WetEV wrote: GRA wrote:
WetEV wrote:So how does a subsidy for purchase change the impact of electric vehicles on global energy systems? Do explain.
It affects the rate at which PEVs will increase, since subsidies are inevitably limited in any given time frame. Explosive growth will happen when subsidies are no longer needed for PEVs or their charging infrastructure, i.e. there's a normal (profitable) business case to be made.
So what? PEVs are going to increase with or without subsidies. Earlier start with subsidies, but still increase at much the same rate. You failed to answer the question. What is the real difference?
Explosive growth isn't going to happen in any case, as battery manufacturing and other parts of the supply chains needed to produce electric cars are unlikely to grow much faster than 20% to 30% a year. Even if demand for electric cars explodes, there are real limits in how fast production can be increased. Setting the bar at explosive growth is concern trolling, at best. Although 30% a year is fairly explosive.
Why are you concern trolling?
It's not trolling, it's concern that the rate of transition to non-fossil-fuels isn't sufficient.
GRA wrote:Oh, I agree, I've long said that the Model S/X and similar high-end BEVs (i-Pace/e-tron Quattro/Taycan etc.) will be able to succeed without subsidies, because their customers don't need them.
No. High end BEVs have been, are and will be able to succeed without subsidies, as they are better cars at the same or lower price. Unlike hydrogen cars. And makers of high end BEVs will provide public charging, if that is what is needed to sell a $140k BEV.
High end BEVs currently have some features that are better and some worse, depending on an individual's priorities. They aren't yet a full replacement for ICEs.
BTW, for those who think that the convenience of at-home charging is an overwhelming advantage for PEVs, there are now companies that are eliminating that issue for ICEs and there's no reason that the same model can't be used for FCEVs, although my personal opinion is that anyone who's so time-poor but cash-rich needs to re-think their priorities:
The latest way busy people are saving time: Hiring someone else to fill up their car with gas
. . . To ensure that her weeks run smoothly, Block, an avid planner, has turned to technology, using AmazonFresh and Google Express to stock her fridge and order products ranging from toilet paper to electronics. She can’t remember the last time she pushed a shopping cart through a store.
Until a few months ago, there remained a single irritating chore that Block couldn’t seem to avoid: filling her car up with gas.
Her solution: a Silicon Valley start-up that functions like a mobile gas station, using “field technicians” to fill up vehicles when they’re not being driven. The company, known as Yoshi, is part of a crop of gas-delivery start-ups billing themselves as “Uber for gasoline.” Yoshi members pay a $20 monthly subscription fee, plus the cost of gas, a deal that Block — who considers gas stations dirty and inconvenient — said she couldn’t resist. . . .
For many drivers, a trip to the gas station is a forgettable inconvenience that occurs once or twice a week. But Yoshi is banking on the idea that there are millions of people like Block all over the country: urban professionals whose demanding schedules and disposable income make them ideal candidates for outsourcing a chore that has been a feature of car ownership since the inception of the automobile.
The company seeks to be more than a concierge service for the affluent, and it arrives at a time when companies such as Uber, Amazon.com, Whole Foods (now owned by Amazon) and Netflix are trying to capitalize on the appeal of convenience. (Amazon chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Washington Post.)
In the past 12 months, the company has spread from three cities nationwide to 16, including Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston and Los Angeles . . . They’ve recently added the Washington D.C. region to that list. . . .
At a time when Silicon Valley is rushing to replace gas-powered engines with electric motors and batteries, selling combustible fuel might appear to be a foolish way to launch a career. But the 31-year-old Frist — who founded the company with two partners in 2015 — said his team looked for industries that remained largely untouched by innovation. The outdated nature of the gas station, he said, was part of the business’s allure. . . .
As ride-hailing and ride-sharing make owning a car useless for some, Weaver said, there is a push within the auto industry to remove the “pain points” from the car-ownership experience. . . .
To no one's surprise, this type of thing apparently started in Silicon Valley.
GRA wrote:Obviously, the high end, and as I've pointed out before, if I didn't think time was pressing we could afford to wait for things to play out naturally.
We have only a few options other than to wait for things to play out. We can slightly speed up the adoption process with subsidies. But real transitions in large scale technology are both expensive and time consuming
I've agreed with, and added that it's a matter of reducing the transition time as much as possible, by giving people many non-fossil-fueled options rather than just one, instead of foreclosing that option for all the people who don't have convenient home charging, a majority of the world's urban drivers.
GRA wrote:Because any transportation mode is dependent on both the vehicles and their infrastructure, and as long as the infrastructure isn't profitable and has to be subsidized, growth will be limited far more than would otherwise be the case.
Current public charging infrastructure isn't profitable and has been subsidized to get as extensive as it is. Yet that was to enable the earlier start of the ramp of electric vehicles. With most charging at home or work, perhaps the future might be allow public changing prices increase to match costs. After all, DCQC is a tiny fraction of total charging now, and might be even smaller in the future as battery costs continue to fall and battery sizes continue to rise. So what if the cost is 5 times that of home costs, or competitive with hydrogen. I only pay that when I take a trip longer than I can without charging, perhaps 3% of the time. Once per month. The cost of operation of a station will decline as utilization improves. Queuing theory says that multiple QCs at the same location should improve utilization more. Larger batteries mean fewer and larger locations needed, continued growth in EVs on the road mean higher utilization, cost should drop with time. Will never be as cheap as home charging.
At the moment, even public L2 charging is more expensive than gas in many places, including the only (reasonably) convenient public charging I would have access to. Unless that can be made profitable at prices which are less expensive than gas, I don't see how we can convince people to switch.
GRA wrote:ICEs and gas stations grew rapidly because they were both profitable, but I still don't know of any public for-profit charging company (which supplies the electricity) that isn't dependent on subsidies to stay afloat. Until that changes, resource constraints are pretty much irrelevant to mass adoption.
Let me point out just how damning that is for hydrogen. Renewable hydrogen will always be far more expensive (3x) than electric power. How can it ever be profitable, if electric car charging isn't profitable.
As I see it, the difference is that electricity is a mature tech, and I don't see any areas where major cost reductions are possible (EVSEs will decrease in price along with the rest of electronics). Renewable H2, OTOH, is at a much earlier stage of development, with refinements possible in production, transport and storage, and still subject to major gains from economies of scale. Naturally, this doesn't guarantee prices will drop to the point that it can be a commercial success, and you rightly say that it won't be as inexpensive as (home) electricity, but I don't believe it has to be, only competitive with gas.
GRA wrote:We're all in favor of load shifting and peak shaving, and that will help. But this assumes the utilities are able to bear the CapEx of all the new plants while scrapping the older ones before their time, and they're already hurting. Add to that intermittent renewables and the need for storage and costs go up even more. How it all will play out is anyone's guess.
Coal plants are closing, as they are too expensive to operate. Solar has already closed many peaking plants, as peak power demand for AC used to be while the Sun was shining. The old stuff will go away. Exactly how fast might be a guess, but the old stuff isn't going to be replace with more old stuff.
Sure, in the U.S. OTOH, China is replacing old coal plants with new (and more efficient) ones on a large scale; India's on the fence a bit, but they've just built a whole generation of coal plants and can't afford to toss them, especially as something like 300 million indians still dont' have electricity.
GRA wrote:Non-profitable business dependent on government largesse means slow deployment. Profitable business that doesn't need subsidies means fast deployment.
Backwards. Subsidies mean that deployment can start before there is a profitable business. Faster deployment.
The first unsubsidized solar farm went on line last year. Solar has been growing rapidly because of subsidies. Costs have been decreasing because of volume and volume is because of subsidies. Once the cost is low enough, the subsidies can end and growth will continue.
Sure, subsidies boost deployment early on - I said as much for renewables. The question is how quickly can you shift to profitability, and right now I don't see any likely path to that for public charging, with a possible exception if we let the utilities provide it directly. Which they should IMO, just a they do for home charging.