3 ms·

100,000 EVs contain the same number of batteries as 500,000 PHEVs, which contains the same number of batteries as 2,000,000 hybrids. Run the math. The 2-millio

100,000 EVs contain the same number of batteries as 500,000 PHEVs, which contains the same number of batteries as 2,000,000 hybrids. Run the math. The 2-million hybrids will save the world faster than 100,000 EVs. Let's say ICE is 30MPG, Hybrid is like 40MPG to 60MPG. Even at the low end 40MPG, 2 million hybrids is the same number of emission savings as 350,000 EVs. -------- Pure ICE technologies are also more important. Going from 20mpg to 25 mpg will have a bigger impact due to the huge number of ICE cars being made. ------- There are 289 million vehicles to replace in the USA. The sad truth is that 1 million EVs/year changes nothing. We need faster production and faster replacement. And there is no entity who can make 1 million EVs/year.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Tesla makes 1.5 million EVs/year at current run rate, and is targeting 2 million/year by end of year. You need not replace every vehicle right away, just enough to replace the largest consumers of fossil fuels. > Run the math. There are no spherical cows. https://insideevs.com/news/602725/tesla-3-million-cars-prduced-2-million-run-rate-2022/ https://insideevs.com/news/602725/tesla-3-million-cars-prduc...
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > Tesla makes 1.5 million EVs/year at current run rate, and is targeting 2 million/year by end of year. 289 million vehicles. At that rate, it will take over 100 years to replace all ICE vehicles. > You need not replace every vehicle right away, just enough to replace the largest consumers of fossil fuels. You mean semi-trucks and busses? How many years has Tesla-semi been in development hell now? Electric semi-trucks will eventually come. But at this point, I'm thinking its going to be Fuel Cell electricity through Hydrogen rather than batteries.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    It took Tesla 14 years to build their first 3 million vehicles. By year end, it will take them 1.5 years to build the same amount. Assume their growth rate continues (50-100% YoY), they could (if they so desired and the market demanded the unite) consume total US vehicle sales (17M/year) in ~5-15 years. Is consuming total US TAM going to happen? Unlikely, but the broad strokes of the transition are apparent; you could even stick this in Excel to reasonably extrapolate. Importantly, EVs don’t need to replace every combustion vehicle, only enough so that petroleum supply infra is no longer economically sustainable. At that point, existing fossil vehicles become stranded and only good for salvage.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      A lot of Tesla's growth has been in China and Germany though. I don't think they have big plans for US-based growth after the Texas factory. There seem to also be a lot of growing pains with Giga-Shanghai, Giga-Germany, and Giga-Texas. When we look at European nations + Japan and even China, their strategy for sustainable green energy is shifting into Hydrogen. The technology offered by fuel cell technologies is the one that I'm frankly more willing to bet on for the future to be frank. Especially with regards to large trucks (ie: semi-trucks and busses). -------- As you've noted earlier: its the large vehicles we need to focus on. And the largest vehicles (ex: semi-trucks) are not practical on Li-ion. Not yet anyway.
      - panick21_ 4y ago
        Tesla literally just strongly hinted that they are gone add another factory in North America, likely in Canada. Of course GM and Ford are both building up EV factories in North America. VW is currently scaling its plant. Hyundai/Kia are opening an EV plant in the US. And so are many others. > When we look at European nations + Japan and even China, their strategy for sustainable green energy is shifting into Hydrogen. No its not. That is what some politicians and big oil are talking about. If you are looking what is actually happening, hydrogen is very, very little. Japan has been obsessed with hydrogen for literally 40 years and have done everything they can to push it other then just straight up paying people per mile of hydrogen driving. And yet in reality Tesla alone outsells all hydrogen vehicles in Japan. > The technology offered by fuel cell technologies is the one that I'm frankly more willing to bet on for the future to be frank. So the technology that had huge amount of investment and has produced essentially no practical results is the one you want to hang your hat on? What convinced you, the total failure of mass production or the really bad end-to-end energy efficiency? With so much systematic failure its really hard to pick one convincing factor. > Especially with regards to large trucks (ie: semi-trucks and busses). Just a note to a comment above. The Tesla Semi was not in 'development hell'. Its simple the reality that with the same number of chips and batteries making more different vehicle types makes no sense. Semi needs lots of batteries, this is not a technology question, but a supply chain question. For buses you have many options, traditionally trolley, you have LFP, you have high-nickel and many other already deployed like Lithium Metal Polymer. There are sodium batteries coming and many other things as well. Practically speaking 99% of bus routes in the world can be done with battery electric batteries. For trucks, the waste majority of routes are well within reach of Lithium batteries and battery electric will be far cheaper then hydrogen for all of those routes. Hydrogen trucks architecture is far more complex, leading to far more cost. Hydrogen will always be more expensive then electricity so it will never beat battery electric on those routes. So why would anybody want a hydrogen truck? If you have to drive some stuff from San Fransisco to Alasca maybe hydrogen has some use but practically its basically 1% of the market. Even VW announced they will stop investment in hydrogen trucks and they were pushing that for a long time. Other truck makers like Volvo still talk about hydrogen sometimes but what they are actually deploying and commercializing is guess what, battery trucks. The same goes for Daimler, they talk about hydrogen, but they will first deliver like 4 different battery electric trucks and then maybe a hydrogen truck sometimes toward the end of the decade. Of course most of those late 2020s hydrogen turcks will never actually be deployed, they will just continue to push it back while releasing battery electric trucks. I just can not understand why people are still in love with hydrogen. It has been a total failure for literally 50 years and is basically systematically out-competed in every field. Its bad in end-to-end efficiency and its bad for vehicle architecture as well. If you really want to go synthetic chemical, then why not just use methanol or dimethyl ether, you can continue to use ICE. Doesn't cost that much more to make then hydrogen and has many other advantages.

toomuchtodo 4y ago

Tesla makes 1.5 million EVs/year at current run rate, and is targeting 2 million/year by end of year. You need not replace every vehicle right away, just enough to replace the largest consumers of fossil fuels. > Run the math. There are no spherical cows. https://insideevs.com/news/602725/tesla-3-million-cars-prduced-2-million-run-rate-2022/ https://insideevs.com/news/602725/tesla-3-million-cars-prduc...

dragontamer 4y ago
> Tesla makes 1.5 million EVs/year at current run rate, and is targeting 2 million/year by end of year. 289 million vehicles. At that rate, it will take over 100 years to replace all ICE vehicles. > You need not replace every vehicle right away, just enough to replace the largest consumers of fossil fuels. You mean semi-trucks and busses? How many years has Tesla-semi been in development hell now? Electric semi-trucks will eventually come. But at this point, I'm thinking its going to be Fuel Cell electricity through Hydrogen rather than batteries.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  It took Tesla 14 years to build their first 3 million vehicles. By year end, it will take them 1.5 years to build the same amount. Assume their growth rate continues (50-100% YoY), they could (if they so desired and the market demanded the unite) consume total US vehicle sales (17M/year) in ~5-15 years. Is consuming total US TAM going to happen? Unlikely, but the broad strokes of the transition are apparent; you could even stick this in Excel to reasonably extrapolate. Importantly, EVs don’t need to replace every combustion vehicle, only enough so that petroleum supply infra is no longer economically sustainable. At that point, existing fossil vehicles become stranded and only good for salvage.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    A lot of Tesla's growth has been in China and Germany though. I don't think they have big plans for US-based growth after the Texas factory. There seem to also be a lot of growing pains with Giga-Shanghai, Giga-Germany, and Giga-Texas. When we look at European nations + Japan and even China, their strategy for sustainable green energy is shifting into Hydrogen. The technology offered by fuel cell technologies is the one that I'm frankly more willing to bet on for the future to be frank. Especially with regards to large trucks (ie: semi-trucks and busses). -------- As you've noted earlier: its the large vehicles we need to focus on. And the largest vehicles (ex: semi-trucks) are not practical on Li-ion. Not yet anyway.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Tesla literally just strongly hinted that they are gone add another factory in North America, likely in Canada. Of course GM and Ford are both building up EV factories in North America. VW is currently scaling its plant. Hyundai/Kia are opening an EV plant in the US. And so are many others. > When we look at European nations + Japan and even China, their strategy for sustainable green energy is shifting into Hydrogen. No its not. That is what some politicians and big oil are talking about. If you are looking what is actually happening, hydrogen is very, very little. Japan has been obsessed with hydrogen for literally 40 years and have done everything they can to push it other then just straight up paying people per mile of hydrogen driving. And yet in reality Tesla alone outsells all hydrogen vehicles in Japan. > The technology offered by fuel cell technologies is the one that I'm frankly more willing to bet on for the future to be frank. So the technology that had huge amount of investment and has produced essentially no practical results is the one you want to hang your hat on? What convinced you, the total failure of mass production or the really bad end-to-end energy efficiency? With so much systematic failure its really hard to pick one convincing factor. > Especially with regards to large trucks (ie: semi-trucks and busses). Just a note to a comment above. The Tesla Semi was not in 'development hell'. Its simple the reality that with the same number of chips and batteries making more different vehicle types makes no sense. Semi needs lots of batteries, this is not a technology question, but a supply chain question. For buses you have many options, traditionally trolley, you have LFP, you have high-nickel and many other already deployed like Lithium Metal Polymer. There are sodium batteries coming and many other things as well. Practically speaking 99% of bus routes in the world can be done with battery electric batteries. For trucks, the waste majority of routes are well within reach of Lithium batteries and battery electric will be far cheaper then hydrogen for all of those routes. Hydrogen trucks architecture is far more complex, leading to far more cost. Hydrogen will always be more expensive then electricity so it will never beat battery electric on those routes. So why would anybody want a hydrogen truck? If you have to drive some stuff from San Fransisco to Alasca maybe hydrogen has some use but practically its basically 1% of the market. Even VW announced they will stop investment in hydrogen trucks and they were pushing that for a long time. Other truck makers like Volvo still talk about hydrogen sometimes but what they are actually deploying and commercializing is guess what, battery trucks. The same goes for Daimler, they talk about hydrogen, but they will first deliver like 4 different battery electric trucks and then maybe a hydrogen truck sometimes toward the end of the decade. Of course most of those late 2020s hydrogen turcks will never actually be deployed, they will just continue to push it back while releasing battery electric trucks. I just can not understand why people are still in love with hydrogen. It has been a total failure for literally 50 years and is basically systematically out-competed in every field. Its bad in end-to-end efficiency and its bad for vehicle architecture as well. If you really want to go synthetic chemical, then why not just use methanol or dimethyl ether, you can continue to use ICE. Doesn't cost that much more to make then hydrogen and has many other advantages.