Innovation Drives Down the Cost of Powering Electric Cars
Americans are increasingly buying electric cars. Electrochemists and their innovations will drive down the cost of powering them.

Americans purchased more than 500,000 fully electric vehicles in the first three quarters of 2022, accounting for more than 6 percent of all U.S. vehicle sales. The Biden administration wants that number to exceed 50 percent domestically, and the International Energy Agency projects it to exceeed 60 percent globally by 2030. But getting those cars on the road—and storing increasing amounts of intermittent energy generated by solar panels, hydro plants, and wind turbines—would require a lot of lithium-ion batteries.
With current technology and lithium resources, that would be a daunting challenge. But ongoing battery innovation promises to address the gap.
Lithium prices rose from around $5,000 per ton in 2010 nominal dollars to more than $74,000 per ton in 2022. At the 2019 mining rate, according to a 2022 study by Simon Michaux, a professor at the Geological Survey of Finland, it would take more than 9,000 years to produce enough lithium to completely phase out all use of fossil fuels. Michaux also concluded that global reserves of other metals needed to replace fossil fuels—copper, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and vanadium—are "nowhere near adequate."
Michaux's neo-Malthusian projections did not take into account the creativity of inventors and entrepreneurs. Electrochemists are already addressing the shortfalls he described, and their work will drive down the cost of powering electric vehicles.
Natron Energy in the U.S. and CATL in China are working on sodium-ion batteries. At $960 per ton, sodium hydroxide is much cheaper than lithium. In 2022, CATL announced that its next generation of sodium-ion batteries will reach an energy density of 200 watt-hours per kilogram, which compares well with the 220 watt-hours per kilogram of current lithium-ion batteries. CATL's sodium-ion batteries could be as much as 75 percent cheaper per kilowatt-hour than lithium-ion batteries.
While sodium-ion batteries weigh more, CATL says they will charge in just 15 minutes, last through 3,000 charge cycles, and work well in the cold and heat. Lithium-ion batteries take 30 minutes to charge, last 1,500 cycles, and do not perform well in cold or heat.
What about storing energy for utilities? Form Energy in Somerville, Massachusetts, has developed a gigantic iron-air battery that it says can store more than 100 hours of solar and wind electricity. To discharge energy, oxygen entering the battery produces hydroxide ions that rust the iron pellets, sending electrons to the circuit. Recharging reverses the process, turning rust back into metal and releasing oxygen bubbles. The company projects that its battery packs will cost less than $20 per kilowatt-hour, making them competitive with legacy power plants.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If you are alone visit our web site for casual contacts with fine ladies in France Salopes sexy Nice
Is that "nice" or "neece"? Or maybe "niece"? Asking for a certain White House family.
The hefty weight of EVs versus ICE vehicles makes them more dangerous on the road as well as more damaging to the pavement.
Interesting. Last thing I heard was that ICE vehicles have become more and more unsafe as they've become lighter, since reduced weight is about the only way to squeeze miles out of the gas. Now making cars heavier is going to make them more dangerous? Can people make up their minds?
Force = mass * acceleration
A big, heavy EV plowing into another vehicle is worse than the same vehicle in ICE configuration.
Force = mass * acceleration
A big, heavy EV plowing into another vehicle is worse than the same vehicle in ICE configuration.
It isn’t Newton’s second law that makes a heavier vehicle more dangerous. It’s the increased kinetic energy KE=1/2mv^2. Just sayin
"It isn’t Newton’s second law that makes a heavier vehicle more dangerous. It’s the increased kinetic energy KE=1/2mv^2. Just sayin"
Hey, get with the times -- math is racist!!! To say nothing of physics! /sarc
One can divide the change in velocity by the time it takes for that change to occur for the acceleration (deceleration), then multiply that by the mass. One could integrate too for the area under the curve.
However one wants to use Newton’s laws, mass is part of the equation where a larger mass equates to a larger force.
It's okay Chumby, lots of people fail Physics I. Nothing to be ashamed of.
The energy needs to be applied for it to do something and that is force.
It’s ok sockpuppet, a few don’t have you blocked yet so nothing to be ashamed of.
Yes, but people driving ICE vehicles deserve to be killed by superior types in EVs.
It's "Oranges are round but bananas aren't, how can both be true?", a.k.a. "How stupid can I make myself look?" sarcasmic.
Easily work do it for everyone from home in part time and I have received $23K in last 4 weeks by easily online work from home.i work daily easily 3 to 4 hours a day in my spare time. everybody can do this job and makes more income online in part time by just open this link and follow instructions……....... https://salarybez4.blogspot.com/
The problem is that they have been reducing the body strength of cars to meet emission limits. EVs move that weight into the battery.
But to make up for that, they don't pay fuel taxes - - - - - - - -
Have not checked lately. As of about a year ago, some states required EV drivers to pay their “faire share” for using public roads and some did not. I want to say it was about two thirds of the states did something but I could be wrong.
The lone hybrid I drove as a fleet vehicle had tires with a particularly hard compound to eek out a few more mpg. Harder compound will wear the pavement more.
How many years of EV road tax will it take to recover the big subsidy provided for the original purchase?
Each state implemented their own version so the short answer is I don’t know. My recollection was that the EV road taxes were to approximate what ICE drivers are paying via the fuel tax. I don’t believe there was a component that worked to repay initial subsidies.
"...The lone hybrid I drove as a fleet vehicle had tires with a particularly hard compound to eek out a few more mpg..."
They're also pumped up to some very large PSI number.
The pressure is the wearing factor as it also reduces the contact patch. Much like truck tires they stress the roadway more. The compound reduces friction making the tire more "efficient" unless stopping is your main concern.
"But to make up for that, they don’t pay fuel taxes."
A legitimate concern. Look for large increases in vehicle registration fees, as an initial step.
>>makes them more dangerous on the road
absolutely this. running into the front of a Tesla is like hitting a tank
Avoid crashing into cars of any kind.
yes I do that. someone else hit the Tesla.
Wonder if men that transition to women experience declining driving skills as a result.
Especially if they decide to identify as Asian.
one-legged girl: Eileen
one-legged asian girl: Irene
Kaitlyn Jenner on line 2.
Please forward to Tony.
I thought that was how they knew. If they're shitty drivers they know they should transition.
if drives like Stroker Ace then likely doesn't want to don dress
absolutely this. running into the front of a Tesla is like hitting a tank
In that case, it’s better to be in the tank. Hell, you can even drive them off a cliff with your family and everyone will survive.
It's a Tesla, not a 1962 Volvo.
I don't know , man, power plants are pretty damn expensive and we're going to need a lot of them if we're going to electrify everything. Of course, we don't need any at all if we're planning on regressing to about 12,000 BC as I suspect the watermelons have in mind.
"I don’t know , man, power plants are pretty damn expensive and we’re going to need a lot of them if we’re going to electrify everything."
Yep, about three times the power production we have now. Look for a lot more nuclear power.
Clarification: Three times as many nuclear plants to replace petrol-powered plants.
Good. Nuclear is the way to go in general.
+
Agreed. If we put put half the effort into LFTRs or other safer nuclear as we do into renewables we could probably replace fossil fuels.
If we put put half the effort into LFTRs or other safer nuclear as we do into renewables we could probably replace fossil fuels.
In/on the grid. You'd still be "just another decade" away from fixing the energy density issues for transportation.
True. Lithium batteries only seem adequate for cars and small trucks so far and just barely. Better (yet undiscovered) methods of storing and accessing electricity with much higher energy densities are required for large vehicles and air transportation.
I was going to say your above is a gross underestimation of "electrify everything". This correction makes it even moreso.
If you just assume "take everything ICE, plug it in, add up line losses and grid effects" 3 sounds close. But not even 10 yrs. into the future will you be able to just plug everything ICE in and get equivalence. Even with not-yet-seen energy density batteries, your average EV semi will yield less than half the load capacity of your average ICE semi. Meaning either twice the trips or twice the semis but, either way, that's 2X before you plug anything into the wall or have to worry about running power out to the middle of nowhere that your freight truck is shipping to. *Only* 3X the number of petrol plants? NFW.
Now, if you exempt shipping, construction, and select portions of infrastructure (if your semis are half as efficient and/or you need twice as many of them, guess how many front end loaders, which are also less efficient mass-wise, it's going to take) out of "electrify everything" you might get closer to 3X.
None of which is to say we shouldn't go nuclear or use electric more prolifically, just that 3X of just petrol is *wildly* optimistic.
With twenty years to get a new nuclear plant approved before they even break ground.
Yes nuclear is the way to go, but it ain't gonna happen in this political climate. The Left hates it, the Right wants to keep subsidizing petroleum and natural gas.
NIMBY, cost of insurance and investment risk are all manor hurdles for new nuke plants being constructed in the US.
"...the Right wants to keep subsidizing petroleum and natural gas."
Why do lefty shits continue to lie about petroleum "subsidies"? Are they stupid or disingenuous?
It's a George W. Bush style "fight the (disinformation) war on their turf" tactic.
Gas taxes cover all kinds of things including no-shit, unequivocal subsidies to EVs but, if you start the argument as "Petroleum is subsidized!" you can cede a lot of ground before you have to worry about having to cover up the fact that they're effectively taxing ICE drivers to subsidize EV drivers in order to not fix climate change.
Imagine how much cheaper our foreign policy would be if we didn't have to cosy up to countries with large oil reserves.
You say this like oil was critically relevant, like Bush, with Biden's blessing, wasn't just engaging in ego wars, like we haven't effectively achieved energy independence/self-sufficience wrt oil, and like Biden decide to put an end to it and start his own ego wars and reliance if not critical dependence on foreign resources.
If you want to obfuscate for and side with every Neocon and leftist warhawk for the last 40 yrs. in defense of your religious devotion to not making things any better otherwise, be my guest.
Like Russia, asshole?
Imagine how much better the world would be if lying piles of lefty shit fucked off and died.
If Commiefornia actually implements is ban on ICE cars, the EV's that replace them would require an additional generating capacity, equivalent to nine, nuclear power plants.
Anyone think that's going to happen?
Well my tax bill doesn’t recognize any “savings”….
And rolling blackouts doesn’t recognize any new “innovation”….
Even my Power bill doesn’t reflect these amazing innovations….
Even my gas bill doesn’t reflect the new ?amazing? competition…
My putter-putter diesel emissions doesn’t reflect ?amazing? greatness…
And according to every Non-BS comparison; anything close to as big as a Ford Explorer is still more efficient as a hybrid. Isn’t it funny how EV didn’t first take off in the trucking industry where the MOST savings could occur?
As a matter of fact; they represent the EXACT opposite of “driving down” costs and greatness.
But hey; it might turn out to be a good thing… All except the MASSIVE armed-robbery part of it.
But we'll never know because so far armed-robbery (cost) is what's it's been dependent on.
Is it time to 'test' its *actual* value for real people yet????
A question gone UN-answered for over multiple decades.
Brings new meaning the the phrase, "Too big to fail" doesn't it.
We've got Gov-Guns for Armed-Robbery; You'll fail long before we do.
Brings new meaning the the phrase, “Too big to fail” doesn’t it.
Unprecedented. Social security may have it beat on longevity of scope, but it was only intended to address issues within our borders. The magnitude of the ESG's scope dwarfs TBTF bailouts by several orders of magnitude.
"...Isn’t it funny how EV didn’t first take off in the trucking industry where the MOST savings could occur?..."
And where the operators are looking for any tiny advantage they can find.
Isn’t it funny how EV didn’t first take off in the trucking industry where the MOST savings could occur?
I’ve made the point before; for pretty much every reason you can imagine EV scooters should absolutely dominate their portion of the vehicle market. The main scooter markets physically (as in, according to physics), organically (as in the people already live in the cities, nobody has to be forced to move closer to anywhere), and culturally (scooter drivers aren’t known for their cultural attachment to high-displacement ICEs) highlight all of EVs’ advantages and downplay all their weaknesses to consumers… except sticker price.
To wit, gas scooters still far outnumber EV scooters around the world. To the point that even in places where gas scooters are banned, people will still buy gas scooters even if they get seized because it’s cheaper than driving electric.
Sorta like fusion power has been 10 years away for the past 30 years?
I’ve managed $19930 in no more than 30 days through working job at my apartment. Just when I’ve lost my office position, I was so distressed but luckily I have searched this on-line task which is why I am ready to collect thousand USD from the comfort of my home.
Anyone can get this career and could get more money…..
Online heading… Following site……….......>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
The problem with Bailey's article, is that innovation drives down the cost of everything. Of course, as desire for something increases, so will the cost of it and its components, which the article clearly shows via the price of lithium ore.
ICE vehicles are far more efficient and inexpensive (in constant non-inflated dollars) than they were 20 years ago, thanks to innovation. And let's not forget, all the other attributes that matter such as vehicle range, comfort, flexibility (you're Tesla won't transport most BBQ grills, other large items for which a pickup is far better), and the purchasing of a status symbol to demonstrate conformity to TPTB if that's important to you. And demonstrating conformity is very important for those making money buying government favors.
Hydrogen is just around the corner!
When that occurs is up in the air.
I wish hydrogen would get as much attention as electric. I suppose it's possible that there's just as much research going on for hydrogen, and it's just the press and politicians who seem fixated on electric vehicles.
As an example, if you read press coverage of California's new vehicle dictate, you might get the impression it only allows electric vehicles. But it also allows hydrogen-fueled or any other non-polluting (at the exhaust pipe) vehicles.
Hydrogen combustion produces water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas. Other forms of combustion produce that as well. Using air as the oxygen source, hydrogen combustion also can produce NOx. The power plants combusting something to make steam to spin turbines to create electricity used to charge EVs are doing the same thing.
"Hydrogen combustion produces water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas. "
Yea. No. When people talk about hydrogen they are typically not talking about hydrogen combustion but using hydrogen in a fuel cell that outputs electricity (like a battery) and water. No combustion involved. Also water vapor (a greenhouse gas) is very easily converted to liquid water (not a greenhouse gas).
Wait.
Clouds are a greenhouse gas?
But rain is not?
Well, I never!
Dept of Energy et. al. state that hydrogen fuel cells emit water vapor.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
Yes. Yes.
“I wish hydrogen would get as much attention as electric.”
As I understand it, most of the hydrogen being produced today is energy-intensive, and largely utilizes fossil fuel derived power for that energy. That makes it rather problematical. However, solar power can run electrolyzers to convert water into hydrogen. It’s still energy-intensive, but at least the energy doesn’t pollute (as much).
Deutsche Welle had a documentary on how Germany was pursuing that (solar into H2). It is right around the corner…
Yeah, but, in this case, "right around the corner" might not be that far off:
https://ratedpower.com/blog/solar-power-green-hydrogen/#:~:text=The%20concept%20of%20adopting%20so-called%20%E2%80%9Cgreen%20hydrogen%E2%80%9D%20is,can%20run%20electrolyzers%20to%20convert%20water%20into%20hydrogen.
One needs the products that use it as well as the infrastructure for it to be useful. One could erect a hydrogen conversion plant next to a solar farm and perhaps plop a hydrogen combustion power plat next to that then tie it all into the grid so electrons could flow at night and when cloudy. Having service stations add hydrogen tanks and/or hydrogen tanks being installed at people’s houses (like adding an EV charger at home) is not something that will occur quickly. Someone needs to manufacture those vehicles. Your hybrid Prius addresses the lack of infrastructure regarding EV charging, which has been added for years now. Hydrogen doesn’t have that infrastructure in place. One could maybe dual tank the vehicle (if the engine could run on both - some can with NG). The safety issue of driving around with a “propane” tank in the vehicle is another issue.
I agree, generally. One caveat, however, hydrogen doesn't require power lines to transport it. Also, one design is for a floating "solar-cell factory" which will produce the hydrogen from sea water. So, no land use, either. But, as indicated, it's all quite a bit off in the future. But the technology exists, and therefore can be put to use. At least it's use is not as "theoretical" as fusion. Honda already markets fuel-cell vehicles (in areas where they are supported.)
hydrogen doesn’t require power lines to transport it
Pretty much sums up why fossil fuels are still in many ways superior to electricity and probably always will be.
"..probably.." Yeah. Unless we spend some time and energy, and money, on thorium-based reactors.
Thorium reactors aren't going to change the density of copper or methane or water in transit, dumbass.
I'm sure if you y'all talk enough you'll figure out how to turn 10W into a lightening rod of explosive POWER! Now; start over again realizing that covering the entire outer surface of a house with the same cost of a house will yield you about 24KW and probably less than that converted to hydrogen and pretend the massive energy involved in creating said solar panels doesn't exist.
"Thorium reactors aren’t going to change the density of copper or methane or water in transit, dumbass."
Hydrogen could though, dumbass. Essentially limitless electricity from nuclear energy makes hydrogen production from water a practical reality.
Great; it should be absolutely no problem to make a fortune from it *****WITHOUT****** Gov-GUNS.
Hydrogen could though, dumbass. Essentially limitless electricity from nuclear energy makes hydrogen production from water a practical reality.
Hey dumbfuck, the power source of the lysis has fuck all to do with it. But let’s play your retard game your way anyway, if not to convince you you’re wrong, then at least to demonstrate how retarded you are to everyone else. Your car that runs on hydrogen but can electrolyze it out of anything that has hydrogen in it has run out of fuel. It needs 30 lbs. of hydrogen to prime the lines and get the engine turned over or whatever. Fortunately, you passed a building 10 mi. back and the property owner just happens to have a limitless supply of energy that can generate any chemical fuel you need. Are you going to ask him for 300 lbs. of water or a few lbs. of liquid methane?
Just to reiterate more HS Chemistry for dumbasses as I did below (for the stupid kids who might need extra credit):
O-H BOND ENERGY: 458 kJ/mol
CH4-H BOND ENERGY: 440 kJ/mol
C2H5-H BOND ENERGY: 410 kJ/mol
C6H5CH2-H BOND ENERGY: 360 kJ/mol
In addition to my note below, all of the bottom 4 (and numerous others) are less dense at STP, meaning more hydrogen could be stored more tightly at a lower overall mass and lower energy cost than water.
You people really need to learn how to stop talking. The more you do, the more it proves you don’t give any shits about chemistry or biology or thermodynamics or the environment or the truth or people freezing to death or maybe anything beneficial to any cause including your own.
Fuck off. You're the stupid fucker that made the statement "Pretty much sums up why fossil fuels are still in many ways superior to electricity and probably always will be." Hydrogen has twice the specific energy of gasoline (energy/mass). It could someday replace fossil fuels if they can figure out easier ways of storing it practically. I never said it was practical today...just like thorium reactors are not practical today. Your stupid HS chem class argument is also fucking irrelevant because the properties of any volatile compound at STP are meaningless. We've been compressing and expanding, heating and cooling compounds for decades to make them serve us better. The bond energy argument is also stupid and irrelevant because we had assumed that the production of hydrogen gas was achieved from essentially limitless nuclear energy. You're basically just an arrogant asshole. Fuck off.
Fuck off. Hydrogen has twice the specific energy of gasoline (energy/mass).
You don't have the first fucking clue what's going on do you? Not even the slightest. It's all just unicorns and rainbow farts to you isn't it? Whether you lyse water or lyse fossil fuels, the end result is hydrogen either way. If the fact that hydrogen has twice the specific energy of gasoline is some phenomenally transcendental power supply, then the fact that gasoline, to say nothing of other fossil fuels being more than 10X the energy density of battery technology should be mind blowing.
You say, "Hydrogen has twice the specific energy of gasoline (energy/mass).", then you say, "The bond energy argument is also stupid and irrelevant because we had assumed that the production of hydrogen gas was achieved from essentially limitless nuclear energy." which is it? Is energy density king or irrelevant? When you say we'll produce hydrogen from nuclear energy do you think you mean fusion will produce enough hydrogen directly or do you not realize that you'll have to feed the nuclear reactor *some* source of hydrogen and whatever it is, the lighter, easier, and more stable it is, the better.
STP is irrelevant because we've been compressing gases? STP is relevant *because* we compress gasses, stupid. Otherwise, your stupid argument gets even more stupid: Do you want a couple lbs. of methane that effectively weighs nothing in a balloon at ambient temperature or do you want 300 lbs. of water at a couple hundred degrees? Because your infinite-energy-supply guy doesn't care either way. Again, it's all the same (hydrogen) energy either way, so, which is it you dumb fuck?
Again, you superstitious fucktards don't give two shits about science, chemistry, or the environment or anything except generating and enforcing whatever stupid Gaia answer you think you should be regurgitating. Despite your projected, progressive notions about nuclear, you're as scared of fossil fuel (in any amount) and plastic boogeymen, as they are of nuclear boogeymen.
Here's the trick; with a truly unlimited energy supply, none of it matters. You wouldn't have to switch to EVs because you could spend limitless amounts of energy capturing carbon out of the atmosphere (if that were really a problem). The only reason you would still force people to switch with a limitless supply is because you really like forcing people to do shit. Now, if the supply is *nearly* limitless, well then, efficiency matters and nobody is going to transport 300 lbs. of water when 2 lbs. of methane would do the trick.
You asked me to fuck off. I refuse. You're the Johnny-come-lately who doesn't understand the science at even a HS level. Even if I did fuck off, you'd still be obviously incorrect. Lurk more or fuck off entirely.
mad.c - I believe Alberto is a Tulpa sock. Or maybe Shrike. Same thing basically.
mad.c – I believe Alberto is a Tulpa sock. Or maybe Shrike. Same thing basically.
He's aping off of Jefferson's Ghost's misconception/argument. Whether they're two different people wearing socks, the same person wearing socks, or two socks wearing each other, all I can do is state that they're wrong and why.
Gaslighting with hydrogen.
As I understand it, most of the hydrogen being produced today is energy-intensive, and largely utilizes fossil fuel derived power for that energy. That makes it rather problematical. However, solar power can run electrolyzers to convert water into hydrogen. It’s still energy-intensive, but at least the energy doesn’t pollute (as much).
Your understanding is incorrect and exceptionally naive. There are natural hydrogen reserves trapped underground, but not much. The hydrogen we do get now isn't produced using fossil fuels, it's produced *from* the fossil fuels themselves and while it is energy intensive, the reason electrolysis of water, a much older and simpler hydrogen production method, isn't used is because solar power or not, it is *even more intensive*.
It's the same stupid energy issue that green retards everywhere like to ignore. Chem 101 level stuff that even a HS kid could reason their way through completely while completely ignorant of chemistry (e.g. knowing only history or economics or biology).
This is to say nothing of the other impracticalities (any fuel cycle that produces pure water won't work by itself outside the 35th parallels) and/or can-kicking (just like with EVs and other 'sustainable' tech, if your fuel is abundant but you need (e.g.) iridium to produce it, you haven't made anything more sustainable and have arguably made it less so) of hydrogen.
"...The hydrogen we do get now isn’t produced using fossil fuels, it’s produced *from* the fossil fuels themselves..."
Currently, yes. But producing hydrogen from electrolysis using solar-based electrical energy remains a possibility. Even if the overall energy used makes it less efficient, if derived from solar-powered, ocean-based plants, it should be able to be a viable source for the simple reason that sunlight is not in short supply, nor will it be in the foreseeable future. Again.. around the corner... but not as far "around the corner" as fusion.
You should know the "We lose money on every unit, but we'll make it up on volume." joke stop being funny years ago and it was a joke because it would be stupid when advanced in earnest, right?
You do also realize that if you consume no fossil fuels to produce the same amount of hydrogen directly, but still produce more CO2 carting all the water around and building the extra solar panels it takes to generate the additional energy it takes to lyse water, you've actually made the system less sustainable *and* less carbon friendly, right?
HS Chem for dumbasses:
CH4 - 25% H by atomic mass. Density at STP: ~6.8 g/L
H20 - 11% H by atomic mass. Density at STP: 1 *k*g/L
Fossil fuels will *always* be more energy dense and this is assuming the energy required to lyse H2 off CH4 is the same as H20 (which it's not, in CH4's favor).
An hour ago, you didn't know or make the distinction that hydrogen is produced *from* fossil fuels rather than using fossil fuels. Now, with *zero* facts and pure conjecture, you're sure, despite decades of known science the facts are wrong and your speculation is invariably correct. I originally thought you were innocently mistaken, maybe a phrasing error. Now, I'm convinced that you're so utterly stupid that you couldn't find your ass from a hole in the ground, and you're excited about tricking and forcing other people to be as stupid as you.
The problem is that we don't have the infrastructure for it. I just bought a new car, and I bought old fasioned internal combustion. Because I have no reliable way to charge an electric. My carport does not provide good enough electricity for that kind of charging. I could convert it but I have to pay the condo HOA for the upgrade, plus I'm leaching off of my neighbors because it's still the HOAs power not mine. I could charge at one of the two spots at work, but it's a constant juggle all day long of people switching out cars for charging, there's an entire separate Outlook Calendar just for that.
We not ready yet. We will get there eventually, but right now we're not ready. Currently the model is for everyone to recharge at their free workplace charger, but most businesses don't have them. It's going to be a huge bottleneck in the system.
"We not ready yet. We will get there eventually, but right now we’re not ready."
Yep, which is why it is insane for governments to "mandate" such a change.
If your Hoa had any sense, they would install a charging station. It improves property values.
Someone is paying for the electricity. The HOA could either go collectivist where those without EVs subsidize those with or get into the business of managing a pay for use system.
We bought a used NIssan Leaf last year, but we only did so...
a) Because it wouldn't be our only car. The Leaf is my wife's local commuting car, but when she had to drive to Denver a few weeks ago she took my Honda CR-V.
b) After we had an electrician come out and confirm that we could schedule him to wire up the necessary 220v outlet in our garage. (Trivial aside: EVs basically adopted the same outlet that only used to be used for another purpose: electric welders.)
“We bought a used NIssan Leaf last year, but we only did so…
Yeah. I traded in my Rav4 Toyota for a Prius Prime Hybrid a couole of years ago — with a Jeep Wrangler in the driveway, I had no need for two SUVs. That being said, I wasn’t quite ready to jump to full-electric (I live in a very small town). But I am happy with 90 mpg (a “gallon” of electricity costs me $1.65, which is half what I pay at the pump.)
If I ever tire of my Wrangler, I will most likely go with a full-electric Wrangler.
But you won't go far.
"But you won’t go far."
Yeah, but even with a 15 gallon tank, it doesn't go that far anyway 🙂 I don't take long road-trips with my Jeep, so that isn't a problem for me.
Prius Prime.
133MGe which is (33.7KW/100miles) so 33.7KW/133m = 0.2534
to get to a good round 54mpg distance 54x2=108m so MGe says the equivalent miles for 2-gal gas is 0.2534x108=27.365KW if you live in CA at $0.29kwh = $7.94 (2g gas equivalent) = $3.96/gal gas equivalent.
...for a 100,000 mile car who's power batt. source goes belly-up + all the other expenses exceeding a gasoline model + subisdies + + + +.
Sell it all you want; at the end of the day it's just salesmanship manipulating and hiding (doc) fee's from the actual cost. Someday maybe; but the numbers don't figure even today; even with all the B-as in billions of theft used to make it happen.
spend your saturdays plugged into a wall near the local whole foods lol fuck that. Red Barchetta.
I’ve managed $19930 in no more than 30 days through working job at my apartment. Just when I’ve lost my office position, I was so distressed but luckily I have searched this on-line task which is why I am ready to collect thousand USD from the comfort of my home.
Anyone can get this career and could get more money…..
Online heading… Following site……….......>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Innovation always follows demand, whether that demand is the market or regulation. Usually, a combination of the two. I don't expect to own an electric vehicle in my lifetime, but I likely will buy only one more car. I fully expect my children to have electric vehicles, maybe even before I pass.
I demand a repeal of the laws of thermodynamics!
"... and this perpetual motion machine Lisa made just keeps going faster and faster."
Michaux's neo-Malthusian projections did not take into account the creativity of inventors and entrepreneurs. Electrochemists are already addressing the shortfalls he described, and their work will drive down the cost of powering electric vehicles.
Go fuck yourself with a Lithium rod, Ron. "We don't currently have enough materials on hand to comply with government mandates." is not the same thing as "We have to tax the poor, push down birthrates, cull the population, and subsist on crickets to avoid a population catastrophe." and you're the most underhanded and obfuscating/disinformative of shitbag hacks for pretending like they're the same thing.
Ron "Mandatory vaccines for zika/ebola" Bailey.
Ron "MOAR COVID TESTING" Bailey.
Ron "Beyond Meat will replace beef" Bailey.
You certainly are going to give Ehrlich a run for his money while you insist he's more wrong aren't you? You've certainly convinced me that your "End Of Doom" advocacy wasn't so much principle as it was a barely-legal, teen-girl, rebellious "That'll show my (conservative) Dad!" OnlyFans phase.
There's a modest irony in electric cars replacing ICE, in that ICE cars replaced electric in the 19thC.
Ya; but the 19th century didn't have the unicorn fart power (nut jobs with guns) of socialism behind it.... 🙂
in that ICE cars replaced electric in the 19thC.
I wonder why... *scratches chin*
I'm too lazy to research my years-old comments on this very subject. So it shall remain forever a mystery.
They're buying them so fast, the adults in the room have banned gas cars by 2035.
Sometimes I get so bored I start to wonder how much rope and how many lampposts we are going to need - - - - -
All of the adults in several rooms of wildly varying sizes have all banned gas cars, all by 2035.
Remember how it was weird when Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Amazon, Paypal, Patreon, etc. would all deplatform the same person in the same hour?
These adult-aged children might as well hang signs saying "No Gas Cars after 2035. All boys must have cootie shots."
Is it set in stone that there will no further innovations in internal combustion engines from this day forward? Innovations that will keep them technologically and economically ahead?
i have zero interest in ever owning a pos ev.
Good for you. I have a short commute, the budget and my place of employment has several chargers. My next car is a low-end EV. Will save money on gas and repairs and I get to feel smug too (like the Prius owners in South Park).
feel smug
You realize that if you were truly satisfied, you wouldn't have or want to feel smug, let alone announce it, right?
You pick your perfect meal and eat it, you might go around and talk to your friends about how wonderful it was, but it doesn't make you feel superior to any given Joe Blow at a stoplight unless you're some kind of anti-social narcissist.
You might as well go around saying "I don't really care if EVs are better for the environment, I think driving an EV makes me as cool as James Dean." You're like the people who go to the bank on Sunday to get a stack of bills to conspicuously drop in the collection plate at Church.
Do folks feel superior riding around in a golf cart?
+10000 perfect comeback..... So long as they feel entitled to keep bullying the truck drivers that delivered their golf cart to them.. Something about slapping the hands that feed them syndrome. Course some might find it ethically harder to rob them blind while still acknowledging them as human. The de-stain of the ‘icky’ workers must be maintained for the armed-robbery to continue.
Stop subsidizing all forms of energy, period. Whatever works the best and is the most cost effective will become the norm.
This does not mean stopping research grants to investigate and develop additional sources, to improve existing sources.
Of course many research grants are a complete waste of time and money. If tax payer money us utilized to fund a research grant, then the research grant needs to be thoroughly scrutinized.
And where in the US Constitution does the 'Federal' get authorization to fund research with taxpayer theft?
I ordered my new Ronco personal Zeppelin. It is being shipped from China via air mail.
I presume you got the second Zeppelin absolutely free, and only had to pay the additional S&H .
expect it to be tagged with physical graffiti
I got mine from ACME. I was chaising a roadrunner and the damn thing went off a cliff.
When the levee breaks, I’ll be able to escape.
It was built in Kashmir
hots on for nowhere!
I sense a communication breakdown.
Will the Zeppelin go over the Ocean? How Many More Times are you going to ask?
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do…..
For more detail visit the given link……….>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com