Interesting to see the pros an cons of Si anode versus Graphite anode and others... many graphite mines and their vertical integration are assuming they will be part of this industry for at least this decade...

Hopefully, EV consumer demand will keep up with such expectations. There are only so many government and corporate fleets, single-family homes, and dedicated multi-family home hook-ups to make this expensive, electric transition convenient. I doubt that the majority of the US, asia, and non-EU european countries will legislate or effectively tax EV full-purchase/ sale/ use compliance. Also, electrical capacity and distribution networks outside of the G7 are unlikely to be upgraded or support off-the-grid electric production. This early EV numbers take-up will possibly plateau slightly higher until past the late 2020s.

Easier said than done. The permitting process and typical NIMBYism self-interests delay these for years, if not decades.

"... for decision makers on the severity of the shortfall and how much money and time it realistically takes to get a mine into operation and ramped up..." Its all political. The issue is more about how reliable the non-G20 countries are for access to Li, Graphite, rare-earth, etc., resources. We don't want another OPEC of battery resources -- an oligarchy of broken leadership of otherwise dysfunctional limited-resource states. Also, we don't want crushing labor, environmental, and NIMBY forces in the richer countries who may have limited reserves. Alaska, Canada, a few NE states and a few SW states will have the majority of these resources in NA and powerful interests want to encourage/ discourage a wild-west-type rush. Everyone knows where and how much of those resources reasonably exist in developed countries and are just positioning themselves to take most advantage and not otherwise be crushed by the stampede (witness some of the valuation fluctuations over the last 6 months, 2 years, 10 years...)

This seems a very biased and end-results-driven report - more of an Op-Ed, really. We live in a world of reason, compromise, risk mitigation/ tolerance, and passion. People who own, drive regularly, maintain, and have gone to the effort to facilitate parking/ safe storage of their vehicles are typically richer, more career-ambitous, more likely to follow society's soft rules and structure, and are overall more productive/ task-driven than a transit-only/ pedestrian-bike-dominated equivalent individual. Why would we want pedestrian only areas? - people typically park within 1/2-mile, at most, of where they want to work, play, or visit. I'm not going to drag my family of 5 + elder onto a bus/ train/ taxi/ caravan pf bikes. nonsense. Food delivery multiple times a week with others choosing the produce - i would rather be dead. Density and transit/bike routes would be sole arbiter of a business's success - because, who walks? Also, Car Road trips - a national pastime. We live an individualized, freedom-based economy -and human-influenced driving will always be part of that. Besides who would insure autonomous cars when we all know that people hardly maintain the manual cars we have now? Would the controller system lock off the car to any driving unless the sensors/ controllers were fixed? - riot and sales & economic plunge. Cars are a symbol, not just an appliance.

Not convinced that the paper has really included enough variables. High-rises are less likely to be demolished (or even significantly refurbished) and thus less has to be invested in their renewal per century. Materials are very important - the type of construction for a 10-storey is very much different than a 50-storey building. Few consider which is the smallest GHG product before actually designing and building. Older cities (or of a particular vintage) may not be as GHG considerate - so age matters. Also the economic density/ productivity/ opportunity of a city is likelier a more significant consideration than lifetime GHGs.

Too bad that many North American cities consider these items as nuisances. Several ordinances against them have been enacted to mitigate sidewalk, park path, and pedestrian conflicts. Limited use in rain, snow, and off pavement. Otherwise very convenient compared to cycling, cars, and public transpo.

Seems kind of culturally-focussed rather than technically- or logistically-focussed. We have a bit too many Bleeding-Heart-Liberal-driven infrastructure initiatives as it is at the moment that will be unlikely to deliver efficiency, value, scale, and technological robustness. Keep the Woke in the applicable community and allow the competence and vision to come first.

Not all EVs are equal. Overall quantities don't matter (economically). America is not interested in saving the World. The US realizes that the vehicles that its consumers really want (and are most profitable) are pickups, med-large SUVs, and upgrade miniVans. When battery tech reaches these heavy vehicles, EV industrial infrastructure will explode -- especially since most of the consumers that want these vehicles likely live in single-family residential and are in the top 50% -- ripe for a second or third vehicle and in-house fast-charge infrastructure. There is no race to win, just another economical opportunity slowly bearing fruit.

All about the business plan: investors, clients, and cost per BTU. Hopefully, they can sustain business while oil needs to exceed $100, get phased out of Europe and NA, but be affordable to other countries. Certainly a '20-year and out' plan.

A game changer. If these systems can tolerate the off-road Contractor service conditions and 4-season challenges of other batteries - this will be the thing that will inject widespread customer appeal into the EV sector at, likely, healthier than sedan-sector profit margins. How will other pick-up brands compete?

Frustrating. All scenarios and programs assume (or at least vilify for) behaviour change and 'ambitious policies' . This is the most preposterous and irresponsible assumption to even include. Don't start from a supposedly ideal world in 20 or 40 or 60 years and move back to how we should attain it (therefore the unlikely 'now' assumptions). You simultaneously start from the likely trajectories of the last 10, 20 and 50 years of behaviour -and- start from the range of reasonable desired outcomes at the other side, going backward -- leaving you to fill in the 'apparently unbridgeable gap' between. This gap is the area where highly detailed and granular assessments/design/innovations are made at a very local level. Which regions and industries and sectors and technologies can maintain living standards and growth potential while 'incentivizing' movement to carbon-positive tech, services, and employment. Innovation uptake is local and incentive-based. From electric pick-up trucks to EV dealership benefits to geothermal-rich to solar-shingles in the south... etc. Technology and lifestyle is cultural and local. Wave enough success and opportunity in front of a local group and the benefits accelerate, often reinforcing surrounding regions. Grand schemes and generic visions are the worst of all motivations - especially from 'world bodies' and NGOs.

Unlikely. These technologies are expensive, logistically challenging, and require a level of cultural sophistication and investment that will not be available to 50%+ of the world's populations in 10, or even 30 years. Developing countries will insist upon a level of wealth and access to opportunity such as can only be delivered by very cheap fuel and extremely simple technology - even ICE tech is mostly imported with low levels of internal technical and upgrade support. PV and wind are high maintenance; they will degrade in years without constant outside support. Nuclear and Hydrogen are exceptionally esoteric and high security/ maintenance. The 3rd world solutions/ contributions may be limited to small scale BEVs and possibly something ultra-low maintenance - a type of geothermal or simple wind system with limited, but essentially carbon-reduced 'impact'. You can be 3rd world, 'frugal and carbon-free' -or- 3rd world, 'lo-middle-class and carbon-lite' - not both, before 2050.

Absolute nonsense in its assumptions and motivations. The intentions of Uber and Lyft was simply to profit on: overturning existing professional driver monopolies, allowing participation for entrepreneurs to provide self-profitable chauffer-like services, and freeing up people from self-parking or possible lack of foresight in purchasing their own car. Congestion is a matter of people choosing a certain time and place to use vehicles -- many have other options, but would rather spend time stuck than embrace those alternatives. I know this is a pro-'green' transportation blog, but no-one 'loves' transit. No one 'sanely' gets up in the morning shivering with anticipation to be herded onto a common vessel of locomotion - it is, at best, an occasionally-convenient alternative for moving people around environments not designed well enough to allow all to take their preferred mode of transportation, whether it is walk, bike, car, etc. It is not noble of itself - but an excellent occasional-to-regular choice. I am glad that urban/ semi-urban environments have it and that it provides benefit and occasional convenience for a wide range of users. I hope that advancements continue, access is made available to faster and more ubiquitous destinations, and people will embrace all forms of transportation so that they can live as fully as possible.

Home charging. Multi-family apartment/ condo tax breaks on installing into existing facilities and including in the design of new buildings. Policies for reducing spots per Unit in car parks within urban residential and commercial buildings must be revoked - transit needs to seen as 'the other option', not the primary option. Business tax breaks for installing chargers on employer sites.

Hideous. Completely anti-thetical to the Mustang brand. Caroll Shelby would be rolling in his grave.

Very important to differentiate between incentive, regulation, and ban. I think ALL want a choice of EV vehicles that match their individual model needs (big/ small/ econo/ perform), their access to convenient charging, and that provides for a price-point that matches or exceeds today equivalent ICE purchase and maintain/fuel. Without these options, you are adversely affecting economic potential at the individual and aggregate levels. The big hurdle, of course, is access to a charger overnight -- many multi-family residential developments are unlikely to invest in underground or grade-level charging at the community level, much less the Unit-by-Unit (stall by stall) level. Anecdotal info indicates over 25% of working age individuals use a car to get to work at least 2 - 3 times a week and currently live in a multi-family residential. Creating an incentive/ regulation that all multi-family building new-build requires basic rough-in for stall-by-stall chargers would assist. Further, incentives to get electrician contractors/ Building Owners to install numerous community and hopefully - shared-stall rough-in/ charger infrastructure would be the biggest catalyst to widespread adoption.

Are we sure that graphite anodes have a significant future? Sure the current Lithium Ion batteries have such anodes and the expected first generation of Solid State batteries may use them, but we're likely to get back to a more metallic lithium or other lighter alloy after the mid- to late-2020s, especially in smaller/3rd-world cars (and ALL trucks/ bigs) that need better safety (fire/explosion), weight-to-charge ratio, and simpler manufacturing. That being said, perhaps increased fuel-cell integration/ other-electronics manufacturing may make up for lost high-quality graphite quantities.

Hydrogen can be a worthy co-contributor to a battery-based economy, but the large stumbling blocks will be safe production, dispensing, and storage away from commercial facilities (i.e. parking garages and residences). I, for one, dream of a near gas-station-free world with hydrogen being heavily-regulated by a utility-based system, no longer a decentralized price-gouging mecca for private energy giants and colluded with by large auto/ truck manufacturers. With hydrogen hook-ups as (or more) prevalent than natural gas, energy pricing can soon be a not-for-profit, municipally-controlled system. With home and work re-charging becoming more widespread, supplemental fuelling by hydrogen can be instituted on freeways and convenient public areas, especially for those larger vehicles where battery technology has not yet overcome the current weight to range/ pull ratio. Now is the time, local municipalities, to stop hydrogen vehicle fuel from falling predominantly into the private sector.

Yes. This must be the technology/ policy/ methodology that will make H2 a part of the vehicle mix - an at-home/ multi-residential installation that creates a parallel ecosystem completely separate from corporate station/ installation refuelling policies and pricing. With the near-death of the 'gas' station so will its arbitrary and gouging practices.

Of course, cost competitive with gasoline is a moving target - say US$3 a gallon?

Low- to zero-interest loans with easier-than-typical terms (including 90-day no-cost returns) and low credit quality may be the only way to get these systems out there for the middle three quintiles. Couple that with home installation (for EV fast charge systems) and guaranteed limited time offsite recharge rates at widespread stations and you are not only empowering the owner (some may say underwriting) you are establishing an ecosystem of work for Contractors and EV station developers. Finance the ecosystem not only the front line consumers - Tesla knows this.

It is appealing to believe that Saudi is playing an International Domination game - as mainstream media is clamouring for eyeballs. Don't believe it for a moment. They are actually acting in a very sensible and pro-economic (domestic) way. With oil prices low and refinement prices being driven down, now is the time to deleverage away from the huge subsidies granted to its citizens on fuel. With prices low, the incremental increases are small compared to $100 oil and the consequent huge price shock that would have to come if gas prices approached cost. With costs likely to bump around the $40 - $60 for the foreseeable future, the Saudis are weening their citizens off of a huge domestic budget expenditure, providing incentive to adjust businesses to a more realistic cost structure. The Saudis care not for international oil drama - it is now about diversification, market-driven pricing, and pushing an economy into modernity.

The first technology of H2 vs battery to enable: - a modern F-150 towing 12000 lbs with a payload of 3000 lbs while passing on a 2% up incline at 65 mph over a 600 mi range for $60 full charge over 7 years of 500 full charge cycles, starting up in the a.m. outside at 10F, for an overall vehicle cost less than $45k with a 5-yr full 'power storage system' replacement warrantee and a 60% recharge in 30 minutes based on an off-the-shelf home charge station ...will dominate the G7 countries new vehicle tech category. Batteries may have the lead in this benchmark, but H2 likely had the greatest potential, but for lack of development effort and money. Whatever, the answer, or hopefully both, it will need to occur before 2020. The money investment trajectory will need to plateau and its primary funders and lab/ developers will certainly have R&D fatigue by then - the result being the slow death of incremental ICE mileage increases and an ever en'small'ening vehicle chassis - a conclusion that most think is far less than ideal for a transportation diverse and productivity-directed socio-economic system(and the happiness of the normal red-blooded driver).

Funny how I have become a bit intolerant of long (500+ words) journalistic interviews which come across as sales pitches - despite how compelling this product/ service/ limited-time-offer is. I think this article could have been presented in 12-15 lines. Also, I think a bit more big picture commentary might be important: - how much withdraw (if it is a full withdraw rather than part of the hydro- cycle) would need to be made against oceans, salty aquifers, etc., and how would that affect other water industries, shorelines, water access, and - i guess.. the environment. - would this be treated as a utility rather than a private enterprise. It may be too important of a resource to leave it to pure market capitalist cost pressures (who else could compete?) - environmental and geological reviews? (more so land settlement and movement, than ecosystem modification) - with possible water availability which may return to the good old days of water abundance (if that ever existed), is it possible that land use modification and increased density may results in places not used to water availability (Utah, New Mexico, etc)? This could lead (which I am not saying is a bad thing) to more Los Angeles situations where a city was built without adequate local natural sources. Amusing if this innovation leads us from moderate water scarcity to moderate water abundance and the lifestyles of endless lawns, golf courses, and car washes that would result as far as the eye could see.