>“By 2030, pack prices could fall to $50/kWh or less. For a large 100 kWh battery pack, replacement costs might range from $4,500 to $5,000, while a standard 75 kWh pack could cost around $3,375. These prices are comparable to engine replacement costs in gas-powered vehicles.”Woo! All the Teslas sold in the last few years will be cheap to fix when their batteries reach end of warranty in the 2030s thanks to falling battery prices.
https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/replacing-an-ev-battery-less-than-fixing-a-gas-engine
>>28199400>couldyeah if there is a tech revolution yeah but if we keep following the current reality it's not getting significantly cheaper
>>28199443The current trajectory is it getting significantly cheaper. A tech revolution would probably make it more expensive.
>>28199448problem is that commercially viable batteries are near their peak energy denstiy wise. we know how much a Lithium-ion battery costs/kg and even with modern development it's unlikely decrease by a significant margin. If future development lead to a commercially viable high density battery then you might see a price drop.also>>28199402 image is retarded
>>28199599Silicon carbon anode batteries are making their debut in this year's smartphones, they increase energy density quite substantially, they'll probably get cheaper over the next few years as more factories start making them, but you're right that conventional lithium ion is limited and this is basically the very last hail Mary they have until solid state, and who the fuck knows if or when that will ever exist.
Could, should, would, might, will. It's always the same bullshit. Also where the fuck are they getting a OEM long block for $5k? You can't compare a new battery pack to a used engine. You wouldn't put a used battery pack in a EV.
>>28199611i honestly think the future for heavy vehicles is hydrogen tanks to fuel eletric engines instead of ICE or batteries. batteries are better suited for smaller vehicles like scooters and similar shit. hydrogen generation can be used to store the excess power generated by renewables and can be produced by nuclear reactors.
>>28199647The big problem with hydrogen is efficiency. It's more efficient with higher temperatures (which is why it's cheapest to do it with nuclear), but with renewables it's something like 50% energy generated -> stored, and then it's another 50-ish% loss from stored -> electricity, which means you need 4 times as much renewable power as you would need with batteries.Batteries are expensive, though, and h2 is stable, so it could happen and it probably makes more sense for heavy vehicles and probably even light truck towing, and if fuel cells and hyrdogen and pump stations are made for the trucks, you may as well make some for cars, too.
>>28199599A big hurdle here is that the big powerhouse countries with the resources to find a solution are the US and China. The US has a very powerful oil industry with a massive propaganda apparatus (that most of you have fallen for). The DoD has recently listed CATL as a Chinese military entity. So there’s no political will, diminished popular will, and zero competition. If anyone will succeed in making an affordable solid state battery (they already exists, slated for 2027 model year vehicles, but are very expensive) it will be China. The US will be left behind.
>>28199400>>28199402I assume with an industry like that prices on battery packs will never really come down because they'd find some new tech battery and you simply cannot buy the old batteries anymore because of all the rare earth minerals in them so you're forced to buy the new stuff for $40,000 on that $10,000 15 year old tesla. The real game changer will be if you can grab a V6 cradle from some SUV and bolt it up in the frunk >lel Y no vate?Because no transmission apace or drive shaft tunnel. So it'd have to be a transverse FWD transplant into a Tesla, plus a gas tank somewhere, maybe where the bad battery was? Of course, Tesla will find a way to prevent this on very old scrap vehicles because taking one to a mechanic to transverse for 25% the cost of a battery, they wouldn't like missing out on a new vehicle sale.
>>28199618>"omg EVs could hit 10% of market share this decade">they doDoesn't sound like BS to me.
>>2819990810% is a fucking far cry from the 100% you people think will be a reality 10 years from now.
>>28199908They did before, and failed. Twice.
>>28199917>>28199914Imagine being in denial of the obvious future. I bet you also thought touch screen phones and the internet wasn't going to be a thing, either.
>>28199919I knew touch phones and the internet were going to be realistic things because they got magnitudes better year after year. EV's have been a thing for like 200 years now and we've only doubled their range...
>>28199919The obvious future is EVs never hitting 100%. Unless you believe in nuclear fusion to create electricity, and even worse, energy prices decreasing.
>>28199930EVs reduce grid dependence. As EVs in the USA grow in popularity, power usage goes down.
>>28199400nah, by 2030 we'll claim that china is the enemy and get a 70s gas crisis that will kick evs back to the leaf age
>>28199990They said this 10 years ago about Tesla.
>>28199767>massive propaganda apparatus (that most of you have fallen for)
>go to junkyard>grab 30 complete engines for the price of a battery
>>28200164>you now have 30 used and abused enginesNow what?
>>28200395>Now what?Drive for 80k miles for a $750 investment.
>>28200164Keep going for longer than a new battery in an old EVFor a fraction of the projected price, aka, wishful thinking>>28200418with 30 I'm sure I can get at least 3 that will hold beyond 50k
That's assuming by 2030 there will still be huge amounts of third worlders willing/alive to slave their way into mining operations.
>>28199599>we know how much a Lithium-ion battery costs/kg and even with modern development it's unlikely decrease by a significant marginwtf? EVs have barely been on the road for a decade at this point (disregarding the silly pre-tesla 30mile range, $70k hatckback compliancemobiles) and $/kwhr has already dropped precipitously. we haven't felt this in the west, but just look at what kind of prices the chinks are selling their EVs for domestically. and again, that's NOW, barely a decade in. between tesla and musk's newfound political influence, the chinks going all in, and the trad mfgs eventually joining in too (or dying), i can't imagine how that much investment in battery R&D and production will not result in better and, most importantly, much cheaper batteries.and that last bit, price, is really the most important thing, because already existing EVs do have enough range.the main problem delaying further adoption is the ability to charge at home. if you can charge at home, a new(ish) EV with 200-300 miles range and 20-30min stops for recharging on trips is more than adequate for 99.9% of the population in developed nations. ofc, that's not to say that more range or faster charging isn't very much welcome, just that if you're not buying an EV right now, its either religious/philosophical and other /o/tism reasons(which is fine), or much more commonly, its because you can't charge at home. if you can charge at home, its basically impossible to beat the value of a used model 3/y for a daily commuter appliance. or of the performance versions, for a 0-60 monster on the cheap. and again, that's ignoring the fact that in china, you can get a "model3 from wish.com" for 20k, brand new, which makes the comparison even more favorable, and is what you should expect going forward.
>>28199402The cross section of people who will buy an EV and the people who will fix a ~12yo car has got to be minuscule. People generally want a vehicle with all of the latest tech gadgets. EV buyers especially like this stuff. A 12yo car is pretty dated in this regard. At the same time, a 12yo EV with a new battery will have fewer problems than a 12yo ICEV with a new engine or transmission. ICE vehicles are traded in at 12.5 years on average because that’s when multiple systems start to fail. No one wants to have to fix their 13yo shitbox a few times a year just to commute back and forth and run to the grocery store on the weekends.
>>28199647Yeah I’ll just run to the nearest hydrogen filling station to fill my hydrogen car.
>>28200418Plus a couple weeks of wrenching random engines into whatever vehicles I currently have each time. oh boy, that sounds like a great investment!
>>28200444>swapping an engine>weeksmayble learn about the shit you're talking about before making extremely clear that you're a dumb fuck noone should listen to
>>28200446>average /o/ browser should be able to change a modern engine in a few hours!Yeah, its not like we have jobs, families, or other obligations to swap an engine quickly. No chance its turning into a weeks long expenditure of time and money hoping you get it right. Keep in mind, you said 30 engines, sure hope you're a master mechanic with more tools than everyone else and can swap in many different engines int 1 platform and it just bolts right up! inb4 just get 30 of the same engines.
>>28200451You don't have a life niggaAnd it takes a couple afternoons at most
>>28200489You're right, I forgot about being a master mechanic doing engine swaps in under 2 days.
>>28199400Can these be restomodded into old 2010-2025+ Tesla's by the time they come out I wonder Might be a fun project get an old plaid and do it up
>>28200496The book lists it as an 8 hour jobiea couple of afternoons
>>28200501What book? Swapping a random engine from a junkyard into whatever you happen to be driving is a simple 8 hour job when you know exactly what you're doing? Just stop and think about what you're saying for a few minutes. Do you really think the average /o/ poster, average person that takes about an hour to do an oil change in the driveway will swap out a random engine, possibly not even from the same OEM manufacturer, into whatever car you happen to have should only take 8-12 hours? What are you smoking and how do I know you have multiple non-running cars in your yard?
>>28200503the fucking workshop book for my car, you absolutely ignorant clown
>>28199400>By 2030>could>comparable to engine replacement JUST FOR THE FUCKING BATTERY (your electric engine will still eventually go as well
>>28200503That's a load of compe by a weak retard high on learned helplessness>woe is me I have to put some effort into somethingAnd before you come out with "muh time" your time isn't that valuable or on demand for you to be wasting it in 4chan
>>28200435Battery technology is not 10 years old, though, and that's what we're talking about. Lithium ion has existed since the 60s and the advancements have mostly been in manufacturing, form factors, and refining techniques to reduce defects and material costs. Even the new silicon carbon stuff is mostly about how to prevent the battery from destroying itself, since a silicon anode expands when it gains lithium ions (meaning when it's charging) and contracts when it loses them (meaning when it's discharging). The next "advancement" will be (if it ever happens) solid state, which would be a genuine material science advancement since the current construction of solid state batteries gives them a trade off of cost or durability, and you can only pick one.>But China has solid state!Everybody has solid state, their 2027 "semi solid state" batteries are a marketing meme, they use a polymer gel composite, and it's not without trade-offs of its own.
>>28200539>Battery technology is not 10 years old, thoughno, its not, but the current boom in the sector is. you sound really knowledgeable on the subject, so im happy to be corrected on this, but this is my understanding of the recent history of battery development:the modern era of intense battery R&D didn't start till smartphones/laptops/tablets started taking off in the early '00s. i was a kid in the 90s, and i distinctly remember that while batteries existed, they were a joke, and only usable in extremely low power requirement situations. it was cellphones and laptops that created the first real market for modern batteries and thus the incentive to invest in the technology.and while phones and laptops were a big market, and nowadays when they're ubiquitous and you can add tablets, earbuds, smartwatches, etc to the mix, all those devices use very small batteries, relatively speaking. so, my understanding is that the main driver of competition for batteries in gadgets was(and is) total capacity, weight and charging times. the price for the battery was somewhat of an afterthought, as unlike EVs, the battery has never been a main driver of the cost of those gadgets. so, this era gave us good gains in power densities, it didn't really do as much for the price.so, while all that early effort resulted in something like the model S being possible in the first place, it is the creation of the model S (well, really it was the 3/Y, but lets be charitable) that really started the the modern era of "we don't just need better batteries, we need SHITTONS of them, we need them as cheap as possible and we need them fucking yesterday". nobody was rushing their pants off to build/buy as much battery production as possible until then.
>>28200535I have 2 work from home jobs. I'm making money while shitposting. Its not learned helplessness, but I'd wager 99.8% of drivers could not finish an engine swap in a week even if they have a full garage and all the tools. Are you people really trying to suggest that engine swaps are barely worth noting in terms of difficulty and time?
>>28199400Still don't care.
>>28200573Be all that as it may, it doesn't change the fact that traditional lithium ion cannot meaningfully improve energy density at this point without using silicon and carbon to pack in about twice as much lithium, but the more silicon in the anode, the more it expands during charging and the less durable it is (since the expansion has by itself the capacity to damage the surrounding cells). The only ways to really decrease battery cost at this point without a material sciences advancement (which pretty much just means solid state, everything else has been a bust) is everybody moving to silicon carbon (which will probably happen anyway, 20% silicon is decently durable and higher enough energy density to make it worthwhile, also it reduces material costs a bit by replacing more expensive metals), increasing supply of materials, decreasing the cost of energy (lol), or decreasing the cost of labor. There might be some marginal labor cost improvements left with robotics and computing, but the big ones are materials and energy, and they're not likely to get much better.
>>28200609Current battery density is enough to replace all vehicles with EVs.
>>28199971Wat? Explain please
>>28200599Cool story broEven ioth your bullshit story that not even you believe, it's still cheaper to pay someone to swap those 30 engines than to get a battery replacementYour oversized toys are worthless
>>28200439I think there is a whole untapped demographic of financially savvy people waiting for EVs to become cheaper to buy and drive than old ICE cars.
>>28200674No it isn't, unless we want to build superchargers in places where people don't currently have gas stations, either. There are plenty of places in this country that are remote enough that going there with only 250-300 miles of range will either damage your battery or won't actually get you back, and you can't really charge at the destination, especially if you plan on doing any off-roading or towing.
>>28200734Labor to do a direct engine swap is probably $4000. And if you're asking a shop to swap in a random engine from the junkyard they should be charging you more. Maybe we can multiply the low number of $4000 by 30 engines, plus the cost of the engines to see if we're still coming out ahead of that $20-40,000 battery for another 15 years of life in the car.
>>28200729Gasoline, from drilling it out of the ground to pumping it into your car, takes about as much energy if not more than to simply use the same electricity to power an EV.
>>28200744>There are plenty of places in this country that are remote enough that going there with only 250-300 miles of range will either damage your battery or won't actually get you back, and you can't really charge at the destination, especially if you plan on doing any off-roading or towing.I don't know anything about offroading, but the entire country has electricity. Even fucking yellowstone park has electricity. Just install charging stations where there's gaps.I think there will be a 0.001% use case for ICEVs. But within a couple decades, 100% of vehicles sold are going to electric. So those use cases are going to come up with solutions that work with EVs. Maybe they'll have generators they lug with the vehicle, or off road trails will have charging stations added.I bet the same questions were asked a century ago when cars were being made, and people with horses were asking how cars could possibly fit the use case that horses do much better in.
>>28200765Let's say you want to get to some public land in Northeastern Maine, for hunting, logging, kayaking, hiking, general camping, or anything else you might want to do. The closest charging station is probably Bangor, which means you can get there but you can't get back. Sure, you could build out chargers, but now you have to send a lot of power out to bumfuck nowhere and you'll get fuck all returns out of that investment other than now people are able to do with an EV what they can already do with gasoline, and this means it's inevitably either not going to be particularly well maintained because it'll barely be used, or it'll be run by the logging companies and anybody that isn't a logger pretty much isn't going to be able to use it because the loggers are using it and not for DC fast charging, since loggers can just park their vehicles at a level 2 charger and then go to work and come back several hours later to a fully charged vehicle.I don't have to use Maine, I could go to pretty much any state in the US and find similar examples of places where DC fast chargers realistically need to exist for the project to be feasible but which would have so low returns that nobody would ever care to build them, I just chose Maine because I've spent the most time trying to figure out how to make that one work (I road trip up there with a buddy or two every year for outdoors activities during deer season).
>>28200758Gasoline is very energy positive, it takes basically fuck all energy to pull it out of the ground and refine it compared to what you get out of it. It would be strictly more efficient to burn it in a combined cycle generator and then transfer the generated electricity into a battery, but it would also be much more expensive, since while you've cut out engines in cars you've added power plants and batteries.
>>28200820What you just described was when the US began electrification of homes out in the middle of nowhere. Then again for phone lines. Then again for cable TV and internet (other data lines too) where everyone lamented you just couldn't make a profit in rural areas so fuck em.
>>28200837And rural areas still don't have cable TV or internet, this problem was never solved and instead they just got cell modems (sometimes, if there was an unobstructed path to a nearby cell tower) and satellite dishes (which are SHIT except for Starlink, which is expensive and still not as good as cable or fiber). A lot of rural areas do just get fucked because nobody actually wants to pay to send infrastructure to the middle of bumfuck nowhere for the small communities of people who either live or work out there. DC fast chargers aren't exactly cheap, nor is the requisite power infrastructure to support it, which means a lot of these places probably aren't going to get service unless you want to put up giant battery banks and a big wind turbine or a small field of solar panels or an on site natural gas generator for the few people who need it every so often, which means it's going to be more expensive than gasoline anyway.
>>28200848>A lot of rural areas do just get fucked because nobody actually wants to pay to send infrastructure to the middle of bumfuck nowhereWell yeah, do you want these companies to just pay hundreds of thousands or millions to get a couple hundred customers who will pay $1500 a year? Why would they do that. And for the most part starlink is as good as cable internet. inb4 latency of 200ms for competitive gamers in northern alaska isn't fast enough and upload speeds aren't as high for 1080p webcams for eskimo sluts or something. What you described however is areas that don't make sense to have EVs. Why on earth would anyone in an EV want to drive to factual bumfuck nowhere?
Early adopters pay the price. Waitchads can't stop winning
>>28200871It's not just gaming, download/upload speeds are much worse than what you'd get for the same money on cable, so if you were planning to stream a bunch instead of watching DirecTV, it's going to be worse. You also have data caps if you're paying for better than 20-100 Mbps, and they're not very high, so you will hit them much faster and pay out the ass for something that's worse anyway. If you wanted to do something like host a home media server for you and your friends to use, that's also going to be a problem because your upload speeds are so bad, but it's trivially easy on cable (or even better, fiber) because the upload speeds are just faster and your data caps are much less strict.Regardless, sure, right now people wouldn't want to drive an EV to the middle of nowhere, you wouldn't be able to come back. In the theoretical scenario where we turn all cars into EVs, though, plenty of people who are currently wanting to go to the middle of nowhere will still want to do that, and they will find it far more difficult to do so. That's why energy density needs to go up and cost per kWh needs to go down if anybody ever wants 100% adoption to happen (which I'm not advocating for, it'll either happen because the hardware becomes good enough and cheap enough or it won't because it didn't).
>>28200882>so if you were planning to stream a bunch instead of watching DirecTV, it's going to be worse.Down streams are averaging over 100mbps. I think the only times that'd struggle is multiple 4k streams with a high bitrate. If you're just watching the latest netflix crap its more than adequate. Also, there are no data caps just throttling over 1 terabyte. Thats a LOT of data to blast through in a month especially if you're a casual user and not a perma-online loser downloading 4k porn all day. >If you wanted to do something like host a home media server for you and your friends to useStuff literally nobody but the biggest nerds on /g/ do after they recompile the latest linux distro. Thats a big ol who fuckin cares. Also a strawman argument because people who are on dialup or on that shitting dialup-speed satellite in a rural area isn'g going to suddenly get the internet and start a private plex server so they can stream their shows when traveling (which they don't do because they already live out in the boonies) .Otherwise I agree with you, the battery packs are the critical failure of all EVs. Slow charging, low energy density, horrifically toxic polluters, unrecyclable, and an albatross for cars. Great in the city, horrible for the remaining 75% of the country.
>>28200833>Gasoline is very energy positive, it takes basically fuck all energy to pull it out of the ground and refine it compared to what you get out of it. It would be strictly more efficient to burn it in a combined cycle generator and then transfer the generated electricity into a battery, but it would also be much more expensive, since while you've cut out engines in cars you've added power plants and batteries.It costs about 10-15kwh per gallon of gasoline. A Tesla Model 3 can drive 30-35 miles with the same energy. So the effort of just getting the gasoline into a car is the same as using the same energy to just power an EV.
>>28200904Not in electricity,about 2/3rds of that is thermal, which means you can just light some of the free natural gas that comes along with it on fire and you've accomplished it, and a bunch of other stuff that we still need (like coke and asphalt) are produced during the same process, which means it's really not that simple.
>>28199400>By 2030>couldTypical EV fag shilling promises of the future because they suck today.
>>28201287Electricity consumption in California remains flat despite population growth and being the biggest adopted of EVs. Norway is at 25% EVs on the road, and over 90% of current sales, and it's electricity usage is also flat. EVs are barely making a blip in the electrical grid usage.
Nice chart. Meanwhile in reality.
>>28201332Go on, explain what your news stories reinforce your arguments.
>>28201315California has accomplished this by rooftop solar, charging 50¢ per kWh during peak demand, and 35¢ outside of peak demand to reduce energy consumption in general. Don't live there anymore, but my parents are regularly spending $700 on their monthly power bill because of how much they charge for energy, and they don't even have EVs. They'd be paying over a thousand if they did.
>>28201365It's ironic how EVfags hate oil so much when it won't be long before they have to go back to oil lamps because it costs too much to flick a light switch.
>>28199400> These prices are comparable to engine replacement costsExcept that vast majority of engines last beyond the lifetime of a car and won’t need replacement every 8 years.
>>28201373Also EVs might also experience drive motor failure on top of battery failure/degradation.
>>28201315>>28201365Oh, I forgot to mention, building off of >>28201332's point, Southern California Edison is now mandated by law to shut down power whenever the wind blows too hard (to mitigate fire risk) for a period of until 12 hours after the wind speed has dropped and been deemed safe, which is always over 24 hours and usually close to 48. This cuts power to a substantial portion of the LA metro area, which means people and companies without solar and batteries or backup generators (which I presume don't count in those stats) don't have any power to consume in the first place.
>>28201365I live in a 9 person household and we spend $200 a month in electricity in California. That's including the one EV we have. No solar or batteries.
>>28201380Do you get a stipend or live near Oregon?
>>28201381I live in San Francisco.
>>28201384There's your problem. Try looking at the LA area, it's retarded.
>Expertds say by 2030 OP could actually be heterosexual
by 2030 the ev meme will be dead
>>28199400>All the Teslas sold in the last few years will be cheap to fix when their batteries reach end of warranty in the 2030s thanks to falling battery prices.Insurance will just mechanically total the vehicles.
>>28199767>The US has a very powerful oil industry with a massive propaganda apparatus (that most of you have fallen for).You're just really unaware of how foundational petrochemicals are. China may have invested big into batteries, but they also coordinate gigantic fleets of ships to smuggle oil from Iran and pipe in oil from Russia.
>>28201342>Go on, explain what your news stories rein AAAACK
>>28199908>50+% of world market share of evs is chinaIt's about 7% in the only country that matters as of the end of last year
>>28201315>Electricity consumption in California remains flat Because they have no more energy to give, ya know hence the yearly rolling blackouts during summer because their grid can't even handle everyone's ac running at once?
>>28199402>>28199400With batteries lasting 300K+ miles easily, why would I worry about battery?
>>28201618Because there have been thousands of packs that have needed to be replaced well before that? Most engines will go for 300k miles easily but that doesn't mean you won't encounter a failure before that. Battery packs are no different as real world data shows.
>>28201637I mean its not really an issue. 99% of cars will be put to junk yard before they reach 300K. If a EV battery does fail before that, they can just replace it with a working refurb pack that they pull from junkyard for $1000/pack with <50K miles on it.
>>28201649>If a EV battery does fail before that, they can just replace it with a working refurb pack that they pull from junkyard for $1000/pack with <50K miles on it.You're fucking delusional if you think insurance companies will ever allow this. That would be a massive liability nightmare. That's why dealerships (yes that includes your fucking Tesla "not a dealership") don't do that. IF the EV doesn't get mechanically totaled by the dead pack (it will) it gets a new pack. Disposable vehicles like these mean you're going to be taking one fuck of a depreciation hit.
>>28201657>we have special insurance for used EVs with used batteries>it doesnt cover battery caused/related damagesWhere there's a buyer, theres a seller.
>>28201657Tesla actually has refurbished battery recertification process as well that allows them to charge using superchargers. It costs a bit as their technicians have to manually test some things, but there's a process that can be streamlined.
>>28201660EV buyers are definitely a special breed of retard but I don't think they're THAT dumb. Parking a potential incendiary device in your $1m+ house with zero coverage if anything goes wrong is dumb even by EV buyer standards. >>28201661>can belmao give it a rest already.
>>28201666>$1M house>junkyard battery collector
>>28200747You are not fabricating new mounts for a new engine you massive fucking retard
