Electric vehicles (EVs), their emissions, and future viability

turbobrick240 · Jul 1, 2020

It's official, Tesla is now the world's most valuable automaker! Quite a meteoric rise in the mere decade since they went public. One thing is for sure- it hasn't been boring.

https://www-bloomberg-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-07-01/tesla-overtakes-toyota-as-the-world-s-most-valuable-automaker?amp_js_v=a3&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15936148419054&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fnews%2Farticles%2F2020-07-01%2Ftesla-overtakes-toyota-as-the-world-s-most-valuable-automaker

kjclow · Jul 1, 2020

Tesla may now be the most valuable automaker, but are they making a profit?

turbobrick240 · Jul 1, 2020

It looks like they will just squeak by with a profit for Q2, which will make 4 consecutive profitable quarters. That's a big deal because it will qualify Tesla for inclusion in the S&P 500. Once that happens, most of the crazy volatility in the stock will be behind them.

IndigoBlueWagon · Jul 1, 2020

Not sure if you've eben watching, but S&P 500 stocks have been pretty volatile in recent months.

turbobrick240 · Jul 1, 2020

I've been more than watching. The past few months have very much been an abnormal situation. There is always some volatility in the markets, but TSLA has been on another level of volatility. That can be very good for day traders, but for long term investors it's more of an annoyance.

IndigoBlueWagon · Jul 1, 2020

I was half joking. All the markets have been volatile. This too shall pass.

tikal · Jul 1, 2020

El Dobro said:
To paraphrase a quote from a movie, if you build it, they will come. As the charging networks grow, I'm sure EV adoption will be right behind it. The pandemic didn't exactly help any growth, but that too will pass.

To a certain degree, yes, it makes sense. However I would say that the rate of EV penetration might not necessarily be parallel to the rate of charging networks growth. So lets say right now EVs are around 2% of the passenger fleet, in the next 10 years they might be five times to 10% or so, even though the charging stations might grow exponentially.

If the cost of hydrocarbon fuels stays relatively low, I can see the EV growth rate continue to be fairly linear, even if Tesla continues in a stellar fashion dominating the majority of that 10% or so.

turbobrick240 · Jul 1, 2020

I think the next administration has some big plans for renewables and green tech. Good things may happen fairly rapidly.

Tin Man · Jul 2, 2020

turbobrick240 said:
I think the next administration has some big plans for renewables and green tech. Good things may happen fairly rapidly.

Perhaps pigs might fly. One way to hamper improved green is to socialize the economy and impoverish everyone. But yes, as in France, a stagnant economy also hampers industrialization hence the environment can be protected.

Perhaps this project isn't fast enough: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...ceNOW&utm_source=JHubbard&utm_medium=Facebook

kjclow · Jul 2, 2020

The biggest questions are: How large is that solar farm? How much larger does it need to be to supply all of the fossil fuel power for LA? What other regions have that kind of available real estate to put up that size of farm, without harming the local environment or economy?

A few years back, I looked into solar for work and then for powering regions. At that time, I calculated that Canada would need a solar farm the size of Manitoba to meet their daily electrical demand. I know panels have gotten better and batteries have gotten bigger but that's still alot of farm country that has to be covered.

turbobrick240 · Jul 2, 2020

I'm sorry, but that calculation was grossly inaccurate. Canada already gets 2/3 of their grid power from renewables. Even if they decided to scrap all of the hydropower (and all other non-solar grid sources), it would only require a land area of far less than one tenth that size. Roughly 24k square km (vs. the 650k sq. km of Manitoba) would be needed:

http://m.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/we-can-power-the-world-with-solar-using-a-tiny-amount-of-land/article/520625

Tin Man · Jul 2, 2020

turbobrick240 said:
I'm sorry, but that calculation was grossly inaccurate. Canada already gets 2/3 of their grid power from renewables. Even if they decided to scrap all of the hydropower (and all other non-solar grid sources), it would only require a land area of far less than one tenth that size. Roughly 24k square km would be needed:

http://m.digitaljournal.com/tech-an...ar-using-a-tiny-amount-of-land/article/520625

This sounds very promising. Maybe even better in some cases than private individual rooftop solar panels cost efficiency wise.

IndigoBlueWagon · Jul 2, 2020

I strongly believe that power generation at the consumption site (homes, commercial buildings, apartments) is the most effective way to reduce fossil fuel use for power generation. There are obvious site limitations to solar in some areas (around me the big obstacle is trees) or for some homes, but a combination of solar and wind power would make a huge dent in draw from the grid for many properties. Unfortunately many towns (around here anyway) prohibit wind generation towers tall enough to get above the trees. But they'd work great on commercial buildings.

We have a fair number of solar farms around. Many towns have used closed waste disposal sites for them, and use the output to power municipal buildings. Seems like a start.

turbobrick240 · Jul 2, 2020

IndigoBlueWagon said:
I strongly believe that power generation at the consumption site (homes, commercial buildings, apartments) is the most effective way to reduce fossil fuel use for power generation. There are obvious site limitations to solar in some areas (around me the big obstacle is trees) or for some homes, but a combination of solar and wind power would make a huge dent in draw from the grid for many properties. Unfortunately many towns (around here anyway) prohibit wind generation towers tall enough to get above the trees. But they'd work great on commercial buildings.

We have a fair number of solar farms around. Many towns have used closed waste disposal sites for them, and use the output to power municipal buildings. Seems like a start.

I agree. Putting PV installations on existing structures has a number of advantages on sites with good insolation. One really nice advantage is the potential to provide power on site when the grid goes down. That's pretty infrequent in most locales, but I lose grid power 4 or 5 times a year, sometimes for a couple of days.

The solar farms have advantages too- generally unobstructed exposure, and economy of scale. I really like the dual purpose installations. Like over parking lots where the panels also provide shade and shelter from the elements.

bhtooefr · Jul 2, 2020

IIRC the cost per kW of installed solar capacity is nearly an order of magnitude lower for solar farms as opposed to rooftop installations, due to those economies of scale, as well as lower installation costs.

Parking lot solar will have higher costs than a pure solar farm, due to the need to mount everything higher and deal with the asphalt (or concrete) parking surface, but should still be lower than something like residential rooftop.

(And then there's things like agrovoltaics, where they can get 80% of the kW of the same land as a pure solar farm, but get 80-160% of the crop yield of that same land as a pure crop farm (the 160% was, IIRC, a very hot summer, where the solar panels provided shading, improving potato yield).)

turbobrick240 · Jul 2, 2020

bhtooefr said:
And then there's things like agrovoltaics, where they can get 80% of the kW of the same land as a pure solar farm, but get 80-160% of the crop yield of that same land as a pure crop farm (the 160% was, IIRC, a very hot summer, where the solar panels provided shading, improving potato yield.

I've seen some very successful intercropping between the rows in orchards- pretty much the same principle. And I totally believe those potato yields. It's been an unusually hot, dry summer here this year and the Russian Banana potato plants (tastiest tater variety, bar none) I planted in the field are half the size of the experimental plant I put in a bucket near the woodline.

tikal · Jul 2, 2020

When comes to EVs, renewables, etc. people's attitude will have to change more than any political party can do on their own.

What percentage of people inconvenience themselves voluntarily to take their own shopping bags to the grocery store vs. getting one time use plastic bags?

turbobrick240 · Jul 2, 2020

When local govt. bans the disposable bags, they have no choice but to use the better bags. The govt. has all of the levers of power at their disposal.

Tin Man · Jul 2, 2020

Earlier in this thread, Tesla's catching fire was dismissed by the fan-boys: https://futurism.com/tesla-reportedly-sold-batteries-knew-catch-fire

Tin Man · Jul 2, 2020

turbobrick240 said:
When local govt. bans the disposable bags, they have no choice but to use the better bags. The govt. has all of the levers of power at their disposal.

"Better"? The impact of banning disposable plastic bags is very debatable including how reusable bags can spread disease/infections. I'm not a fan of disposable plastics either, though. But George Carlin explains it really well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4

turbobrick240 · Jul 2, 2020

Yeah, better in the same sense that a ceramic coffee mug is better than a Styrofoam cup. Don't tell me you've never had one of those New Jersey tumbleweed bags tear open on you spilling groceries everywhere.

tikal · Jul 3, 2020

The government does have all the levels of power and then the government changes, pretty much every two years.

The likelihood of banning ICE vehicles in the US in the foreseeable future is very low in my view.

I can see 10 to 15 percent of passenger vehicles being BEV by 2030 in the US if the cost of gasoline fuels continue to be relatively low compared to Western Europe, Japan, Australia, etc.

turbobrick240 · Jul 4, 2020

LBJ and Dick Nixon are long gone, but the Clean Air Act continues to have long lasting positive effects- despite efforts by the current administration to hollow it out. Outright bans are only one of many possible solutions. A healthy carbon tax, and ICEV buyback programs are among many other options. I'm optimistic that we can alter the disastrous trajectory that we're on before we make the environment here on Earth uninhabitable. It will just require some competent leadership.

wxman · Jul 4, 2020

But we can mitigate environmental impacts without eliminating ICEVs.

Biofuels and/or synfuels are a potential replacement for fossil fuels. ICEVs don't have to use fossil fuels only.

In fact, there's a facility currently being built in Mississippi that will produce net negative carbon fuels, mainly jet and diesel fuels - https://www.velocys.com/2019/10/10/negative-emission-fuel-agreement/ . According to the GREET model, the negative GHG emissions from this type of fuel are nearly enough to offset GHG emissions from the same vehicle using 100% fossil fuel!

Draconian measures like banning ICEV technology will only stifle further investments into new fuels like this.

turbobrick240 · Jul 4, 2020

F-T renewable jet fuel makes a lot of sense. I hope Velocys can make their Bayou plant profitable. I believe a number of similar pilot plants in Scandanavia were only able to operate for a few years before the economics became unsustainable. From what I recall, one common issue they ran into was premature catalyst fouling.

wxman · Jul 4, 2020

Yes, I've heard of the catalyst fouling.

Nevertheless, there are a number of F-T plants currently being built in the U.S. I believe the catalyst fouling issue has been addressed, or at least conditions under which the fouling occurs have been identified.

There are claims that Prometheus Fuels syn gasoline will be cost-competitive with fossil gasoline - https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/usa/...verting-co2-in-air-to-carbon-neutral-gasoline .

There is sufficient sustainable biomass in the U.S., not to mention these CO2-to-fuels technologies, to replace fossil fuels in transportation.

turbobrick240 · Jul 4, 2020

wxman said:
There are claims that Prometheus Fuels syn gasoline will be cost-competitive with fossil gasoline - https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/usa/...verting-co2-in-air-to-carbon-neutral-gasoline .
.

Pretty dubious claims I'm certain. I just don't see how direct air carbon capture can possibly be economical. You'd basically need massive amounts of free electricity. At the current rate of innovation and cost reduction in Li-ion batteries, there doesn't seem to be much benefit from stopgap measures for road transport. Especially when scaling up the stopgap measures would take longer than replacing most of the ICEV fleet with EVs.

https://phys-org.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/phys.org/news/2019-10-carbon-capture.amp?amp_js_v=a3&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15939387646470&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews%2F2019-10-carbon-capture.html

tikal · Jul 5, 2020

wxman said:
But we can mitigate environmental impacts without eliminating ICEVs.

Biofuels and/or synfuels are a potential replacement for fossil fuels. ICEVs don't have to use fossil fuels only.

In fact, there's a facility currently being built in Mississippi that will produce net negative carbon fuels, mainly jet and diesel fuels - https://www.velocys.com/2019/10/10/negative-emission-fuel-agreement/ . According to the GREET model, the negative GHG emissions from this type of fuel are nearly enough to offset GHG emissions from the same vehicle using 100% fossil fuel!

Draconian measures like banning ICEV technology will only stifle further investments into new fuels like this.

Agree very much! Top down imposition of EVs in a short period (few years) will backfire in my view.

"Swinging the pendulum" in automotive regulations will not help the stability the industry needs to be innovative in my view.

tikal · Jul 5, 2020

New-Vehicle Quality Mainly Dependent on Trouble-Free Technology, J.D. Power Finds

I do not consider these surveys conclusive at all on their own but now Tesla is starting to show up in the "quality radar':

https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2020-initial-quality-study-iqs

turbobrick240 · Jul 5, 2020

Everybody knows that JD Power are phony, pay to play awards. Tesla never pays fools like them, so the results aren't surprising. The truly important metric is customer satisfaction. Tesla has the highest customer satisfaction ratings (unpaid ratings) of any automaker.

Electric vehicles (EVs), their emissions, and future viability

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/

Top Post Dawg

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/

Top Post Dawg

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg