Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No one ever factors in how volatile fuel prices are. (Disclaimer, haven't actually read article).
Gasoline could go up to $4.00 in a month. My electric bill stays the same for years at a time as rate increases are usually annually.
Here in Las Vegas, the local Nextdoor boards are full of people screaming about their electric bills having gone up from, $400 last month to $700 this month -- and one person posted their electric bill that exceeds $1,000.
That disqualifies me right there. I can't qualify because my AGI is too high.
Right, though most of the posters on this forum aren't likely to run into that "issue". Higher income also usually correlates with purchasing higher up in the premium segment of the market and that's where EVs have purchase price parity, so that sort of works itself out anyhow.
That is nonsense on both points. There is more than enough lithium, LI is the 20th most common element on earth but the reality is that ICE vehicles will be around for the foreseeable future. There is no regulation that is even hinting that you must drive an EV and even CA's EV "mandate" on sales allows 20% of vehicles sold to be hybrids.
Not true. While no one is taking away any current ICE vehicle, yet, the current administration has set forth an EPA rule mandating that 2026 model ICE vehicles must meet unobtainable fuel mileage standards. Meaning, they're not "banning" ICE vehicles, they're regulating them out of existence, despite the fact that the market still wants them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo
Just to put some numbers on the Lithium - do the math. There are about 1.4 B vehicles currently in use around the world. There are about 26 M metric tons in proven reserves around the world (from approx 90 M tons total). According to the US DOE data, there is 8 kg Li in an average EV battery currently (likely to improve) so enough proven reserves to cover approx 3.2 B vehicles or over 2x more than exist and 11 B if use all LI. Also there are already batteries that do not use Li so can cover even more.
Is everyone going to be driving the same EV for their entire life? Assuming your figures are correct, there's only enough lithium for everyone to have two EV's for their entire lives, and that doesn't include the next generations who are going to need cars. And, that doesn't include that lithium is also needed for smartphone batteries, laptops, tablets, electric lawn mowers and other lawn care equipment, etc., etc., etc.
It's a pipe dream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo
As far as electricity - a study of US capacity done by the DOE in 2019 says there is enough to cover even the most aggressive conversion to EVs. According to another study by the DOE, EVs are 4 to 6 times more efficient than ICE and it would take roughly 800 to 1,200 billion kWh of electricity to power all vehicles if they were EVs. The US used about 4,130 billion kWh of electricity in 2019. This means if all cars were EVs that year, the US would have consumed 20-30% more electricity. Currently the US runs at about 37% of capacity and most EVs charge at night when excess capacity exists so should be able to cover even if all vehicles were EVs today.
California has frequent black-out threats. ICE vehicles place no strain on the power grid. A twenty to thirty percent increase in demand cannot be met with current infrastructure.
Yea, the link I posted said as much with not all of the lithium on our planet can be feasibly extracted. The part you're missing though is that what is feasibly extracted is more than enough to replace all ICE vehicles with EVs. I think the question really is if we're going to need a lot more than that because we may want a much, much more expanded use of lithium-ion battery in other industries aside from road transportation, and then other side of this, whether alternative non-lithium-ion secondary cell chemistries like sodium-ion take a large position.
Let's assume there is enough lithium to replace every ICE vehicle with an EV. That would only replace them once. Meaning, everyone only gets one EV for their entire life. That's not feasible. That's not realistic. And, it ignores that the world population is growing, meaning you actually need more lithium than just enough to replace every current ICE vehicle. Not including the lithium needed for smartphone batteries, laptops, tablets, electric lawn mowers, etc.
It's a pipe dream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I think you're confused about what lithium is. Lithium extraction comes in many forms, but it's not generally a particularly awful extraction though that can vary by the source. I also think you've probably conflated lithium with perhaps cobalt which is what people point to with child slave labor usage. That latter part can be solved pretty quickly if there's the political will, but that's going to take some work so I highly encourage you to do some advocacy work and insist that US corporations have some way of verifying their supply chain as cobalt is used in ternary batteries as well as refining of petroleum to make products like gasoline. It's not like Congolese cobalt is the only source of cobalt--it's really more that it's the cheapest source. Plus, you don't necessarily need to use a ternary battery since LFP batteries are pretty good as well.
The slave labor is what keeps EV's somewhat affordable. To mine those elements ethically costs more money, meaning the end product is more expensive for the consumer to purchase, making their adoption less likely, no matter how much the government mandates it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
In the US currently, EVs are predominantly for people who are already going to buy in the premium segment and have a pathway to charging at home. They're a lot more convenient for a lot of people and would comparatively be cheaper to operate than other vehicles in the premium categories. I'm not sure you really understand the economics behind this. In other countries, especially within China and its export markets, EVs cover a much broader market segment. Like, a *much* broader market segment. A lot of that has to do with the aforementioned LFP battery chemistry which China got a mass production head start on for a good decade or so because the consortium of LFP patent holders (mostly Western institutions) made a deal with Chinese battery makers that they do not have to pay per production usage fees as long as they didn't export out of the domestic Chinese market. In that time period, China's automotive market grew to become the largest single market in the world and hence a huge LFP market for batteries with a lot of competition. Those key patents expired just last year and hence you're now seeing LFP batteries show up in other markets, but it'll take a while and it will be at least for the next few years dominated by Chinese battery makers.
EV's are toys for those with money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
You're not thinking through how most people are using these vehicles. The Camry has 500 miles of range, but you don't have a delivery service of gasoline into your tank for a steep discount every night when you park your vehicle. That's basically what an electric vehicle does for you where you may have a smaller tank, but you wake up with a full tank every day. For some use cases, that might not be great like if you're someone who needs to drive over 300 miles on most days, but that's a highly idiosyncratic driving pattern within the US for a personal vehicle. Again, a Tesla Model Y isn't the right segment comparison for a Camry. You understand that premium segment vehicles existed before Tesla made vehicles, right? Or that crossovers/SUVs have some differences from sedans hence why we have different terms for them. Toyota does have a premium badge though. It's called Lexus. The roughly comparable crossover is the Lexus RX and the Tesla Model Y is priced roughly the same. At the time of this post, the US MSRP for the base level Lexus RX is $49,950 and the Tesla Model Y base model starts at $47,740 though the base Tesla Model Y has AWD while the base AWD version of the Lexus RX starts at $51,550. This topic was about three year ownership and here the Tesla Model Y already starts at an advantage without including any federal tax credits. Also keep in mind that premium segment vehicles usually means premium gasoline and probably none-too-stellar fuel economy so each year of average driving means the gap widens significantly in total cost. This is one of the pretty clear reasons for why the premium segments hve gone over to EVs so rapidly.
I was just comparing range. For $26,000, you can buy a base model Camry with an average range of five hundred miles. No EV comes close to that range, and the one's that have three hundred miles of range are $15,000 to $25,000 more expensive. And, for what? That's why they're toys for those who have money. They're not for the working man.
Not true. While no one is taking away any current ICE vehicle, yet, the current administration has set forth an EPA rule mandating that 2026 model ICE vehicles must meet unobtainable fuel mileage standards. Meaning, they're not "banning" ICE vehicles, they're regulating them out of existence, despite the fact that the market still wants them.
Is everyone going to be driving the same EV for their entire life? Assuming your figures are correct, there's only enough lithium for everyone to have two EV's for their entire lives, and that doesn't include the next generations who are going to need cars. And, that doesn't include that lithium is also needed for smartphone batteries, laptops, tablets, electric lawn mowers and other lawn care equipment, etc., etc., etc.
It's a pipe dream.
California has frequent black-out threats. ICE vehicles place no strain on the power grid. A twenty to thirty percent increase in demand cannot be met with current infrastructure.
So they're not banned which is what he said.
Lithium prices and advancements in reclamation processes have made recycling lithium profitable. Remember, when a battery degrades, none of the lithium is actually used up. It's not like gasoline where burning it means reclamation is essentially impossible. That's not how batteries work though and the materials you originally put into the battery are still there once the battery is degraded.
You have a pretty bad sense of scale if you're thinking that smartphone batteries, laptops, tablets, and lawn care equipment come anything close to the usage of total fleet replacement with EVs. For the consumer devices, you're talking about tens of watt-hours of capacity. EVs are in the tens to hundreds of kilowatt-hours.
The problem you're having is that you don't have any clue as to what you're talking about, but you're very willing to keep going.
California was able to ward off blackouts despite having record electricity consumption and record heatwaves last year in part because of the deployment of stationary storage via lithium-ion batteries. Meanwhile, bidirectional charging where the batteries in an EV can act as stationary storage is becoming a standard option which makes EVs another avenue to ward off blackouts.
Looked at EV and Hybrid premium sedans and the price differential with the ICE models where were too much to even consider it. Average annual miles driven is somewhere around 12-14k depending on how you survey but that means a lot of people drive less than that. Looking at the amount of miles our household racks up, it would take 10 years of ownership to break even in nominal dollars. Factor in the TVM and we would never recoup our added cost before the economic life of the vehicle was exhausted.
The main factor in cost of EV/Hybrid is the added up front cost to purchase. One thing manufactures should look at is shortening range to lower cost. 200 mile range is plenty for commuting around town which is all the household BEV is used for anyway. You should have ICE vehicles available for when longer range is needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
You are right that I neglected the EV rate plans which discount the cost of recharging overnight (after midnight). These discounted rates make EV usage competitive with current gasoline prices.
But, you have to wait until midnight to start charging. I guess that can be automated with a timer. And, the recharge has to be done be 7am or whenever you hit the road. That’s probably good enough for most people.
Depends on where you live and your electric provider. Ours locally charges the same per KWH no matter what time of day.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,769 posts, read 58,209,379 times
Reputation: 46265
Quote:
Originally Posted by FordBronco1967
...
Environmentally speaking, the best thing anyone can do is drive the same car for their entire life. ...And, I'm not spending forty to fifty thousand dollars on something that will be a brick after ten years, .... That's a waste, ...
....it ends up costing $13,000 more to own a Model Y, over a ten year period, than a Camry. Gas and maintenance included. Electricity not included. Perhaps utility wasn't the right word.
Every capital expenditure also has an opportunity cost. Especially $40-$50k
Stick with driving one vehicle for life, and you can benefit a lot of opportunities (charitable gifting). Or earlier retirement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moguldreamer
Eliminate the tax credit. Problem solved.
Similar to solar / and renewable fuel stds. If the USA government would have kept their rebate / tax credit fingers out of alternative energy, and instead developed a fair market sustainable energy policy, we might have become energy independent 50 yrs ago. (1973 Oil Embargo anniversary coming soon). It was a clear and very persuasive shot-across-the-bow, that only a politician could miss.
Let's do more manipulative incentives! That's sure to work well enough to get us re-elected. If it works for 4 yrs, the gravy train continues. Fat and sassy (at the expense of a potential viable solution)
Let's assume there is enough lithium to replace every ICE vehicle with an EV. That would only replace them once. Meaning, everyone only gets one EV for their entire life. That's not feasible. That's not realistic. And, it ignores that the world population is growing, meaning you actually need more lithium than just enough to replace every current ICE vehicle. Not including the lithium needed for smartphone batteries, laptops, tablets, electric lawn mowers, etc.
It's a pipe dream.
The slave labor is what keeps EV's somewhat affordable. To mine those elements ethically costs more money, meaning the end product is more expensive for the consumer to purchase, making their adoption less likely, no matter how much the government mandates it.
EV's are toys for those with money.
I was just comparing range. For $26,000, you can buy a base model Camry with an average range of five hundred miles. No EV comes close to that range, and the one's that have three hundred miles of range are $15,000 to $25,000 more expensive. And, for what? That's why they're toys for those who have money. They're not for the working man.
There's no assumption here. There is more than enough lithium on the planet's crust to transition the entire global fleet to EVs. That by itself doesn't mean we should, but you should realize that your original statement was erroneous. The idea that you would only use them once is also incredibly misinformed. The problem is that you don't seem to understand how batteries work. When batteries degrade and go kaput, the battery materials are still there but on a very, very small scale there are structural and chemical changes within the battery cells. The materials are still there though and so that's why these batteries are recyclable. In the case of EVs especially, recycling is quite profitable because tearing down a single unit yields a *lot* of battery material. Given how rapidly battery technology has improved, the materials used in a battery from a decade ago actually yields substantially more capacity when using the same materials now and there's little sign that's stopping.
You have no sense of scale do you if you're going to compare that for batteries, laptops, tablets, and lawncare equipment. It's like you have worse than no knowledge of how batteries work.
The slave labor is mostly for batteries that are at price points that are pricier. It's actually the less expensive battery chemistries (LFP) that don't use any cobalt at all, not the more expensive ones. I do agree that there should be a push towards identifying cobalt sources and denying them the US (and other markets) access when that's used. This includes cobalt used in the refining of petroleum. Yes, this will make gasoline, diesel, other refined petroleum products and premium electric vehicles more expensive but on this point we can both agree that that's well worth it. It would also help develop the domestic cobalt industry under US labor and environmental regulation which I think is well worth it.
In the US, EVs are generally in the premium segment. I understand the sentiment that any and all Acura, Alfa Romeo, Audi, BMW, Cadillac, Genesis, Infiniti, Jaguar, Land Rover, Lexus, Lincoln, Maserati, Mercedes, Porsche, Volvo, etc. are all toys to you. The fact of the matter is that LFP has been kept out of the US market for the most part and so it's probably going to take a few more years before you get purchase price parity for non-luxury vehicles in the US. A few more years though really isn't that long.
Why are you just comparing range then? Do you buy cars based solely on range? That seems silly. I think you fail to realize how other people actually decide car purchases and how EVs work. EVs are at a median of about 250 miles of range, and what you're effectively getting in exchange is that you wake up with a full tank every day and you have that at a steeply discounted price. For some people, that trade-off of 400-500 miles of range is worth it. For others, it is not. It doesn't make sense to assume so many people, especially so many people who had the ability to work themselves into a higher socioeconomic bracket where they don't need to flinch at buying vehicles in the luxury segment, are somehow mathematically illiterate or aren't able to weigh pros and cons since that kind of inability would probably be pretty detrimental to becoming wealthy enough to afford such in the first place.
It'll be another few years before there's broader purchase price parity in the US market. It's already there in the Chinese market which is the largest automotive market in the world and increasingly in markets where Chinese exports are a substantial portion of sales (which has been increasing rapidly), but it'll take longer in the US.
Also, there are production EVs that go 500 miles, but they're also quite expensive in the lower six figure range like the Lucid Air though there is cheaper in China though the CLTC range rating is slightly more generous than other rating systems.
I think the number of erroneous statements you've made are a good indicator that you don't really know that much about the field.
The main factor in cost of EV/Hybrid is the added up front cost to purchase. One thing manufactures should look at is shortening range to lower cost. 200 mile range is plenty for commuting around town which is all the household BEV is used for anyway. You should have ICE vehicles available for when longer range is needed.
People keep telling me to buy two cars: one limited range EV for around town, and a second, for those times I need to go hundreds of miles and not worry about range.
I guess this works out as long as you are able to have two cars. Some individuals and even couples or families can only have one - like in some urban limited-parking types of housing - I've lived in several apartments in the past where there was only one deeded parking space. Then there's the question of whether or not there's a charger available.
I think what it boils down to is, EV's are for the affluent who own homes, can afford to pay for an EV, can afford a second ICE vehicle for longer trips, towing & camping, etc. They can feel all smug about doing their bit for the environment, I suppose.
For the working class and a lot of the middle class who are living week to week, barely getting by, carrying student loans or credit card debt... it's got to be ICE vehicles for the immediate future.
I've mentioned this before -- my kid's starting college, locally, and planning to live at home. I'd love to get her in a cheap BEV that will have low maintenance, perfect for her needs. 100 miles of range would probably be plenty. I'm looking into used Bolts and Leafs (leaves?) but it's hard to find one that's much cheaper than new MSRP not to mention the Leaf range tends to be shot after a few years, down to 30 miles or so. Not sure about the Bolt.
People keep telling me to buy two cars: one limited range EV for around town, and a second, for those times I need to go hundreds of miles and not worry about range.
I guess this works out as long as you are able to have two cars. Some individuals and even couples or families can only have one - like in some urban limited-parking types of housing - I've lived in several apartments in the past where there was only one deeded parking space. Then there's the question of whether or not there's a charger available.
I think what it boils down to is, EV's are for the affluent who own homes, can afford to pay for an EV, can afford a second ICE vehicle for longer trips, towing & camping, etc. They can feel all smug about doing their bit for the environment, I suppose.
For the working class and a lot of the middle class who are living week to week, barely getting by, carrying student loans or credit card debt... it's got to be ICE vehicles for the immediate future.
I've mentioned this before -- my kid's starting college, locally, and planning to live at home. I'd love to get her in a cheap BEV that will have low maintenance, perfect for her needs. 100 miles of range would probably be plenty. I'm looking into used Bolts and Leafs (leaves?) but it's hard to find one that's much cheaper than new MSRP not to mention the Leaf range tends to be shot after a few years, down to 30 miles or so. Not sure about the Bolt.
I'm definitely not telling you to buy two cars. If you want to talk about smug then maybe go after posters that claim they make over AGI for the tax credit and would rather you not have access to it which would make things like the Bolt very inexpensive for its class as well as cheaper to operate. If you're already a two car household which isn't that rare in the US, then one being an EV can make sense provided you have a pathway to charging.
Leaf's range being shot depends a lot on how you use it and what the climate is like locally. Used Leaf prices generally reflect that, so they can be a very good deal provided you're not in a very hot weather climate. If you are, then you should absolutely go with a Bolt instead of a Leaf if you can find a decent deal on it as the Bolt has an active thermal management system as pretty much all EVs *except* for the Leaf do. Also keep in mind that there's a 4,000 used EV federal tax credit. All of this is moot though if you don't have a pathway towards charging at home. Aside from the Bolt, the other one to look for is the Hyundai Kona Electric. Unfortunately, the US for various reasons does not have a lot of entry level price vehicles in general including EVs and thus not many used entry level EVs.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 08-26-2023 at 10:34 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
