GM Says They Will Dominate Tesla

[Atmo]

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Atmo

George Carlin video

Love George.

Portions of this skit did come to mind when I was writing my reply, although I had forgotten the virus portion, which is very apropos (although he was referring to AIDS I believe).

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

For me, the more relevant consideration is not Tesla vs GM vs any other electric car, but do battery electric cars in general make sense at this time (from an environmental or energy usage perspective)?

It almost seems that you have set up a false dichotomy where our trajectory must be exclusively determined by reducing net co2 emissions. Thus, until renewable energy infrastructure is in place, it doesn't make sense to transition to electric vehicles. That is a false premise. That is the end goal, but the current goal is to advance battery technology and continue to improve carbon free energy production.

If we start with the destination, in a world where we have nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, etc at levels that could support electric vehicles, and electric vehicles met the entire needs of the transportation sector, and electric batteries were solid state from a renewable carbon component and could be reused for grid storage and those vehicles lasted a million miles, then it is clear to see that the future will be electric. We already have evidence that this future is in all likelihood a reality not more than a century into the future. The question is how are we going to get there?

The reality is that it is going to take investment in those technologies running in parallel with molding our energy infrastructure. There may be moments when we are taking a step back before going forward like moving from an energy state in a chemical reaction--the change always causing more instability, but the destination is a more stable energy state. Why do they need to run in parallel?

The goal is to get to the destination together, or we drag this thing out longer. Unfortunately, if we wait for our energy infrastructure to be in place, we wouldn't have the battery technology where we need it, nor would we have the recharging grid developed, nor could we flip our entire vehicle production from ICE to EV quickly without major market disruption.

With what you said about EVs, someone has said the same thing about moving to green energy technologies. Check the videos below. They just might change your mind about fission.

I think we need nuclear more than less. It may not be ideal in all areas of the country, but it is the best technology we have for massive energy production with minimal co2 production. I think thorium based molten salt reactors are worth investigating as a lower risk alternative. We might get the holy grail if we can do fusion:

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139594

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

In the end, the planet will take care of itself. To my mind "climate change" is exactly that, the planet taking care of itself. If the climate on Earth changes to the point that humans are no longer viable, the planet will heal, it's in it for the long game. It's done this hundreds of thousands of times over billions of years (a stat I just made up, but you see my point). Heck, we humans exist because of an event that created an environment where our tiny ancestors were able to thrive without being swallowed whole by a moving building with teeth!

Really what the focus needs to be on is "survival of the species" but us stopping doing things that could potentially kill our future generations. The answer may be the same, but the problem is not around saving the planet.

I'm going to have to disagree on whether nuclear is part of the solution or not. It is a much more efficient, and from what I've seen is less environmentally impactful solution, than most of the so called "green" solutions.

I do agree though that there is very little "green" about electric cars, and right now other than making you feel good, there is no true advantage to them.

You don't say! Tell me more...

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You don't say! Tell me more...

Reference: George Carlin. He pretty much said it.

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The question is how are we going to get there?

Why do they need to run in parallel?

I agree that multiple needed technologies do not need to advance in lock-step parallel development, nor is that even usually possible. But my basic point is, why do we want electric cars? What are we trying to achieve? Energy independence? Reduced CO2 emissions? The point is not ICE vs BEV, but what is the best use of limited resources to achieve the desired ends?

Of course achieving both a renewable energy economy and reducing CO2 emissions are the goal (and go hand-in-hand). But resources, meaning money, are always limited. There is only so much to go around. Unfortunately, it's a zero-sum game. You can't just keep printing money to pay for everything. As a society, we have to choose our priorities.

Consider a couple of hypothetical scenarios: 1) building renewable energy power plants (solar, wind, geothermal); or 2) continuing to build more BEVs but without fundamentally changing the energy grid. My point is that right now, we are primarily engaging in the second scenario - which does not accomplish either reducing reliance on fossil fuels nor reducing CO2 emissions - whereas focusing on the first scenario (investing in renewable energy sources) helps achieve both ends.

Hypothetically, if we were to invest in replacing current fossil fuel (and nuclear) power plants with renewables, CO2 emissions would be reduced. ICE cars would continue to use gasoline, but the total amount of fossil fuels used would decrease and global CO2 emissions would go down. The world continues to use and need electricity, and the more of it that is generated from renewable sources, the better off we will all be.

But, if we continue to build (and in some cases mandate the use of) BEVs without changing the power grid, we achieve little. In the US, 63% of electricity comes from fossil fuels, and burning those fossil fuels to generate electricity to charge BEVs makes about as much sense as towing a gasoline-powered generator behind a car to charge a BEV. It doesn't (except perhaps in some local cases where remote emissions would make sense, having a fossil fuel plant away from a city center).

Yes, battery technology advances, and charging infrastructure is expanded, but as a society we would achieve nothing as far as reducing reliance on fossil fuels or reducing CO2 and not killing ourselves and the planet. As others have suggested, some sanctimonious pseudo-green hypocrites might feel smug about driving a Tesla, but today it doesn't really accomplish much.

Regarding nuclear fission and thorium, there are some hurdles. First, cost (the usual). Building a fission plant costs several billion dollars (approximately $6-$10 billion per 1000 mW). If you're going to spend billions of dollars on a power plant, why not make it solar, wind, tidal, or geothermal? Thorium would have been a great alternative to uranium, but it wasn't pursued because there was the desire to make fissionable fuel for atomic bombs. Does it make sense to make the massive investment in thorium now given the renewable alternatives (plus the higher cost of processing thorium fuel)? Second, with conventional uranium fission one is trading CO2 emissions for nuclear waste disposal, which has its own major problems, such as condemning future generations to have to deal with our toxic waste. Lastly, remember Chernobyl? No technology has zero risk, and the downsides with uranium fission are not trivial.

Fusion would be fantastic, but right now is a science fiction utopian ideal. For the past 40 years, fusion has always been '10 years away'. I know someone who has been working on this at Princeton for 30 years, and the whole time it's been '10 years away'. The bottom line is, you can't build a fusion plant today, and probably not in 10 years either.

If unlimited resources (= money) were available then of course why not pursue both BEVs and revamping the energy grid, at whatever pace they each may advance. But that's not the case. The coronavirus crisis is making the choice even more stark. Whether we like it or not, the unpleasant reality is that world economy is going to be significantly negatively impacted for years to come. Between reduced economic output, and the deep debt countries are getting into, resources are going to be even tighter than they have been. The recently approved $2.2 trillion 'stimulus' package is only the beginning. Debts like that must be paid back, and one way or another (increased taxes, inflation, increased economic output) they will be. Digging ourselves out from the coronavirus will and must be repaid before money could be available for new energy initiatives. Even before the coronavirus crisis, there was little appetite for making the massive investments needed for a wholesale revamping of our power grid (some local renewable energy projects notwithstanding). There will certainly be less money available for the foreseeable future.

So my personal opinions are that continuing to push BEVs in the absence of significant revamping of the energy grid towards renewables achieves little, and since money is going to be tight for some time to come, why not focus it on replacing fossil fuel generating capacity with renewable sources?

[mrg666]

I think, after the EV market becomes large enough, Elon Musk will sell auto manufacturing part of Tesla and keep the battery technology only. He is more interested in transforming the auto industry than dominating it. Dominating the battery technology will make more money than dominating EV sales.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by mrg666

I think, after the EV market becomes large enough, Elon Musk will sell auto manufacturing part of Tesla and keep the battery technology only. He is more interested in transforming the auto industry than dominating it. Dominating the battery technology will make more money than dominating EV sales.

What battery tech do they have? As far as I can tell zero, all the advancements they've made are on the auto-design and powertrain side, not the battery. Panasonic is building most of the batteries last I checked and Tesla has little to zero IP to capitalize off of.

https://electrek.co/2019/12/30/tesla...ll-production/

[mrg666]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

What battery tech do they have? As far as I can tell zero, all the advancements they've made are on the auto-design and powertrain side, not the battery. Panasonic is building most of the batteries last I checked and Tesla has little to zero IP to capitalize off of.

https://electrek.co/2019/12/30/tesla...ll-production/

Well ... here is just one link.
https://electrek.co/2020/01/21/tesla...ery-elon-musk/

another

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/26/tesl...ependency.html

another
https://electrek.co/2019/06/12/tesla...-maxwell-tech/

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by mrg666

I think, after the EV market becomes large enough, Elon Musk will sell auto manufacturing part of Tesla and keep the battery technology only. He is more interested in transforming the auto industry than dominating it. Dominating the battery technology will make more money than dominating EV sales.

Agreed. He has given out his patents. Why? Well, he said he believed he needed patents to ward of competitors, so they didn't crush the company, but then they didn't have competition and that isn't good for their mission, so he released them, which suggests he isn't in it for the sole success of Tesla. Also, he is claiming that the batteries on the new Tesla Plaid platform will last for a million miles. His timeline and production claims are often off, but his engineering claims have been spot on in terms of 0-60, range, etc, for the most part. Such a claim should have investors fleeing the company because he is self-catabolizing his future sales without creating "planned obsolescence". I don't think he cares if car sales plummet over time because cars last longer. If anything, this works with their mission statement. Tesla's mission statement is "to accelerate the world's transition to a sustainable energy future", which is why he is involved in home storage, grid storage, solar, etc. It isn't to make millions of cars and dominate the market.

Originally Posted by strat61caster

What battery tech do they have? As far as I can tell zero, all the advancements they've made are on the auto-design and powertrain side, not the battery. Panasonic is building most of the batteries last I checked and Tesla has little to zero IP to capitalize off of.

https://electrek.co/2019/12/30/tesla...ll-production/

At one point, wasn't Panasonic going to leave Tesla? I don't know, but Tesla acquired Maxwell, perhaps more for production speeds than technology, but Musk has also suggested that Tesla has pursued different cutting edge battery technology happening around the world from different labs, but translating science to production hasn't happened yet, so it seems clear that Tesla isn't relying on Panasonic for future innovations in their batteries. Also, battery cooling, battery arrangement, battery management, battery charging, etc are all battery technologies that Tesla has had to innovate.

https://qz.com/1541864/tesla-bought-...tracapacitors/

[mrg666]

I think Elon Musk would only feel happy if GM is determined to beat Tesla in electric cars.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

I agree that multiple needed technologies do not need to advance in lock-step parallel development, nor is that even usually possible. But my basic point is, why do we want electric cars? What are we trying to achieve? Energy independence? Reduced CO2 emissions? The point is not ICE vs BEV, but what is the best use of limited resources to achieve the desired ends?

Of course achieving both a renewable energy economy and reducing CO2 emissions are the goal (and go hand-in-hand). But resources, meaning money, are always limited. There is only so much to go around. Unfortunately, it's a zero-sum game. You can't just keep printing money to pay for everything. As a society, we have to choose our priorities.

Consider a couple of hypothetical scenarios: 1) building renewable energy power plants (solar, wind, geothermal); or 2) continuing to build more BEVs but without fundamentally changing the energy grid. My point is that right now, we are primarily engaging in the second scenario - which does not accomplish either reducing reliance on fossil fuels nor reducing CO2 emissions - whereas focusing on the first scenario (investing in renewable energy sources) helps achieve both ends.

Hypothetically, if we were to invest in replacing current fossil fuel (and nuclear) power plants with renewables, CO2 emissions would be reduced. ICE cars would continue to use gasoline, but the total amount of fossil fuels used would decrease and global CO2 emissions would go down. The world continues to use and need electricity, and the more of it that is generated from renewable sources, the better off we will all be.

But, if we continue to build (and in some cases mandate the use of) BEVs without changing the power grid, we achieve little. In the US, 63% of electricity comes from fossil fuels, and burning those fossil fuels to generate electricity to charge BEVs makes about as much sense as towing a gasoline-powered generator behind a car to charge a BEV. It doesn't (except perhaps in some local cases where remote emissions would make sense, having a fossil fuel plant away from a city center).

Yes, battery technology advances, and charging infrastructure is expanded, but as a society we would achieve nothing as far as reducing reliance on fossil fuels or reducing CO2 and not killing ourselves and the planet. As others have suggested, some sanctimonious pseudo-green hypocrites might feel smug about driving a Tesla, but today it doesn't really accomplish much.

Regarding nuclear fission and thorium, there are some hurdles. First, cost (the usual). Building a fission plant costs several billion dollars (approximately $6-$10 billion per 1000 mW). If you're going to spend billions of dollars on a power plant, why not make it solar, wind, tidal, or geothermal? Thorium would have been a great alternative to uranium, but it wasn't pursued because there was the desire to make fissionable fuel for atomic bombs. Does it make sense to make the massive investment in thorium now given the renewable alternatives (plus the higher cost of processing thorium fuel)? Second, with conventional uranium fission one is trading CO2 emissions for nuclear waste disposal, which has its own major problems, such as condemning future generations to have to deal with our toxic waste. Lastly, remember Chernobyl? No technology has zero risk, and the downsides with uranium fission are not trivial.

Fusion would be fantastic, but right now is a science fiction utopian ideal. For the past 40 years, fusion has always been '10 years away'. I know someone who has been working on this at Princeton for 30 years, and the whole time it's been '10 years away'. The bottom line is, you can't build a fusion plant today, and probably not in 10 years either.

If unlimited resources (= money) were available then of course why not pursue both BEVs and revamping the energy grid, at whatever pace they each may advance. But that's not the case. The coronavirus crisis is making the choice even more stark. Whether we like it or not, the unpleasant reality is that world economy is going to be significantly negatively impacted for years to come. Between reduced economic output, and the deep debt countries are getting into, resources are going to be even tighter than they have been. The recently approved $2.2 trillion 'stimulus' package is only the beginning. Debts like that must be paid back, and one way or another (increased taxes, inflation, increased economic output) they will be. Digging ourselves out from the coronavirus will and must be repaid before money could be available for new energy initiatives. Even before the coronavirus crisis, there was little appetite for making the massive investments needed for a wholesale revamping of our power grid (some local renewable energy projects notwithstanding). There will certainly be less money available for the foreseeable future.

So my personal opinions are that continuing to push BEVs in the absence of significant revamping of the energy grid towards renewables achieves little, and since money is going to be tight for some time to come, why not focus it on replacing fossil fuel generating capacity with renewable sources?

Individually, people could be buying EVs for all sorts of reasons. I would have to look up the surveys. Some could think they reduced their carbon footprint. Some could think they are contributing to a better tomorrow. Some might like the quiet ride. Some might like the performance. Some might like the cargo capacity. Some might like the tech. Some might like the safety. Some might appreciate not having to worry or do much maintenance. Some might want something that will outlast their ICE. Probably most think it is all those things or many of those things, but I wouldn't presume to believe it is just CO2 emissions that is driving interest. I don't even think it is the main thing.

Elon Musk doesn't believe that electric vehicles will reach mass adoption based on people wanting to reduce emissions. In fact, he specifically says the BEVs need to appeal to all as a better alternative to their current vehicle. Taking a cue from Tesla, Toyota realized that marketing their hybrid technology as a performance enhancement was the way to go, which is why the Rav4 Prime is marketed as the fastest/sportiest version. They could have always done that, but they assumed that hybrid buyers wanted to be eco-conscious or wanted to save money on gas over the life of the vehicle. That is probably what their surveys taught them, but Musk is betting that people will 'vote their conscious', so he is showing the BEVs have the potential to be "just a better car".

With that said, he has also said we need to reduce greenhouse emissions, but you are right, there are other ways to do that. We could kill off half the population or go vegan, as unrealistic examples, and either of those would probably do more than switching to BEVs and switching to renewables combined. It probably isn't going to happen, so what is next? If you watched that video then you realize that what Germany did with renewables actually raised their carbon footprint, so dam, switching our energy grid rapidly to renewables might not work.

The solution isn't easy to see because there isn't a magic bullet that solves this problem, except for fusion.

Until then, the reality is that nuclear fission is our best chance of going green. We can do that by encouraging our government to invest in safer nuclear technologies. I think wind, hydro, solar and batteries are also great, but there are carbon costs there too that need to be considered.

We don't live in a utopian Borg collective where we can just alter our course as we see fit. At least not on a short time scale, so we will have to move in parallel with all these technologies, and unfortunately, things might get worse before they get better. Hopefully, we survive to see a future and don't damage things too much before we get there.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by mrg666

Well ... here is just one link.
https://electrek.co/2020/01/21/tesla...ery-elon-musk/

another

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/26/tesl...ependency.html

another
https://electrek.co/2019/06/12/tesla...-maxwell-tech/

I mean, two of those articles are older than the one I posted, the other just brings up that Maxwell has been working on supercapacitors, nothing groundbreaking. I still see no reason to think Tesla has any significant advantage in the battery field at this point but they're at least halfway decent at keeping things under wraps so time will tell.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

I mean, two of those articles are older than the one I posted, the other just brings up that Maxwell has been working on supercapacitors, nothing groundbreaking. I still see no reason to think Tesla has any significant advantage in the battery field at this point but they're at least halfway decent at keeping things under wraps so time will tell.

Do you think the million mile battery claim is just hot air? It could be. If it is true then how would we know?

If it is true...

At 15,000 miles a year, a million mile battery would last the average driver 67 years. For anyone averaging 100,000 miles a year, that is still 10 years of ownership. For police departments, taxis or businesses, that is a game changer for their business model. If it is scalable to their semis then that is equally huge for shipping industries. Resale value on an EV with a battery that could last that long should be good. Even if the entry price is high, a used Tesla could be a great investment for someone lower in class who wants to buy their last car.