This is Juan Carlos Zuleta's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Juan Carlos Zuleta's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Juan Carlos Zuleta
Recent Activity
@HarveyD It is not a strange country. It is simply a country run by different economic interests. In this connection, one question we need to ask ourselves is what group of provinces will prevail? That adding subsidies to incentivize adoption of EVs or that group stopping them?
So this explains why Sweden is seeking lithium tie-ups in South America, does it not? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-peru-lithium/sweden-seeks-lithium-tie-ups-in-south-america-amid-white-gold-rush-idUSKCN1UC223
This is most interesting because it shows a different Toyota, one which seems to begin to worry about the state and direction of the automotive market. After years and years of neglect of the BEV market, Toyota may have finally realized that this is the way to move forward. Never mind if some other commentators still think that Toyota should take business as usual while continue focusing on PHEVs. Just note that if Toyota decided to engage in a partnership with CATL it was because it plans to enter the largest BEV market in the world, China. But in this market there's no longer any space for PHEVs; BEVs accounted for over 94% of all EVs during the period comprised by January and May this year.
Just wonder whether the auxiliary battery the article refers to would be a lithium-ion battery.
So the same analyst from Navigant Research that said almost three years ago that EVs won't ever crash the oil market (See: https://seekingalpha.com/article/3970134-bloomberg-vs-navigant-research-will-evs-produce-new-oil-crash) is now predicting that: "By 2030, annual PEV sales are estimated to be between 15% and 32% of the global light duty vehicle market, producing a global PEV population between 107 million and 190 million."? What made him change his mind? When will investors start valuing the work of analysts that do the right analysis?
Is this still a Li-ion battery? Seems like use of lithium metal in the anode could lead to an astonishing technological breakthough well apart from Li-air, Li-O, Li-S or even Solid State batteries.
One feature not mentioned here is inductive (wireless) charging (See: http://www.businessinsider.com/porsche-reveals-mission-e-all-electric-concept-car-2016-7). Unlike Tesla, Porsche seems to be aware of what is likely to happen to the lithium market a few years from now (See: http://seekingalpha.com/article/3294695-battery-recharging-why-is-tesla-not-going-wireless).
HarveyD, the solution you propose (i.e. To have both 200kW wired and 50= kW wireless charging) seems to be most promising in the short and medium terms. In the long run, however, wireless charging (alone) is likely to lead the way.
I'm afraid there's an error in the last sentence of this article. As far as I know, the Tesla Model S requires 10kW and the BMWi3 needs over 7kW wireless charging, not 6.6kW.
See my recent article on oil consumption reduction due to adoption of EVs in India, China and the rest of the world: http://seekingalpha.com/article/3128336-what-will-prevent-oil-prices-from-dropping-or-increasing-forever-structural-factors-global-warming-evs-peak-oil-or-all-of-them.
HarveyD, And the price could drop with the advent of Tesla's giga-factory, assuming Li-S turns out to be the chemistry of choice for the Model 3. Do you agree?
I bet the batteries to be used in this model won't be Li-ion ones, which means that GM is indeed serious about deelecctrification and delithification of its cars, just as I show in my Seeking Alpha article published today (See: http://seekingalpha.com/article/2490145-will-deelectrification-and-delithification-help-gm-become-more-competitive). Chances are though that a measure like this will not help GM become more competitive.
HarveyD, If your information is correct, I would envisage the advent of wireless "super duper charging" for all-electric buses fairly soon", just like I suggested for cars in an EV World blog some time ago (See: http://evworld.com/blogs.cfm?blogID=1156).
Davemart, As far as I know, BYD has not been allowed to commercialize its buses in the US as yet. So Proterra may have monopoly there for the time being. Only problem is that their buses cost twice as much as BYD's ones.
Or perhaps these buses may have to use something even better than aluminum: magnesium?
This is great news for lithium producers since it's well known that this type of Li-ion batteries use much more lithium per kWh than other Li-ion batteries because it requires lithium not only for the cathode and the electrolyte but also for the anode.
By simply looking at its chemical composition, it seems like this new anode material would also be much cheaper than commercial graphite. Wonder how soon this material could be introduced into the market.
"Anderson's estimate of Tesla making 50k EV in 2016 is probably too low. Tesla just ordered 2 billion 18650 cells from Panasonic to be delivered between 2014 and 2017. With 7000 cells for each Tesla that compares to 285k Tesla EV built all together from 2014 to 2017. It could be done by making 35k for 2014, 60k for 2015, 80k 2016 and 110k for 2017." These estimates are Ok for the period 2014-2015 but unreasonable thereafter, the reason being that they fail to take into account the introduction of Model E beginning 2016. See my own estimates in the following fairly recent Seeking Alpha article: http://seekingalpha.com/article/1919101-why-is-almost-everybody-in-the-auto-industry-afraid-of-tesla-motors.
The peak lithium hypothesis pops up once again. For a critique of it, see my articles: http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1457 and http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1480.
The tactics you're talking about are both outdated and irational. For one thing, nobody seems to talk anymore about the 57-year-old incident you refer to. Instead, more and more reports are coming out on the possibility of using Mg in a variety of industrial applications such as weight reduction in cars in general and in electric cars in particular (See: http://magnesiuminvestingnews.com/332-oil-price-not-wto-may-bolster-magnesium-market.html). Hope this new link is acceptable to you now. For another, common sense dictates that the Le-Mans accident back in 1955 may have been produced by a number of causes such as gasoline combustion itself. Besides, what makes you think technology has stagnated ever since so that Mg can now be used in cars in a more safely manner?
@Zhukova "The only way to reduce the weight is to make the wheelbase shorter, engine smaller, etc., which makes a cramped, bumpy, noisy ride." Perhaps the best way to solve this problem is using Mg, an ultra light weight material, instead of steel in manufacture of future EVs. Please take note that prospective Mg producers are already considering that possibility as a new promising source of demand for this critical/strategic metal (See: http://www.criticalstrategicmetals.com/focusing-on-the-future/).
Davemart, oil price is but one factor affecting adoption of Li-ion batteries for electric cars. The other two I have identified are Li-battery technological development and acceptance of/resistance to change by governments, companies and consumers. To make things even more complicated, the three factors are interrelated (See: http://seekingalpha.com/article/188499-the-future-of-the-lithium-market-part-ii).
Na-ion batteries are just one of a whole spectrum of possibilities beyond lithium I identified in an article published last year (See: http://seekingalpha.com/article/277597-lithium-ion-battery-developments-most-affected-key-companies-and-etfs). Time will tell whether they finally make it into the market.
It is good to know at least that you are in automotive marketing ... perhaps concerned with promoting Toyota? ... as much as you can? Don´t take me wrong; I don´t blame you for that because all you´re doing is exerting your right to promote the company of your choice. But that doesn´t mean that everybody else should necessarily agree with you. My credentials are in more general field. I am a lithium economics analyst not really interested in a particular company. This provides me with much more objectivity and transparency than those shown in your different comments. My credentials are given by the number of readers I have and the quality of the comments I receive on my contributions to other web sites, just as respectable and credited as this one.
My previous comment should have read as follows: SJC, if you don´t like my arguments you can always criticize them without taking recourse to an insult and lots of sarcasm ... really.