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.
The question will become whether or not those associated expenses wil be competitive with our previous expectations, or will they be more expensive?
We now know those answers. Cheaper. MUCH Cheaper.
No Oil / No Gasoline / No Diesel
Much less Maintenance.
EV has much longer Service Life, so less equipment costs.
When tied with Local Solar PV, the fuel costs can become nearly Free.
That compounds out across Farming, Trucking, Shipping, Housing, on and on.
Quote:
If more expensive, the costs of goods will rise. If costs rise, demand falls. If demand falls, jobs will be lost etc etc....A new normal will be established....Will that represent a step backwards in the standard of living?
For a full and legit analysis -- maybe look at the symmetry? If costs are less, and the cost of goods drop -- then to do the same amount of production or provision -- cost less?
Costs less = Deflation. Deflation and Surplus = Depression.
Remember that basic economics is the study of SCARCE goods and resources. Surplus and available goods and resources do not follow Supply / Demand / Market rules. Like Air, or Grass in a field -- if it is surplus -- it has no real market value.
I am thinking by the time the Oil, Gas, Fuels, Central Plant Generation and about 1/2 of Auto Manufacturing Industry are wiped out -- we will likely lose at least 10% or maybe up to 25% of GDP.
History has shown we can deal with lack, resource scarcity, and demand. But things collapse with Surplus.
"Build a betteer mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door."
I guess that only applies to mousetraps, not alternative power generation?
Deductive reasoning--no special knowledge of techinical details needed-- If alternative power generation were so great & economically preferable, why is it taking so long to become a major part of the system, requiing special govt incentives and regulations just to get noticed?...Apparently it's not so great and economically preferable....That was the point of the article I cited weeks ago, which was lost on you.
When I bought my 2008 Prius, articles were rampant about all the damage being done to the environment from producing hybrid cars. My favorite was how much more damage a Prius did to the environment than a Hummer.
Those type of articles were recycled and trotted out whenever hybrids were discussed. They still get traction years later even after the source was debunked as containing faulty information and assumptions. The original paper that these articles use as their source was written in 2005 even though the authors reversed their position in a follow up 2008 paper. That paper is never cited though, only the 2005 one is used. Outdated, incorrect information never dies and lives forever on the internet.
Now it’s EV’s turn along with solar PV panels to be the object of these type of articles. Articles like the OP’s surface and proliferate during times of change and easily find an audience ready to embrace them.
When I bought my 2008 Prius, articles were rampant about all the damage being done to the environment from producing hybrid cars. My favorite was how much more damage a Prius did to the environment than a Hummer.
Those type of articles were recycled and trotted out whenever hybrids were discussed. They still get traction years later even after the source was debunked as containing faulty information and assumptions. The original paper that these articles use as their source was written in 2005 even though the authors reversed their position in a follow up 2008 paper. That paper is never cited though, only the 2005 one is used. Outdated, incorrect information never dies and lives forever on the internet.
Now it’s EV’s turn along with solar PV panels to be the object of these type of articles. Articles like the OP’s surface and proliferate during times of change and easily find an audience ready to embrace them.
Partially true...
EVs & alternate power generation do have their own set of disadvantages when it comes to the environment in terms of materials acquisition and disposal. Whether or not that is worse than those for prduction & disposal of conventional vehicles is debatable.
The only real advantage of EVs & alternate power production is based on the assumption that co2 production is bad for the environment-- a contention that cannot be supportrd by the facts. ...For instance, can a Warmist explain why [co2] has risen by 8% in the last two decades, but "world temps." whatever that means, has, statistically speaking, not changed at all during that time?..(UAH satellite records show only about 0.01 degC warming per decade since 2000-- well within the magin of error, ie-- equivalent to zero)
Add in the strategic/security problem involved with materials acquisition (namely- dealing with China), and one has to wonder if this relentless push to prematurely force the transition from fossil fuel based energy production to wind & solar is a wise choice...AsI've said, we do need to address the issue of transition because fossil fuels are finite in supply and will become depleted...The question should be what's the best alternative, all things considered, and on what time line?
EVs & alternate power generation do have their own set of disadvantages when it comes to the environment in terms of materials acquisition and disposal. Whether or not that is worse than those for prduction & disposal of conventional vehicles is debatable.
The only real advantage of EVs & alternate power production is based on the assumption that co2 production is bad for the environment-- a contention that cannot be supportrd by the facts. ...For instance, can a Warmist explain why [co2] has risen by 8% in the last two decades, but "world temps." whatever that means, has, statistically speaking, not changed at all during that time?..(UAH satellite records show only about 0.01 degC warming per decade since 2000-- well within the magin of error, ie-- equivalent to zero)
Add in the strategic/security problem involved with materials acquisition (namely- dealing with China), and one has to wonder if this relentless push to prematurely force the transition from fossil fuel based energy production to wind & solar is a wise choice...As I've said, we do need to address the issue of transition because fossil fuels are finite in supply and will become depleted...The question should be what's the best alternative, all things considered, and on what time line?
As you but not all posters are aware, the point of the EV advocates is to reduce economic activity for the benefit of "the world." Actually it's more to trigger "climate adjustment fund" payments to benefit Third World countries, err, dictators' bank accounts. That is why no one is talking about nuclear power. The target is what some considered our inflated standard of living, not environmental degradation or "climate change."
To be perfectly clear, no one really knows if going to EV's will change one temperature, one degree on one day.
"Build a betteer mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door."
I guess that only applies to mousetraps, not alternative power generation?
Deductive reasoning--no special knowledge of techinical details needed-- If alternative power generation were so great & economically preferable, why is it taking so long to become a major part of the system, requiing special govt incentives and regulations just to get noticed?...Apparently it's not so great and economically preferable....That was the point of the article I cited weeks ago, which was lost on you.
Because the entire narrative is false. Let alone the "deductions" you attempt to create from them.
At this point -- Trump = Biden have put a Punitive Tariff AGAINST Silicon Solar PV . . . and it still the FASTEST Growing New Generation . . . ever.
Among competent sources -- looks like Tony Seba is turning out more correct, every day.
A couple of grafs from a research report on the EV market.......
Quote:
EVs are becoming more competitive. In the US, median electric car
range has increased 281% in 9 years, from 68 miles in 2011 to over
250 miles in 2020, according to the US Department of Energy. The
median cost of electric car batteries has dropped significantly in
the same time frame, from $800 per kilowatt-hour in 2011 to $137
per kilowatt-hour in 2020, according to a Bloomberg survey.
These advances are translating into sales: in 2011, global EV sales
reportedly reached just 50,000 units; by 2020, electric vehicle sales
had increased over 50x to surpass 3.1M units.
Quote:
Finally, there are the economic considerations. The shift to more
sustainable transport could save governments, companies, and
individuals up to $70T by 2050, according to an analysis by the
IEA. The US Department of Labor estimates that electric vehicle
manufacturing alone could result in a net employment gain of up
to 350,000 US jobs by 2030.
Currently, there are at least 10 MY 2021 vehicles with ranges between 300 to 400 miles on the US market.
2020 sales of EVs in the US amounted to 300,000 vehicles and 2% of new car sales.
In China, it was 1,150,000 and 6%. Europe was 1,375,000 and 10%
Interesrting data, but let's put it in perspective--
A range oif 68 miles a decade ago was a joke. Today, an EV with a range of 300 miles can fill a major niche-- How many of us frequently make trips of more than that?....But--if you run out of gas, you can fetch a gallon easiy and get on the road again fairly quickly....Running out of charge on the road is a bigger problem. Plan ahead is always good advice.
Prices of cars & batteries-- New tech always costs more at first. They gotta get a quick return on the R&D costs. Digtial watches cost $10K in the early 70s when they first appeared on the market (the price of a new Cadillac)...Three years later, they were free with a fill-up at the Purple Maritn Gas Station.
Portion of sales-- I'm not terribly impressed with growth from 0 % to 2% over the course of a decade -- and most of the 2% now is as a second car for virtue signaling purposes. EVs are not the better mousetrap for most people according to the market. The govt should not be forcing them on us. If one fills your needs, go for it.
I have to wonder about the credibility of the statement that the economy will be helped by EVs-- Doesn't it take fewer laborers to manufacture cars with fewer parts? For every job created by making EVs, wouldn't more than one job be lost in the old ICE manufacturing plants? Fewer repairs = fewer replacement parts = fewer manufacturing & repair jobs. Somebody is lying to us.
Don't forget that their batteries are charged from power plants that are powered from mostly coal and natural gas. Especially at night since solar doesn't work at night and wind doesn't blow nearly as much.
Don't forget that their batteries are charged from power plants that are powered from mostly coal and natural gas. Especially at night since solar doesn't work at night and wind doesn't blow nearly as much.
Cannot figure how to follow to not forget something(s) that are not even true to begin with.
Even if your claims ever were true -- they are not -- it is now 2021, and you are way past stale date.
Battery and charging -- High percentage of EV owners have Solar, and high percentage of Solar owners have PV. It is the smart package deal that drops the fuel costs to near zero. More so all the time. Biggest decision for most is which to get first.
"Info-graphic" (yeah, well) here. By 2014, 39% (and climbing) in California. We see more of this daily.
Meanwhile 100% of Oil burning ICEs actually still do burn enough trash into the air that you can not even survive 5 minutes in a closed garage with one.
But even for Grid-Powered EVs -- Coal has now dropped below 20% on the Grid, and is still falling on the way to Zero, and even Gas has stalled out. Biggest New Generation build is Solar PV, followed by Wind, and then (down below 16%) is Gas, with Zero New Coal.
Since the Grid is always operating on what has been built in the prior 0 to 50 years, the mix is always changing. In this case, much for the better. By 2050, with the current trendlines -- Coal will be gone (actually disappear by about 2030), Old (by then) Gas will just be sitting mothballed and unused, and Existing Nukes will be down to about half of present, with few-to-none New Nukes being built.
And btw -- Big Wind produces best at night.
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.
