Exxon (oil market), Climate Change, Tesla

[ggies]

Here we go........

[Only registered users can see links.]

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by ggies Here we go........ [Only registered users can see links.]

Subsidies contribute to keep prices artificially high -- the goal of the EV market should be to compete on price and performance with traditional ICE cars. So long as the government is offering a handout to everyone who buys an EV, there is no incentive for EVs to cut costs and be competitive in the open market.

I'm all for the transition to EVs, but the taxpayers are getting a raw deal on it currently. We're paying to subsidize people buying the cars, and we're paying to subsidize their use of the roads (since EV drivers don't pay gas taxes that forms the bulk of the national highway fund). At some point, that has to change.

[ggies]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor Subsidies contribute to keep prices artificially high -- the goal of the EV market should be to compete on price and performance with traditional ICE cars. So long as the government is offering a handout to everyone who buys an EV, there is no incentive for EVs to cut costs and be competitive in the open market. I'm all for the transition to EVs, but the taxpayers are getting a raw deal on it currently. We're paying to subsidize people buying the cars, and we're paying to subsidize their use of the roads (since EV drivers don't pay gas taxes that forms the bulk of the national highway fund). At some point, that has to change.

No, the raw deal is the fact that we are still dependent on CO2 polluting cars. EVs in today's form are still new and to get something going, you have to entice people until the ball gets rolling, then you can cut out the tax credit. So the only one making a car that is based on ICE performance and price is Tesla. The Model 3 is aimed at the BMW 3 market without the EV tax credit. GM has the Bolt, but it's only $30,000 AFTER the tax credit of the $7,500.


But you want to talk about subsidies, here ya go.

[Only registered users can see links.]

[ggies]

A great, short animated video that explains the situation we are heading into because of the S curve.

[Only registered users can see links.]

[Jayes]

Originally Posted by ggies A great, short animated video that explains the situation we are heading into because of the S curve. [Only registered users can see links.]

Good stuff

In 50 years we'll obviously look back and wonder why we weren't saving our oil for its other uses rather than burning it to get to the store (among many other reasons). I'm sure there is an explanation that I don't understand, but why in the hell aren't oil companies beginning the transition into supplying gear for new energy methods/storage NOW? Seems like an easy and obvious way for a company with plenty of money to get ahead of the curve and make some real money in the long term. Not to mention the safety/health benefits and looking good for pioneering something so beneficial.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by Jayes Good stuff In 50 years we'll obviously look back and wonder why we weren't saving our oil for its other uses rather than burning it to get to the store (among many other reasons). I'm sure there is an explanation that I don't understand, but why in the hell aren't oil companies beginning the transition into supplying gear for new energy methods/storage NOW? Seems like an easy and obvious way for a company with plenty of money to get ahead of the curve and make some real money in the long term. Not to mention the safety/health benefits and looking good for pioneering something so beneficial.

There's a really long answer to this, but the bottom line (as best I can tell) is that no one wants to produce the Betamax solution and there's no consensus within the industry as to what is going to replace fossil fuels.

The answer may be EVs as we currently know them -- but the battery tech and/or charging tech is going to need to improve significantly before that happens. The problem is that if you start investing in EVs heavily right now (researching better batteries, faster charging / investing in charging infrastructure), it's entirely possible that the tech gets lapped by something else and you're left holding the bag with billions of dollars in obsolete stuff.

[ggies]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor There's a really long answer to this, but the bottom line (as best I can tell) is that no one wants to produce the Betamax solution and there's no consensus within the industry as to what is going to replace fossil fuels. The answer may be EVs as we currently know them -- but the battery tech and/or charging tech is going to need to improve significantly before that happens. The problem is that if you start investing in EVs heavily right now (researching better batteries, faster charging / investing in charging infrastructure), it's entirely possible that the tech gets lapped by something else and you're left holding the bag with billions of dollars in obsolete stuff.

That's the auto industry's excuse and if they continue to have that mentality they will get crushed by someone like Tesla (some are coming around to it though, using LG Chem for their batteries). Also, others like to use big pouch packs because they are safer (but get you less range and performance) vs. Tesla and their over 6,000 interconnected small batteries.

It can be done!

How is it that Tesla has over 200 miles of range on a charge and no one else does?

*They didn't wait for a chemistry improvement in the cells*

They took the normal sized Li-Ion batteries that were on the market and designed an extremely sophisticated cell chemistry and BMS. They had people who knew that it could work with just that - and it does.

They have the best cell degradation in the industry - and it's barley anything.

I highly recommend watching this video from 2013 that explains what is going on in the cell chemistry when EVs are charged and discharged. It also explains the different types of chemical combinations you could have and why Tesla's is the best.

[Caveat Emperor]

I'm not going to rehash this -- but suffice it to say, the market has spoken and the current range and charge times of EVs is insufficient to meet consumer demand.

You can buy an ICE car for $20K that has a range of 400 miles and refuels in 4 minutes at virtually every exit on the modern highway system. Even if you could bring the price of an EV down to that range, you're still talking about a car with a range of ~250 miles and a 30 minute recharge time (that doesn't even get you back to full capacity, only 70%, and isn't available in all locations).

The tech isn't close to being mature, and every day it isn't mature is another day where a breakthrough in something else (like Hydrogen fuel cells -- the vaporware of transportation energy) could render battery-operated EVs obsolete.

[ggies]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor I'm not going to rehash this -- but suffice it to say, the market has spoken and the current range and charge times of EVs is insufficient to meet consumer demand. You can buy an ICE car for $20K that has a range of 400 miles and refuels in 4 minutes. Even if you could bring the price of an EV down to that range, you're still talking about a car with a range of ~250 miles and a 30 minute recharge time (that doesn't even get you back to full capacity, only 70%, and isn't available in all locations). The tech isn't close to being mature, and every day it isn't mature is another day where a breakthrough in something else (like Hydrogen fuel cells -- the vaporware of transportation energy) could render battery-operated EVs obsolete.

You need to open your mind a bit, this transition is going to need some redirection on how we view transportation. You don't need a 400 mile battery, 200 miles will suffice. You charge during the night while asleep and it's full when you leave in the morning. You dont' have 3/4 or half a tank or 1/4 of a tank, you will have 200 miles every morning. EVERY SINGLE MORNING.

Do you know what's in a hydrogen fool cell car? A small battery! So why not just have a bigger one that can charge from solar? Hydro will never take off.

oh, and the market will speak on March 31st/April 1st when Tesla debuts it's cheaper 200 + mile EV. It's happening man, embrace it.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by ggies You need to open your mind a bit, this transition is going to need some redirection on how we view transportation. You don't need a 400 mile battery, 200 miles will suffice. You charge during the night while asleep and it's full when you leave in the morning. You dont' have 3/4 or half a tank or 1/4 of a tank, you will have 200 miles every morning. EVERY SINGLE MORNING. Do you know what's in a hydrogen fool cell car? A small battery! So why not just have a bigger one that can charge from solar? Hydro will never take off. oh, and the market will speak on March 31st/April 1st when Tesla debuts it's cheaper 200 + mile EV. It's happening man, embrace it.

You don't get to tell consumers "what will suffice" -- consumers tell you what they need and then they make purchases accordingly. And while you blindly contend that "you don't need a 400 mile battery," that simply isn't the case all the time.

Case in point -- I'm going on vacation to the beach in South Carolina with my in-laws in June. It's a 700 mile trip. In an ICE car, that's no big deal. With an EV, that would require careful planning to make sure you always hit a supercharger station whenever your 200 mile range ran out. And, even if you could plan it so that you hit a supercharger station every time you needed one, you're still talking about adding ~2 hours of charging time to your trip.

I don't think I'm alone in using my car to take long trips. Millions of people every year rely on a car to get to vacations, trips to see relatives, events (this board is loaded with people who have driven 200+ miles to see a multiple DMB shows per year). You think any family is going to buy an EV that will require them to unload their kids from the car every 176 miles on a trip and keep them entertained for a half hour while their car is recharging?

For most people, their car has to be more than a commuter appliance -- and that's by necessity, because most people cannot afford to have multiple cars to fill multiple roles. It has to be useful for 100% of their needs. If an EV is only useful for 90-95% of their needs, they aren't going to say "Well, I guess we can always just spend the extra $2,000 per year and fly to see grandma and grandpa for the holidays," they're just going to buy the car that lets them drive to see grandma and grandpa without a hassle.

[ggies]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor You don't get to tell consumers "what will suffice" -- consumers tell you what they need and then they make purchases accordingly. And while you blindly contend that "you don't need a 400 mile battery," that simply isn't the case all the time. Case in point -- I'm going on vacation to the beach in South Carolina with my in-laws in June. It's a 700 mile trip. In an ICE car, that's no big deal. With an EV, that would require careful planning to make sure you always hit a supercharger station whenever your 200 mile range ran out. And, even if you could plan it so that you hit a supercharger station every time you needed one, you're still talking about adding ~2 hours of charging time to your trip. I don't think I'm alone in using my car to take long trips. Millions of people every year rely on a car to get to vacations, trips to see relatives, events (this board is loaded with people who have driven 200+ miles to see a multiple DMB shows per year). You think any family is going to buy an EV that will require them to unload their kids from the car every 176 miles on a trip and keep them entertained for a half hour while their car is recharging? For most people, their car has to be more than a commuter appliance -- and that's by necessity, because most people cannot afford to have multiple cars to fill multiple roles. It has to be useful for 100% of their needs. If an EV is only useful for 90-95% of their needs, they aren't going to say "Well, I guess we can always just spend the extra $2,000 per year and fly to see grandma and grandpa for the holidays," they're just going to buy the car that lets them drive to see grandma and grandpa without a hassle.

I understand your side, you are one of the outlier points on the chart of adoption....and that's ok. But Model S owners have been doing what you are saying for a few years now and they don't mind. At least for a Tesla EV, the network has been built out for you and will continue. Superchargers will be almost everywhere by the time people like you get an EV.

Question though - Don't you stop to take a pee break or eat? 176 miles is 2.9 hours of driving, usually most people stop way before that, so it's reasonable to think people won't mind charging while they're eating or stretching (it takes 30 minutes for 80% charge on a Tesla) on long trips like those you proposed.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by ggies I understand your side, you are one of the outlier points on the chart of adoption....and that's ok. But Model S owners have been doing what you are saying for a few years now and they don't mind. At least for a Tesla EV, the network has been built out for you and will continue. Superchargers will be almost everywhere by the time people like you get an EV. Question though - Don't you stop to take a pee break or eat? 176 miles is 2.9 hours of driving, usually most people stop way before that, so it's reasonable to think people won't mind charging while they're eating or stretching (it takes 30 minutes for 80% charge on a Tesla) on long trips like those you proposed.

It's 2.9 hours only if you're driving 60 MPH, which I can't fathom anyone doing on a highway. And no, when I'm on a road trip, I'm not stopping for longer than it takes to gas and go unless it's specifically time for a meal. Even then, it's drive thru.

And yeah, I'm sure Tesla Model S owners are pleased. When you've got $70K+ to drop on a car, you're probably not taking a lot of long trips on the road.

[ggies]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor It's 2.9 hours only if you're driving 60 MPH, which I can't fathom anyone doing on a highway. And no, when I'm on a road trip, I'm not stopping for longer than it takes to gas and go unless it's specifically time for a meal. Even then, it's drive thru. And yeah, I'm sure Tesla Model S owners are pleased. When you've got $70K+ to drop on a car, you're probably not taking a lot of long trips on the road.

That's cool man, you just won't get one. I can't wait to not be tied to the oil industry, always tied to whatever they say prices are or have to get oil changes. I can't wait to have a full battery every morning instead of having to stop at a gas station. I can't wait to travel all over the US for free since charging from the Superchargers are free after a one time fee. I can't wait to travel all around knowing I'm not producing CO2 out of my car and making a better future for my daughter.

[ggies]

A writer on oilprice.com that focus on the oil market has picked up the Bloomberg projections that I posted in here a few days back. The most telling part coming from someone on that side:

The writing is on the wall – as a technology, battery costs will continue to decline as manufacturing and the chemistry improves. Oil companies can reduce costs, but commodities don’t see costs decline in the same way. Finite natural resources see costs rise as they become scarcer. In the long-term, very few people expect oil to be as cheap as it is today at around $30 per barrel. And to the extent that oil remains cheap indefinitely, it will be because EVs destroy demand. It is cliché at this point, but as the old adage goes: the Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.

[Only registered users can see links.]

[ggies]

A great TED talk by Al Gore on Climate Change:

[Only registered users can see links.]

This is a great visual on why we need to keep the rest of the fossil fuel in the ground and why the Divestment campaign is working:

[ggies]

Arch Coal’s, another company that has helped spread false info about climate change, has filed for bankruptcy. Now even the lobbyists are starting to not get paid because the industry is failing.

[Only registered users can see links.]

Arch Coal’s bankruptcy filing also reveals it has been a secret funder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a self-proclaimed “libertarian” think tank which has been a part of the global echo chamber of groups opposing action on climate change.

In 2014 the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s annual return to the US Internal Revenue Service revealed it had total revenue of US$3.8 million. While the institute has been a part of the US conservative echo chamber railing against regulations to tackle climate change, it has at best been a bit-part player.

Arch Coal’s bankruptcy filing (p. 17) also reveals the coal company was a behind-the-scenes funder of the American Legislative Exchange Commission (ALEC).

[ggies]

Originally Posted by ggies Here we go........ [Only registered users can see links.]

This is the first article from the Koch brothers campaign attacking EVs( the author of this article is on the board of Koch Industries). If you see it, know it's B.S. The future is less fossil fuels, more EVs, solar/wind, and storage.

[Only registered users can see links.]

[ggies]

I don't post every article I read on this subject here, just the important ones others should know about. When I was first getting into all of this years ago, I thought natural gas was the best "bridge fuel" to electrification. Over the years of research though, I have abandoned that notion. If you don't know methane is worse than carbon dioxide, you must read this:

[Only registered users can see links.]

In February, Harvard researchers published an explosive paper in Geophysical Research Letters. Using satellite data and ground observations, they concluded that the nation as a whole is leaking methane in massive quantities. Between 2002 and 2014, the data showed that US methane emissions increased by more than 30 percent, accounting for 30 to 60 percent of an enormous spike in methane in the entire planet’s atmosphere.

Why is this important? Because.....

The EPA’s old chemistry and 100-year time frame assigned methane a heating value of 28 to 36 times that of carbon dioxide; a more accurate figure, says Howarth, is between 86 and 105 times the potency of CO2 over the next decade or two.

[ggies]

Today is the day everyone - the day the auto industry is changed forever. Tesla is revealing the Model 3 tonight. Live broadcast on their website for anyone wanting to check it out.

[Mitch]

Originally Posted by ggies Today is the day everyone - the day the auto industry is changed forever. Tesla is revealing the Model 3 tonight. Live broadcast on their website for anyone wanting to check it out.

I drove my friend's Tesla over the weekend. Very cool. I was surprised at how fast it was.