
What Needs to Happen Before Electric Cars Take Over the World - runesoerensen
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/18/business/electric-car-adoption.html
======
mschuster91
Biggest problem I guess will be expanding the charger network, simply due to
physics.

On the country side, laying cables for 1MW peak load (4 superchargers @ 250
kW) will be expensive - the grid in rural areas is enough for some farms and
small villages, that's it.

In cities, electric-car chargers will have to deal with political obstacles
(no one wants to sacrifice free-for-all parking spots!), in addition to the
electricity problem - while in a city there might be more available 10+ kV
lines (you don't want to do 250 kW over 230V AC, it's over 1k A current!),
sidewalks are often enough very slim as it is and it will be difficult to get
a charging station installed there, and digging in earth filled with cables is
not exactly fun either (been there, done that, it's manual work of the worst
kind as you can't even use a proper showel...). Getting chargers in garages
will face obstacles of the HOAs, plus the house uplinks usually are without
much reserves - my 12-apartment house, for example, is linked to the grid on
3x63A with each apartment (~60 m2) being fed by a single 40A phase. Not much,
certainly not enough to feed even two electric cars in the backyard.

Either way you'l have to rebuild the _entire_ grid more sooner than later if
electric cars should have a future... there's not enough money to rebuild
Detroit's water, where should the money for a full scale grid rebuild come
from? It's all decades old infrastructure, no matter if in the US or Germany.
Replacing or significantly upgrading it means _billions_ to _trillions_ of
dollars.

~~~
jdietrich
Electric cars have the potential to be a key part of the solution to load
management on a fully renewable grid.

The vast majority of people will usually charge overnight and don't need to
regularly charge at peak times. Through intelligent charger management, you
can distribute the load of charging across the entire off-peak period. The UX
for this can be fairly straightforward - by default you charge at the cheapest
rate, or you can press a button to get the quickest possible charge.

The real dividend comes from bidirectional charging, using the collective
resources of plugged-in cars as a load balancing reservoir. In exchange for a
discount on your electricity, the grid can take a small percentage of your
EV's battery capacity when needed. A typical mid-range electric car has a
40kWh battery, which represents about four days of electricity consumption for
a typical European household.

Nissan and the British utility regulator ran a two-year trial to examine the
long-term impact of EVs on local grid infrastructure. The trial used
intelligently-managed unidirectional charging. They concluded that about 32%
of local electricity circuits will need to be upgraded by the time that EVs
represent a majority of vehicles on the road. This figure could potentially be
lowered further by bidirectional charging technology.

[http://myelectricavenue.info/](http://myelectricavenue.info/)

America still has huge potential for efficiency savings, because of the
immensely high average household electricity consumption. The average American
household uses nearly _three times_ as much electricity as the average
European household. Air conditioning is only a small part of this disparity,
representing about 18% of the electricity consumption of American households
according to the Energy Information Administration.

~~~
enraged_camel
I was talking to a professor of electrical engineering who performs research
on the electric grid. She said that while in theory it is possible to
configure cars to charge themselves when electricity is cheapest, currently
residential utility plans don’t adjust pricing based on time of day. Your
electricity bill’s tiers are based on your _total_ consumption.

Edit: lol, I get downvoted for relaying what a professor of EE told me. Stay
classy HN.

~~~
IndrekR
Here (in Estonia) the pricing changes every full hour. We get pricing for the
next day (24h) a day before by 14 (2 pm). This is calculated from weather
forecast, expected consumption and available generation resources. This is for
residential use. For industrial applications you can buy electrical energy
from the grid based on 15 minute pricing slots. Almost all the houses are
equiped with online readable power meters.

I think this is the way things are moving in other jurisdictiins as well. In
case of Germany and France one of the reasons why the systems have mot been
upgraded lies in the privacy rules for the power consumption data according to
one smart meter manufacturer.

~~~
mschuster91
> In case of Germany and France one of the reasons why the systems have mot
> been upgraded lies in the privacy rules for the power consumption data
> according to one smart meter manufacturer.

Not just that, in addition the smart meters cost a bunch of money to
install... people don't like paying anything very much.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
This.

Norway is going all-in on smart meters, installation has been rolled out this
year to ~80% of the country, due to reach 100% next year. The total
installation cost is estimated at around 2.5 billion USD for around 2.2 mill.
houses, i.e $1000 per house. Which of course we as consumers will be paying
for through higher electricity prices.

------
paol
These articles keep omitting a pretty big barrier to adoption: street parking.
(Maybe it's a function of US being suburb-centric? But at least the _New York_
Times ought to know better.)

One of 2 things needs to happen, either charging technology improves to the
point where you can charge at a gas station in a span of time comparable to
refueling a conventional car, or all street parking spots need to be fitted
with charging ports for overnight charging.

Neither thing looks likely to happen soon.

~~~
jmnicolas
This is what I never understood : why don't they create cars where the battery
is removable and when you go to a "gas" station there's a machine that just
change your empty battery for a full one.

In fact I thought about patenting the idea 10 years ago but I didn't have the
know-how.

~~~
eloisant
Because batteries get old and need to be replaced, so you'd have to pay for
the aging of your battery when you get the new one

~~~
kalleboo
You could solve that by subscribing to your battery rather than outright
owning it.

------
tomxor
Price? (for normal people)

Yes there are EVs cheaper than teslas at a comparable price to ICE cars, but
they don't seem to have comparable performance and utility. I can't make an
economically minded decision to buy an EV today unless i'm an EV enthusiast or
I have lots of money to spend on luxury. (That was Elon Musks whole point of
Tesla in the first place, but the market doesn't seem to have substantially
shifted since)

Also for second hand cars, maybe it's different in the US, but in the UK the
vast majority of people buy used cars at prices well below the "new price".
It's going to take quite a while for EVs to trickle down to that price range
for it to be economical for 90% of people to bother considering it.

~~~
sandworm101
Every EV owner in my area seems to also own a gas car too. My landlord
commutes in an EV but his wife has a normal suv for all the kid stuff. (Im in
BC where long higheay trips are very much the norm.) EVs are fine if you can
afford to keep a second vehicle to cover all the things they cannot do.

~~~
Retric
Over the last 20 years a 250+ mile range electric would have worked fine for
every trip I have actually taken. (Assuming the current charging
infrastructure.) Now, with slightly different habits renting an SUV 0-4 times
a year is minimal effort and cost.

So, yea if you do 1000+ mile trips monthly without flying then electric is not
going to work, but that's unusual.

~~~
fjsolwmv
120miles is the capacity of affordable EV today. We hope it gets better.

~~~
nil_is_me
Chevy Bolt is 240 miles..

~~~
JoeAltmaier
My Ford F150 with a 36-gallon tank is around 550 miles.

~~~
mikestew
Congratulations, you win this week’s Unsolicited Non-Sequitur Award. We return
you to our discussion of electric cars, already in progress.

------
f_allwein
How about: We need to shift from individual car ownership to more public
transport? Sure it will be great if cars turn electric, but that does not
solve issues like crowded streets etc. This would be partly addressed if cars
were self driving and shared, i.e. would spend less time standing around
unused. Nevertheless, I assume (=don't have data) that public transport would
be much more efficient than electric cars in terms of energy/ resource/ space
usage.

Maybe in the future, the line between private and public transport will be
more blurry, i.e. you take a shared, self driving car to the railway station
etc.

~~~
peterwwillis
It's clear that buses are vastly more efficient in terms of moving large
numbers of people around, and so ride sharing alone (even automated) will just
continue to tie up traffic. At a point, uber and lyft will have to introduce
buses in order to keep their single-use services attractive. But, as long as
there is private ownership, we won't have wide adoption of public
transportation.

Everywhere in the world I have traveled, I have noticed that usually 1) public
transportation is limited only to a town/city, and 2) private buses to move
between cities/provinces are limited by market forces, and thus put a penalty
on people living farther from economic drivers. Which forces people in remote
areas, who on average make less money, to own cars to get to jobs [which robs
them of time and money they could be investing in their future etc].

The only way to change the inequality of people getting to jobs/goods/services
is to remove private car ownership and institute nation-wide public
transportation, and subsidize the more expensive parts of the network. Not
only would this be cheaper overall and more efficient overall, it would raise
the GDP, reduce pollution, reduce debt, reduce traffic fatalities, and
increase upward mobility.

People think cars give them freedom, but they never think about the societal
cost.

~~~
lazyjones
> People think cars give them freedom,

They don't just think so, they know it

> but they never think about the societal cost.

There is a "societal cost" attached to everything. Housing, Eating, going to
the restroom. Society should evolve to make known improvements to people's
lives available to more people and not devolve to a point where most modern
amenities are considered too expensive for most people.

That said, pretty much everybody hates public transport everywhere in the
world. It's better than nothing of course and in some densely-populated areas
it's actually an improvement and faster than using a car (the subway). But
given a reasonable choice, people prefer having their own cars, just like they
prefer to have their own homes instead of sharing one with dozens of other
people. Whatever the "societal cost" may be (what's the cost of individual
housing?).

~~~
peterwwillis
I don't think your perspective is realistic. If you think people make
reasonable choices, I have some sad news.

People "prefer" a lot of things. People prefer soda and potato chips and
1000-calorie meals. People prefer to not pay taxes for health care and public
education. People prefer to get pregnant and not get married. People prefer to
live in suburbs away from inner cities full of people who might be different
than them. People prefer not to save money. People prefer to vote along party
lines and watch TV news that aligns with their views rather than reality. And
they also prefer to drive individual cars which are highly likely to injure or
kill them, or own handguns which are also likely to injure or kill them, and
yet rant like paranoid lunatics if they have to get on a plane with a guy in a
turban.

That being said, I know a lot of people around the world who prefer public
transportation. It gives them time to read, to communicate. And like you
mentioned, it is faster than commuting by car. It is, of course, also vastly
cheaper than owning a car. But it also enables people to make more money by
getting better jobs, without having to invest in a car, which is often a
significant impediment.

> Society should evolve to make known improvements to people's lives available
> to more people

I agree! Like public transportation.

> and not devolve to a point where most modern amenities are considered too
> expensive for most people

Kind of like cars, an amenity which is often needed to get a job, but also
ties people up in debt from loans and maintenance costs and insurance costs
and registration costs and parking tickets and parking lot fees and traffic
tickets, making it harder to make a living.

You're saying cars should be made cheaper, of course, but this is absolutely
ridiculous. Since 1967, the cost of a car (adjusted for inflation) has either
stayed the same or risen. There is no indicator at all that cars in this
market will get cheaper any time soon. Other markets have cheaper cars, either
because of regulatory influence, or because they simply produce cars at rates
that their people can afford. Which means cheaper cars could be sold here, but
manufacturers know they can make more money here.

So - what would a "reasonable" choice be? To go into debt to own a
transportation method they don't need? Or to buy an SUV so they can drive to
Starbucks and spend $4 on a coffee?

People are idiots, and we should not define the terms of our society based on
their whims alone.

~~~
lazyjones
> If you think people make reasonable choices, I have some sad news.

They make their own choices. It's not up to us to patronisingly decide what's
reasonable for them, as long as what they do isn't destroying society itself.

> And like you mentioned, it is faster than commuting by car.

That's not always the case. I live in a large city (1.9 million people) with
one of the best public transport systems of the world and depending on where
you live, it's faster by 30-45 mins to drive than to use public transport to
some other part of the city,

People like me prefer to have time to use as we please rather than strangers
to stare at. So we drive when we save time, or when it's raining or when many
people are sick and cough at everyone. Unreasonable?

> an amenity which is often needed to get a job, but also ties people up in
> debt from loans and maintenance costs and insurance costs and registration
> costs and parking tickets and parking lot fees and traffic tickets, making
> it harder to make a living.

So does public transport by costing tax money and therefore putting pressure
on governments to increase taxes.

> You're saying cars should be made cheaper, of course, but this is absolutely
> ridiculous.

Please don't make up stuff.

> There is no indicator at all that cars in this market will get cheaper any
> time soon.

EV will.

> People are idiots, and we should not define the terms of our society based
> on their whims alone

Exactly my point, the question is: who's the idiot? The one who forces people
to cut down on their lifestyle choices (soon we'll have to go vegan because of
the societal, environmental and moral cost of meat, right?) or the one who
opts for freedom of choice and technological progress to make more choices
sustainable?

~~~
peterwwillis
We've already forced people to cut down on their lifestyle choices in multiple
markets in order to help them stop killing themselves and others. Smoking.
Drunk driving. Trans fats. Seat belt laws.

Driving was the 12th leading cause of death, and 7th in terms of number of
years of life lost, in 2011. This is a major health concern in the US. Is it
worth it to kill 36,000 people a year so that they can have the "freedom" of a
particular "lifestyle"? I'm sure those who own cars can rationalize it, but if
we were talking about motorcycles they would probably be banned from public
streets within a year.

There's certainly good to come from making existing choices less harmful, but
in the face of no better choice, and the choice not getting any better in the
perceivable future, removing the choice is often a good idea.

Moreover, this lifestyle choice has not only negative health effects, but
actually lowers local economic activity, to say nothing of worsening income
inequality, upward mobility, and debt. Even if you brought the cost down by
half (which would seem incredibly odd to me, as you basically have only one or
two providers of some of the essential parts needed, so why would they not
charge the prices that the market already bears for these products? case in
point: car prices have never gone down) you still have all the other negative
aspects of cars - death, parking, traffic, pollution, inequality, etc. EV only
solves one of those things. The rest have zero practical solutions.

You can also look at it this way: the technical progress does not stop just
because cars are taken off the road. You can still improve batteries for a
variety of uses, the existing tech is still documented and can be brought
back, and when self-driving cars are stable, you can look at whether they are
even _necessary_ for auto-lifestylers with a well-funded national public
transportation system. Certainly they wouldn't be needed in the numbers they
are today.

~~~
lazyjones
> Driving was the 12th leading cause of death, and 7th in terms of number of
> years of life lost, in 2011

Including buses, right? Or do they never crash?

> Is it worth it to kill 36,000 people a year so that they can have the
> "freedom" of a particular "lifestyle"?

Yes, because it comes with great utility as well.

You could ask the same questions about smoking (in private), drinking alcohol,
lack of exercise, flying in airplanes etc. - are you going to forbid all of
these?

> Moreover, this lifestyle choice has not only negative health effects, but
> actually lowers local economic activity, to say nothing of worsening income
> inequality, upward mobility, and debt.

Yeah, right.

> the technical progress does not stop just because cars are taken off the
> road.

If you take away a market, you'll hamper progress.

~~~
peterwwillis
> Including buses, right? Or do they never crash?

Oh, I forgot about all those buses constantly crashing. They account for 0.6%
of all traffic accidents.

> Yes, because it comes with great utility as well.

A small portion of drivers need their vehicles for a utilitarian purpose. The
vast majority use them simply as personal transportation. It's similar to
guns. A very small amount of them are used for a utilitarian purpose, and the
rest are owned for fun, yet they kill 33,000 every year. If ownership were
limited only for utilitarian purpose, these numbers would go way, way down.

> You could ask the same questions about smoking (in private), drinking
> alcohol, lack of exercise, flying in airplanes etc. - are you going to
> forbid all of these?

Flying in airplanes? There is no significant health risk from airplanes. The
rest are perfectly fine to do in private. The reasons why cars might be
eliminated has nothing to do with private use - it has to do with its impact
on the public.

> If you take away a market, you'll hamper progress.

An existing market does not necessarily result in progress. We (the US) had
the largest auto market in the world for almost the entire history of
automobiles, now second to China. We had not only the technology, but _actual
electric cars_ , 130 years ago.

Rough timeline:

The first crude electric car was introduced 185 years ago, around 1832. The
first successful American electric car was introduced in 1891, with multiple
makes and models produced in 1893.

By 1900, one third of all cars produced in the US were electric.

In 1908, the Model T gas-powered car was introduced, and in 1912, the electric
starter. The practicality of this method ends the commercial viability of
electric cars by 1920.

In 1966, Congress introduced a bill recommending electric cars to reduce air
pollution. In the 70s, an oil crisis sparks massive consumer interest in
electric vehicles.

In 1997, 30 years later, Toyota introduced the Prius, a hybrid. _Within three
years_ Honda, GM, Ford, Nissan, Chevy, and Toyota all produce ALL-electric
vehicles.

Here we are, 20 years later, with a lot of hybrids, and one or two all-
electric vehicles, pretty much all of which are too expensive or impractical
for widespread adoption.

We have invented electric cars twice. Both times the market did not choose
progress.

~~~
lazyjones
> We have invented electric cars twice. Both times the market did not choose
> progress.

Please educate yourself about the history of automobiles and why gasoline
powered cars were much more practical and won.

Progress is not whatever fits in your utopia or seems best in hindsight, it's
whatever improves the current situation. Pollution was not an issue in the
20's and what seemed best then won on the market. It's not a difficult
concept.

------
GiorgioG
The issue of energy portability is not an insignificant one IMO. I can carry 5
gallons (or 100-150 miles worth of range) of fuel fairly easily. Not so much
with an electric vehicle.

What happens when I run out of juice on the side of the road? I don't care how
many times the car warns me; that it shouldn't happen, etc. People still
manage to run out of gas today. With an electric vehicle already hampered by
half the range of an I.C.E. vehicle, it will happen even more often. If I
drain my battery, I can no longer walk down to a gas station, fill up a 5
gallon container and be on my way.

"But that should never happen!" sure and people don't get stranded for hours
in traffic in the middle of a winter storm. An I.C.E. vehicle can easily idle
for a day non-stop on half a tank. Can an electric vehicle provide me with
heat for 24 hours when it's -3F outside on half a charge?

Even when we reach range parity, the convenience and portability of gasoline
will keep me buying I.C.E. vehicles until it is overwhelmingly superior.

~~~
stuffedBelly
This may sound like a joke but I think it might work - would carrying a
pedal/hand generator resolve emergency like this, at least for a little while?

~~~
thebluehawk
Ehhhh. I doubt it. I looked up and a typical hand crank is 10 watt. That won't
be any good. That wouldn't power a laptop. I found a decent pedal generator
that says it can output 400 watt. My car uses around 330 wH to go a mile, so
if you charged at 400 watt for an hour, you would get slightly more than a
mile of range (assuming no efficiency loses). Pedaling for an hour to go one
mile doesn't sound like fun to me.

------
ckastner
> Price of an electric car powertrain: $16,000

> Price of a conventional car powertrain: $6,000

Can anyone provide a better source for this?

This is exactly the opposite of what I expected. I thought electric
powertrains had far fewer (in the hundreds, even) moving parts?

Edit: Coffee hasn't kicked in yet. As user analognoise points out, this is
literally answered by the sentence that follows the above: _How soon that day
arrives is almost solely a function of the price of batteries._

~~~
benjaminl
Almost all of that is the battery. Even though batteries are coming down in
price, they are still very expensive.

For example GM’s list price for the Bolt battery is $15,734. Now this is the
replacement cost Bolt owners pay for a new battery not the actual cost, but it
gives an indication of their cost.

[https://electrek.co/2017/06/12/gm-bolt-ev-battery-pack-
price...](https://electrek.co/2017/06/12/gm-bolt-ev-battery-pack-price-cost/)

~~~
ianai
How much power does the electric motor need?

-edit- found it [https://www.quora.com/How-much-power-is-required-by-the-moto...](https://www.quora.com/How-much-power-is-required-by-the-motor-to-run-the-car-electric-car-in-watts)

80kw to accelerate and 1 kw to maintain.

-edit 2- how come no ones put 3 solar panels on top of an EV? Three of the following could output 1 kw and fit in the space available.

[http://www.solarwholesale.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/10/Sil...](http://www.solarwholesale.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/10/Silfab-SLA-M-280-and-300-Spec-Sheet-Solar-
Wholesale.pdf)

Seems like an obvious for electric semis where there’s often plenty of sun
(aka an ever increasing portion of the US)

~~~
mtgx
Model S has about 500 kW, Model 3 300 kW, Bolt 150 kW, Renault Zoe like 50 kW.

As for the other question, the solar panels provide way too little charge for
the given area. When EVs are all about to have 100+ kWh batteries soon, it
doesn't make sense to have a solar roof top:

[https://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDes...](https://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/15290/Why-
the-Tesla-Model-3-Will-NOT-Have-a-Solar-Roof.aspx)

~~~
ianai
The numbers in that article seem chosen as low bars to prove a point. There
are panels with much greater efficiency/density and lower cost. If it doesn’t
make sense today it will in the future.

If a company could move their trucks for “free” for 5 hours/day they would.

~~~
Dylan16807
> There are panels with much greater efficiency/density

Not by a huge amount. You could get 3x that with just about the best solar
panel, but they didn't appear to factor in the losses from having the panels
facing up-ish and not toward the sun, so you also lose another big chunk of
power.

> If it doesn’t make sense today it will in the future.

Doubt it. Solar panels can only be so efficient.

> If a company could move their trucks for “free” for 5 hours/day they would.

Sure, but we're looking at more like fifteen minutes.

Put the solar panels on the ground. They'll give you more "free" range, with
less effort.

------
_greim_
> Drivers will have to shed their attachment to the sound, smell and feel of
> gas-powered engines.

I for one will not feel the least bit sad when continuous, smooth acceleration
becomes the norm, and lurchy, awkward automatic transmissions fade into
distant memory.

I'll probably feel _slightly_ nostalgic about the sound and smell of fuel-
burning cars someday, but it won't inform my buying choices in the slightest.

~~~
wojt_eu
I already feel nostalgic about gas-powered cars, their place is alongside
steam locomotives as movie props and tourist attractions. Imagine people doing
gas-punk cosplay in a couple of decades.

~~~
farrisbris
I really really really do not share that nostalgia. I live in a city center
and the only amount significant source of noise is from cars/buses. Sure you
will have sirens or people shouting every now and again, but there is a
constant buzzing sound from motors that goes on throughout the day and most of
the night. I moved from a relatively quiet neighbourhood to where i am a few
years ago, and the sound of motors ( and the smell. Lets not forget that cars
smell ) is the only thing i about living here. This would be a great place to
live if it wasn't for the constant sound and smell of motors.

~~~
cmrdporcupine
Oh hell, I live rural, and it's just as bad. Constant industrial type noises
from neighbour's skid steers, trucks, tractors, snowmobiles, quads, and dirt
bikes.

------
scythe
Battery manufacturing is _hard_. Everyone was really impressed by that
"record-breaking" installation Tesla made in South Australia, but that 100 MWh
installation is really less than 2000 cars, and Tesla needs to build five
times that much _per month_ to keep up with demand. I think people focus on
lithium because it's in the name, but lithium access is nowhere near the
hardest problem facing battery manufacturers (and correspondingly it's a small
percentage of the cost).

------
tyu100
Rare metal shortages are self-solving. There's already dozens of mining
juniors prospecting in western countries and China has near-limitless
resources. Additionally, graphite, lithium and cobalt are substitutable to
some degree.

Anecdotally, the resource exploration stock message board forum I follow has
almost given up on oil and gas companies and has moved to cleantech (or
marijuania). Sign of the fast-arriving future.

------
jokoon
Once global warming becomes a real problem and the politics are driving laws
to be enacted towards using electric vehicles, the situation will change
pretty quickly.

I'm sure governments could sink a lot of money into battery research if the
situation would make it so.

Although I've read in several places that once global warming is engaged, you
cannot reverse it because of stuff like melting methane ice spots in the
tundra.

~~~
Cthulhu_
> Although I've read in several places that once global warming is engaged,
> you cannot reverse it because of stuff like melting methane ice spots in the
> tundra.

I'm fairly confident that point of no return has already been passed.
Permafrost has stared to melt a while ago, causing bacteria to take hold of
things they couldn't for x amount of years, catching up on releasing co2 and
such that would otherwise have been in the atmosphere a long time ago already.

~~~
okreallywtf
Note: this doesn't mean despair and do nothing. I'm not saying this is what
you mean't, just feel like we need to point that out because despair is very
counterproductive. Also, this doesn't mean that climate mitigation is the only
choice either, it is still cheaper to "diet" than it is to "exercise" to use a
weight loss analogy. Lowering CO2 emissions is still going to slow climate
change and hopefully give us time to come up with other mitigation strategies.

------
brownbat
> car companies will have to radically streamline their dealership networks

Electrification won't kill inefficient dealerships. They're too entrenched in
politics.

[https://www.inc.com/magazine/201411/paul-keegan/collision-
co...](https://www.inc.com/magazine/201411/paul-keegan/collision-course-
truecar-disrupter-gets-disrupted.html)

~~~
UMadBreaux
I find Japan's car buying culture very interesting. Dealership services in
Japan are much more of a concierge service, where the dealer brings the car
you are interested in right to your house, and buyers generally have an
ongoing relationship with the sales staff and others at the dealership.

------
cyb0rg
We no longer live in a past-is-prologue world. Now we live in a if-the-
business-plan-works world where human inertia is no longer a big factor. All
of the discussions below assume that most cars will be personally owned. My
guess is that most passenger miles and commercial ton miles will be logged by
robotaxis and robotrucks in the near term (five to ten years) because the
convenience will be so high and the cost so low. The robotaxis will have
smallish batteries and will charge often, but the charge stations will be more
centralized and will be fed by small utility pv installations dotted around
the periphery of the city and yes, these same robotaxis could be used for load
balancing storage, but I suspect that their used and/or obsolete batteries
will provide the storage.

    
    
      No need for parking space chargers or for that matter for parking spaces.

------
skookumchuck
The lithium may not be that much of a problem if existing aged batteries can
have the lithium in them recycled.

~~~
delbel
Its not the Lithium that is a problem. Its the Colbolt-59 that's next to it. A
typical Tesla has about 15 pounds of Colbolt-59. If a small tactical weapon
would be used near the location of a single parked Tesla, the Colbolt-59 will
transmute to Colbolt-60, the deadlist substance known to earth. 15 pounds of
Colbolt-60 is enough to kill 24 million people. Imagine a parking lot of them.
4 tons of it is enough to annihilate all life on earth. These Tesla cars are
the biggest extensional threat to human kind. Anyway, have a nice day!

~~~
varjag
It's cobalt. Also, my physics is rusty but transmuting an isotope should
involve a nuclear reaction.

~~~
delbel
Sorry, honest typo. Yes nuclear

------
apatheticonion
For me it's accessibility, style and performance. In my mind, I wouldn't
purchase a car above 4k (NZD) unless it's an electric car.

However, there are fewer electric cars where I live (New Zealand) than I have
fingers, and the ones that are available cost over 100k or are very ugly
(sorry leaf owners but it's not a cool looking car)

I saw the e-golf, felt hope but after learning of it's lethargic 0-100 (0-60)
and the fact that it's not even available here, I quickly lost hope.

I don't care if I get a 100km (60 miles) range, I never travel further than
that - I firstly want to actually be able to buy one, would appreciate a
little thrill, and style that doesn't make me feel like I am making a
statement.

Chances are that won't happen, so I'm probably just going to build one.

------
thescriptkiddie
I'm skeptical that we will ever see a day where there are as many electric
cars on the road as there are ICE cars today. That's not because I think
people won't buy electric cars, but because I think people won't buy cars in
general. In the western world we are rapidly approaching "peak car". The
number of cars on the road today is simply unsustainable. I would not be
surprised if over the next few decades, more cars are taken off of the road
entirely than are replaced with electric.

------
kuceram
I think that the market will decide. It will be a balance between few major
things like: price, range, efficiency, safety and fancyness (cars are more
emotional than rational :-).

The same happened in the beggining of car industry.
[https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/hybrid-
techno...](https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/hybrid-
technology/history-of-electric-cars1.htm)

~~~
Cthulhu_
> cars are more emotional than rational :-)

Depends; in my country there were / are significant cost / tax benefits for
getting hybrid and fully electric cars (for lease cars, and there's quite a
lot of those here). If driving an electric car is cheaper then people will go
for that too. Does Tesla still do free usage of the supercharger network for
the Model S? That's another incentive, given the cost of electricity over
time.

------
fergie
> "But the automakers’ existing expertise — building internal combustion
> engines — will no longer give them a competitive edge."

Interesting- this would mean that the real innovation in cars comes _after_
electric drivetrains have become the standard, when any moderately capitalised
company without substantial experience of internal-combustion motors can
create their own take on a car with any kind of new features they see fit.

~~~
greedo
Thinking that the ICE is a competitive advantage/disadvantage is what has led
to Tesla struggling with building the Model 3. The competitive advantage held
by the existing automakers is based around building cars cheaply; in quantity;
and in quality. They also have established brands that inspire tremendous
loyalty, and they have dealerships that offload a lot of the support issues.

When electric drivetrains become the standard, nothing will be different.
These automakers will still have these advantages over upstarts.

~~~
ecpottinger
Right, by that logic Tesla should not have any sales.

~~~
greedo
Compared to the incumbents, Tesla doesn't.

------
kriro
I feel like the answer is "let some time pass". I think the majority of
electric cars will eventually come form China. They are serious about the
banning of non-electric cars and will be set up to deal with it once that
happens. The pricepoint/quality will be attractive enough for non-Chinese
markets and that'll be that.

------
cmrdporcupine
Honestly, manufacturer supply is the limitation at this point. At least around
here I can't think of a single EV that sits on lots and accumulates inventory.
The manufacturers are making 30,000 or so vehicles a year of their product and
consumers are buying all of them.

And this is almost certainly related to battery supply constraints.

------
DarronWyke
Even before reading the article, my first thought was 'need to expand the
range of the vehicle'.

Yes, advances in battery technology means even the lowest-common-denominator
consumer will get better battery life without having to shell out more -- but
that will hit a cap before long.

Assuming an average range of about 100mi for the consumer-grade EV, that would
satisfy many. But there are still many more who that will not work for, with
longer commutes or more driving distance (errands, kids, other activities,
multiple jobs, ferrying, taxi/rideshare services, etc.).

A dual-engine design seems to be a more obvious solution, with a primarily
electric engine with a secondary, small engine providing backup power either
with recharge or straight up horsepower delivered to the drivetrain when the
battery is depleted or running critically low. This doesn't necessarily have
to be ICE; this engine could be something else that's fairly revolutionary
like a hydrogen fuel cell. Even if we get to a majority EV situation, having
these be commonplace will give everyone who owns one more freedom and options
rather than locking them down to what that particular model has (I see a
future with more vendor lock-in).

------
3chelon
I'm totally in favour of electric cars, but I'm surprised the article never
mentioned the problem of sourcing all the power.

There have been a lot of contradictory claims over how many more power
stations would be needed for a fully-electric future, with some sources
claiming the UK alone would need an extra ten nuclear power plants, and other
sources massively downplaying that, but clearly if everyone was driving an EV
by, say, 2040, then that only gives us 20 years to work out and deliver the
answer.

NIMBYism and hyper-inflated public infrastructure costs mean this could be a
significant problem, both in terms of cost and feasibility.

~~~
alex_duf
I hope that we never reach the point where everyone buys an electric car. By
then most big cities will heavily rely on a fleet of car pool, potentially
self driving.

That decreases the number of needed cars by an order of magnitude.

~~~
dagw
The number of cars is irrelevant when talking energy needs, only distance
traveled matters. And I can definitely see how easily available self driving
pool cars will increase rather than decrease the total distance driven, and
thus increasing the total need for electricity.

~~~
alex_duf
That a good point, I completely missed that

------
icc97
One of the eye openers for me in this was the average ranges, 475 miles vs
190.

ICE cars have 2.5x the range of electric cars. I always assumed it was much
more e.g. 800 miles vs 100 miles.

According to this graph [0] the price per kWh of batteries is halving every 5
years, so within ~6-7 years the range of electric cars will be equal to that
of ICE cars.

[0]: [https://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/15/ev-battery-prices-
looki...](https://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/15/ev-battery-prices-looking-back-
years-forward-yet/)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Wrong metric. Its kWh / kg (not price) that matters for transportation. Until
we get metal-air batteries that's not going to change much.

~~~
icc97
You're right that's better, but it doesn't completely invalidate my
prediction, it just means I might be out a bit with the time. Battery kWh / kg
is also improving too, I just don't know if it's at the same rate as price.

Its possible now with Teslas to buy the higher kWh batteries and they go
further, so it's not like weight is the only factor. The new Tesla Roadster
coming in 2020 [0] has a 620 mile range because it's basically a battery and
little else.

So it depends on:

1\. how much the extra weight/drag of a model 3 chassis would reduce the range
2\. how much of the $200,000 price is down to the battery.

Then you are waiting until the price of the battery comes down.

[0]: [https://www.tesla.com/roadster](https://www.tesla.com/roadster)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Like rockets, there a point of diminishing returns where you have to have some
battery to push the other batteries around, which push the car around. Its
kWh/kg that's king.

------
perseusprime11
Can we pivot this conversation to building cities and towns that don't need
cars instead of thinking of filling the streets with electric cars?

------
myroon5
"CARMAKERS’ ANNUAL PROFIT: $400 billion"

This seems hard to believe. Revenue, maybe?

~~~
cma
$400 billion / ~80 million passenger cars per year would be $5000 per car.

~~~
reacweb
A large part of the profit is made on spare parts.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
and finance.

~~~
Dylan16807
Do car makers get involved in that?

~~~
tonyedgecombe
They certainly do:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Financial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Financial)

------
googletazer
Anyone here investing in lithium/cobalt/graphite?

------
digitalshankar
The most important thing to happen is to figure out a way to reduce the
pollution from the petroleum powered vehicles, especially exhaust gases. This
will ensure smooth move towards Electric vehicles.

~~~
okreallywtf
How? Did you mean to say _tax_ pollution from petroleum powered vehicles?

------
Dowwie
Are electric buses even necessary when electric autonomous sedans are
available?

~~~
Cthulhu_
Depends on how big and busy your roads are. Gridlock might be alleviated a bit
due to autonomous driving and planning, but by the time that rolls around the
world's population will probably have gone up by a couple billion again
(wikipedia says it's projected to be 10 billion by 2050) so there'd be more
cars on the road.

There'd be less gridlock if people did more carpooling, buses, or drove more
on motorcycles.

------
mfeldheim
Paywall

~~~
gnclmorais
[https://outline.com/VEjrjG](https://outline.com/VEjrjG) <\- paywall bypassed.
Enjoy!

------
megablast
Hopefully they never take over the world, and we can stop this car nonsense.
Having over a million extra people not killed by cars would be nice.

~~~
ManlyBread
I concur, the push for mass adoption when the tech behind the electric cars
are in such an infant stage makes me nervous. On top of that it won't be any
better for the environment in countries which still have majorly coal-based
power plants.

~~~
Fredej
That's true in the short term, but one of them has to be the first to move.
Shifting from coal to renewables does nothing for the environmental impact of
cars in an all-ICE system. If we get a larger percentage of electric cars, the
impact of switching to renewables will also increase.

------
deevolution
I can't wait for the day where public transportation is replaced by more
efficient, cheaper and more personalized ride sharing services. Public transit
is horribly broken, at least in NYC... personaly I dont see my self ever
sinking 35k into a new car unless it would be making me money.

~~~
bradleyjg
I don't see how ride sharing services are ever going to be more efficient than
public transit. Or how it will even be barely possible to replace the one with
the other in a place like NYC.

Riding sharing is about utilizing a vehicle in a temporally more efficient
way, but it does little to improve spacial efficiency during peak times.

The commuter rails, subway, and buses are far more dense than a fleet of self
driving cars with one to two people in each can possible be. Even with the
increased density that might plausible come from better driving and so more
tightly spacing, it would simply be impossible to get everyone into and out of
their offices across Manhattan during the communing windows without the
density of mass transit vehicles and the utilization of underground space.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Ride sharing does help with parking though. Which is almost as bad a problem.

------
ransom1538
"About 65% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels"

These EV cars should be renamed "Coal Cars" so people understand the true
harsh carbon footprint. Because you plug the car into a wall doesn't mean the
energy is clean.

[https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3)

~~~
Cthulhu_
How does the emissions of a coal plant (plus the loss from transfering over
the power line, battery, into motors) compare to the emissions of a regular
petrol or diesel car?

~~~
ecpottinger
Don't forget to carbon footprint needed to process/make that petrol/diesel ..
that oil from the ground needs to be processed and transported too.

