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.
Moore's Law for computing-power (like number of transistors on a chip) has been truly impressive. Something like an analog to Moore's Law for battery energy density... not so much.
Average gravimetric density for EV battery suppliers went up almost three fold over the 2010s. That's not Moore's law kind of intensity*, but it's not nothing either.
*it would have been pretty intense if energy density doubled every two years over the 2010s because then at this point we'd be seeing battery electric planes hitting the mainstream in the next few years instead of just battery electric automobiles. Even a repeat of a tripling in consumer battery energy density over the 2020s is probably optimistic--a 32X increase is pretty much out of the picture.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 03-15-2021 at 04:15 PM..
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,550 posts, read 81,117,303 times
Reputation: 57755
It's also amazing progress for the ICE when you consider that a 3.6 V6 getting 305 horsepower can now get 19/30 mpg, and a 2.7 turbo V6 getting 325 horsepower gets 20/26 in a truck. That's with all of the added weight from modern safety features. The 1972 El Camino I had for a several years with a 350ci V8 got only 330 HP and 11 mpg. As recently as 2002 we had a new 3.7 V6 that was only 210 HP and 14/18 mpg.
I understand all of that. But the point I have been trying to make relates to the cost needed for anything we produce. For example, to produce an automobile, regardless of kind, is very expensive because the materials used, labor, distribution, and sale aren't cheap. Even an ICE or a transmission are expensive, and these aren't going to be cheaper in the future unless such can be made from readily available products such as air or water.
And don't forget that there is a reason for us to enjoy higher wages each year, and how our cost of living changes accordingly. Labor and production is more expensive each year. In years past, parts and labor were cheaper, and so the cost of living. But as we move into the future and the natural resources become more scarce, things cost more to produce. Government incentives aid offsetting the cost, but the money governments use to offset the cost comes from our pockets.
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.
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.
That is true, but don't forget that what makes any product less expensive is availability. Even oil and minerals aren't renewable resources, these are extracted and mined, and there is only so much of them available. The greater the demand for each, there has to be enough of these in the supply chain. If the supply dwindles while the demand increases, then the products can't be cheaper. The main advantage an EV has over an ICE vehicle relates to tailpipe emissions. But the carbon footprint for building each is relatively the same, other that the added footprint required for building an EV battery.
That is true, but don't forget that what makes any product less expensive is availability. Even oil and minerals aren't renewable resources, these are extracted and mined, and there is only so much of them available. The greater the demand for each, there has to be enough of these in the supply chain. If the supply dwindles while the demand increases, then the products can't be cheaper. The main advantage an EV has over an ICE vehicle relates to tailpipe emissions. But the carbon footprint for building each is relatively the same, other that the added footprint required for building an EV battery.
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.
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.
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.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,550 posts, read 81,117,303 times
Reputation: 57755
Just noticed an interesting article with polling data which confirms that the tipping point may be here, or at least . . .close for manufacturers, but not for the buyers.
Just noticed an interesting article with polling data which confirms that the tipping point may be here, or at least . . .close for manufacturers, but not for the buyers.
Yes, that's a fascinating aspect of this. Clearly, most automakers are going all-in and taking great financial risk with these big EV development programs, which are very expensive - far more expensive than just adding another model or two for their existing ICE platforms. But the market today is still relatively small, and it's about to be flooded with a huge wave of new products from many vendors. Everyone is trying to establish that early presence at the same time, which means the market would need to really expand very rapidly in order to provide a good return for all the automakers who are all going big at the same time. Some analysts argue that these projects are "too big to fail", so there could be some bloodshed in the industry.
Last edited by OutdoorLover; 03-16-2021 at 08:09 AM..
It's also amazing progress for the ICE when you consider that a 3.6 V6 getting 305 horsepower can now get 19/30 mpg, and a 2.7 turbo V6 getting 325 horsepower gets 20/26 in a truck. That's with all of the added weight from modern safety features. The 1972 El Camino I had for a several years with a 350ci V8 got only 330 HP and 11 mpg. As recently as 2002 we had a new 3.7 V6 that was only 210 HP and 14/18 mpg.
Technology is so cool. I follow drag racing, particularly the street car shootouts. There is a few that happen throughout the year that are week long events, where the cars have to drive upwards of 2000 miles to each event. The only trailers allowed are the ones that the race cars tow. It's amazing that some of these 4000hp plus cars can make the drive and get 11-12 mpg doing it. Granted, they change the tunes, taking boost out and running pump gas, but they are still 500 and up cubic inch motors.
Yes, that's a fascinating aspect of this. Clearly, most automakers are going all-in and taking great financial risk with these big EV development programs, which are very expensive - far more expensive than just adding another model or two for their existing ICE platforms. But the market today is still relatively small, and it's about to be flooded with a huge wave of new products from many vendors. Everyone is trying to establish that early presence at the same time, which means the market would need to really expand very rapidly in order to provide a good return for all the automakers who are all going big at the same time. Some analysts argue that these projects are "too big to fail", so there could be some bloodshed in the industry.
Exactly. Regardless if the market for EV's (here in the states) isn't quite there yet, these companies have to push forward on the development and getting them to market like there is a huge demand. It's a race and the OEM's that don't get on board will be left behind.
Just noticed an interesting article with polling data which confirms that the tipping point may be here, or at least . . .close for manufacturers, but not for the buyers.
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.
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.
