Royal Spa

Gas-Powered Cars Will Vanish in 8 Years, Big Oil Will Collapse: Stanford Study

George The Curious

Active member
Nov 28, 2011
2,007
9
38
Right now, the EVs depreciate alot because of lack of recognition and infrastructure. But it also means used EVs make car ownership much cheaper because of low maintenance and much higher mileage - 2 - 3 times that of gasoline car. Once people realize this and dis-spell the misconception of battery degredation, Average 5 year old Nissan Leaf and Tesla mode S with over 200,000 - 300,000 only report loss of average 15% charge capacity. Their resale value will start holding up.
It's a great time to buy a gently used EV IMOH. maybe a 150,000km Model S will likely to perform until 500,000 before the battery degrade to 50%, and even then it should still be drivable because even average electric motors are made to perform to 1 million miles, with much fewer moving parts, reliability of EV will become the top selling point.

Millennials are cash strapped and they don't want to pay overpriced gasolines. They are also less attached to gas cars unlike older generation. Young people will like to adopt EVs, and an used EVs will most likely to be their first car and EV cultures will gradually develop from our next generation. Also the millennials are used to uber and turo, so they are more comfortable using ride sharing so not being able to take their EVs for far distance road trips doesn't seem such a big inconvinience for them.
 

George The Curious

Active member
Nov 28, 2011
2,007
9
38
So no,... there is NO standard for induction charging,... and there can only be one.

By the way,...Is there a "will power" button on your display panel,...???
lol no. and I am not as naive as you are trying to insult. If history be any guide, industry standard on consumer goods always converge eventually - just think DVDs, VHS . Computer OS. When it's new, there usually several, and once it matures, there will likely be 1 or at most 2 standards. Time will tell, but I think it will converge because it's for industry's own benefits, and they will form a consortium, and work things out. It really is not a technical obstacle, just takes time for it naturally evolve.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,952
9
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Now I'm convinced you're living in a fantasy world. We don't even have money to build the downtown relief subway line!



Why do I have to keep reminding people? Thread title is: Gas-Powered Cars Will Vanish in 8 Years, Big Oil Will Collapse: Stanford Study

How many people will be able to afford a self driving car with the ability to drive itself to a charging station? Since space is already at a premium in major cities, if your car is to remain there until you summon it (because there's no parking left on your street) you can bet the monthly parking fee won't be cheap.

I presume these remote charging stations would need to be in heated undergrounds or buildings as well, and that won't be cheap either. Otherwise, who's going to clean the ice and snow off vehicles in the winter? Oh wait, there's an extra fee to ensure your vehicle is kept snow/ice free at all times.

NYC does have valet service where someone will drive your vehicle away and charge it for you. For around $8,000 a year that is, plus tax. And here I thought all this EV stuff was meant to save you money.
The eight year timeline seems aggressive to me, but the trend is right. Self driving cars will be here in that time. Charging will be figured out.

But society probably will be slower to adopt the technology than it should be, not for any technical reason, not for any practical reason, but because politicians are slow as fuck to do anything.

How long is it taking to build a subway in Toronto? There is no technical and no practical reason why it couldn't have been built by now but the politicians keep bickering and bickering.

So I think eight years is too optimistic, not because the technology won't be available, but because if city council started debating electric charging stations today it would take them eight years just to agree on a plan.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
15,694
2,819
113
Ghawar
So I think eight years is too optimistic, not because the technology won't be available, but because if city council started debating electric charging stations today it would take them eight years just to agree on a plan.
I suppose gas stations are privately owned. If that
is the case building charging stations isn't our politicians' business. Their job is to work out the regulations.
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,064
1
0
lol no. and I am not as naive as you are trying to insult. If history be any guide, industry standard on consumer goods always converge eventually - just think DVDs, VHS . Computer OS. When it's new, there usually several, and once it matures, there will likely be 1 or at most 2 standards. Time will tell, but I think it will converge because it's for industry's own benefits, and they will form a consortium, and work things out. It really is not a technical obstacle, just takes time for it naturally evolve.
Apologies for the rather light hearted dig,... but you can be a little frustrating some times dude,... :)

And as far as inductive charging for general public use, there can logically only be one standard.
And even to have a private inductive charging installation dedicated to one manufacture's configuration installed,...would mean it cannot be used by a subsequent owner if they have a different manufactured EV,... .

Will the a standard be eventually be created, of coarse, but by that time there will 100's of thousands EV's with incompatible configurations.

And as far as the power source,... electricity,...I think we are still discounting what your electrical bill is going to be after charging an EV at night, at a rate of 6000 watts.
 

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
13,027
3,076
113
Do you know how expensive subway line is? In billions... I think you had nothing to say about cost of charging station after I did cost comparison with gas station, so you keep trying to attack me from other angles. Nice try.
I was referring to your comment "Maybe cities should ban street parking, and construct more underground parking lots next to buildings." My point was the city (taxpayers) aren't going to pay for the construction of these underground parking lots.

As for charging stations, I can assure you that if the city is going cover the cost to purchase, install and maintain them, it will cost more than $2,800 ea. Don't forget all the administration costs associated with billing customers for use etc.
 

George The Curious

Active member
Nov 28, 2011
2,007
9
38
I was referring to your comment "Maybe cities should ban street parking, and construct more underground parking lots next to buildings." My point was the city (taxpayers) aren't going to pay for the construction of these underground parking lots.

As for charging stations, I can assure you that if the city is going cover the cost to purchase, install and maintain them, it will cost more than $2,800 ea. Don't forget all the administration costs associated with billing customers for use etc.
In near term, public money will need to invest in some charging infrastructure, but I'm sure in long run, private businesses are more than capable of taking care of it if number of EVs are sufficient to create demand. And you can easily be profitable at fraction of gasoline prices - because the charging infrastructure is fraction of that of fossil fuel stations.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
15,694
2,819
113
Ghawar
In near term, public money will need to invest in some charging infrastructure, but I'm sure in long run, private businesses are more than capable of taking care of it if number of EVs are sufficient to create demand. And you can easily be profitable at fraction of gasoline prices - because the charging infrastructure is fraction of that of fossil fuel stations.
This reinforce my view that taxpayers subsidies are
absolutely essential to growth of EV sales. No rebates,
no free charger and only the rich minority will want
to own a pricey Tesla as a trophy.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,952
9
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
I suppose gas stations are privately owned. If that
is the case building charging stations isn't our politicians' business. Their job is to work out the regulations.
Yeah and for private facilities it will happen faster. Parking garages will start selling power to make extra money and attract electric car drivers.

And that's the awesome thing about electric cars: you never need a trip to the station, you power it up wherever you park. Charging stations you drive to aren't the future, charging in your regular parking spot is.

The comment was in the city allowing or providing power at roadside parking spots on city streets. I think that will come but it will take a long time. Probably take ten years to get it done once the technology is available.

But for private parking lots it's already happening. I already see lots of parking stalls with power hookups and it's easy to imagine those will be ubiquitous in eight years.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
104,059
30,074
113
This reinforce my view that taxpayers subsidies are
absolutely essential to growth of EV sales. No rebates,
no free charger and only the rich minority will want
to own a pricey Tesla as a trophy.
Which should lead for a call on publicizing how much oil and gas is already subsidized so that comparisons can start.
Think how much more enticing EV's would be with $3 billion in subsidies.
(though not all of that is for gas, of course)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...e-canada-fossil-fuel-subsidies-carbon-trudeau
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
15,694
2,819
113
Ghawar
Which should lead for a call on publicizing how much oil and gas is already subsidized so that comparisons can start.
No comparison. People have to pay taxes at the pump
to the government not oil and gas producers. They don't
get rebates that benefit big oil. And gas stations are not
built at taxpayers expense.

Think how much more enticing EV's would be with $3 billion in subsidies.
(though not all of that is for gas, of course)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...e-canada-fossil-fuel-subsidies-carbon-trudeau
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
15,694
2,819
113
Ghawar
It looks like the state of California is bailing out Tesla

Looks like this blatant transfer of wealth to wealthy EV drivers
will continue for a little while in CA. I predict with certainty all
rich folks will own an EV in 8 years although big oil will not
have collapsed yet by then. Now if there is a way to wean these
EV owners off their ICE cars kept in their garage for out-of-town
trips it will be the first step to win the war on climate change.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 17, 2017

The California state Assembly passed a $3-billion subsidy program for electric vehicles, dwarfing the existing program. The bill is now in the state Senate. If passed, it will head to Governor Jerry Brown, who has not yet indicated if he’d sign what is ostensibly an effort to put EV sales into high gear, but below the surface appears to be a Tesla bailout.

Tesla will soon hit the limit of the federal tax rebates, which are good for the first 200,000 EVs sold in the US per manufacturer beginning in December 2009 (IRS explanation). In the second quarter after the manufacturer hits the limit, the subsidy gets cut in half, from $7,500 to $3,750; two quarters later, it gets cut to $1,875. Two quarters later, it goes to zero.

Given Tesla’s ambitious US sales forecast for its Model 3, it will hit the 200,000 vehicle limit in 2018, after which the phase-out begins. A year later, the subsidies are gone. Losing a $7,500 subsidy on a $35,000 car is a huge deal. No other EV manufacturer is anywhere near their 200,000 limit. Their customers are going to benefit from the subsidy; Tesla buyers won’t.

This could crush Tesla sales. Many car buyers are sensitive to these subsidies. For example, after Hong Kong rescinded a tax break for EVs effective in April, Tesla sales in April dropped to zero. The good people of Hong Kong will likely start buying Teslas again, but it shows that subsidies have a devastating impact when they’re pulled.

That’s what Tesla is facing next year in the US.

In California, the largest EV market in the US, 2.7% of new vehicles sold in the first quarter were EVs, up from 0.4% in 2012, according to the California New Dealers Association. California is Tesla’s largest market. Something big needs to be done to help the Bay Area company, which has lost money every single year of its ten years of existence. And taxpayers are going to be shanghaied into doing it.

To make this more palatable, you have to dress this up as something where others benefit too, though the biggest beneficiary would be Tesla because these California subsidies would replace the federal subsidies when they’re phased out.

It would be a rebate handled at the dealer, not a tax credit on the tax return. And it could reach “up to $30,000 to $40,000” per EV, state Senator Andy Vidak, a Republican from Hanford, explained in an emailed statement.

This is how the taxpayer-funded rebates in the “California Electric Vehicle Initiative” (AB1184) would work, according to the Mercury News:


The [California Air Resources Board] would determine the size of a rebate based on equalizing the cost of an EV and a comparable gas-powered car. For example, a new, $40,000 electric vehicle might have the same features as a $25,000 gas-powered car. The EV buyer would receive a $7,500 federal rebate, and the state would kick in an additional $7,500 to even out the bottom line.


And for instance, a $100,000 Tesla might be deemed to have the same features as a $65,000 gas-powered car. The rebate would cover the difference, minus the federal rebate (so $27,500). Because rebates for Teslas will soon be gone, the program would cover the entire difference – $35,000. This is where Senator Vidak got his “$30,000 to $40,000.”

The Tesla Model 3 would be tough to sell without the federal $7,500. But this new bill would push Californian taxpayers into filling the void. It would be a godsend for Tesla.

AB1184 would be a huge expansion of the current Clean Vehicle Rebate Project which has doled out 115,000 rebates for $295 million to buyers of EVs and hybrids since 2010, averaging about $2,550 per rebate.

Under AB1184, hybrids and hydrogen powered cars are not included, and rebates for plug-in hybrids are slashed – perhaps to keep Toyota’s technologies at bay.

Even the current, relatively small Clean Vehicle Rebate Project has been lambasted as a subsidy for the wealthy who can afford to spend $100,000 on a set of wheels. A study, cited by the Mercury News, showed that of nearly 100,000 rebates, over 80% went to Californians with incomes over $100,000. This notion of a subsidy for the wealthy also applies to the federal rebate.

So California’s program was adjusted last year to cut rebates for wealthy buyers and increase rebates for low and moderate income buyers. That hurt Tesla. Another reason for a new program to make Tesla whole.

I admit, I’m not totally impartial. Our next car will be an EV. Something with the performance of a Chevy Bolt would be able to handle 99% to 100% of our driving needs – commuting in the Bay Area and driving to surrounding recreational spots, and very rarely a little further. We don’t haul horse trailers across the Rockies.

By the time we’re ready to get rid of our internal-combustion-engine car, battery technology will have improved further. We’d even pay a little more, just to get the benefits of an EV. My wife drives 45 miles a day; she’d no longer have to go to the gas station. The EV would be charged at night in our garage. Fuel savings would be substantial. Maintenance hassles and costs would be slashed – a benefit for me. And EVs are great to drive.

We’ll buy that EV even without incentives if they go away by then, though we’ll try to maximize any incentives with a grateful nod to our beaten-up fellow taxpayers. But piling on incentives is no longer the way to go. Piling on incentives that might be $10,000 or $20,000 or more per vehicle is insane. Piling on incentives to support a money-losing company that will soon lose the benefit of the federal subsidy is going way too far.

How will the funds be extracted from taxpayers? California’s Cap and Trade has already been short-listed. Senator Vidak, whose district is beautifully gerrymandered from Fresno to around but not including Bakersfield, put it this way:


“Now the state appears to be in the business of subsidizing a billionaire’s company (Tesla) and millionaires who want to buy these boutique electric cars. In my backyard, where I live, people are very, very poor, and they are already paying into Cap and Trade. If Cap and Trade continues to go forward, that could add another 40 cents, 45 cents, maybe more to the cost of a gallon of gasoline, for those folks… [who] are still not going to be able to afford these $70,000+ cars.”

“Electric car companies are having trouble making it in the market-place without heavy government subsidies. So they propose this law to not only boost their sales but also to ace-out their competition. The Legislature is once again picking winners and losers in what is supposed to be a free-market.”


http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-stock-price-california-state-government-bailing-out-2017-7
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,064
1
0
Tesla has FIVE occurrences of bricked $40,000 batteries,... that has been acknowledged.

If this keeps up, Tesla will be needing a continual subsidy.

What a lot of "experts" here don't seem to understand is,... if a lithium batter discharges below the minimum, the battery is junk.
This can easily occur when an EV is left unattended for long periods of time, there is ALWAYS current being drawn from the battery.

This can, and has happened, and as more EVs are sold, the number of these incidences will only increase.

Can we spell bankruptcy,...???
 

Occasionally

Active member
May 22, 2011
2,926
8
38
Tesla has FIVE occurrences of bricked $40,000 batteries,... that has been acknowledged.

If this keeps up, Tesla will be needing a continual subsidy.

What a lot of "experts" here don't seem to understand is,... if a lithium batter discharges below the minimum, the battery is junk.
This can easily occur when an EV is left unattended for long periods of time, there is ALWAYS current being drawn from the battery.

This can, and has happened, and as more EVs are sold, the number of these incidences will only increase.

Can we spell bankruptcy,...???
Considering Tesla share are at $200+, no bankruptcy any time soon. That is one plus side to Tesla (and any other hyped up tech company), they have so many shares at such huge prices, they can withstand billions of losses for years.

I still find it absurd at how bad battery warranties are considering the battery is the most important part of the car and the focal point when it comes to electric or gas engines. You'd think they'd put their money where their mouth is, but even they don't.
 
Toronto Escorts