Why The Electric Vehicle House Of Cards Must Fall [View article]
Short term: since the current number of EVs is small and consequently the amount of oil saved, the implied cost seems low, when seen as a means to jump-start a new technology, especially since much of those subsidies already have a purpose in themselves, for example solar subsidies are investments into the future, and do not meaningfully relate to annual consumption.
Long term: The rapidly sinking cost of solar (and batteries) will resolve those concerns. Solar is about to reach grid-parity with NG in the not too distant future.
And regardless of the relative cost, I don't see how your article provides a justification for subsidizing oil. You seem to have lost track of that subsidies are often an investment into the future, not into the bottom line of 2011. Oil doesn't have a future other than a long death, whereas EVs do have all the future in front of them.
Why The Electric Vehicle House Of Cards Must Fall [View article]
Re 100% limit: It doesn't exist. Chemistries, Anode, Cathode, are improved or completely change. Lithium Air is far away but shows that there is no limit close. Other changes will come sooner.
Why The Electric Vehicle House Of Cards Must Fall [View article]
Improvements in $/kWh often come from an increase in energy density (Wh/kg), so the 60%-raw-materials figure is not very meaningful. There are no limits written in stone that we would be close to.
Why The Electric Vehicle House Of Cards Must Fall [View article]
"When you turn the crank on the incremental cost of vehicle electrification, it works out to an up-front capital investment of $190 for each equivalent barrel of oil saved."
Considering that the current cost of *crude* oil is around $101, that seems to be too good to be true. Am I missing something? That sounds like a very low cost for jump-starting a new technology (vs sustaining the oil technology which in truth everyone hates).
Why The Electric Vehicle House Of Cards Must Fall [View article]
The $7,500 tax credit's purpose is to offset the current battery cost, in the assumption that battery prices can be reduced through a process involving R&D and economy of scale (whether you agree with that assumption, or not). So the tax credit has very much to do with the cost of manufacturing the EV. Its very intent is to reduce the cost of manufacturing, in order to help EVs to get to the point where they can compete in the market place on a level playing field.
The long-term benefits of EVs are largely a common good for all (for example, proportionally to their number, they help reduce the price and availability of oil for everyone). They are not related to the gain of one person at the expense of another.
The tax-credit is limited to a certain number of cars (currently 200,000), and is only intended to get the ball rolling on a larger scale. Therefore it doesn't make any sense to divide the subsidy by the number of gallons or barrels saved by those cars which receive the credit, as it isn't about these specific cars at all. It is about those cars that follow, which do not need a tax credit, yet do not consume any gas either.
Of course, you may disagree with the assumption that battery costs will go down, but that doesn't mean that the subsidies don't make sense for those who do make that assumption.
So it is not a question of "familiarity with elementary school mathematics", but a question of evaluating the future of battery technology. And you will surely understand that in that respect I value the word of a nobel-prize-winning physicist higher than yours, for example.
Why The Electric Vehicle House Of Cards Must Fall [View article]
According to your numbers, the additional cost for the EV is $19,800 - $7,500 for 4200 gallons saved.
That is about $2.90 per gallon gasoline.
Even with electricity added, that's within the range of what you'll have to pay at the pump, and those who buy EVs expect the price per gallon of gas to increase in the next 10 years.
Why The Electric Vehicle House Of Cards Must Fall [View article]
@Rick : In casual conversation, "energy density" is often used to refer to Wh/kg. COnsider the following text, which also shows that your assumption of a limit at 200% is not correct at all (for example Lithium-Air, from the wikipedia article about it):
"The theoretical energy density of the lithium-air battery is 12 kWh/kg, and it has been theorized that a practical energy density of 1.7 kWh/kg at the wheels of an automobile could be realized when accounting for the much higher efficiency of electric motors [6]. In a nearer future, proponents of the technology expect lithium-air batteries to replace the lithium-ion batteries currently powering portable electronic devices. Lithium-air batteries have the potential to have 5-15 times the energy density of current lithium-ion batteries. Thus even the most conservative estimates indicate that a modern-day lithium-ion battery may someday be replaced by a lithium-air battery 1/5 the size or a lithium-air battery with a lifespan 5 times as long. Whether lithium-air batteries lead to reduced battery sizes or longer lasting batteries, the potential for a vast reduction in price or a vast increase in vehicle range is an attractive consequence of developing such battery technology [15]."
Researchers Prove The Law Of Diminishing Marginal Utility In Electric Drive Technology [View article]
According to the numbers in the graph above, you need to buy 3 HEVs (14 * 379 / 1765), to get the same gasoline displacement as a single EV. But what good would it be to have 2 of them in the garage, as you can drive only one of them at a time. Maybe a nice use of Lithium, however not a good "use" of humans willing to buy green cars. And even if everyone buys an HEV, you still have 2/3 of the problem. That's a waste of a lot of HEVs.
Researchers Prove The Law Of Diminishing Marginal Utility In Electric Drive Technology [View article]
If that is the limit, then I think Tesla is undervalued. Its current business isn't even the tip of an iceberg. The short sellers will give up when Model S comes out, and there are lots of them.
Researchers Prove The Law Of Diminishing Marginal Utility In Electric Drive Technology [View article]
According to this way of looking at it, the smaller the battery, the better, until no battery at all is infinitely good. Something must be missing here, in this absolute law. :)
BTW, the NREL presentation comes to the conclusion that Lithium is not actually a problem, the rest is hypothetical.
Why The Electric Vehicle House Of Cards Must Fall [View article]
The general consensus is that LithiumAir, if it can be made to work as IBM is expecting, will allow batteries providing 5x to 10x the range of current batteries. IBM is making these predictions in the awareness that there are still problems that need to be solved. So, high specific energies are not an impossibility at all.
Why The Electric Vehicle House Of Cards Must Fall [View article]
Long term: The rapidly sinking cost of solar (and batteries) will resolve those concerns. Solar is about to reach grid-parity with NG in the not too distant future.
And regardless of the relative cost, I don't see how your article provides a justification for subsidizing oil. You seem to have lost track of that subsidies are often an investment into the future, not into the bottom line of 2011. Oil doesn't have a future other than a long death, whereas EVs do have all the future in front of them.
Why The Electric Vehicle House Of Cards Must Fall [View article]
Why The Electric Vehicle House Of Cards Must Fall [View article]
Why The Electric Vehicle House Of Cards Must Fall [View article]
Considering that the current cost of *crude* oil is around $101, that seems to be too good to be true. Am I missing something? That sounds like a very low cost for jump-starting a new technology (vs sustaining the oil technology which in truth everyone hates).
Researchers Prove The Law Of Diminishing Marginal Utility In Electric Drive Technology [View article]
And what is the numerical value of that limitation?
Researchers Prove The Law Of Diminishing Marginal Utility In Electric Drive Technology [View article]
However 5.999 billion people won't know what you are talking about until it is too late. How many EVs do you think we will be able to build?
Why The Electric Vehicle House Of Cards Must Fall [View article]
The long-term benefits of EVs are largely a common good for all (for example, proportionally to their number, they help reduce the price and availability of oil for everyone). They are not related to the gain of one person at the expense of another.
The tax-credit is limited to a certain number of cars (currently 200,000), and is only intended to get the ball rolling on a larger scale. Therefore it doesn't make any sense to divide the subsidy by the number of gallons or barrels saved by those cars which receive the credit, as it isn't about these specific cars at all. It is about those cars that follow, which do not need a tax credit, yet do not consume any gas either.
Of course, you may disagree with the assumption that battery costs will go down, but that doesn't mean that the subsidies don't make sense for those who do make that assumption.
So it is not a question of "familiarity with elementary school mathematics", but a question of evaluating the future of battery technology. And you will surely understand that in that respect I value the word of a nobel-prize-winning physicist higher than yours, for example.
Why The Electric Vehicle House Of Cards Must Fall [View article]
That is about $2.90 per gallon gasoline.
Even with electricity added, that's within the range of what you'll have to pay at the pump, and those who buy EVs expect the price per gallon of gas to increase in the next 10 years.
The BTU numbers above don't matter.
Why The Electric Vehicle House Of Cards Must Fall [View article]
"The theoretical energy density of the lithium-air battery is 12 kWh/kg, and it has been theorized that a practical energy density of 1.7 kWh/kg at the wheels of an automobile could be realized when accounting for the much higher efficiency of electric motors [6]. In a nearer future, proponents of the technology expect lithium-air batteries to replace the lithium-ion batteries currently powering portable electronic devices. Lithium-air batteries have the potential to have 5-15 times the energy density of current lithium-ion batteries. Thus even the most conservative estimates indicate that a modern-day lithium-ion battery may someday be replaced by a lithium-air battery 1/5 the size or a lithium-air battery with a lifespan 5 times as long. Whether lithium-air batteries lead to reduced battery sizes or longer lasting batteries, the potential for a vast reduction in price or a vast increase in vehicle range is an attractive consequence of developing such battery technology [15]."
Why The Electric Vehicle House Of Cards Must Fall [View article]
Researchers Prove The Law Of Diminishing Marginal Utility In Electric Drive Technology [View article]
HEVs won't do zero oil, end of story.
Researchers Prove The Law Of Diminishing Marginal Utility In Electric Drive Technology [View article]
Researchers Prove The Law Of Diminishing Marginal Utility In Electric Drive Technology [View article]
BTW, the NREL presentation comes to the conclusion that Lithium is not actually a problem, the rest is hypothetical.
Why The Electric Vehicle House Of Cards Must Fall [View article]
Why The Electric Vehicle House Of Cards Must Fall [View article]