General Motors Announces an All Electric Future for its Vehicles

The Washington Post reported yesterday that Mark Reuss, chief of global product developmentfor General Motors announced yesterday at a media event that he sees GM’s future as producting “all-electric” vehicles. “Although that future won’t happen overnight, G.M. is committed to driving increased usage and acceptance of electric vehicles.” GM will develop two kinds of electric vehicles in this effort: battery powered vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cell powered ones. No firm date has been set for the ending of production of internal combustion engine vehicles.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2017/10/02/death-of-diesel-begins-as-gm-announces-plans-for-all-electric-future/?utm_term=.267ffc157d71

It seems now there is an inevitable trend towards the adoption of all-electric vehicles, although there are many problems to solve in that effort. The more battery-powered cars that are on the road, the more electricity generation that will be needed, and a means to deliver it. If you are using batteries, you need battery production to ramp up, and the raw materials — nowadays lithium is a key ingredient — to keep up with the demand. Hydrogen fuel cells require an infrastructure of hydrogen delivery, and so far that is barely available.

I do think that LENR could make a difference here. If it is commercially viable, it could help with increasing the power generation capacity that would be needed to charge more EV batteries. Onboard LENR power in vehicles is an intriguing idea. However, there would be much engineering and safety testing that would be needed before you would find any major auto maker designing cars around a new power source.

  • EEStorFanFibb

    The EV revolution is coming faster than most people thought. Unfortunately, some people are still clearly unable to grasp how superior EV drivetrains are on many fronts (reliability, cost, performance). But there is no stopping the EV revolution now. All the major car companies will completely abandon ICEs before 2030. Many car makers are announcing this publicly now.

    And an even lesser known fact: the heavier and larger the vehicle, the bigger the cost (of operation) savings that an EV drivetrain provides. You should expect to see heavy duty EV trucks (garbage trucks, local freight movers) beginning to dominate in the early 2020s. Not to mention EV transit buses and possibly even long distant haulers.

    Remember ICEs are like film cameras. EVs are digital cameras. The advantages of EVs are that distinct.

    http://www.manifest-tech.com/images/ce_products/flash_revolution/Futuresource-Digicam-Market.jpg

    • Omega Z

      Yeah, They’ll abandon the ICE vehicles by 2030 and the masses will ride bikes or walk. There spending money like drunken sailors. Writing checks that the public can’t cover. I have a friend who farms. He went and saw a demo of I think was a John Deere electric tractor. All he said is I don’t think the world is ready for $30 a bushel corn.

      Musks Mega plant wont be fully operational till 2020. They need to build 200 more of these mega plants by 2030 just to replace current vehicle production and at least 100 more by 2040. They need dozens of new lithium mines to supply those plants and lithium mines require 10 years on average to open and complete for production. Of course those mines still need found and explored for viability 1st. This is all hype to get investors and share holders behind them. Nothing more.

      NASA’s think tank, the DOD, the DOE and many other U.S. think tanks only expect EV’s to eventually penetrate about 30% of the market. Primarily they expect them to fill locale needs such as city driving. They expect Hydrogen to fill the rest of the market and in some cases synfuels.

    • Bob Greenyer

      And the graph showing the precipitous decline in Digital Cameras from the introduction of the smart phone?

      • EEStorFanFibb

        I haven’t looked. perhaps even faster if I had to guess. but whatever technological transition you want to look at it’s the same old story.

        the story of the S curve.

        if a new technology has a clear enough advantage (especially in regards to cost and performance) over the incumbent it’ll win, no matter how entrenched the incumbent technology appears to be. and the change can happen in less than two decades. more like one decade in many cases.

        of course digital cameras are the basic technology in the camera phone so it’s just an extension of the transition I was talking about.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Yes

      • Omega Z

        We could reduce demand for a gigawatt of electricity if they just deleted all the selfies from the servers.

        • Bob Greenyer

          and scale that saving by 10^6 if we removed the cat videos

  • scottlshman

    .

    BMW has been testing an electric truck for the last two years. Built by Dutch manufacturer Teberg. the Terberg YT202-EV.

    http://tinyurl.com/ybc9mrl9

    Although much of the excitement surrounding electric vehicles has been
    focused on consumer cars, some industry experts argue that it’s in
    logistics where the technology could have its biggest impact. Earlier
    this year, Tesla co-founder Ian Wright said that family cars just don’t burn enough fuel to make it economic to go electric at the moment

    .

  • artefact
  • AdrianAshfield

    Seeing that electric vehicles are, and will be, well developed, I don’t see why it should take that long for a small LENR + electricity generator to be added to charge the batteries. This would also reduce the battery size required for the vehicle.

    I’m pessimistic about H2 as a fuel. It is dangerous, difficult to store and handle and very good at leaking.

    • EEStorFanFibb

      H2 as a transportation fuel is a completely brain dead idea.

      Unless it’s involved in an LENR reaction of course…. 😉

  • sumdum

    Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are silly. They’re already near max theoretical limits, and they aren’t competitive with battery EVs (BEVs). The industry is only continuing to push for them in order to save the aftermarket for auto maintenance. Fuel cells need a huge amount of maintenance, just like combustion engines. BEVs need nothing. No service except tire changes for 10 years. The switch to BEVs will destroy the gigantic aftermarket for auto parts and maintenance. Tens of billions of dollars. Millions of jobs.

    So of course the industry hates the idea. Hydrogen fuel cells would preserve the existing system – fueling stations, parts, maintenance, etc – and it’s billions of dollars and millions of jobs. BEVs will kill it.

    • John Williamson

      Agree with most of this, except in degree. No question that electric engines are far simpler, but brakes, suspension, power steering, and so on will still use similar technology, and many new technologies are being introduced with electric cars. Indeed, regenerative braking is more complex than conventional. Most of the maintenance for the Japanese cars I’ve owned over the last couple of decades has not been on the engine (other than oil changes), or even the transmission, but on these other components. And I keep my cars for at least a decade. It’s for cars more than 10 years old that the difference will really kick in. But I don’t see the after-market cratering as much as evolving, and it will be slow.

      • Frederic Maillard

        Maybe you just need conventional braking if you are not limited by your onboard electrical energy supply.

    • Omega Z

      EV’s are not capable of replacing all ICE vehicles. Expect to see hydrogen and synfuel ICE vehicles as well. One gallon of hydrogen is equal to 4 gallons of gasoline and the only holdup is a storage medium that makes it safer to transport.

      There will always be aftermarket maintenance. Electric motors may have less components, but they are still of multiple components all susceptible to heat, stress and metal to metal wear and failure. EV’s as ICE engines require “regular” maintenance. Also, I believe you will find that the average mileage expectancy of EV motors will be less then ICE engines. Unlike ICE engines that can be repaired regardless of mileage, electric motors will be replaced with a serious case of sticker shock.

      • EEStorFanFibb

        Sorry Omega, your post was a piece of total propaganda:

        The truth is as follows:

        1) Electric motors DON’T require ANY maintenance. At least not for several hundreds of thousands of miles.

        2) EVs ARE or soon WILL BE totally capable of replacing ALL ICE vehicles at significantly lower operating cost while providing better performance.

        3) What maintenance EVs do require costs a fraction of what it costs to maintain a gas car and has almost nothing to do with the vehicle’s powertrain. Just got to Lube the joints, fill the wiper fluid, change the wiper blades and tires as needed, occasional steering alignment… Except for the once in a blue moon inverter coolant change that’s about it.

        4) EV motors will outlast the rest of the car and will never need replacing.

        • Omega Z

          So says the guy who apparently has no real world hands on of electric motors. Your very misinformed about electric motors. Your right in 1 sense, they are low maintenance as you just replace them. I’d tell how many I’ve replaced over the years, but I’ve lost count. Just note that heat is very degrading to all materials and they all fail.

          It’s to bad the Musk doesn’t report how many $15000 electric drive units he’s had to replace under warranty. I think you would be shocked.

      • John WIlliamson

        What do you base these ideas on? From what I’ve read, electric engines are expected to last longer. Musk claims a million miles (or so I read in a forum somewhere). Electric engines do not just have less components, they have way less components, run cooler, and with far less metal to metal wear. They are smaller and lighter and cheaper for the same power. And what makes an ICE engine more repairable than an electric engine? It’s often cheaper to replace an ICE engine (if you can find a used one) than to rebuild it. It sounds like you’re just making stuff up.

        • Omega Z

          I know longer trust what Musk says. Once stated a guarantee of 125,000 miles (1st owner. 2nd owner what ???), but actually have a variety of situations. Like 4 years 50K miles with an option to extend guarantee by another 4 years and 50K miles. Obviously the longer the guarantee the more the cost. Let me set the price and I can Guarantee any time/mileage by merely pricing in the replacement cost based on averages.

          ICE engines have an efficient cooling system. While the ignition is extremely hot, the engine’s not nearly as hot as many perceive. Witness under the hood all the rubber, plastic, and wiring in direct contact of the motor. With the exception of the exhaust manifold, most of the engine is around 200`F.

          Most of your knowledge probably stems from small fan motors.
          Electric motors generate heat according to load resistance. i.e. the load or work required causes resistance in the winding’s and thus heat. I’ve seen many a motor get hot enough that a drop of sweat from your brow hitting the motor casing sizzles and creates steam. They can get so hot as to catch fire(usually from the shellac coated winding’s or whatever they use today) causing the winding’s to short. Ever heard people talk of burning out the winding’s.

          Google: “water cooled electric motor”.
          Most motors have some type of fixed cooling blades. Should they become damaged, they usually replace the motor assuming there is already damage to the winding’s even should it still operate. Any winding damage requires replacement. Rewinding motors costs more then just replacing the motor. Over the years, I’ve had 2 motors rebuilt, but only because there was no suitable/adaptable replacement. Ouch $$$

          One of many problems with Ev’s is they have to run the gamut of extremes. You can build for specific use such as hot or cold environments. Covering all the variables is problematic and expensive. Then you have abusive drivers. Most think their at a drag strip. Racing from stop sign to stop sign, Musk oversizes his motors, but that can only compensate for so much.

          Batteries also have problems with the extremes. And even if you reach the theoretical limits of batteries, they will still come in a distant second to ICE.
          Note I’ve always been a fan of the idea of electric vehicles. Whether you race an 1/8th mile or 20 miles, an electric car can blow the doors of the baddest internal combustion engine you can build. It’s the real world where they fall woefully short.

          • John Williamson

            Sorry, it still sounds like you’re making stuff up. If you have some citations showing EV engine longevity, don’t hold back, because I have no reason to trust you over Musk.

            Of course electric motors generate heat, but their efficiency is 80 – 90 % compared to 20% or worse for ICEs. The energy that does not produce motion goes into heat. so an electric engine produces 4 to 8 times less heat for the same power. That’s why EVs don’t use engine heat for the cabin.

            ICEs have to work in extremes too, and boosting cars at -20 is pretty common. The market share for EVs in Norway close to 30 % and that is a cold country.

            Yes, energy density of gasoline is higher than for a battery, but the real world figures of merit are the energy used and pollution produced per unit distance, and ICE is a distant last on both counts.

            EVs fall short of ICEs time and accessibility to “refuel”, and on capital cost. By every other practical “real world” metric, ICEs fall woefully short.

            Capital costs are decreasing, and part or all of the difference can be made up by less service and lower energy cost, depending on the local price of electricity, and possibly by subsidies.

            Time to refuel is not an issue for local commuting (indeed it is an advantage), and for long distance driving, infrastructure is growing rapidly to allow recharging during breaks for meals or rests.

          • Omega Z

            “20% or worse for ICEs”— More like 25% to 30%
            Musk plays the game. Highlight the negatives of ICE and ignore or play down the advantages. He then shifts gears and plays down or ignores the disadvantages of Ev’s while highlighting the advantages even embellish when he can. It’s called sales.

            Ev’s produce about 2/3rds(left at the power plant) less heat, but it is all concentrated in the electric motors. There’s a reason the make water cooled electric motors. Currently, most of the energy used to charge Ev’s come from fossil powered plants and that wont change for a long time yet. All you’re doing is relocating the waste heat about 2/3rds and pollution.

            Time to refuel is not an issue for local commuting (indeed it is an advantage)
            Where did you ever hear that. and as to distance infrastructure, There a couple 100 thousand short for recharging. That’s the approximate number of service stations in the U.S.

          • John Williamson

            I didn’t hear 20% from Musk. It’s the number that usually comes up when considering the average. The efficiency ranges from zero to 30%. Electric engines don’t need power just to keep running.

            I said 4 to 8 times less heat, and you say 3 times less. Either way, it’s a lot less heat — not enough to heat the cabin. And the heat is more diffuse, not more concentrated in electric motors. The reason they use water cooling is to keep it smaller.

            Yes, all the advocates of electric cars are well aware that about 2/3 of the electricity comes from fossil fuels. But (1) a third saving is still something, (2) it’s a good thing to centralize the burning of fossil fuels away from cities, and where it can be done on a large scale more efficiently and more cleanly, (3) relocating the waste heat means it doesn’t wear the engine out, and (4) natural gas is much cleaner than oil, and the hope is that coal power will decline and renewables will increase, and early adoption of electric cars will allow immediate (rather than delayed) benefit from such trends.

            It’s funny: when people first consider electric cars, they complain they won’t be able to find a station to recharge, but when people begin to use electric cars, they boast that they don’t *need* to find a station to recharge. That was the meaning of the statement that time to refuel is an advantage for local commuting. Of course it takes longer to charge, but the owner only takes a few seconds a day to plug it in in their garage.

            And that’s why far fewer stations (per car) will be needed for electric cars — most charging happens at home. And even if you needed as many per car, for now that’s only a per cent as many. The numbers will ramp up with the market. For now, all that’s really needed for those long distance trips is a station at intervals less than the car’s range. And that situation is not far away.

            You do know that people didn’t wait until there were 200,000 filling stations before anyone bought a gasoline car…

      • roseland67

        Omega,
        EV’s will replace the vast majority of ICE vehicles for the vast majority of daily use drivers.
        Over the road trucks will still run on diesel, but will be required to unload their contents at rural distribution sites where electric vehicles will complete deliveries to end users.
        There will be exceptions, of course.
        As of today, material science and battery chemistry improvements will continue to push EV adoption forward.

        • Omega Z

          I’ve said Ev’s will fill city needs and that’s not bad from a pollution standpoint. However, even Government agencies and think tanks only expect a 30% or so market penetration. Ev’s really do have limitations. Battery tech even should and it wont reach theoretical limits, it will fall far short of fossil fuel energy density. Thus all the R&D aimed towards alternatives such as synfuels etc..

          Also, alternatives will be needed for lithium as it is limited in supply. Even with recycling, there is a 20% loss with each iteration. The end result will be a mix of many different technologies. Fossil energy is just that hard to replace.

          • John Williamson

            Could you provide citations for those government agencies and think tanks that project 30% penetration?

            The lower energy density is not a practical limitation. If you can get enough range on a charge, and the cost is lower per unit distance, then the ICEs are at a disadvantage. And that appears to be the case already.

            According to
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00359.x/full
            global Li resources amount to about 40 Mt, which is good for 2 billion Teslas with the 85 kWh batteries. They predict with recycling, this is good to at least 2100, by which time presumably other battery technologies will come on line.

          • EEStorFanFibb

            John, thanks for taking the time to clear up these misconceptions. You are saying everything that needs saying (and saving me a lot of typing!)

            kudos.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    I guess the question is not that the future can bring electric cars, but when?

    Right now sales of electric cars are really tanking, and with the exception of say Tesla, the rest
    are REALLY struggling.

    The Bolt idled their production line just what last month? (Due to poor sales). Nissan saw
    sales drop 40% in 2016 and is STILL falling. And we looking at even more
    products on the way such as the e-golf.

    The Nissan did just re-style the leaf (they dumped the eco-nerd look that only a poor excuse for a
    human being would be caught dead in such a horrifying looking car, and went with traditional styling. This re-style should help, but with the original super ugly design, they really hurt that product namesake.

    The problem right now that the market is VERY small for these cars. So Tesla gobbled up what really
    amounts to MOST luxury customers for the S models (about a 100 grand for most
    models going out the door). And then the Nissan leaf took over the lower priced
    market.

    And between bolt, leaf and the model 3 tesla, then the market is really quite much saturated
    already. The result is “tanking” sales.

    Unless they can get these prices down to “close” what traditional cars are, then the market is VERY
    small and likely near saturated already. Sales are falling for such cars, NOT increasing – that supports my view of “saturation” and a rather limited number of customers.

    I can’t say I talked to anyone considering buying an electric car with the exception of a
    Tesla (and we talking about a model S, not the lower cost 3 model). And these buys are for the luxury and style issue – not to save money etc.

    Having said the above, I actually like the concept of electric cars – not because they so often
    run on coal power (since large areas of the country produce electric with coal,
    then the car is in theory coal powered). I like the electric concept for many significant
    reasons – and one is “how” they produce power. They produce power with little
    noise, little fuss, and little vibration and don’t even have to switch gears.

    So you take an ICE car with about 5000 parts, and replace it with 18 parts. This “paradigm” change in
    parts reduction means VERY long life, and VERY low maintains. In fact this is
    why the Tesla warranty is unlimited miles!
    And even a large part of applying the brakes is re-gen (so you not wearing brake pads).

    Simply put, an electric car just does it “better” than those gas engines. The huge drop in
    parts, and near zero maintains as a result is what REALLY what will make the
    electric car win! The electric car will WIN in the long run – it will be cheaper to produce,
    have less cost to run, less parts overall (thus less cost), and have far less maintains!

    So yes I predict a time in which it is MORE compelling to buy an electric car then a gas one.

    And power? Anyone who’s not see a Tesla in action must watch this video:

    Watch this Tesla at the drag strip – it is ONLY by watching this can you start to see how simply
    out of the world and how well electric cars can get the job done:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upHDadCvorY

    So quiet, no gears to change, no clutch to wear, no gearbox – no nothing, but just pure smooth power. (and TONS of power as above shows).

    So a family sedan holds its own with Corvettes, Ferrari’s and just about anything else on the street
    – truly amazing.

    We likely to see 3x battery density soon, but a 10x battery WILL change just about everything.

    So right now – electric cars are simply too expensive, and have a small market.

    However, I really think the electric cars have a lot to offer, and with higher battery destiny,
    and lower cost, then consumers will start to make this choice. However without some
    battery break-though, such cars will REMAIN a niche market.
    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Bruce Williams

      Albert,thanks, I found your contribution to be very interesting.

    • John WIlliamson

      Can you give a reference for your “tanking” sales, because according to https://transportevolved.com/2014/04/16/number-electric-cars-world-doubled-past-year-say-academics/
      global sales of electric cars have doubled every year for the last 3 years, and according to wikipedia, total sales in the biggest markets has increased every year since 2011. It may still be small, and it may not be growing as fast as some have forecast, and it may be flatter in the US than the rest of the world, but that’s not the same as tanking.

      It’s true some electric cars use electricity from coal, but many use electricity from renewable sources. And the hope is that coal power will decline, and the adoption of electric cars now will allow immediate (rather than delayed) benefit from such trends. Moreover, even for coal power, the centralized burning keeps the smog out of cities, and allows the possibility of large-scale clean technologies not feasibly implemented in every car.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Sure.
        The Bolt production line was just “idled” due to poor sales:

        Chevrolet Extends
        Shutdown At Bolt Factory As Inventory Hits 111 Selling Days

        https://insideevs.com/chevrolet-extends-shutdown-bolt-factory-inventory-hits-selling-days/

        And Nissan also saw this – but that was about 1 year ago:

        EV sales were about 3000 per month in 2014, and by 2016 we say only 1000 units per month.

        http://www.hybridcars.com/2016-nissan-leaf-sales-did-not-break-sales-slump-in-december/

        And to be fair, you see “large” spikes in say Mini Vans when a NEW product cycle or new product appears. So some of these issues are in regards to product cycles and “new”
        offerings should help sales – but it not the case with the Bolt.

        At the end of the day, what I am saying is demand is EASILY being met and “most” EV production lines are NOT running at capacity.

        In effect the market is “already” saturated. I believe that the size of the current EV market
        been VASTLY overestimated.

        However, to be fair as you point out overall sales are increasing. So a better way to say this is that while EV sales are increasing, there is MORE than ample product available.

        And manufactures are gearing up for significant increases in model offerings. Porsche, BMW and Mercedes all are planning additional models or new models. In the case of
        Porsche and Mercedes, they are simply going to offer products to try and block
        Tesla making such amazing inroads into the luxury car market – of which they
        are the most threated by. So Tesla not a threat to the “general” market, but in
        the luxury market they are the #1 selling car in USA based on the highest
        income by postal codes. (so Porsche, BMW, Mercedes are VERY , but VERY worried about losing this high end market).

        At current prices, there is already too much product in the marketplace. Now as price drops, then sales certainly can increase, but most vendors are not making money on these products at current prices.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • John Williamson

          Ah, so you agree sales are going up overall. Why then would you say sales are tanking as a general statement about EVs? Sure, sales of some models in some markets have declined, and some sales have not met expectations, just like Kodak went out of business even while they made digital cameras. And perhaps demand is being met, but that only means car makers are ramping up faster than demand is. It’s not the same as saturating, and certainly not the same as tanking.

          Overall, sales are increasing, and GM is planning more models, and other manufacturers are too.

          In for at least one model (Tesla model 3) demand is definitely not being met, or I’d have one… As it is, I will drive ICE until Tesla comes through.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            To be fair, the Nissan article did state sales are tanking. Only until you challenged and ask for more info did I change my “tone” in this regards.

            So I can certify say headlines had and were correctly stating that some vendors have seen significant sales drops.

            And from 2014 to 2015 we saw EV sales drop in the USA. So in recent years, we seen drops in sales.

            However 2016 did show a rebound. And from 2016 to 2017 we also see an increase.

            So while I would not want to be “un-kind” and give the impression that EV sales are tanking, they certainly WERE dropping from 2014 to 2015.

            So what context and time frame I am using does give me some wiggle room in this claim.

            However, to be fair as it stands now sales from 2016 to 2017 do show increases again. So I simply had to update my knowledge base to take into account the last year.

            However want to be really fair on this issue?

            Sales for 2017 are up 40% BUT DOWN 3% from the second half of 2016! So as I said, some real drops occurred in sales and we ONLY now see a rebound. Saying we saw 40% increase this year but FORGETTING to say that still down 3% would also be misleading on my part.

            The 40% vs 3% down is quoted from this article:

            https://www.fleetcarma.com/electric-vehicle-sales-united-states-2017-half-year-update/

            At the end of the day I still maintain that the market is saturated with plants being idled as I write this. And that re-bound may well have been skewed by the model 3 launch and for sure by the Bolt 3 launch. So while there not some big collapse of the EV market and I not intending to imply as such, I can’t say that the market is
            all that healthy either.

            The launch of the Chevrolet Bolt and the Prius Prime is responsible for 2/3 of the growth in early 2017. So as stated before numbers can be skewed due to launch of new models. (And the Bolt sales look to now be running out of steam already).

            And with VERY efficient manufacturing processes, then I don’t see any lowering of prices unless something occurs with batteries.

            So the market is slim for these cars. However in the long run a machine that replaces 5000 parts with 18 and is more reliable and cheaper to manufacture certainly means that the future of EV’s is VERY bright.

            This reduced parts issue is one reason why I think in the long run EV’s will win major portions of the marketplace. In this aspect a ICE car can’t compete sans the battery cost issue.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • John WIlliamson

            No, you can’t wiggle out of this. You said “Right now the sales of electric cars are really tanking” without qualification of context and with a very specific time frame, when in fact the sales of electric cars *on average* on the planet have increased in every year since 2011.

            There is no way to reconcile, in my opinion. That some vendors have seen sales drop in some markets does not justify your statement.

            And if you didn’t intend to imply “some big collapse of the EV market”, what did you intend to imply by the above quotation?

            And you continue to get it wrong. EV sales were *not* dropping from 2014 to 2015. US sales dropped slightly; global sales increased. But even US sales did not tank.

            And arguing that the current US sales are up 40% in 2017 but down 3% from the 2nd half of 2016 is quibbling, considering that sales are unequivocally up globally, and that you’re trying to justify “tanking” sales.

            If by “the market is saturated”, you mean that demand is being met, then perhaps it is. If you mean the market is no longer growing, that’s manifestly wrong. It is growing whether or not GM’s expectations have been met and whether or not they have idled plants.

            While I expect battery technology to improve, there are other ways the market could grow more quickly than it is. Government subsidies make a lot of sense as an investment in the future, and these could take the form of a pollution tax on the use of gasoline. And I also don’t think economies of scale have been fully realized in battery or electric car manufacturing.

            But the question of competitiveness is separate from that of the actual trend, and I’m curious why you seem to want to mislead on the latter. Do you have a stake in the failure of EVs, or is it just because you’ve argued for so long EVs are doomed, that you have a hard time admitting you were wrong?

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Sure, I’ll absolute accept your correction. My context should have been more limited and that is a failure on my part. I did not mean to suggest that “overall” EV sales a tanking, but only that some EV’s makers are seeing sales of their product tank. And I WELL SPENT time stating this is often due to the product cycle – so no attempt to hide or sugar coat anything in regards to the context of what I was saying. A product cycle does not apply to “every maker” and the overall market.

            So to be clear:

            I simply wanted to point out and state that some EV’s makers are seeing sales of their product tank and have idled production lines as a result – is that better?

            Product sales for given products are not all seeing a rosy picture, and that’s a simple point that still stands.

            And yes, the overall trend is upwards – but not that strong in some markets. As I noted the 40% increase in a period being quoted also needs context.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • John Williamson

            Actually, no, because the idling of the bolt plant does not reflect tanking sales. In fact, September had record sales, and it has increased in every month for the last 6 months. Manufacturing was idled because GM expected even higher sales. Now, Volt sales are falling, but that’s because of competition from the Bolt. And even there, “tank” is an exaggeration, and it certainly doesn’t reflect the EV market, which was the implication.

            The projection for 2017 is 48% growth of the global EV market. It was 42% in 2016, and 68% in 2015. That looks like a pretty healthy market to me.

            And no, you didn’t suggest the EV market was doomed in this thread, but you have frequently argued that the supply of electricity would hold the electric car back, saying a couple of years ago: “Attempting to upgrade the capacity of a typical parking lot or parkade not only has significant cost issues, but as pointed out without affordable electricity, then you are doomed.”

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well, my statement about tanking sales DID in fact have a qualifier – I stated Tesla.

            (Funny how you left that out! – So why is now all fine and dandy for you to make a bad quote and mislead people here? Why do you get some special go past jail card here???). I thus
            suggest you practice what you preach here.

            The simple fact is that the Bolt plant was idled, and sales are poor and sales are less than
            expected. I 100% stand by this claim of mine. And the 111 days’ supply quoted
            in that article is troubling as it suggest inventory is piling up. GM can spin
            any reason they want in regards to idling the plant but that’s just PR –
            however they CAN’T hide the inventory piling up. If you have the month to month numbers for the Bolt – please post them in a nice quick easy to read format – I not found such a table.

            And in regards to my claim of tanking sales, YES I most certainly did have a quality – it was Tesla. (Again, why do you get to lie and mislead people here????).

            The Leaf sales were 30,000 in 2014, in 2015 they were 17,000, and in 2016, 14,000. The i3 and just about everything else I see also suffered rather large drops in sales.

            So what model is experiencing increasing sales here? Again, post the bolt sales, but leaf and most others EXCEPT my qualifier of Tesla does seem to hold rather true – you might find ONE excepting to my claim right now, but just show the numbers in regards to the major products in the USA.

            Post some numbers from 2014 to 2017 for EV models in the USA. If you have a nice table that would be great (I can’t find a nice laid out table and it would be great for this discussion).

            However, as I stated I “kindly” went on to say that just looking at a particular product is
            NOT the best way to look at this issue often due to product cycles. Again this
            is more qualifying on my part here. The idea that I am “digging” in my heals
            here when I provide MORE context and information that weakens my own statement clearly
            means I not intending to dig my heals in on this issue or mislead anyone. I
            assume readers can figure out the context here. (but if you assume they are so
            stupid, then you MUST correct your lies and misleading statements about me (else
            you ONLY interested in correcting me and not you or anyone else – that’s called
            hypocrisy on your part if you are wondering)).

            I have FREELY been pointing out the contexts I am talking about. When I say “to be fair”, I am
            outright saying take into account the limited context here, use a grain of salt.

            >> have frequently argued that the supply of electricity would hold the electric car back,

            And again why doesa simple objection of limited electric a big deal on your part? You not given
            any information that counters that claim of this limited electricity grid
            issue. So NOT an argument on your part in regards to the electrical supply.

            So yes, the supply of electricity will and does hold back the electric car. With California having
            peak rates of over 80 cents per kWh, rolling blackouts? How earth are they
            going to have widespread adopting of electric cars with the EXISTING mess they
            have with their electrical system? How they going to mandate EV with their existing mess??

            And exactly what municipality in the USA is not seeing SOARING electric rates?

            With peak rates in California (over 80 cents kWh), then filling that car with electricity will cost you MORE than using gas on a per mile bases!!! And try using your home air-condition with
            such peak rates – ($40 per day for your house!!).

            So some important things here:

            Electric rates are increasing to discourage consuming. Most places find electric supply is poor, getting worse, and prices are increasing.

            Next point – and it s a big one you are having trouble grasping:

            Telling you the sky is blue does not mean that blue is bad or the sky is falling OR THAT I AM
            AGAINST the color blue! That is a emotional based reasoning process you are adopting here.

            So yes, I most certainly stand by my statements in regards to electricity. I fail to see how a place
            like CA can mandate electric cars, but have blackouts, companies moving out due
            to too high electricity rates, and peak rates of over 80 cents kwH.

            A simple observation and pointing out electric rates does not mean I dislike electric cars anymore then telling you the sky is blue, and that means I dislike the color blue. (You
            have to move beyond this mode of emotional reasoning and adopt more logical
            reasoning on your part).

            So yes, I have certainly stood by the electric supply being a limiting factor – and I 100% stand by this claim. (And you provide zero in regards to countering this position of mine)

            However I also stated that in the long run an ICE can’t really compete with an EV – and I
            stated this in a limited context of manufacturing. An ICE car that requires
            5000 parts for a major component simply can’t compete with another product (EV)
            that does the same job with 18 parts. It is a battle one side cannot win over
            time.

            So if you going t cherry pick here, then PLEASE do include statements of mine that suggest in the long run an ICE can’t win against EV’s.

            So I just pointed out a MAJOR reason why in the long run EV’s can’t win over ICE, and yet you
            standing here telling me I am somehow against EV? Like I said, you have to get
            beyond someone telling you a fact about the sky being blue is NOT someone
            telling you blue is bad!!

            Take the points I make on their merit – if you have counter points, then make them.

            And as I noted in regards to qualifications: I VERY clearly stated that saying sales of a
            specific model are tanking can be misleading and is often due to product cycle
            issues. If I was trying to dig my heals in on this issue then for WHAT POSSIBLE
            reason would I be so happy to provide augments against what I stated?

            However, I am hard pressed to see which models (beyond Tesla) are seeing rising sales in the USA – most models I look at have seen sluggish sales, and declining sales). I don’t consider
            that statement at all misleading with the qualifications I provided.

            But, if you have a nice table of models from 2014 to say now, and their year sales, I would love that table – and so would the readers here.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • John Williamson

            Wow! Ramble much?

            Your complete statement that took me aback was: “Right now sales of electric cars are really tanking, and with the exception of say Tesla, the rest are REALLY struggling.”

            The second part of that sentence gives an exception; it does not change the meaning of the first part. I think anyone reading it (not knowing better) would interpret it as I did: namely that overall sales of EVs were dropping precipitously (in spite of growing Tesla sales). I don’t follow the sales closely, but I had the impression that the opposite was the case, and when I looked in to it, I found that indeed, overall EV sales are increasing steeply by 40 to 60% per year in the last 3 years (see ev-volumes.com). Since Tesla has about 10% of the global eV market, sales of non-Tesla eVs are still up substantially. The facts could hardly be more contrary to “tanking” sales, which makes your statement highly misleading, and I wondered why.

            As you say, the simple fact is the Bolt plant was idled, presumably because sales are less than expected. That’s a different fact from sales tanking though, because another fact is that Bolt sales have increased every month for 7 months (see https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/), and it’s only been available for 11 months or so.

            The fact that some models have seen declining sales in the US (or the world) does not change the fact that *overall* sales have increased. New models are introduced that attract customers away from the old models. Even in the US, where Leaf and i3 sales have fallen, 2016 sales increased by 42000 over 2015, and Tesla accounts for only half that increase. 2017 is on track for a similar increase.

            You say you are not “against” EVs, but why then do you say sales are tanking when they are increasing sharply? And if one looks back at your comments about EVs on this forum, they are essentially all negative and pessimistic, even as the market grows. At the US average of $.12 per kWh, EVs are more than competitive on energy costs. And the vast majority of charging is not done during peak hours, so California’s $.80 per kWh is not the whole story, which is why EVs are doing well in California. If sales of EVs are constrained by anything but limited demand, I suspect it will be manufacturing constraints and inadequate growth of the lithium supply rather than electric power constraints. But that wasn’t why I cited your comment about the electric supply. It was just an indication that your inclination is to emphasize the negative, and if trends

          • John Williamson

            … continue, it will become obvious the emphasis was misplaced.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            My point is I feel the market is weak. If you sell 10 units one year, and then 20 the next, that is
            100% growth. It is misleading the public in this regards.

            There are far too many articles touting sales of EV and their growth. Since this discussion between us is all about NOT misleading the public, then I much do feel this is the
            case!

            In other words it is just as bad to mislead the public in regards to sales growing as it is
            tanking. We see most vendors having difficulty selling their products. (And I
            still stand by this position).

            Vendors ARE having difficulty selling their products right now with few exceptions in the USA. We are in a deman limited, not even close to production limited market. And I see numbers becoming even SOFTER as this year marches on for most vendors.

            As for the “average” of 12 cents kWh? Well again that is really stretching things. The kWh price quoted in CA is 15 cents. And that is REALLY a misleading statement. Actual rates seen
            by consumers are far higher in CA (and consumers just cut back and turned off
            their air-condition). In fact CA rates climb even HIGHER than 80 cents a kWh
            during peak demands. So a quote of 15 cents in CA is a “poor” picture of what consumers
            are experiencing there.

            And with so many consumers sick of such high rates, they are installing solar panels like crazy
            (not due to green, but getting their wallets sucked dry).

            In fact in CA they JUST moved the peak rates farther out to the evening in CA – exactly when
            consumers get home without the sun (more folly from the utilities in them racking
            consumers over the coals. So consumers reacted to high prices to avoid the peak
            rates with solar – the response from the Utilities was to simply move the time
            frame later into the day!!!). I cannot see high adoption rates in CA – except for
            the rich – not the general consumer car market. The electric rates and policy in the
            most “green” places is a outright mess. Business are leaving CA right now due to the
            high cost of business – and utility rates are a big factor in this exit of business from that
            state – and now they talking about MORE electric cars with that mess? Are you kidding?

            However, if you thinking I am trying to give a picture of the EV market being rather weak? Yes,
            I absolute flat out am making this claim and yes I am trying to give this impression.
            I feel the numbers bear this out – even with overall growth numbers.

            I will be most surprised if EV growth rates can be sustained. (And will be most happy to be
            shown to be wrong in this regards).

            And “half” of the growth being due to Tesla model 3 is NOT going to be sustainable growth at all.
            Once those consumers have that product, they not be in the market at all. And
            even Nissan says that Tesla cannibalized their leaf sales with the model 3 introduction
            (they even had a ad campaign to get Tesla folks who pre-ordered to switch!!). So
            more models is not going to equate to more sales in such a limited market – you
            in a dog eat dog market. I sell a EV, and thus you don’t!!

            So sure, “tanking” not the best choice of words, but I certainly do feel the growth of the markets
            is being overstated, and is far weaker than most realize.

            So we can argue about the word “tanking” being misleading (and for this context I accept your criticize in this regards).

            However, both of us are looking at the same numbers and are seeing a different picture! I thus feel the market is weaker than most realize and you don’t. I see a limited market
            right now and you don’t.

            Unless we see a battery technology change, then I don’t see the EV market taking off.

            And with the model 3 orders skewing the market, we likely see a drop in USA sales overall next
            year.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • John Williamson

            Saying the sales are tanking when they are growing at more than 40% per year is misleading because it’s wrong. That’s definitely worse than saying the sales are growing at more than 40% per year for the last 3 years, which is simply true. And I haven’t made any projections based on that. I simply stated it for clarity so people would not think sales are tanking. Sure, rapid increase in small numbers is less significant, but a million cars a year (projected for 2017) is not that small (even if it’s only 1 % share), and the growth has been sustained for several years already. The claim that vendors are having difficulty is not consistent with the number of new EV models appearing, and the announcement from GM that is the subject of this thread.

            You seem obsessed with the California peak rate, but it’s the average US rate that will determine average US sales, and the night time rate that will influence EV sales. But let’s revisit the question in a year and see if sales start tanking then…

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Sure that’s most fair. The point about CA and other places that their electric gird systems are a mess, and rates are really bad.

            EV sales in the USA dropped in 2014 to 2015.

            2017 – 187,000 (est)

            2016 – 158,614

            2015 – 116,099

            2014 – 122,438

            So from 2014 to 2015, we saw sales drop by 6,300 units!

            And note how the increase in units from 2016 to 2017 is LOWER than 2015 to 2016!

            So for 2017 we see an increase of 28,000 unit’s vs the year before of 42,000 units!

            Cool eh?

            So the market is increasing. But the increase in 2017-2016 is LESS than it was for 2016-2015!!!

            This VERY much suggests the looming issue of market saturation that I talked about.

            The market simply not as robust as many are suggesting. And as I stated I don’t believe that more products from more vendors will help but only cause cannibalizing of vendors among
            themselves. They are chasing a small market – and one that is fast becoming saturated.

            What is even worse?
            With the exception of high end EV’s, most are not making money on these cars
            and that is hardly a sustainable business model.

            In fact a real problem? How much less is it to manufacture a model 3 then a model S? Manufacturing is VERY efficient today – the REAL challenge is SIMPLY sending something down a production line.

            The “difference” in cost of the higher end vs lower end products is not a whole lot – so the
            margins disappear as vendors try to build something closer to entry level and acceptable
            pricing.

            There are a bunch of articles trying to compare electric cars to the computer industry – and that
            is not a valid comparison.

            I cannot wait to see how 2018 pans out – it going to be really telling if the numbers continue
            to support my claims of a weak market. And if Tesla pre-orders are skewing this
            number for 2017, then I will be hard pressed see how 2018 will fare any better.

            The EV market in the USA is a boutique market – and the buyers who would ACTUALLY purchase such vehicles are fast being satisfied. The result is LITTLE left over. I don’t know
            of ANY family or friends considering an EV right now. Not ONE person!!!

            In fact I am predicting the USA market for 2018 is going to worse then 2017 – and only Tesla
            will miss this looming problem of overhang in the USA EV market (and they be
            lucky at that if they do).

            No one I know considering an EV right now and that’s telling enough! And I am a big believer in
            the technology. This not about feelings, but a practical view of the EV
            marketplace.

            The EV market is not mainstream, but a limited market of speciality buyers of which there is not
            that many, and fewer by the day exist in that limited marketplace.

            I am enjoying this discussion – but my views based on the numbers and what I see for the number of buyers remains un-changed unless some technology breakthrough occurs.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • John Williamson

            Good grief. You are from Canada, and you seem to think the US represents the world. You are the one who said trends with smaller numbers are less significant. So why not use larger numbers? They are available. Here are the global EV sales:

            2017: 1150k (est)
            2016: 775k
            2015: 546k
            2014: 324k

            So, using bigger numbers, sales did not drop 2014 to 2015, and the increase from 2016 to 2017 is not only larger in absolute numbers than 2015 to 2016, but is also a larger relative increase (48% vs 42%). Cool, eh?

            If my situation is any indication, US numbers are suppressed while people wait for the model 3. If it weren’t for the promise of a glitzy Tesla in a year or so, I’d already be driving a bolt or a leaf or something.

            Unlike your family of dinosaurs, just about everyone in mine is considering electric, and 3 of us are sworn to buy electric for our next car.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Yes, I am most certainly talking about and using the North American market (which happens to include Canada BTW). So sure, I am talking about the geographic area of which I am a part of – for what possible reason is this an issue or problem with you? If you want to include or talk about a different markets, then hey, let’s get a pot of coffee
            out.

            If you just lump all markets together then you miss my point and likely make the wrong conclusion about the state of the EV market – especially in regards to where one lives.

            If you disagree that specific markets are limited and don’t think the number of buyers in such markets are limited then again so be it. This really not some huge issue. Like
            I said if I tell you the sky is blue, an intellectual response that I am obsessed
            with the color blue is a silly response, and not an argument, nor logical response.

            So not obsessed with the electric rates in CA. However, if I tell you that we have this great thing called a steam engine, and to power that steam engine we going to send
            out a crew of people with axes and saws to cut down wood to power that engine?

            Well then ok, that is neat-o, but if you live in a desert and there no trees to chop down, then such a business model makes VERY little sense. So yes, taking into account your geographic location for ANY facts given is RATHER important.
            So I am pointing out that places like CA see rolling blackouts, terrible infrastructure in their electric grid, and the whole system of pricing in that area is outright mess. So
            with such a electric grid mess, then having their legislative consider mandating
            the use of electric cars is about as silly as recommend that people living in
            the desert adopt a business model where a daily crew of people go out and chop
            down trees to fuel their steam locomotives.

            So yes, “context” of a point one is making is EVERYTHING and that most certainly includes where one lives.

            It is some pink cloud of dreaming if you think a policy of mandating more electric cars in CA going to make sense with their current mess of an electric grid and current
            mess of high electric rates.

            So what exactly is the issue or problem you have with such observations? Why would you not be interested in discussing the market things in the context of where you live?

            If facts and intelligent arguments come along that counter what I stated, then again that’s just fine and dandy.

            I see the EV market in North America as very close to saturation at given prices. I believe my view is a well thought out and logical and reasonable view based on reasonable observations.

            Some years ago I had someone ask me if they should invest in the cell phone maker Blackberry. A that time they were all the rage and their market value and sales were soaring. Blackberry was much like the hot girl at school that everyone wanted to date – and they could do no wrong.
            I explained to this investor that a “key” advantage that Blackberry has in the marketplace is FAST falling and thus I would not buy their stock and get rid of any that you own now. My evaluation was 100% spot on. And thus while the cell phone market was booming, Blackberry suffered a spectacular meltdown in the marketplace.

            So telling that investor that cell phone sales are growing was USELESS information – Blackberry was headed towards a meltdown. So yes, evaluation of the given market that one lives is much the key to success in life, and in fact key to the basic process
            of making intelligent decisions that APPLY to one’s given siltation. It called life if you are wondering!

            I mean YOU are the one that so concerned about given the wrong impression here and miss-leading people.

            The idea that any discussion would lump everyone into the same box is rather silly. As I stated without such limitations, then you would have no problem with selling steam engines to people living in a desert based on a business model that has workers go out and chop down trees every morning to fuel that engine.

            So yes, in any thought process we MUST take and limit the CONTEXT. Ignoring such contexts means one will make the wrong decisions based on given information without the context of their given geographic location.

            Just quoting some numbers and ignoring where and how that information will be used by people reading that information is sheer folly.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • John Williamson

            Well, I have to hand it to you. You can obfuscate with the best of them to obscure your contradictions and errors.

            The subject was electric vehicles, not the US EV market. If you said the US market was tanking, or even “I don’t see the US EV market taking off”, then using US stats make sense. But you said “sales of electric cars are tanking” and “I don’t see the EV market taking off”, and then you used the US market to try (in vain) to justify it.

            As you yourself said, trends with small numbers are more vulnerable to fluctuation, and so less meaningful: “If you sell 10 units one year, and then 20 the next, that is 100% growth. It is misleading…” The best way to get a more meaningful picture is to use the maximum available market to look at the average.

            You seem to understand that concept, because you chose the US market, and not the Edmonton market. Electricity in Edmonton is dirt cheap, so California rates are not relevant to your particular context (apart from the (remote) possibility of a long road trip). Sure, you live in North America (not the US, though), but you also live in the world, so why not use the global market?

            Moreover, even in the US, the numbers do not support your pessimism. The total numbers are smaller, and with new models introduced or anticipated, fluctuations can be large, but the YOY growth rates since 2012 are: 85%, 25%, -5%, 37%, 18 to 30% (est), representing a 4-fold increase in 5 years.

            Individual companies can rise and fall, and if the discussion had been about investing in this car company or that, your reference to blackberry would have relevance, but nothing about saying the EV market is increasing steeply suggests investing in a particular model. It might suggest investment in Li was indicated (which I did recently, quadrupling the investment). In any case, if you’re talking about products sold globally, as most cars are, then the global market is relevant for investment purposes.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Sure, I am happy with your response. But yes, I made it clear as mud I am talking about the North American market. And I made ZERO efforts to obfuscate and not make this
            position of mine crystal clear.

            It really a simple point I am making. The model 3 sales are surprise, but then again Tesla has
            real Mo-jo in the marketplace. And their sales are cannibalizing other
            products. And they have to figure out a way to make money on their model 3
            sales.

            The model 3 is $35,000 to $60,000 grand depending on options. I believe the “average” pre-order is mid 40’s.

            For a family looking for a practical car, 40,000 does not offer a practical choice. Unless
            things like swimming lessons, dental bills and holidays are to be given up. And
            things get worse for many apartment or condo dwellers – they don’t have the
            electric infrastructure available. So for a “large” number of city people, they don’t
            live in a house and thus a plug in EV not a viable choice for a large group of
            people. (thus limiting the market even more).

            And this point of mine ignores the “mess” of places like CA with 3rd world electricity
            reliability due to rolling blackouts etc. So my points about CA are in regards
            to government talking about more electric cars, but not addressing the mess of
            their electrical infrastructure. They have to fix the woefully inadequate electrical
            gird issues FIRST before talking about some widespread legislation in regards
            to EV’s.
            So in Edmonton we not considering the legislation of EV’s like they
            are in CA – so that’s why the CA point is valid. Everyone jumping on some political
            correct bandwagon but ignoring reality makes no sense. (cart before the horse anyone???)

            And while my reference to blackberry shows a company falling in a growing market, I am in fact making the claim that the NA market is fast approaching saturation – and I believe
            this saturation will affect all vendors in this marketplace at current prices rather soon.

            Unless some big change occurs in battery technology, then I believe ALL vendors are going to
            find selling EV’s into the NA market with increasing difficulty. The price point’s
            vs a practical choice is too high right now IMHO.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • John Williamson

            OK, you can hold an opinion (although I disagree with it) that the NA EV market is “fast approaching saturation”, or that vendors are going to have “increasing difficulty” based on the poor condition of California’s electric grid, and the high price of the model 3. My objection was to your claim, first, that sales were tanking now, and then later, that they are saturating now, when in fact sales in the US grew (YOY) by 38% in 2016, and by 30% in the first 9 months of 2017. Moreover, Tesla, Toyota, Nissan, Volvo, BMW, and presumably GM sell to a global market, so their level of “difficulty” is determined by the global market, which increased by 42% in 2016, and projected to increase by 48% in 2017.

            You can focus on California’s electricity problems because they are promoting EVs there, but that’s a different argument. If you’re talking about the state of the NA market, the average cost of electricity is relevant, and low costs in Edmonton and the rest of Canada, and other American locations argue in favor EVs.

            Charging infrastructure in apartments and condos is trivial to add. But EV prices are still high, so adoption will start with the more affluent and the suburban home owners. As prices come down, or incentives are introduced, or total cost of ownership proves to be more competitive, and demand starts to climb, it’s unlikely to be constrained by the lack of chargers in apartments, which will likely appear as needed. I live in a condo, and I’m waiting for a model 3. There are no charging stations in our garage yet, but we are promised 6 choice spots with chargers some time in 2018 (before I get my 3…).

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Average costs vs quoted electric utility rates are VERY misleading (we save that for another post).

            The EV market needs to overcome several issues before that “S” curve, or that “classic” technology adoption rate that is so common to new technologies.
            If battery technology changes, and then my evaluation will much change.

            Costs of EV’s are not dropping. You take a 238 mile Bolt, drive it at highway speeds and you see just over 100 mile range. And for any long drive, that means a typical 5.5 hour drive in your ICE will take 11 hours in the EV.

            Toss in apartment and condo folks with underground parkades then charging stations is again an issue for large swaths of consumers. It will change, but again this is the classic chicken and egg issue. And it not a trivial cost to install such systems (especially if most don’t have a EV – they not going to fork out and vote for increased condo fees).

            The price point’s vs practical use of one’s money don’t make sense right now. And I don’t see increased volumes causing a “classic” technology curve to drop prices further when they are losing what, 8 or 9 grand on each Bolt sale? Increased volumes could
            in fact squeeze margins even worse due to competition for batteries.

            And then the question of tax incentives comes into play – they are going to become less common – again rising the consumer price points. Chevy beat EVERYONE to the marketplace with a high mileage EV car that is $29,000 with the $7,500 rebate. That
            is a ground shacking achievement, a NEW price point ($30,000 and over 200 mile range), and yet we don’t see the car flying off the lots. This “was” the big price point that many talked about!!!
            Now perhaps this is due to limited launch markets of CA and Oregon – but CA is supposedly that “electric” sea of green consumers, and we don’t see shortages or even prices being bid up
            for the Chevy bolt (in fact dealers can’t moving existing cars off their lots).

            The Bolt at that price point and range is better than ANYTHING in the market right now. So what the heck is occurring with a new car that is ground breaking in terms of price and range? No other car has the range and price numbers of the Volt. In other words the car broke points that should result in soaring sales. Now that model 3 are “starting” to flow, then this makes the Bolt case even worse.

            The key factor in this whole issue will be that of how fast (or slow) battery prices can fall. If the speed at which batteries can fall turns out to be faster then what I see now or is occurring, then I’ll be happy to revamp my predictions – but as it is now, the NA market is limited, and fast approaching saturation.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • John Williamson

            You are free to speculate about the future of the market, if you justify the speculations on verifiable observations. I may disagree, and give different interpretations of those observations, and that’s ok.

            But I strongly object when you misrepresent what is actually happening in the market to justify an obvious prejudice against progress. You are no longer claiming that sales are tanking right now, because that is dishonest: sales are increasing. And you are no longer claiming they are saturating, because they are increasing by some 40% per year. So, now you are reduced to saying you think they will saturate soon because in your opinion, EVs are not practical, and while sales are going up, they’re not increasing fast enough, even though at the current fractional rate, 30% penetration would be reached in a decade or so.

            And you’re still misrepresenting the facts to support the opinion, accusing the EPA of inflating the range for the Bolt from 100 miles to 238 miles. According to an article in the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-bolt-ev-drive-20160912-snap-story.html), some journalists took a 229-mile trip of mixed city and highway driving from Monterey to Santa Barbara on one charge, and the writer arrived with about 50 miles range left according to the car’s computer.

            This leaves aside the fact that 5 hour car trips are pretty rare, and for the first 10% EV market penetration, the customers will mostly be within families with at least 2 vehicles. They buy the electric car for local commuting, and take their ICE for long road trips. (Or they buy a plug-in hybrid, and use electricity for local commuting and gasoline for the long road trips.) By the time 10% of the cars are electric, rapid charging infrastructure will likely be in place for long trips. It’s just your rationalization to argue that EVs will force people to spend 11 hours on a 5.5 hour drive.

            The apartment argument is a non-starter. Obviously, the EV owners have to bear the cost of charger installations, just like home-owners do. And the cost will likely be lower because they can install 6 or more at a time, but in any case, not higher.

            Some of your arguments are just baffling. Like first you argue that California is the worst place for EVs, and then poor sales in California is bad because it should be the best place for EVs. Or, somehow the sales of electric cars are in trouble because of competition from — wait for it — other electric cars (Bolt vs model 3). Or you say in one paragraph that costs are not dropping, and in another that the newly released Bolt represents a new ground-shaking price-point and range.

            It just looks like you reached an opinion about EVs at some point, and you are loathe to change it, so you go through all sorts of contortions — some honest, some dishonest – to rationalize your position.

          • John Williamson

            You are free to speculate about the future of the market, if you justify the speculations on verifiable observations. I may disagree, and give different interpretations of those observations, and that’s ok.

            But I strongly object when you misrepresent what is actually happening in the market to justify an obvious prejudice against progress. You are no longer claiming that sales are tanking right now, because that is not the case: sales are increasing. And you are no longer claiming they are saturating, because they are increasing by some 40% per year. So, now you are reduced to saying you think they will saturate soon because in your opinion, EVs are not practical, and while sales are going up, they’re not increasing fast enough, even though at the current fractional rate, 30% penetration would be reached in a decade or so.

            And you’re still misrepresenting the facts to support the opinion, accusing the EPA of inflating the range for the Bolt from 100 miles to 238 miles. According to an article in the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-bolt-ev-drive-20160912-snap-story.html), some journalists took a 229-mile trip of mixed city and highway driving from Monterey to Santa Barbara on one charge, and the writer arrived with about 50 miles range left according to the car’s computer.

            This leaves aside the fact that 5 hour car trips are pretty rare, and for the first 10% EV market penetration, the customers will mostly be within families with at least 2 vehicles. They buy the electric car for local commuting, and take their ICE for long road trips. By the time 10% of the cars are electric, rapid charging infrastructure will likely be in place for long trips. It’s just your rationalization to believe that anyone is going to spend 11 hours on a 5.5 hour drive.

            The apartment argument is a non-starter. Obviously, the EV owners have to bear the cost of charger installations, just like home-owners do. And the cost will likely be lower because they can install 6 or more at a time, but in any case, not higher.

            Some of your arguments are just baffling. Like, first you argue that California is the worst place for EVs, and then poor sales in California is bad because it should be the best place for EVs. Or, somehow the sales of electric cars are in trouble because of competition from — wait for it — other electric cars (Bolt vs model 3). Or you say in one paragraph that costs are not dropping, and in another that the newly released Bolt represents a new ground-shaking price-point and range.

            It just looks like you started with an opinion and are trying to find ways to rationalize it.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            It is not a opinion that Bolt is struggling for sales in the CA market. And as I stated, the Bolt represents a “new” price point in terms of range and performance.

            And I did not say CA is the worst place for EV’s. I said it outright silly to consider mandating EV’s into their market without addressing issues of electricity. For what reason do you make wild and silly assumptions here? Like I said, because I tell you the sky is blue does not mean I like (or dislike) the color blue. These wild speculations you read into my points make no logical sense. I not against EV’s at all, and in fact I REALLY like them. However, I don’t stick my head in the sand and ignore reality. Dealers having trouble moving Bolts of their lots in CA is a big red flag, and it much supports my point about weakness in the marketplace. Telling you that they have electric grid issues and pricing in CA in ZERO way changes that CA is the largest EV market in the USA.

            And the 5.5 hour trip vs 11 is not the end of the world but is just a simple point that shows limitations in regards to consumer choices.

            So not a opinion that the electric grid and market in CA is a outright mess. And not a opinion that dealers can’t move Bolts off their lots in CA. And no it not a opinion that large slices of the population (non home owners) have limited charging options.

            These points and issues stand on their own.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal

          • John Williamson

            Actually, it is an opinion to suggest that the Bolt is struggling. The objective observation is that GM’s high expectations for the Bolt have not been met. But, as of Sept, only Tesla outsells the Bolt in the US, and sales are climbing every month. Sure, it could do better and Bolt could be number 1, but not being number 1 is not struggling, in my opinion.

            But even if it were struggling, or if one interprets it’s sales as struggling, that’s not the speculation I was talking about. Rather it is the speculation that sales will soon saturate because the Bolt has not met expectations. The slower than expected start may be because they started in a limited market, or maybe it’s because of market dilution, or anticipation of the model 3. Whatever, as RIM’s blackberry shows, the health of a market can’t be predicted based on the performance of a single model or company, and overall electric sales have been climbing at a healthy rate.

            True, you did not say explicitly that California is the worst place for EVs, but usually when you make a negative assessment of the EV market, you bolster it with a description of the sad state of the electric grid in California, and the high rates. That it is the biggest EV market suggests the market can grow in spite of a poor and expensive grid, which should suggest optimism for markets with lower rates.

            The objection to your 11-hour trip argument was the misrepresentation of the Bolt’s range.

            I have not challenged your assessment of the California grid, but it is an opinion that the EV market there is a mess, considering it represents half the American sales with 13% of the population. And it’s not even true that dealers can’t move Bolts off their lots, let alone an opinion. Sales have not met expectations. But I agree that charging options are limited, more for some than others. But your speculation (opinion) that sales will soon saturate is not well-supported, in *my* opinion, nor by the actual sales trends.

          • Omega Z

            Total ICE car sales have been increasing for years so even when EV sales increase, it doesn’t say anything about market share increase.

            Currently, there are something like 1.1 Billion cars in the world and increasing. Current car production in the world is around 100 million a year. There is only about 2.5 million total EV’s in the world including all of 2017 projected sales and does not subtract for those that are no longer on the road. All EV’s combined make up about 0.2 ths of a percent of all vehicles in the world and about 0.35ths of all current production.

          • John Williamson

            True, increasing EV sales, by themselves don’t say anything about market share, but they say something about EV sales, namely that they’re not tanking, and that was what I was saying.

            As for market share, total car sales are increasing too, but at a rate of a few per cent per year, whereas EV sales increase by a few tens of per cent per year, so yes, EV market share is increasing too, and has increased every year since at least 2011.

            Total share of the market and the road is certainly still small, but your numbers seem too small. And given that cars last 10 years, there’s a lot of inertia, so surely market share is more relevant than road-share. According to ev-volumes.com, ev market share in 2016 was .84% and it’s projected to be 1.22 % in 2017.

            And these things can change fast once everyone knows someone who raves about their new technology. Digital cameras went from 0 to 100% in about a decade. In Norway, the market share for EVs went from less than 1% to 29% in 6 years, with the help of government incentives. Global share won’t grow that fast without incentives, and with production constraints kicking in, but still it shows how fast demand can increase under the right circumstances…

          • EEStorFanFibb

            very well said. and as many people know, the first 1-2% of market share is definitely the hardest. it’s the beginning of the S curve. further market adoption gets much easier after word gets out and awareness of the cost savings and performance gains grows to a certain point.

            remember, literally dozens of new EV models will be coming out in the next several years. major car companies and nations have announced plans to abandon the ICE.

            this is happening.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    LENR or ammonia. 20 kW LENR and few kWh buffer battery, or burn NH3 in internal combustion engine. Ammonia tech is known for half a century so basically no R&D needed. NH3 is more feasible hydrogen energy carrier than hydrogen itself.

    • cashmemorz

      Its all about how businesses are structured, in terms of people and intellectual property. The money people talk to the managers of the technical people. Those managers know the technical people but not the technical details that the tech ‘s know. So there is a slow filtering of the tech from the tech’s to their mangers, then from the mangers to the money people or owners of the business. The owners buy the IP if someone interprets what the value is but not the technical details. The money people think about other things not technological things. Its about mind set, what is familiar, and the like. So there is a lag between what is actually available to make money on and how that info gets to where it will work. I doubt that Darden knew what the e-cat was actually doing, Not that there is a real theory anyways. A bouble whammy.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Ammonia is one of the refrigerants that large cold storage facilities use. However, toxicity issues have made it unlikely to be a consumer product. When I was a kid, we used to have a “Serval” refrigerator that was powered by natural gas with an ammonia refrigeration cycle. Ammonia adsorption cycles are still used in propane fueled RV refrigeration, but the amount of gas is tiny.

      • Omega Z

        I believe they regulated them out of home use decades ago. There are other solutions that can be used but are less efficient. I’ve wondered if the unit was outside in a separate utility building would be allowed. Anyway, the hardware required prices them out of most residential use. If you’re not chilling 5K sq. ft, the savings doesn’t offset the initial cost.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    In early 1900’s car owners where chided “get a horse”, early electric car owners will hear “get an extension cord” the transition to electrics might not be as fast but just as sure.

    • Omega Z

      “the transition to electrics might not be as fast”

      That is an understatement. Already the transition has exceeded 100 years.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        If you have done so you must take a ride in an electric.

  • Gerard McEk

    Industrial heating units will go on the market first and will give Andrea sufficient money for developing compact electrical (car load and industrial) power stations of e.g. 1MW. Only after that he will probably develop jet-electric based mobile power units for cars and planes. That will take a while because of the high safety and reliability issues involved. Obviously when safety issues are sorted out and accepted, domestic heating units will be a vast market too and I will be one of the first to buy one!

  • Oystein Lande

    And if anyone wondered 🙂 :

    In August 2017 53% of all new car sales was hybrids, plug in hybrids And all electric………… ..in Norway 😁

    And yes 21% was pure electric…

    • Omega Z

      Norway is a small country with specific mandates. It is an outlier in the grand scheme. Ev’s are less then 1/2% of total vehicle sales. Is like a few years ago when the said Spain received half of it’s electricity from wind. The U.S. already had 10 times as much wind energy, but was less then 1/2% of U.S. energy use. Context means everything.

      Estimated 2.5 million Ev’s on the road by the end of 2017. Only 1.1 Billion more to go.

      • Oystein Lande

        Hehe, don’t worry;-)

        Exponential growth will take care of that ‘problem’ . I’ll say 15 years and we’re done

        • Omega Z

          In 15 years it will still be 15 years should the world have recovered from the next recession by then. People talk of replacing a 100 trillion$ of grid and 10’s of trillion$ in transportation like it is pocket change. Don’t see that happening.

        • LarryJ

          Your exponent is too small. We’ll be commuting to Mars before then.

          • Omega Z

            To be serious about space travel, they need to build a magnetic rail launcher or 2. At 12 miles length, it can launch 36 inch tubes of fabricated objects and raw materials at about 10 cents per pound. About double current goods transport cost on earth. Prefab objects and raw materials along with 3D printing technology can build large ships. The low cost even allows for radiation shielding as cost of orbiting materials for such is negligible. A rail launcher at 24 miles in length can even launch astronauts within safe G limits. This could also allow transport of fuel to orbit to allow powered decent instead of the current de-orbiting method. The cost of this system would be around 1 to 1.5 bullion$ per mile of rail. A one time cost.

          • LarryJ

            That all sounds like a good idea but Elon Musk says he’s going to Mars the old fashioned way in a rocket ship in the next 5 years.

          • Omega Z

            This was actually in NASA’s plans in the early 70’s along with mini shuttles launched from the back of 747’s. The shuttle’s that were built/used were meant to be used only as a work horse. Then politicians got involved and the shuttle became a do all very complex, expensive and as we know high risk. It actually fared better then the odds given which was 1 fatal flight per 25.

  • Omega Z

    And still about 90 million landlines in use in the U.S.. They still serve a purpose.
    And by the way, If(they wont) batteries ever reach their theoretical limits, they will still fall far short of fossil fuel energy density. There is a reason they are so prevalent…

  • Omega Z

    According to Elon Musk at 7 cents a mile, 40 miles would be $2.80 cents. My car at 40mpg and Gas at $2.25. And that includes about 70 cents in road tax which will soon be taxed on Ev’s. A mileage tax. Several states have already put it on the law books waiting to be implemented. More will follow.

    • John Williamson

      Cost per mile depends on electricity cost. For the US average of $.12 per kWh, the cost per mile should 3 to 4 cents. Where I live, it’s only about $.06 per kWh, so 1.5 cents per mile. And the mileage of a comparable gas car would be worse than 40 mpg, especially in the city. Still, the factor is much less than 8 or 10…

      • Omega Z

        A recent statement from Musk was 7 cents per mile average. That probably takes into account that electricity can reach as high as 80 cents per KW. The U.S. average is closer to 20 cents per KW today. 12 cents was about 3/4 years ago. Also it’s just a matter of time before mileage tax kicks in. Add another 3/5 cents per mile. There are a lot of serious issues being ignored about Ev’s…

        • John Williamson

          I thought you “know longer trust Musk”.

          Anyway, he said they would charge 20 cents per kWh at supercharger stations corresponding to 6 to 7 cents per mile, after the first 1000 miles (per year) free with model 3. For the S it’s always free.

          Considering 90% or more of the charging happens at home, that’s hardly a representative cost per mile. In fact, many people will not use up their free allotment at superchargers, so it could *reduce* the cost per mile.

          The EIA says the average residential electricity cost in the US was 13 cents/kWh in July 2017 (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a).

          Sounds like Musk isn’t the only one “selling” something…

          Also, the average night-time cost is lower in many markets, so the 13 cents overestimates average cost per mile.

          There may be a road tax at some point, but now more governments are considering incentives. Speculation is cheap, and maybe when road taxes get added, cheaper solar or roof-top panels will offset it. Or maybe they’ll add a pollution tax to gas.

  • William D. Fleming

    Mercedes has announced a one billion dollar expansion of its Alabama plant for the purpose of manufacturing electric vehicles.

  • Omega Z

    It was originally labeled as mega referring to the largest plant of it’s size in the world. It’s already started production and many of those batteries are headed to Australia for electrical energy storage as we post. The 5+ Billion$ Giga-plant wont be fully completed until 2020 at which time is supposed to produce 1/2 million batteries of various sizes a year. The number ultimately depends on the battery sizes produced in total. Larger batteries would reduce the batteries count.

    These companies are selling a dream. Not just to the consumers, but the the share holders and investors. It is there money their going to be spending. If shareholders balk, nothing is going to happen. They wont have the money to do anything with. It’s like, you gotta come see this football game. It’s going to be fantastic. You would never go if I told you it would be lackluster and boring. They will even exaggerate and if need be lie. Musk does it all the time. Recall his Power wall 7KW battery. Fact. It was really 6.4KW with real expectations of only 6KW usable. The 10KW was so blatantly economically bad they completely discarded it. Power companies found the tried and true lead acid battery to be better and cheaper,

    RECENT yes in the last couple months, links no. But I remember it well because it contrasted so much from the norm. However, like the grid, they expect a large mix of technologies will be required to replace fossil energy including transportation.

    Ev’s. Heating and cooling require a lot of energy. Hard to drive when windows are frosted over. And AC. While some can do without, Millions of lives depend on it. AC is an unsung hero in longevity for millions of people with health issues. Extending their lives by 5/10 years. Maybe you heard about the dozen people who died in a Florida nursing home when the AC went out. Heat kills.

    I been watching this dog and pony show since the late 70’s, early 80’s when hobbyists were building Ev’s in their garage. Results of regenerative motors and lead acid batteries getting between 50 to 80 miles per charge. Then in the mid 90’s with Government prodding, the big boys became involved. All we’ve got is small incremental improvements and massive price increases. I had really hoped for more by now.

    Note all these big boys, the big 3 and several foreign car companies got there starts by buying up the IP rights from hobbyists. GM actually published their blue prints that were exact copies of what I had from many years earlier claiming they’d spent millions on R&D. Millions for IP in reality. Nearly all was incorporated into the Chevy Volt.

    Oh well. Lets Hope Rossi can provide an alternative.

    • John Williamson

      “It is there money their going to be spending.”

      Good Lord. You know there are different homonyms for “there” but you seem to have no clue where they belong. (It is their money they’re going to be spending.)

      Sorry for the spelling post, but you seem to have a real problem with homonyms, writing “know” for “no”, and never getting “their” right. It’s just hard to take someone’s logic seriously if they can’t sort out “there”, “their”, and “they’re”.

      • Omega Z

        Yep, I’m fully aware and don’t care.
        Actually, If I dumbed it down a lot more, I could qualify for a job writing for mainstream media. And I actually catch some of my errors after I post, but don’t have edit.

  • Frank Acland

    Something that I’ve been wondering about lately in light of the numerous hurricanes we have been dealing with this year in the US. If there was an evacuation order for a highly populated area and most people were using EVs, would there be enough electrical power available from the grid for everyone to charge up at once, and would there be enough time for people to do it?

    Also, if you were on the road and you ran out of charge in an evacuation situation, would you be stranded and out of luck?
    Also in a place like Puerto Rico, where the grid has been decimated, EVs would be not very useful, unless you had some off-grid power source.

    It would appear that it is easier to transport and deliver fossil fuels in disaster situations than it is to deliver electricity, if you are reliant on the grid for power.

  • EEStorFanFibb

    A pretty good read:

    ANALYSIS
    Electric car takeoff just waiting for inevitable price war: Don Pittis
    Expect the personal computer shakeout to repeat itself once EV sellers start to compete on price
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/electric-cars-price-decline-1.4327559

  • Omega Z

    I read a post elsewhere where the guy was frustrated that tractor-trailers were not more fuel efficient. After all, we can build them with newer lighter material today. His point. They should get much better mileage with less weight. Ahh, but 30 tons of cargo will always be 30 tons of cargo. You can’t make that lighter.

    To transport all goods in EV trucks would greatly increase shipping costs. And note, Batteries can only increase in size/weight where you soon find the need for extra battery capacity just to haul the batteries. Discussing weight, Ev’s are about 30% heavier then their ICE counterparts.

    Also, Why would you expect battery cost will drop by 66%. Musk has pulled out all the stops, eliminated the middleman and there is no indication this will happen. In fact, odds are that prices are set to increase. Lithium has already increased 300% and rising. And without that increase in lithium cost, most additional lithium is not economically viable for extraction as the percent of lithium in most brine is well below current sources. It just costs a lot more to extract it…

  • EEStorFanFibb

    “Electric cars will wipe out oil demand equal to Iran’s output by 2025, Barclays says

    Electric vehicle adoption and higher fuel efficiency could cut global oil demand by 3.5 million barrels a day, Barclays analysts forecast.

    If EVs grow to a third of the market, it could slash crude consumption by 9 million barrels a day.”

    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/05/electric-cars-could-cut-oil-demand-roughly-equal-to-irans-output.html

  • Zephir

    There is no need to focus on electricity, even when considering LENR – powered future. The hydrogen and carbon hydrides (i.e. the gasoline) can easily compete with lithium batteries in energy and power density providing that the carbon dioxide and water will be recuperated in LENR powered plants back to carbon hydrides and oxygen.

    • Toussaint françois

      I wish to see that in my life time !

    • John Williamson

      Fossil fuels account for 65% (not 86%) of generated electricity. And the efficiency is better if the fuel is burned centrally (esp for natural gas), so that for natural gas, the overall energy efficiency is still better after accounting for losses in electric cars. With coal it’s more or less a wash, but overall, taking account of the 1/3 of electricity that is not fossil, electric cars come out ahead. Plus large plants produce less pollution and have the possibility of carbon sequestration. And these advantages will only grow as more renewables come on line.

      • Zephir

        Fossil fuels account for 65% (not 86%) of generated electricity

        Where? In Denmark? In 2015, fossil fuels made up 81.5% of total U.S. energy consumption, the lowest fossil fuel share in the past century. The electricity share doesn’t count, because existing cars don’t utilize it. Actually it brings another problem – the transportation consumes roughly 30% of energy https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/share_of_energy_transportation-large.jpg

        Even without transportation the electricity delivered represents only 15% of total energy consumption https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2012.03.02/SharesEnergyConsumption.png Which means, that if we would achieve the 30% (for complete replacement of fossil fuel energy with electricity in transportation), we should increase the capacity of grid four/five-times and the total energy production three times.

        • John Williamson

          Surely you’re not suggesting that the way we heat our homes or power our factories affects the amount of fossil fuel that is consumed by electric cars. Sometimes it’s easier to understand by considering an extreme situation. If 100% of electricity were generated by non-fossil fuel, then EVs would not consume any fossil fuels, even if half of our energy still came from fossil fuels.

          So it is definitely the fraction of electricity (not energy) produced with fossil fuels that is relevant here, and if you google it, you will find global electricity is 66% fossil, similar to the US at 65% (see eia). Like I said 2/3.

          Interestingly, in Canada, only 20% of the electricity is fossil. It’s a small population, but Canadian EV owners can be smug because even though efficiency drops in the cold, most of the energy consumed by EVs is renewable. Electricity is also cheaper in Canada than in the US.

          So, yea, on a global average, electric cars have a 1/3 head start in fossil economy. Most studies show that with coal-based electricity, the consumption is more or less a wash (compared to the best gasoline hybrids like Prius). With gas-based electricity, EVs are a clear winner, so overall EVs definitely reduce fossil consumption.

          You can make up efficiency figures to rationalize your luddite views, but the people who study the issue and show their work, conclude that consumption is comparable in the worst case, giving a lower *average* consumption for EVs. Check out the wikipedia article on “environmental aspects of the electric car”, or http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-car-emissions, or any of the studies by the UCS.

          I get that some people will always be afraid of progress, no matter the benefits, but it’s hard to understand when even stakeholders in the old technology (Volvo and GM) are optimistic about the EV future.

          Look at it this way: In a future scenario that most countries are actively working toward, electric cars will reduce fossil consumption toward a realistic goal of zero in a matter of decades. (Canada is 4/5 of the way there already.) Meanwhile ICE cars will always consume fossil fuels at more or less their current rate, no matter what progress is made in harnessing renewables for electricity. In this situation, any socially conscious person should advocate and participate in a greater penetration of EVs.

          • Zephir

            My views aren’t “ludite”, I’m just explaining, why the global share of fossil fuels (which is way higher than yours 66%) doesn’t decrease despite collective effort for its replacement by “renewables”. The people who just follow occupational policy and refuse to calculate its economic incentives are at the heart of current “green movement”, which actually exploits our life environment even more than the “fossil fuel lobby”
            https://i.imgur.com/5S8RRQb.gif

          • John Williamson

            Yes, fossil fuels account for 80% of total primary energy usage, and it is not changing very fast. This has nothing to do with the question of fossil fuel consumption by electric cars.

            My objection was to your claim that electric cars consume more fossil fuels than ICE vehicles. Even if electric cars consumed no fossil fuels, the decrease would not show up on your graph. Less than 1% of the cars on the road are electric, and cars make up a only a part of transportation, which is 1/3 of total energy usage. So, zero consumption would correspond to something like 0.1% reduction. And no one is claiming zero consumption — only that electric cars reduce consumption.

            The question of fossil consumption by electric cars is determined by the fraction of *electricity*, (not total energy) generated by fossil fuels. And according the pie chart at http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Breakdown-of-Electricity-Generation-by-Energy-Source#tspQvChart, 66% of global electricity comes from fossil fuels.

            That means that if EVs on a fossil grid use the same amount of fossil fuel as ICEs, then on average, EVs are already 1/3 ahead. Since they use less on a gas-based grid, the advantage is even bigger. So, yes, the benefit is negligible so far, but all-electric transportation now would represent at least 10% less fossil consumption, and that would increase to 30% as renewable (or nuclear) electricity increased to replace all fossil electricity. We’re in the long game.

            And by the way, you’re double-counting in your calculation of required electricity for all transportation. Yes, delivered electricity is only 15% of the total energy, but there is no dispute that cars need 1/3 (or less) as much energy in the form of delivered electricity as they do in delivered fossil fuel. So, that means that to power all transportation requires an additional 1/3*1/3 ~ 10% (to 25%) of total consumption in delivered electricity. So, capacity doesn’t even need to double, let alone increase 5-fold.

    • Oystein Lande

      Zephir, a gasoline engine has some 20-25% efficiency converting hydrocarbon energy to movement.

      An electric car is some 90% efficient converting battery energy to movement.

      A natural gas fired el. Generation plant may have be some 60% effiency if they use exhuast heat recovery to generate more power, which many does.

      So you see, it’s much more to go all electric, than to keep on with the old polluting internal combustion engines.

      The Future is electric. And LENR will be used in larger powerplants to produce electricity for distribution, not in cars.

      • Zephir

        /* An electric car is some 90% efficient converting battery energy to movement. */

        The efficiency of electricity production from fossil fuels is just 40 – 45%. Another 10 – 15% is wasted in grid and transformers. The effectiveness of charging and discharging cycle of lithium is about 60 – 70%. And the manufacturing of electric cars is way more energy hungry (which is why they’re still way more expensive). From all this follows, that until most of electricity remains produced from fossil fuels, then the usage of electric cars doesn’t improve the fossil fuel utilization – on the contrary: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS
        After years of renewable implementation the fossil fuel share remains the same, or it even increases – I’m just explaining, why it is so.

      • Zephir

        /* An electric car is some 90% efficient converting battery energy to movement. */

        This is just one efficiency number in the product of another ones. The efficiency of electricity production from fossil fuels is just 40 – 45%. Another 10 – 15% is wasted in grid and transformers. The effectiveness of charging and discharging cycle of lithium is about 60 – 70% = this gives 0.9 x 0.45 x 0.9 x 0.65 = 0.23 i.e. 23% total efficiency. And we shouldn’t neglect the fact, that the manufacturing of electric cars is more resources and energy hungry (which is the main reason, why the electromobiles are still more 2 – 3x more expensive than the gasoline cars of the same class).

        From all this follows, that until most of electricity remains produced from fossil fuels, the usage of electric cars doesn’t improve the fossil fuel utilization – on the contrary: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS After years of renewable implementation the fossil fuel share remains the same, or it even increases. These are real numbers – and I’m just explaining, why it is so. The electromobility and renewables increase the global warming and greenhouse pollution instead of decrease.

        • Oystein Lande

          Zephir, your numbers are not right.

          What you question is the well to wheel efficiency. It is much much higher for electrical cars.

          One example of the math can be found here:

          https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/wells-to-wheels-electric-car-efficiency/

        • John Williamson

          I found 80 – 90 % charge/discharge for Li, 6% for grid and distribution. Moreover, the 20% for ICEs does not account for energy that goes into refining and distributing gasoline. Again, people do these comparisons and show their work. EVs on average come out ahead *now*, and the lead will only grow.

  • Omega Z

    ICE engines are a simple swap as well for those who are skilled. I know a few that can do that in a single day. Electric motors don’t do well in the extreme cold. They pull a lot more amps. Also batteries don’t do well in extreme heat or cold. They are a fair whether device.

  • Omega Z

    Already in the works and already on the books in several states. A mileage tax. It just hasn’t been activated yet…

  • Oystein Lande

    Here some data from the International Energy Agency on diesel vs. Electrical car well to wheel efficiency

    Electric vehicle Nissan Leaf

    – energy consumption 0.21 kWh/km (motoring magazine TM 2012)
    – transmission losses 5 %
    – total energy consumption 0.22 kWh/km (well-to-wheel WTW, renewable electricity)
    – total energy consumption 0.55 kWh/km (well-to-wheel WTW, gas turbine power plant)

    Diesel car VW Golf 1.6 D Blue Motion Technology

    – factual fuel consumption 5.0 l/100 km (own experience)
    – energy consumption 1.80 MJ/km (0,50 kWh)
    – total energy consumption 0.60 kWh/km (WTW)

    As shown above, even with pure fossil fuel electricity changing the EV, it will be better than the lowest consumption diesel car.

    Now then, electricity is produced by al large degree from nuclear, Hydro, wind and solar, which means EV will be much better than the best performing fossil fuel cars.

  • Bob Greenyer
  • we want LENR Fusione Fredda
  • Bob Greenyer

    NOVA – Plan is to have not 1, not two but 3 reactors on test.

    The new addition has a fine, MW impenetrable mesh that will allow great visuals of the plasma (as seen in photo below).

    We are waiting on the University to confirm that the laboratories will have finished their repairs next week (they have been replacing wiring for some time) so we can plan to use the machines to do the testing. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d1c65611a98ff178c03f4441c9a66ad9884c505639bee6ff98704568c61287b5.jpg

  • Axil Axil
  • Bob Greenyer
  • Bob Greenyer

    MFMP to get access to a wide array of analytical tools to up their analysis options.

    https://youtu.be/IhqAZQT9dCM

    https://www.fei.com/news/fei-releases-new-helios-nanolab-g3-dualbeam/

  • EEStorFanFibb

    Europe’s largest oil company buys Europe’s largest electric vehicle charging network

    https://www.treehugger.com/cars/shell-oil-just-bought-one-europes-largest-electric-vehicle-charging-networks.html

  • EEStorFanFibb

    https://www.thetruckersreport.com/infographics/cost-of-trucking/

    hmmm… 49% of cost of trucking is fuel and maintenance. EV trucking will save trucking companies a LOT of money.

  • EEStorFanFibb

    Surging Solar Spell Market Doom for Fossil Fuels

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/23/electric-cars-and-surging-solar-spell-market-doom-fossil-fuels

    I don’t mean to push people’s buttons with this well referenced article, but some people hanging here clearly need to open their eyes to the increasing cost effectiveness of solar.

    in case you can’t be bothered to click, here’s the money shot quote:

    “The head of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) told Reuters the industry expects the costs of solar power to fall a notable amount over the next 10 years.

    “In the next decade, the cost of (utility scale) solar could fall by 60 percent or more,” IRENA director general Adnan Amin said.”

    This is of course AFTER already falling a similar amount over the past 5 years.