Electric Vehicles

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

The cost of low volume production of EVs 'may' be cheaper than ICE vehicles. But when you scale up, input costs of materials for batteries will become astronomically expensive. Battery technology simply isn't there in terms of power density and there aren't enough rare earth materials for that volume.

Actually it is very much the opposite. That’s the whole point of the “economies of scale” concept. Total Cost/Unit = (Fixed costs + Variable Costs)/Total Volume. The more you produce in a common process, the more you can spread fixed costs and reduce total cost. Look at Total Cost of a unit of Lithium (or Cobalt, or Nickel, or Oil). It’s roughly Total Cost/Unit = (Cost of operating a mine or rig + Cost of processing + Cost of transporting)/Total Units. At low volume, each unit produced carries the burden of the full cost to operate the mine or the rig, so that cost will drive the cost very high. Increase the number of units needed and you divide the cost of the mine or the rig to the point where it is attractive to operate it and maybe to even operate more mines or rigs. Lithium, cobalt and nickel are not rare. The volume is restricted by the ability to require enough demand to incur the cost to extract. There are rare earth materials that live up to their name and for those reasons are expensive even at higher volume. For most of these (neodymium, dysprosium, a few others) the good news is that the amount used per battery or per electric motor is so small, higher volumes of batteries or electric motors doesn’t break the curve. We’re talking milligrams, not pounds.

Extend the same economies of scale concept to electric cars. The cost of each of the minerals will at the very least stabilize, in some cases drop. Add to that the fact that energy density improvements in battery technology is improving in the span of months per development cycle, not the years that vehicles need. GM was near completion of development of Gen 2 Ultium batteries before the first Gen 1 battery hit the ground in a production vehicle. Not even sure what generation they are currently working on. Each generation seems to improve energy density and reduce GM’s cost / battery pack.

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

The same is true of solar and wind. Yeah, it sounds good, until you look at the storage needs to supply power when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, then you realize that we're nowhere close to the storage we need and we don't have the resources to create that storage.

So on one side of the coin we have “what happens to all the batteries when they’re depleted? They’re gonna pile up in landfills. What does that do to the planet?”.

On the other side of the coin we have “there’s not enough resources to store energy collected by wind or solar”.

The irony is, the response to both sides of that coin is the same. There is a concerted effort to repurpose expired electric car batteries to be used as storage batteries for solar farms and wind mills. When batteries are no longer capable of the rapid charge —> deplete cycles required for use in electric cars, they are still perfectly suitable for storing energy from solar panels and wind mills and releasing the energy when required, thereby keeping those batteries out of landfills. That will be tempered a bit by auto manufacturers efforts to maintain control of batteries removed for warranty replacement (8 yrs / 100,000 miles). Those batteries will be used as core material for remanufacturing electric car batteries and for input into battery recycling operations where those rare earth materials will be reclaimed, reducing demand for newly mined raw materials.

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Maybe when we start mining the asteroids we could make it work, maybe.

Nobody alive today will ever see a strictly EV future where regular middle class people can afford to buy cars that are anywhere close to the functionality we currently have.

The only thing that will change that will be a complete revolution in energy storage.

Back to EVs, the only one I would consider currently is the Corvette (hybrid) and my objections to it are purely related to trunk space. If Chevy decided to make a hybrid ZL1 1LE I would place an order right after I buy my wife the new car I owe her.

I considered the Ford Lightning, as I like the idea of being able to use it to power my house in an emergency, but unfortunately it can't haul an RV for long enough distances or do other 'truck like' things that I need. Stick an ICE in the 'frunk' and you would probably have a damn fine truck.

Part of the reason I say I (and most of us on this thread) will be long gone before we are in a 100% EV world.

[Wyzz Kydd]

I hope you're right. I understand economies of scale, but when an input to the production process is limited, economies of scale don't work as input costs rise.

My understanding is that the rare earth minerals needed are in fact 'rare' and increasingly so. Again, for the sake of consumers, I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think that's the case.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

I hope you're right. I understand economies of scale, but when an input to the production process is limited, economies of scale don't work as input costs rise.

My understanding is that the rare earth minerals needed are in fact 'rare' and increasingly so. Again, for the sake of consumers, I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think that's the case.

Scarcity of most minerals is a function of “is it worth the cost of extraction to go after them”. Lithium is the best example. There’s lithium in the ocean. There’s lithium in the ground in Canada. There’s lithium in a dried lake bed in Utah, there’s lithium in multiple places in several South American countries. When the demand and price are sufficient to make extracting it profitable, you’ll see operations spring up to extract. Significantly higher volumes of EVs is as much a factor as price per gram. The rare earth minerals is pretty much as you describe. The thing here is that a lot of the development processes for batteries and for motors is focused on improving energy density (batteries) and power density (motors) while simultaneously reducing the amount of rare earth minerals required per unit.

Best example is to go back to the ‘70s. The oil shortage and air quality concerns drove the need for smaller cars with smaller engines and catalytic converters. Catalytic converters required platinum and other rare earth metals. Over time, automakers improved the operating efficiency of catalytic converters while also reducing the platinum content. At the same time cars were stifled with emissions compliance equipment that choked power levels down as low as 30 hp/l. Fast forward to today and we’ve got cars that are way cleaner than the best cars back then. They use negligible amounts of platinum and consistently deliver more than 100 hp/l with some examples over 250 hp/l in vehicles that are attainable by moderately affluent people, not just the super rich.

I expect the progression of EV technology to parallel the progress made from the ‘70s to today, but with shorter generations of learning / faster clock speed. This is only the first generation of production salable EVs, leading into the second generation. The pace of progress will accelerate.

[Chrome383Z]

I drive 210 miles/day 3x a week for work. Park the Malibu outside as the Camaro and the wife’s vehicle get the garage spots. I don’t think there is an EV for me yet? Malibu gets around 38mpg on the interstate so it’s not costing me a fortune (work covers it anyways). I stop at the gas station and get coffee every morning before my trip and top the tank off which takes a couple minutes. With almost 4 hours of driving in one day I can’t spend more time charging so it would have to charge at night. Assuming being outside 120v is my only option?

Don’t think that will work yet. Granted my use case is probably extreme. Haha. I’d definitely go that route if I could make it work, I’d probably make money with the mileage paid!

[docwra]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

You stated that most countries DON’T use fossil fuels to generate energy. That’s to support your contention that EV’s are ‘cleaner’ than ICE vehicles.

No, I said "in the developed world" - the EU was just below 40% in 2020 (UK was 43%), Norway is now using 100% clean power and the numbers are increasing all the time.

If a government chooses to aim for a reduction in emissions from power generation EVs undeniably have a lower carbon footprint, what I dont get is why anyone would claim otherwise unless they worked for Exxon or something.

[Chrome383Z]

Originally Posted by docwra

No, I said "in the developed world" - the EU was just below 40% in 2020 (UK was 43%), Norway is now using 100% clean power and the numbers are increasing all the time.

If a government chooses to aim for a reduction in emissions from power generation EVs undeniably have a lower carbon footprint, what I dont get is why anyone would claim otherwise unless they worked for Exxon or something.

Norway wouldn’t have money for expensive “clean” energy without their oil/gas exports. It’s also like 1/2 the size of Texas so there’s that. Not really a good example.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by docwra

No, I said "in the developed world" - the EU was just below 40% in 2020 (UK was 43%), Norway is now using 100% clean power and the numbers are increasing all the time.

If a government chooses to aim for a reduction in emissions from power generation EVs undeniably have a lower carbon footprint, what I dont get is why anyone would claim otherwise unless they worked for Exxon or something.

Fun fact. Exxon, Shell, BP… all are invested in the EV Charging industry. See pic below.

Originally Posted by Chrome383Z

Norway wouldn’t have money for expensive “clean” energy without their oil/gas exports. It’s also like 1/2 the size of Texas so there’s that. Not really a good example.

Norway sells barrels of oil, not barrels of gasoline. Only about 45% of a barrel of oil becomes gasoline or diesel. The rest goes to various plastics and other chemical derivatives and jet fuel.

[90503]

If you want to see the how the new world order is planned out for you, it's all right here on the World Economic Forum website....A lot of "interesting" articles...lol...Their "solutions" to climate change can be controversial and somewhat over the top, but from what I've seen they at least acknowledge the limits of EVs, the scarcity and limits of the materials needed for battery production, environmental issues with mining, and carbon footprint formulas related to EV and ICE....And they don't seem to instantly ridicule any criticisms or concerns. It's an interesting web-site and worth a look IMO...

One of several articles concerning EVs, batteries, etc., etc...

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/...cular-economy/

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/...ium-resources/

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by docwra

No, I said "in the developed world" - the EU was just below 40% in 2020 (UK was 43%), Norway is now using 100% clean power and the numbers are increasing all the time.

If a government chooses to aim for a reduction in emissions from power generation EVs undeniably have a lower carbon footprint, what I dont get is why anyone would claim otherwise unless they worked for Exxon or something.

Originally Posted by docwra

Its not me bringing up totally unrelated shit just because Im losing an argument .........

Anyway, to reiterate as it got lost in Wyzz Kydd's attempts to talk with the adults all these "electric cars are more polluting than ICE" arguments are based on using fossil fuels for energy generation, this isnt the case in most countries and by 2030 will be even fewer.

I work in aviation and while electric development is going full speed there hydrogen, potentially augmented with solar seems to be the future, whatever it is fossil fuels are effectively dead technology.

Did you? I don't see a comment about 'the developed world'. I see you making things up as you go along. I'm done talking to you as you're clearly not interested in an honest, no insults conversation.

Enjoy your very clean, but very expensive energy. Hopefully you'll be able to keep the frozen poor folks to a minimum this winter, but hey, they'll freeze to death breathing 'clean' air, so there's that.

[docwra]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Did you? I don't see a comment about 'the developed world'.

Originally Posted by docwra

Im pointing out that the energy that most of the rest of the developed world put in electric cars is clean

Admittedly that was 4 days ago, but you can go check if you want, its about halfway down page 16.

FWIW most people would consider "expensive" to be the damage fossil fuels are doing to the climate and peoples health ......... but if thats not good enough theres always the fact clean energy is already cheaper than fossil fuels and will continue to get cheaper:

https://www.irena.org/news/pressrele...l-Fuel-on-Cost

Maybe do some research on things like the cost of renewable vs fossil fuels or emissions of ICE vs electric cars before you start making a case? This is like arguing with a 5 year old TBH, electric power is getting cleaner and cheaper all of the time.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Looks like Wyoming may ban the sale of EVs by 2035. Taking a page from the California playbook. I doubt it will pass, but who knows.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...bc718a39961ef2

[bootss]

Owning and EV is a lifestyle choice just as much as owning a sports car is. Once people start trying to justify it beyond that point I stop listening. I'm just not interested.

I especially hate cars with a giant screen that breaks the dash line and more tech than they need to get up and go. I think the 6th gen Camaro is the last modern car I'm going to love.

I work with a handful of Tesla zealots and I just don't engage. "Uh huh, that's nice" and continue on with my day. Life isn't about convincing strangers I'm right, unless I'm a politician or some other kind of professional bullshit artist.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by docwra

Admittedly that was 4 days ago, but you can go check if you want, its about halfway down page 16.

FWIW most people would consider "expensive" to be the damage fossil fuels are doing to the climate and peoples health ......... but if thats not good enough theres always the fact clean energy is already cheaper than fossil fuels and will continue to get cheaper:

https://www.irena.org/news/pressrele...l-Fuel-on-Cost

Maybe do some research on things like the cost of renewable vs fossil fuels or emissions of ICE vs electric cars before you start making a case? This is like arguing with a 5 year old TBH, electric power is getting cleaner and cheaper all of the time.

You drive a Z28? You know that's a gas guzzling V8 right? Literally killing babies.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by snizzle

You drive a Z28? You know that's a gas guzzling V8 right? Literally killing babies.

Yep. Conservation for thee, but not for me.

Looks like the Scots want to end the era of private car ownership.

https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sist...-bread-n524290

They mention the wonderfully clean, but extremely expensive electricity all the UK citizens are currently enjoying.

I liked what Kisin said. All of the UK could disappear tomorrow and it would have exactly zero impact on global warming. Reductions in CO2 emissions will be determined by the poorer nations who are striving to improve their standard of living, and as Kisin said, they don't give a damn about global warming, they want indoor plumbing, power, and adequate food. Can't really blame them.