This is's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
San Diego
Electric Car Insider Magazine
Interests: electric cars, electric motorcycles, electric bikes, electric vehicles
Recent Activity
The trend is toward greater efficiency, further increasing the effective range at lower cost. Tesla’s new Model S Long Range, for example, gets an increase to 407 miles of EPA range on a battery that is actually ~4% less capacity than its predecessor (100kW vs 104kW). FCV drivetrains are improving too, and may eke out a survivable niche for some freight applications, but it’s very unlikely that they will compete with BEVs on acquisition cost or TCO before BEVs completely walk away with the game. Just plot out the price performance curves and come to your own conclusion.
This is from a Dec 2020 article from Bloomberg’s BNEF: “The average price per kilowatt-hour for a lithium-ion battery pack, according to the survey of nearly 150 buyers and sellers, has fallen to $137, down 13 percent from $157 in 2019. A decade ago, these batteries sold for more than $1,100 per kilowatt-hour. The threshold for price parity with gasoline engines, according to BNEF, is around $100/kWh. In the report, BNEF analysts said they expect battery makers to hit $101/kWh in 2023. For the first time, the survey found some prices reported at the cost-competitive level, with batteries for e-buses in China selling at $100/kWh. Tesla, the world’s largest EV maker, pays an estimated average of $115 per kilowatt-hour for batteries, according to the BNEF survey, down from $128 last year. “
“ … no costs external to purchasing and operating the vehicle, such as costs due to congestion, pollution, or noise impacts were included. “ The smoking gun, so to speak. Easy to make your product look competitive when you externalize the cost of dumping your waste product.
Thank you for posting the link to the full study, Davemart.
“ The comparatively high costs for BEV300 come from assumed battery costs of $170/kWh in 2025 …, though BEV would reach cost parity with HEV at a cost of $102/kWh.” Tesla is there now, VW expected to be there by 2025. As battery energy densities increase, cost per kg fall proportionally - or better, as expensive materials like cobalt are replaced with silicon, sulfur, etc.
Nothing is 0% risk, especially not flying. Agree that that the battery should be as safe as possible. Your idea is intriguing, and I confess I have harbored it myself, but dumping a flaming battery seems like it only makes it someone else’s problem (maybe an entire community’s problem) unless you’re flying over water or the desert. Otoh, allowing the pilot and passengers burn up on the way down does not actually solve anything either. Aircraft would have to be designed very carefully to avoid weight & balance problems as you suddenly let go of 1k lbs or more. Non flammable electrolyte seems the way to go. Good thing there are a lot of good companies working on that.
True, SJC, but there is no way around the physics. This has been well debated here on GCC and recently articulated in shorthand by VW’s CEO Diess. Diess: “In transport, electrification has prevailed. Bogus debates are a waste of time. Please listen to the science!” It remains a bit of a cypher why Toyota has invested substantially in H2 when the rest of the world is moving decisively toward BEV. At very least, the consumer and the market, has indicated a strong preference for Tesla BEVs.
That IS a good assessment, but there seems to be something else happening with their investment in FCEVs. VW has vocally and unequivocally rejected H2 as a pathway for passenger cars, and Toyota has doubled down with a new release of the Mirai. I’m wondering if the Chairman is personally enamored with H2, sees the complexity as a barrier to entry, and no one is courageous enough to tell him otherwise, or the advise falls on deaf ears.
Hypermiling does not impress me unless people do it on their daily commute. What does impress me is producing a car that people are wildly enthusiastic about, which provides an unparalleled level of convenience; charging at home while you sleep, so you don’t even have to spend 5 minutes at the pump. I am impressed by cars that have zero tailpipe emissions (not even water vapor) and save $17,000-$20,000 over the life of the vehicle in fuel cost savings. Toyota is capable of that. Curious though, why they are tossing away a two decade time to market advantage.
GM and Volkswagen say price parity with ICE is $100kWh and expect to hit parity by 2025. Goldman Sachs says Tesla is already there and is expected to hit $60 kWh by mid decade. Average price for a car in the US is $42k, most non-luxury EVs start at or below that now without subsidy. Subsidy, the community buying more clean air / inventing not to pollute on your way to work, makes many EVs cheaper to buy *before* the $17-$20,000 vehicle lifetime fuel cost savings. Gasoline prices are volatile. Electric prices are stable. If you install solar, can be below market and fixed price (zero volatility for the rest of your life). Impossible to do with gasoline or hydrogen. Tesla has figured out vertical integration for the consumer. Better user experience, more energy security, cost savings. Every petroleum industry shock boosts EV interest, especially in Tesla, who is already walking away with the market.
When you compare the total cost of ownership of battery-electric with a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, and then also compare the total user experience (driving dynamics, refueling convenience, etc) there’s no contest. FCVs have not been selling in volume because there is no compelling argument for their use. When EVs only had 70-80 miles range, and batteries at $1,000 per kW, an argument for H2 might have been made. But with 250-350kW chargers being deployed widely, even the final remaining gossamer thread of an argument for FCVs, refueling time, unravels.
Given the prospective size of market, it seems inevitable that every viable battery chemistry and nanostructure combination will be pursued and optimized. Especially with the modern ability to screen candidates computationally. Doubling energy density while maintaining material cost at baseline cracks open that market in the short term.
There is very little appetite for H2 cars in California. Acquisition cost is high, fuel cost is very high, maintenance options very limited. Occasional fuel supply outages further dampen interest. When you can purchase any of several 200-300 mile range battery electric cars for less than $40k, and 400 mile range EVs are available on the high end of the price scale, there’s very little reason for interest in a H2 car that has such limited fueling infrastructure. Battery electrics, which you can charge overnight in your garage, or at thousands of fast chargers in shopping malls, have far more consumer appeal.
Interesting that this battery achieves greater cycle life at higher C rates. Perfect for aviation. … specific energy up to 631.1 Wh/kg… Would give a Tesla Model S 1,000 mile range. Pipistrel Alpha Electro would have ~ 3.5 hr flight duration, 300 mile range with 30 min reserve.
Fiat - short range, no fast charging. Who would have guessed? Fiat missed a good opportunity to bring new people into the brand who otherwise never would have stepped onto a Fiat lot. And now probably never will again. Tesla doesn’t just have good retention, they have families who are now 2, 3, 4 Tesla owners. Used Model S now available starting at $20k. 3 year old Model 3 under $30k (with factory warranty remaining). Seems Tesla has a power curve effect.
To meet those specs, 40% of the gross weight of this aircraft will be batteries if we assume 500wh/kg. That will require be some impressive lightweighting of the airframe vs current aircraft (e. King Air B200) Seems difficult.
At the right price, it will be a viable and perhaps attractive option for consumers who only need a local commuter. But it will not bring people to dealer lots in droves, which is the opportunity Mazda missed by being later to market with a “me too” compact CUV entry. Imagine if this had been a modern EV version of the RX-7 Gen3, the MX-5 or Miata. The MX-30 will likely compete for the distinction of “biggest MSRP discount” with remaining supplies of VW e-Golf, Ford Focus Electric and Honda Clarity BEV. 200+ mile range would have made it a mainstream transportation option for anyone but road trippers.
$20m will not get this company very far, especially if it has to co-develop batteries. I wish them the best but with such a small capital fund, it would make more sense to focus on a niche that is underserved and defensible. It is particularly worrying that the company mentions fuel cell range extenders, an expensive distraction. A solar tonneau is great, but not a real innovation and very far from being able to distinguish this vehicle from the growing pack of competitors. To get any toehold in the market, or any serious investor interest, it will have to do something remarkable.
The implications of these are energy density advances are easy to overlook in practical terms. 800 cycles x 600 miles = 480,000 miles. And you still have a 420 mile range car. True that it’s more likely that the battery pack will get smaller and cheaper instead. But when anyone suggests that batteries will not replace liquid or gaseous energy storage...
A Tesla Model 3 with these batteries and the new lightweight structural battery pack would have 600+ mile range. San Diego to San Francisco, Phoenix or Las Vegas with no charge stops. Two charges per month for a 15,000 mile per year commuter.
More space for the sponsor’s logos. ;-)
I’m glad to see the team from UC Davis studying this issue, but the methodology seems flawed, and the conclusions likely in error for the reasons pointed out above. Get mileage figures from DMV registration and service record data. Get Tesla mileage figures directly from telemetry data. Fleet Karma can do the same for the rest (yes, a utility or other funding source will have to foot the bill). 250+ mile range vehicles from manufacturers other than Tesla are a very recent addition to the fleet. Of course people with an 80 mile range Leaf are going to drive less, that’s who bought these cars - folks who had a matching lifestyle. “Teslas consumes almost twice the amount...” surprise, surprise.
In some areas, electricity is as low as $0.05 per kW, especially off-peak time of use rates. That’s also about what it costs you if you produce your own electrons with solar panels on your roof. So you could pay as little as $3,281 for fuel over 15 years for the Tesla. $26,719 in fuel savings for the Tesla, 76% of its purchase price.