Volvo is Eliminating Internal Combustion Engines By 2019 (Going Electric)

[Benny B]

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.

[MU82]

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!

[B. McBannerson]

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

[B. McBannerson]

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

[mu03eng]

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 

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

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.

[Spotcheck Billy]

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.

[tower912]

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. 

[MarquetteDano]

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.

[jsglow]

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.

[Spotcheck Billy]

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

[Benny B]

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.

[mikekinsellaMVP]

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 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.

[MU82]

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.

[mu_hilltopper]

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.

[jsglow]

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?

[forgetful]

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. 

[MarquetteDano]

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.