
Electric cars are no longer held back by crappy, expensive batteries - jseliger
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2016/02/electric_cars_are_no_longer_held_back_by_crappy_expensive_batteries.html
======
pcr0
I'm all for electric vehicles, but there are a few things that have bothered
me about its mass adoption.

Right now, electrics comprise a tiny part of the automobile market share. Yet
Tesla is already running into supply issues, particularly with lithium as
there are only 3 companies in the world that do industrial-scale lithium
mining, that too in a handful of mines around the world.

Secondly, I suppose we're currently in the honeymoon period for electrics. But
what will happen 5-8 years down the line, when all the early mainstream
adopters of electrics will have to replace their batteries? Is it feasible to
recycle all those batteries?

~~~
dredmorbius
This is a real problem and a real concern.

An EV essentially is a car with a very expensive fuel tank (the battery), made
out of specific materials and properties. While it is efficient in energy use
and can make use of fungible electricity, lithium is rare, limited to specific
areas of concentration, and can (as any material) only be partially recycled.

There's lithium _elsewhere_ on Earth, or more precisely, in seawater, but
processing seawater for minerals (uranium is another which might be extracted)
is expensive in the sense of requiring a lot of energy (arguably the ultimate
definition of _cost_ is energy requirements).

At US rates of auto ownership scaled to the world and future populations,
known lithium reserves would quickly be exhausted -- a few decades, if that.
With recycling, yes, some of that would be re-used, but even at 90% material
recoverability (and references I have suggest 30% is far more common), you'll
lose ~50% of your original material in 7 generations. (The formula: remaining
material = (portion recoverable)^generations. So: 0.47 ~= 0.9^7.)

Other options include other forms of energy storage (including possibly
synfuels), other battery components, or we all just start walking a lot more.

~~~
8note
There's someone in Halifax researching Sodium Batteries, which would be a fair
bit easier to find than lithium, though less effective.

~~~
Animats
Sodium batteries have been around since the 1960s.[1] They're a high-
temperature battery, 90°C and upwards. Ford built some experimental vans with
sodium-sulfur batteries in 1991. Two of them caught fire. That technology was
abandoned for mobile applications.

There's still interest in this for stationary energy storage on power-grid
scale. But not for mobile. Sodium catches fire if exposed to air.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium%E2%80%93sulfur_battery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium%E2%80%93sulfur_battery)

~~~
lhl
Sodium-ion batteries aren't necessarily the dead end you might think.

Faradion has been working on portable batteries w/ decent energy density (~150
Wh/kg), excellent charge-discharge performance (93% capacity after 1000
cycles) and competitive costs:
[http://www.faradion.co.uk/about/news/2015/05/489/](http://www.faradion.co.uk/about/news/2015/05/489/)

Recent formulations for sodium rechargeable batteries are room-temperature and
non-flammable:
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4525335/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4525335/)

Here's a a short article progress being made getting Na-ion batteries into an
18650 form-factor (their current prototype has an energy density of about 90
Wh/kg): [https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/a-battery-revolution-in-
motion](https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/a-battery-revolution-in-motion)

While energy density is lower than Li-ion, there's probably a good argument
for longevity, safety, and material costs.

------
contingencies
The reality here in second-tier Chinese cities is that most people already get
around, if not always then at least often, by electric vehicle.

They've either never had cars, have bought cars but have problems parking them
or getting anywhere due to traffic (many cities were not designed for cars,
and now have millions of them clogging every available space on and off the
road network), or just jump on the back of black-market 'taxi' e-bikes to zip
about. E-bikes already carry a large proportion of people in Chinese urban
environments. There is no way that e-bikes, subways and buses combined are not
the dominant people-movers in the country, today. While I did see some e-bikes
in Japan, they were nowhere near as numerous. China is leading the way.

Typical Chinese e-bike cost new is USD$500 or less. Battery replacement (good
for 1 year or so) is currently about USD$150 or less. They do get stolen a
lot, unfortunately.

~~~
devy
True statement. Having been visiting China annually for the past 10 years and
seeing the transportation transition from mopeds to E-bikes first hand, I can
attest to that. And the price has really been going down significantly because
of the mass production and economy of scale (exports are a major
contribution). Typically e-bikes with traditional car batteries are starting
at around 2000 RMB. Some newer ones with Li-ion batteries are priced slightly
higher.

However, e-bikes are seeing a decline and/or full ban in top-tier Chinese
cities due to new traffic regulations and new road design. It is still the
predominant transportation tool in 2nd-tier and small cities where public
transportation is scarce and downtown areas are smaller.

~~~
contingencies
_However, e-bikes are seeing a decline and /or full ban in top-tier Chinese
cities due to new traffic regulations and new road design._

I'm not sure what you identify is a trend as you suggest, rather I think it's
just some exceptions. IMHO such regulations are generally for a small area,
the equivalent of a pedestrian only mall zone or a few central downtown
blocks. Often the motivation is to show off how "modern" the city is (as
upwardly mobile Chinese city mayor / party member assumes modern exists in
foreign perception, after publicly funded junket to Europe/Singapore/etc.).

I wouldn't be surprised if, in the future, we see such exceptions reversed.
After all, old people have to get around and there is tremendous acceptance
here of e-vehicles to cater for that market. (Theirs are often covered with a
passenger area at rear, and lockable.) This factor alone adds reasonable
weight to allowing smaller e-vehicles in the heart of all cities. What _has_
been banned in the heart of many cities is motorbikes, and for good reason.

------
sunstone
Interesting article but the timelines seem way to conservative to me.

For example if batteries continue to improve over the next four years as they
have over the past four years, according to the article then in 2020 the
batteries will weight 1500 lbs, travel 1142 miles on a charge and cost about
$10k. (Or a 500 mile battery for $5k) And the cost of electricity will be, at
today's rates, $1 per "e-gallon"

Who wouldn't want that? Project this to 2040 and the numbers become just
ridiculous but the article suggests just 35% market share by then. I don't
think so. By 2025 the market will almost certainly be strongly in the favor of
electrics.

~~~
kfk
Fuel engine are improving too and oil price doesn't seem to want to go down
any time soon. I'd say we have an interesting 10 years ahead. Electric is
probably going to win, but time estimates are very hard to do. Don't forget
that replacing a car fleet is expensive and takes years. A modern car can
easily last 15-20 years, so even if we started replacing fuel with electric
today (which we are not), replacing the whole car fleet would require 15-20
years. I don't see the 35% so far fetched in 2025...

~~~
gambiting
And don't forget that there are millions of people who have a car right now,
but who wouldn't have a place to charge an electric car. People living in
apartments, terraced houses, especially in the UK it's very common to see rows
upon rows of houses, none of them with their own driveway.

~~~
garrettheaver
I know what you're getting at but I don't think the above comparison is
entirely fair. Those houses don't have petrol pumps outside them either

~~~
gambiting
Yes, but I go to a petrol station once a month, takes me 10 minutes to fill up
and the whole tank lasts me for the whole month. With electric cars there are
two ways out of this, either build enough electric charging points that you
can charge while you are at work, or make every single car supercharger-
compatible. I personally don't think the first option is likely, I don't see
why my work(or any other) would have literally every single parking spot wired
for charging(there's over 1000 parking spots at our office), and as for the
second option, even 30 minute charging is excessive, it's fine o long journeys
so you can go an have a coffee and stretch your legs, but if you want to
quickly "fill up" after work 30 minutes is not acceptable. That's why I said
that for majority of people charging at home is ideal - but a lot of people
don't have private place to charge at home.

~~~
garrettheaver
Yeah I understand what you mean and I think you're right. 1000 charge points
is unacceptable but do we really need that? Given the current generation Tesla
can already self navigate pretty well what's stopping the cars navigate the
car park in your absence and charge themselves at a few central charge points.

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uMM0lRfX6YI](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uMM0lRfX6YI)

------
calgoo
What about making the battery packs "hot swappable". You pull into the
station, the current pack is unloaded and a new one is loaded. I It can also
have interesting effects on the battery upgrade you need to do every X amount
of years. The packs could be owned by the gas station chain, so you can stop
at any of their establishments and get a new one refiled.

These battery pack charging stations could then also be used as power
offloading for local power generation.

~~~
ZeKK14
The french car maker Renault tried this :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Fluence_Z.E](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Fluence_Z.E).
(<\- the point is in the link)

It didn't work.

~~~
Tempest1981
Sounds like it wasn't profitable, at least in 2013: "The company's financial
difficulties were caused by the high investment required to develop the
charging and swapping infrastructure, about US$850 million in private capital,
and a market penetration significantly lower than originally predicted..."

------
KKKKkkkk1
I've been shopping for a used car in the Bay Area, and it looks like used
electrics are even easier to buy (and harder to sell) than former rentals.
That's not a good signal.

~~~
Coincoin
Like any 1.0 product. The technology evolves so rapidly it loses 90% of its
value in a few years.

It reminds me my first digital camera, 2000$ and 3 years later you could get
better for 500$.

~~~
hliyan
I own a 2014 Nissan Leaf. Except for the battery and motor, almost every
technology in the car is what you'd find in a regular vehicle. Any
obsolescence can be dealt with by a battery upgrade (motors are a century old
technology, I doubt that'll improve much in 5-10 years).

~~~
vonklaus
ahhh gotcha, so just the internal energy source and the part that locomotes
it. Nothing too important then, eh?

edit: yes, it was a joke. However, not for nothing, this is still a bizarre
comment indicating that only the highy technical nuances in the car are
nuances and that it should be trivial to swap them out. The battery is tied to
the drive train each having a highly specialized and proprietary function. The
power train uses a "centuries old technology" a synchronous electric motor.

I am just jokingly pointing out that all cars use technology for motors
grounded in history. Leaving aside considerable differences in size, weight,
calibration, horespower or interconnection as well as subtle differences
converting the imperial system into metric, sure, I guess you could argue
motors are a commodity.

As for the battery, the leaf's is great. Slated to hold 70-80% of its charge
for around a decade. However, again, this was a limited production run-rate
and can't really be decoupled from the drive-train without a significant
degree of knoweldge and tooling making it highly unlikely someone would do
this for any other reason than to learn a massive amount and have a really
cool project. The battery is a 24kWh supercell constructed out of 192 subsells
with a cooling stack and whatever battery chemistry they are using[0]. So
yeah, I was having a playful joke here.

I don't think anyone was arguing that EVs are overtly complicated due to the
new radio & blue tooth technology they have to interface with the
stereosystem...it's all about the powertrain/motor & energy source interface.
jeez...

[0] Googled it, fairly standard: lithium ion manganese oxide batteries, like
the kind grandma used to bake.

~~~
hliyan
This is wrong. The battery is not tied to the drive train. Given the same
electrical interface, dimensions and a compatible BMS, swapping out for a
lighter, cheaper battery IS trivial. Even cell level replacement is possible
-- it's actually happening commercially where I live.

~~~
vonklaus
Again, this isn't my area, but conventional ICE vehicles are typically a total
loss if they need the entire engine & gas tank replaced. So, again, I am sure
I am not totally correct/wrong here in the entirety but my point was just
that:

> Except for the battery and motor, almost every technology in the car is what
> you'd find in a regular vehicle.

This statement I found funny because it was stating that the core
technological difference between ICEs and EVs was the energy source and the
motor. Again, I didn't mean to be insulting here, it's just like, no one
thought it was the windshield wipers, so I made a joke about it. However, this
second part:

> Any obsolescence can be dealt with by a battery upgrade (motors are a
> century old technology, I doubt that'll improve much in 5-10 years).

I am highly suspect of. Again, I have no reason not to believe you, but
realistically you would have to get the battery from Nissan as it would be
prohibitively expensive from a 3rd party and likely void the warranty. Hence
why I said a fun software project but not something an average user would
employ as the core battery pack[0] is buried under the entire enterior and
interfaces through wht are almost certainly proprietary connections and closed
API/systems.

Also, and again this is going on statements made by Nissan which are self-
serving[1] Nissan is swapping 5 batteries a year and recycles 15-20. So I was
simply pointing out that if we back out the 2016 statistic back to when Nissan
launched the leafin Dec 2010, they would be somewhere around 6y * 5 = 30
replacements span of the fleet. So, I was just poking a bit of fun in jest at
what you sort of intimated was just a casually routine procedure.

Again, you are correct[2], like they do have a battery replacement program and
you can rent/pay to be in it as of 2014. I am just pointing out that these are
the core differences between ICEs and EVs.

> Given the same electrical interface, dimensions and a compatible BMS,
> swapping out for a lighter, cheaper battery IS trivial.

Again, after reading this, I realized you could be trolling. Like, of course
that's correct, if you take away the _proprietary elecrical interface_ which
is likely hardware/connections AND software based, found/built a _compatible
BMS_ , e.g. the core Battery Management System of the deeply integrated cell
chemistry with the electrical internals that support it and likely interface
with a larger system at the pack and vehicle levels...and you take apart the
entire interior of your vehicle to get at the battery which is under all 4
seats and the carpet...disconnect all the wiring which runs throughout the
entirety of your car...then remove the 480lb pack and get at the 192
subcells...

then yeah, it's like super trivial. So easy a caveman can do it. But again, I
was just sort of having a laugh (not at your expense might I add) at how you
just sort of casually imply that except this super (unique/difficult/X) stuff
then Y is essentially trivial. But it's not a _big_ deal, I just wouldn't
imply it is as common place as you did.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf#/media/File:2013_N...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf#/media/File:2013_Nissan_Leaf_cutaway_\(2\).jpg)

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf#Battery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf#Battery)

[2][http://www.autoblog.com/2013/06/20/nissan-leaf-battery-
repla...](http://www.autoblog.com/2013/06/20/nissan-leaf-battery-replacement-
will-cost-100-month/)

~~~
imtringued
> This statement I found funny because it was stating that the core
> technological difference between ICEs and EVs was the energy source and the
> motor.

Have you ever looked at the e-Golf? It's just a normal golf except it has a
battery and a electric motor. The rest of the vehicle is exactly the same.

------
ktRolster
According to the article, we are now held back by expensive, non-crappy
batteries.

But the price is dropping, and eventually will be affordable.

------
dghughes
Forget the batteries look at the cost of replacing aluminum quarter panel
which is welded on. For the Model S it's supposedly $15,000+ just for the part
then fixed at a Tesla approved bodyshop. That's nuts!

I did the math and for comparison on a $3 million Enzo Ferrari a hood
(couldn't find a quarter panel) unpainted and used is about $10,000.
[http://www.ferrparts.com/en/usd/diagrams/front-hood-and-
open...](http://www.ferrparts.com/en/usd/diagrams/front-hood-and-opening-
device-23f01bca-50c3-48e2-ae63-e4ebfc5a08db)

I like electric but I can't own a car that will cost so much to repair. A
$15,000 bill not including labor on a $70,000 vehicle 20% of the total vehicle
cost is not worth it.

~~~
ebbv
You're talking about a $60k+ (realistically probably more like $80k) vehicle.
Aluminum body panels for luxury cars in that class have long been similarly
priced. If you bought an all aluminum Audi A8 in 1999 for a similar price,
you'd be in a similar situation. If you balk at that kind of repair bill, you
shouldn't be considering a car in that price range.

Your comparison of the _used_ Ferrari hood is hardly applicable at all. First
it's a used part, second it's a carbon fiber part, not aluminum.

Additionally, why would you expect to pay the price for the part yourself?
That's what insurance is for. In reality, Tesla is doing you a favor by making
their body panels so expensive because that means it's easier for your car to
get declared a total write off in an accident and you can get a new car
instead of a busted up repaired car that will never be the same (as anyone
who's had a car repaired from a major accident can tell you.)

Lastly, I'd imagine the cost of Tesla body parts has a lot to do with the fact
that they are in extremely high demand right now because there's still a
waiting list. Any body panel Tesla sells you can't be used to build a car.

~~~
votingprawn
> In reality, Tesla is doing you a favor by making their body panels so
> expensive because that means it's easier for your car to get declared a
> total write off in an accident and you can get a new car

I think the chance of getting new value for your totalled car is pretty slim,
unless it was written off in the first year or you're paying extra for GAP
insurance.

My car got written off by an insurance company last year after someone drove
into me. I ended up taking a settlement and getting the car fixed myself,
there was no way their write off settlement would by me anything like the car
I was about to lose. I also hate "throwing away" something mechanically sound
over a few body panels, some panel beating, and some paint. And it is
certainly not the 'green' choice either!

~~~
ebbv
If your car gets hit to the point where you have to replace body panels it's
not as mechanically sound any more as you might think. Only weird, edge case
accidents can result in a body panel being destroyed to the point of
replacement where the actual structure of the car hasn't been bent or warped
in ways that will permanently alter the handling and behavior of the car.

As for being green; when you write off a car it's not like it just gets buried
in the ground whole. It gets parted out and the parts all get sold. It's
actually quite green. :P

Your insurance will give you replacement value for the car that was destroyed.
No that's not original MSRP but it's what the destroyed car is worth. If
you're really intent on repairing it, you usually use that money to buy the
written off car from whoever the insurance company ends up selling it to
(usually whatever mechanic or storage place the totaled vehicle is physically
located) and then pay to have it repaired. If the total of that procedure is
higher than what the insurance company gave you, then it's a bad idea to do
that. :)

------
omellet
Now they'll just be held back by lack of a widespread charging infrastructure.

~~~
Animats
The next big problem is the lack of a unified charging infrastructure. Yes,
you can buy a trunk full of adapters.[1] Teslas use their own plug, for which
there are a CHAdeMO adapter, a J1772 adapter, and adapters for standard 120VAC
and 240VAC outlets. A full set of adapters is about $700. [2]

The Chevy Bolt uses Combo Cord, which supports J1772 and CCS.

Looking around Silicon Valley, almost all charging points have J1772. Some are
free, some require payment, and some require membership in a charging plan.
Higher power stations are mostly CHAdeMO.

There's a big retail markup on electricity. $0.59/KWh at some stations. And
there are payment "plans", which look like cellular phone plans. Tesla's
"Supercharger" is supposedly unlimited once you've paid your $2500, but
apparently if you use ones near your residence, they send you nag messages
saying it's really for travelers.

[1] [https://www.evseadapters.com/](https://www.evseadapters.com/) [2]
[http://shop.teslamotors.com/collections/model-s-charging-
ada...](http://shop.teslamotors.com/collections/model-s-charging-adapters)

~~~
NotSammyHagar
Yes, but you don't need chademo. Your car comes with 120 and 220v, plus j1172,
plus you don't need an adapter for superchargers. So $0 additional cost. Plus
it comes with the wall charger. So you might live in a place with Chademo, but
its only useful if it exists, and there is no high power charger. So the extra
set would $450, but you actually need $0 extra - and it fits in the corner of
the trunk. I've owned a tesla since 2012, and I don't have chademo. I've spent
exactly $0 extra on the plugs you suggest. I have been from seattle to
portland, eastern washington, Vancouver BC, Whistler, Banff. Just using
regular j1772 and superchargers.

~~~
greglindahl
I live in an area with a lot of CHAdeMO chargers, and I've never been tempted
to buy the adapter... near-home charging (I have an apartment) and
superchargers have done the job, even for longer trips.

------
intrasight
And if we go the Hydrogen route, then batteries definitely won't be what holds
it back. But certainly other factors will.

------
vonklaus
obviously Tesla is the front runner for spearheading the insudtry by virtually
every metric & subsector (except maybe price). Look, I love Tesla and have
been bullish on the company for a pretty long time, so I am biased, but why
can't other car companies have quality cars _and_ aesthetics.

* Fisker Karma: The car looked super sleek, was super sexy and from an engineering standpoint it was a heap of shit.

* Chevy Volt: Was an ICE car that had the worst of both worlds. Not particularly attractive.

* Rimac Concept One: Ok this car was fucking brilliant but it was like $1M USD.

* Prius: Pretty decent as far as hybrids go. Aesthetics are lacking what many might consider: _the ability to not look like a cross between a golf cart and a mobility scooter_.

* Chevey Bolt: Seems to have pretty amazing specs. Aesthetics are sub-par for sure.

Yes, Tesla's _thing_ was making a compelling electric car, however other
manufacturers seem to be doing alright in actually making the car. They just
need to bend the metal in a way that doesn't look fucking horrible and Tesla
will have a bit harder of a time of it.

Edit:

Here is a quick album I made. Nearly every car looks the same:

[http://imgur.com/a/HEsyf](http://imgur.com/a/HEsyf)

edit 2:

Here[t] you can see Tesla's offerings. The roadster is omitted. However, of
the 4 cars, they made: roadster and the models s,3,x,y* you would be hard
pressed to confuse them for any of the cars in the above album. However, those
in that album are very close to one another aesthetically.

[t][http://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2016/05/2017-Tesla-...](http://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2016/05/2017-Tesla-
Model-3-2016-Tesla-Model-X-Tesla-Model-S-charging-stations.jpg)

* they haven't made y yet....

~~~
Spooky23
It's too bad about the Volt. I drove one a few times... It isn't a terrible
car at all, and bypasses the gaping flaws in a pure electric vehicle.

~~~
vonklaus
What do you see as the 'gaping flaws' of a pure electric vehicle? I would
never want a hybrid, as I would optimize for either an ICE or EV but there
doesn't seem to be space in a consumer vehicle to have a workable hybrid that
is better than either of its pureplay counterparts.

~~~
Spooky23
A few:

\- Road trips. Range needs to accommodate the 95th percentile trip, not the
mean.

\- Apartment living

\- Unknown depreciation curve

The other inconvenient fact is that you need to drive a lot for the TCO of an
electric car to be lower than a similar gasoline car.

~~~
IanCal
Median daily distance is actually close to about 30 miles in the US. I'd be
surprised if the 95th percentile (equating to more than once per month) wasn't
already within the range of a Tesla, though the report doesn't have that
figure.

[https://www.aaafoundation.org/american-driving-survey-
year-o...](https://www.aaafoundation.org/american-driving-survey-year-one)

~~~
Spooky23
I travel regularly to NYC from Albany (about 150 miles). Many other people do
as well, based on the NYC->ALB traffic you see on weekend evenings.

It's a trip that is definitely in the range of a Tesla from a point A to point
B point of view -- but you end up with lots of overhead. Did I fully charge
before the trip? Will I do a side trip? Will I drive around when I get there?

The electric car adds a lot of complication, and doesn't really solve any
problem right now.

Its similar to the decision process of common carrier vs. car for any
moderate/long range trip.

~~~
vonklaus
I want to say straight out, I agree that range-anxiety is real. People need to
be comfortable that the car will be able to go wherever they need to go,
whenever they need to do there. That is, at least in America, the cultural
equivocation that driving === freedom.

That said, this statement:

> The electric car adds a lot of complication, and doesn't really solve any
> problem right now.

leaves me obligated to point out a few things. I will reason from analogy for
point:

1\. I just quit smoking, it wasn't obvious that it solved a problem right now,
but I hope it will eliminate some later ;).

2\. It doesn't matter, at least by Tesla's conception, that electric cars
solve anything. Obviously, it is a mission driven company but that mission
doesn't/shouldn't matter to the end user. Electric cars should be great for
their own sake, and as good or better than a comprably priced ICE.

------
mtgx
> There is no Moore’s law for battery storage—the power of batteries doesn’t
> magically double every two years.

> Put another away, the battery pack in the 2017 Volt will cost less than 10
> percent more than the one in the 2012 Volt. But it will be more than four
> times more powerful.

Intel wishes its chips still quadrupled in performance every 5 years.

> We’re moving toward a world where more and more cars will either run
> primarily on gasoline but with an assist from powerful batteries or
> primarily on powerful batteries but with an assist from gasoline.

He's saying that in article talking about how cheap batteries have become and
how in a few years they'll be $100/KWh? Within 10 years all EVs will have
100-150 KWh batteries. That's 400-600 mile ranges.

The only place where you'll see "hybrids" is some niches where batteries alone
couldn't possibly make sense, but I have a hard time coming up with ideas for
vehicles where batteries alone wouldn't be enough in 15 years and they're
smaller than say a train or an airplane. Even buses should do just fine with a
200KWh battery for a 16-18h work-day.

> Earlier this week, Bloomberg New Energy Finance released a report arguing
> that by 2040, 35 percent of annual vehicles sales will be electric.

It will be at least twice as much by 2030. By 2025 few will want a car that
_isn 't_ an EV, and the car makers will have no choice but to start competing
in EVs as their primary cars.

~~~
Freestyler_3
I just find it funny, that they think that moore's law means that chips
magically improve, that it is not dependant on the hard work of people.

