Automakers to invest $300B in electric vehicles

[NW-Bound]

Now, in the same vein, let's look at the USA.

The USA produced 4,034 TWh in 2017, with 63% of that from fossil fuel.

Individuals drive a total of 3.22 trillion miles. At 320 Wh/mi, that's 1,030 TWh. It's 25.5% of current power production.

 

[travelover]

France is producing 71.6% of its electricity with 58 nuclear power plants. Are they playing with [-]fire[/-] nuclear?
.........

It's great until it isn't.

 

[NW-Bound]

It's great until it isn't.

RE has some problems too. Germany expects to burn lignite for decades to come, because solar+wind generation often drops to 0 on bad days. Even Norway has had years with poor rainfall, causing lower than expected power production.

I guess people must be trained to not complain when there is rolling black out, food getting spoiled, and their EVs not getting charged.

 

[ERD50]

Still get the most bang for the buck with a hybrid.

Choose the hybrid option ($800 extra) on a new RAV4 AWD and combined mpg goes from 29 to 39 mpg, 41 mpg city. Even at $2/gallon gasoline, a no-brainer.

A hybrid is a more practical choice for many, but it is not a "no-brainer" to spend an added $800 for a hybrid. I had to use a spreadsheet.

Many of us retirees do not put many miles on our cars. We put less than 6,000 on each of our 2 cars. At that rate, I would need to go about 70,000 miles, almost 12 years, to pay back the $800 with $2.00 gas. That assumed 30 mpg combined non-hybrid, 40 mpg combined hybrid, and a 4% annual opportunity cost on the $800.

Even at 12,000 annual miles, payback is about 57,000 miles and about 5 years.

RAV4
non-hybrid $800 hybrid option
mpg 30 40

miles 70,600 70,600
$/gal $2.00 $2.00

Gallons 2,353 1,765
Cost $4,706.67 $3,530.00
Delta $ $1,176.67

my annual miles 6,000
Years 11.77

4% of $800 $32.00
times years $376.53

Initial cost $800.00
$0.13 Positive is a hybrid 'win' (Savings Delta $ minus $800 - opportunity cost)

No brainer?

-ERD50

 

[travelover]

...........I guess people must be trained to not complain when there is rolling black out, food getting spoiled, and their EVs not getting charged.

That might seem like a good deal to these folks. https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Seven-years-on-no-end-in-sight-for-Fukushima-s-long-recovery

 

[ERD50]

That might seem like a good deal to these folks. https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Seven-years-on-no-end-in-sight-for-Fukushima-s-long-recovery

Alternatives?

The Fukushima disaster might seem like a walk in the park for these people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_station_failures

Banqiao Dam China 26,000 dead from flooding, 145,000 dead from subsequent famine and epidemics, 11 million homeless. Caused loss of generation, dam failed by overtopping in a 1-in-2,000 year flood[4] 1975


Comparison to Fukushima:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
1) ... the nuclear accident was responsible for 154,000 being evacuated (versus 11 Million homeless from Banqiao Dam). And 470,000 were evacuated due to the earthquake and tsunami in Japan (non-nuclear related)

2) ... 1 confirmed radiation-related cancer death... .. approximately 1,600 deaths related to the evacuation conditions, such as living in temporary housing and hospital closures that had occurred as of August 2013, a number comparable to the 1,599 deaths directly caused by the earthquake and tsunami in the Prefecture. The exact causes of these evacuation related deaths were not specified, because according to the municipalities, that would hinder relatives applying for compensation...

(versus 26,000 dead from Banqiao Dam)

3) ...16 with physical injuries due to hydrogen explosions, 2 workers taken to hospital with possible radiation burns ( I couldn't even find injury counts for Banqiao Dam, but with those death and 'affected' numbers, obviously very high)


According to a linear no-threshold model (LNT model), the accident would most likely cause 130 cancer deaths. ... However, radiation epidemiologist Roy Shore countered that estimating health effects from the LNT model "is not wise because of the uncertainties." .... “The LNT model cannot be used to estimate the effect of very low doses…”

... studies confirmed the presence of radioactive tuna off the coasts of the Pacific U.S. ... However, the amount of radioactivity is less than that found naturally in a single banana.

-ERD50

 

[ncbill]

A hybrid is a more practical choice for many, but it is not a "no-brainer" to spend an added $800 for a hybrid. I had to use a spreadsheet.

Many of us retirees do not put many miles on our cars. We put less than 6,000 on each of our 2 cars. At that rate, I would need to go about 70,000 miles, almost 12 years, to pay back the $800 with $2.00 gas. That assumed 30 mpg combined non-hybrid, 40 mpg combined hybrid, and a 4% annual opportunity cost on the $800.

Even at 12,000 annual miles, payback is about 57,000 miles and about 5 years.

RAV4
non-hybrid $800 hybrid option
mpg 30 40

miles 70,600 70,600
$/gal $2.00 $2.00

Gallons 2,353 1,765
Cost $4,706.67 $3,530.00
Delta $ $1,176.67

my annual miles 6,000
Years 11.77

4% of $800 $32.00
times years $376.53

Initial cost $800.00
$0.13 Positive is a hybrid 'win' (Savings Delta $ minus $800 - opportunity cost)

No brainer?

-ERD50

Don't forget the hybrid also hedges against $4+/gallon gasoline, which we saw not too long ago.

 

[ERD50]

Don't forget the hybrid also hedges against $4+/gallon gasoline, which we saw not too long ago.

Oh, I assure you, I didn't forget anything. I was replying to your statement which said (literal quote, emph mine) "at $2/gallon gasoline, a no-brainer."

If you want a do-over at $4.00 gas, the math is simple, and I didn't delete my spreadsheet, so here you go:

B/E is ~28,500 miles, ~4.7 years at my 6000 annual miles. Certainly worth considering.

At the average of 12,000 miles, it looks pretty good - ~ 26,000 miles, ~2.2 years. I'd do that, for sure.

But gas also came down from $4.00 to <$2.00, so who knows? Would I see $4.00 gas for 4 or more years of the time I own the car? And the public seems to be fickle and have a short memory. If gas prices go to $4.00, it's probably a safe bet that that $800 hybrid delta will increase. Either through not being able to get the same discount, and/or the hybrid might get bundled with added options you didn't really need/want.


I'm seeing a trend from some posters - reply to their comment with a factual challenge, and they change the subject and/or move the goal posts. I find that.... interesting.

-ERD50

 

[Chuckanut]

But gas also came down from $4.00 to <$2.00, so who knows? Would I see $4.00 gas for 4 or more years of the time I own the car? A
-ERD50

For many of us it's far closer to $3.00 a gallon than $2.00. I'm not arguing, but people need to realize that prices can vary quite a bit.

 

[ERD50]

For many of us it's far closer to $3.00 a gallon than $2.00. I'm not arguing, but people need to realize that prices can vary quite a bit.

They can run their own numbers. I didn't cherry-pick $2.00 - I used $2.00, because that is the number that ncbill threw out as a no-brainer.

My point is, it is a 'brainer'. You need to do the math for an economic decision. Use your miles and your expected gas prices.

Right now, I can get gas at stations I typically stop at for less than $2.00. And I get 4% cash back on my CC, so $2.00 is $1.92.

-ERD50

 

[Mr. Tightwad]

People are creatures of habit. They often don't like anything new.

That much is obvious with a few posters.

Travelover's first post hits the nail on the head.

 

[6miths]

France is producing 71.6% of its electricity with 58 nuclear power plants. Are they playing with [-]fire[/-] nuclear?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France.

It's interesting that they export 7% of all power that they produce. Yet, there are some rare days when they need to import some.

One can look in real-time at Ontario's power generation - 58.95% nuclear at the moment. 23.7% hydro, 10.5% natural gas, remainder wind, solar, biofuel.

 

[RunningBum]

Still get the most bang for the buck with a hybrid.

Choose the hybrid option ($800 extra) on a new RAV4 AWD and combined mpg goes from 29 to 39 mpg, 41 mpg city. Even at $2/gallon gasoline, a no-brainer.

I did some simple math on that too.

At 12,000 miles/year, about my typical, I might only have to buy 300 gallons vs 400. I say "might" because I'm not sure hybrids save as much for the mountain driving I do. But let's say it does save me 100 gallons a year. At $2/gallon, it takes 4 years to pay back. That doesn't account for spending that $800 up front vs. buying more gas over time. It's also true that over the last 10 years gas has been well over $2 much of that time https://www.gasbuddy.com/Charts , and I'd guess it'll be more than that again for much of the next 5-10 years.

What about repairs? Am I more likely to have more repairs on a hybrid, replacing battery packs or whatever else with that system? Any fewer repairs on brakes or anything like that?

Better resale value? Or are people leery about buying older hybrids, due to potential battery life issues, real or otherwise?

Non-economic factors? Stopping for gas less often is a plus. So is being quieter in electric mode.

Is it greener? Certainly burning less gas is, but what is the environmental cost to produce and eventually dispose of the batteries?

Lots of questions for a "no brainer!" $800 is less than I figured it'd be, but I'd want the answers to those questions before buying, if I decided a RAV4 was for me and just needed to decide hybrid or not.

 

[Voyager39]

There's not enough steel in the world to build enough windmills to produce any appreciable amount of electricity.

Whaaat?? Could you provide a citation for this astonishing little technical gem? Professor David Mackay wrote a book entitled "Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air". A brief review of that book indicates that U.S. electrical needs could be met by about one million windmills and about forty million solar panels. Those numbers are necessarily estimates since there is a wide range of power that can be associated with any particular windmill or solar panel. However, even if ten million wind turbines are needed, I have seen no information indicating that the world lacks the materials (steel or other) to manufacture this infrastructure.

My interest in this subject has led me to the belief that wind is the most promising energy source for obtaining sustainable energy, and for combating climate change. Humanity has barely scratched the surface of the amount of wind energy that can be harvested and of the technologies that can improve and advance this field.

 

[ERD50]

There's not enough steel in the world to build enough windmills to produce any appreciable amount of electricity. .

Whaaat?? Could you provide a citation for this astonishing little technical gem? Professor David Mackay wrote a book entitled "Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air". A brief review of that book indicates that U.S. electrical needs could be met by about one million windmills and about forty million solar panels. Those numbers are necessarily estimates since there is a wide range of power that can be associated with any particular windmill or solar panel. However, even if ten million wind turbines are needed, I have seen no information indicating that the world lacks the materials (steel or other) to manufacture this infrastructure.

My interest in this subject has led me to the belief that wind is the most promising energy source for obtaining sustainable energy, and for combating climate change. Humanity has barely scratched the surface of the amount of wind energy that can be harvested and of the technologies that can improve and advance this field.

I'd like to see that data as well. But this thread might be a better place:

http://www.early-retirement.org/for...e-can-be-100-renewable-95073.html#post2171922

-ERD50

 

[aja8888]

My interest in this subject has led me to the belief that wind is the most promising energy source for obtaining sustainable energy, and for combating climate change. Humanity has barely scratched the surface of the amount of wind energy that can be harvested and of the technologies that can improve and advance this field.

It would be really nice if you could tell us how to get enormous quantities of steady (and I mean never stopping) wind when and where we want it. Today, in south Texas, there was not a breeze to be had.

 

[Music Lover]

People are creatures of habit. They often don't like anything new.

I disagree. Most people would be happy with an electric car if it was "just as good" at the same price, or just slightly more. But they come at a premium and also have range and charging time issues. Those 2 factors are more than enough to make them undesirable for the majority lot of people.

 

[Voyager39]

It would be really nice if you could tell us how to get enormous quantities of steady (and I mean never stopping) wind when and where we want it. Today, in south Texas, there was not a breeze to be had.

I will start by observing that Chapter 26 of Prof. Mackay's book addresses this point in (numerical) detail. His answer is more detailed than anything I'm going to be able to provide, especially since my information will mostly come from his book.

However, two factors that can contribute to making wind energy as consistent as possible are storage and having a large number wind turbines distributed over sufficiently large area that at least some turbines are operating at any given moment. As with wind turbines themselves, the technology for energy storage and for management of a wind turbine driven energy grid are at an early stage, and it's possible that a perfect solution to the issue you raise is not yet available. However, it appears to be a highly solvable problem. After all, this should not present a long term energy supply problem, but rather just an energy delivery scheduling issue.

Gasoline engines were far from perfect in 1910, but we didn't stop using them as a result. Likewise, if we were to commit ourselves to developing wind energy, progress in power delivery reliability of a wind-based energy grid should be able to develop over time as our energy sourcing gradually shifts from fossil fuels to wind and solar.

As to long term energy delivery reliability, wind should greatly surpass fossil fuels. The wind should keep blowing without us having to change the basic logic of wind turbine design and energy grid management. In contrast, even aside from climate concerns, as time advances, we will have to dig progressively deeper to continue to access oil and gas which will make this approach more expensive, more difficult, and more dangerous over time.

 

[ncbill]

I did some simple math on that too.

At 12,000 miles/year, about my typical, I might only have to buy 300 gallons vs 400. I say "might" because I'm not sure hybrids save as much for the mountain driving I do. But let's say it does save me 100 gallons a year. At $2/gallon, it takes 4 years to pay back. That doesn't account for spending that $800 up front vs. buying more gas over time. It's also true that over the last 10 years gas has been well over $2 much of that time https://www.gasbuddy.com/Charts , and I'd guess it'll be more than that again for much of the next 5-10 years.

What about repairs? Am I more likely to have more repairs on a hybrid, replacing battery packs or whatever else with that system? Any fewer repairs on brakes or anything like that?

Better resale value? Or are people leery about buying older hybrids, due to potential battery life issues, real or otherwise?

Non-economic factors? Stopping for gas less often is a plus. So is being quieter in electric mode.

Is it greener? Certainly burning less gas is, but what is the environmental cost to produce and eventually dispose of the batteries?

Lots of questions for a "no brainer!" $800 is less than I figured it'd be, but I'd want the answers to those questions before buying, if I decided a RAV4 was for me and just needed to decide hybrid or not.

Yep, it's also a hedge against gas prices not remaining as inexpensive as they are currently.

Paying around 3% extra for that hedge on the AWD RAV4 models is a no-brainer.

And Toyota's hybrid system has proven very reliable.

IIRC, there are Priuses used as taxis with over 300,000 miles on the original battery.

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by Mr. Tightwad View Post
People are creatures of habit. They often don't like anything new.

I disagree. Most people would be happy with an electric car if it was "just as good" at the same price, or just slightly more. But they come at a premium and also have range and charging time issues. Those 2 factors are more than enough to make them undesirable for the majority lot of people.

I agree with Music Lover's disagreement.

So many posts are just empty ad hominem attacks on others. Where is the information, the data?

It's so easy to say others are afraid of change. I always hated that, it's really an ignorant thing to say. People are not afraid of change, they love it. They love positive change. See us all using the internet - oh no, we are all afraid of change, we actually write letters to each other and drop them in the mail box with copies to everyone!

There is plenty to like about EVs. That doesn't mean they are as great as some (without data) make them out to be.

People are creatures of habit. They often don't like anything new.

That much is obvious with a few posters.

Travelover's first post hits the nail on the head.

Travelover's first post was obviously a dig at VW and their lying diesel-gate issue. What nail did it hit?

Yea, but they will lie about the range.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Yep, it's also a hedge against gas prices not remaining as inexpensive as they are currently.

Paying around 3% extra for that hedge on the AWD RAV4 models is a no-brainer.

Got any math?

-ERD50

 

[Music Lover]

It's so easy to say others are afraid of change. I always hated that, it's really an ignorant thing to say. People are not afraid of change, they love it. They love positive change.-ERD50

Correct. Virtually all new technology that works and is affordable is embraced by the masses. Internet, computers, cell phones, microwaves, instant pots, flat screen TVs, etc. The list is endless and car technology is no different.

If electric cars can at least get close to the price of a similarly equipped gas vehicle and solve the range and charging issues, they will take over the market. That's a guarantee. Why would anyone buy a gasoline powered car that costs $60 to fill if they could charge it in 10 minutes (not overnight or in 2 hours) for less than $5?

 

[Texas Proud]

Yep, it's also a hedge against gas prices not remaining as inexpensive as they are currently.

Paying around 3% extra for that hedge on the AWD RAV4 models is a no-brainer.

And Toyota's hybrid system has proven very reliable.

IIRC, there are Priuses used as taxis with over 300,000 miles on the original battery.

Would it not be even better if it were able to be plug in hybrid and drive 40 or so miles on battery?





That might sway some people even if the numbers are not on the side of it...

 

[Chuckanut]

Why would anyone buy a gasoline powered car that costs $60 to fill if they could charge it in 10 minutes (not overnight or in 2 hours) for less than $5?

Because the states and the Feds are wising up to the fact that EVs are not paying anywhere near the road taxes that ICE cars pay. And they need the money to maintain the road network. So look for some way to get that money out of EV owners.

Today, EV buyers often get a tax subsidy. Hopefully, that will end also.

This is not to say people will not purchase EVs, only that the playing field is currently not level. When it is leveled we'll see what happens.

 

[Mulligan]

Yes, those fear mongers. Because Nuclear is the safest energy we have. Even when you include Chernobyl, which we probably shouldn't, because it was of a particularly bad design that no one else used, to make it easier to provide weapons grade uranium.

Should we stick to hydro?



Solar rooftop produced many times more deaths per power produced than nuclear:

Energy source Mortality rate (in deaths/PWh)
Solar – rooftop 440[6]
Nuclear (global) 90[6]
Nuclear (US) 0.1[6]

Be careful what you wish for.



Instead of this attempt at sarcasm, can you provide any information on some of these apparently easy solutions? If it is so easy to provide clean energy for EVs, why aren't we doing it already for the energy we do use?

-ERD50

If they cant figure out how to build them less than the financial disaster Vogtle is now, safety isnt going to matter. This boondoggle is what at $25 billion and rising? They basically have been regulated out of existence as far as new builds go. Just too expensive to build if they cant do better than what Vogtle is becoming. And Southerns coal gasification idea didnt seem to be so great either.