New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

So that is 44 billion to 88 billion pounds of lithium, and at 17 pounds per vehicle (using the article's numbers) that would be 2.5-5 billion cars.

That's all well and good until they find some weed that only grows on top of a pile of lithium and the company isn't able to mine it.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

That's all well and good until they find some weed that only grows on top of a pile of lithium and the company isn't able to mine it.

That's America with everything. We have a lot of lawyers and a lot of bureaucracy in the land of the free. No one wants it in their backyard, including pipelines, fracking, etc. In the end, it'll be the economics and the lesser of two evils that will win out.

[alex87f]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

https://www.autoweek.com/news/a43143...ation-and-evs/

Gotta love the contradiction:

1. We could largely reduce CO2 emissions by replacing old cars with modern mild hybrids instead of EVs
2. On the other hand, we're actively pushing the sale of Jeeps and Rams across the globe. I doubt those emit less CO2 than a 20 years old Camry..

Oh and FCA "absorbs the 40% extra cost of EVs because they can't be passed on to the customer"? I didn't know they were a charity . And that basically implies they can take a strong hit to their margins and still turn a profit, i.e. ICE buyers are getting trounced

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by alex87f

G..ICE buyers are getting trounced

Not really. companies do this all the time. You sell a lot of one thing, and not as many of another, but you spread the cost of everything over the entire product line. It's not unique to automakers.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

That's America with everything. We have a lot of lawyers and a lot of bureaucracy in the land of the free. No one wants it in their backyard, including pipelines, fracking, etc. In the end, it'll be the economics and the lesser of two evils that will win out.

Except it's different, in that the people forcing EVs on the populace are also the same people that don't want materials for said EV's mined within the US. Wanna make EVs here? Great, then source the materials here as well. Don't make China the new Middle East.

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Not really. companies do this all the time. You sell a lot of one thing, and not as many of another, but you spread the cost of everything over the entire product line. It's not unique to automakers.

It's somewhat unique when the government is forcing the huge shift, not capitalism.

[alex87f]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Not really. companies do this all the time. You sell a lot of one thing, and not as many of another, but you spread the cost of everything over the entire product line. It's not unique to automakers.

Except we’re not talking about subsidising the sale of 200 unprofitable supercars with thousands of hatches.

They’re #3 on the EU BEV market, which in total represents about 2M cars per year. Taking a hit due to 40% higher costs on that market would be huge for them. Yet they’re posting record profitability at >14%.

Something in M. Tavares’s interview is therefore fishy or at least bleeding heart.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

It's somewhat unique when the government is forcing the huge shift, not capitalism.

Well, there is that. I have no level of support for the government being in this business, but I think that ship has sailed, we can't put the Genie back in the bottle at this point.

[Lantanafrs2]

Sell more ice to make up for ev losses. Great for the planet.

[Lantanafrs2]

Renounce any faith, get a daily covid booster, cut your **** off and buy an ev.

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

ah nice you're back to drinking and posting again

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

Sell more ice to make up for ev losses. Great for the planet.

Not what I was saying but sure.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by alex87f

Gotta love the contradiction:

1. We could largely reduce CO2 emissions by replacing old cars with modern mild hybrids instead of EVs
2. On the other hand, we're actively pushing the sale of Jeeps and Rams across the globe. I doubt those emit less CO2 than a 20 years old Camry..

Oh and FCA "absorbs the 40% extra cost of EVs because they can't be passed on to the customer"? I didn't know they were a charity . And that basically implies they can take a strong hit to their margins and still turn a profit, i.e. ICE buyers are getting trounced

The price is higher because they want to recoup their investments immediately, or they don't have economy of scale to produce EVs as cheap as other manufacturers, which is unfortunate for them. They should work on scaling things and taking advantage of the tax incentives, grants and other programs available. Most likely they are, so the question is, is it 40% despite those programs, or is it 40% with those programs. Frankly, I don't by it unless they are severely behind the curve, which is possible.

Wright's Law states that for every doubling of production there will be a subsequent drop in price of 20%, but the range can be 10-25% across most industries with 15% being more common for the automotive industry (Citation). There was about 78 million vehicles made worldwide last year with 14% or 10 million EVs sold. Not bad, but if that double to 20 million then 15% cheaper, and if it doubles to 40 million then 15% cheaper, and if it doubles to 80 million then 15% cheaper. If a car cost $50k now then it will go to $42.5k, then $36k, and finally to $31k, under the scenario above, very roughly.

Gartner analysts expect that by 2027, the average price of a BEV will reach parity with ICE vehicles of similar size and configuration, which will accelerate the global adoption of EVs (Citation).

An oft cited benchmark for when EVs hit price parity with conventional vehicles is $100 per kWh. Based on the updated estimates for the learning rate for batteries from this year’s survey, BNEF predicts that average pack prices should fall below that threshold by 2026. This is two years later than previously expected (Citation).

In terms of pricing, CATL's first-generation sodium-ion cells cost about $77 per kWh. For years, experts believed that a battery price under $100/kWh allows EVs to achieve price parity with combustion vehicles. The second generation has the potential to drop the price to $40 per kWh, making electric cars a no-brainer (Citation).

BYD's batteries are already cheaper than $100/kWh, and part of that is because they have a huge market share, so they are playing the efficiency game with large economies of scale to their advantage. Not everyone is at that level or even close yet.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Except it's different, in that the people forcing EVs on the populace are also the same people that don't want materials for said EV's mined within the US. Wanna make EVs here? Great, then source the materials here as well. Don't make China the new Middle East.

It's somewhat unique when the government is forcing the huge shift, not capitalism.

They aren't really the same people. In your opinion, they might come off as the same liberals or left leaning individuals, but there are corporate liberals and green peace liberals, and yet, liberals and conservatives often have the same thing to say when it comes to agreeing to something: they just don't want it in their backyard. This is true of fracking ruining local water supplies, or ranchers not wanting an oil pipeline leaking through their pastures, or someone making a "Giant Wall" through their property who are conservatives. For everyone wanting to save a snow owl, there is someone wanting a local payout/tax for that train or pipeline running through their district/county/city. It is all the same. There are going to be road blocks and vocal objectionists on both sides. It is a paper vs plastic argument, but all the evidence suggests it will be better digging for lithium in a remote area than dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and slowly running through oil reserves.

The government does this all the time. It is nothing new, and it probably will happen without mandates, at this point. There is clear momentum that the investments and incentives are working, so mandates are likely not necessary. Yet, mandates send a clear message that manufactures need to get moving and not fight the change, so in that vein, they are good, IMO.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Well, there is that. I have no level of support for the government being in this business, but I think that ship has sailed, we can't put the Genie back in the bottle at this point.

When has the government not been in this business?