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.
Nothing new, unique or special about this. Whenever a new technology emerges companies invest in design, manufacturing and product ahead of the consumer. First the early adopters nibble at the product, early reviews get published. More early adopters slowly come on board. Traditionalists cynically say the newfangled thing is doomed to fail, it'll never work, etc. At some point the number of early adopters hit critical mass where the average consumer begins to buy in, and a New Trend is born. We've all seen this movie before.
In broad strokes, I agree. But what's different here, is that this isn't just startups doing this, or even big companies experimenting with it on a small scale. Tesla, by getting well out in front, has basically already proven the concept, and they've set a high bar for what the results should be. This makes it very difficult to equal what they've already done - you have to go big - in R&D as well as manufacturing, or you'll clearly fall short. But the market is still not that big yet, even if it's clear that this is the future. Huge, longstanding companies believe that EVs are the future, and are betting the firm on being able to get into this business in essentially one great leap. The risks here are far greater than companies normally take, and those risks are compounded by the fact that many big companies are going all in, while the market is still relatively small.
Right, prices change based on the supply and the demand for it. Supplies are being added in terms of opening mines where there weren't before and the push for new processes to extract such from more sources, but it may not by itself keep up with demand. However, one thing that's been steadily happening and is part of the OP's article in regards to the tipping point for batteries is that less material and less expensive material (more readily available material) has become necessary for each kWh. Will demand grow faster than both the addition of economically viable global supply and technological advancements that need less material per kWh? That's not entirely clear, but so far the answer has been a resounding yes for the last decade and for the last several decades.
That other "better, more efficient, or cheaper materials" can be used to built batteries makes not difference if these materials aren't readily available for mining. Don't look at the battery itself, but at the materials and the locations of mining operations taking place. These materials aren't renewable. https://www.instituteforenergyresear...ium-batteries/
Quote:
One thing that differentiates oil from battery materials though is that battery materials have a pretty reasonable pipeline towards recycling because you don't actually combust the batteries in usage (at least you're not supposed to). It's so far pretty difficult to capture the exhaust from an ICE vehicle and economically turn it into more fuel for your ICE vehicle. However, there are known processes for extracting the valuable components from batteries. It doesn't happen often because most rechargeable batteries thus far have been for small devices so the mere act of collecting all the used batteries is pretty labor intensive, but EVs have a large collection of battery cells in one place which is why it's purportedly more economical. There will still be some work to make it truly economical compared to extraction from ore, but it's good to know that it exists.
Electricity is an EV battery's fuel. As the battery is discharged, you cannot turn the discharge rate into more electricity. The same happens to the fuel that has burned by an ICE. But what you can do is to filter and transform the fumes (make them less hazardous).
Quote:
Additionally, there are three additional but related main advantages to EVs over ICE vehicles aside from just lack of tailpipe emissions. After all, it's not like the US doesn't mostly allow tailpipe emissions to simply be a negative externality for the most part and left off the balance sheets of automakers or fossil fuel companies. Those two related main advantages are much more about economics and resiliency and they are 1) electricity is much cheaper to "refuel" with, 2) electricity can be generated in an economically viable fashion from a large number of sources, and 3) electricity is fairly cheap to distribute per kWh of energy compared to gas and diesel. There are also some small advantages compared to ICE vehicles generally like smoother and quieter operation, more flexibility in layout of its primary components, generally quite a bit of power immediately at the low end, supposedly lower maintenance due to fewer moving components or components exposed to extreme heaat and less brake wear due to the use of regenerative braking, but those are relatively minor.
It takes electricity to charge a battery, and this electricity, at least in the US is generated by using coal, fuel, nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar. Electricity is not cheaper to refuel. The possible savings from using a battery versus filling the tank happen during the life span of the battery under perfect scenarios. You still need to produce the electricity needed to charge the battery, and this electricity is not necessarily cheap everywhere. All depends on where you are at the moment or where you live, or what you use to to produce the electricity to charge your battery.
-----
The main point I was trying to make in my previous post was that the materials needed to built EV batteries aren't readily available. A lot of earth has to be moved to extract these materials. While EV's don't pollute the air, the environmental impact resulting from building a battery is huge: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdo...h=4ca44a4650bd
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,563 posts, read 81,147,605 times
Reputation: 57767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA
Nothing new, unique or special about this. Whenever a new technology emerges companies invest in design, manufacturing and product ahead of the consumer. First the early adopters nibble at the product, early reviews get published. More early adopters slowly come on board. Traditionalists cynically say the newfangled thing is doomed to fail, it'll never work, etc. At some point the number of early adopters hit critical mass where the average consumer begins to buy in, and a New Trend is born. We've all seen this movie before.
Slow to adapt is not always the case, the Flatscreen TV being a good example. When they came out the prices were comparable to the old CRT TVs but with much bigger and better picture, so people snapped them up. The same can be said for the smart phone. The difference is that in both cases the new device did more than the old version, and clearly worth the cost, with the EV people are still not convinced.
Slow to adapt is not always the case, the Flatscreen TV being a good example. When they came out the prices were comparable to the old CRT TVs
? The prices for 50" flatscreens were in the $4-6k range, in the early days, not merely $400 like a top 36" CRT was at that time. And remember how those plasma screens burned in? LCD and LED screens came in at $2000-3000 for that size, which undercut the plasma ones, And now you can get a 50" as a giveaway when you buy a $1500 80" TV.
Quote:
with the EV people are still not convinced.
Part of that is because there are a lot of people with a vested interest in making sure people are unconvinced, and keep trotting out tired old tropes that have been disproven for years, if not outright lies.
Staffing costs do go up, and like for like, materials costs go up. However, for example, manufacturing costs can decline with more efficient methods, and materials costs can decline when less expensive materials are substituted. Both of these things are happening under the attack of battery R&D.
Making a manufacturing method more efficient may not always be possible. Would you discard the existing assembly line and all your machinery to replace it with "better ones." As long as you have to use materials that aren't renewable, the cost of production will remain relatively the same. If there were cheaper materials to build an EV battery meeting the specifications of such a battery, these materials would be used today. In other words: the cheapest materials to meet the specifications are already being used today.
If there is an overabundance of the minerals and plastics used to build batteries, then the batteries won't cost so much. But these natural resources aren't renewable and readily available all over the globe.
In relation to TV screens: in the past there were very few TV/screen manufacturers in the world. But today there are a great number of screen manufacturers, most of them in Asia. All of these manufacturers compete with each other for a stronghold of the TV market. In the past, the lack of TV manufacturers resulted in low production versus high demand for the product, which in turn made it more expensive. Back then we worked for less $ and our cost of living was also lower.
New TV screen technology fetches the higher price, and at the same time the now "just older" TV screen technology drops some of its price. If you want to latest and the greatest TV screen you have to pay the highest price, but two to tree years later the screen will probably cost about half of what you pay today. However, TV manufacturers and the market aren't stupid: the prices are regulated so that the value drop takes place gradually. So if you look at how much we make today versus the cost of living, a brand new TV screen is as expensive as it has always been.
That other "better, more efficient, or cheaper materials" can be used to built batteries makes not difference if these materials aren't readily available for mining. Don't look at the battery itself, but at the materials and the locations of mining operations taking place. These materials aren't renewable. https://www.instituteforenergyresear...ium-batteries/
Electricity is an EV battery's fuel. As the battery is discharged, you cannot turn the discharge rate into more electricity. The same happens to the fuel that has burned by an ICE. But what you can do is to filter and transform the fumes (make them less hazardous).
It takes electricity to charge a battery, and this electricity, at least in the US is generated by using coal, fuel, nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar. Electricity is not cheaper to refuel. The possible savings from using a battery versus filling the tank happen during the life span of the battery under perfect scenarios. You still need to produce the electricity needed to charge the battery, and this electricity is not necessarily cheap everywhere. All depends on where you are at the moment or where you live, or what you use to to produce the electricity to charge your battery.
-----
The main point I was trying to make in my previous post was that the materials needed to built EV batteries aren't readily available. A lot of earth has to be moved to extract these materials. While EV's don't pollute the air, the environmental impact resulting from building a battery is huge: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdo...h=4ca44a4650bd
If you can use smaller quantities of the same material for large battery capacity, then that does make a difference. Certainly it still means mining for these materials, but it is actually being better utilized which is part of what has brought battery prices down so quickly even though there are blips where the price of the materials per kg sometimes goes up due to greater overall demand. That's been the case for batteries for decades and for EV lithium-ion batteries for the previous decade. It's possible that won't hold, but so far the indications of the near past have been pointing that it will continue.
There's certainly an environmental impact to mining and making these batteries--the question is if they have a greater or lesser amount of impact per utility value you get out of them. Thus far, it seems like that's the case with multiple studies on the matter for the full life cycle including the production and operations of the vehicle. The write-up you posted from the Institute for Energy Research, like your previous post from the Manhattan Institute, is good in that it still outlines the amount of emissions that EV battery production make, but for an actual comparison between EVs and ICE vehicles, it makes sense to talk about not just the production of the vehicles, but the usage. If this whole thing were a Rube-Goldberg machine where the factories just produce EVs and ICE vehicles, but none of them were allowed to be used, then sure, that's a good point, but the vast majority of vehicles produced are intended to be used at least at some point. It would seem ridiculous to not consider that.
Electricity is generally cheaper to refuel for most of the US and the world because motors are simply far more efficient than internal combustion engines even taking in transmission and inverter losses. You see this on both an individual and aggregate level. It's also partly why a good portion of the high efficiency vehicles you see that use petroleum are hybrids.
It does make sense to highlight that there is a large environmental impact from EV production. That's a great thing to do and ideally even more efficient ways of getting around and getting your day-to-day errands done become even more efficient (like living in a city where most things are in easy walking and biking distance), but the one-to-one replacement EVs are going for isn't that, but rather ICE vehicles. In that comparison, EVs generally emit less over their lifetime and are more efficient in most situations.
Regardless, short of some incredible advancements in internal combustion engines at a rate far faster than seen in previous decades, it does look like that tipping point of $100/kWh or less is reachable within the next few years and that will likely make a large difference in EV adoption rates in this country for new vehicle sales. Consumers mostly aren't going to be particularly swayed by environmental consequences or how renewable the materials for the battery or the electrical generation is. They're mostly going to go by how much utility they get out of for the amount of money they spend compared to new ICE vehicles.
If you can use smaller quantities of the same material for large battery capacity, then that does make a difference. Certainly it still means mining for these materials, but it is actually being better utilized which is part of what has brought battery prices down so quickly even though there are blips where the price of the materials per kg sometimes goes up due to greater overall demand. That's been the case for batteries for decades and for EV lithium-ion batteries for the previous decade. It's possible that won't hold, but so far the indications of the near past have been pointing that it will continue.
Yes, you are correct. But which material can you use to make that possible at the present time? No EV battery manufacturer is going to use the largest amount of nor the most inefficient material. It would make no sense for a manufacturer to use more than what is needed to meet the battery's specifications. What the manufacturer does is to use all cost-saving methods possible to meet the the specifications.
Quote:
There's certainly an environmental impact to mining and making these batteries--the question is if they have a greater or lesser amount of impact per utility value you get out of them. Thus far, it seems like that's the case with multiple studies on the matter for the full life cycle including the production and operations of the vehicle. The write-up you posted from the Institute for Energy Research, like your previous post from the Manhattan Institute, is good in that it still outlines the amount of emissions that EV battery production make, but for an actual comparison between EVs and ICE vehicles, it makes sense to talk about not just the production of the vehicles, but the usage. If this whole thing were a Rube-Goldberg machine where the factories just produce EVs and ICE vehicles, but none of them were allowed to be used, then sure, that's a good point, but the vast majority of vehicles produced are intended to be used at least at some point. It would seem ridiculous to not consider that.
Electricity is generally cheaper to refuel for most of the US and the world because motors are simply far more efficient than internal combustion engines even taking in transmission and inverter losses. You see this on both an individual and aggregate level. It's also partly why a good portion of the high efficiency vehicles you see that use petroleum are hybrids.
The carbon footprint for building an ICE vehicle is somewhat similar for building an EV. But to build an EV battery alone, it take quite a large carbon footprint.
The ICE provides its own electrical power, and because of government mandates these motors become more efficient each year. On top of that, automakers compete with each other in their quest of attaining more HP and greater gas mileage. ICE also provides as much heat and cooling as needed for long period of time in extreme environments.
Quote:
It does make sense to highlight that there is a large environmental impact from EV production. That's a great thing to do and ideally even more efficient ways of getting around and getting your day-to-day errands done become even more efficient (like living in a city where most things are in easy walking and biking distance), but the one-to-one replacement EVs are going for isn't that, but rather ICE vehicles. In that comparison, EVs generally emit less over their lifetime and are more efficient in most situations.
I don't disagree with you. An EV is the perfect vehicle for a lot of people, specially those living in metropolitan areas. But to others EVs aren't the best choice.
Quote:
Regardless, short of some incredible advancements in internal combustion engines at a rate far faster than seen in previous decades, it does look like that tipping point of $100/kWh or less is reachable within the next few years and that will likely make a large difference in EV adoption rates in this country for new vehicle sales. Consumers mostly aren't going to be particularly swayed by environmental consequences or how renewable the materials for the battery or the electrical generation is. They're mostly going to go by how much utility they get out of for the amount of money they spend compared to new ICE vehicles.
Yes, you are correct. But which material can you use to make that possible at the present time? No EV battery manufacturer is going to use the largest amount of nor the most inefficient material. It would make no sense for a manufacturer to use more than what is needed to meet the battery's specifications. What the manufacturer does is to use all cost-saving methods possible to meet the the specifications.
The carbon footprint for building an ICE vehicle is somewhat similar for building an EV. But to build an EV battery alone, it take quite a large carbon footprint.
The ICE provides its own electrical power, and because of government mandates these motors become more efficient each year. On top of that, automakers compete with each other in their quest of attaining more HP and greater gas mileage. ICE also provides as much heat and cooling as needed for long period of time in extreme environments.
I don't disagree with you. An EV is the perfect vehicle for a lot of people, specially those living in metropolitan areas. But to others EVs aren't the best choice.
Agree.
Over the last decade, the amount of cobalt needed for the NCM lithium-ion battery has dropped precipitously and that along with advancements in other lithium-ion chemistries has been part of what's caused the price per kWh to drop. It's literally less of all the materials, but especially expensive cobalt which has sometimes gone up in price, for the same amount of capacity. It's actually new processes that make better use of the same materials in some cases.
I was talking about EVs and ICE vehicles in total which would include the batteries and their large carbon footprint. It's reasonable to talk about the whole hog and this also includes the emissions of operations along with production. That's the weird thing about the Manhattan Institute write-up which is more than happy to talk about the production emissions and also some of the end of life disposal and will mention a tidbit about the efficiency of natural gas pipelines, but then somehow ignore a pretty sizable part of the process of actually running and operating the vehicle. This would make sense if you built these vehicles and then you never used them, but why would you be building millions of vehicles with the intent that they never be used? Don't you think it would make more sense if trying to do a comparison to include emissions from the actual usage of the vehicles?
ICE provides its power via the fuel that has to extracted, refined, distributed, and then combusted. It does that combustion with a pretty low efficiency at an average of 15-25% from tank to wheel though better with some hybrids, it's still pretty inefficient overall. If you want to talk about the total emissions calculation, then you should probably consider everything that goes into getting that gas into your tank.
I definitely don't think EVs are going to supplant combustion engines in all uses cases--not by a long shot. I think for the purpose of general consumer vehicle usage though, it seems likely that for some year this decade, the majority of new vehicle sales will end up majority plugins. My guess is it'll get to 10% plugins for new vehicle market by 2023 or so and majority in 2028 or so. 2023 isn't that far away, so that'll be a pretty good indicator.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 03-16-2021 at 05:37 PM..
The solid staste battery development is going to have very large impact on the EV. This is classical US manufacturing. Rolls of material sprayed and coated with others then dried and rolled up. The Goodenough device promises more than doubling of the energy density and substantial incremental battery weight reduction after that. And there is reasons to believe that whole development sequence will lead to even further improvements.
So around 2023 we should see product with even better stuff available in 2025. And then further incremental improvements into the 2030s.
The vast majority of ICE are doomed. The remaining question is how soon.
Last edited by lvmensch; 03-16-2021 at 05:22 PM..
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.
