I think the demand for EVs and Tesla products absolutely exists, Tesla just failed to scale in time. Failing to scale is the worst thing that could happen to a startup.

 

...the company still isn't viable.

And so you must have a large short position? In other words, are you putting any money where your mouth is?

 

And so you must have a large short position? In other words, are you putting any money where your mouth is?

From all he has said he wants lower housing cost, and Tesla is the reason it isn't in his area.

 

I think the demand for EVs and Tesla products absolutely exists,

Exactly if the EV demand wasn't or isn't there why dose every company make one?

 

Some in many cities across both the world and the US would say that's a good thing, not a bad thing. You keep bringing up the cost of housing, would you rather live where I do that you can hardly give a house away now that the steel and auto plants have closed?

I don't want to live in a place where a person's economic success is based on their political connections and how much government $$$ they can lobby to get. An economy like this is doomed to collapse and it may take down the entire U.S. economy along with it. That's what happened in 2008 and the smell of smoke is in the air again.

 

Exactly if the EV demand wasn't or isn't there why dose every company make one?

They make EVs because of huge government tax credits or government purchases of EVs. In fact, government agencies are the biggest market for EVs, but the private sector is no where large enough to create serious demand.

 

Or they are working so good that they don't need charged except when people are at home. The mile range of them is in the hundreds of miles you know? How often are you on the bus when they refuel?

There's no way an EV could be charged in a reasonable amount of time off a household power supply in San Francisco.

Keep in mind that one gallon of gas = 33 KWH so the equivalent a 10 gallon fill up = 330 KWH. So to get that amount of energy, a home would would have to be wired for 230 volt/3 phase. To add more misery, most people in San Francisco live in apartment buildings that are not wired for such a huge electric demand.

 

There's no way an EV could be charged in a reasonable amount of time off a household power supply in San Francisco.

Keep in mind that one gallon of gas = 33 KWH so the equivalent a 10 gallon fill up = 330 KWH. So to get that amount of energy, a home would would have to be wired for 230 volt/3 phase. To add more misery, most people in San Francisco live in apartment buildings that are not wired for such a huge electric demand.

You are off by an order of magnitude. Most electric vehicles have a battery that is in the 20 kWh to 30 kWh range and have a range of between 50 and 100 miles.

You are not taking into account a couple of factors. First, the gas engine is only about (roughly) 33% efficient in converting gasoline to useful work. Most of this loss of energy is taken at the electrical power plant in the case of an EV. Second, 10 gallons takes a typical modern gasoline-powered car a lot further -- two to four times as far in most cases.

Getting 30 kWh of energy from a 120 V, single phase, 15 A outlet would take about 17 hours -- half that one a 240 V outlet at the same current, and half that again on a 30 A circuit.

 

You are off by an order of magnitude. Most electric vehicles have a battery that is in the 20 kWh to 30 kWh range and have a range of between 50 and 100 miles.

You are not taking into account a couple of factors. First, the gas engine is only about (roughly) 33% efficient in converting gasoline to useful work. Most of this loss of energy is taken at the electrical power plant in the case of an EV. Second, 10 gallons takes a typical modern gasoline-powered car a lot further -- two to four times as far in most cases.

Getting 30 kWh of energy from a 120 V, single phase, 15 A outlet would take about 17 hours -- half that one a 240 V outlet at the same current, and half that again on a 30 A circuit.

And how is the power generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure going to handle all the increased load from EVs without a huge upgrade?

The power agency for Northern California (PG&E) and Southern California (SCE) wants a $600 Million in rate increases to pay for something called "Electric Vehicle Charging Stations And Infrastructure". Furthermore, public feedback indicates the ratepayers don't like the idea of someone who doesn't own an EV having to subsidize the EV industry.

However, the debate over the advantage of ICE Vs EV technology will be ultimately decided by the total cost of ownership and return on investment. I'm guessing that operating an EV under average conditions will cost a lot more than a gas powered car --- especially if electric utilities get a lot more demand and and raise rates through the roof.

 

And how is the power generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure going to handle all the increased load from EVs without a huge upgrade?

The power agency for Northern California (PG&E) and Southern California (SCE) wants a $600 Million in rate increases to pay for something called "Electric Vehicle Charging Stations And Infrastructure". Furthermore, public feedback indicates the ratepayers don't like the idea of someone who doesn't own an EV having to subsidize the EV industry.

However, the debate over the advantage of ICE Vs EV technology will be ultimately decided by the total cost of ownership and return on investment. I'm guessing that operating an EV under average conditions will cost a lot more than a gas powered car --- especially if electric utilities get a lot more demand and and raise rates through the roof.

Apples and oranges. That is a completely separate and unrelated issue, regardless of how legitimate it might be. It has no bearing on the fact that your argument based on overnight recharging of the energy equivalent of ten gallons of gasoline is highly flawed.

 

Apples and oranges. That is a completely separate and unrelated issue, regardless of how legitimate it might be. It has no bearing on the fact that your argument based on overnight recharging of the energy equivalent of ten gallons of gasoline is highly flawed.

OK - So you think my reasoning is flawed.

Well let's find someone who actually owns and operates one of those EVs and ask them how much they are paying for gas VS electricity. If they are in Northern or Southern California, I can tell you they are already getting hosed royally and it will only get worse if more people switch from gas to electric.

Furthermore, electric companies have captive consumers and people can't find a cheaper electric rate like they can do with gas stations. If PG&E or SCE raises electric rates through the roof, then you're held hostage.

 

OK - So you think my reasoning is flawed.

If you don't feel that your reasoning is flawed, then please find one electric vehicle sold in the personal market that has a battery that could even accept 330 kWh of energy during a single charge cycle.

Well let's find someone who actually owns and operates one of those EVs and ask them how much they are paying for gas VS electricity. If they are in Northern or Southern California, I can tell you they are already getting hosed royally and it will only get worse if more people switch from gas to electric.

There are plenty of data out there. Just look for it. Battery University has tables of about a dozen electric vehicles. The energy per mile ranges from 165 Wh/mi to 205 Wh/mi with a couple outliers in the Tesla S models that sacrifice efficiency for range by having significantly larger battery packs (but even they don't get to 100 kWh, let alone the 330 kWh your claim requires).

So let's use 200 Wh/mi.

What is the exorbitant electricity rate that these captive customers are paying in San Francisco?

As best I can tell (https://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=811) the marginal rate for usage above about 350 kWh/month is 34 cents/kWh.

So that means that the electric cost is about 6.8 cents per mile.

Let's say that they had, instead, a car that got 40 mpg. To get a fuel cost of 6.8 cents per mile, they would have to find one of those cheaper stations that only charges $2.72/gal. You tell us, how easy is it to find gas, in San Francisco, at $2.72/gal?

Furthermore, electric companies have captive consumers and people can't find a cheaper electric rate like they can do with gas stations. If PG&E or SCE raises electric rates through the roof, then you're held hostage.

What does ANY of this have to do with the accuracy of your claim: "There's no way an EV could be charged in a reasonable amount of time off a household power supply in San Francisco."

 

The future of cars is EV, and all the big manufacturers acknowledge that. And yeah, the government acknowledges it also and is helping foot the bill up the learning curve. It's debatable whether that's a legitimate role of government but there's little debate that they spend far more money for lesser causes.

Tesla led the charge and gained a few strategic advantages from that. They proved there's a market for EV luxury cars and then proceeded to capture it. They're way ahead in some technology areas, and probably behind in a few others. They have some disadvantages relative to their competitors. Less deep pockets is one of those. If they can leverage their advantages enough to cover their weaknesses, they'll come out the other end a huge and valuable company carved out of nothing.

Just one comment on charging rate and infrastructure: The big boys are working hard to charge EV cars as quickly as a visit to the gas station. https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/14...e-bmw-450kw-electric-vehicle-charging-station
I can see where that might be more practical in Europe and don't quite see how it could work where I live, unless we add a drive-thru lane to the local nuke plant. The equivalent of a 40-pump gas station would need a 20 megawatt pipe. Maybe that makes more sense than changing the residential infrastructure?

 

I agree. EVs are an emerging technology. If there are advancements like that on the charging speed in this stage of the development of the technology, i don't see how the future couldn't be electric. Tesla sells a 500 km range Model 3, so that's quite a good range. If they can upgrade the cars and chargers to refill in less time, then the shortcomings of the technology would be lessened.

Now, it's a political decision to boost the usage of clean electricity, and to upgrade the grids to be able to supply the increased demand. I suppose that the politicians won't sit there watching how their power grids start to fail, because they didn't adjusted them to meet the demand. It's not the first time that the power grids need to be upgraded, as electrical equipments used to be scarce on the houses, and now are ubiquitous. Air conditioning was once a luxury item, while now it's very common.

With household charging, if your day-to-day range requirements aren't that long, then the charger doesn't needs to be particularily powerful. Maybe equivalent to the power requirements of an additional air conditioning unit. If you need to recover more range in fewer hours, it can go a lot higher, however. This site provides quite interesting information on this: https://teslatap.com/articles/tesla-model-3-home-charging-guide/

 

Even if the numbers pen out on paper, I still skeptical if there's enough power generation and transmission/distribution to handle the increased load of 1000s of EV chargers.

When the weather turns hot here in San Francisco, I hear the radio announcements from the ISO (the agency that manages the power grid throughout California) warning of heavy power demand and people should cut back on air conditioning. That's with very few EVs, but what happens if that number increases to 25% of the total vehicles in the state?

 

Even if the numbers pen out on paper, I still skeptical if there's enough power generation and transmission/distribution to handle the increased load of 1000s of EV chargers.

When the weather turns hot here in San Francisco, I hear the radio announcements from the ISO (the agency that manages the power grid throughout California) warning of heavy power demand and people should cut back on air conditioning. That's with very few EVs, but what happens if that number increases to 25% of the total vehicles in the state?

As long as it happens over a sufficiently long time, there shouldn't be a problem PROVIDED the generation and distribution infrastructure grows at the needed pace. There's nothing technical that prevents that from happening, but whether or not it will happen as a result of the various political forces is another story.

Rational people ARE running those numbers (so I'm not talking about the politicians, the activists, or other people with ingrained vested interests). Estimates I've seen are that if we were to magically convert all vehicles to electric tomorrow, that we would also need to magically increase our electrical energy production by about 30% and our installed generation capacity by about 50%. The cost would be estimated to be about 1.4 trillion dollars. With about 125 million households in the U.S., that would be about $11k per household, which is not a small number. But if that is spread out over two decades it reduces to less than $50/month. Keeping in mind that the wealthy will pay the overwhelming majority of that, the impact on the "average" household would get lost in the noise (probably under $5/month). (All of this is in today's dollars, of course.)

So not only is it technically feasible, it is also financially feasible. Whether it is appropriate public policy is a completely different matter. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done, but that's a completely different discussion.

 

One of the big driving forces is maintenance. You don’t need dealerships anymore because there’s not enough maintenance required to keep their doors open. There is a huge drop in TCO, total cost of ownership and I suspect that and other benefits will easily pay for the grid improvements. Fleets are seeing the TCO advantages and will be some of the early adopters as we move beyond the boutique phase of EVs.

 

One of the big driving forces is maintenance. You don’t need dealerships anymore because there’s not enough maintenance required to keep their doors open. There is a huge drop in TCO, total cost of ownership and I suspect that and other benefits will easily pay for the grid improvements. Fleets are seeing the TCO advantages and will be some of the early adopters as we move beyond the boutique phase of EVs.

One major problem is disposing of worn out batteries.

Are these batteries going to be adding to the "e-waste" stream or are they going to be shipped over to China? Conventional gas powered cars don't have as much e-waste. I am not using this idea for -or against- battery powered cars, just making an observation.

 

One major problem is disposing of worn out batteries.

Are these batteries going to be adding to the "e-waste" stream or are they going to be shipped over to China? Conventional gas powered cars don't have as much e-waste. I am not using this idea for -or against- battery powered cars, just making an observation.

The good news on that front is that most battery technologies (for EVs) are highly recyclable. As they become more widespread and standardized, they will increasingly be designed and manufactured in order to be as recyclable as possible. Due to the cost of them, it is not too unreasonable to expect that most owners will recycle them provided the system is set up to incentivise recycling as opposed to trying to disincentivise disposing of them. Of course, you can't go too far in that direction otherwise you also incentivise criminal activity to steal batteries (think copper wire).

 

How many charge cycles can these EV batteries take before they need to be replaced? Replacement batteries are likely to be a major cost of ownership.