Guest essay by John Hardy
Full disclosure: I own an electric car, and I think they are useful for city transportation. However, having owned one for a decade, I can say that it hasn’t been practical or cost-effective. John Hardy believes they are the future, I’ll let you, the reader, decide. – Anthony Watts
Part 1 of this series expressed the view that regardless of “the environment”, EVs are poised to inflict a massive disruption on the automotive industry, and outlined the strengths of the technology and some of the reasons that it is happening now.
Part 2 discussed the main issues for Western automakers in handling this disruption
Part 3 below is devoted to common misconceptions which cause some to mistakenly conclude that EVs will not be practicable in the foreseeable future.
The demise of the Western auto industry: Part 3 – common misconceptions
Misconception 1: batteries will never get us to acceptable range.
The combination of a 300 mile range and fast charge should be plenty. How many people routinely drive more than 300 miles without stopping for toilet and/or food? For most people, most of the time averaging 20 – 30 miles per day [1], charging could be done once a week. “Fast charge” needs to be fast however: 20 minutes from empty to 80% charge. The batteries are well able to handle this. The infrastructure uses well-understood technology (300+ Kw charging stations already exist in Beijing for buses [2]). Several current production EVs have a range of over 200 miles and some over 300.
Misconception 2: if EVs take off, electrical distribution networks won’t cope.
With an average daily mileage for private cars of 20-30 miles per day and 3-4 miles per kW-hr the average charge needed is 5 to 10 kW-hr a day, equivalent to running a 7 kW electric shower for 40 to 80 minutes or warming up a few storage heaters over 5-6 hours.
Another mistaken assumption is that everyone will come home and charge at peak time in the early evening. Once again this is highly unlikely to become a problem. Incentivising people to charge off peak is trivial, as is the technology. I have my car set to start charging at 1:00 a.m. when my electricity price almost halves.
Misconception 3: EV charging will require rewiring all the houses in the land.
UK standard sockets handle almost 3 kW. Recharging an average day’s driving just from a wall socket might take 2 – 4 hours. Electric showers may run over 10kW, so adding a 10kW EV wall box is no more complex than installing an electric shower and would recharge an exhausted battery in a 300 mile range car in 7-10 hours.
Misconception 4: Generating capacity will be insufficient
It is sometimes said that if EVs take off, a huge increase in generating capacity will be needed. In the UK there were some scary (and ill-informed) press comments on a document published recently by the National Grid entitled Future Energy Scenarios (FES). The National Grid looked at four different scenarios. One of them concluded that additional demand resulting from an all-EV world would be about 5 Gw. On the face of it, this doesn’t seem to compute: to recharge an EV like the Chevy Bolt or the Tesla Model 3 takes about 75 kW-hrs. 5 Gw over 24 hours is 120 Gw hrs or 120 million Kw-hrs, so 5 Gw extra sounds like it would cope with maybe 1 – 2 million EVs rather than the 30 million or so that would be on UK roads today if all our piston-engined cars became EVs overnight.
There are two factors at work here. Firstly as discussed earlier, EVs used as private cars need an average 5-10 Kw-hr per vehicle per day, so 120 Gw-hr would in theory support a population of 12 million vehicles.
There is another critical issue though: exploiting the variability of demand. Let us do some mental experiments:
Figure 1 is a graph of UK power requirements on a typical working day in winter. (The pattern and the numerical values will be different in Australia or the USA, but the principle is the same). The area under the line (the blue area in Figure 1) is the total electrical energy required during the 24 hours – 965 Gw-hrs in this example. Note that the power requirement varies greatly from a low around 30000 Mw (30 Gw) in the early hours of the morning to almost 50 Gw at 6:00 in the evening.
If the system was capable of sustaining 50 Gw for 24 hours, an additional 230 Gw-hrs could be generated (Figure 2):
230 Gw-hrs is 230,000,000 kw-hrs. Recall that to recharge an EV that has covered the UK average daily private car mileage, 5 – 10 Kw-hours are needed. So if we could put all the available 230 Gw-hrs into EV batteries we could, crudely and theoretically, service a population of between 32 million and 46 million EVs without any additional capacity. At the end of March 2017 there were around ~37 million vehicles licensed in Great Britain, of which ~31 million were cars [3]
Of course this analysis is simplified. It ignores a myriad of variables such as pumped storage, power imported from other countries, battery powered trucks, capacity currently used to refine and distribute petrol and so on, but as an order-of magnitude approximation it is useful.
Is it possible to manage demand like this? Certainly it is. All that is required is to give the control of “normal” charge rate to centralised automated processes (with appropriate over rides, agreed contractual arrangements and financial incentives). The technology to achieve this is straightforward.
But there is an even simpler way: between midnight and 7:00 a.m. the cumulative “energy available” is about 133 Gw-hrs: sufficient (theoretically) to do an average day’s charge on between 18 million and 26 million EVs. My electricity almost halves in price during those hours and my EV is capable of starting to charge at any time I wish; so I do most of my charging in those hours (Figure 3).
There is another consideration here. One of the juggling acts that the controllers of any grid system must manage is spikes and troughs in demand. Electricity must in general be consumed as it is generated: so a sudden change in demand may require the start-up of additional generating capacity, the use of pumped storage, reducing supply to a flexible consumer, additional imports etc. If they do it right, voltage and frequency stay steady and nobody notices. If they get it slightly wrong we have temporary brownouts. If they make a complete mess of things, or are hit by too many variables at once the system can collapse as happened recently in South Australia.
Figure 4 is an example of just such a peak. It is half time in a televised football (soccer) match. Within a minute or so the demand goes up by around 1 Gw. This is about the total output of the Sizewell B nuclear power plant, or a quarter of the capacity of the Drax power station – largest in the UK.
Wind energy complicates this juggling act because the output of a wind turbine is intrinsically variable and can change extremely rapidly. A sudden storm hitting a wind farm such as the London Array (630 Mw) could take ½ Gw off line in seconds. With the right technology and the right contractual arrangements between householders and the energy companies, 30 million EVs provide a powerful and flexible tool for the unseen (and under-valued) grid jugglers.
Time for another thought experiment.
Suppose our 30 million EVs had a battery capacity of 75 kW-hrs (similar to today’s Chevy Bolt and entry level Tesla Model 3). Suppose the contractual deal was that the grid managers could help themselves to (say) 10% of that capacity any time the vehicle was plugged in, provided that it was fully charged by a specified time. That would theoretically provide a 200+ Gw-hr buffer which could be dialled up and down almost instantly. In practice of course it would be less (not all the EVs would be plugged in and some would be less than 90% charged), but even (say) 50 Gw-hrs would be handy: it far exceeds the UK’s current pumped storage capacity for example.
[As an aside, whilst this sort of buffer would be very helpful in managing short-term peaks and troughs, the idea of 100% wind/solar with battery back-up for days or weeks is infeasible with current technology in the foreseeable future. Vey roughly UK demand in winter is around 1000 Gw-hr/day. If the sun didn’t shine and the wind didn’t blow for ten days, the UK alone would need ~10,000 Gw-hr of battery storage. That is 4-5 times the total battery capacity of a fleet of 30 million electric cars, and more than 300 times the total world output of lithium ion batteries in 2014]
Misconception #5: EVs will be constrained by a shortage of lithium
There is not enough lead around to power a large fleet of EVs, but there is almost certainly enough lithium.
Two factors in particular help
- Lithium is not like oil. Oil is dug up, refined, distributed and burned. The supply requirements are ongoing. By contrast, lithium is extracted, made into batteries and, er that’s it for ten years or so. It is then (at least partially) recycled. Once lithium is in the system it will (mostly) stay there.
- Lithium is not like lead. Very roughly, 60% of the weight of a lead acid battery is lead [4] and the energy density of a lead acid battery is about 30 watt-hours per kg; so a 75 Kw-hr lead acid battery (Chevy Bolt size) would weigh about 2,500 kg, of which 1,500 kg would be lead (that explains why lead acid EVs are experiments, not serious transport). Estimates of the amount of lithium used in a lithium ion battery vary greatly from about 80 grams per Kw-hr to 250 grams per Kw-hr [5]. These figures translate to a lithium content of between 6 and 19 kg of lithium for our hypothetical 75 Kw-hr battery. Either way there is about two orders of magnitude difference between the weight of lead and the weight of lithium used to produce a battery of the same capacity.
The US Geological Survey (USGS) suggests that “reserves” of lithium globally are about 14 million tons (this is measured as mass of an equivalent amount of pure lithium), but suggests a “Resources” figure of about 40 million tons [6]. At 13kg per car, 1 million tons of lithium would be sufficient for 76 million cars. One estimate is that global car production in 2016 was ~72 million [7]. If we assume the “worst case” of:
- No lithium recycling (there are plants already up and running, but let’s be devil’s advocate and assume this)
- Only 25% of reserves available for cars (the rest going into ceramics, commercial vehicles, grid storage etc)
- No substitution of lithium by other metals in batteries
- Only the USGS “reserve” of 14 million turned out to be available (i.e. the 40 million “resources” never materialise)
- No substantial increase in efficiency of usage (i.e. Kw-hrs per kg of lithium remains unchanged)
If we make all these assumptions we can make the case that there is only enough lithium to support 3 or 4 years of car production in a world where all cars are electric. This is however a false picture for several reasons:
· The price of a finished battery is very insensitive to the price of the lithium raw material. This means that the price for lithium can increase greatly without having a noticeable effect on battery prices. This gives lots of financial headroom for exploiting reserves that are not economic at current prices. If the price goes high enough, it would in theory be possible to extract it from seawater. One estimate put the amount of lithium in the world’s oceans at 230 billion tons [8]
- Over the years, reserves of oil have gone up very greatly (see for example [9]). It is not unreasonable to expect lithium reserves to increase in a similar way
- As hinted earlier, lithium is in fact reclaimed from old batteries. Again, if shortages develop there is financial headroom to increase the efficiency of this process
- Lithium is used in the battery cathode because it is the “best” element electrically. If shortages developed alternatives could be used (see for example [10])
Misconception #6 – No I’ll stop here
There are dozens of arguments fielded against EVs; I have yet to encounter one which stood up under examination. It is going to happen regardless of “the environment”; and if the Western manufacturers can’t or won’t adapt, the economic outlook for the rising generation does not look good.
References
[1] Average daily private car mileage in the UK is about 21 [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/632857/nts0901.ods. 7,800 miles per year for privately owned cars = 21 m.p.d. [Company cars 18,900 = 51 m.p.d. but they are a small percentage]. In the US it is about 30 [https://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/10309, 11,244 miles per year for cars = 30 miles per day]
[2] “…The new station at the Xiaoying bus terminal in the Chaoyang district is home to 25 electric vehicle (EV) chargers operating at 360kW and five chargers operating at 90kW. Reportedly all 30 chargers can operate at once….” From https://cbwmagazine.com/bus-charging-beijing/
[3] See table veh0102 accessed from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/all-vehicles-veh01
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93acid_battery
[5] http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1826 Note that this article is old and a bit dated
[6] https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/lithium/mcs-2017-lithi.pdf. Note the heading “Data in metric tons of lithium content unless otherwise noted”. This is important as the material mined, and the materials used in battery production are not metallic lithium, but lithium compounds. Lithium carbonate for example is less than a fifth lithium by weight
[7] http://www.oica.net/category/production-statistics/
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Terrestrial
[9] http://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=oil&graph=reserves
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium_battery#Overview
I think it is completely wrong to think about EVs as “the replacement for ICEs”. They are meant to coexist. EVs are fantastic for some things, which si why I own one. The biggest advantage being the lowered pollution levels in cities if they become more widely adopted, but there is also the fuel savings, the driving comfort… But they are and will always be way less than perfect for others, and far worse than ICEs at them, no matter how much you do to solve the pending issues.
This is the future I foresee:
* Around 15-20% pure EVs maximum, posibly doing around 33% of total mileage by all vehicles. Owned mostly by people who also have some other vehicle (without the pure EV limitations) at their disposal, or by people who very rarely need to do long trips (not more than 4-5 times per year) which they cannot / will not do in public transport. Almost all of these EVs would charge almost all the times at home or at work, at a low rate, safe for the battery and for the grid. Occasionally they woud require a fast charge somewhere else.
* Around 40-45% plug-in hybrids, doing 50% or more of their milleage on electricity most of the times, and again charging at home or at work.
* The remaining 35-45% of the fleet being normal hybrids or pure ICEs for people who do not have where to recharge their vehicles on a daily basis.
For once, can a EV believer use real actual driving situations involving more than just inner-city driving? The UK is not the US, which is not Canada, which is not Mexico, which is not Russia(almost showed my age by calling it the Soviet Union), etc.
90% of people drive 30 miles or less per day in the US
95% of people drive less than 50 miles per day in the US
ANy other questions?
Are those misconceptions the basis of most criticisms of electric cars?
I did not write something like “never”. Even for the simple case of CA I wrote that the grid and generating capacity have to be upgraded.
This is good: Tesla Approaches Terminal Decline ( link https://seekingalpha.com/article/4122890-tesla-approaches-terminal-decline )
Nov.10.17 | About: Tesla Motors (TSLA)
Andreas Hopf
Andreas Hopf
Special situations, medium-term horizon, event-driven
Linkedin profile
(896 followers)
Summary
Financial performance deteriorates – structural unprofitability likely.
Most cash raised recently is already burnt – next equity sale looms.
Institutional ownership declines – distribution continues.
Management churn accelerates – corporate culture looks damaged.
Only the story matters – the stock remains a trade vehicle.
Here we are, seven months later, and Tesla’s (NASDAQ:TSLA) financial performance deteriorates at an alarming rate. Bearish macro scenarios, always just around the corner since 2011, refuse to play out and Queen TINA and King FOMO remain enthroned. The much anticipated interest rate assault by central banks is further delayed. And once it arrives, it will do so in rather piecemeal fashion, unlike the infamous macro-scaremongers suspect. No surprise then that the Panglossian valuation of Tesla abides, while journalists and analysts alike continue falling for every new-fangled non-profit idea emerging from Palo Alto.
And then, as long as 1) wealthy consumers in western nations but also China are eager to seek indulgence by way of green-washing and, 2) are in search of a Steve Jobs replacement persona onto which they can project their hopes for a gleaming future and, 3) are disillusioned with the establishment and its leaders, the company will likely succeed to raise cash again. Some say it might already be too big to fail.
The Tesla narrative is based on an illusion, a contradictio in adjecto – the promise that humankind can shop and consume itself into a sustainable future. However, even a million Teslas on the world’s roads will not impact the environment for better or worse. It is a systemic issue. The Financial Times agrees. Sustainability and promoting the purchase of raw-material consuming heavyweight products are mutually exclusive. There is no right life in the wrong, to paraphrase Theodor Adorno.
At the time of writing, the company’s precarious financial position shows that it remains a bottomless pit. Let’s go in.
1. Stock
2. Finances
3. Perspective
4. Management
5. Market
6. Sales
7. Model 3
8. Autopilot
9. Distractions
Tesla – a bottomless pit
(Source: Joe Rohde, not Montana Skeptic, abseiling into the cash incinerator)
1. Stock
For some early-stage investors and traders, Tesla’s stock has been a solid profit generator, despite the recent descent. After former President Obama’s new energy policy speech in 2013, the stock rose sharply on high volume to then traded mostly sideways with a suitably high volatility for put buyers and short sellers to skim the astute contrarian’s share. Likewise, call buyers and dip buyers used the frequent opportunities to extend their position, hoping to sell at a higher price to a “greater fool” in the future.
Tesla share price and volume vs equity and debt sales
(Source: NASDAQ TSLA)
And that brings me to the point of it all. Neither self-acclamatory anecdotes of having bought the stock in 2013 nor having sold short in 2017 help the retiree or retail investor’s decision-making – right here, right now.
There are only two plain ways to make money from stocks: 1) buying and holding to then profit from the company’s profit in form of dividends, and 2) buying to sell later to a higher bidder. The question then is: Buy around $300 and hope for enticing regular dividends to emerge soon, or hope to sell in a few years for a good profit after taxes. In any case, no money is made until that sell button is clicked or the dividend announced. With no prospects of profitability for years to come, if ever, current buyers are choosing the second option, hoping to sell to a “greater fool,” a game of musical chairs.
Shareholders were diluted by a substantial 45% since 2013. Share-based compensation and the highly questionable SolarCity takeover – sold on synergies and profit contributions that never materialized – took their toll. It was a takeover primarily engineered to benefit Elon Musk and his cousins Lyndon and Peter Rive, who not only saw their precarious SolarCity stock options conveniently converted to safer Tesla stock options, but also their SolarCity bonds paid back prematurely with full interest. Several executives converted their stock options over time, particularly hard-working board member Kimbal Musk as soon as his options vest.
Tesla shareholder dilution
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
Concurrent with dilution, institutional investors have been selling Tesla stock since the Model 3 presentation in March 2017. Institutional ownership declined from 73% in 2013 via 67% in 2016 to now 58%. Notable sellers were T. Rowe Price (NASDAQ:TROW) (-49%), Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS) (-60%) and Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) (-24%), among many other international banks and funds. The SEC will publish the quarterly tally of all 13F filings this month and it will be exciting to see if distribution to retail investors continued or if Chinese Tencent Holdings (OTCPK:TCTZF) increased its stake from 5%.
Tesla institutional ownership
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
2. Finances
Tesla currently derives 89.4% of its total revenue from the automotive business including leasing and selling CPO cars. One can only wonder why, after 14 years have passed in the company’s history, Ben Kallo of Robert W. Baird & Co. or Adam Jonas of Morgan Stanley continue claiming Tesla being an “energy,” “mobility,” “ride-sharing” or “software company.” If anything, Model 3 sales will skew the balance further toward automotive, with the SolarCity and Powerwall/Powerpack aspects of the business in a precarious state.
For three consecutive quarters, automotive sales and automotive leasing revenue have stalled. While total revenue rose slightly from Q2 to Q3, COGS rose more steeply. If it were not for the inclusion of SolarCity (energy generation and storage) and the increasing sale of CPO cars (services and other), YoY revenue growth would look even worse for a company that was to “disrupt” the automotive sector – whatever that’s supposed to mean in concrete terms.
Tesla revenue segmentation
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
Despite an ASP that held up well (26,137 cars reported as sold in total, with 20,608 cars sold directly and 5,529 cars that consequently must have gone to leasing), the ever soaring operational costs saw the company reporting its largest ever loss in Q3. As in previous quarters, the supposedly formidable cash and profit generators SolarCity (“synergies”) and Powerwall (“off the hook demand”) failed to deliver. It is very doubtful how the latter two product categories, suffering from commoditisation, and exquisite competition, will ever meaningfully contribute to the bottom line.
Tesla net loss vs net loss without regulatory credit sales
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
Although the company has collected an enormous $982,375,000 in governmentally enforced regulatory credit sales from its automotive peers since 2013, that cash never helped turn the tide, simply helping to somewhat lower the growing quarterly losses. Rising competition will eventually see this source of easy money drying up.
Tesla ZEV and GHG credit revenue vs car sales
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
The company continues failing to improve its cost structure, engaging in meaningless business efforts, struggling with the SolarCity legacy and a bloated workforce. The more cars it sells the more cash it burns.
Tesla cost of automotive sales vs cost of revenue vs cars sold
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
While more cars were sold in Q3, Tesla’s cash burn accelerated even more and essential metrics like FCF and OCF worsened considerably. Profitability and dividends remain as elusive as ever, or, in other words, the company generates zero value for shareholders.
Tesla FCF and OCF and CapEx
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
Besides ever-growing costs of revenue and deficient cash generation ability, Tesla’s current liability position, cash settlements due within next 12 months, and accounts payable, essentially an IOU from Tesla to its suppliers, paint an equally grim picture.
Tesla current liabilities
Tesla accounts payable
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
Since 2013, Tesla incessantly sells equity and debt, despite numerous claims it not being necessary, to finance the battery factory and Model 3 production, only to then use the proceeds to plug its cavernous operational holes. The battery factory that was supposed to be completed last month, powered by PV solar panels and wind turbines, is still far from being finished, while the Model 3 remains mainly a hand-built effort in Tesla’s dysfunctional and undersized Freemont facility.
Contrary to the CEO’s claims, the Model S never financed the Model X and the Model X never financed the Model 3. Consequently, Tesla exists at the mercy of other people’s money and interest expense began to climb more sharply to close in on $500 million per year (enhanced by SolarCity indebtedness, SolarCity interestingly being the behind-the-curtain guarantor for the recent $1.8 billion issue of senior notes). 80% of cash raised this year has already been incinerated. No surprise then that Tesla’s latest 5.30% junk bonds already yield 6.16%. Tesla’s total recourse debt is growing and it will be interesting to see if the company will either sell more stock or issue more junk bonds to finance its insatiable cash burn.
Tesla indebtedness
One should remember the beneficiaries from SolarCity bonds, as there were only token takers at the time of issue. From the Q3 10-Q:
“On March 21, 2017, $90.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 4.40% Solar Bonds held by SpaceX matured and were fully repaid by us. On June 10, 2017, $75.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 4.40% Solar Bonds held by SpaceX matured and were fully repaid by us. On April 11, 2017, our Chief Executive Officer, SolarCity’s former Chief Executive Officer and SolarCity’s former Chief Technology Officer exchanged their $100.0 million (collectively) in aggregate principal amount of 6.50% Solar Bonds due in February 2018 for promissory notes in the same amounts and with substantially the same terms. On April 18, 2017, our Chief Executive Officer converted all of his zero-coupon convertible senior notes due in 2020, which had an aggregate principal amount of $10.0 million (see Note 12, Common Stock).”
Honi soit qui mal y pense…
Tesla interest expense
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
As far as warranty costs are concerned, after 14 years of making cars, Tesla having hired production specialists like Peter Hochholdinger from Audi (OTCPK:AUDVF), one would think the car’s reliability ceasing to be a burden on the company’s finances. At the Q3 earnings conference call, Elon Musk seriously claimed “the reliability for Model S and Model X continues to improve…”. Quite the contrary is true. Inundated service centers and an incessant stream of customer complaints reveal the CEO’s debonair disconnect from reality. Due to questionable build quality, actual warranty costs incurred are increasing and it remains to be seen if current warranty provision levels will be sufficient to cover an aging fleet.
Tesla cars sold vs warranty cost incurred and provision
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
The steep rise in finished goods inventory is remarkable, as Bill Maurer pointed out recently, because the Model 3 is not yet a meaningful contributor, its parts rather attributable to the raw materials and work in progress portions of total inventory. Asked during the Q3 earnings conference call by John Murphy of Bank of America Merrill Lynch how much finished goods inventory can be sold in Q4, Deepak Ahuja tried to avoid the question, instead launching into a CapEx outlook. A supposedly production constrained company that amasses such levels of inventory – despite generating occasional sales peaks via discounting – is obviously demand constrained.
Tesla finished goods inventory
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
The CFO’s CapEx discussion in the call revealed that previously planned-for spending levels would not be met. Deepak Ahuja suggested that capex related to stores, service centers and charging stations will be cut, which unfortunately coincides with the Model 3 roll-out and an urgent need to build out the service center and charging station network. While the CEO says: “If we were to make those CapEx decisions right now, we’d be making them – we’re kind of shooting in the dark,” the CFO says it how it is: “So all those actions will come through in terms of helping us conserve cash.” In other words: Deepak Ahuja hints that the 10,000 or even the 5,000 Model 3 per week production rate, now supposed to happen in Q1 2018 (so much for “volume production” from July 2017), is in jeopardy, to string out the cash balance. Maybe Jason Wheeler saw it coming and left?
That said, the core problem regarding the company’s long-term viability remains straightforward: If one assumes that Tesla is able to make and sell 200,000 Model 3s per year (at Elon Musk’s projected ASP of $42,000) and if one then assumes that Tesla will be able to miraculously achieve a 12% net margin per car (more than Audi does for its A4 series or BMW (OTCPK:BMWYY) for its 3er series), only $5,040 per car or around $1 billion would arrive at the bottom line. One only has to look at the company’s precarious financial situation outlined above – primarily operating costs and debt services – to realize that even in such optimistic case, Tesla cannot remain a going concern without further equity and debt sales. It is indeed a bottomless pit.
3. Perspective
Investment forums are brimming with comments comparing Tesla to Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) or Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), trying to re-frame it as a “technology company,” where, as shown just above, it is a niche automaker. Consequently, Tesla must be assessed in comparison to its industry peers – the global market for passenger vehicles in general and plug-in vehicles in particular.
To put an end to hackneyed mythology, devoid of actionable clues, one only needs to benchmark all three companies’ FCF generation ability over time to see that Apple and Amazon are in a different league.
Free cash flow generation Apple vs Amazon vs Tesla
4. Management
Recently, Tesla suffers from increasing managerial churn. Key employees left or were recycled (Deepak Ahuja) only to leave again (Ricardo Reyes), others are gone so fast after they joined that they can barely update their Linkedin page, while yet others, like high-profile hire Jim Keller, are never heard of again. Is he still there, working?
Core staff and workers that left or were laid off over the last 12 months:
2016 – December: 1,541 employees, operations, installations and manufacturing SolarCity
2016 – December: 1,506 employees, sales and marketing SolarCity
2016 – Mateo Jaramillo, vice president products and programs – energy (8/2009-12/2016)
2016 – Sterling Anderson, director of autopilot program (12/2014-12/2016)
2017 – Ardes Johnson, director of sales – energy (4/2016-1/2017)
2017 – David Nistér, vice president of autopilot vision (4/2015-3/2017)
2017 – Satish Jeyachandran, director of hardware engineering (6/2010-3/2017)
2017 – Jason Wheeler, CFO (11/2015-4/2017)
2017 – Arnnon Geshuri, vice president of human resources (11/2009-5/2017)
2017 – Chester Chipperfield, global creative director (5/2016-6/2017)
2017 – Chris Lattner, vice president of autopilot software (1/2017-6/2017)
2017 – Lyndon Rive, CEO SolarCity (7/2006-6/2017)
2017 – Peter Rive, CTO SolarCity (7/2006-6/2017)
2017 – Kurt Kelty, director of battery technology (3/2006-8/2017)
2017 – Diarmuid O’ Connell, vice president of business development (7/2006-9/2017)
2017 – September: 141 SolarCity employees, customer account management and information technology
2017 – September: 63 Tesla employees, customer account management and information technology
2017 – Andrea James, investor relations consultant (9/2016 – 9/2017)
2017 – Jeff Evanson, head of investor relations (1/2011-9/2017)
2017 – October: 700 Tesla employees, various positions
2017 – Jon Wagner, director of battery engineering (1/2013-10/2017)
2017 – William Donnelly, president of Tesla finance (9/2013-10/2017)
Executive attrition and layoffs to nip worker’s rights representation in the bud leave only one conclusion. Unlike General Clausewitz, who in “On War” wrote about the role of commander: “The higher up the chain of command, the greater the need for boldness to be supported by a reflective mind, so that boldness does not degenerate into purposeless bursts of blind passion.” Tesla’s CEO appears to prefer an altogether different approach: “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
5. Market
For several years, enthusiastic energy and automotive market analysts have proclaimed that a collapse of the ICEV market and, subsequently, the oil and refinery business is imminent. However, investment decisions based on such theses have so far turned out unwise, evidenced by global passenger and commercial vehicle sales that show that EVs in their entirety (HEVs, PHEVs, BEVs and FCEVs) contribute with at best 1.4% in 2017, if the Chinese and European sales scenarios come out positive. Even under intentionally optimistic assumptions, suggested below, EVs would attain only 31% global sales share with nearly 50% of sales occurring in Asia, soon the number one global sales region. Recent record sales and profits reported by Daimler (OTCPK:DDAIF), General Motors (NYSE:GM) or Volvo (OTCPK:VOLVY) show ongoing demand domination of ICEVs.
Global passenger vehicle sales vs passenger EV sales
Global passenger EV sales vs Tesla sales
(Source: OICA, EV Volumes, Tesla, etc.)
If Tesla continues its unprofitable markdown efforts like in March 2016, September 2016, and September 2017, it could reach this year’s finishing line at 97,000 sales – Elon Musk’s projected 100,000-200,000 Model 3 sales by the end of 2017 remaining entirely elusive. Tesla would thus have attained 0.136% global passenger vehicle sales share with rising unprofitability to boot.
Global PV and CV sales vs Tesla sales
(Source: OICA, EV Volumes, Tesla, etc.)
Global EV sales share is entirely dependent on massive multi-level government interventions by way of subsidies, incentives and perks. To date, Tesla’s cars remain ideologically motivated Veblen goods, financed by the common taxpayer. EV sales drop sharply, once enticements are dialed back or rescinded entirely, evidenced by Tesla’s decline in once formidable sales regions such as Denmark, Hong Kong or Norway, just as I explained in the global subsidies section of my previous article on Tesla.
In its 2018 budget, Norway is proposing taxation on overweight BEVs, hitting Tesla’s Model S and X hardest, as well as the upcoming heavyweight SUVs from Jaguar and Audi. The U.S. is contemplating a FIT-credit repeal by the end of this year. Those kinds of measures could inspire a last Q4 sales bonanza in those countries, which would be final proof of what really motivates BEV purchases – bargain hunting and the freeloading of benefits.
Model S registrations when subsidies are dialed back
(Source: Norwegian, Danish and Hong Kong car registration bodies)
Soon, over 50% of the global citizenry will live in dense conurbations and cities where potential BEV buyers will find no place to charge or see the very few charging stations blocked or inconveniently located, besides being unable to shoulder the very high cost of purchase. In other places, the constantly rising cost of electricity renders tales of economic advantage moot and eventually, with higher adoption, governments would have to road-tax BEVs so their owners contribute their fair share to the upkeep of traffic infrastructure.
Having achieved 9.6% global EV sales share this year and possibly 15.4% in 2020 under most positive assumptions – 339,000 total sales with a flawless Model 3 rollout that is already in jeopardy – Tesla never was and will be no market leader, neither in total nor in the EV niche market itself. That honour goes to the EV pioneers Toyota (NYSE:TM), Nissan (OTCPK:NSANY) and Renault (OTCPK:RNLSY). Analyst reports that imagine Tesla’s global sales domination are plainly absurd, even more so in the light of existing and imminent competition:
Chevrolet Bolt EV (on sale since December 2016)
Renault ZOE new gen. (on sale since September 2017)
Nissan LEAF new gen. (on sale since October 2017)
Hyundai Kona (on sale from H1 or H2 2018)
Jaguar I-Pace (on sale from H2 2018)
Audi e-tron quattro (on sale from H2 2018)
Mercedes EQ C (on sale from 2019)
Audi e-tron sportback (on sale from 2019)
Porsche Mission E (on sale from 2019)
BEVs from any vendor are, like their ICEV counterparts, produced, distributed and sold unsustainably with much raw material sourced and then processed unsustainably as well, in case of battery raw materials under excruciating circumstances. Declaring Tesla a “global market share winner” after first innings is, in the light of presented data, premature, if not entirely preposterous.
6. Sales
On the previous Q2 earnings conference call, Goldman Sachs analyst David Tamberrino probed Tesla’s CFO regarding Model S and X order rates. Deepak Ahuja’s illuminating answer to this rather material question was “not relevant,” in line with the company’s monthly national sales obfuscation strategy that is in stark contrast with industry peers. Tesla reports revenue for “U.S.,” “China,” “Norway” and “Other,” bizarrely omitting the UK, Germany and other large countries. (Donn Bailey’s recent article provides some color on China, which does not publish official car registrations).
Looking at the afterglow of what was said to be a disruptive explosion, stunning the global automotive sector with exponential growth, one can glean from Tesla’s automotive revenue and sales that the contrary is the case, no matter what management and supportive analysts try to make investors believe.
International official car registrations paint a clear picture: Model S sales stalled two years ago and Model X is about to. Even though the company offered enormous discounts and favourable financing terms in September (0.5% interest in Norway for a 10-year loan), Model S sales could not be pushed beyond their 2015 (Europe) and 2016 (U.S.) peaks, even though Tesla’s President of Global Sales and Service Jon McNeill was given a special incentive of $700,000 on 18th August to put quantity over margin. Form 14A from June this year revealed that Jon McNeill is the only executive with a personal cash incentive plan. Can, with the help of more CPOs coming off-lease and the Norway/U.S. “tax scares,” sales be boosted one more time?
Tesla monthly Model S registrations Europe
Tesla monthly Model S registrations US and Canada
Tesla monthly Model X registrations Europe
Tesla monthly Model X registrations US and Canada
(Source: National car registration bodies Europe/insideevs.com U.S.)
Since January 2013, Tesla produced 271,131 cars but sold only 254,206 – a delta of 16,925 cars or an astonishing 6.24% of total production. What happened to all those cars? Is Tesla building the largest finished goods inventory in the automotive sector? The world’s largest loaner fleet? Will Tesla be able to sell thousands of inventoried cars with the old exterior design without “Autopilot 2.0” or better trim levels, even with a steep markdown? Or will it write them off? A company suffering from unremitting cash burn must convert inventory into sales. If one takes the ASP of around $100,000 from Q3 as a yardstick, Tesla squandered $1.69 billion in unrealised revenue in only four years.
Tesla production vs sales
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
7. Model 3
The Model 3 (wheelbase 2,880 mm, 1,610 kg) is essentially a slightly smaller version of the Model S (wheelbase 2,960 mm, 2,200 kg) and features a frugal interior with an unergonomic potentially dangerous central touch screen, away from the driver’s line of sight. Having to navigate touchscreen menus to wind down the windows is taking things too far. No FM radio is available either, and neither Apple CarPlay nor Android Auto. Steve Jurvetson’s Model 3 pictures show the drabness and non-matching black colors. Elon Musk seems having believed that Level 5 cars are just around the corner.
Tesla recently recalled 11,000 Model X vehicles for defective seats and not for the first time. Unhappy with its prior suppliers, Tesla had brought production in-house. The company is taking its quest to vertical integration to new levels of absurdity, the NYT reports: “The company had even concocted its own Tesla blend of coffee to serve near its cafeterias. ‘If we cannot get exactly what we want from the world,’ one executive told me, ‘then we have to go do it ourselves.’” The Model X is now among the 10 most unreliable cars.
Tesla’s rushed and careless Silicon Valley “ship now, fix later” approach to hardware manufacturing that saw the company skipping proper beta testing, which could render it a frequent service centre visitor. The first batches of cars had to be recalled immediately for faulty battery pack welds, leaky light cluster seals and bad paint jobs. Consequently, Tesla did not dare entering the car to the North American Car Of The Year award 2018, claiming instead that it had not a single spare car for submission. This comes from a company that assured investors that as of 1st July 2017 “volume production” had begun. Considering Tesla’s ongoing problems with quality control, the Model 3 is prone to suffer from the same issues that see service centers inundated with repeated Model S and X repairs and customers displeased by long waiting times even for the most mundane of parts.
During the Q3 earnings conference call, Elon Musk admitted, despite supposedly growing demand (debunked above) that Model S and X production is reduced from 2,000 to 1,800 per week to concentrate on Model 3 production. However, in the Q2 2014 earnings conference call, Elon Musk had assured investors: “In the case of the new S/X Body Line, which is a line that has been designed to be capable of 2,500 units a week, maybe more than that. Conservatively 2,500 units a week. At a lower cost point.” Maybe cost-cutting is why Tesla ships cars without seats and touchscreens?
Regarding Model 3 production and automation, the recent call illuminated that Tesla’s CEO is fully out of touch with the physical reality of robotics: “And we are pushing robots to the limit in terms of the speed that they can operate at, and asking our suppliers to make robots go way faster, and they are shocked because nobody has ever asked them that question. It’s like if you can see the robot move, it’s too slow. We should be caring about air friction like things moving so fast. You should need a strobe light to see it.” He even went as far to claim: “And obviously we’re going to be designing a lot of the robotic elements and what makes the robots internally. So yes, because current suppliers are just too slow to respond in some cases.”
As a long-time KUKA and Gildemeister investor (until both companies were sold), I find the underlying insinuation that no automaker and robot vendor ever contemplated higher efficiencies plainly absurd, as did the Financial Times. Automated production lines have been around for decades. Tesla’s CEO seems to be fully unaware of why industrial robots have limits, affecting actuators, speed and precision when handling heavy parts reliably and minimal downtime. Air friction is certainly no constraint, but moments, acceleration and deceleration. One SA author even asserted: “Tesla appears to be innovating in robotics and factory innovation, a potential long-term source of durable competitive advantage.” Will Fanuc, KUKA or ABB bow to the boisterous demands of a niche customer? Certainly not – global automation technology leaders innovate on their own accord.
Model 3 production is substandard by any means. Deepak Ahuja hints “the goal is now to fix Grohmann,” the automation company Tesla acquired in 2016, misleading its owner and existing customers – an issue still not resolved.
Justifiably, Tesla fans wonder why the “$35,000 mass-market” car is still a mirage. Will it ever arrive?
8. Autopilot
Tesla’s “Autopilot” effort is still in disarray after numerous promises were made that were then not kept. Customers spent $5,000 plus $3,000 for “full self driving” without the chance to ever enjoy Level 5 autonomy, what essentially means a robotic car that can drive itself at any time on any road under any weather conditions and any traffic condition. The managerial churn in Tesla’s autopilot department shows the company has dropped the ball more than once, first osborning AP 1.0 customers that were promised “lifetime upgrades” to then osborn AP 2.0 and later AP 2.5 customers who purchased hardware and software incapable of delivering “full self driving” ever.
Anyone hoping to join Tesla’s “Mobility” or “Ride-sharing” services, insinuated by Adam Jonas of Morgan Stanley on multiple occasions, will be disappointed. The cars are technically incapable to be used in such contexts.
David Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital in its recent investor letter puts it bluntly:
“Some of TSLA’s presumed market lead in areas like autonomous driving may more likely reflect TSLA’s willingness to put inadequately tested and dangerous products on the road rather than a true technological advantage.”
9. Distractions
SolarCity
Several SA authors already have extensively covered SolarCity’s product deficiencies, shady business practices and financial predicament. Please consult Montana Sceptic’s, Bill Cunningham’s or EnerTuition’s SA articles on the matter.
Any investor still buying into the “synergy story” or “PV solar dominance story” must read David Robinson’s latest article in The Buffalo News, a local journalist that over time became more critical of how the local community, job seekers and the New York taxpayer are peppered with ever changing messages.
PV solar tiles
Since June 2017, the allegedly revolutionary PV solar tiles, a product category that already was commercially unsuccessful in the European and American marketplace, are being installed on customers’ roofs… only they aren’t. To this day, not a single forum post, Instagram picture or YouTube video has surfaced. This is not very surprising, because neither on Tesla’s website, where the configurator provides seemingly random figures, nor elsewhere can potential buyers obtain technical specifications, performance ratings, UL-certification documents, etc.
The Q3 earnings call revealed that, supposedly, the PV solar tiles are “still being tested” to ensure up to 30 years’ lifetime use (like an asphalt shingle roof), although at launch and for pre-ordering (to collect more customer deposits – interest-free credit), Elon Musk claimed they would be guaranteed for infinity.
In a nutshell, since its ill-fated birth as project “Steel Pulse,” the PV solar tiles have been vaporware, inherently less efficient than regular PV solar panels, more complex to install and expensive, as I explained at more detail in April. As one astute SA commenter ventured, it was a piece of showmanship to sell investors the SolarCity bailout.
Powerwall/Powerpack
The $1 billion energy storage business that Elon Musk presented in 2015 – “So, 38,000 reservations is more, like 50,000 or 60,000 actual Powerwalls (…) So, it’s like crazy off the hook. Yeah. And it seems to have gone super viral” – never materialized. The Powerwall 1.0 sank without a trace, Powerwall 2.0 was withdrawn from some markets and turned out to be far more expensive than the bare product price advertised on Tesla’s website.
Gross margin for energy storage and generation was negative with -1.1% at the end of Q3 2016, before the SolarCity business was included into that business segment. Nearly a year later, the storage part of the business performs far worse at -34% (revenue $317 million – $273 million attributable to SolarCity = $44 million with COGS $237 million – $178 million attributable to SolarCity = $59 million).
Only a total of around 320MW of storage products have been sold since 2015, including Tesla’s Australian subcontractor effort, itself a peculiarity, because instead of using battery cells from its own heavily promoted battery factory, the company had to turn to Samsung SDI to deliver the goods. Surprisingly shortly after, Tesla was able to send a few Powerpacks to Puerto Rico for one of its several controversial post-hurricane-season PR efforts.
The energy storage business is, like Tesla’s music streaming service or the more recent inter-city ballistic rocket travel system, a loss-making solution to no problem.
Truck
While Daimler already began testing electric local freight and delivery trucks via its FUSO subsidiary from 2014, expanding its effort with its Urban eTruck from 2016 and commencing in 2017 with its heavy-duty E-FUSO Vision One, Tesla has yet to reveal its effort that was already postponed twice from the 26th October until the 16th November. Daimler claims that over the first decade, urban and regional transportation will make most sense to be electrified, either via battery or fuel-cell powered drive systems.
In tune with that, Toyota already is running its heavy-duty fuel-cell truck since October 2017 to distribute incoming cargo between the ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach and warehouse centers up to 100 miles afar. Haulage and distribution companies operate under extremely tight budgets, aiming to have vehicles operational as close to 24/7 as possible. Therefore, it remains to be seen how this sector will develop over the next two or three decades.
Deutsche Post DHL already is commercially building and operating urban delivery trucks since 2016, which helps combat the increasing pollution problem in dense cities from equally increasing online shopping delivery traffic. As with many things Tesla, a classic case of Aesop’s fable, with Tesla being the hare and real truck-makers being the tortoise.
Music
In what – sorry to say it so bluntly – can only be judged a vainglorious display of irrationality, Tesla announced in June 2017 that is developing a music streaming service, at a time when Model 3 volume production was about to commence. Right on cue, business publications came to the fore, suggesting that Tesla was about to “disrupt yet another industry,” opening another formidable income stream for the company by way of vertical integration. Investors should rather ask themselves why Tesla is still not offering its technology savvy customers Apple Music, Spotify (Private:MUSIC) or Pandora (NYSE:P), to name a few established music streaming services, and no radio on the Model 3.
Tunneling
In 2016, Elon Musk bought a used Herrenknecht TBM and declared that his Boring Company will revolutionize subterranean transportation, as if the New York City Subway and London Underground, or the submarine Channel Tunnel and the Swiss Gotthard Basis Tunnel were nothing but precursory exercises by unskilled engineers to future tunneling proper. As always, Elon Musk claimed that to make his ideas feasible, TBMs simply have to “go faster” and “go 3D”, whatever that means. After obtaining “verbal approval” to build a high-speed “Hyperloop” tunnel connecting NYC with Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington D.C. and buying a second used TBM, the company has focused on selling hats.
Hyperloop
An amalgamation of Alfred Ely Beach’s Pneumatic Transit from 1870 or the Swissmetro concept from 2005 and many similar concepts, popularized by Jules Verne and other science fiction authors, the Hyperloop is fully incompatible with existing passenger and freight railway networks, instead relying on an unproven infrastructure – exactly what is not needed to advance affordable and inclusive sustainable transportation worldwide.
A solution to no problem.
Missile inter-city travel
Is there a need for post-Concorde-speed travel, using dangerous ballistic missiles, propelled by huge amounts of toxic rocket-fuel, polluting the atmosphere? It is an idea straight from a 50s’ Popular Mechanics back-issue and highly unsustainable at that. Meanwhile, the last Form D SEC filing for SpaceX shows the company needed another $350 cash infusion.
Conclusion
This time, the final word consequently belongs to Henry Ford:
Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently.
Faraday hired away lots of top TESLA talent — 73 of their employees used to work for Tesla
http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-employees-poached-by-faraday-2016-1
Jon Wagner left to start his OWN COMAPNY
at least don’t be disingenuous with your posts
The state of Tesla is much worse than I thought. I knew it was bad when Solar City was bought up by Tesla, which sort of looked bad, but had no idea it was this bad. Burned nearly a Billion dollars in tax payer subsidies since 2013, with a few dilutions and more to come on the stock. Many of it products like solar shingles are just vaporware, or others such as the Boring Machine/Hyperloop just a sci-fi delusion for now.
It looks like Elon Musk has just taken too much on his plate, and much of it about to spoil. Definitely the moral of the story is to take one thing you are good at, and be very successful. Clearly, he didn’t learn this lesson, whilst day dreaming about going to Mars. I hope it turns out better than this report, but something smells rotten in Denmark.
The rates of transfer of energy from refinery to wholesaler; then from wholesaler to gas station; then from underground storage at the gas station into the gas tank; those rates are considerable, and known. Now imagine (thought experiment!) replacing one of the gas stations in Barstow, CA or Baker, CA to refuel the traffic from LA and SD to Los Vegas. How soon do you think an all-EV charging station of equivalent energy delivery rate can be installed to replace even 1 of the numerous gas stations in those localities?
Imagine an EV charging station in a metropolitan area with the energy delivery rate to match even one gas station in downtown LA. What exactly, and completely, does it entail?
Now imagine replacing 1/4 of the gas stations in America’s cities and the Interstate Highway System with EV-charging stations of equivalent energy delivery capacity.
Your three essays together make a good case that EVs are niche vehicles and that the niche can be slowly expanded, with the investment of large resources of time and money.
Yes it is known that it costs about half the useable energy to drill, transport, refine, separate, transport again, and deliver a gallon of gasoline than the 33.6k Wh you get from said gallon. (less because of the 10% ethanol)
Just to refine the gasoline takes 6kWH per gallon — add that to the wasted 23.5 kWh because of the innate inefficiency of an ICE (they average 30%)
and you start to get the idea of how absolutely wasteful the ICE economy is
We have not even added in the energy cost of drilling, pumping, tansport, storage, and delivery to the pump.
I’d wager that it is almost break even in terms of kWh spent to make a gallon of gas versus amount wasted to thermal and sound loss, and cost of manufacture.
karl: Yes it is known that it costs about half the useable energy to drill, transport, refine, separate, transport again, and deliver a gallon of gasoline than the 33.6k Wh you get from said gallon. (less because of the 10% ethanol)
I was writing about the speed at which the energy could be delivered from source to millions of vehicles on the road. What device can the gas station attendant or user hold to recharge a lithium battery sufficiently to drive another 400 miles? What does the structure look like that can handle vehicles at a high enough rate to keep the recharging station profitable and open? My car gets 400 mi on 11 gal and takes less than 5 min to refill; each gas station in Baker, CA serves hundreds of such vehicles daily, usually several at a time..
I can see lots of possibilities, but I also see them being built slowly.
@matthew
Well,
That depends on how you engineer the charger
You could use one large wire to carry a huge 600-1000 Volt 400 amp load (240-420 KW) — which is easy but stupid — heavy dangerous, needs cooling
or, one could design chargers that are modular, say a charger that has 10 discrete plugs each with a 100 amp 240v (24 KW) line which is IIRC 10-12 gauge home wiring, for each line — with less heat and no cooling needed
Now if you had a panel on an EV with 50 receptacles for 5 sets of the 10 plug charger cable — that would give you a 120KW draw — enough to recharge the average daily use of 15 kWh (60 miles) in 6 minutes
or 30 kWh in 12
The rest is engineering how you step down and distribute the draw from each 2.4 KW charger to the individual cells
Remember — different manufacturer 12 kWh, 30 kWh, 60 kWh and 100 kWh battery packs already all use 20 amp 120/240 volt chargers
distributing multiple chargers to multiple smaller portions of a large battery pack is a trivial engineering exercise
@ur momisugly matthew
one overhead local service line is 50,000 V and 10,000 amps
500 Mega volt amps or 500 MW — enough to allow for simultaneous charging of 700 vehicles @ur momisugly 500 KW draw (30% losses for transformer step downs at all phases of charging)
Now I personally have never seen a gas station with more than 36 pumps, most have 12 max
So an EV charging station with 100 charging stations would be cool
and one community service line would support 7 of such stations
@ur momisugly matthew
as far as profitable and open — 2 cents per kWh surcharge vs the 2-3 cents PER GALLON most service stations earn would be a boon for the EV charging station owner
It’s not unreasonable to assume almost 100% occupancy with smart-self driving cars 24 hours per day
If the station had an average 10 MW draw ( many office buildings had and have such a draw, considering that is only 10,000 100 watt light bulbs)
at 20 hours per day that is 200 MWh or 200,000 kWh — 400,000 cents is $4000/day gross profit @ur momisugly a 2 cent per kWH markup
that = 1.44 Million a year, not counting the possible candy and soda sales
sorry 100,000 100 watt light bulbs
I think that something many people have missed is the advent of SELF-DRIVING CARS.
On a trip, you stop for dinner ( at least 45 min -1 hour for a decent restaurant and good digestion)
While you are eating, your vehicle DERIVES ITSELF to the nearest charging station and charges while you eat.
This could also happen during the day if your employer doesn’t provide charging.
Or — it could also happen at night — coordinated with the AI -agents that manage the grid
I still cannot believe how small minded and short sighted some of the well educated posters are on this board.
Karl “small minded and short sighted” goes both ways. What is convenient for some is a time management and constraining inconvenience for others. Many don’t have the time in their lives between their work schedule to spend standing around waiting for enough power to get them from point A to C with B taking more time out of it.
My wife and I make frequent driving sight seeing trips in one day that can be over 500 miles through mountains that have zero gas stations in stretches of over 100 miles. Some have 30 miles of Grades that would reduce a full EV to Turtle Mode before topping them, and you would have to drive 20 miles first to get there from the last place you could get a full charge and another over 50 miles of mountains to the next gas station and pray they have a charging system. I have seen HEV doing those stretches. Not one EV on any of our outings in the past 10 years on those roads.
Never drove a car that can regenerate the energy of momentum as a car goes down grade have you?
I’ve gotten 93 mpg with a PRIUS because of proper use of regenerative braking. And 100 miles between stations is fine for an EV with a 300 mile range.
And you may be the .1% of people that go on 500 mile mountain sightseeing trips out of the 300,000,000 people in The US (hint that’)s 300,000 — which is an overstatement
.1% qualifies as niche — just like I said — do you read — or are you as quick knee-jerk with your responses as you are close minded and short-sighted?
Karl you have increasingly become curt, obtuse and insulting. Calling other’s what you are being. In these 3 parts I have pointed out existing technology that would revolutionize the EV by making them self sustainable without any outside charging system or any ICE that would make them HEVs. No infrastructure would be needed to do all the things you like about EVs. At the same time I can see how that would destroy world wide economies and create massive unemployment. Governments depends upon Capitalism and the taxation just as every individual does from Fossil Fuels. Nothing you own would be possible Without Fossil Fuels Carbon in it or used to mine, grow or make it and distribution of it. And that includes everything that is in an EV to the energy they require to make them move and stop, along with every “renewable” energy creation. If anyone is being what you say they are, it is you.
And you quite ignored the inevitability of leasing transportation on an as needed basis.
You want to go on a mountain trip? – a self driving specialty EV with a 500+ mile range will drive to your door within 15 minutes of your call.
This is the future.
Why lose $14,000 when you drive a new car off the lot? — or get shafted $3-4k on the trade in — or buy a used vehicle that is more likely to cost just as much in repairs and maintenance as the difference — unless you buy an extended warranty that costs almost as much?
karl: I’ve gotten 93 mpg with a PRIUS because of proper use of regenerative braking.
I have enjoyed driving my son’s Prius. At present prices, a good deal on a Prius is about $7,000 more than the good deal I got on my VW Jetta. It takes a lot of fuel savings to repay that cost. For a while I was driving a Corolla to work and my boss was driving a Prius; I calculated, at that time, that it would take a Prius driver about 120,000 to save on gasoline the extra energy used in making the battery pack of the Prius. I am sure that the costs are different now.
My other son bought a Leaf. That car cost him about what my Jetta cost me ($1,000 less iirc), but he benefited from about $10,000 in subsidies and tax credits; as I wrote elsewhere, when he goes skiing he drives his SUV.
mrm: 120,000
oops, that’s 120,000 miles.
I imagined that everywhere I drove she drove beside me, and every time I filled up, she filled up with a little less.
@jo
I do hope the perpetual motion and free energy posts you posted were satire — otherwise you shouldn’t be on this board
There isn’t any “perpetual motion” to it. It is driven by the batery powering a small electric motor that turns a flywheel that multiplies the energy to a generator that would normally require a larger electric motor, therefore generating more electricity than is required to turn it. It is proven to work on any scale from desktop models to many tons. You would only need to generate to scale enough electricity to offset that 1 kWh in 3 to 4 miles used by the normal driving of an EV and the electricity used to power the flywheel. Which in reality would be operating the vehicle by that system itself. Which would sound like a “perpetual motion” if there was not energy being constantly put into it to make it work. Remove that small motor and it would eventually stop working by the pull of the generator. That is demonstrated in some of those videos. I guess you are just not curious enough to learn anything. And would rather be obtuse.
[???? .mod]
johchi7, I implore you, study Newton and his Laws of Motion. I thought perpetual motion machines, along with other stuff and subjects that are really ‘out there’ is not really appreciated on this board? If such a machine actually worked, obviously the Chinese would have ripped it off by now, and they wouldn’t be burning any coal in China. And you propose to put this in an EV? And people think I am nuts for saying that the success of the EV would be greatly enhanced by a Micro fuel cell or ICE generator of some type so it could actually work everywhere traditional cars work now.
Even in Newton”s time water wheels were powering grain mill’s. That is a Flywheel that is using the weight of water added constantly to it and gearing to turn heavy stones against eachother to grind grains to flour.
johchi7…waterwheels were powering grain mills in Roman times. What’s your point? In a closed energy system, you can’t get more energy out of a system than you put in. The law of conservation of energy is a law of science that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed from one form into another or transferred from one object to another. Entropy is the limiting factor in your model. I think you know this, since I think I have read other fairly intelligent stuff you wrote. Maybe it was a similarly sounding name..
After a few seconds of searching I picked this one…
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/flywheels.html
After studying it you may see the physics I have been talking about. The other link’s I have provided support this concept. And it is being used in other applications in vehicles. To use a flywheel as a multiplier of energy to increase energy on a smal scale, is not that difficult to understand. Just diverting a portion of the forward motion aleeady being used to flywheel that can maintain the generator running at a higher rate than being discharged is what I’m talking about. Which is why I said newer technologies are already available to do it. Proof already exists that a smaller energy input can create more energy output by using flywheel technology…using the law’s of physics.
I will say it again. If transportation can be made self sustainable. The effects would cause an affect that would revolutionize the future and cause massive unemployment do to the law’s of economics dependent upon the Fossil fuels industry and therefore economic collapse of countries.
If some dude can create such a device using a 1 KWH motor to generate 220 Volts that can loop part of that back to the motor to keep it running perpetually, and still have more voltage available to power other divices… Why is that not Free Energy?
If the car drives itself the need for breaks is greatly reduced, you can sleep, eat and relax while the car is moving. You will need to stop for toilet breaks, unless the car is equipped for that too, but that only takes a few minutes so provides little opportunity for charging. So you could drive thousands of miles with no more than 15 minutes of halts per thousand miles.
@ur momisugly Bill
An astonishingly open minded, far sighted and astute observation (compared to the average member of this forum) of the eventuality that EV and self driving cars will provide.
And if it is an on-demand lease, no insurance, no maintenance, no personal property tax, and no need for a garage.
And kudos to you Anthony for having this series on your board.
While I agree with your conclusions regarding AGW, and greenhouse gasses in general; your site has a significant slant toward traditional power generation, and ignores the massive subsidies ( in real dollars) to the COAL, petrochemical and Nuclear Power industries from infancy to current day AROUND THE WORLD , that pale in comparison to subsidies for renewables.
[???? .mod]
Here is some perspective on what you call “subsidies” that really are not “subsidies” and actually just tax breaks that most industries get in the US.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillinginfo/2016/02/22/debunking-myths-about-federal-oil-gas-subsidies/
Huh. I regularly do a Chicago-Denver run, and back again, stopping to gas-up and pee only. 1000 miles/14.5 hours. I eat and drink whatever I packed in the cooler.
Karl, are you telling me that I’m eating indecently? Is my digestion somehow compromised by not stopping to eat at a restaurant?
Misconception #7 Your perpetual motion machine is more efficient than mine.
It takes two things to achieve success. It has to comply with the laws of science. You have to do it better.
Another way of saying this, you need a compelling reason to get people to change. For example, the adoption of electric lights. It is better to burn something at a power plant to make electricity than to burn something in you house to make light.
As long as we have oil, there is no compelling reason to switch to a BEV.
Misconception #8 Your list is longer than my list.
It is not the length of the list but the …..!
People with agendas make longs list without checking to see if the reasons are valid. For example, most daily use of cars within the range that batteries. That is a reason you could use a BEV but not a reason to have a BEV.
Karl: On a trip, you stop for dinner ( at least 45 min -1 hour for a decent restaurant and good digestion)
Or you pack food to eat along the way and stop only for “rest” and refueling.
Most stop and eat — and I notice you didn’t address the other points I made about self driving cars
The EV is inevitable
The ICE will become a tiny niche technology only useful in the very few applications a mature and robust EV infrastructure do not address
karl: and I notice you didn’t address the other points I made about self driving cars
not a bad idea. If you stop for a meal in Baker, CA, where does the car drive to for refueling/recharging? How soon can a refueling/recharging station be built there?
I do not know whether EV cars are inevitable or not. I am not seeing EV long-haul trucks any time soon, perhaps long haul hybrids like diesel trains. Pure EV is going to take a lot of labor and investment. The easiest part to achieve will be high volume manufacture of the EVs.
Similarly, for fanatics of a different kind:
Furthermore, as the high speed rail and commuter rail infrastructure becomes constructed in the US — most will take a train or hyperloop fore trips that would require a more than 300-400 mile battery life.
I took the train from DC to Boston once, because counting the 2 hours early arrival and DHS security lines the trip time considering Acela was shorter and the cost was less than a one way from Reagan National or Dulles to Logan.
I had business in Paris and the Hague, did I drive a rental car from Paris to the Hague? — nope I took the Talys and got a full breakfast and lunch with wine service compris, as well as being dropped right at Schipol, in about 3:45 IIRC.
OPSEC required a rental car for local travel, or I would have been dropped at Centraal Station Den Haag, and taken the tram or taxi to Shcreveningen and then from Schreveningen to work.
For my Pleasure trips to Amsterdam — 32 Euros for a roundtrip ticket from Den Haag to Amsterdam. No parking, and it took 45 minutes to go 60 km.
Try taking a train from Salt Lake City to Phoenix, Karl. Tell us how that works out. And then tell us how much coal you’ll burn when you find out you can’t take a train and decide to take your EV instead.
Re: your European vacation via train, consider the thoughts of this former administrator of the Urban Mass Transit Administration:
@Matthew Marler, you’re actually mis-characterizing diesel-electric locomotives. Although GE had an experimental “hybrid” locomotive with a &#$%ton of batteries in it a few years back, today’s diesel-electric locomotives are NOT “hybrids;” they do not rely on batteries for power at all. They consist of a diesel engine which turns a generator (or alternator) to supply electricity for electric traction motors which turn the engine’s wheels. Batteries in a diesel-electric locomotive are for nothing more than turning over the diesel engine, as the battery in an ICE car is used.
@johchi7, I think the piece you’re missing is this: The flywheel doesn’t “produce” any energy, it just “stores” some of the energy already expended by the power source it’s connected to. And since the flywheel is heavy, it takes MORE energy to turn the drivetrain which contains a flywheel that to turn one without it. So there’s no “free lunch.”
Oh and self driving cars solves the issue of extension cords on sidewalks for people that don’t have a garage, carport or back pad.
Your car could just drive itself to the charging station.
Or in an even more logical extension – why OWN a car at all? — leases are cheaper especially if there is no penalty to return
,Leased EV car sharing to and from work would always result in a full charge, and you could reduce lease costs by charging overnight.
For the FEW who need a car to go 500-600 miles, specialty SUV/Minivan type vehicles would be available as needed.
China has fully electric buses that can carry 60 people and packages for 1100 km. Scaling that technology down to an Expedition sized EV that is only used when needed is honestly a trivial engineering exercise.
This is the economy of the future, ignore it at your own risk.
Karl. You are sounding like a snake oil salesman. Just t like the team that explained the ProPilot system to us about Autonomous Nissans at the test track I have worked at for over 20 year’s.
http://nissannews.com/en-US/nissan/usa/channels/us-nissan-technologies-autonomous-driving
Review what has been put out by Nissan in the link. Because I cannot make comments that would go against the secrecy clauses in my contract, to give my reasons against their ideologies without repercussions. What you think you know is not based upon reality at this point and is science fiction today as it will still be well after 2020. The infrastructure is just not available for interstate traveling and cities are even farther away from making this happen. People live in the here and now. That is what fuels the future. Not forcing something on people by government interventions that think they know what’s good for them. We are not children and governments are not our parents. But people run to the government as if they are their parent’s, to get the rest of their siblings to do something or not to do something.
Nice way to change the subject — classic deflection
FACTS say otherwise
Self driving cars are on the road today all over the US
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16615290/waymo-self-driving-safety-driver-chandler-autonomous
https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/11/16458850/self-driving-car-california-dmv-regulations
Oh, and lets not forget the TESLAs (35,000) that have full autopilot
2 years ago CRISPR-CAS9 was a new tech, cutting out genes or chromosomes — this year they used it to eradicate HIV from the genome of human cells in transfected mice
Enter BASE PAIR editing — 2 years later that actually works on live organisms (they cured beta thalessemia in embryos)
These advancements would have taken a decade or 2, 30 years ago – when you were lucky if you could get reception with a bag cell phone with a 10 inch antenna, much less ATM and debit on demand.
Progress is exponential as has been the hybrid AND EV penetration to the car market
— you should read kurzweil
Karl your education of Autonomous vehicles is lacking reality. These vehicles can only maintain traffic in the single lane they are in. Thus slowing, stopping and resuming speeds set by the driver. Most of them ping pong within the lane lines, except for the new LEAF that center’s the vehicle in the lane as long as those lane markings are not well defined, and those other vehicles are much worse at staying in between the lines. If you try to change lanes without using the turn signal the steering will fight back to stay in the lane. Because everything relies on sensors to read the road and those microseconds of communications and response of the vehicle to change with conditions. If a lane marker becomes unreadable the car veers and shuts the system off. If you’re busy play with your phone at the time that loud noise that warns you may be seconds too late. Road hazards like tire tread and other things are not detected by these system’s and hitting a queen size bed mattress or 12 foot ladder is pretty damaging to vehicles traveling 60 mph. These systems cannot read through glare and wet roads reflect like mirrors masking lines on the roads. These systems do not work in city traffic and have trouble on freeways with entrance and exit lines requiring the driver to take control at a moment’s notice. They are far from being “Autonomous vehicles” of the fictional I-Robot kind. And any honest manufacturers put that in their website. If your car bops and weaves in a lane, there is no way to create an infrastructure to charge it while driving and only a single lane would ever be dedicated to such a endeavor. Then only if the numbers of EVs becomes a majority of vehicles in a given stretch of roads. Like with Global Alarmists moving the goal post for catastrophic temperature increases and climat change. These EV ideologies are Progressivisms nemesis of wanting to change the world right now and not waiting for it to evolve on its own merits, using its own money gains in a free market…because at this point they would have failed without governments taking from the poor and giving to the pet peaves of their ideologies. You have no concept of the massive price distortions this has caused.
Another problem self-driving cars would probably have an issue with locally in Texas, and in much of the semi-rural parts of the US, are deer. Moose in some states would be even worse, and having several hundred pounds of beastie through your windshield is more than a bit of a problem.
Tom Halla everything I have read speaks o the future for this issue. These cars are designed with front and back “tunnel vison” that even vehicles that change lanes in front of them are not recognized very well and the driver – if they’re paying attention – would slam on tbe brakes before the vehicle would.
linky on the base pair editing
yup they can change a single A C T or G point mutation to the correct acid — curing otherwise fatal genetic diseases in living organisms
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/29/health/gene-edit-beta-thalassemia-study/index.html
http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_891508.asp
@ur momisugly Jo
WAYMO vehicles:
change lanes
make turns
navigate intersections
avoid debris, animals and bicyclists
https://storage.googleapis.com/sdc-prod/v1/safety-report/waymo-safety-report-2017-10.pdf
perhaps your expertise is a bit outdated, considering WAYMO vehicles are operating in multiple cities.
karl Or in an even more logical extension – why OWN a car at all? — leases are cheaper especially if there is no penalty to return
There is a healthy auto leasing business in the US, so it isn’t exactly a new idea.
“karl November 10, 2017 at 1:45 pm
Or in an even more logical extension – why OWN a car at all? — leases are cheaper especially if there is no penalty to return”
Why own any property? A home, some land? The thin edge of the communist wedge…
Wow — such ignorance and purposeful conflation
in communism the state/society owns everything
If a PRIVATE company provides a lease that is less expensive and more convenient than OWNING a vehicle — why own one?
1. vehicles (unless they are quite rare) ALWAYS DEPRECIATE
2. land and a home — except for short term blips — ALWAYS APPRECIATE
3. If I could rent my clothing and other depreciating property I would, instead I go to a second hand shop and buy brand-new (with original price tag) “used” polo, ralph lauren, etc for 20 cents on the dollar or less.
I go to the pawn shop and buy ACER laptops at an 80% discount usually because they have malware or viruses – with ACER you can go online and type in the serial number and it will return whether you can get a factory reset CD they will send you for $20
In the last 4 decades I have purchased a new vehicle only twice, once because I was a stupid teenager, the other because they gave me $5000 more than I owed on my trade and sold me the car for $4500 under invoice.
EV/hybrid will be less expensive, more convenient and more ubiquitous than ICE vehicles in less than 20 years worldwide
In CHINA and INDIA — perhaps within 10 years
Is it communism that MANY MAJOR companies lease their computing resources and storage space from GOOGLE and AMAZON, instead of owning the nardware themselves?
A Really great idea.
But, do you really want to sit in this Autonomous EV which has just picked up & dropped off some Drunken Students who have vomitted all over the seats and floor?
Or someone has used it to take their Ailing pet to the Vets and it has peed & crapped in the car?
You would have no control over who had used it or what for.
Do you also think that the companies running these oh so easy to use EVs are not going to exploit them and charge whatever they want for your “Privelege” to use them, because YOU HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE?
Yep that sounds like Utopia.
No more than now that I’m worried about vomit or crap in a Lyft or Uber car. Yes, you got a human driver to monitor that stuff but there’s a few things AV car services can do to mitigate vomit and crap contamination. One, know your customer. How about reduced fares for rated, repeat customers? Potential vomiters and/or dog crap leavers–unrated customers–would pay more. I’d imagine that people will belong to car services and will agree to ride with other people like they agree to “friend” people now on social media. Two, plenty of inspection and cleaning stations scattered throughout an urban area, staffed by part time students and retirees, especially at peak commute times. How long would it take for an AV to pull up to one of those stations so the inspectors could take a peak and take a sniff? How long to do a quick vacuum and window cleaning? Deeper cleaning could be done in the wee hours of the morning.
Do you also think that the companies running these oh so easy to use EVs are not going to exploit them and charge whatever they want for your “Privelege” to use them, because YOU HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE?
No more than any other non-monopolistic service provider. AV car services won’t be the DMV.
NO EV would go back out to be re-used until it was inspected and certified — duh
Car sharing is already working fine in Europe Canada and the US
https://www.car2go.com/US/en
CAR2GO is also all over Europe, just click the USA tab to see all the other countries
On demand leasing of self-driving EV — the key to third world market penetration (India and Indonesia are included in my definition of Third world).
Posit you are an entrepreneur that needs to transport goods to the purchaser, or distribution depot.
The investment in purchasing a vehicle of any kind is prohibitive with respect to profit, and likely credit.
On demand self-driving EV lease that only charges you for time/mileage and/or cost of joules used is much less prohibitive, and allows for entry of a hugely larger number of prospective entrepreneurs than the traditional purchase.
And after delivery the vehicle drives back to the EV depot.
No need to gratuitously conflate self-driving vehicles with electric vehicles. One technology doesn’t lend itself to the other.
It absolutely does — self-driving vehicles remove the time and inconvenience argument regarding recharging.
If your car can drive itself and recharge when you are working or sleeping or partying or whatever,
then fast recharge isn’t and issue, nor is having a place to charge overnight
You could say the same thing about going to the gas station, Karl.
Non sequitur.
Sure, but you are paying 4 times as much for your energy — and if cars are self driving — there is no extra convenience for an ICE — simply a waste of hydrocarbons that would be better used as feedstock for polymers and nano-carbon materials
My guess is that the author is a whore for EVs because he’s on the government dole, much like the climate hysterics at NOAA or East Anglia. Private school tuition for the kiddies isn’t cheap. That nice semi-detached, or that great little place up Boulder Canyon, ain’t cheap. To say nothing of that Tesla, jeez, .bumping $900/month.
Gotta’ keep that grant money rollin’ in…
Just a guess.
Contrary to what is written in the article, distribution seems a nightmare.
I wonder why they aren’t considering swappable batteries, so that you can get to a charging station and a battery pack is replaced by a robot arm, perhaps sideways from the bottom of your car. That would be fast. That way you could have half your battery capacity, say, dependent on a pack that is constantly being replaced, with routine safety checks= more reliability, and the extra high voltage lines required are mostly those going to stations. Parking lots near popular vacation spots may become impromptu temporary stations to absorb expected peak demand due to the masses getting back home after a holiday.
Karl writes, “If you had read my post carefully you would seen that I didn’t leave that detail out, quite clearly saying that the main impediment to electric cars was their price….”
Karl does not understand the difference between a detail, a vague generality, and an opinion. took
Our 2007 Corolla is convenient and fun to drive. That is an opinion. Before buying the car, we rented one. We drove it on congested freeways. Never fun. Then we took the Blue Ridge Parkway the rest of the way home. Always fun. The Corolla is also a luxury car, it has all the luxuries my wife wants.
What we paid for the car, $16k, is a detail. Since we rented a car, I could estimate how much fuel we would use if over 300k miles. As an engineer I can also estimate the life cycle cost of maintenance.
Step 1 is find something you like and meets your needs. Step 2 is to look at all the costs.
Karl think I have an agenda because I will not buy something that does not meet my needs and is very expensive.
I do not think being practical is an ideology.
Not every choice has to be practical. I have owned a sailboat 30 years. I drove the wife’s Corolla to work one day. The German engineer in out group had the hood up on his Ford Mustang and was parked next an older engineer with the hood up on his Chevy Camaro. I pulled in beside them a popped the hood.
As it turns out, the German Engineer and I had the same criteria. It is what the wife wanted.
When gas goes to $6-10 a gallon in less than 10 years, and EV are in parity at purchase in 5 talk to me then.
FYI — LI-Ion are now down to $145/ kWh to GM and $190 to Tesla
https://insideevs.com/lg-chem-ticked-gm-disclosing-145kwh-battery-cell-pricing-video/
Ghawar is 70% depleted — regardless of the Saudi lies to the contrary (they pump seawater equivalent to 70% of the oil they pump out because the reservoir of oil is almost gone)
The easily recoverable (less than $50-60/barrel to extract) US shale oil is almost depleted.
Mexico and the North Sea are dropping fast. Russia will hit their peak soon too.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/11/highlights-of-the-2017-heartland-energy-conference/
Really? Your science fiction future is not looking very good.
@7
None of that contradicts what I said.
GO to the EIA site and look at trends in wells drilled and barrels per well and overall production.
Sure there is oil left in Bakken et al — but not at less than $55-60 a barrel to extract.
@ur momisugly Jo7
Science fact has passed science fiction in many fields already.
Kirk could’t video chat with his communicator to the others on an away team, but I can — using a satellite interfaced phone in place of the Enterprise
You realize that Science Fiction is usually based upon a concept that has already been investigated or being done – like submarines in the Revolutionary War and the book “10,000 Leages Under The Sea” over a century later. Or “I-Robot” self driving transportation. Or Dick Tracy and his wristband communications. Star Trek communications went from a flip phone looking device that automatically translated languages between species to the buttons they wore in later series…now there’s an app for that that is bad at best and is by texting conversions mostly.
The point I was making is in the new WUWT was there is not enough Lithium known to exist to obtain the level of EV products you are dreaming about. That none of the combination of Renewables can fit across a country to supply the energy to the population. That AGW CO2 has been debunked for any detrimental significant effects on warming or climate change, making the need for EV even less needed…because there is more than enough Fossil Fuels to fuel the needs of population growth for centuries if not longer. By then, maybe, something else will come around. But there is not any immediate need to rush to into the future you are wanting to happen.
Yes, I have been in traffic with those WAYMO as they are driven to map out area’s. You should notice they will only be used in specific area’s at present and it just started its program on the 5th of November. So we still have to wait to see how they perform and how people respond to them. But these are designed for a specific purpose and not for individual owners like you have been saying, prior to the last few days when you changed your arguments.
Current infrastructure would have to be drastically changed to meet the needs of what you are wanting. That is not happening anytime soon and is far too costly to even think about. Here in Arizona they created a Light Rail that is limited by the old infrastructure to where it can go. They disrupted many land owners by forcing them to sell and cheated other’s to do it. I have never seen one having more than half full of commuters. Yet, there are stretches between Tucson and Phoenix and the Phoenix metro to California and many other’s that have divided freeways that should have trains. But instead they are adding more lanes. Planners are limited to current infrastructure in most cases. Just as Am Track uses the same tracks as Freight Trains. Air travel is restricted because of dangerous collisions. So future travelling is going to have to change to above or below ground for bigger metropolitan area’s lime in New York. But that was planned long before it grew for Subways.
No more time now…
@cap
WATT was correct “if present trends continued”
consumption from 1965 to 1970 doubled
From 30 Million Barrels/day to 45 Million Barrels a day
https://labs.timogrossenbacher.ch/worldoil/
Even at a linear growth of 3 Million Barrels a day World consumption would have reached today’s rate by 1985, would have been 135 million barrels a day by 2000, and 180 million per day by now
luckily the present trend did not continue
That would have been 1100 Billion Barrels consumed between 1965 and 2000
Considering total cumulative global production since the first wells were drilled was approximately 1000 Billion Barrels by 2005
WATT was correct
BTW — Crude is up 25% since Sept 1
https://www.dailyfx.com/crude-oil
If present trends continue it will be above $100 by June 2018
But don’t your realize, Karl, that your predictions today will likely be every bit as ridiculous as Kenneth Watts’ were in 1970?
You assume today’s conditions will continue into infinity when in reality humans are inventive, nay devious creatures, ready and willing and able to sew a silk purse from a sow’s ear.
Always have been. Always will be.
Don’t be such a curmudgeon. Live life. Celebrate humanity.
Never said you had an agenda –
Never said you MUST buy an EV
Simply stating the inevitability based on cost and efficiency advancements — EV will supplant the ICE
except in very very niche applications and for people who want to waste their money for a false sense of convenience
This is not today of course, but in 20 years you will be hard pressed to find somewhere WITHOUT a charger for an EV
“Inevitability?” LMFAO. Something a whole lot smarter than hauling around 1200lbs of batteries will be invented long before EVs replace ICE vehicles. And please don’t bother pointing out the lower battery weights of tiny little EVs with limited range, as they’re not going to “replace” the hordes of larger vehicles preferred by most on this side of the “pond.”
Remember — at CURRENT rates oil will be gone in 42 years – if you believe the inflated reserves of the Saudis — and include the OIL TAR in Venezuela (snicker).
Oil Futures calls are at $100 for DEC 2018
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Traders-Are-Betting-On-100-Oil-In-2018.html
Saudi production is now dropping 2017 vs 2016
Inventories are dropping, and legacy fields are running dry
I’m Trading my Subie with 120k miles in for A Prius or a leaf plug-in electric
There is a nice used leaf I’m going to get my son
My daughter drives a prius
And I’m looking to get the Audi etron Quattro, or a VW or Volvo EV to replace the wife’s suv by 2020.
FYI — Volvo is going to an all electric/hybrid product line in 2019
https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/07/volvos-electric-future/532659/
How can you naysayers not see the writing on the wall?
The only reason there are any of the EVs you mention is bone-headed government subsidization of vehicles that absent such subsidization would not exist, because without the subsidies nobody would be buying them, and nobody would be making them.
The only writing on the wall is “We’ll keep making these as long as the government rewards us for doing so and/or punishes us for not doing so.”
Firstly, thanks to the OP for his 3 posts which have triggered so much interesting debate.
I have not had time to read all of the comments so apologise if these points have already been covered:
Average daily mileage figures are likely to be misleading. It would be very interesting to see some good data on the frequency and distances of journeys. A car which makes numerous, relatively short journeys within cities or between them is probably a good EV candidate (all things being equal, if we ever get there). One that has to do occasional long trips to remote areas or in challenging conditions is better suited to ICE power.
With regard to range, the need for a reserve has to be taken into account. My old diesel MPV will do around 700 miles on a tank but I try to avoid running it close to empty, preferring to have 100 – 150 miles available for possible emergencies. That is enough to get me to any sudden family drama in the dead of night, for example, without having to find a filling station open. A depleted electric car which has just started its timed overnight charging would be useless.
Contrary to one of the posts, business users are a large part of the UK driving population. New car sales here are split roughly 50:50 between private buyers and company purchases. Of course the business users tend to do much higher mileages. I have been looking to buy a car which is a typical “repmobile”. The majority for sale have at least 50,000 miles on them at around 3 years old.
Another problem is what happens when a car is left unused. I have read that EVs drain their batteries at a rate which means they cannot be left unconnected for very long. Sure, an EV can be connected to a trickle charger if it is garaged at home but that could be tricky for one parked in a driveway, let alone in the road. So an owner going away for a long holiday or business trip would have to make arrangements for the EV to be looked after. Long-term parking at airports would have to provide trickle-charging bays.
As many others have already said, hybrids are the better option for now with the ICE acting as a generator. Over time, if battery technology improves as predicted and the EV infrastructure is built, the hybrids will require less ICE support, evolving towards battery-only vehicles. That should be left to the market.
Lithium Ion batteries don’t discharge much when not used or charged, unless you are talking months.
You are thinking of NiCad. Some Li Ion Polymer batteries exhibit ZERO self discharge
If I turn off my phone and leave it sit for a few days, the charge is invariably the same as before I turned it off.
“Average daily mileage figures are likely to be misleading”
You can say that again. The UK figures quotes are from the National Travel Survey. This covers (all in the link supplied) just over 7,300 vehicles out of over 35 million. Now surveys can be pretty accurate but I wonder why the government is commissioning and publishing a survey when it has more accurate data on a much larger body of vehicles in the form of the MoT test data
Also I know several people who use their car little if at all during the week but drive a long distance at the weekend – a couple of them are visiting elderly parents. So their meandaily mileage might be quite low but the mode and the medium will be much higher.
Your point about a car only doing short journeys (within or between cities) being a potential EV candidate is a very good one, provided the emphasis is on only. IME most people make the occasional longer journey where an EV will not do, hence for a majority (maybe a significant majority) an EV only works as a second car. If a family already has two cars then replacing the city runabout with an EV may make sense. If the family only has one car then adding an EV makes no sense whatsoever.
In my mind EVs are now (and for the foreseeable future) a very niche product. Expensive to buy, low (and decreasing range), awkward & slow to ‘refuel’. And the cheap to run attribute will disappear if and when they become common as ‘fuel tax’ will be applied in some form in order to make up for the revenue from reduced petrol & diesel sales.
Please ignore the comment from karl. He is not only an EV obsessive but rather rude, and to top it off typically incorrect and it seems rather untruthful.
Here he claims to have turned his phone off for days at a time but elsewhere he claimed to have needed to fully charge it 1,500 times in three years (1.5 times per day). Also his comments about Li-ion batteries are simply untrue, see
http://www.batteryeducation.com/2012/10/battery-self-discharge-rates.html
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/elevating_self_discharge
which suggest 5-10% per month. And these
https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/5pd6fm/how_long_can_a_tesla_reasonably_hold_a_charge/
https://forums.tesla.com/en_GB/forum/forums/rate-discharge-when-parked-conflicting-info
which make it clear that because of the on-board electronics a Tesla will lose power at a faster rate than an ordinary Li-ion battery.
The figures are not particularly worrying in general but if you drive some distance to an airport, so the battery is already rather depleted, and park there for several weeks then it could well be a problem.
It is not the batteries — Tesla’s design uses the batteries to power onboard electronics when the car is turned off.
Many Lithium Batteries have a zero discharge rate (or as close to zero as matters) when in storage or not in use
“It is not the batteries”
No idea what ‘it’ means here.
“Tesla’s design uses the batteries to power onboard electronics when the car is turned off”
Which is what I said and this means that they will run down even faster than the self-discharge rate.
“Many Lithium Batteries have a zero discharge rate (or as close to zero as matters) when in storage or not in use”
Any evidence for that (and don’t talk about your mythical mobile phone)? Everyone else thinks that they do self-discharge.
“Low Self Discharge – Unlike NiMH and NiCd batteries, Lithium Polymer cells experience a very low rate
of self-discharge when not in use. Lithium Polymer cells experience a self-discharge rate of approximately
5% per month”
http://www.manoonpong.com/Other/main_page=page_2.pdf
That = .16% a day — yup a week to even register a 1% drop in charge
Cell phones use LI-Ion polymer batteries — hence why my phone shows no discharge after 24 hours being turned off.
Lithium Ion average about 10% per month with 3% of that being the protection circuit.
so again 3 days to see a 1% drop
With all the OH-my OH-my I need to charge my car every day
LI-Ion discharge rates are a non-issue
NEXT?
@ur momisugly jim
16% or even 30% of a penny is essentially ZERO — like I said
Self discharge of Lithium Ion batteries during normal use is essentially ZERO
Some data shows an initial loss for non-polymer LI-IOn as 5% in 24 hours then 1-2 % per month.
Which equates to 71-83% charge left after 1 year of sitting –
Except that discharge rates decrease as a function of current charge versus full charge
So, it is very likely that after a year of sitting without a protection circuit — you would have 85% charge left
With a protection circuit on (3% per month), you would have 50% charge after 8-9 months
@ur momisugly The stainless steel rat
Even assuming a 5% loss the first 24 hours — and a 5% per month with protection circuit — after a year you would still have 35% charge left
karl,
So 5% in the first day and 5%/month is “zero … (or as close to zero as matters)”, so you won’t mind giving me 5% of your wealth now and 5%/month from now on will you.
“Even assuming a 5% loss the first 24 hours — and a 5% per month with protection circuit — after a year you would still have 35% charge left”
If and only your battery had 100% of its original capacity and you started at 100% of that capacity. If you are capable of reading and comprehending and had bothered to do so, you would know that:
1. The battery will not have 100% of its original capacity.
2. I was very clearly talking about a situation where you were not starting from 100% of capacity, when I said “The figures are not particularly worrying in general but if you drive some distance to an airport, so the battery is already rather depleted, and park there for several weeks then it could well be a problem“.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261516309067
http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf
“Using data obtained from the Department of Transport’s 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), Garrett Fitzgerald and Rob van Haaren analyzed the travel data of survey participants, concluding that 95 percent of the 748,918 recorded single-trip journeys by car were under 30 miles. ”
“The average single-trip distance? Just 5.95 miles. And while rural respondents naturally traveled further on average than their urban counterparts, 95 percent of all rural-based trips were still under 50 miles. ”
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1071688_95-of-all-trips-could-be-made-in-electric-cars-says-study
“WASHINGTON, D.C., (April 16, 2015) – On average, Americans drive 29.2 miles per day, making two trips with an average total duration of 46 minutes. This and other revealing data are the result of a ground-breaking study currently underway by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety and the Urban Institute.”
http://newsroom.aaa.com/2015/04/new-study-reveals-much-motorists-drive/
That is a lot of consistency across multiple studies across multiple years.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. In response to Mr. Hardy’s “Part 1”, I gave a preliminary overview of the impact on the generating capacity required for 100% EVs. Above, he writes:
“Misconception 2: if EVs take off, electrical distribution networks won’t cope.
“With an average daily mileage for private cars of 20-30 miles per day and 3-4 miles per kW-hr the average charge needed is 5 to 10 kW-hr a day, equivalent to running a 7 kW electric shower for 40 to 80 minutes or warming up a few storage heaters over 5-6 hours.
“Another mistaken assumption is that everyone will come home and charge at peak time in the early evening. Once again this is highly unlikely to become a problem. Incentivising people to charge off peak is trivial, as is the technology. I have my car set to start charging at 1:00 a.m. when my electricity price almost halves.”
My first analysis simply took the total number of miles driven per day in the United States, and multiplied it by the best demonstrated numbers available for kW-hr/mile. That’s the number of kW-hr capacity required every single day, period, and it’s 20% more than the total electric generating capacity of the United States. Any departure from uniform charging rate increases that number.
Mr. Hardy’s arm-waving and assertions don’t stand up to any kind of real analysis. By the way, I have run an alternative energy company, developed several “renewable” energy devices, and currently work in an industry where energy management down to the millijoule (out of gigajoules) range is the norm. I abandoned the renewable energy business when I realized that the only way it was profitable was through subsidies. From a total conservation of energy perspective, it was a loser.
@Michael
It seems your analysis is way off
in 2015 there were 2.1 Trillion light duty vehicle miles driven in the US
https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_35.html
In 2015 US electricity generation was
4,077,601 THOUSAND MEGAWATT-HOURS
or 4 Million Million KILOWATT-HOURS
or 4 Trillion Kilowatt-hours
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_01.html
The AVERAGE — MILES per Kilowatt-hour for EV is 4 — yes 4 miles per kilowatt-hour
So, there would only be needed 500 Billion Kilowatt Hours for the whole year
Yet the US generates 8 times as much electricity (4 Trillion kWh)
perhaps your maths were off a bit — or you didn’t realize EV’s get 4 Miles per kilowatt hour
SO basically 12% of US electricity generation could power all light duty vehicle miles driven if they were all EV
wow — thanks for bringing that up
We have different data on light-duty miles driven. My original source said slightly more than 4 trillion miles, another indicates roughly 3.8 trillion miles. Your source actually indicates 2.9 trillion miles; you forgot to add long wheel base and other two axle, four tire vehicles. As for the average kW-hr per mile, I was more generous than you. I used data for the 70 kW-hr Tesla, with a range of 265 miles. That’s 0.264 kW-hr/mile.
So, 0.264 kW-hr/mile x 2.9 trillion miles = 0.77 trillion kW-hr. You indicate that we generate 4 trillion kW-hr per year, and my sources agree. So the total required would be 19% of our current production. If the charging were spread evenly over 365 24 hour days, the fraction of capacity would be 8.7%. That doesn’t account for losses that I accounted for. Any deviation from uniformity will required a greater percentage capacity increase.
Not WAY off, by any means, but less. Thanks for making me look more closely.
@Michael
Your data includes all highway miles — see my link above — and the notes describe what light duty means
“Data for 2007-15 were calculated using a new methodology developed by FHWA. Data for these years are based on new categories and are not comparable to previous years. The new category Light duty vehicle, short wheel base includes passenger cars, light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles with a wheelbase (WB) equal to or less than 121 inches. The new category Light duty vehicle, long wheel base includes large passenger cars, vans, pickup trucks, and sport/utility vehicles with wheelbases (WB) larger than 121 inches. This edition of 1-35 is not comparable to previous editions.”
That’s 2.147 Trillion
Thank you for re-evaluating your calculations, but you have to admit
“more than all the electrical production” vs 19% of electrical production (or 12% as I calculate)
IS WAY OFF
“That’s the number of kW-hr capacity required every single day, period, and it’s 20% more than the total electric generating capacity of the United States. ”
As written you are stating that the kilowatt-hours needed for just transportation is 120% of total electrical production capacity.
That is what you said.
It is now clear that is not what you MEANT.
“20% of total electrical capacity” — would be correct — based on your calculations
The one thing on which you are correct is that I included a category for which no data exist for 2015 (due to an error reading the rows). The actual number is 2.8 trillion miles, with the data from your source (I’ll stipulate that it is better than my source – which was from the same website, btw – and move on).
I’ll even stipulate your 0.25 kW-hr/mile average (for which you provide no source). The total constant charging rate is then 8% of the total installed capacity, neglecting transmission losses, distribution losses, charger inefficiency, and charging inefficiency. Now that is significantly off from my original 20% (which included some of the losses). Once again, however, that assumes all charging takes place at uniformly distributed times. That’s the poor assumption. People will charge their vehicles when they want to charge them, and when they have to charge them. And that is completely unpredictable.
But you are correct in that the situation is not as dire as I had originally calculated.
@ur momisugly Michael
Chevy Bolt – 60kWh — 240 mile range
Leaf is 107 for 30 kWh (a little low based upon Leaf Forums where people consistently get 4+ miles per kWh)
Now how to find that 8% (your number)
1. convert all hot water to NG — hot water uses 9% of residential electricity
2. Mandate 15+SEER HVAC and provide no-interest loans to upgrade (better for grid stability)
3. Continue with solar
4. Continue Wind Installation
In 2016 14GW of solar was installed — which is about 4 actual GWe due to hours of sunlight
In 2016 8.2GW of wind was installed — which is closer to 2.5 GWe at the average of 30% nameplate capacity
So 6.5 GW of actual generating capacity
Using a conservative year over year growth of 20% for wind and Solar (solar PV installation was 95% up in 2016 vs 2015)
In 5 more years (2017-2021) you get an additional 58 GW of production = 508 Billion Kilowatt hours — pretty darn close to the net excess required
And we would still have the efficiency savings
Chevy Bolt – 60 kilowatt-hour battery pack — 240 mile range == 4 MILES per kilowatt-hour
Many Leaf Drivers average between 4 and 5 Miles per kilowatt-hour
Range Range Range – BS BS BS
In 10 years the number of consumers (not businesses) that will actually use a car or SUV sized vehicle that drive more than 100 miles in a day will be less than today, in 20 years it will be miniscule
Why?
1. Urban Sprawl
2. Mass Transit
3. Telecommuting
4. Tele-education
5. Communitization (what is that?) — the continuing trend toward urban and suburban planning where everything is withing about 10 miles of the population center
And that gives you the same reasons why distribution fleets will be the same.
Distribution between urban hubs will be by rail
Charging stations will be ubiquitous
And the advent of the EV micro-vehicle (1 or 2 people and a small cargo space) will come to pass —
If you actually need a vehicle to go for a long mountain trip — a specialty vehicle with hugely extended range will be available for lease, purchase would be available — if you wanted to waste your money
“talk to me then”
Okay Karl but I am sure I will be dead. More than ten years I said BEV were DOA. Still true today.
We shopped for a new car this summer. Our son one give us our Corolla back. We let him use when we moved to China and he was still in college. His ’93 Camry that he got when he was 16 was older than he was. it made more sense for him to have the newer car and park the older one behind a friends barn,
What will we do when gas is $6-10/gal? Use the full service pump because it will be too hard to get the walker down the steps of the motor home.
It was $6 a gallon just a few years ago, guess you forgot
Nope. Not even close. I’ve never paid even $4/gallon. Ever.
It was an average of $4.11 for regular in July 2008 — it was $5.29 in California for premium
http://abc7.com/archive/8838012/
That’s $5.94 in 2017 dollars — close enough to $6
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=5.29&year1=200807&year2=201709
But, Karl, you’re equating the idiocracy of California with the sanity of of the rest of the country. US average gas prices never reached even $4/gallon, ever. They hit $3.68/gal. in 2012 which equates to barely $4/gal. today, a far sight away from $6/gal.
What other amazing stats are you going to pull out of your hindquarters? The insane gas prices of Sweden or some other democratic socialist hellhole?
@ur momisugly CAP
The US average for regular in 2008 JULY was $4.11
National average — not California
Not so much DOA as growing — by 86%
100% Electric Car Sales Up 86% In 2017 (US Electric Car Sales Report)
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/08/02/100-electric-car-sales-86-2017-us-electric-car-sales-report/
‘Lies, damn lies, and statistics’
YTD (9 months) US car is over 14 million. I think describing BEV as DOA is 99.99% accurate.
If Karl wants to be optimistic by reading biased reporting that only looks at part of the picture, I am not the least bit surprised.
@ur momisugly kit
In 1990 cell phones were DOA based upon your logic
Easy to show big percentage increases when the total market is minuscule to begin with. And that is WITH massive government “incentives” not being bestowed upon ICE cars.
Funny story about high gas prices. I go out of the navy in 1980. When I went into the navy gas was 25 cents/gal. That was 1970.
I was stationed in Norfolk and my new job was in California. At the time, I drove a IH Travelall and towed a 27′ travel trailer. My new manager was happy to expense higher fuel bills because we stayed at campgrounds.
So I go top use my Shell card that normally had a zero balance and the clerk hands me the phone. The credit department is worried that my card had been stolen because it is not over $200. I had the phone to the clerk. Tell them what you are charging for gas. I get the phone back and ask the credit department if they have a calculator (mine was a old HP 35). How many gas does $200 buy?
A quarter per gallon back then is equivalent to $1.63 nowadays. Last year I paid a low of $1.84/gallon. Now it’s over $2.
But still, we’re not paying much more for gas today than we were in 1970.
Good point Cap. I think the same could be said for electricity.
Inflation hurt those on fixed income. I solved that problem by getting out of the navy.
In the 60s were were building power plants that used oil because oil was cheap a cleaner than coal.
As I have pointed out many times, predicting fuel cost for the life a power plant is difficult.
@ur momisugly CAP
The US average for regular in 2008 JULY was $4.11
National average — not California
Seems the guest is abusing our hosts hospitality.
Whats up Mr Karl?
That most commenters do not share your enthusiasm, is no reason to be as abusive as you have become.
Nothing in the conjecture and visions of the future you offer is a certainty.
Cities might benefit from electric vehicles, but insisting that your utopia is inevitable is pure comedy, except you do not come across as funny.
Perhaps you should reconsider your assumptions.?
Also you seem oblivious to human nature and Murphy’s Law.
Ever welded a battery terminal in short circuit mode?
The average consumers knowledge of DC systems is minimal.
Few are aware of the joys of uninterrupted high amperage current flow.
A battery such as you anticipate,which will make its inventor a billionaire as well, is certain to enliven the owners experience.
I am all for a second vehicle electric toy, just as soon as this battery of tomorrow is manufactured.
Look at my post below — check the data and the maths — then get back to me
The average MILES per kilowatt-hour using today’s EV LI-ION batteries is 4 MILES per kilowatt-hour
I have not been abusive —
sort sighted and small minded are appropriate adjectives with regard to many if not the majority of posters on this board regarding the inevitability of EV and renewable energy.
This has nothing to do with the rubbish that is AGW, nor CO2 — this is simple economics and technological advancement
The ICE is wasteful — the average gasoline engine is ~30% efficient 70% of the 33.6 kilowatt hours in a gallon of gas are lost to heat and noise
Starting to resemble;Talk amongst yourselves.
Todays LI-ION batteries are a fire hazard, why not educate yourself, break open a cordless drill battery(Same technology) and puncture a cell.
And their longevity in real world use is less than the Nicads that preceded them .
Now try to imagine multiple cells being ruptured as in a normal auto accident.
Sure the internal combustion engine is inefficient, yet we live with it and in Northern Climes this time of year, the waste heat is no waste, it is a blessing.
I have experience operating lead acid 48V DC locomotives in an underground environment,(a temperature controlled environment) wonderful machines yet economically they lost to rubber tyre diesel equipment.
Simple economics and improved technology will help EV’s succeed, if they are real across the consumers needs spectrum and are not discounted by hazards to the user.
You seem ,in all 3 of your series, oblivious of the hazards inherent in DC storage devices.
Your average car user can mostly avoid setting themselves on fire, while handling gasoline.
After nearly 40 years in the electrical business, I suspect these inherent DC electrical hazards will not be as easily overcome as you might imagine.
@ur momisugly john
There are billions of lithium rechargeable batteries for phones, tools, cars, laptops, toys, etc In the US alone.
And the incidence of fire when properly used is so low as to be ridiculous
In my home right now, I have 4 laptop batteries 5 cell phone batteries (plus a dozen old ones sitting in a box inside the old phones) about 30 or 40 lithium rechargeable AAA AA batteries for remotes and games and toys
not one fire —
The lithium to air reaction progresses very slowly and while exothermic is not commonly flammable
Lithium needs water to come into contact with it to produce explosive hydrogen quickly enough to catch fire
Now if you are intentionally puncturing cells while trying to specifically initiate a short and a spark — well..
Or overcharging, or overheating purposefully.
@ur momisugly john
you should take a look at some of the youtube videos showing clandestine methamphetamine production using unrolled lithium strips from lithium batteries.
Yup, you can watch some not too bright people actually unroll the lithium then tear it into pieces and drop it into a plastic pepsi bottle ( lithium is used for it’s ability to reduce pseudoephedrine )
In this one you can see a guy actually ripping one apart, and partially shorting it (no fire)
“Inevitability of EV and renewable energy” – LMFAO now you’re WAY over the top. When you can show me ANY “renewable” energy that is sourced ENTIRELY FROM “renewable” energy that has not ONE BIT of fossil fuel energy used in the process of: mining and transport of raw materials, turning those raw materials into the intermediate materials needed for construction of whatever it is (wind mills, solar panels), the manufacturing, transport, sight preparation, construction, maintenance and repairs, and eventual disassembly/demolition for recycling, scrap or disposal (and the transport of those materials), there is NOTHING “inevitable” about so-called “renewable” energy. It simply CANNOT sustain itself – absent government subsidies and mandates, it would essentially be nonexistent – it takes more energy to produce than it produces. There’s also nothing useful or practical about it, since it DOES NOT supply reliable, dispatchable, and consistent power delivery and requires fossil fuel or nuclear for back up.
And lets just look at the dollars and cents
2.1 trillion vehicle miles – i will be generous and say 30 mpg average = $210 Billion in gasoline at $3/gallon
500 Billion Kilowatt-Hours at the average $.15 per kilowatt-hour residential cost across the US =
$75 Billion —
We are overpaying by $135 Billion just for our light duty vehicle transportation costs
karl, you are forgetting two things:
– in Germany the price per kw/h is $.30 now. expect prices to rise
– gasoline and diesel are heavily taxed, the government won’t forgo those taxes
@ur momisuglylb
1. Michael was discussing the US
2. @ur momisugly 30 cents per kWh it is still cheaper to go EV
3. The taxes on electricity in Germany would be plenty to offset the loss of gas/diesel taxes
the cost of power is $.06 cents per kWh in Germany the other $.235 is fees, and taxes
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power
4. Europe is an entirely different planet when it comes to transport. When I was in Paris on business, no rental car
1. No parking for it
2. no need – Carte l’orange at 40 Euros per week was unlimited Paris Metro, RER-A and RER-B — business travel (even out to versailles) and personal was quite well covered.
3. Cheaper – see #2
@ur momisugly lb
The closest reference I could find for miles driven per year per vehicle in Germany was 7700
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/pdf/in5.pdf
SO your average german would spend $600 per year on electricity
vs $1150 on gasoline at 35 MPG and $5.20 per gallon
current gas in Frankfurt is $5.57
https://www.google.com/search?q=germany+gas+prices&oq=germany+gas+prices&aqs=chrome..69i57j
Your calculations have many errors. Some examples:
* The actual cost of electricity in Germany is more than double what you stated. “Grid Fees” are the cost of grid distribution. NOT taxes.
* We already subsidize EV by not charging the gasoline taxes. Using your own estimate, at 30mpg, and ~50 cents per gallon of infrastructure taxes (state plus fed avg), let’s round it to a penny per mile of tax. So, if 2.1 trillion vehicle miles, that’s 21 billion dollars that need to be added to the electric cost.
* We also need to add the 30 percent distribution losses to the electric calculation. So to put 500B KwH into vehicles, we must actually create 650B KwH of power.
* You’ve also not calculated the cost of actually increasing the capacity of the grid to handle all of this power going into residential areas (instead of commercial which is simpler.) I would guess that could easily overwhelm any savings.
However, since you’re postulating a nice ideal future, I’ll postulate a different ideal future. I don’t like the idea of having to recharge a car all the time, not the productivity cost of waiting around.
So my ideal is something like my Prius: very very efficient, regenerative braking etc, but it generates its own power. Using gasoline today, and some future source (Hydrogen? LNG? Fusion?) tomorrow. With today’s numbers:
* 2.1 trillion vehicle miles, 50mpg average. Total fuel cost: $126B
Compare w/ more realistic version of pure EV:
* 650B KwH * $0.15/KwH = $97.5B + 21B road taxes = $128B PLUS the cost of upgrading infrastructure and all those chargers everywhere.
My version costs less and avoids tremendous reworking of the nation’s infrastructure. 🙂
Lets look at this again — and again — and again
in 2015 there were 2.1 Trillion light duty vehicle miles driven in the US
https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_35.html
In 2015 US electricity generation was
4,077,601 THOUSAND MEGAWATT-HOURS
or 4 Million Million KILOWATT-HOURS
or 4 Trillion Kilowatt-hours
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_01.html
The AVERAGE — MILES per Kilowatt-hour for EV is 4 — yes 4 miles per kilowatt-hour
So, there would only be needed 500 Billion Kilowatt Hours for the whole year
Yet the US generates 8 times as much electricity (4 Trillion kWh)
SO basically 12% of US electricity generation could power all light duty vehicle miles driven if they were all EV
Lots of things you can hide with “averages.” The Ford Focus electric – which is already a small car – barely does better than 3 miles/Kilowatt-hour (source – Edmunds), so I suspect you’re including a lot of so-small-that-they’re-useless EVs in your “average,” and/or using “ratings” that are always based on “ideal” (IOW, not real-world and seldom if ever to be realized) conditions.