When Will Internal Combustion Engine Cars Account For Less Than 5% Of New Car Sales In The US? (1 Viewer)

[titusbramble]

A lot of posters quick to point out what they perceive to be challenges while assuming there are no solutions.

Bizarre.

There are challenges, for which I see to be no reasonable solutions in the medium term without incredibly major breakthroughs in power generation which will have far more important applications than driving your car

 

[massraider]

If you’re ever in Fort Mill, SC I could probably hook you up with a test drive with one of the 366 we have sitting around.

What, really??

 

[Galileo]

I voted 2065, but I am not really very confident in that...likely longer. If we are to get to a point of less than 5% ICE, I do not think it will be with EVs. I think another technology needs to emerge to either replace, or coexist with, EVs before the ICE market gets that low.

 

[John123]

Just as important, how will the government make up for the missing fuel taxes?

They've already started trying. Several jurisdictions have floated the idea of charging by the mile. Of course, that would require a device on your car that tracks how far (and who knows what else) you drive. More government intrusion. I'm not sure if any places have actually passed the law yet but guarantee you it's coming. Example:

Pay-per-mile tax gets test drive in Washington Legislature to augment gas tax

Washington state senators have teed up a mileage-based tax for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles as the first step toward changing how the state pays...

kuow.org

 

[Terminalxylem]

It seems far away, like 50+ years. EV vehicles are still too expensive

While the upfront cost is more, that is offset with tax credits, and couple that with the cheaper fuel and maintenance and the cost difference is negligible at best

I understand, but people still need to be willing to purchase/pay for a vehicle which costs $10-20K more up front than the comparable ICE.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Another related, but very important question I think.

How is the electricity in the US mostly generated?

My best friend loves his Tesla. I have another friend who tells the Tesla owner his car is effectively powered by coal.

This chart may answer your question.

 

[TripItUp]

I understand, but people still need to be willing to purchase/pay for a vehicle which costs $10-20K more up front than the comparable ICE.

EV prices are dropping at a signficantly quicker rate than are ICEs...and that of course doesn't account for the delta in fuel costs.

The trends and momentum are far from favoring ICEs...not to mention history.

 

[Joe Bryant]

If America decides the electric F-150 is awesome, I might change my answer.

If you’re ever in Fort Mill, SC I could probably hook you up with a test drive with one of the 366 we have sitting around.

I thought they were difficult to get?

 

[Terminalxylem]

In fairness, this could be accomplished in two ways. We could make charging stations as ubiquitous as gas stations are today. Or we could make gas stations as rare and hard to find as charging stations are today

I'm not convinced that building charging stations will be the solution at all. I don't know who or exactly how, but I still assume that electric cars on highways at least in the not so distant future will be charged as they go. Yeah, I know this has its own hurdles and staggering number of miles to touch to implement, but it seems much more feasible to me once critical mass is achieved to standardize and monetize. (And I get that essentially turning the highway system into toll roads, possibly all operated by private companies is one big political hurdle with this idea.)

Of course this assuming that the solution(s) isn't even further "outside the box" than what I can imagine.

Really efficient PV could help, at least in places that are sunny.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I understand, but people still need to be willing to purchase/pay for a vehicle which costs $10-20K more up front than the comparable ICE.

EV prices are dropping at a signficantly quicker rate than are ICEs...and that of course doesn't account for the delta in fuel costs.

The trends and momentum are far from favoring ICEs...not to mention history.

Of course - EVs are starting from a much higher average price. But I agree the trends favor electric over ICE.

Still, there are many, many barriers to attaining 95% market share, the question in the OP.

Also, FTR, I'm not an EV hater at all. I've had PV on my house for ~15 years, and plan on buying an Aptera, after they've had a year or two to work out the kinks.

 

[New Binky the Doormat]

It seems far away, like 50+ years. EV vehicles are still too expensive

While the upfront cost is more, that is offset with tax credits, and couple that with the cheaper fuel and maintenance and the cost difference is negligible at best

I understand, but people still need to be willing to purchase/pay for a vehicle which costs $10-20K more up front than the comparable ICE.

wait ...what?

sorry brah ...not everyone is as flush with cash as you - and apparently as pious

 

[The General]

EV’s are 100% a better driving experience than gas cars for like 90% of the most driving situations. It‘s just a reality.

 

[Terminalxylem]

It seems far away, like 50+ years. EV vehicles are still too expensive

While the upfront cost is more, that is offset with tax credits, and couple that with the cheaper fuel and maintenance and the cost difference is negligible at best

I understand, but people still need to be willing to purchase/pay for a vehicle which costs $10-20K more up front than the comparable ICE.

wait ...what?

sorry brah ...not everyone is as flush with cash as you - and apparently as pious

Huh? Don't understand the hostility at all.

I'm saying EVs are too expensive atm, including for my household.

Or are you directing your comment at the moops?

 

[Terminalxylem]

EV’s are 100% a better driving experience than gas cars for like 90% of the most driving situations. It‘s just a reality.

How so?

 

[Hov34]

... the typical household who wants to be able to pull a boat to their cabin two states over a few times each summer.

I actually think what you've described in this sentence is a niche use case -- not at all a typical household in the overall U.S. IMHO.

It may be niche usage but I think a significantly higher percentage of people want the freedom to do something like that even if, as a practical matter, they are unlikely to ever do so.

We aren't that far off though. The Ford Lightning has a 320 mile range. That is two states away for a lot of people

Not when towing it doesn't.

We looked a bit into a Lightning or more realistically a Rivian as they weren't price gouged like the Ford was. We need to tow a 7,000 lbs. travel trailer, and yes we will take it several states away.

The EV trucks when towing cut the range more than in half. And with the infrastructure not being there it just won't work.

So, we bought a ICE F-150 with a 36 gallon tank. Would love to one day tow with an EV truck, but I'll probably be dead or not able tow when the infrastructure makes it possible.

 

[New Binky the Doormat]

It seems far away, like 50+ years. EV vehicles are still too expensive

While the upfront cost is more, that is offset with tax credits, and couple that with the cheaper fuel and maintenance and the cost difference is negligible at best

I understand, but people still need to be willing to purchase/pay for a vehicle which costs $10-20K more up front than the comparable ICE.

wait ...what?

sorry brah ...not everyone is as flush with cash as you - and apparently as pious

Huh? Don't understand the hostility at all.

I'm saying EVs are too expensive atm, including for my household.

Or are you directing your comment at the moops?

This is your comment below - I made the comment based on your other comments - and especially this one ...everyone should be willing to pay $10K--$20K more to get around? In what world do you live in?

Terminalxylem says:
"I understand, but people still need to be willing to purchase/pay for a vehicle which costs $10-20K more up front than the comparable ICE."

 

[MTskibum]

EV’s are 100% a better driving experience than gas cars for like 90% of the most driving situations. It‘s just a reality.

How so?

Pros:
They are quieter and they have more acceleration.
Cons:
The downside is they are heavier and have low roll resistance tires, this makes them corner worse.

Most people do not care about cornering all that much in city traffic.

In the Rockies or back on the windy 2 lane roads of Texas you would be disappointed in an ev coming from a wrx.

 

[The General]

EV’s are 100% a better driving experience than gas cars for like 90% of the most driving situations. It‘s just a reality.

How so?

Vast majority of daily driving is well within most current EV’s daily ranges so getting past range anxiety won’t be an issue. Driving like 200 + miles a day regularly or hauling loads I get are an exception. But I think that falls in the 10% (if not less).

Moving past that…Faster. These things motor, so much fun to drive. Silent and ridiculous torque.

Better tech in the car. This is dependent on model and interface I suppose. But the ones I have ridden in are far superior. Tesla excels here, control whole thing with phone and a giant touch screen.

Once you have bitten the bullet cheaper to fuel.

At worst environmentally equal. Likely much better and has a future which could be markedly better.

 

[the moops]

But being skeptical of future EV adoption rates in the US does not make someone an EV hater or mean they have an agenda.

Thank you.

To be clear, I have only insinuated that one person, one type of person, is an EV hater. That comment was directed at someone who feels the need to criticize the Tesla owner because "it is powered by coal". The powered by coal is factually incorrect and I can really only think of one reason why someone would make that comment. It's no big deal, and if I am misreading that comment, I apologize. I

 

[Terminalxylem]

It seems far away, like 50+ years. EV vehicles are still too expensive

While the upfront cost is more, that is offset with tax credits, and couple that with the cheaper fuel and maintenance and the cost difference is negligible at best

I understand, but people still need to be willing to purchase/pay for a vehicle which costs $10-20K more up front than the comparable ICE.

wait ...what?

sorry brah ...not everyone is as flush with cash as you - and apparently as pious

Huh? Don't understand the hostility at all.

I'm saying EVs are too expensive atm, including for my household.

Or are you directing your comment at the moops?

This is your comment below - I made the comment based on your other comments - and especially this one ...everyone should be willing to pay $10K--$20K more to get around? In what world do you live in?

Terminalxylem says:
"I understand, but people still need to be willing to purchase/pay for a vehicle which costs $10-20K more up front than the comparable ICE."

That was in response to the moops, telling me EVs are effectively the same cost as ICE.

I thought it was implicit, but maybe the sentence should've read:

I understand (you believe the costs are similar), but people still need to be willing (to have sufficient financial resources) to purchase/pay for a vehicle which costs $10-20K more up front than the comparable ICE.

I wasn't insisting people shell out an extra $10-15K, rather, that in order for the moops' concept to be accurate, prospective EV buyers would need to agree to pay for greater up front costs.

Yet, you still erroneously believed I was imploring everyone to spend $40-50k+ on an EV. How does that conclusion logically follow my comment that EVs are too expensive?!?!?

Potential answer: You have some preconceived, negative impression of me as a poster. If so, sorry to disappoint you.

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

This isn't in line with Joe's original question, but I think it's relevant here. I happen to watched this yesterday: Toyota CEO: "This New Engine Will Destroy The Entire EV Industry!"

Ignore the hype nature of the video and for the sake of this thread focus on the technology. This could be the continuation of ICE, just not using fossil fuel. So whereas the discussion is binary, ICE using oil and ICE described in the video certainly have a very different future. I'd imagine the infrastructure required and the monetization opportunity to get from gas stations to charging stations or H2 stations will ultimately win out. Toyota had a big presence out here in Gardena (Calif) and the city vehicles ran on these engines. I think they still do and Torrance may be the only city that has a charging station in the area. Even buses use to be, I don't know if they still are. So this tech has been around for some time and there's certainly a window for it to be the next big thing instead of EV.

This could be VHS vs Beta all over again where Beta was apparently the better tech, but again, it comes back to monetization and marketing.

 

[New Binky the Doormat]

It seems far away, like 50+ years. EV vehicles are still too expensive

While the upfront cost is more, that is offset with tax credits, and couple that with the cheaper fuel and maintenance and the cost difference is negligible at best

I understand, but people still need to be willing to purchase/pay for a vehicle which costs $10-20K more up front than the comparable ICE.

wait ...what?

sorry brah ...not everyone is as flush with cash as you - and apparently as pious

Huh? Don't understand the hostility at all.

I'm saying EVs are too expensive atm, including for my household.

Or are you directing your comment at the moops?

This is your comment below - I made the comment based on your other comments - and especially this one ...everyone should be willing to pay $10K--$20K more to get around? In what world do you live in?

Terminalxylem says:
"I understand, but people still need to be willing to purchase/pay for a vehicle which costs $10-20K more up front than the comparable ICE."

That was in response to the moops, telling me EVs are effectively the same cost as ICE.

I thought it was implicit, but maybe the sentence should've read:

I understand (you believe the costs are similar), but people still need to be willing (to have sufficient financial resources) to purchase/pay for a vehicle which costs $10-20K more up front than the comparable ICE.

I wasn't insisting people shell out an extra $10-15K, rather, that in order for the moops' concept to be accurate, prospective EV buyers would need to agree to pay for greater up front costs.

Yet, you still erroneously believed I was imploring everyone to spend $40-50k+ on an EV. How does that conclusion logically follow my comment that EVs are too expensive?!?!?

Potential answer: You have some preconceived, negative impression of me as a poster. If so, sorry to disappoint you.

if you don't believe that people should be obliged to pay that kind of dough to support the cause - then we're on board with one another.

like I said - I'm not emotionally involved in this discussion.

I have no prior thoughts about you.

 

[massraider]

Once you have bitten the bullet cheaper to fuel

I don't know about 95%, but once these things are cheap enough, low income people eliminating their monthly gas bill will be massive, just massive.

Will they save that additional money? Probably not. They'll simulate the economy is what they'll do.

 

[The General]

Once you have bitten the bullet cheaper to fuel

I don't know about 95%, but once these things are cheap enough, low income people eliminating their monthly gas bill will be massive, just massive.

Will they save that additional money? Probably not. They'll simulate the economy is what they'll do.

Yep. At the moment they are being heavily subsidized but that IMO is a good investment of our tax dollars.

 

[Terminalxylem]

This isn't in line with Joe's original question, but I think it's relevant here. I happen to watched this yesterday: Toyota CEO: "This New Engine Will Destroy The Entire EV Industry!"

Ignore the hype nature of the video and for the sake of this thread focus on the technology. This could be the continuation of ICE, just not using fossil fuel. So whereas the discussion is binary, ICE using oil and ICE described in the video certainly have a very different future. I'd imagine the infrastructure required and the monetization opportunity to get from gas stations to charging stations or H2 stations will ultimately win out. Toyota had a big presence out here in Gardena (Calif) and the city vehicles ran on these engines. I think they still do and Torrance may be the only city that has a charging station in the area. Even buses use to be, I don't know if they still are. So this tech has been around for some time and there's certainly a window for it to be the next big thing instead of EV.

This could be VHS vs Beta all over again where Beta was apparently the better tech, but again, it comes back to monetization and marketing.

Hydrogen cells are interesting, but they have additional problems summarized here.

Musk said the following:

If you take electricity coming from a solar panel and charge a battery, you can get ~90% efficiency. Simple and cheap. Instead, if you use that electricity to split water, separate the hydrogen with extreme purity, pressurize it to crazy levels (or, even worse, liquefy), transfer it to a giant (even in liquid form) hydrogen storage tank in the car and then recombine it with oxygen to generate electricity, you would be lucky to get ~20% efficiency. Expensive, complex, bulky and super inefficient. It loses on every dimension, including refuel time when pack swap is factored in.

Cost is bad for fuel cells, but that is only one of many bad dimensions. If fuel cells were in any way better than lithium batteries, they would at least be used in satellites, some of which cost over $500 million. They are not.

Obviously, he's all-in on EV, but still food for thought. Your point about emerging technologies is well taken though.

 

[Terminalxylem]

It seems far away, like 50+ years. EV vehicles are still too expensive

While the upfront cost is more, that is offset with tax credits, and couple that with the cheaper fuel and maintenance and the cost difference is negligible at best

I understand, but people still need to be willing to purchase/pay for a vehicle which costs $10-20K more up front than the comparable ICE.

wait ...what?

sorry brah ...not everyone is as flush with cash as you - and apparently as pious

Huh? Don't understand the hostility at all.

I'm saying EVs are too expensive atm, including for my household.

Or are you directing your comment at the moops?

This is your comment below - I made the comment based on your other comments - and especially this one ...everyone should be willing to pay $10K--$20K more to get around? In what world do you live in?

Terminalxylem says:
"I understand, but people still need to be willing to purchase/pay for a vehicle which costs $10-20K more up front than the comparable ICE."

That was in response to the moops, telling me EVs are effectively the same cost as ICE.

I thought it was implicit, but maybe the sentence should've read:

I understand (you believe the costs are similar), but people still need to be willing (to have sufficient financial resources) to purchase/pay for a vehicle which costs $10-20K more up front than the comparable ICE.

I wasn't insisting people shell out an extra $10-15K, rather, that in order for the moops' concept to be accurate, prospective EV buyers would need to agree to pay for greater up front costs.

Yet, you still erroneously believed I was imploring everyone to spend $40-50k+ on an EV. How does that conclusion logically follow my comment that EVs are too expensive?!?!?

Potential answer: You have some preconceived, negative impression of me as a poster. If so, sorry to disappoint you.

if you don't believe that people should be obliged to pay that kind of dough to support the cause - then we're on board with one another.

like I said - I'm not emotionally involved in this discussion.

I have no prior thoughts about you.

Ok. Maybe ask for a clarification next time, before the insults fly?

 

[New Binky the Doormat]

Ok. Maybe ask for a clarification next time, before the insults fly?

thanks, sounds like I can learn so much from you.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Ok. Maybe ask for a clarification next time, before the insults fly?

thanks, sounds like I can learn so much from you.

Or, just keep being not excellent. Whatever floats your boat.

Reaction

 

[New Binky the Doormat]

Ok. Maybe ask for a clarification next time, before the insults fly?

thanks, sounds like I can learn so much from you.

Or, just keep being not excellent. Whatever floats your boat.

Reaction

the kat too cute ...truce ****o

 

[Orange&Blue]

Just as important, how will the government make up for the missing fuel taxes?

don't doubt the government's ability to find new ways to tax you.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

A lot of posters quick to point out what they perceive to be challenges while assuming there are no solutions.

Bizarre.

you and mooops here seem to think any questioning of the E&Y study predictions are dinosaurs and "preventers of progress".

What's bizarre to me is that people completely dismiss what is inevitable.

Trillions of dollars are being invested into alternatives to the ICE. To ignore that kind of momentum just seems bizarre to me. Regardless of what EY says.

I posted multiple articles here to support my stance. I've yet to see a reputable article to argue otherwise.

I agree that EVs are inevitable. I just don't think they'll become dominant (in the 95/5 sense) in my lifetime. I like EVs in principle, but I only put it at 50-50 whether I'll own one before I'm 75. It would be cool to be proven wrong. I'm just a little more pessimistic than you are about our ability to solve the battery problem and/or build infrastructure around it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

To be clear, I have only insinuated that one person, one type of person, is an EV hater. That comment was directed at someone who feels the need to criticize the Tesla owner because "it is powered by coal". The powered by coal is factually incorrect and I can really only think of one reason why someone would make that comment.

Not sure why this seems difficult. The reason my friend made the comment about my other friends Tesla being powered by coal is because in an area that gets electricity from coal-powered power electrical plants, it's true. You can keep saying it's not true all you like but that doesn't make it so.

In an area powered by natural gas plants, he could have said natural gas. As we hopefully move toward more power plants powered by renewable sources, that can change. My friend, who you somehow felt the need to "question his motives" is a nuclear engineer at a power plant using renewable energy to generate electricity. He'd like to see more of that as would I.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Pros:
They are quieter and they have more acceleration.
Cons:
The downside is they are heavier and have low roll resistance tires, this makes them corner worse.

Most people do not care about cornering all that much in city traffic.

In the Rockies or back on the windy 2 lane roads of Texas you would be disappointed in an ev coming from a wrx.

I've got just limited experience driving a Tesla, but this is how I see it too.

Acceleration is obviously their main thing. It's part of the Tesla sales process that's taught and it's fun but I can see how it would need to be limited for some. That's probably already a feature.

The one pedal driving is different but fine. I wouldn't say it's any better. The cornering is like you said above.

 

[BlackCrowes]

Read a cool article about these guys the other day - https://amprius.com/

Silicon anode triples the energy density of Lithium ion batteries.

The tech is coming

 

[TripItUp]

Read a cool article about these guys the other day - https://amprius.com/

Silicon anode triples the energy density of Lithium ion batteries.

The tech is coming

Exactly. Don’t understand why some assume it isn’t coming. There is way too much momentum/investment and historical precedent to suggest otherwise.

 

[BlackCrowes]

the sources for the grid vary so much. Last I checked mine is about 30%-40% coal and only about 20% renewable. A thousand yards further south and that flips. I think coal is currently responsible for about 20% of electricity nationwide.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Exactly. Don’t understand why some assume it isn’t coming. There is way too much momentum/investment and historical precedent to suggest otherwise.

I think maybe you're misreading what people are saying.

I think everyone assumes the technology will improve. That's a given. For any industry.

The question was how soon will ICE sales become less than 5% of the US market. And some people have different opinions on how long it will take for that to happen.

 

[matttyl]

the sources for the grid vary so much. Last I checked mine is about 30%-40% coal and only about 20% renewable. A thousand yards further south and that flips. I think coal is currently responsible for about 20% of electricity nationwide.

It is about 20 nationwide….but 20 years ago coal was around 40% nationally. Natural gas and renewables have taken off in that time.

 

[Jobber]

A lot of posters quick to point out what they perceive to be challenges while assuming there are no solutions.

Bizarre.

you and mooops here seem to think any questioning of the E&Y study predictions are dinosaurs and "preventers of progress".

What's bizarre to me is that people completely dismiss what is inevitable.

Trillions of dollars are being invested into alternatives to the ICE. To ignore that kind of momentum just seems bizarre to me. Regardless of what EY says.

I posted multiple articles here to support my stance. I've yet to see a reputable article to argue otherwise.

Many car makers are ceasing R&D on various ICE offerings and are in the last iteration of gas versions of these models. You’re use of “inevitable” is spot on.

 

[beer 30]

What, really??

No, probably not but I would buy you a beer

I thought they were difficult to get?

When you own a fleet of Ford trucks (thousands) and commit to buying 700 two years ago, they listen

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

A big limitation on EVs is the access to the raw materials that they are built with. How much more copper, lithium, aluminum, etc. would these vehicles need if they were going to replace the current level of ICE vehicles sales? The answer is a lot in orders of magnitude. Then add in the material needed to expand the charging capacity. Then add in the material needed to build the production capacity of electricity that is going to fuel these EVs. And they are going to have to compete with the electrification of everything else. And this demand is going to be in a world where there is access to less of these materials. China and Russia are on political roads that are going to limit access to their markets. Already access to Russian raw materials of all types is dwindling. Access to these materials is going to have to be found and secured somewhere in world, probably the Western Hemisphere, at least for American use.

By definition we have no good idea what new technology might demand material wise so even if a new battery technology is perfected for EV use, what raw materials is it going to need and how common are they?

Add in the enviromental impacts of green technology, like disposal of batteries, solar panels , windmill blades, effects of rare earth metals mining, etc. Questions like exactly how long does it take for an EV to become carbon neutral? need to be answered.

To me it seems if we want to limit carbon emissions there are other areas and technologies we could use our limited resources on then EVs with better results, given how little ICE vehicles contribute to the problem in the first place.

 

[nysfl2]

Just as important, how will the government make up for the missing fuel taxes?

I wouldn't worry about this one. At least here in Michigan, registration fees are already higher for EVs, and they could put additional "gas taxes" on electric bills if more is needed.

 

[The General]

Just as important, how will the government make up for the missing fuel taxes?

I wouldn't worry about this one. At least here in Michigan, registration fees are already higher for EVs, and they could put additional "gas taxes" on electric bills if more is needed.

Yep. Tax plates higher for EV’s. That is fair.

 

[beer 30]

A big limitation on EVs is the access to the raw materials that they are built with. How much more copper, lithium, aluminum, etc. would these vehicles need if they were going to replace the current level of ICE vehicles sales? The answer is a lot in orders of magnitude. Then add in the material needed to expand the charging capacity. Then add in the material needed to build the production capacity of electricity that is going to fuel these EVs. And they are going to have to compete with the electrification of everything else. And this demand is going to be in a world where there is access to less of these materials. China and Russia are on political roads that are going to limit access to their markets. Already access to Russian raw materials of all types is dwindling. Access to these materials is going to have to be found and secured somewhere in world, probably the Western Hemisphere, at least for American use.

By definition we have no good idea what new technology might demand material wise so even if a new battery technology is perfected for EV use, what raw materials is it going to need and how common are they?

Add in the enviromental impacts of green technology, like disposal of batteries, solar panels , windmill blades, effects of rare earth metals mining, etc. Questions like exactly how long does it take for an EV to become carbon neutral? need to be answered.

To me it seems if we want to limit carbon emissions there are other areas and technologies we could use our limited resources on then EVs with better results, given how little ICE vehicles contribute to the problem in the first place.

I mentioned this in my diatribe on page one. The lone response is below. Nobody seems to care or there are these magical pockets of minerals hither & yon that will satisfy a 100 fold demand for them that I'm not aware of

The response to your post needs broken down into a few different parts.

1. There are many mineral deposits that are currently not being mined, just like they were screaming peak oil in the 70's we are not at peak minerals by a long shot.

2. Battery technology will get better in the heat/cold.

3. The power grid is only maxed during the day, there is a massive amount of excess capacity at night when most people will charge.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

we're already assuming a generational change in the move from gas stations to electric charging/change out stations - yeah, that will have to happen.

I highly doubt that there will ever be charging stations dotting the nations like gas stations do now. The need to refuel on the way only exist for a small percentage of drives even with the 40 mile range of early vehicles. Yes, figuring out a viable means to address those long distance exceptions is a problem that will need to be solved to get to 95% of new sales, maybe even to get enough people comfortable for 50% but I don't think the "gas station" model will be that solution.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

we're already assuming a generational change in the move from gas stations to electric charging/change out stations - yeah, that will have to happen.

I highly doubt that there will ever be charging stations dotting the nations like gas stations do now. The need to refuel on the way only exist for a small percentage of drives even with the 40 mile range of early vehicles. Yes, figuring out a viable means to address those long distance exceptions is a problem that will need to be solved to get to 95% of new sales, maybe even to get enough people comfortable for 50% but I don't think the "gas station" model will be that solution.

Could be something more like a "truck stop" model. Larger, friendlier places where it's expected that a large number of vehicles will gather and that motorists will spend 45-60 minutes at each stop while their vehicle recharges. I agree with you that having a charging place in each little town might not be viable. I'm not sure that a smaller number of larger charging oases is going to be viable either, but that at least makes sense given what I think I know about the likely demand for on-road charging options.

 

[massraider]

I mentioned this in my diatribe on page one. The lone response is below. Nobody seems to care or there are these magical pockets of minerals hither & yon that will satisfy a 100 fold demand for them that I'm not aware of

Does the World Have Enough Lithium for Batteries?

Once it’s gone, it’s gone.

www.popularmechanics.com

I was reading this recently.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

we're already assuming a generational change in the move from gas stations to electric charging/change out stations - yeah, that will have to happen.

I highly doubt that there will ever be charging stations dotting the nations like gas stations do now. The need to refuel on the way only exist for a small percentage of drives even with the 40 mile range of early vehicles. Yes, figuring out a viable means to address those long distance exceptions is a problem that will need to be solved to get to 95% of new sales, maybe even to get enough people comfortable for 50% but I don't think the "gas station" model will be that solution.

Could be something more like a "truck stop" model. Larger, friendlier places where it's expected that a large number of vehicles will gather and that motorists will spend 45-60 minutes at each stop while their vehicle recharges. I agree with you that having a charging place in each little town might not be viable. I'm not sure that a smaller number of larger charging oases is going to be viable either, but that at least makes sense given what I think I know about the likely demand for on-road charging options.

There's a chain of convenience stores in my region called Sheetz (it's like a WaWa). They tend to hang out near the interstates. The one closest to my house put in seven charging stations a couple of years ago and I've noticed a definite uptick in seeing them used in the last several months.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I mentioned this in my diatribe on page one. The lone response is below. Nobody seems to care or there are these magical pockets of minerals hither & yon that will satisfy a 100 fold demand for them that I'm not aware of

Does the World Have Enough Lithium for Batteries?

Once it’s gone, it’s gone.

www.popularmechanics.com

I was reading this recently.

NASA is supposed to send a probe this fall or early winter to 16 Psyche, an asteroid believed to have more precious metals than what is on Earth. Another asteroid (ETA: technically a dwarf planet with lots of water), Ceres is believed to be an ideal candidate for lithium (ETA: because of the presence of water). (Sorry don't have links handy.)

Granted, the point of the NASA mission is to determine how accurately we guestimate the makeup of these space rocks, and the technology to put large equipment into space is just in early testing phases, and "return [robotic] missions" still struggle with funding but assuming that the resources are actually there this is a different type of problem to solve. That is I think long distance travel is currently a problem of imagination, while getting to the resources in an economically viable means has been reduced to a bunch of engineering problems which numerous private and public organizations are pursuing. Again, assuming the compositions are close to what science currently guestimates.

 

[The Gator]

I mentioned this in my diatribe on page one. The lone response is below. Nobody seems to care or there are these magical pockets of minerals hither & yon that will satisfy a 100 fold demand for them that I'm not aware of

Does the World Have Enough Lithium for Batteries?

Once it’s gone, it’s gone.

www.popularmechanics.com

I was reading this recently.

NASA is supposed to send a probe this fall or early winter to 16 Psyche, an asteroid believed to have more precious metals than what is on Earth. Another asteroid, Ceres is believed to be an ideal candidate for lithium. (Sorry don't have links handy.)

Granted, the point of the NASA mission is to determine how accurately we guestimate the makeup of these space rocks, and the technology to put large equipment into space is just in early testing phases, and "return [robotic] missions" still struggle with funding but assuming that the resources are actually there this is a different type of problem to solve. That is I think long distance travel is currently a problem of imagination, while getting to the resources in an economically viable means has been reduced to a bunch of engineering problems which numerous private and public organizations are pursuing. Again, assuming the compositions are close to what science currently guestimates.

The Expanse, here we come