The Auto Industry is going to see an absolutely gut-wrenching change in the next few years. Then every other industry will see something similar.
Volvo Vaults to Volts, Planning to Pull Plug on Gasoline Engines
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-05/volvo-cars-joins-electric-race-with-plan-for-five-battery-models
Swedish carmaker's new models all electrified starting 2019
Tighter emissions rules spur longer ranges, cooler designs
As it turns out, news of the death of the internal combustion engine may not be very exaggerated after all. On Wednesday, Volvo Car Group said it expects to soon start phasing out vehicles powered solely by fossil fuels, joining a parade of manufacturers in shifting toward electrics more quickly than most in the industry expected a few years back. Volvo says it plans to offer only hybrid or full-electric motors on every new model launched in 2019 or later, including five electrics it expects in its lineup by 2021.
How did Wall Street respond to this news? It destroyed the auto-parts company stocks.
Car parts sellers' stocks fall as O'Reilly, Volvo news cast a pall over sector
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/car-parts-sellers-stocks-fall-as-oreilly-volvo-news-cast-a-pall-over-sector-2017-07-05
O'Reilly Automotive's stock suffers biggest-ever one-day selloff
Shares of auto parts retailers took deep dives on Wednesday after O'Reilly Automotive Inc.'s sales warning and Volvo's plan to phase out conventional combustion engines cast a pall over the sector. O'Reilly's stock (ORLY) plunged $41.64, or 18.9%, to suffer the biggest one-day price and percentage decline since it went public in April 1993.
O'Reilly Plunges After Sales Miss Estimates
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-05/o-reilly-plunges-as-sales-miss-shows-retail-slump-dragging-on
Demand slows for sector as threats loom from Amazon, dealers
Stock rout suggests 'something bigger going on,' analyst says
The point is this news is being taken deadly seriously and not being dismissed in the least.
I noted this in the Minimum wage thread
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=54395.msg935224#msg935224
Ford fired their CEO in May and replacing him with the head of their autonomous car unit. That because Ford wants to move as fast as humanly possible into driverless electric cars. They want to so radically remake their company that is will bear little resemblence to today's company.
I'll let Bill Ford, Chairman of Ford (and owner of the Lions) explain
https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2017/05/22/ford-appoints-jim-hackett-as-ceo.html
"We're moving from a position of strength to transform Ford for the future," Bill Ford said. "Jim Hackett is the right CEO to lead Ford during this transformative period for the auto industry and the broader mobility space. He's a true visionary who brings a unique, human-centered leadership approach to our culture, products, and services that will unlock the potential of our people and our business."
Executive Chairman Bill Ford Jr. and the board have been unhappy with the company's performance and sought reassurance that investments in self-driving cars, electric vehicles and ride services would pay off. The Ford family controls the automaker through a special class of voting rights stock.
Ford Jr. told reporters at a news conference that the automaker needs to make decisions faster.
"We have to modernize the business" and move "decisively to address underperforming areas," he said.
Predictably one poster who works in the automotive industry dismissed all this stuff suggesting the pace of change will be glacially slow. I say predictably because sometimes the worst people to ask about this are those in that industry because they have a vested interest in seeing the status quo maintained, and that is what they always see. This is why new tech-oriented companies swoop in and take their business away from them (Uber/taxis). "Legacy companies" rationalize and dismiss until it is too late.
At least the auto industry gets it. Instead of rationalizing and dismissing, they are taking perfectly good businesses, like making cars with gasoline engines, and blowing them up out of fear they will get left in the station as the train of progress leaves without them.
This story is going to be repeated over and over in many different industries.
I would not buy an electric car until the battery can be recharged in under 5 minutes and have a driving range of at least 350 miles. I can also see the government taxing all cars by the mile and adding a road tax to our electric bills.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on July 08, 2017, 06:17:14 AM
I would not buy an electric car until the battery can be recharged in under 5 minutes and have a driving range of at least 350 miles. I can also see the government taxing all cars by the mile and adding a road tax to our electric bills.
I've been in a Tesla and they're incredibly nice -- and quiet. But basically it is an around town car and it takes all night to recharge one. The range probably is pushing 300 miles.
Unless the recharge technology grows exponentially, electric cars are around town cars and will not have the utility of an internal combustion engine.
As for taxing by the mile, are you from Illinois? Don't give our legislature any ideas.
IMHO, the electric car will be limited until there is a universal battery pack similar to what we use in power tools around the house. Once an infrastructure exists that allows you to swap out a spent battery for a charged one every 200-300 miles, then electric cars can completely replace internal combustion.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 07, 2017, 08:52:23 PM
The Auto Industry is going to see an absolutely gut-wrenching change in the next few years. Then every other industry will see something similar.
Volvo Vaults to Volts, Planning to Pull Plug on Gasoline Engines
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-05/volvo-cars-joins-electric-race-with-plan-for-five-battery-models
Swedish carmaker's new models all electrified starting 2019
Tighter emissions rules spur longer ranges, cooler designs
As it turns out, news of the death of the internal combustion engine may not be very exaggerated after all. On Wednesday, Volvo Car Group said it expects to soon start phasing out vehicles powered solely by fossil fuels, joining a parade of manufacturers in shifting toward electrics more quickly than most in the industry expected a few years back. Volvo says it plans to offer only hybrid or full-electric motors on every new model launched in 2019 or later, including five electrics it expects in its lineup by 2021.
How did Wall Street respond to this news? It destroyed the auto-parts company stocks.
Car parts sellers' stocks fall as O'Reilly, Volvo news cast a pall over sector
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/car-parts-sellers-stocks-fall-as-oreilly-volvo-news-cast-a-pall-over-sector-2017-07-05
O'Reilly Automotive's stock suffers biggest-ever one-day selloff
Shares of auto parts retailers took deep dives on Wednesday after O'Reilly Automotive Inc.'s sales warning and Volvo's plan to phase out conventional combustion engines cast a pall over the sector. O'Reilly's stock (ORLY) plunged $41.64, or 18.9%, to suffer the biggest one-day price and percentage decline since it went public in April 1993.
O'Reilly Plunges After Sales Miss Estimates
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-05/o-reilly-plunges-as-sales-miss-shows-retail-slump-dragging-on
Demand slows for sector as threats loom from Amazon, dealers
Stock rout suggests 'something bigger going on,' analyst says
The point is this news is being taken deadly seriously and not being dismissed in the least.
I noted this in the Minimum wage thread
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=54395.msg935224#msg935224
Ford fired their CEO in May and replacing him with the head of their autonomous car unit. That because Ford wants to move as fast as humanly possible into driverless electric cars. They want to so radically remake their company that is will bear little resemblence to today's company.
I'll let Bill Ford, Chairman of Ford (and owner of the Lions) explain
https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2017/05/22/ford-appoints-jim-hackett-as-ceo.html
"We're moving from a position of strength to transform Ford for the future," Bill Ford said. "Jim Hackett is the right CEO to lead Ford during this transformative period for the auto industry and the broader mobility space. He's a true visionary who brings a unique, human-centered leadership approach to our culture, products, and services that will unlock the potential of our people and our business."
Executive Chairman Bill Ford Jr. and the board have been unhappy with the company's performance and sought reassurance that investments in self-driving cars, electric vehicles and ride services would pay off. The Ford family controls the automaker through a special class of voting rights stock.
Ford Jr. told reporters at a news conference that the automaker needs to make decisions faster.
"We have to modernize the business" and move "decisively to address underperforming areas," he said.
Predictably one poster who works in the automotive industry dismissed all this stuff suggesting the pace of change will be glacially slow. I say predictably because sometimes the worst people to ask about this are those in that industry because they have a vested interest in seeing the status quo maintained, and that is what they always see. This is why new tech-oriented companies swoop in and take their business away from them (Uber/taxis). "Legacy companies" rationalize and dismiss until it is too late.
At least the auto industry gets it. Instead of rationalizing and dismissing, they are taking perfectly good businesses, like making cars with gasoline engines, and blowing them up out of fear they will get left in the station as the train of progress leaves without them.
This story is going to be repeated over and over in many different industries.
The article doesn't say what your click bait headline says.
Electric cars are a big part of the future. They are coming and relatively soon. What isn't coming anytime soon is a radical change to a distribution model that excludes dealers. At least not for those manufacturers that are currently operating under that model.
Oh, and using Volvo as some indicator of broader industry trends is amusing. They have 0.4% market share and have sold fewer cars this year than the mighty Dodge brand sold in June. What they do doesn't matter in the broader scheme of things.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on July 08, 2017, 06:17:14 AM
I would not buy an electric car until the battery can be recharged in under 5 minutes and have a driving range of at least 350 miles. I can also see the government taxing all cars by the mile and adding a road tax to our electric bills.
The article says hybrid or electric, so the internal combustion engines are not going away (hybrids still use an internal combustion engine), and the hybrids have as much range as you want.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on July 08, 2017, 08:08:01 AM
The article doesn't say what your click bait headline says.
Electric cars are a big part of the future. They are coming and relatively soon. What isn't coming anytime soon is a radical change to a distribution model that excludes dealers. At least not for those manufacturers that are currently operating under that model.
Oh, and using Volvo as some indicator of broader industry trends is amusing. They have 0.4% market share and have sold fewer cars this year than the mighty Dodge brand sold in June. What they do doesn't matter in the broader scheme of things.
Typical Heisy.
His attempts to show his superior knowledge inevitably fail.
Quote from: forgetful on July 08, 2017, 11:39:06 AM
The article says hybrid or electric, so the internal combustion engines are not going away (hybrids still use an internal combustion engine), and the hybrids have as much range as you want.
This.
I saw the same article. Adding hybrids makes the focus VERY different. I would guess that Volvo will produce mostly hybrids and VERY few electric-only, especially the first decade or so.
My wife drives a Hyundai Sonata Hybrid to and from work, a commute done mostly at 30-45 mph. She gets 650+ miles per tankful. The car is comfortable, quiet, reasonably fast and gets about 42 mpg.
This is the kind of car Volvo (and most others) will be developing for some time. Not until Tesla or somebody else shows you can mass-produce an affordable electric that has a great driving range and can sell big without government subsidies will there be a monumental shift. And even then, change will come gradually.
As for the tax issue ... I believe SC already has added a small tax (around $100/yr IIRC) for owners of hybrids and electrics to make up for lost gas-tax revenue, and NC is considering the same. It seemed outrageous when I first heard about it, but I guess it makes sense. If you are going to fund the roads with a gas tax, and the cars on the road are using less gas because of hybrid/elec technology, you have to come up with road-upkeep money somehow.
Quote from: MU82 on July 08, 2017, 02:34:05 PM
This.
I saw the same article. Adding hybrids makes the focus VERY different. I would guess that Volvo will produce mostly hybrids and VERY few electric-only, especially the first decade or so.
My wife drives a Hyundai Sonata Hybrid to and from work, a commute done mostly at 30-45 mph. She gets 650+ miles per tankful. The car is comfortable, quiet, reasonably fast and gets about 42 mpg.
This is the kind of car Volvo (and most others) will be developing for some time. Not until Tesla or somebody else shows you can mass-produce an affordable electric that has a great driving range and can sell big without government subsidies will there be a monumental shift. And even then, change will come gradually.
As for the tax issue ... I believe SC already has added a small tax (around $100/yr IIRC) for owners of hybrids and electrics to make up for lost gas-tax revenue, and NC is considering the same. It seemed outrageous when I first heard about it, but I guess it makes sense. If you are going to fund the roads with a gas tax, and the cars on the road are using less gas because of hybrid/elec technology, you have to come up with road-upkeep money somehow.
No internal combustion engines only in 2019. Hybrids and electrics only after that. 5 new models that are electric only in 2021. The auto-part companies were killed on the news.
Oh, and there is this ...
France to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/06/france-ban-petrol-diesel-cars-2040-emmanuel-macron-volvo
But, you're right, nothing here.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on July 08, 2017, 08:08:01 AM
The article doesn't say what your click bait headline says.
Electric cars are a big part of the future. They are coming and relatively soon. What isn't coming anytime soon is a radical change to a distribution model that excludes dealers. At least not for those manufacturers that are currently operating under that model.
Oh, and using Volvo as some indicator of broader industry trends is amusing. They have 0.4% market share and have sold fewer cars this year than the mighty Dodge brand sold in June. What they do doesn't matter in the broader scheme of things.
You work in the auto industry and your first instruct is to rationalize and dismiss. This is the exact mentality that destroyed retailing, taxis, hotels, advertising, etc.
And this is the same mentality that Mark Fields had at Ford. Now he is the former CEO.
Good luck to you.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on July 08, 2017, 06:17:14 AM
I would not buy an electric car until the battery can be recharged in under 5 minutes and have a driving range of at least 350 miles. I can also see the government taxing all cars by the mile and adding a road tax to our electric bills.
Battery swap in less than 5 minutes will be the answer.
Telsa also has rapid charging station around the country that can recharge in under 30 minutes.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 08, 2017, 03:20:49 PM
You work in the auto industry and your first instruct is to rationalize and dismiss. This is the exact mentality that destroyed retailing, taxis, hotels, advertising, etc.
And this is the same mentality that Mark Fields had at Ford. Now he is the former CEO.
Good luck to you.
Thanks!
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 08, 2017, 03:20:49 PM
You work in the auto industry and your first instruct is to rationalize and dismiss. This is the exact mentality that destroyed retailing, taxis, hotels, advertising, etc.
And this is the same mentality that Mark Fields had at Ford. Now he is the former CEO.
Good luck to you.
"destroyed"? So those industries are non-existent now?
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 08, 2017, 03:17:58 PM
No internal combustion engines only in 2019. Hybrids and electrics only after that. 5 new models that are electric only in 2021. The auto-part companies were killed on the news.
Oh, and there is this ...
France to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/06/france-ban-petrol-diesel-cars-2040-emmanuel-macron-volvo
But, you're right, nothing here.
Dearest Smuggles:
Please show me where anything I wrote in my post said
NOTHING HERE. If you can, I will buy you $1,000 worth of AAPL. But you can't, so I'll take the $1,000 worth of your favorite stock. Thanks!
As usual, you take an interesting subject that has merit and exaggerate the hell out of it. And then you double down by taking a response to your post and reading too much into that before delivering an inaccurate, silly line.
But hey ... That's our Smuggles!
Love,
MU82
Replacing the Motor Fuel Tax is an interesting debate. I honestly think the only solution is a per car tax. The current model is broken already and only continues to further under fund.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 08, 2017, 03:22:50 PM
Battery swap in less than 5 minutes will be the answer.
Telsa also has rapid charging station around the country that can recharge in under 30 minutes.
I would imagine that would require the government to mandate that all manufacturers use a standard battery pack, thereby eliminating competition and new innovative battery technology.
I think a standard will be adopted, but I highly doubt it will stop innovation. There will be a constant challenge to get more capacity in a given size. IMO, we are at least a decade away from this level of development and the creation of an adequate infrastructure to support the recharging and quick swap outs.
Quote from: jesmu84 on July 08, 2017, 05:20:12 PM
"destroyed"? So those industries are non-existent now?
profitability and outlook
Quote from: MU82 on July 08, 2017, 02:34:05 PM
This.
I saw the same article. Adding hybrids makes the focus VERY different. I would guess that Volvo will produce mostly hybrids and VERY few electric-only, especially the first decade or so.
My wife drives a Hyundai Sonata Hybrid to and from work, a commute done mostly at 30-45 mph. She gets 650+ miles per tankful. The car is comfortable, quiet, reasonably fast and gets about 42 mpg.
This is the kind of car Volvo (and most others) will be developing for some time. Not until Tesla or somebody else shows you can mass-produce an affordable electric that has a great driving range and can sell big without government subsidies will there be a monumental shift. And even then, change will come gradually.
As for the tax issue ... I believe SC already has added a small tax (around $100/yr IIRC) for owners of hybrids and electrics to make up for lost gas-tax revenue, and NC is considering the same. It seemed outrageous when I first heard about it, but I guess it makes sense. If you are going to fund the roads with a gas tax, and the cars on the road are using less gas because of hybrid/elec technology, you have to come up with road-upkeep money somehow.
I get 48mpg in my diesel. But I only get around 550 per tank. How big is her tank?
Quote from: #UnleashRowsey on July 08, 2017, 08:59:07 PM
I get 48mpg in my diesel. But I only get around 550 per tank. How big is her tank?
Doesn't matter how big her tank is...only how she uses it.
Quote from: #UnleashRowsey on July 08, 2017, 08:59:07 PM
I get 48mpg in my diesel. But I only get around 550 per tank. How big is her tank?
Let's find out how big her trunk is first!
Fake news. Not what the article says at all. Many correctives since it was published. Internal combustion engines continue for the medium term at Volvo as part of hybrids (as others have pointed out).
What actually is interesting is to follow the money - the real story is Chinese ownership interest in Volvo and the impact that has on direction of company, including where vehicles are manufactured (including those bound for USA).
Quote from: tower912 on July 08, 2017, 08:01:57 PM
I think a standard will be adopted, but I highly doubt it will stop innovation. There will be a constant challenge to get more capacity in a given size. IMO, we are at least a decade away from this level of development and the creation of an adequate infrastructure to support the recharging and quick swap outs.
Are not the batteries in an all electric car the major component contributing to the weight of the car? If true, I would like to know how, "quick", will be defined and where will these "packs" be located in the automobile for the swap out.
Quote from: PTM on July 08, 2017, 06:37:18 PM
Replacing the Motor Fuel Tax is an interesting debate. I honestly think the only solution is a per car tax. The current model is broken already and only continues to further under fund.
a mileage tax is likely IMO, I believe some states are already experimenting with this
Quote from: Waldo Jeffers on July 09, 2017, 09:30:49 AM
a mileage tax is likely IMO, I believe some states are already experimenting with this
That would be fairer. I only drove my car about 6,000 miles a year. A per car tax is not as equitable.
Quote from: Waldo Jeffers on July 09, 2017, 09:30:49 AM
a mileage tax is likely IMO, I believe some states are already experimenting with this
I think it's the most sensible, but least likely.
Not many people are going to be thrilled with the government tracking their mileage.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on July 09, 2017, 08:46:35 AM
Are not the batteries in an all electric car the major component contributing to the weight of the car? If true, I would like to know how, "quick", will be defined and where will these "packs" be located in the automobile for the swap out.
In the 'frunk' where the combustion engine used to reside. Open the hood, take out the spent suitcase sized battery, replace it with a charged suitcase sized battery. Like I said, at least a decade and several generations of development away. In other words, battery technology isn't even close yet.
Quote from: forgetful on July 08, 2017, 11:39:06 AM
The article says hybrid or electric, so the internal combustion engines are not going away (hybrids still use an internal combustion engine), and the hybrids have as much range as you want.
The Op starter isn't telling whole story here and a number of you have properly pointed that out. Volvo, it should be mentioned, is owned by the Chinese now. One ranking has it 97th in the auto world. It isn't what it used to be, where it's niche marketing was safety. They don't own that persona any longer. This feels like a desperate move to grab headlines.
Key questions
1) Batteries. Where are the batteries going upon lifespan? Environmental question marks
2) Range a major issue
3) Recharge time. Even switchable batteries mean extra cost (multiple batteries) and constant regeneration which has environmental impacts
Tesla had legislation in Texas to support a direct sales model. It failed last month for the third time. You can't buy them in AZ, UT, CT and a few others. Dealer laws.
When I travel to California there are many on the road, but in talking to their owners it is range and recharge at the top of the list. That isn't Tesla alone, but any of the electric only vehicles.
Quite a way to go.
Quote from: #UnleashRowsey on July 08, 2017, 08:59:07 PM
I get 48mpg in my diesel. But I only get around 550 per tank. How big is her tank?
The Sonata Hybrid has a 15.8 gal tank.
Otherwise, leave Mrs. MU82 (aka MU83) out of this!
Quote from: PTM on July 09, 2017, 12:29:53 PM
I think it's the most sensible, but least likely.
Not many people are going to be thrilled with the government tracking their mileage.
It's an affront to large groups of people living in the suburbs that have no desire to live in the cities. Poor people that cannot afford to live in the cities are unduly harmed, as are people that make their living on the road. Those details may work themselves out. Support, even in liberal states like Oregon and California is below 30%. Some libertarians don't want it because the gov't is tracking citizens. Some conservatives see it as a money grab and a way to push people to live in urban areas. Some liberals have concerns about unduly hitting the poor who cannot afford to live in urban areas.
Oregon, California, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Delaware have or want to test it.
Quote from: 4or5yearstojudge on July 09, 2017, 07:06:55 PM
The Op starter isn't telling whole story here and a number of you have properly pointed that out. Volvo, it should be mentioned, is owned by the Chinese now. One ranking has it 97th in the auto world. It isn't what it used to be, where it's niche marketing was safety. They don't own that persona any longer. This feels like a desperate move to grab headlines.
Key questions
1) Batteries. Where are the batteries going upon lifespan? Environmental question marks
2) Range a major issue
3) Recharge time. Even switchable batteries mean extra cost (multiple batteries) and constant regeneration which has environmental impacts
Tesla had legislation in Texas to support a direct sales model. It failed last month for the third time. You can't buy them in AZ, UT, CT and a few others. Dealer laws.
When I travel to California there are many on the road, but in talking to their owners it is range and recharge at the top of the list. That isn't Tesla alone, but any of the electric only vehicles.
Quite a way to go.
But, but...according to someone here it should be no problem for ALL manufacturers to move to a direct sales model...I was told it would happen practically overnight... SMH
Quote from: 4or5yearstojudge on July 09, 2017, 07:21:53 PM
It's an affront to large groups of people living in the suburbs that have no desire to live in the cities. Poor people that cannot afford to live in the cities are unduly harmed, as are people that make their living on the road. Those details may work themselves out. Support, even in liberal states like Oregon and California is below 30%. Some libertarians don't want it because the gov't is tracking citizens. Some conservatives see it as a money grab and a way to push people to live in urban areas. Some liberals have concerns about unduly hitting the poor who cannot afford to live in urban areas.
Oregon, California, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Delaware have or want to test it.
A mileage tax is really nothing more than a usage tax. It is a way to get those who use the public roads most often to pay for them. A gas tax is a similar concept but as cars have become more fuel efficient, the revenues have decreased relatively.
This entire thread is becoming a good example of how entrenched thinking and "feet in clay" attitudes still exist and why so many industries get run over by new technology and the amazing number of people that do not get it and will continue to get run over.
When Will Electric Cars Go Mainstream? It May Be Sooner Than You Think
The New York Times
July 8, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/climate/electric-cars-batteries.html?ref=business&_r=0
As the world's automakers place larger bets on electric vehicle technology, many industry analysts are debating a key question: How quickly can plug-in cars become mainstream?
The conventional view holds that electric cars will remain a niche product for many years, plagued by high sticker prices and heavily dependent on government subsidies.
But a growing number of analysts now argue that this pessimism is becoming outdated. A new report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a research group, suggests that the price of plug-in cars is falling much faster than expected, spurred by cheaper batteries and aggressive policies promoting zero-emission vehicles in China and Europe.
Between 2025 and 2030, the group predicts, plug-in vehicles will become cost competitive with traditional petroleum-powered cars, even without subsidies and even before taking fuel savings into account. Once that happens, mass adoption should quickly follow.
Quote from: 4or5yearstojudge on July 09, 2017, 07:21:53 PM
It's an affront to large groups of people living in the suburbs that have no desire to live in the cities. Poor people that cannot afford to live in the cities are unduly harmed, as are people that make their living on the road. Those details may work themselves out. Support, even in liberal states like Oregon and California is below 30%. Some libertarians don't want it because the gov't is tracking citizens. Some conservatives see it as a money grab and a way to push people to live in urban areas. Some liberals have concerns about unduly hitting the poor who cannot afford to live in urban areas.
Oregon, California, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Delaware have or want to test it.
I was wondering what moniker you would respond with.
I will ignore the actual text because it makes little sense.
Heisy is quoting the New York "Fake News" Times? He must be getting desperate!
(I pray that teal is not necessary)
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on July 09, 2017, 08:58:33 PM
But, but...according to someone here it should be no problem for ALL manufacturers to move to a direct sales model...I was told it would happen practically overnight... SMH
If the dealers are going to rely on legislation to keep their business model going, suggesting their economics are uncompetitive (otherwise they would not need the legislation), they are doomed.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 10, 2017, 06:35:38 AM
If the dealers are going to rely on legislation to keep their business model going, suggesting their economics are uncompetitive (otherwise they would not need the legislation), they are doomed.
That is not the reason for the legislation.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on July 10, 2017, 06:41:45 AM
That is not the reason for the legislation.
Then explain...
Corruption Index: If A State Moves To Ban Tesla Direct Sales, It's A Sign Of Corruptionhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140311/15270526534/corruption-index-if-state-moves-to-ban-tesla-direct-sales-its-sign-corruption.shtml
States earn about 20 percent of all state sales taxes from auto dealers, and auto dealerships can easily account for 7-8 percent of all retail employment.... The bulk of these taxes (89 percent) are generated by new car dealerships, those with whom manufacturers deal directly. As a result, car dealerships, and especially local or state car dealership associations, have been able to exert influence over local legislatures. This has resulted in a set of state laws that almost guarantee dealership profitability and survival--albeit at the expense of manufacturer profits. Given these laws, manufacturers do have a financial interest in closing down new car dealerships, and in choosing which ones wil close. Additionally, available evidence and theory suggests that as a result of these laws, distribution costs and retail prices are higher than they otherwise would be; and this is particularly true for Detroit's Big Three car manufacturers--which is likely another factor contributing to their losses in market share vis-a-vis other manufacturers.
There is basically no valid reason for such laws. They serve no purpose other than to enrich local car dealership owners and state tax coffers at the expense of everyone else -- especially the public.
Quote from: tower912 on July 09, 2017, 01:17:47 PM
In the 'frunk' where the combustion engine used to reside. Open the hood, take out the spent suitcase sized battery, replace it with a charged suitcase sized battery. Like I said, at least a decade and several generations of development away. In other words, battery technology isn't even close yet.
Or maybe it is ... three new models that can get 500 miles a charge are coming in the next 18 months.
(https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod-us.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fd40d2cba-625f-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895?source=next&quality=highest&width=1180)
(https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod-us.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fb8b057e0-6263-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895?source=next&fit=scale-down&width=700)
All sorts of companies don't sell directly to the consumer and rely on retail outlets (either big box or online) to sell their products. For instance, you can't by a Sony television set directly from Sony. You can't by a can of green beans directly from DelMonte.
Are there efficiencies that could be wrung out of the dealer network? Sure. But I think we are seeing some of that already. There has been a huge consolidation of dealers over the past decade. Furthermore there has been a great deal of business practice improvement that the customer is demanding. Price transparency...less haggling...etc.
I think even if you got rid of the local laws, you wouldn't see a huge rush to have companies set up their own dealerships. Dealerships provide maintenance services, trade-in, warranty work, etc. I just don't think that is a business that most manufacturers want to get involved with.
Further consolidation I would agree with. A company like AutoMax becoming the Wal-Mart or Amazon of the dealership world? Yes. But just like most retail products, most companies realize that specializing in the manufacture of the products is best and let other companies deal with the sale of their products (under certain guidelines of course.)
Those supporting the rapid adoption of electric cars are missing something that won't allow it to happen so rapidly (probably 15-20 years away) and it doesn't have to do with the technology. The electrical infrastructure in this country will not support the mass adoption of electric vehicles.....we don't have enough generation capacity to support it, and further more we don't have the transmission infrastructure in place.....put that kind of load on the grid and you are just as likely to take the whole thing down. We're going to have to go distributed generation, which is fine but very expensive and time consuming which raises the TCO for an electric car.
One other note, I'm still waiting for the exposes on how dirty(environmentally) the battery industry is. Current battery technology requires metals that are far more rare then oil, so that might also limit mass adoption.
We all have our opinions, nothing wrong with that. You may not agree with my opinions, but to say it makes little sense is not accurate.
Pros and Cons to mileage tax. Fair article. https://www.mileiq.com/blog/mileage-tax-gas-tax/
Libertarian point of view against http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/04/dont-track-me-bro-glenn-reynolds-on-mile
Bad economic policy http://economics.about.com/od/taxesandeconomicgrowth/a/mileage_tax.htm
US Rep from CT has his view http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2017/02/21/ray-dunaway-an-argument-against-the-mileage-tax/
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 09, 2017, 09:34:55 PM
This entire thread is becoming a good example of how entrenched thinking and "feet in clay" attitudes still exist and why so many industries get run over by new technology and the amazing number of people that do not get it and will continue to get run over.
When Will Electric Cars Go Mainstream? It May Be Sooner Than You Think
The New York Times
July 8, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/climate/electric-cars-batteries.html?ref=business&_r=0
As the world's automakers place larger bets on electric vehicle technology, many industry analysts are debating a key question: How quickly can plug-in cars become mainstream?
The conventional view holds that electric cars will remain a niche product for many years, plagued by high sticker prices and heavily dependent on government subsidies.
But a growing number of analysts now argue that this pessimism is becoming outdated. A new report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a research group, suggests that the price of plug-in cars is falling much faster than expected, spurred by cheaper batteries and aggressive policies promoting zero-emission vehicles in China and Europe.
Between 2025 and 2030, the group predicts, plug-in vehicles will become cost competitive with traditional petroleum-powered cars, even without subsidies and even before taking fuel savings into account. Once that happens, mass adoption should quickly follow.
Do you read the articles you link? There are sections in there that say 2040, or may not be adopted at all. Completely counter to your cherry picking. None of us here know how this ends, we all have opinions and strong guesses.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 10, 2017, 07:40:20 AM
Or maybe it is ... three new models that can get 500 miles a charge are coming in the next 18 months.
In a gas vehicle, we go 500 miles, pull over and grab a gatorade while filling up for 5 minutes, throw another 500 if we want. That's today, that was 5 years ago, that was 20 years ago (mileage variances). Terrific that range improves, but that doesn't solve the long haul problem.
And how are we disposing of all these batteries and the environmental time bomb they pose?
Quote from: 4or5yearstojudge on July 10, 2017, 08:55:07 AM
We all have our opinions, nothing wrong with that. You may not agree with my opinions, but to say it makes little sense is not accurate.
Pros and Cons to mileage tax. Fair article. https://www.mileiq.com/blog/mileage-tax-gas-tax/
Libertarian point of view against http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/04/dont-track-me-bro-glenn-reynolds-on-mile
Bad economic policy http://economics.about.com/od/taxesandeconomicgrowth/a/mileage_tax.htm
US Rep from CT has his view http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2017/02/21/ray-dunaway-an-argument-against-the-mileage-tax/
The best comment was in the Economics link. Basically it's just easier to raise the gas tax.
Quote from: 4or5yearstojudge on July 10, 2017, 08:56:25 AM
Do you read the articles you link? There are sections in there that say 2040, or may not be adopted at all. Completely counter to your cherry picking. None of us here know how this ends, we all have opinions and strong guesses.
Do you know how to read the newspaper? Because they typical counter-points you cite is not the point of the article. It is the title and the first several paragraphs shown above.
Do you read MU basketball articles like this, pulling out every negative counter-point mentioned and conclude we are the worst team in D1 ball?
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 10, 2017, 09:15:55 AM
Do you know how to read the newspaper? Because they typical counter-points you cite is not the point of the article. It is the title and the first several paragraphs shown above.
Do you read MU basketball articles like this, pulling out every negative counter-point mentioned and conclude we are the worst team in D1 ball?
Do you read only the good points and only assume we have been a blur blood for the past 40 years?
I have no dog in this fight. I have no idea when and if electric cars will take over. But I'm pretty sure you're supposed to read the entire article, the good and the bad.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on July 10, 2017, 09:50:57 AM
Do you read only the good points and only assume we have been a blur blood for the past 40 years?
I have no dog in this fight. I have no idea when and if electric cars will take over. But I'm pretty sure you're supposed to read the entire article, the good and the bad.
And if you do that, it says they are coming much faster than you think. This was such important point that the title was ...
When Will Electric Cars Go Mainstream? It May Be Sooner Than You ThinkBut 4to5 is saying that is not the point at all. Around the 20th paragraph is offered some caveats so that means none of this is happening.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 10, 2017, 07:40:20 AM
Or maybe it is ... three new models that can get 500 miles a charge are coming in the next 18 months.
It says 500 km not miles.
Quote from: forgetful on July 10, 2017, 10:10:24 AM
It says 500 km not miles.
So it goes 90 miles less than my 2005 Altima goes on a tank of gas...for a road trip that means at least one extra stop for any trip over 600 miles.
It will likely never be simple to swap out depleted batteries for fully charged ones. The batteries are the heaviest component so they are located under the floor for stability.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 10, 2017, 10:08:15 AM
And if you do that, it says they are coming much faster than you think. This was such important point that the title was ...
When Will Electric Cars Go Mainstream? It May Be Sooner Than You Think
But 4to5 is saying that is not the point at all. Around the 20th paragraph is offered some caveats so that means none of this is happening.
Well I can't believe any of this. It was written by a journalist and they have no value!
Which is why I say it is several generations of battery technology away. Which, unless some other rapid charge method is found, will relegate electric cars to second-car or boutique status for the foreseeable future. A coworker owns a Leaf and a Prius. His wife refuses to drive the leaf because of range anxiety. Every day at work, I hear this debate about adequate range and range anxiety playing out. It is the hurdle electric cars must overcome.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on July 10, 2017, 10:23:07 AM
Well I can't believe any of this. It was written by a journalist and they have no value!
They have no monetary value, not worth paying for, and no one does.
Does not mean they are wrong.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 10, 2017, 10:28:39 AM
They have no monetary value, not worth paying for, and no one does.
Does not mean they are wrong.
Firstly, I consume your content for free, does that mean you have no value?
Secondly, there are plenty of news organizations that are making money that you have to pay for. If you want to argue that journalists are terrible at business, I'm fine with that, but their inability to monetize is not a direct correlation to the value they provide.
Quote from: mu03eng on July 10, 2017, 10:14:55 AM
So it goes 90 miles less than my 2005 Altima goes on a tank of gas...for a road trip that means at least one extra stop for any trip over 600 miles.
How many time is a year this a problem? Studies show only a small fraction of drivers is this an issue.
Quote from: mu03eng on July 10, 2017, 10:39:52 AM
Firstly, I consume your content for free, does that mean you have no value?
Secondly, there are plenty of news organizations that are making money that you have to pay for. If you want to argue that journalists are terrible at business, I'm fine with that, but their inability to monetize is not a direct correlation to the value they provide.
Would you pay for it? If not, then it has no value. I would not pay for you either.
To your second point ... not really. They exist because rich people like Carlos Slim (New York Times) and Jeff Bezos (Washington Post) are de facto patrons that keep them alive. They have non-monetary motivations for doing it.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 10, 2017, 10:40:37 AM
How many time is a year this a problem? Studies show only a small fraction of drivers is this an issue.
At least 4 or 5 times a year, and it's exacerbated by the fact that more frequent stops means you have to have charging/swapping stations at least as frequently as current gas station which is a huge amount of infrastructure to build. It then becomes a chicken or egg thing.....do you build the infrastructure assuming that the mass of cars able to use it will come as a result or do you have to get the mass of cars on the road so the infrastructure will follow? And keep in mind that the cost of putting of an electric charging station is going to be significantly more expensive in the short and medium term than are gas stations.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 10, 2017, 10:43:39 AM
Would you pay for it? If not, then it has no value. I would not pay for you either.
To your second point ... not really. They exist because rich people like Carlos Slim (New York Times) and Jeff Bezos (Washington Post) are de facto patrons that keep them alive. They have non-monetary motivations for doing it.
I'm really glad your world view isn't reality, that world would suck.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 10, 2017, 10:43:39 AM
Would you pay for it? If not, then it has no value. I would not pay for you either.
Well, at least you admit your posts have no value.
It's a start.
Of course, the notion that the only things of value in this world are the things one pays for is kind of pathetic.
Besides being obviously false.
Quote from: mu03eng on July 10, 2017, 08:02:47 AM
One other note, I'm still waiting for the exposes on how dirty(environmentally) the battery industry is. Current battery technology requires metals that are far more rare then oil, so that might also limit mass adoption.
Fair point but if we are talking about economic externalities, what is the true cost of a gallon of gas? Given that we have consistently relied on foreign sources for decades what do we spend as tax payers on securing oil all throughout the planet? The advantage of electric cars isn't just environmental but reducing our reliance on foreigners to run our economy.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on July 10, 2017, 11:02:04 AM
Fair point but if we are talking about economic externalities, what is the true cost of a gallon of gas? Given that we have consistently relied on foreign sources for decades what do we spend as tax payers on securing oil all throughout the planet? The advantage of electric cars isn't just environmental but reducing our reliance on foreigners to run our economy.
If it was 1985, I'd completely agree with you but between shale oil, natural gas, alternative generation sources, etc US is very close to achieving energy independence.
Further, the majority of the rare earth metals needed for battery production are found in China....feels like would be trading one bad actor for another.
Quote from: tower912 on July 10, 2017, 10:27:15 AM
Which is why I say it is several generations of battery technology away. Which, unless some other rapid charge method is found, will relegate electric cars to second-car or boutique status for the foreseeable future. A coworker owns a Leaf and a Prius. His wife refuses to drive the leaf because of range anxiety. Every day at work, I hear this debate about adequate range and range anxiety playing out. It is the hurdle electric cars must overcome.
I also am curious of the effects of our cold winters regarding range anxiety.
Quote from: 4or5yearstojudge on July 10, 2017, 08:55:07 AM
We all have our opinions, nothing wrong with that. You may not agree with my opinions, but to say it makes little sense is not accurate.
Pros and Cons to mileage tax. Fair article. https://www.mileiq.com/blog/mileage-tax-gas-tax/
Libertarian point of view against http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/04/dont-track-me-bro-glenn-reynolds-on-mile
Bad economic policy http://economics.about.com/od/taxesandeconomicgrowth/a/mileage_tax.htm
US Rep from CT has his view http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2017/02/21/ray-dunaway-an-argument-against-the-mileage-tax/
The arugment against it is based upon how to track it. I said it's the most sensible, but least likely. It's least likely because of the tracking, but most sensible because it is a true user fee.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 10, 2017, 10:43:39 AM
Would you pay for it? If not, then it has no value. I would not pay for you either.
To your second point ... not really. They exist because rich people like Carlos Slim (New York Times) and Jeff Bezos (Washington Post) are de facto patrons that keep them alive. They have non-monetary motivations for doing it.
Minor things like freedom.
Regardless of what one thinks timeline wise for conversion to an electric economy, a wise investment is in property with mineral rights in areas that have/may have lithium deposits.
Quote from: mu03eng on July 10, 2017, 11:12:13 AM
If it was 1985, I'd completely agree with you but between shale oil, natural gas, alternative generation sources, etc US is very close to achieving energy independence.
Further, the majority of the rare earth metals needed for battery production are found in China....feels like would be trading one bad actor for another.
We have increased production which is great but to think we will not need foreign actors for a long time is not being realistic. We still import 8 million barrels today with all of shale, natural gas, alternatives, etc. included.
I also don't believe most car companies use rare earths on their batteries. I am sure they use them on electronics within the car but gas powered use those too.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on July 10, 2017, 02:03:16 PM
We have increased production which is great but to think we will not need foreign actors for a long time is not being realistic. We still import 8 million barrels today with all of shale, natural gas, alternatives, etc. included.
I also don't believe most car companies use rare earths on their batteries. I am sure they use them on electronics within the car but gas powered use those too.
Electric vehicles use permanent magnets that need neodymium, praseodymium and dysprosium as well as Graphite (not rare either). Also electric car batteries use Lithium as a cathode which, while not rare earth doesn't come in readily accessible quantities, is very dirty to mine, and China is the largest supplier to date.
Quote from: mu03eng on July 10, 2017, 02:17:37 PM
Electric vehicles use permanent magnets that need neodymium, praseodymium and dysprosium as well as Graphite (not rare either). Also electric car batteries use Lithium as a cathode which, while not rare earth doesn't come in readily accessible quantities, is very dirty to mine, and China is the largest supplier to date.
Okay. We are.not going to agree on this. So you are stating that EVs do us no good because importing foreign oil is better than or no worse than whatever components we have to import to make electric vehicles and EVs cause just as much damage to the environment as the oil does.
The electric car must be a total joke in your eyes.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on July 10, 2017, 03:32:04 PM
Okay. We are.not going to agree on this. So you are stating that EVs do us no good because importing foreign oil is better than or no worse than whatever components we have to import to make electric vehicles and EVs cause just as much damage to the environment as the oil does.
The electric car must be a total joke in your eyes.
without tax subsidies from the government, EV and Hybrids are a joke from a cost perspective
Quote from: Waldo Jeffers on July 10, 2017, 03:35:17 PM
without tax subsidies from the government, EV and Hybrids are a joke from a cost perspective
Well Koch Industries (my client) gets a lot of subsidies in the oil business. Plus what is the externality cost of securing oil all throughout the planet. That costs tax $$ too.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on July 10, 2017, 03:32:04 PM
Okay. We are.not going to agree on this. So you are stating that EVs do us no good because importing foreign oil is better than or no worse than whatever components we have to import to make electric vehicles and EVs cause just as much damage to the environment as the oil does.
The electric car must be a total joke in your eyes.
Do you have one of these at your computer?
(https://danceswithfat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/jump-to-conclusions-mat.jpg)
I never said they were equally bad or that I'm anti-EV in any way. My point was about the number of issues that need to be resolved or mitigated prior a mass adoption and the elimination of the current paradigm. You'll note (or maybe you didn't since you used your mat) that I said that EV will be the standard in 20 years, hardly the viewpoint of someone who finds the vehicles to be a joke.
Quote from: mu03eng on July 10, 2017, 04:13:30 PM
Do you have one of these at your computer?
(https://danceswithfat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/jump-to-conclusions-mat.jpg)
I never said they were equally bad or that I'm anti-EV in any way. My point was about the number of issues that need to be resolved or mitigated prior a mass adoption and the elimination of the current paradigm. You'll note (or maybe you didn't since you used your mat) that I said that EV will be the standard in 20 years, hardly the viewpoint of someone who finds the vehicles to be a joke.
My apologies. I do agree it is going to take 15+ years for them to be feasible on a large scale. Though I think RIGHT NOW the environmental and foreign reliance advantages are there. Whether most consumers are willing to adopt (given range issues and other factors) will be interesting.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 10, 2017, 09:15:55 AM
Do you know how to read the newspaper? Because they typical counter-points you cite is not the point of the article. It is the title and the first several paragraphs shown above.
Do you read MU basketball articles like this, pulling out every negative counter-point mentioned and conclude we are the worst team in D1 ball?
I read basketball articles the same as I did your article, with balance. MU has negatives and positives. This article says MAY come sooner than you think with electric, but explains in some detail why it MAY not. Matt Velasquez will write about our solid shooting, or hustle, but could also talk about a porous defense. That's how I read, the entire thing without cherry picking.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 10, 2017, 10:40:37 AM
How many time is a year this a problem? Studies show only a small fraction of drivers is this an issue.
Say something catastrophic happens. An earthquake in California, power is out for weeks, you need to evacuate. Which car do you wish you had? A rare occurrence, but so is the need for using a gun at home, or practicing CPR on someone. Electric has a place in the mix, but I would never be solely reliant on it. I would always have a gasoline vehicle.
What are we doing with all the disposed of batteries and the enviro problems they cause?
Quote from: mu03eng on July 10, 2017, 02:17:37 PM
Electric vehicles use permanent magnets that need neodymium, praseodymium and dysprosium as well as Graphite (not rare either). Also electric car batteries use Lithium as a cathode which, while not rare earth doesn't come in readily accessible quantities, is very dirty to mine, and China is the largest supplier to date.
China is the largest
supplier of lithium, but not the largest
producer. That's because China has bought up a bunch of the mines in Australia (largest producer) and South America to augment their #3 producer status.
Rock Springs Uplift in Wyoming may change all of that, however. Potentially more lithium reserves there than the rest of the world combined.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 10, 2017, 10:43:39 AM
Would you pay for it? If not, then it has no value.
Thanks for finally admitting that you never say one damn thing of value!
I don't care if you think the same about me or Benny or JB or chicos or mu03eng or TAMU or rocket or anybody else. We do not brag about being "smug," and most of us do not pretend that we know everything about everything.
Valueless Smuggles. Has a nice ring to it!
Today's Wall Street Journal
"Electric Cars Are the Future? Not So Fast" by Greg Ip
https://www.wsj.com/articles/electric-cars-are-the-future-not-so-fast-1499873064
Earlier this week, a different Wall Street Journal article
"Electric Cars Need More Than Fans" by Spencer Jakab
https://www.wsj.com/articles/electric-cars-need-more-than-fans-1499419802
Quote from: MU82 on July 12, 2017, 07:29:47 PM
Thanks for finally admitting that you never say one damn thing of value!
I don't care if you think the same about me or Benny or JB or chicos or mu03eng or TAMU or rocket or anybody else. We do not brag about being "smug," and most of us do not pretend that we know everything about everything.
Valueless Smuggles. Has a nice ring to it!
I think you might have scared him away :o
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on July 08, 2017, 08:08:01 AM
The article doesn't say what your click bait headline says.
Electric cars are a big part of the future. They are coming and relatively soon. What isn't coming anytime soon is a radical change to a distribution model that excludes dealers. At least not for those manufacturers that are currently operating under that model.
Oh, and using Volvo as some indicator of broader industry trends is amusing. They have 0.4% market share and have sold fewer cars this year than the mighty Dodge brand sold in June. What they do doesn't matter in the broader scheme of things.
That's been news here in Connecticut for a few years. Tesla has been pushing the state to change laws to allow "internet sales" of cars instead of through a dealer. The state has refused to change as of now.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on July 07, 2017, 08:52:23 PM
The Auto Industry is going to see an absolutely gut-wrenching change in the next few years. Then every other industry will see something similar.
Volvo Vaults to Volts, Planning to Pull Plug on Gasoline Engines
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-05/volvo-cars-joins-electric-race-with-plan-for-five-battery-models
Swedish carmaker's new models all electrified starting 2019
Tighter emissions rules spur longer ranges, cooler designs
As it turns out, news of the death of the internal combustion engine may not be very exaggerated after all. On Wednesday, Volvo Car Group said it expects to soon start phasing out vehicles powered solely by fossil fuels, joining a parade of manufacturers in shifting toward electrics more quickly than most in the industry expected a few years back. Volvo says it plans to offer only hybrid or full-electric motors on every new model launched in 2019 or later, including five electrics it expects in its lineup by 2021.
[
not so sure about that, from: http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/kevin-libin-the-awesome-unstoppable-revolutionary-electric-car-revolution-doesnt-actually-exist/wcm/2a1f30a4-88f1-47c2-aba4-8b619c0129f0
Since 2010, Volvo's plan has been to focus on engines that were partly electric, with electric turbochargers, but still based on gasoline. Volvo doesn't actually have an all-electric model, but the gasoline-swigging engine of its popular XC90 SUV is, partly, electrical. When Volvo said all its models would in two years be "electric," it meant this kind of engine, not that it was phasing out the internal-combustion gasoline engine. But that is what it wanted reporters to think, and judging by all the massive and inaccurate coverage, it worked.
In June, Tesla was rocked by a controversial Swedish study that found that making one of its car batteries released as much CO2 as eight years of gasoline-powered driving. And Bloomberg reported last week on a study by Chinese engineers that found that electric vehicles, because of battery manufacturing and charging by fossil-fuel-powered electricity, emit 50-per-cent more carbon than do internal-combustion engines. Still, the electric-vehicle hype not only continues unabated, it gets bigger and louder every day. If some car company figures out how to harness it, we'd finally have a real automotive revolution on our hands.
At an undetermined point in the future, I believe that electric cars will surpass internal combustion vehicles. I think that point is still decades off. I believe that there are a number of monumental hurdles that will need to be overcome. In order, 1. Range anxiety. 2. Battery technology. (One and two are related). 3. Re-charging infrastructure. Be it portable batteries or rapid chargers, it will have to be as convenient as a gas station. 4. Disposal and recycling of spent batteries. 5. Solar cells on the horizontal surfaces.
I would be stunned if electric surpasses internal combustion in my lifetime. (I am 51) I think the niche will grow. But at this point, I cannot see a future where it is more than a second car. One internal combustion car that can be used for long trips, an electric car as the second car in the family for commuting and running errands in town. I think there will be a big push to hybrids, unless the Trump administration undoes the Obama administration's push for improved mileage standards.
Quote from: Waldo Jeffers on July 13, 2017, 03:38:25 PM
not so sure about that, from: http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/kevin-libin-the-awesome-unstoppable-revolutionary-electric-car-revolution-doesnt-actually-exist/wcm/2a1f30a4-88f1-47c2-aba4-8b619c0129f0
Since 2010, Volvo's plan has been to focus on engines that were partly electric, with electric turbochargers, but still based on gasoline. Volvo doesn't actually have an all-electric model, but the gasoline-swigging engine of its popular XC90 SUV is, partly, electrical. When Volvo said all its models would in two years be "electric," it meant this kind of engine, not that it was phasing out the internal-combustion gasoline engine. But that is what it wanted reporters to think, and judging by all the massive and inaccurate coverage, it worked.
In June, Tesla was rocked by a controversial Swedish study that found that making one of its car batteries released as much CO2 as eight years of gasoline-powered driving. And Bloomberg reported last week on a study by Chinese engineers that found that electric vehicles, because of battery manufacturing and charging by fossil-fuel-powered electricity, emit 50-per-cent more carbon than do internal-combustion engines. Still, the electric-vehicle hype not only continues unabated, it gets bigger and louder every day. If some car company figures out how to harness it, we'd finally have a real automotive revolution on our hands.
Weird. Just the other day a guy tried to kill himself by his Tesla by turning it on in his garage and left it on for 10 hours. Survived.
But I am sure the toxins created by making a EV s that much more than a gas powered car, refining oil, transporting oil, navies securing oil supplies, etc..
These studies are sounding a lot like the dangers of catalytic converters, smoking is completely safe, et al.
Quote from: tower912 on July 13, 2017, 08:14:36 PM
At an undetermined point in the future, I believe that electric cars will surpass internal combustion vehicles. I think that point is still decades off. I believe that there are a number of monumental hurdles that will need to be overcome. In order, 1. Range anxiety. 2. Battery technology. (One and two are related). 3. Re-charging infrastructure. Be it portable batteries or rapid chargers, it will have to be as convenient as a gas station. 4. Disposal and recycling of spent batteries. 5. Solar cells on the horizontal surfaces.
I would be stunned if electric surpasses internal combustion in my lifetime. (I am 51) I think the niche will grow. But at this point, I cannot see a future where it is more than a second car. One internal combustion car that can be used for long trips, an electric car as the second car in the family for commuting and running errands in town. I think there will be a big push to hybrids, unless the Trump administration undoes the Obama administration's push for improved mileage standards.
That's kind of how I see it. We have a good friend in the Bay area. He owns a Tesla. He also owns an internal combustion car. Says the compliment each other.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on July 14, 2017, 12:04:10 AM
Weird. Just the other day a guy tried to kill himself by his Tesla by turning it on in his garage and left it on for 10 hours. Survived.
I guess lower suicide rates with EV's would be a plus
Quote from: MarquetteDano on July 14, 2017, 12:04:10 AM
Weird. Just the other day a guy tried to kill himself by his Tesla by turning it on in his garage and left it on for 10 hours. Survived.
Almost fell out of my chair.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on July 14, 2017, 12:04:10 AM
Weird. Just the other day a guy tried to kill himself by his Tesla by turning it on in his garage and left it on for 10 hours. Survived.
But I am sure the toxins created by making a EV s that much more than a gas powered car, refining oil, transporting oil, navies securing oil supplies, etc..
These studies are sounding a lot like the dangers of catalytic converters, smoking is completely safe, et al.
Let's look at some numbers:
According to the DoE, the Tesla Model S requires 35 kWh of electricity to travel 100 miles. This is roughly the equivalent of 98 mpg from a
cost standpoint.
Now, the EPA emission factor for electrical generation on the U.S. grid is 1.55 pounds of CO
2 per kWh. That means 54 pounds of CO
2 are generated for a Model S to travel 100 miles.
By comparison, the EPA emission factor for gasoline consumption is 19.6 pounds of CO
2 per gallon. So for a combustion engine to produce 54 pounds of CO
2, it would have to consume 2.75 gallons of gasoline. If it did so over 100 miles, that would be a fuel economy of 36 mpg, something many combustion vehicles are capable of beating on open highway.
And before you cite the energy required to ship and refine that oil, realize that power generation has the same issues. (What do you think is moving the coal that 30% of our power comes from?) Not to mention the upwards of 15% loss in line transmission.
The problem to date with electric cars is that we're trading one dirty energy for another. (Or in the case of many hybrid owners, introducing a dirty battery with negligible emission reduction.) The question is how you use this information: does it justify your belief that alternative energy will never trump oil, or does it reinforce your belief that we aren't moving fast enough weaning ourselves from carbon-based energy?
If we really want a mass adoption of a "green" fleet, start with cleaning up the grid they'd be drawing power from.
Quote from: mikekinsellaMVP on July 14, 2017, 03:31:21 PM
Let's look at some numbers:
According to the DoE, the Tesla Model S requires 35 kWh of electricity to travel 100 miles. This is roughly the equivalent of 98 mpg from a cost standpoint.
Now, the EPA emission factor for electrical generation on the U.S. grid is 1.55 pounds of CO2 per kWh. That means 54 pounds of CO2 are generated for a Model S to travel 100 miles.
By comparison, the EPA emission factor for gasoline consumption is 19.6 pounds of CO2 per gallon. So for a combustion engine to produce 54 pounds of CO2, it would have to consume 2.75 gallons of gasoline. If it did so over 100 miles, that would be a fuel economy of 36 mpg, something many combustion vehicles are capable of beating on open highway.
And before you cite the energy required to ship and refine that oil, realize that power generation has the same issues. (What do you think is moving the coal that 30% of our power comes from?) Not to mention the upwards of 15% loss in line transmission.
The problem to date with electric cars is that we're trading one dirty energy for another. (Or in the case of many hybrid owners, introducing a dirty battery with negligible emission reduction.) The question is how you use this information: does it justify your belief that alternative energy will never trump oil, or does it reinforce your belief that we aren't moving fast enough weaning ourselves from carbon-based energy?
If we really want a mass adoption of a "green" fleet, start with cleaning up the grid they'd be drawing power from.
Very practical and informative post, mkMVP. Thanks.
Somewhat appropriate to the subject .. this is a great diagram / read.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/13/15268604/american-energy-one-diagram
The amount of "rejected energy" is astonishing.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on July 15, 2017, 06:20:12 AM
Somewhat appropriate to the subject .. this is a great diagram / read.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/13/15268604/american-energy-one-diagram
The amount of "rejected energy" is astonishing.
Really interesting. I'm thinking about it not from a carbon footprint standpoint but from an efficiency standpoint. (Maybe that's the same.) Consider this. Today the cost (inefficiency) of information flow has been transformed by the internet. I can now learn on my phone what I had to thumb through a library card catalog when I was in college. So we're way all more efficient now and the innovation curve has spiked. Be pretty cool if we could increase the efficiency of our energy conversion by anything approaching the same factor. Sure it won't happen in my lifetime but when your car's solar panel simply covers the roof and the vehicle runs forever it'll be a different and better world.
Now here's a key. To get us there, smart people need to be able to get rich. Really rich. And that's okay. It's how we got railroads and PCs and Facebook. How come that hasn't worked for Scoop?
Quote from: mikekinsellaMVP on July 14, 2017, 03:31:21 PM
Let's look at some numbers:
According to the DoE, the Tesla Model S requires 35 kWh of electricity to travel 100 miles. This is roughly the equivalent of 98 mpg from a cost standpoint.
Now, the EPA emission factor for electrical generation on the U.S. grid is 1.55 pounds of CO2 per kWh. That means 54 pounds of CO2 are generated for a Model S to travel 100 miles.
By comparison, the EPA emission factor for gasoline consumption is 19.6 pounds of CO2 per gallon. So for a combustion engine to produce 54 pounds of CO2, it would have to consume 2.75 gallons of gasoline. If it did so over 100 miles, that would be a fuel economy of 36 mpg, something many combustion vehicles are capable of beating on open highway.
And before you cite the energy required to ship and refine that oil, realize that power generation has the same issues. (What do you think is moving the coal that 30% of our power comes from?) Not to mention the upwards of 15% loss in line transmission.
The problem to date with electric cars is that we're trading one dirty energy for another. (Or in the case of many hybrid owners, introducing a dirty battery with negligible emission reduction.) The question is how you use this information: does it justify your belief that alternative energy will never trump oil, or does it reinforce your belief that we aren't moving fast enough weaning ourselves from carbon-based energy?
If we really want a mass adoption of a "green" fleet, start with cleaning up the grid they'd be drawing power from.
Great stuff.
It reminds me on a lot of the numbers on using "ethanol" as a cleaner fuel, but when you take into consideration all the costs related to making fertilizer, growing crops, harvesting and producing ethanol, it was at least for a long time worse for the environment.
Quote from: mikekinsellaMVP on July 14, 2017, 03:31:21 PM
Let's look at some numbers:
According to the DoE, the Tesla Model S requires 35 kWh of electricity to travel 100 miles. This is roughly the equivalent of 98 mpg from a cost standpoint.
Now, the EPA emission factor for electrical generation on the U.S. grid is 1.55 pounds of CO2 per kWh. That means 54 pounds of CO2 are generated for a Model S to travel 100 miles.
By comparison, the EPA emission factor for gasoline consumption is 19.6 pounds of CO2 per gallon. So for a combustion engine to produce 54 pounds of CO2, it would have to consume 2.75 gallons of gasoline. If it did so over 100 miles, that would be a fuel economy of 36 mpg, something many combustion vehicles are capable of beating on open highway.
And before you cite the energy required to ship and refine that oil, realize that power generation has the same issues. (What do you think is moving the coal that 30% of our power comes from?) Not to mention the upwards of 15% loss in line transmission.
The problem to date with electric cars is that we're trading one dirty energy for another. (Or in the case of many hybrid owners, introducing a dirty battery with negligible emission reduction.) The question is how you use this information: does it justify your belief that alternative energy will never trump oil, or does it reinforce your belief that we aren't moving fast enough weaning ourselves from carbon-based energy?
If we really want a mass adoption of a "green" fleet, start with cleaning up the grid they'd be drawing power from.
CO2 is only portion of the issues with gas powered vehicles. Remember LA in the seventies? Go to Saigon these days if you want to see how bad it is when there are too many gas powered vehicles. That isnt CO2 that people are choking on.
Medical studies even attribute some hearing loss to people who live in cities to vehicles. What is the cost of oil spills, water pollution from shale, etc.?
Focusing just on CO2 smacks of studies being done on behalf oil companies.