Can EVs survive without subsidies ?

[John in CR]

...The real question is when will the world stop subsidizing vehicles with ICE's. .....

Probably not until an effective, practical, affordable, alternative , ...is available.

That day is already here. I will be selling package deals including an electric motorcycle with an electric car for under $4,000 usd unless I missed some of the incoming fees and taxes on my first container load. At that kind of price combined with the extremely low operating and maintenance costs a young couple on a tight budget has more economical transportation than riding the bus even using a cost recovery period as short as 36 or 48 months. The only thing that rivals that kind of transportation cost is young couples riding double on a cheap motorcycle (something quite common here), but depending of course on the length of their commute the payback period only goes out to 48-60 months before they come out ahead with the electric. That's attributing 0 value to no longer being forced to ride in the rain quite a few days a year.

The problem isn't just the subsidies for ICE's, but the major car companies too, who just like the government and public utilities are out to extract as much of everyone's take home pay as possible, so the con the public into believing they need houses on wheels when simple basic transportation is enough.

 

[cricketo]

We can't fly to/from Mars on a battery.

Well, you could, but it would have to be a fairly large one, to run an ion drive. Would take a while, too, as they're fairly low acceleration rate engines.

I actually doubt it would be possible to matter the size, as you'd have to scale other components as well to compensate for the mass of the battery. And then you run into thermal management problems of space. So really better leave my statement in its rhetorical version

 

[TheBeastie]

I think EVs will have to survive without subsidies because governments (at least in Europe and maybe USA) are making emission laws almost impossible being combustion only.

I keep seeing headlines like this, where major car companies are spending 10's of billions on EV factories so they have obviously got reassurances from the government that their investments are safe.

VW’s $50 Billion Moonshot Bet on an Electric Hatchback
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-23/vw-s-50-billion-moonshot-bet-on-an-electric-hatchback-the-id-3

According to this article " Volkswagen, the world's largest passenger car maker, is investing 80 billion euros ($130 billion) to mass produce electric cars, starting with the launch of its ID Vehicle that hits showrooms next year. "
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-11/dysons-electric-car-wont-go-to-market/11592954


Ford: $11 billion investment to bring 16 fully electric vehicles within a global portfolio of 40 electrified vehicles through 2022
https://medium.com/live-electric/the-stakes-are-high-inside-the-team-developing-fords-new-generation-of-electric-vehicles-2f105026012f

I have seen similar big money claims/investment headlines from GM and major Asian carmakers, so the question about if EVs will it make survive? well it's that it's going to be forced...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-labor-evs-exclusive/exclusive-electric-hummer-could-be-part-of-gms-move-into-ev-trucks-suvs-sources-idUSKBN1WX2HZ
Major car companies have committed so much money to EV factories that most rich countries around the world are going to make laws to make it impossible for combustion cars to exist.

This is a great general article on the amount of money going into EVs around the world.
This line from the article below... this is how EVs are going to survive... because if you have to pay $30billion in fines due to emssions then it's always cheaper to just build EVs.
Volkswagen, which has paid more than $30 billion in penalties since admitting in 2015 to rigging the emissions of millions of diesel cars
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/08/business/electric-cars-audi-volkswagen-tesla/

When I think about the data on EVs my nerd brain takes over and I don't believe EVs are any greener than combustion cars in total life emissions, but I still want EVs to take over. I am sick of seeing and hearing noisy cars, and drivers deliberately revving their noisy cars behaving as if they are doing everyone else a favour when over-revving their cars, so sick of it.

 

[jonescg]

When I think about the data on EVs my nerd brain takes over and I don't believe EVs are any greener than combustion cars in total life emissions, but I still want EVs to take over. I am sick of seeing and hearing noisy cars, and drivers deliberately revving their noisy cars behaving as if they are doing everyone else a favour when over-revving their cars, so sick of it.

Just quoting you on this for posterity.

I agree, the 'greeness' of any technology is always relative to the incumbent alternative. They do take 50% more energy and emissions to produce, but can be emissions free in operation if your grid allows you. The good thing is the bulk of the energy in manufacturing the battery is in the form of electricity, which we know can be produced using low- and no-emissions means.
Riding a bike is greener than everything else, but sometimes a car is pretty handy.
From an urban pollution, public health, terms of trade and energy independence perspective, EVs are a bloody good idea.

 

[Hillhater]

.
.... They do take 50% more energy and emissions to produce, but can be emissions free in operation if your grid allows you. The good thing is the bulk of the energy in manufacturing the battery is in the form of electricity, which we know can be produced using low- and no-emissions means.
Riding a bike is greener than everything else, but sometimes a car is prettyi handy.
From an urban pollution, public health, terms of trade and energy independence perspective, EVs are a bloody good idea.

I thought i would return the favour..so,..
.....Just quoting you on this for posterity
Very few places have a low , let alone no emissions,...grid supply, ....so unless you invest in a large enough. home solar system (more expense, and pollution to manufacture), and can re arrange your useage to leave the car at home to charge all day,..gambling that the weather will cooperate ?... then you may as well forget any significant environmental benefit.
I cannot see EV’s making much of an impact on Australia’s terms of trade, since it means we will have to import more , higher value vehicles, than currently.

 

[jonescg]

But you know we can change that don't you?

Coupled with a sustained period of de-growth, we can most certainly change the way we generate our electricity and manufacture our goods, all the while reducing the burden we are putting on the very systems which sustain us.

 

[Hillhater]

But you know we can change that don't you?

Coupled with a sustained period of de-growth, we can most certainly change the way we generate our electricity and manufacture our goods, all the while reducing the burden we are putting on the very systems which sustain us.

.. “Sustained period of de-growth “ ! ..
Do you realise what that means in plain language ,..Economic contraction.!
Meaning lower GDP..
Fewer jobs
Less government revenue
Reduced public expenditure
Reduced public services,.Education, Health, social services, infrastructure investment, etc etc
Increasing crime,..
..basicly a steady deconstruction of society !
.. And all to satisfy some unproven , exaggerated idealistic belief that humans can control the climate !
You could speed up that process a lot by giving up your job now, giving away most of the nice stuff you own, Take your buddies and move out to one of the Native Land townships ..and see if that is what you really want .!
.....utter Bollocks !
I am all for practical EV’s, but dont lets pretend they are going to save the planet ,..that is schoolboy level dreaming.

 

[Balmorhea]

.. “Sustained period of de-growth “ ! ..
Do you realise what that means in plain language ,..Economic contraction.!

He's talking about transitioning from an unsustainable, destructive techno-economic model to a more sustainable one. Though I'd argue any model that includes personal cars is inherently unsustainable at anything like our current population level.

If you're fixated on the myth of perpetual economic growth rather than real-world outcomes, then of course you don't get it because you are part of the problem.

Population reduction through negative growth rates is one form of what you'd call "economic contraction" that would in fact improve both CO2-stoked climate change and the average standard of living. If we get the population low enough, then we could all even have cars if we wanted them, without destroying our home planet. They'd still suck, but we could have them.

 

[Hillhater]

Keep dreaming !
We Are being assesed on a “per capita” basis for emissions,
So reducing the population is a negative move for that.
The topic of the thread is “Can EVs survive without subsidies”. ..
But i think we have to also consider “Can Renewable Energy generation survive without subsidies”
Considering that our (Australian) government has just tipped another billion $$$ into the RE development fund on top of the existing ongoing $3.0bn pa for the fraction of power ( sometimes) generated.

 

[jonescg]

Bust out your calculator Hillhater.

Australia buys about 100,000 new cars per year. At $25,000 each, on average, that's about $17,000 straight to the manufacturer per sale. We import all new cars here. So call that $1.7 billion per year heading off shore in exchange for new cars.

If they were EVs which cost say, 50% more, maybe we're sending $2.5 billion offshore per year. Hell round it up to $3 billion per year.

We spend how much on imported oil? We import 158 Ml a day. That's a million barrels of crude per day. At $90 a barrel, we're talking $32 billion a year in imported oil. Of course we export lots of petroleum products too, but not refined fuels.
Either way, EVs are most definitely good for our terms of trade.

And yes, economic contraction is exactly what we need. Consumption of stuff costs the planet. It's that simple. Consume less, destroy less.

 

[Balmorhea]

Keep dreaming !

I will, don't worry. I know we can do better than this, even as stupid and short-sighted as we are collectively.

We Are being assesed on a “per capita” basis for emissions,
So reducing the population is a negative move for that.

Again you're ignoring real-world outcomes in favor of something else. No wonder you're so dense and contrary on an issue that reasonable people acknowledge.

 

[billvon]

.. “Sustained period of de-growth “ ! ..
Do you realise what that means in plain language ,..Economic contraction.!
Meaning lower GDP..
Fewer jobs
Less government revenue
Reduced public expenditure
Reduced public services,.Education, Health, social services, infrastructure investment, etc etc

Yep. Which has to happen. Things can't grow forever. It's physically impossible. Do the math.

So how do you want that transition to happen? As the result of careful planning, and after a lot of work gets done to ensure that happens as painlessly as possible? Or as the result of a catastrophic crash, at the end of a long unsustainable run of growth fostered by people with their heads in the sand?

Increasing crime,..

Nope. There is no correlation between the size of society and crime.

.. And all to satisfy some unproven , exaggerated idealistic belief that humans can control the climate !

Nope. To satisfy math.

I am all for practical EV’s, but dont lets pretend they are going to save the planet ,..that is schoolboy level dreaming.

EV's aren't going to "save the planet." Neither is renewable energy or biofuels or local production or more efficient transportation. But all those things together will harm the planet a lot less than a bunch of people driving as fast as they can with their eyes closed.

 

[Hillhater]

Bust out your calculator Hillhater.

Australia buys about 100,000 new cars per year. At $25,000 each, on average, that's about $17,000 straight to the manufacturer per sale. We import all new cars here. So call that $1.7 billion per year heading off shore in exchange for new cars.

If they were EVs which cost say, 50% more, maybe we're sending $2.5 billion offshore per year. Hell round it up to $3 billion per year.

We spend how much on imported oil? We import 158 Ml a day. That's a million barrels of crude per day. At $90 a barrel, we're talking $32 billion a year in imported oil. Of course we export lots of petroleum products too, but not refined fuels.
Either way, EVs are most definitely good for our terms of trade.

Ok,.. i have warmed up the Abbacus..
Firstly you have underestimated new car sales in Australia by a factor of 10 !
Last year 1.15million new cars were sold.
So , using your figures that would be $19.5bn dollars going out of the country
If they were magically all EV’s, at 50% more..lets say an even $30bn....an EXTRA $10bn going o’seas !
Oil..or to be precise, vehicle fuel offset for those 1.15bn new cars..
According to this analysis .....
https://www.budgetdirect.com.au/car-insurance/research/average-fuel-consumption-australia.html
.... Passenger vehicles in Australia consume an average of 1366 litres of fuel per year.
So, at an average of $1.5 /ltr, that means those 1.15m new EV’s are offsetting ...1.15m x 1366 x $1.5 = $ 2.35bn
So an extra $10bn spent O’seas to import EV’s, ..and $2.35bn less spent on fuel imports !
BUT WAIT !.. 60% of that $1.5/ltr is actually local government tax’s !
So the “real” saving on imported fuel cost is less than $1.0bn
Not such a rosy trade benefit , is it ?

And i wont mention that the only reason we import oil/fuel is a “Political” / Economics decision.
Australia has huge oil reserves (+another 200+bn Barrel/yr recently discovered), ..but we have chosen not to produce locally for political reasons ??
And , of course then there is our Gas reserves (LPG and LNG ) which we could ( used to ) fuel or vehicle fleet with if we were serious about trade balance or self sufficiency.

 

[Hillhater]

Again you're ignoring real-world outcomes in favor of something else.

Exactly what real world outcomes do you think am i ignoring ?

 

[Balmorhea]

Again you're ignoring real-world outcomes in favor of something else.

Exactly what real world outcomes do you think am i ignoring ?

Climate crisis
Ecological collapse
Resource crises
Exploitation of desperate people
Inevitable collapse of capitalism

The longer people act as if these things aren't happening, the less we'll have available to cope with them. Following your way, fixing the problem will be left to the Reverend Malthus's horsemen. They'll do it, but nobody will like the implications.

The alternative is choosing how we're going to fit into the space and the resources we have, in a way that works long term. Fossil fuels have no real place in that game, and I'd argue neither do personal cars (unless we pare down our numbers to a small fraction of today's).

We can start solving the problem now, or we can wait until we're out of options and have no pieces left on the board to work with.

 

[jonescg]

I used this data from ABS - https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9314.0
Edit - that's a December sales card Yes 1 million sounds about right. Call it $30 billion in imported EVs?
As for dollars leaving our shores, crude import values are a far more useful figure than taking a bowser price and trying to deal with GST and excise. All those values are added afterwards.
So the total spend on imported oil is still about 32 billion, which is nuts.
We could have manufactured cars here, and subsidised the hell out of it like every other car manufacturing nation.
Pretty sure we'll see price parity with ICE by 2025 though.

 

[Hillhater]

As for dollars leaving our shores, crude import values are a far more useful figure than taking a bowser price and trying to deal with GST and excise. All those values are added afterwards.
So the total spend on imported oil is still about 32 billion, which is nuts.

yes, its nuts that we import oil when we could be self sufficient, but this is a commercial decision, not strategic.
But , sorry, for vehicles , we import practically all refined fuels, since we have very little operational refineries these days. That was part of the reason we dont bother with our own oil extraction, it is cheaper to just buy the refined fuel than rebuild, and operate refineries locally ( economies of scale etc )
Hence its more accurate to use actual refined fuel costs rather than crude oil prices

PS .. that 1M barrels per day of imported oil is mostly refined products, less than 40% (360,000Bpd) is unrefined.
Of that 60% refined, that would include not only passenger cars, but all commercial vans, trucks etc, trains, , agriculture, shipping , mining, aviation, etc etc ..and of course a fair bit of electricity generation still.
So the actual car fuel component is probably down in the 20-30% range of the “million barrels”..
...remembering you are still fueling the existing 18+ million registered cars also !

 

[Hillhater]

Exactly what real world outcomes do you think am i ignoring ?

Climate crisis
Ecological collapse
Resource crises
Exploitation of desperate people
Inevitable collapse of capitalism

All signs of your (and others) misinformed paranoia.
This world is far from a perfect utopia, but you have to be careful before you tear it apart and replace it with some idealistic dream.

 

[billvon]

All signs of your (and others) misinformed paranoia.
This world is far from a perfect utopia, but you have to be careful before you tear it apart and replace it with some idealistic dream.

I'd say you are the one tearing the world apart with your fantasies of unending growth and limitless resources. Shismaref - Paradise - Isle de Jean Charles - Centralia - these are actual, real places that have actually, really been destroyed by greed, denial and a blindness to the risks of burning fossil fuels for as long as we can.

 

[gogo]

Zagato Elcars were economically viable in the 70's without subsidies, even with lead acid batteries. The niche keeps expanding…

Government subsidies are useful for mitigating something else the government has muffed up, and swindlers.

Tony Seba youtube video about disruptive transportation technologies

A more forward thinking question would be whether there will be subsidies when transportation costs 10X less. The answer is yes, because human nature. At least the subsidies will be 10X smaller?

 

[TheBeastie]

Volkswagen's Shanghai EV plant with SAIC has started trial production: VW CEO
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saic-volkswagen-china-idUSKBN1XI08P


https://www.businessinsider.com.au/vw-making-huge-bet-on-electric-vehicles-in-next-decade-2019-11

• No automaker that makes gas-powered cars has announced electric-vehicle investment plans as ambitious as Volkwagen‘s.

• By 2023, Volkswagen says it will spend over $US30 billion on electric vehicles, a sum roughly equal to the company’s combined profits from 2015 through 2018. By 2030, Volkswagen intends for electric vehicles to comprise 40% of its global sales.

• For Volkswagen’s targets to be attainable, demand for electric vehicles will have to grow significantly from the first half of this year, when they accounted for just under 2% of global light-vehicle sales.

• Volkswagen doesn’t have much of a choice in deciding whether or not it wants to invest in electric vehicles due to tightening regulations and the aftermath of its Dieselgate scandal.

Like I said in my post above the headlines for mega EV production factories that are on the verge of starting to mass pump out EV's continues...
I think emission laws will force ICE cars to be equally expensive, I guess you could call it a "displacement subsidy"...

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/one-metric-matters-electric-cars
That number, according to researcher George Crabtree, is the price of the battery (as measured in $ per kwh), which he says has to halve in order to make EVs competitive with conventional cars. Not promising one might think. Well, researchers now believe that battery prices could reach the magic level somewhere between 2022 and 2026.


I think emission laws in Australia being behind is fair because unlike the UK/Germany etc these countries cars don't travel far.

For example, the new Adani coal mine in Australia is starting in a coal Galilee Basin area that's twice the size of England. Even though the coal mine is only expected to be small, the fact is if they wanted to extend the coal mine they could, in theory, make a coal mine/hole twice the size of England in Queensland and no one would really notice as I explained here https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&start=5175#p1502028

This puff piece of how amazing Tesla is points out the EV is a bit like the emergence of the start-phone vs the dumb-phone.
He claims that the Tesla EV factory in China will be able to make over 1million EVs a year.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-survival-of-teslas-rivals-is-far-from-a-sure-thing-2019-11-08?mod=mw_quote_news

 

[Ianhill]

From what I've read on formula one current engine tech is up for a big change after 2024 and a change to the good old 2 stroke engine is back on the cards but in an opposed piston design with forced induction direct injection and modern day timing ecu advancements would see it hit over 50% efficient without the hybrid systems attached.

But that's not the impressive part, the fuel will be sourced from hydrogen created at source from renewables, so an offshore process then that hydrogen will be combined with carbon from the atmosphere to create a synthetic fuel that is in a merry go round being burnt and extracted from a clean source giving it a extremely clean process arguably cleaner than formula E but that's basing today's formula E with 5 year down the line formula 1 tech so electric needs that cleaner battery with alot more capacity to he competitive or the future of long distance travel could still have a combustion aspect to it.

 

[Hillhater]

From what I've read on formula one current engine tech is up for a big change after 2024 and a change to the good old 2 stroke engine is back on the cards but in an opposed piston design with forced induction direct injection and modern day timing ecu advancements would see it hit over 50% efficient without the hybrid systems attached.

Sounds good, “Back to the Future” ( literaly the sound of multi piston 2 strokes),...
..... but even with advanced material tech, they will still have to find a way to address the issue of burnt/ lost lubrication that feature in 2 stroke emissions
Rebirth of the Commer “ Knocker” :lol:
https://pin.it/4hlmwdlpcqc3as

 

[boars]

Would be cool if they could get a 2-stroke to run on hydrogen but it's just such an annoyingly hard gas to keep pinned down and you only need a tiny leak for combustion to be possible. I'm not sure I'd want to test my luck with a hydrogen powered 2 stroke motorbike

Still I live in hope that my old bikes can be resurrected in some form in the future, not many people are willing to put up with following an old 2-smoker these days.

 

[Ianhill]

From what I've read on formula one current engine tech is up for a big change after 2024 and a change to the good old 2 stroke engine is back on the cards but in an opposed piston design with forced induction direct injection and modern day timing ecu advancements would see it hit over 50% efficient without the hybrid systems attached.

Sounds good, “Back to the Future” ( literaly the sound of multi piston 2 strokes),...
..... but even with advanced material tech, they will still have to find a way to address the issue of burnt/ lost lubrication that feature in 2 stroke emissions
Rebirth of the Commer “ Knocker” :lol:
https://pin.it/4hlmwdlpcqc3as

From what I read they are using opposed pistons and the lack of valvetrain mean the max rpm is down to the crank, rod and piston, not sure if they use an over square design or not but a short throw could see upwards of 30000rpm maybe more.

That oiling issue is fine f1 has been burning a mix of oil and fuel for a while using high pressure direct port injection and high compression ratios they are close to a complete burn giving very low co2 and nox values that have little offensive impact to their surrounding and a combustion engine that has 50% efficiency giving that tank of dense energy even further range.

With a hybrid system these engines could be a city car that gets the best of all worlds but only if the fuel is made in the fashion of carbon release and capture to give it a very clean outlook and a use for surplus energy if the grid can spare a little at night or if the dream is realised then dedicated offshore plants will be needed.

More than likely the aviation industry will deploy the idea as they really have no electric future for long distance flight it's a pipe dream if anyone says that they can maintain today's current flight capacity under electric flight without some serious battery breakthroughs and at that point fuel will be for industry use only big plant equipment larger than houses etc.

The only way for blanket electric is to make batterys not only cheap and high density/throughput but also not toxic too as even though recycling occurs most don't make it that far and end up lost in the landfill system if we can eliminate these problems then electric may have a cleaner future but it's all a guessing game and just have to wait and see how it plays out let time change everything.