuel cell or direct as basically all the infrastructure is in place.
Hybrids really shouldn’t be considered EVs. They are ICE vehicles with electric assist/optimization. IMO calling them EVs skews the real picture.
If wood chips are green (UK) and hydro is not renewable (the USA, or at least some States), then what one calls a Hybrid auto can be whatever one wants to call it. This same sort of “word use issue” appears in every post when “Normal” is used with temperature. Folks simply define a bunch of letters and use the combination.
Skepticism is good.
I have a triple hybrid drive car which is also carbon negative. It actually emits less carbon than you put in it, it sequesters it on the inside of the combustion chamber. You can remove it periodically by a process of de-coking and put it in a little jar to show others how green you have been. Hence carbon NEGATIVE, less out than put in.
But they identify as EVs!
I prefer Trans Ams.
Based on increased global demand and a tremendous drop in CAPEX in the oil and gas industries over the past years, we are heading headlong into a petroleum shortage. Global storage levels have been dropping over the past months and sometime in the next six months will be in the areas where gas/diesel/Jet-A/B prices will start to move up (maybe fairly quickly).
I don’t think most areas will see shortages, but fuel price increases will make hybrids certainly more an option economically. Prices of the hybrids will also firm up, so sometime soon would be the time to buy one if you are on the fence.
The good news for consumers is technology has increased the amount of oil recovered from a well by a large number and wells can be drilled in much less time than before. So if we get $75 oil, it will take less time for the drillers to up production than in the past. Will be interesting times over the next couple of years.
I think hybrids only make sense economically when someone drives far in excess of the average, due to more upfront cost and quicker depreciation because of the battery. I recently considered a hybrid because the sales guy told me that the battery had a lifetime warranty. So I redid the math at $5/gal, and concluded that it really wasn’t cost effective compared to a car that costs nearly half as much, yet gets 40 mpg as opposed to a hybrid’s 50-55 mpg. And then after some quick research realized that the salesman had lied to me (of course) because the lifetime warranty only pertained to battery failures, not battery lifetime, as he told me.
In the face of a huge surplus, production drops. And from that we can conclude that we are on the verge of running out.
Sheesh, some people will latch onto anything to support their beliefs.
Let the EV experiment continue in California. Lets see how much this silly dream really costs and what the secondary effects are by putting those who want it to succeed, at any cost, in control of the changeover. Maybe after a few years of serious negative growth Jerry Brown will finally be viewed for the nutter he really is. Big city Californians need a wake up call. Let this be their wake up call.
You can’t wake up the brain dead, forget cali – they are terminal!
Mazda has it right and will make millions but focusing on what we can do, which is to make petrol more efficient.
Electric cars will be nothing more than a virtue purchase until Mr. Fusion* comes along. Then we can go full electric.
*Back to the Future
What will become of all the product that currently becomes gasoline? It has been written and may be pure bs that gasoline was once burned off as waste at the refinery.
Ah, but wait until governments start offering incentives to scrap your petrol car and buy an EV. This will happen in the most bonkers countries – EU, UK, maybe the US or at least parts of the US (California).
Cash for Crankers??????
If governments really want to kill the ICE they easily can, through a mix of taxes and incentives that need not cost the taxpayer anything:
1) Higher gas taxes (already happening in some countries)
2) Higher annual vehicle registration taxes for ICE vehicles (already happening in some countries)
3) Tax incentives to scrap your ICE vehicle
4) Tax incentives to buy an EV (already happening in some countries)
“through a mix of taxes and incentives that need not cost the taxpayer anything”
then lists 4 things that taxpayers pay for.
That’s why Pocahontas left him. Too many taxes.
“then lists 4 things that taxpayers pay for.”
Net zero, my friend. Taxes raised on ICE cars fund incentives on EVs. No overall tax increase.
Taxing one type of car to subsidize another type of car is not “net zero.” The fact that the government takes tax dollars from one taxpayer to cover a welfare check absolutely is an overall tax increase.
John Smith taxing one group of people in order to subsidize a different group of people is not net zero.
It’s income redistribution.
“1) Higher gas taxes (already happening in some countries)”
Some idiots in the Trump administration are trying to float the idea of an increase in gasoline taxes “for infrastructure”.
If Trump is concerned about the poor and middle class, as he says he is, then he should kill any thought of raising gasoline taxes, as these taxes hurt the poorest people in our society the most. If you want to add to the suffering of poor people, raise the amount of money they have to pay to fill up their automobile.
If you want to fix the infrastructure, institute a millionaires tax, or use some of the five TRILLION that will be repartriated back to the U.S. if a ten percent tax rate for this money passes Congress. Ten percent of five TRILLION is a lot of money.
Leave the poor people alone. Get your infrastructure money elsewhere.
If they want to fix the infrastructure, first thing they need to do is stop diverting most of the money raised from the gas tax towards things that have nothing to do with roads.
Electric cars need to make the transition from a useful second car , if you have the money and journey characteristics required, to a genuine first car.
By that I mean it will have to regularly travel several hundred miles with four adults, luggage, up and down steep hills, with lights, heating, windscreen wipers and radio on.
To achieve that there will need to be a very substantial improvement in battery technology and charging facilities on journey and at home. Many people will not physically be able to park an ev in their driveway in order to charge it.
I suspect that hybrids will be an interim technology, regularly getting 60 or 70 mpg and being able to offer electric running in the polluted urban environment.
Whether by that time electric cars will then become the de facto choice, or whether technology will have leapfrogged them, I don’t know,
Tonyb
It’s only marginally useful as a second car now. Becoming a useful second car would require significant improvements.
PS, having one car for commuting and a second car for everything else is an expense many families can’t afford.
I really do not like the hate for Elon on this website. I actually respect the guy. His company try and do new things. Sure electric cars need to improve to be really viable, but there is nothing wrong with the idea at all, and it will improve air quality in our cities, a real environmental benefit. bring on the electric car I say! There is a difference between pointing out flaws in science,and criticizing a business trying to make money selling something people want to buy.
You respect a guy who promises things, then when he doesn’t deliver refuses to give refunds? For example, not delivering on the promised full auto driving option that buyers prepaid for (cost $8000).
The issue is that Tesla is something of a virtue signalling subsidy mining operation, rather than actually producing practical transportation. So mocking Elon Musk and his overselling of his product is appropriate.
Actually, I believe that Tesla is a company expressly formed to create transportation technology ultimately intended to be used on Mars (where ICE vehicles won’t work). As such, Tesla is not so concerned with making a profit. As far as the subsidy farming goes – nobody turns down free money if they can get it legally.
“Tesla is something of a virtue signalling subsidy mining operation”
That is brilliant and hilarious
Musk doesn’t just take free money, he lobbies extensively for it.
He is no innocent bystander.
Elon Musk is the face of Crony Capitalism. There is no escaping the fact his Tesla business model depends entirely on the government picking winners and losers in the marketplace with political gifts in the form of tax credits and subsidies.
Crony Socialism…. picks winners and losers in the market place.
There is no such thing as crony capitalism. The proper term is fascism.
Nothing wrong with ideas, but all he’s doing is working the subsidy trough. Look at what’s happening with Solar City, as we speak, hundreds of “firings” for cause, but apparently there are no documented performance reviews to back it up. Tesla can’t produce and deliver cars for which they have taken millions in deposits. And why does anyone bail on a graduate program after 2 days, but still leave “Stanford” on his list of educational accomplishments?
Mark from the Midwest:
“Tesla can’t produce and deliver cars for which they have taken millions in deposits.”
$1000 per deposit times over 300,000 deposits is $300 million of interest-free contributions. Nice loan.
It’s more like 455,000 * $1,000 just for the Model 3… a $455 million interest-free loan for a company whose business model is to burn cash.
It’s also an unsecured loan. If Musk declares bankruptcy, all those who gave those deposits go to the back of the line when it comes time for disbursements.
WH,
Can you point to any of the facts presented as being wrong? If not, then you are really complaining that you don’t like reality.
Will Handler, regarding Elon Musk’s car operations, I asked myself several questions:
Does Tesla have a new, or even improved, technology for battery storage of electrical power?
-No, not that I have seen reported.
Does Tesla have a new, or even improved, way to manufacture cars generally?
-No, not that I have seen reported.
Does Tesla use large amounts of public subsidies to sustain a company [Tesla] that has no technical or organisational advantage over the world’s large-volume car manufacturers?
-Yes, as far as I can see.
IMO, Musk brings nothing to the table except for a large amount of skilfull marketing. Of course, a skullfull of marketing is always needed, even for the best genuine inventions. But Musk’s company appears to have invented essentially nothing of lasting value to humans, while simultaneously bilking the system for wadges of cash too large to fit into MC Hammer’s strides.
This is funny…
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/25/steve-wozniak-theres-way-too-much-hype-around-elon-musks-tesla.html
Sc@ming people is not new. EVs are new. There is no environmental benefit. The air quality in cities has already been improved.
The Tesla company has successfully designed, prototyped and built cars that it actually sells, you see them on the street. That is work, it involves new engineering, often using pre-existing engineering and is not something to be so sneered at, it is a hard thing to do. Only the future will show how successful Tesla is, but it is clear that vehicles using energy stored in other ways than chemical are going to be a thing. As regards virtue signalling, I would rather cycle behind a Tesla. Sure he plays the subsidy angle, every new business does. I work with a medical startup that gets lots of govt subsidy, does not mean that they are bad for doing so, the work we are doing will improve peoples lives. Nothing you guys say convinces me your antielon position is justified. You hold him as a straw man to critisize innovation and the desire for new.
WH,
“… designed, prototyped and built …” I’m sure that Wozniak can’t relate to that!
None of which would have been possible without the theft of taxpayers’ hard earned money to fund it. Musk is a leech.
Will Handler, I think that’s great that you work with a medical startup.
I also have a PhD thesis for a new way to make drugs to potentially treat Multiple Sclerosis and other autoimmune diseases. Almost everything worked, except the bit about getting funding to allow my supervisor to continue his research.
Perhaps if less was spent on Musk and global-warmers, who invent nothing, then maybe my supervisor might have got funded, and thus tenure. Who knows? But I was trying to do something new, too, and maybe people like Musk were just the better marketers, prepared to tell bigger lies to get to where they wanted to go.
When all is said and done, Tesla still has nothing that other car-manufacturers don’t. In due course, despite your love, Tesla shares will still end up in the toilet. They will be shut down or swallowed by a large car maker. All that will be left is the debts and broken promises based on Elon Musk’s marketing.
The only reason why Tesla is selling cars is because the federal and state governments subsidize the purchase price.
We only hate him now because of FakeX.
Will: “I really do not like the hate for Elon on this website”. I agree. No one is perfect (I’m sure Elon isn’t) but he grew a car company to the size of the majors for the first time in a century, and figured out a way to re-use the first stage of launch vehicles, thus revolutionising satellite launch costs and upsetting a cosy market sewn up by a tiny handful of players.
Folk belittle the cost of his cars. Read his strategy (inherited from the Tesla founders and blogged by Tesla): start at the top end of the market and work down.
The two key factors in EV adoption will be fast charging and supply of cells. He figured out both and built a supercharger network and a huge cell factory, several years before the majors even realised they had a problem.
He nearly lost his entire personal fortune on these two companies
Whether or not he is a nice guy, he is committed and a genius
It’s only the “size of the majors” in market cap (stock valuation). In terms of production, Tesla is about 1/4 the size of the Ford F-series pickup truck.
Tesla’s stock valuation is entirely based on what people believe Elon Musk will do in the future, not Tesla’s actual accomplishments.
The more cars Tesla sells, the more money it loses…
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tesla-earnings-model-3-production-demand-under-the-microscope-again-2017-10-25
Tesla can only survive through corporate welfare and massive infusion of OPM… because they burn cash like a sailor on shore leave and their credit rating is junk…
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/59823e6676084a1e008b4730-1200/tesla-free-cash-flow.png
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/27/bernstein-predicts-tesla-plunge-as-it-nears-unprecedented-cash-burn.html
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mind-the-hype-teslas-15-billion-in-new-bonds-are-riskier-than-usual-2017-08-10
But… Tesla will do OK, so long as people keep throwing money at it, believing that Musk will deliver on the Model 3.
His super chargers destroy batteries.
So you respect somebody who only makes money because the government takes money from people who have no desire for his product and gives it to him.
Interesting morality you got there.
I had a crystal ball once, but it broke, so now the future looks fuzzy. I’m still waiting on my flying car we were promised decades ago, a la the Jetsons. But I live in hope.
I expected to have a flying car by now but never thought my 20-20 vision would be restored by surgery. Funny how the future works out so different than imagined. If only climate modelers knew this.
A friend of mine works at a company I can’t name. He recently obtained a photo of the super-secret Tesla 3.1, designed to bridge the gap from the 3 to the 4 and solve the current materials and production problems. The photo is here:
http://static.speedwaymotors.com/RS/SR/Product/94/9180029_L_1c3449df.jpg
Looks good! No welding problems with plastic too. Win-win.
Not only that, they’ve eliminated battery replacement. The benefits go on and on.
It looks green, but the power supply produces high – CO2 concentrated exhaust, and toxic biowaste. /s