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.
According to the WSJ, carmakers have been steadily raising the prices of their EVs “partly to offset the soaring cost of materials used in their large batteries.” This has included a hike in the cost of a Hummer EV by more than $6,000 and a warning from Ford that it was no longer making a profit on sales of its Mustang Mach-E. The WSJ reports:
“The companies say they are trying to offset a recent price rise in raw materials that go into the batteries to power electric cars, by far the most expensive component of an EV. Prices for lithium, nickel and cobalt have roughly doubled since before the Covid-19 pandemic began, according to consulting firm AlixPartners LLP.”
I don't always trust the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, but their business correspondents do know how to count costs.
It has to be a massive fail on the auto industry to not have evaluated their raw materials needs and foreseen potential issues. The whole outsourcing and Just In Time approach was predicated on cheap and bountiful materials lasting forever. Our country and it's corporations have become too dependent on sources beyond our control. I don't think we should transform out auto industry to EV until we have secured reliable and expandable production capabilities for critical materials like lithium.
It has to be a massive fail on the auto industry to not have evaluated their raw materials needs and foreseen potential issues. The whole outsourcing and Just In Time approach was predicated on cheap and bountiful materials lasting forever. Our country and it's corporations have become too dependent on sources beyond our control. I don't think we should transform out auto industry to EV until we have secured reliable and expandable production capabilities for critical materials like lithium.
No. It's the stupidity of the govt mandates.
The reason the auto makers seem to be enthusiastic about EVs is the absurd "corporate gas mileage average" requirement of the EPA...The gas mileage of all the vehicles produced by a given make must be above some mandated number...and stoopidder still-- it's not how many cars they sell, but how many they make that counts.....The only way to achieve the goal while still building the PUs & SUVs the public actually wants is to produce "X"number of zero fuel EVs to bring the over-all average down...Once the money has gone into building them, they just as soon sell them to recoup some investment money, but it's the average requirement that forces them to build them.
I'm always skeptical of even my own work--- I didn't believe the figures for cost of Li. It has risen by ~800% this year, but the first graph I referenced was apparently USD/ TON of ore (although not explicitly stated in the graph), while the second was for USD/kg elemental Li. The numerical coincidence of $10,000/ton and $10/oz , and poor eyesight not allowing me to differentiate a "." from a "," had me fooled.
In fact, the current price of pure Li is ~$1.70/oz ($70+/- per kg...That 70kWh Tesla 3 battery that costs $14,000 contains ~400oz of Li valued at $680 at today's market price, as opposed to ~$100 at last yr's price. (Anybody still wondering why Tesla is so profitable?)
For those of you who refuse to believe the calculation in the original lecture about the carbon price of battery manufacture-- here's another article corroborating it. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/...oline-driving/
This second piece makes the calculation based in the smaller Tesla X battery and the power source in Sweden, which has more hydro & nuclear than the US, hence the difference between a 450,000 mile pay-back period vs a 250,000 mile period.
Well today and nothing being said by media old Biden touting battery buses and battery trucks had a Connecticut public bus burn to the ground,fire dept had watch because of intense flames,issue batteries.I believe public transportation New Haven.
They are going green without full thought and public on short end.
Well today and nothing being said by media old Biden touting battery buses and battery trucks had a Connecticut public bus burn to the ground,fire dept had watch because of intense flames,issue batteries.I believe public transportation New Haven.
They are going green without full thought and public on short end.
So what? Cars catch on fire. Remember exploding Pinto's? Or VW Bugs back in the 80's/90's that were burned out shells on the side of the road because when stuck in bumper to bumper traffic, the air cooled motors would fry the rubber oil and fuel lines and leak onto the engine.
There are ALWAYS growing pains and accidents. ALWAYS.
I hate red herring arguments. Total waste of reasonableness.
We could choose shorter commutes, with more walking, biking, and riding trains and streetcars. Green living.
How could we choose that? There's no guarantee a suitable job for someone will be within biking or walking distance. Mass transit is not a viable option for most people except in a handful of cities and adding such infrastructure is extremely expensive.
How could we choose that? There's no guarantee a suitable job for someone will be within biking or walking distance. Mass transit is not a viable option for most people except in a handful of cities and adding such infrastructure is extremely expensive.
You can move close to your job. I had the same job for 25 years and lived in six different apartments/houses, all within walking or biking distance, in the very car-centric Southwestern US. I still owned cars but put very low miles on them. I loved biking to work and scratched my head whenever people complained of their long commutes by car and parking hassles.
You can move close to your job. I had the same job for 25 years and lived in six different apartments/houses, all within walking or biking distance, in the very car-centric Southwestern US. I still owned cars but put very low miles on them. I loved biking to work and scratched my head whenever people complained of their long commutes by car and parking hassles.
No guarantee that is economically feasible, either. Maybe if I was a renter but as a homeowner, no dice. You are engaging in what I call capitalistic advice. Like "leave early, beat the crowd" it only works as long as most people don't follow it. If everyone tried to live within a few miles of the major employment areas it would be extremely congested and expensive.
We could choose shorter commutes, with more walking, biking, and riding trains and streetcars. Green living.
Good advice...It's utilitarian benefit rates right up there with Mark Twain's solution to the threat posed by the new invention of submarines...."Bring the oceans to a boil, and the submarines will rise to the top....I'm just the consultant. How you accomplish that is a detail left up to you."
Suburban sprawl prevents most of us from living, working and shopping in walkable neighborhoods, and zoning laws enacted to protect us from the pollution & dangers of industrial plants make it necessary to separate residential from commerical areas. Catch 22.
It begs the question-- which is better for the environment-- for us to live all spread out on the land, each of us to be responsible for a small patch of "Nature" or to be crammed together in large cities, leaving most of the countryside untouched by our presence? ...????
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.
