Paul Sankey of Mizuho Securities discussed the Tesla effect which is the concept that the 20th century was centered on oil and the 21st century will be centered on electricity, and what it is doing on oil stocks.
Sankey says there is fairly widespread belief that we are ten years into a thirty-year transition from oil to electricity for cars and many other areas.
As the oil price goes up to $100-120 per barrel, the Tesla Effect could be exacerbated by the potential for higher oil prices to accelerate the end of the Oil Age. Ultimately, the terminal value of oil has been severely affected by the potential for us to change behavior.
Tesla is impacting other car makers and will impact oil and energy companies. China has made it policy to push the transition to electric cars.
In February, 2018, self-made billionaire Don Gao from China mentioned that the Tesla Effect continues to grow even in markets beyond the California-based company’s reach. Don Gao owns Positec which makes lithium-ion powered equipment. Positec is becoming a potent rival for heavyweight brands like Black and Decker. The billionaire entrepreneur noted that Tesla’s commitment to battery tech is spilling over into other industries, to the point where consumers’ perception of battery-powered devices is now changing.
Don Gao also talked about the rising importance of India as a growth market and that e-commerce will still be killing traditional retail.
There was 2015 discussion of Tesla and ending the age of oil.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Tom, while volume production and sharp competition will certainly cause battery prices to fall, you won’t see 1/4 prices solely through those mechanisms. To get to the really big price cuts, batteries will have to perform better and exploit cheaper materials. I think it’s likely we’ll see both better-performing batteries and cheaper materials in batteries. But the specifics of what, exactly, and when, and cost implications, are not known to us in advance. And so forecasting is necessarily fuzzy, you dig? The word ‘certainty’ doesn’t really belong in our conversations.
Tom while volume production and sharp competition will certainly cause battery prices to fall you won’t see 1/4 prices solely through those mechanisms. To get to the really big price cuts batteries will have to perform better and exploit cheaper materials.I think it’s likely we’ll see both better-performing batteries and cheaper materials in batteries. But the specifics of what exactly and when and cost implications are not known to us in advance.And so forecasting is necessarily fuzzy you dig? The word ‘certainty’ doesn’t really belong in our conversations.
No, fool. You must be shocked to learn most large vessels circulate seawater for engine cooling. Biofouling is a thing. A thing engineers know how to deal with.
No fool. You must be shocked to learn most large vessels circulate seawater for engine cooling. Biofouling is a thing.A thing engineers know how to deal with.
Doesn’t matter, because it is too expensive.
Doesn’t matter because it is too expensive.
The price of putting 50 L of petroleum fuel in my car (including the cost of my time in going to a petrol station and filling it up) is a lot more than the cost of sending the equivalent electricity to my garage wall socket at night.
The price of putting 50 L of petroleum fuel in my car (including the cost of my time in going to a petrol station and filling it up) is a lot more than the cost of sending the equivalent electricity to my garage wall socket at night. “” “””
So long as energy from oil is cheap and getting cheaper, there must be a matching trend in battery performance and prices, or else oil as an energy source will stabilize its market share and progress towards electrification of transportation will hit a wall.
So long as energy from oil is cheap and getting cheaper there must be a matching trend in battery performance and prices” or else oil as an energy source will stabilize its market share and progress towards electrification of transportation will hit a wall. “” “””
This article makes no sense in light of fundamental principles of macroeconomics. Look, if it’s true that transportation will become largely electrified over the next twenty years (I think it *is* true, incidentally), then demand for oil is going to go into a long-term slump. That’s going to put downward pressure on oil prices. There can be short-term and political influences on prices, of course. Right now it’s Trump’s sanctions on Iran that are pushing up oil prices. Instabilities in oil-producing countries or shipping lanes could also influence prices, and wars could cause spikes in oil prices, and lawmakers’ decisions about incentives and disincentives will play a role in pricing of every product in play, but the long-term trend is falling oil prices. There will still be a need for oil-based lubricants and feedstocks for the chemical industry, and it’ll be a long time before commercial and military aircraft can dispense with petroleum-based fuels, but the general trend is pretty obvious. Oil will get cheaper, in the long run. There are some constraints on this downward price trend. Prices can’t fall below the cost to produce, distribute and refine oil. But there’s quite a lot of oil production where the costs are largely sunk, and it’s not very expensive to keep pumping. Prices could fall a very long way before oil producers will give up production. This has implications for the electrification of transportation. So long as energy from oil is cheap and getting cheaper, there must be a matching trend in battery performance and prices, or else oil as an energy source will stabilize its market share and progress towards electrification of transportation will hit a wall. Those who are eager to see transportation electrified must hope for battery tech to improve significantly.
This article makes no sense in light of fundamental principles of macroeconomics.Look if it’s true that transportation will become largely electrified over the next twenty years (I think it *is* true incidentally) then demand for oil is going to go into a long-term slump. That’s going to put downward pressure on oil prices.There can be short-term and political influences on prices of course. Right now it’s Trump’s sanctions on Iran that are pushing up oil prices. Instabilities in oil-producing countries or shipping lanes could also influence prices and wars could cause spikes in oil prices and lawmakers’ decisions about incentives and disincentives will play a role in pricing of every product in play but the long-term trend is falling oil prices. There will still be a need for oil-based lubricants and feedstocks for the chemical industry and it’ll be a long time before commercial and military aircraft can dispense with petroleum-based fuels but the general trend is pretty obvious.Oil will get cheaper in the long run.There are some constraints on this downward price trend. Prices can’t fall below the cost to produce distribute and refine oil. But there’s quite a lot of oil production where the costs are largely sunk and it’s not very expensive to keep pumping. Prices could fall a very long way before oil producers will give up production.This has implications for the electrification of transportation. So long as energy from oil is cheap and getting cheaper there must be a matching trend in battery performance and prices or else oil as an energy source will stabilize its market share and progress towards electrification of transportation will hit a wall. Those who are eager to see transportation electrified must hope for battery tech to improve significantly.
Depends on your definitions. Just about the entire population has “pipelines” to ship electricity straight to their homes and businesses. Oil quickly runs out of pipeline and shifts to tanker trucks, then to individuals having to go out and buy tanks of fuel and transport them individually. The price of putting 50 L of petroleum fuel in my car (including the cost of my time in going to a petrol station and filling it up) is a lot more than the cost of sending the equivalent electricity to my garage wall socket at night.
Depends on your definitions.Just about the entire population has pipelines”” to ship electricity straight to their homes and businesses. Oil quickly runs out of pipeline and shifts to tanker trucks”””” then to individuals having to go out and buy tanks of fuel and transport them individually. The price of putting 50 L of petroleum fuel in my car (including the cost of my time in going to a petrol station and filling it up) is a lot more than the cost of sending the equivalent electricity to my garage wall socket at night.”””
Peak Oil said the same thing.
Peak Oil said the same thing. “” “””
No, it’s not. It takes about 3 cents to send 30 kw-hr of natural gas 1000 miles in pipelines. It costs 3.2 cents per kw-hr to transport electricity 500 miles via 500 kv AC lines. All numbers from EIA.
No it’s not. It takes about 3 cents to send 30 kw-hr of natural gas 1000 miles in pipelines. It costs 3.2 cents per kw-hr to transport electricity 500 miles via 500 kv AC lines. All numbers from EIA.
No moron, they are only observing the oil price is going up, the idea of peak oil has nothing to do with that fact. ” Peak Oil said the same thing. Please learn of the topic which you troll about. “And because most of our exportable petrocarbon is natural gas, that won’t do a damn thing” Where have you been? We are the number one OIL exporter now. And by this time next year, we will be a NET oil exporter. Nat Gas has nothing to do with this topic. “they are clearing a profit now” PROVE IT! Let’s see the bank statements? No? Then this is as fake as one of our emails you cooked up claiming came from me blah, blah, blah. “Short selling is desperate, not intense. ” Wrong “before the Model 3’s success is undeniable” Hahahahahahah
No moron they are only observing the oil price is going up” the idea of peak oil has nothing to do with that fact. “”Peak Oil said the same thing. Please learn of the topic which you troll about.””””And because most of our exportable petrocarbon is natural gas”””” that won’t do a damn thing””””Where have you been? We are the number one OIL exporter now. And by this time next year”””” we will be a NET oil exporter. Nat Gas has nothing to do with this topic.””””they are clearing a profit now””””PROVE IT! Let’s see the bank statements? No? Then this is as fake as one of our emails you cooked up claiming came from me blah”” blah”” blah.””””Short selling is desperate”””” not intense. “”””Wrong””””before the Model 3’s success is undeniable””””Hahahahahahah”””
Why does that matter, when the fluid for example in a lead/acid battery is already real fugly?
Why does that matter when the fluid for example in a lead/acid battery is already real fugly?
Its Peak Oil BS all over again.
Its Peak Oil BS all over again. “” “””
I dunno about that. I remember when high precision low temp coefficient resistors were dollars apiece. Now they are pennies apiece made in the millions to likely high 100’s of millions you can gettem at any value you want. Even though the margin is bupkis.For batteries purely on production volume increase alone you don’t think a 100 fold increase in production won’t drop costs a factor of 4? And I think the margin will be better than bupkis as an incentive.
Tom, Moore’s Law does not apply to battery tech, as it did for so long for transistors. Battery advancement is following its own rules. One difference is that transistor density rose incredibly quickly for a long, long period of time. Each new die shrink led to more transistors per die, and die shrinks arrived almost like clockwork for so long… *and* the path to increasing transistor density has been pretty clear right up to 7 nm. (After 7 nm, it’s not so obvious what comes next.) Advancing battery tech is *very* different. Advances are unspooling much more slowly, for one thing. For another, there are a lot of different candidate chemistries vying for commercialization; there is no single clear developmental path towards some future energy density/cost target. It’s costing billions and billions to investigate all of the potential next-gen candidate battery chemistries; companies will seek to recoup those costs. Also, automotive batteries are *huge* compared to a silicon wafer; to make appreciable quantities of these things, you need *huge* new factories and *lots* of raw materials. It’s not just trace amounts of expensive raw materials that are needed to make batteries. Cobalt, in particular, used in this generation of L-ion batteries, is expensive and the supply is limited, so increasing L-ion battery production drives some costs *upward* by tightening the market for expensive raw materials. By comparison, the amount of materials consumed to make silicon chips isn’t really very significant. Factory footprints can be small by comparison. Raw materials pricing fluctuations can affect transistor prices, but production yields have risen fast without putting all that much of a strain on the supply of raw materials *because* transistor density has been doubling so often. We we take it for granted that cost per transistor will drop – though as we close in on 7 nm processes, the rate at which transistor costs are falling has slowed, finally. It’s just a
I dunno about that. I remember when high precision, low temp coefficient resistors were dollars apiece. Now they are pennies apiece, made in the millions to likely high 100’s of millions, you can gettem at any value you want. Even though the margin is bupkis. For batteries purely on production volume increase alone, you don’t think a 100 fold increase in production won’t drop costs a factor of 4? And I think the margin will be better than bupkis as an incentive.
Tom Moore’s Law does not apply to battery tech as it did for so long for transistors. Battery advancement is following its own rules.One difference is that transistor density rose incredibly quickly for a long long period of time. Each new die shrink led to more transistors per die and die shrinks arrived almost like clockwork for so long… *and* the path to increasing transistor density has been pretty clear right up to 7 nm. (After 7 nm it’s not so obvious what comes next.)Advancing battery tech is *very* different. Advances are unspooling much more slowly for one thing. For another there are a lot of different candidate chemistries vying for commercialization; there is no single clear developmental path towards some future energy density/cost target. It’s costing billions and billions to investigate all of the potential next-gen candidate battery chemistries; companies will seek to recoup those costs. Also automotive batteries are *huge* compared to a silicon wafer; to make appreciable quantities of these things you need *huge* new factories and *lots* of raw materials. It’s not just trace amounts of expensive raw materials that are needed to make batteries. Cobalt in particular used in this generation of L-ion batteries is expensive and the supply is limited so increasing L-ion battery production drives some costs *upward* by tightening the market for expensive raw materials.By comparison the amount of materials consumed to make silicon chips isn’t really very significant. Factory footprints can be small by comparison. Raw materials pricing fluctuations can affect transistor prices but production yields have risen fast without putting all that much of a strain on the supply of raw materials *because* transistor density has been doubling so often. We we take it for granted that cost per transistor will drop – though as we close in on 7 nm processes the rate at which transistor costs are falling has slowed finally. It’s just a very
Tom, the point of my post isn’t to refute, but to explain. I did not bring up Moore’s Law to ‘prove you wrong.’ I brought it up to show how different batteries are as a commodity from electronics. Batteries will be obeying different governing principles, as compared to transistors or resistors or other electronics.
If I had mentioned either Moore’s law or transistors, you might have a point. Consider I did not.
Tom the point of my post isn’t to refute but to explain.I did not bring up Moore’s Law to ‘prove you wrong.’ I brought it up to show how different batteries are as a commodity from electronics. Batteries will be obeying different governing principles as compared to transistors or resistors or other electronics.
If I had mentioned either Moore’s law or transistors you might have a point.Consider I did not.
You are obviously hanging your hat on the idea I am predicating my argument on this, that batteries are enough like electronics that the rapidity of the fall of the cost of transistors (Moore’s law) is indicative of the impending rapidity of the fall of the cost of batteries for BEV applications. That is a incorrect impression you have of my argument. My sole argument is that because BEVs are already known at the current Model 3 price v performance point to be lower cost over the lifetime of the car than equivalent gasoline cars, the investment required to seize market share in the BEV market replacing gasoline cars will be undertaken, and the 100fold increase in battery production that requires will drop the battery cost fourfold at least, further destroying the market viability of gasoline fueled cars. ” It’s *hard* to speed up assembly lines for pouch packs. Panasonic doesn’t have that problem; cylinders can be assembled *really* fast.
Tom, you’re still hanging your hat on this argument: electronics pricing fell rapidly, so obviously, battery pricing will fall rapidly. (Ten years to fall fourfold is rapid.) Electronics obey different governing principles. Let’s ignore electronics. Let’s look instead at the state of the art in batteries today and then show where that kind of price per kilowatt hours fall is going to happen. Most of the automotive battery producers in the world today are producing liquid pouch pack L-ion batteries. The only major exception is Panasonic’s Gigafactory production supporting Tesla; they’re producing a Tesla-engineered cylindrical cell, not a pouch pack. It’s *hard* to speed up assembly lines for pouch packs. Panasonic doesn’t have that problem; cylinders can be assembled *really* fast. Even with speedier manufacturing processes, Panasonic is operating out of the biggest factory in the world, courtesy of Tesla. The investment required to match or exceed what Panasonic can do with pouch packs will be simply staggering. And risky, since pouch packs are old tech. Thermal contraction/expansion is worse, life cycle is worse, flammability is worse; quality control is worse. But nobody else has invested in cylindrical cells yet, so far as I am aware. They’re shying away. Why? Because *everyone* in that business knows that research is proceeding furiously to come up with the next successful battery chemistry. Thing is, nobody knows which candidates will make it to market yet, or how much it will cost to produce them, or what the performance characteristics will ultimately be, or when they will be ready to produce. Uncertainty clouds the future. That’s enough to make financial weenies nervous. They don’t want to spend the billions required to increase production at the rate Panasonic/Tesla are doing. So what’s happening is this: legacy automakers are introducing niche production runs of EVs. Pouch pack production is rising, but not anything like the rate of
And it was never my point to show batteries are like “electronics” as if all electronic components were the same, or that Moore’s law was involved in batteries in any directly applicable way. 125 years ago there was no particular market for resistors of any precision, no were there particular providers. 40 years ago, 5% and 1% carbon resistors were in common use. The use of 0.1% precision ones were an extravagance avoided wherever possible, including by paying expensive technician hours hand selecting/matching lesser precision resistors in place of just buying them. The market for cheaper high precision resistors was clearly there however, so the capital was invested in making less expensive high precision ones was undertaken, and now I can get a 0.01% resistor in common wattages at the wonderful temp stability of 5ppm for 20 cents. Making resistors is just the bulk manipulation of pure commodity materials same as making batteries is, and the market is both far larger and it’s existence immediately clear. The investment will be undertaken to mass produce batteries on a scale 100 fold what is being done now. Without Moore’s law having anything to do with the matter, it is no stretch at all to think the price of batteries will fall 4 fold over the next 10 years.
You are obviously hanging your hat on the idea I am predicating my argument on this that batteries are enough like electronics that the rapidity of the fall of the cost of transistors (Moore’s law) is indicative of the impending rapidity of the fall of the cost of batteries for BEV applications.That is a incorrect impression you have of my argument.My sole argument is that because BEVs are already known at the current Model 3 price v performance point to be lower cost over the lifetime of the car than equivalent gasoline cars the investment required to seize market share in the BEV market replacing gasoline cars will be undertaken and the 100fold increase in battery production that requires will drop the battery cost fourfold at least further destroying the market viability of gasoline fueled cars. It’s *hard* to speed up assembly lines for pouch packs. Panasonic doesn’t have that problem; cylinders can be assembled *really* fast. “” “””
Tom you’re still hanging your hat on this argument: electronics pricing fell rapidly so obviously battery pricing will fall rapidly. (Ten years to fall fourfold is rapid.)Electronics obey different governing principles. Let’s ignore electronics. Let’s look instead at the state of the art in batteries today and then show where that kind of price per kilowatt hours fall is going to happen.Most of the automotive battery producers in the world today are producing liquid pouch pack L-ion batteries. The only major exception is Panasonic’s Gigafactory production supporting Tesla; they’re producing a Tesla-engineered cylindrical cell not a pouch pack.It’s *hard* to speed up assembly lines for pouch packs. Panasonic doesn’t have that problem; cylinders can be assembled *really* fast.Even with speedier manufacturing processes Panasonic is operating out of the biggest factory in the world courtesy of Tesla. The investment required to match or exceed what Panasonic can do with pouch packs will be simply staggering.And risky since pouch packs are old tech. Thermal contraction/expansion is worse life cycle is worse flammability is worse; quality control is worse. But nobody else has invested in cylindrical cells yet so far as I am aware. They’re shying away. Why?Because *everyone* in that business knows that research is proceeding furiously to come up with the next successful battery chemistry. Thing is nobody knows which candidates will make it to market yet or how much it will cost to produce them or what the performance characteristics will ultimately be or when they will be ready to produce. Uncertainty clouds the future. That’s enough to make financial weenies nervous. They don’t want to spend the billions required to increase production at the rate Panasonic/Tesla are doing.So what’s happening is this: legacy automakers are introducing niche production runs of EVs. Pouch pack production is rising but not anything like t
And it was never my point to show batteries are like electronics”” as if all electronic components were the same”” or that Moore’s law was involved in batteries in any directly applicable way.125 years ago there was no particular market for resistors of any precision no were there particular providers. 40 years ago 5{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} and 1{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} carbon resistors were in common use. The use of 0.1{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} precision ones were an extravagance avoided wherever possible including by paying expensive technician hours hand selecting/matching lesser precision resistors in place of just buying them.The market for cheaper high precision resistors was clearly there however so the capital was invested in making less expensive high precision ones was undertaken and now I can get a 0.01{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} resistor in common wattages at the wonderful temp stability of 5ppm for 20 cents. Making resistors is just the bulk manipulation of pure commodity materials same as making batteries is and the market is both far larger and it’s existence immediately clear. The investment will be undertaken to mass produce batteries on a scale 100 fold what is being done now.Without Moore’s law having anything to do with the matter”” it is no stretch at all to think the price of batteries will fall 4 fold over the next 10 years.”””
Tom, you wrote, “It’s up to you to show they will buck the trend of every other thing made by humanity.” Why would I want to do that? I *agree* with you that in the long term, battery prices will fall considerably. I take issue only with your conclusion that we’ll see prices per kilowatt hour drop to 1/4 of current prices within 10 years. There are short-term obstacles to that happening. I explained some of those obstacles. In time, those obstacles will be overcome, but not in such a short period of time. Most legacy automakers are avoiding risk-taking behaviors that would be required to secure their supply chains for batteries. Instead, they are relying on the open market and competing against each other for a product that lags demand. I mentioned other factors, such as a fear of investing in old-tech production when new-tech batteries may make those investments obsolete within a few years, but battery supply lagging demand is the big short-term obstacle. That’s set up to be a factor for at least the next ten years. New capacity – in mass-market amounts – isn’t coming on line quickly anywhere except at Tesla (and China, but their demand for batteries also outstrips supply and will continue to do so for years). The long-term trend is falling battery prices, sure. I don’t have to refute that point because I didn’t argue otherwise. It’s your short time horizon and optimistic forecast that I take issue with. I don’t think battery costs will fall that quickly. And neither do any of the legacy automakers. Which is one reason none of them have stepped up yet to produce a mass-market EV. They’re all playing at the shallow end of the pool. They’re *talking* about mass-market EVs. Eventually. Some day. Maybe they’ll do one or two mass-market models by 2025. But electrification of the world’s transportation fleet is not going to go quickly. This is a huge change to our civilization, and there will be inertia and economics factors and risks and even pol
Tom you wrote It’s up to you to show they will buck the trend of every other thing made by humanity.””Why would I want to do that? I *agree* with you that in the long term”” battery prices will fall considerably.I take issue only with your conclusion that we’ll see prices per kilowatt hour drop to 1/4 of current prices within 10 years. There are short-term obstacles to that happening. I explained some of those obstacles. In time those obstacles will be overcome but not in such a short period of time.Most legacy automakers are avoiding risk-taking behaviors that would be required to secure their supply chains for batteries. Instead they are relying on the open market and competing against each other for a product that lags demand. I mentioned other factors such as a fear of investing in old-tech production when new-tech batteries may make those investments obsolete within a few years but battery supply lagging demand is the big short-term obstacle. That’s set up to be a factor for at least the next ten years. New capacity – in mass-market amounts – isn’t coming on line quickly anywhere except at Tesla (and China but their demand for batteries also outstrips supply and will continue to do so for years).The long-term trend is falling battery prices sure. I don’t have to refute that point because I didn’t argue otherwise. It’s your short time horizon and optimistic forecast that I take issue with. I don’t think battery costs will fall that quickly.And neither do any of the legacy automakers. Which is one reason none of them have stepped up yet to produce a mass-market EV. They’re all playing at the shallow end of the pool. They’re *talking* about mass-market EVs. Eventually. Some day. Maybe they’ll do one or two mass-market models by 2025. But electrification of the world’s transportation fleet is not going to go quickly. This is a huge change to our civilization”” and there will be inertia and economics factors and ri”
As the oil price goes up to $100-120 per barrel,” Its Peak Oil BS all over again. Oh, and if it were to go that high, the US can simply re-instate the oil export ban. Then oil prices in the use will drop to $80 or less while the rest of the world’s will skyrocket. “There was 2015 discussion of Tesla and ending the age of oil.” Tesla will be luck to be around in 2022. And it won’t end the age of oil. When it comes to evolving ethics in a dynamic regulatory environment, most investors go with what they know. They know Tesla is a badly-run company that has yet to figure out how to move metal around its own factory floor. They know Tesla has almost never met a production goal. They know Tesla cannot break into the mass market (the cheapest available Model3 is at fifty grand, with the subsidy). They know Tesla’s technology and materials science is insufficient to its goals. They know Tesla faces stiff, rising competition from more experienced market players. They know Tesla is led by a CEO whose social media strategies mirror a broadly-disliked president. They know Tesla’s CEO has bet the firm’s future on a political ideology that provides subsidies that will not last. They know Tesla’s CEO sees no problem cross-subsidizing the firms of family members. And they know Tesla’s CEO has settled with the SEC on charges of stock manipulation which cost the firm that has never made a profit $20 million. There is no shortage of preexisting business norms and regulations that could bring Tesla down. Should the investment community ever believe Washington is coming for Silicon Valley, they will ditch the weak players first. It doesn’t get weaker than Tesla – ergo why the short-selling of Tesla is already so intense.
As the oil price goes up to $100-120 per barrel”””Its Peak Oil BS all over again. Oh”” and if it were to go that high”” the US can simply re-instate the oil export ban. Then oil prices in the use will drop to $80 or less while the rest of the world’s will skyrocket.””””There was 2015 discussion of Tesla and ending the age of oil.””””Tesla will be luck to be around in 2022. And it won’t end the age of oil.When it comes to evolving ethics in a dynamic regulatory environment”” most investors go with what they know. They know Tesla is a badly-run company that has yet to figure out how to move metal around its own factory floor. They know Tesla has almost never met a production goal. They know Tesla cannot break into the mass market (the cheapest available Model3 is at fifty grand with the subsidy). They know Tesla’s technology and materials science is insufficient to its goals. They know Tesla faces stiff rising competition from more experienced market players. They know Tesla is led by a CEO whose social media strategies mirror a broadly-disliked president. They know Tesla’s CEO has bet the firm’s future on a political ideology that provides subsidies that will not last. They know Tesla’s CEO sees no problem cross-subsidizing the firms of family members. And they know Tesla’s CEO has settled with the SEC on charges of stock manipulation which cost the firm that has never made a profit $20 million. There is no shortage of preexisting business norms and regulations that could bring Tesla down. Should the investment community ever believe Washington is coming for Silicon Valley”” they will ditch the weak players first. It doesn’t get weaker than Tesla – ergo why the short-selling of Tesla is already so intense.”””””””
It’s still a lot cheaper to transport electricity than it does to transport oil, natural gas, or hydrogen. It truly will be the Century of Electricity.
It’s still a lot cheaper to transport electricity than it does to transport oil natural gas or hydrogen. It truly will be the Century of Electricity.
Hmmmm. I wonder what the 1E6/ml of bacterial cells per 0.2μm pore-size-filtered seawater think about your seawater battery plans….
Hmmmm. I wonder what the 1E6/ml of bacterial cells per 0.2μm pore-size-filtered seawater think about your seawater battery plans….
Boeing has already tested biofuels in airplanes. It works fine. Jet engines are not picky about fuel, because the compressor section makes the incoming air very hot, and most everything will burn on contact with it. Biodiesel is already used on the ground, and it comes from soybeans and the like, so it is renewable.
Boeing has already tested biofuels in airplanes. It works fine. Jet engines are not picky about fuel because the compressor section makes the incoming air very hot and most everything will burn on contact with it. Biodiesel is already used on the ground and it comes from soybeans and the like so it is renewable.
Unwanted corrosion is also an issue. But if you’re asking about the hydrogen-generating chemicals, those tend to react violently with water, and need special handling to exclude moisture. As Tom said, batteries do involve controlled (and sometimes reversible) corrosion of at least one of the electrodes (usually the anode).
Unwanted corrosion is also an issue. But if you’re asking about the hydrogen-generating chemicals those tend to react violently with water and need special handling to exclude moisture.As Tom said batteries do involve controlled (and sometimes reversible) corrosion of at least one of the electrodes (usually the anode).
Yes — the same as any battery.
Yes — the same as any battery.
Don’t you mean corrosion?
Don’t you mean corrosion?
There may be ways to electrify ships using seawater. Especially smaller ships. Seawater batteries come to mind, or various chemicals that release hydrogen upon contact with water, but these options don’t seem to be very developed so far. The latter especially has challenges with storage, handling, and waste streams.
There may be ways to electrify ships using seawater. Especially smaller ships. Seawater batteries come to mind or various chemicals that release hydrogen upon contact with water but these options don’t seem to be very developed so far. The latter especially has challenges with storage handling and waste streams.
Oil will still be used for chemicals for quite a while. Coal and methane can be used for that too, but oil is the most convenient. There are ways to make them from CO2, but that typically requires cheap energy to make hydrogen from water and to capture the CO2. Currently it’s cheaper to make hydrogen and CO/CO2 from the fossil fuels. As technology improves, advanced carbon materials like graphene etc will also need a carbon source. But those often favor methane over oil. As for fuel use, after land transportation, there are still ships and planes. LNG seems like a good bet for ships until someone figures out a safe compact nuclear option. LNG might work for planes too, if one can make the tanks light enough. Better materials could help with that. Eventually maybe batteries will get good enough. Until then, my bet for planes is on methanol, as I’ve mentioned before.
Oil will still be used for chemicals for quite a while. Coal and methane can be used for that too but oil is the most convenient. There are ways to make them from CO2 but that typically requires cheap energy to make hydrogen from water and to capture the CO2. Currently it’s cheaper to make hydrogen and CO/CO2 from the fossil fuels.As technology improves advanced carbon materials like graphene etc will also need a carbon source. But those often favor methane over oil.As for fuel use after land transportation there are still ships and planes. LNG seems like a good bet for ships until someone figures out a safe compact nuclear option. LNG might work for planes too if one can make the tanks light enough. Better materials could help with that. Eventually maybe batteries will get good enough. Until then my bet for planes is on methanol as I’ve mentioned before.
A bit of a shortfall in the understanding of economics. As more and more electrics take to the road the demand for oil will decrease…that means the price for fuel will also decrease…to a point. My guess is that most new internal combustion will turn to natural gas or propane, as there is a critical mass that oil needs. And as gasoline becomes used less and less, there may be a push for biobutanol or something like it to replace what remains of the gasoline market. Those drivers may have to pay quite a bit more. But as they would be a minority, the majority would feel no pain themselves and vote it in. Another thing to consider is that cars last quite a while. If if we stopped making them today, half of those cars could still be on the road in 20 years. I am just saying the transition will take quite a bit of time…but may be accelerated at some point by State laws
A bit of a shortfall in the understanding of economics. As more and more electrics take to the road the demand for oil will decrease…that means the price for fuel will also decrease…to a point.My guess is that most new internal combustion will turn to natural gas or propane as there is a critical mass that oil needs. And as gasoline becomes used less and less there may be a push for biobutanol or something like it to replace what remains of the gasoline market. Those drivers may have to pay quite a bit more. But as they would be a minority the majority would feel no pain themselves and vote it in.Another thing to consider is that cars last quite a while. If if we stopped making them today half of those cars could still be on the road in 20 years.I am just saying the transition will take quite a bit of time…but may be accelerated at some point by State laws
Driverless electric cars combined with ride-sharing will likely become the main type of commuter transport before 2030 so instead expect 15 years to end of age of oil.
Driverless electric cars combined with ride-sharing will likely become the main type of commuter transport before 2030 so instead expect 15 years to end of age of oil.
Fully agree. In addition as EV’s have a longer lives, less cars need to be manufactured
Fully agree. In addition as EV’s have a longer lives less cars need to be manufactured
I think people underestimate the interaction effect of battery electric vehicles plus ridesharing. Even without autonomy, with a car like a $35k Tesla Model 3, TCO for a ridesharing operator is pretty attractive. Costs for ridersharing will fall, adoption will increase and as a result a relatively small number of cars can displace a significant amount of oil demand from passenger vehicles. As and when autonomy matures, the trend will dramatically accelerate, as the economics of shared use vehicles becomes highly disruptive, and we’ll start to see it used extensively in road freight as well.
I think people underestimate the interaction effect of battery electric vehicles plus ridesharing. Even without autonomy with a car like a $35k Tesla Model 3 TCO for a ridesharing operator is pretty attractive. Costs for ridersharing will fall adoption will increase and as a result a relatively small number of cars can displace a significant amount of oil demand from passenger vehicles. As and when autonomy matures the trend will dramatically accelerate as the economics of shared use vehicles becomes highly disruptive and we’ll start to see it used extensively in road freight as well.
Tom, you wrote, “It’s up to you to show they will buck the trend of every other thing made by humanity.” Why would I want to do that? I *agree* with you that in the long term, battery prices will fall considerably. I take issue only with your conclusion that we’ll see prices per kilowatt hour drop to 1/4 of current prices within 10 years. There are short-term obstacles to that happening. I explained some of those obstacles. In time, those obstacles will be overcome, but not in such a short period of time. Most legacy automakers are avoiding risk-taking behaviors that would be required to secure their supply chains for batteries. Instead, they are relying on the open market and competing against each other for a product that lags demand. I mentioned other factors, such as a fear of investing in old-tech production when new-tech batteries may make those investments obsolete within a few years, but battery supply lagging demand is the big short-term obstacle. That’s set up to be a factor for at least the next ten years. New capacity – in mass-market amounts – isn’t coming on line quickly anywhere except at Tesla (and China, but their demand for batteries also outstrips supply and will continue to do so for years). The long-term trend is falling battery prices, sure. I don’t have to refute that point because I didn’t argue otherwise. It’s your short time horizon and optimistic forecast that I take issue with. I don’t think battery costs will fall that quickly. And neither do any of the legacy automakers. Which is one reason none of them have stepped up yet to produce a mass-market EV. They’re all playing at the shallow end of the pool. They’re *talking* about mass-market EVs. Eventually. Some day. Maybe they’ll do one or two mass-market models by 2025. But electrification of the world’s transportation fleet is not going to go quickly. This is a huge change to our civilization, and there will be inertia and economics factors and risks and even pol
Tom you wrote It’s up to you to show they will buck the trend of every other thing made by humanity.””Why would I want to do that? I *agree* with you that in the long term”” battery prices will fall considerably.I take issue only with your conclusion that we’ll see prices per kilowatt hour drop to 1/4 of current prices within 10 years. There are short-term obstacles to that happening. I explained some of those obstacles. In time those obstacles will be overcome but not in such a short period of time.Most legacy automakers are avoiding risk-taking behaviors that would be required to secure their supply chains for batteries. Instead they are relying on the open market and competing against each other for a product that lags demand. I mentioned other factors such as a fear of investing in old-tech production when new-tech batteries may make those investments obsolete within a few years but battery supply lagging demand is the big short-term obstacle. That’s set up to be a factor for at least the next ten years. New capacity – in mass-market amounts – isn’t coming on line quickly anywhere except at Tesla (and China but their demand for batteries also outstrips supply and will continue to do so for years).The long-term trend is falling battery prices sure. I don’t have to refute that point because I didn’t argue otherwise. It’s your short time horizon and optimistic forecast that I take issue with. I don’t think battery costs will fall that quickly.And neither do any of the legacy automakers. Which is one reason none of them have stepped up yet to produce a mass-market EV. They’re all playing at the shallow end of the pool. They’re *talking* about mass-market EVs. Eventually. Some day. Maybe they’ll do one or two mass-market models by 2025. But electrification of the world’s transportation fleet is not going to go quickly. This is a huge change to our civilization”” and there will be inertia and economics factors and ri”
You are obviously hanging your hat on the idea I am predicating my argument on this, that batteries are enough like electronics that the rapidity of the fall of the cost of transistors (Moore’s law) is indicative of the impending rapidity of the fall of the cost of batteries for BEV applications. That is a incorrect impression you have of my argument. My sole argument is that because BEVs are already known at the current Model 3 price v performance point to be lower cost over the lifetime of the car than equivalent gasoline cars, the investment required to seize market share in the BEV market replacing gasoline cars will be undertaken, and the 100fold increase in battery production that requires will drop the battery cost fourfold at least, further destroying the market viability of gasoline fueled cars. ” It’s *hard* to speed up assembly lines for pouch packs. Panasonic doesn’t have that problem; cylinders can be assembled *really* fast.
You are obviously hanging your hat on the idea I am predicating my argument on this that batteries are enough like electronics that the rapidity of the fall of the cost of transistors (Moore’s law) is indicative of the impending rapidity of the fall of the cost of batteries for BEV applications.That is a incorrect impression you have of my argument.My sole argument is that because BEVs are already known at the current Model 3 price v performance point to be lower cost over the lifetime of the car than equivalent gasoline cars the investment required to seize market share in the BEV market replacing gasoline cars will be undertaken and the 100fold increase in battery production that requires will drop the battery cost fourfold at least further destroying the market viability of gasoline fueled cars. It’s *hard* to speed up assembly lines for pouch packs. Panasonic doesn’t have that problem; cylinders can be assembled *really* fast. “” “””
Tom, you’re still hanging your hat on this argument: electronics pricing fell rapidly, so obviously, battery pricing will fall rapidly. (Ten years to fall fourfold is rapid.) Electronics obey different governing principles. Let’s ignore electronics. Let’s look instead at the state of the art in batteries today and then show where that kind of price per kilowatt hours fall is going to happen. Most of the automotive battery producers in the world today are producing liquid pouch pack L-ion batteries. The only major exception is Panasonic’s Gigafactory production supporting Tesla; they’re producing a Tesla-engineered cylindrical cell, not a pouch pack. It’s *hard* to speed up assembly lines for pouch packs. Panasonic doesn’t have that problem; cylinders can be assembled *really* fast. Even with speedier manufacturing processes, Panasonic is operating out of the biggest factory in the world, courtesy of Tesla. The investment required to match or exceed what Panasonic can do with pouch packs will be simply staggering. And risky, since pouch packs are old tech. Thermal contraction/expansion is worse, life cycle is worse, flammability is worse; quality control is worse. But nobody else has invested in cylindrical cells yet, so far as I am aware. They’re shying away. Why? Because *everyone* in that business knows that research is proceeding furiously to come up with the next successful battery chemistry. Thing is, nobody knows which candidates will make it to market yet, or how much it will cost to produce them, or what the performance characteristics will ultimately be, or when they will be ready to produce. Uncertainty clouds the future. That’s enough to make financial weenies nervous. They don’t want to spend the billions required to increase production at the rate Panasonic/Tesla are doing. So what’s happening is this: legacy automakers are introducing niche production runs of EVs. Pouch pack production is rising, but not anything like the rate of
Tom you’re still hanging your hat on this argument: electronics pricing fell rapidly so obviously battery pricing will fall rapidly. (Ten years to fall fourfold is rapid.)Electronics obey different governing principles. Let’s ignore electronics. Let’s look instead at the state of the art in batteries today and then show where that kind of price per kilowatt hours fall is going to happen.Most of the automotive battery producers in the world today are producing liquid pouch pack L-ion batteries. The only major exception is Panasonic’s Gigafactory production supporting Tesla; they’re producing a Tesla-engineered cylindrical cell not a pouch pack.It’s *hard* to speed up assembly lines for pouch packs. Panasonic doesn’t have that problem; cylinders can be assembled *really* fast.Even with speedier manufacturing processes Panasonic is operating out of the biggest factory in the world courtesy of Tesla. The investment required to match or exceed what Panasonic can do with pouch packs will be simply staggering.And risky since pouch packs are old tech. Thermal contraction/expansion is worse life cycle is worse flammability is worse; quality control is worse. But nobody else has invested in cylindrical cells yet so far as I am aware. They’re shying away. Why?Because *everyone* in that business knows that research is proceeding furiously to come up with the next successful battery chemistry. Thing is nobody knows which candidates will make it to market yet or how much it will cost to produce them or what the performance characteristics will ultimately be or when they will be ready to produce. Uncertainty clouds the future. That’s enough to make financial weenies nervous. They don’t want to spend the billions required to increase production at the rate Panasonic/Tesla are doing.So what’s happening is this: legacy automakers are introducing niche production runs of EVs. Pouch pack production is rising but not anything like t
And it was never my point to show batteries are like “electronics” as if all electronic components were the same, or that Moore’s law was involved in batteries in any directly applicable way. 125 years ago there was no particular market for resistors of any precision, no were there particular providers. 40 years ago, 5% and 1% carbon resistors were in common use. The use of 0.1% precision ones were an extravagance avoided wherever possible, including by paying expensive technician hours hand selecting/matching lesser precision resistors in place of just buying them. The market for cheaper high precision resistors was clearly there however, so the capital was invested in making less expensive high precision ones was undertaken, and now I can get a 0.01% resistor in common wattages at the wonderful temp stability of 5ppm for 20 cents. Making resistors is just the bulk manipulation of pure commodity materials same as making batteries is, and the market is both far larger and it’s existence immediately clear. The investment will be undertaken to mass produce batteries on a scale 100 fold what is being done now. Without Moore’s law having anything to do with the matter, it is no stretch at all to think the price of batteries will fall 4 fold over the next 10 years.
And it was never my point to show batteries are like electronics”” as if all electronic components were the same”” or that Moore’s law was involved in batteries in any directly applicable way.125 years ago there was no particular market for resistors of any precision no were there particular providers. 40 years ago 5{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} and 1{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} carbon resistors were in common use. The use of 0.1{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} precision ones were an extravagance avoided wherever possible including by paying expensive technician hours hand selecting/matching lesser precision resistors in place of just buying them.The market for cheaper high precision resistors was clearly there however so the capital was invested in making less expensive high precision ones was undertaken and now I can get a 0.01{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} resistor in common wattages at the wonderful temp stability of 5ppm for 20 cents. Making resistors is just the bulk manipulation of pure commodity materials same as making batteries is and the market is both far larger and it’s existence immediately clear. The investment will be undertaken to mass produce batteries on a scale 100 fold what is being done now.Without Moore’s law having anything to do with the matter”” it is no stretch at all to think the price of batteries will fall 4 fold over the next 10 years.”””
Tom, the point of my post isn’t to refute, but to explain. I did not bring up Moore’s Law to ‘prove you wrong.’ I brought it up to show how different batteries are as a commodity from electronics. Batteries will be obeying different governing principles, as compared to transistors or resistors or other electronics.
Tom the point of my post isn’t to refute but to explain.I did not bring up Moore’s Law to ‘prove you wrong.’ I brought it up to show how different batteries are as a commodity from electronics. Batteries will be obeying different governing principles as compared to transistors or resistors or other electronics.
If I had mentioned either Moore’s law or transistors, you might have a point. Consider I did not.
If I had mentioned either Moore’s law or transistors you might have a point.Consider I did not.
Tom, you wrote, “It’s up to you to show they will buck the trend of every other thing made by humanity.”
Why would I want to do that? I *agree* with you that in the long term, battery prices will fall considerably.
I take issue only with your conclusion that we’ll see prices per kilowatt hour drop to 1/4 of current prices within 10 years. There are short-term obstacles to that happening. I explained some of those obstacles. In time, those obstacles will be overcome, but not in such a short period of time.
Most legacy automakers are avoiding risk-taking behaviors that would be required to secure their supply chains for batteries. Instead, they are relying on the open market and competing against each other for a product that lags demand. I mentioned other factors, such as a fear of investing in old-tech production when new-tech batteries may make those investments obsolete within a few years, but battery supply lagging demand is the big short-term obstacle. That’s set up to be a factor for at least the next ten years. New capacity – in mass-market amounts – isn’t coming on line quickly anywhere except at Tesla (and China, but their demand for batteries also outstrips supply and will continue to do so for years).
The long-term trend is falling battery prices, sure. I don’t have to refute that point because I didn’t argue otherwise. It’s your short time horizon and optimistic forecast that I take issue with. I don’t think battery costs will fall that quickly.
And neither do any of the legacy automakers. Which is one reason none of them have stepped up yet to produce a mass-market EV. They’re all playing at the shallow end of the pool. They’re *talking* about mass-market EVs. Eventually. Some day. Maybe they’ll do one or two mass-market models by 2025. But electrification of the world’s transportation fleet is not going to go quickly. This is a huge change to our civilization, and there will be inertia and economics factors and risks and even political opposition to fight every step of the way.
You are obviously hanging your hat on the idea I am predicating my argument on this, that batteries are enough like electronics that the rapidity of the fall of the cost of transistors (Moore’s law) is indicative of the impending rapidity of the fall of the cost of batteries for BEV applications.
That is a incorrect impression you have of my argument.
My sole argument is that because BEVs are already known at the current Model 3 price v performance point to be lower cost over the lifetime of the car than equivalent gasoline cars, the investment required to seize market share in the BEV market replacing gasoline cars will be undertaken, and the 100fold increase in battery production that requires will drop the battery cost fourfold at least, further destroying the market viability of gasoline fueled cars.
” It’s *hard* to speed up assembly lines for pouch packs. Panasonic doesn’t have that problem; cylinders can be assembled *really* fast. ” <-- Which to the extent it is true is the extent to which that approach will be an abandoned approach. " Even so, the demand for cobalt is soaring, and the price is climbing. So we have a market force going in the wrong direction to bring down pricing. " <-- cleantechnica(dot)com 2018 06 17 teslas-cobalt-usage-to-drop-from-3-today-to-0-elon-commits <-- Replace " " with /. " Thing is, nobody knows which candidates will make it to market yet, or how much it will cost to produce them, or what the performance characteristics will ultimately be, or when they will be ready to produce. Uncertainty clouds the future. " <-- The fact the Gigfactory approach has already succeeded is why it will be promulgated and displace already undertaken niche efforts. It's "go big or go out of business" time. Which battery advance succeeds further doesn't really matter except to accelerate the end result -- massive expansion in battery production dropping price drastically. " Panasonic/Tesla will be first to get the cost of kilowatt-hours down to $100. " <-- Since it was pointed out here on NBF they have already done so, yeah. " You're dreaming. " <-- That's the one of us pretending gasoline car factories aren't in the position of being circa 1910~20 buggy whip factories. I am solely promulgating the conclusion that like other bulk commodity products involving the production of intricate assemblies of high purity commodity materials in geometrically precise arrangements, the cost of batteries will fall substantially as production increases massively. It's up to you to show they will buck the trend of every other thing made by humanity.
Tom, you’re still hanging your hat on this argument: electronics pricing fell rapidly, so obviously, battery pricing will fall rapidly. (Ten years to fall fourfold is rapid.)
Electronics obey different governing principles. Let’s ignore electronics. Let’s look instead at the state of the art in batteries today and then show where that kind of price per kilowatt hours fall is going to happen.
Most of the automotive battery producers in the world today are producing liquid pouch pack L-ion batteries. The only major exception is Panasonic’s Gigafactory production supporting Tesla; they’re producing a Tesla-engineered cylindrical cell, not a pouch pack.
It’s *hard* to speed up assembly lines for pouch packs. Panasonic doesn’t have that problem; cylinders can be assembled *really* fast.
Even with speedier manufacturing processes, Panasonic is operating out of the biggest factory in the world, courtesy of Tesla. The investment required to match or exceed what Panasonic can do with pouch packs will be simply staggering.
And risky, since pouch packs are old tech. Thermal contraction/expansion is worse, life cycle is worse, flammability is worse; quality control is worse. But nobody else has invested in cylindrical cells yet, so far as I am aware. They’re shying away. Why?
Because *everyone* in that business knows that research is proceeding furiously to come up with the next successful battery chemistry. Thing is, nobody knows which candidates will make it to market yet, or how much it will cost to produce them, or what the performance characteristics will ultimately be, or when they will be ready to produce. Uncertainty clouds the future. That’s enough to make financial weenies nervous. They don’t want to spend the billions required to increase production at the rate Panasonic/Tesla are doing.
So what’s happening is this: legacy automakers are introducing niche production runs of EVs. Pouch pack production is rising, but not anything like the rate of production increases at Panasonic/Tesla.
All of this points to one conclusion: Panasonic/Tesla will be first to get the cost of kilowatt-hours down to $100. Everyone else is trailing far behind.
Even so, the demand for cobalt is soaring, and the price is climbing. So we have a market force going in the wrong direction to bring down pricing.
Legacy automakers are competing on the open market for more and more pouch packs; supply is constrained. See where this is going?
Eventually, yes. Price/performance will get better. But in 10 years? Fourfold price reduction?
You’re dreaming.
And it was never my point to show batteries are like “electronics” as if all electronic components were the same, or that Moore’s law was involved in batteries in any directly applicable way.
125 years ago there was no particular market for resistors of any precision, no were there particular providers. 40 years ago, 5% and 1% carbon resistors were in common use. The use of 0.1% precision ones were an extravagance avoided wherever possible, including by paying expensive technician hours hand selecting/matching lesser precision resistors in place of just buying them.
The market for cheaper high precision resistors was clearly there however, so the capital was invested in making less expensive high precision ones was undertaken, and now I can get a 0.01% resistor in common wattages at the wonderful temp stability of 5ppm for 20 cents. Making resistors is just the bulk manipulation of pure commodity materials same as making batteries is, and the market is both far larger and it’s existence immediately clear. The investment will be undertaken to mass produce batteries on a scale 100 fold what is being done now.
Without Moore’s law having anything to do with the matter, it is no stretch at all to think the price of batteries will fall 4 fold over the next 10 years.
Tom, the point of my post isn’t to refute, but to explain.
I did not bring up Moore’s Law to ‘prove you wrong.’ I brought it up to show how different batteries are as a commodity from electronics. Batteries will be obeying different governing principles, as compared to transistors or resistors or other electronics.
If I had mentioned either Moore’s law or transistors, you might have a point.
Consider I did not.
Tom, Moore’s Law does not apply to battery tech, as it did for so long for transistors. Battery advancement is following its own rules. One difference is that transistor density rose incredibly quickly for a long, long period of time. Each new die shrink led to more transistors per die, and die shrinks arrived almost like clockwork for so long… *and* the path to increasing transistor density has been pretty clear right up to 7 nm. (After 7 nm, it’s not so obvious what comes next.) Advancing battery tech is *very* different. Advances are unspooling much more slowly, for one thing. For another, there are a lot of different candidate chemistries vying for commercialization; there is no single clear developmental path towards some future energy density/cost target. It’s costing billions and billions to investigate all of the potential next-gen candidate battery chemistries; companies will seek to recoup those costs. Also, automotive batteries are *huge* compared to a silicon wafer; to make appreciable quantities of these things, you need *huge* new factories and *lots* of raw materials. It’s not just trace amounts of expensive raw materials that are needed to make batteries. Cobalt, in particular, used in this generation of L-ion batteries, is expensive and the supply is limited, so increasing L-ion battery production drives some costs *upward* by tightening the market for expensive raw materials. By comparison, the amount of materials consumed to make silicon chips isn’t really very significant. Factory footprints can be small by comparison. Raw materials pricing fluctuations can affect transistor prices, but production yields have risen fast without putting all that much of a strain on the supply of raw materials *because* transistor density has been doubling so often. We we take it for granted that cost per transistor will drop – though as we close in on 7 nm processes, the rate at which transistor costs are falling has slowed, finally. It’s just a
Tom Moore’s Law does not apply to battery tech as it did for so long for transistors. Battery advancement is following its own rules.One difference is that transistor density rose incredibly quickly for a long long period of time. Each new die shrink led to more transistors per die and die shrinks arrived almost like clockwork for so long… *and* the path to increasing transistor density has been pretty clear right up to 7 nm. (After 7 nm it’s not so obvious what comes next.)Advancing battery tech is *very* different. Advances are unspooling much more slowly for one thing. For another there are a lot of different candidate chemistries vying for commercialization; there is no single clear developmental path towards some future energy density/cost target. It’s costing billions and billions to investigate all of the potential next-gen candidate battery chemistries; companies will seek to recoup those costs. Also automotive batteries are *huge* compared to a silicon wafer; to make appreciable quantities of these things you need *huge* new factories and *lots* of raw materials. It’s not just trace amounts of expensive raw materials that are needed to make batteries. Cobalt in particular used in this generation of L-ion batteries is expensive and the supply is limited so increasing L-ion battery production drives some costs *upward* by tightening the market for expensive raw materials.By comparison the amount of materials consumed to make silicon chips isn’t really very significant. Factory footprints can be small by comparison. Raw materials pricing fluctuations can affect transistor prices but production yields have risen fast without putting all that much of a strain on the supply of raw materials *because* transistor density has been doubling so often. We we take it for granted that cost per transistor will drop – though as we close in on 7 nm processes the rate at which transistor costs are falling has slowed finally. It’s just a very
I dunno about that. I remember when high precision, low temp coefficient resistors were dollars apiece. Now they are pennies apiece, made in the millions to likely high 100’s of millions, you can gettem at any value you want. Even though the margin is bupkis. For batteries purely on production volume increase alone, you don’t think a 100 fold increase in production won’t drop costs a factor of 4? And I think the margin will be better than bupkis as an incentive.
I dunno about that. I remember when high precision low temp coefficient resistors were dollars apiece. Now they are pennies apiece made in the millions to likely high 100’s of millions you can gettem at any value you want. Even though the margin is bupkis.For batteries purely on production volume increase alone you don’t think a 100 fold increase in production won’t drop costs a factor of 4? And I think the margin will be better than bupkis as an incentive.
Tom, while volume production and sharp competition will certainly cause battery prices to fall, you won’t see 1/4 prices solely through those mechanisms. To get to the really big price cuts, batteries will have to perform better and exploit cheaper materials. I think it’s likely we’ll see both better-performing batteries and cheaper materials in batteries. But the specifics of what, exactly, and when, and cost implications, are not known to us in advance. And so forecasting is necessarily fuzzy, you dig? The word ‘certainty’ doesn’t really belong in our conversations.
Tom while volume production and sharp competition will certainly cause battery prices to fall you won’t see 1/4 prices solely through those mechanisms. To get to the really big price cuts batteries will have to perform better and exploit cheaper materials.I think it’s likely we’ll see both better-performing batteries and cheaper materials in batteries. But the specifics of what exactly and when and cost implications are not known to us in advance.And so forecasting is necessarily fuzzy you dig? The word ‘certainty’ doesn’t really belong in our conversations.
No, fool. You must be shocked to learn most large vessels circulate seawater for engine cooling. Biofouling is a thing. A thing engineers know how to deal with.
No fool. You must be shocked to learn most large vessels circulate seawater for engine cooling. Biofouling is a thing.A thing engineers know how to deal with.
Doesn’t matter, because it is too expensive.
Doesn’t matter because it is too expensive.
The price of putting 50 L of petroleum fuel in my car (including the cost of my time in going to a petrol station and filling it up) is a lot more than the cost of sending the equivalent electricity to my garage wall socket at night.
The price of putting 50 L of petroleum fuel in my car (including the cost of my time in going to a petrol station and filling it up) is a lot more than the cost of sending the equivalent electricity to my garage wall socket at night. “” “””
So long as energy from oil is cheap and getting cheaper, there must be a matching trend in battery performance and prices, or else oil as an energy source will stabilize its market share and progress towards electrification of transportation will hit a wall.
So long as energy from oil is cheap and getting cheaper there must be a matching trend in battery performance and prices” or else oil as an energy source will stabilize its market share and progress towards electrification of transportation will hit a wall. “” “””
Tom, Moore’s Law does not apply to battery tech, as it did for so long for transistors. Battery advancement is following its own rules.
One difference is that transistor density rose incredibly quickly for a long, long period of time. Each new die shrink led to more transistors per die, and die shrinks arrived almost like clockwork for so long… *and* the path to increasing transistor density has been pretty clear right up to 7 nm. (After 7 nm, it’s not so obvious what comes next.)
Advancing battery tech is *very* different. Advances are unspooling much more slowly, for one thing. For another, there are a lot of different candidate chemistries vying for commercialization; there is no single clear developmental path towards some future energy density/cost target. It’s costing billions and billions to investigate all of the potential next-gen candidate battery chemistries; companies will seek to recoup those costs. Also, automotive batteries are *huge* compared to a silicon wafer; to make appreciable quantities of these things, you need *huge* new factories and *lots* of raw materials. It’s not just trace amounts of expensive raw materials that are needed to make batteries. Cobalt, in particular, used in this generation of L-ion batteries, is expensive and the supply is limited, so increasing L-ion battery production drives some costs *upward* by tightening the market for expensive raw materials.
By comparison, the amount of materials consumed to make silicon chips isn’t really very significant. Factory footprints can be small by comparison. Raw materials pricing fluctuations can affect transistor prices, but production yields have risen fast without putting all that much of a strain on the supply of raw materials *because* transistor density has been doubling so often. We we take it for granted that cost per transistor will drop – though as we close in on 7 nm processes, the rate at which transistor costs are falling has slowed, finally. It’s just a very different commodity with very different characteristics.
Moore’s Law has worked so well for semiconductors for so long that we have almost learned to take it for granted, but the Law arises out of the nature of the commodity. It’s not a universal law that applies willy-nilly to *any* commodity. And most particularly, it doesn’t apply to batteries. It really doesn’t even apply to transistors after 7 nm; we’ll be entering a period where Moore’s Law will have to morph into something else, because future advances won’t come simply from die shrinkage. After a very long run with doubling transistor densities rather quickly, the path forward beyond 7 nm is not as clear. Lots of candidate technologies will have to be explored.
In the final analysis, you can’t point to the success of Moore’s Law and expect that success to be duplicated in batteries. It’s playing by its own rules.
I dunno about that. I remember when high precision, low temp coefficient resistors were dollars apiece. Now they are pennies apiece, made in the millions to likely high 100’s of millions, you can gettem at any value you want. Even though the margin is bupkis.
For batteries purely on production volume increase alone, you don’t think a 100 fold increase in production won’t drop costs a factor of 4? And I think the margin will be better than bupkis as an incentive.
This article makes no sense in light of fundamental principles of macroeconomics. Look, if it’s true that transportation will become largely electrified over the next twenty years (I think it *is* true, incidentally), then demand for oil is going to go into a long-term slump. That’s going to put downward pressure on oil prices. There can be short-term and political influences on prices, of course. Right now it’s Trump’s sanctions on Iran that are pushing up oil prices. Instabilities in oil-producing countries or shipping lanes could also influence prices, and wars could cause spikes in oil prices, and lawmakers’ decisions about incentives and disincentives will play a role in pricing of every product in play, but the long-term trend is falling oil prices. There will still be a need for oil-based lubricants and feedstocks for the chemical industry, and it’ll be a long time before commercial and military aircraft can dispense with petroleum-based fuels, but the general trend is pretty obvious. Oil will get cheaper, in the long run. There are some constraints on this downward price trend. Prices can’t fall below the cost to produce, distribute and refine oil. But there’s quite a lot of oil production where the costs are largely sunk, and it’s not very expensive to keep pumping. Prices could fall a very long way before oil producers will give up production. This has implications for the electrification of transportation. So long as energy from oil is cheap and getting cheaper, there must be a matching trend in battery performance and prices, or else oil as an energy source will stabilize its market share and progress towards electrification of transportation will hit a wall. Those who are eager to see transportation electrified must hope for battery tech to improve significantly.
This article makes no sense in light of fundamental principles of macroeconomics.Look if it’s true that transportation will become largely electrified over the next twenty years (I think it *is* true incidentally) then demand for oil is going to go into a long-term slump. That’s going to put downward pressure on oil prices.There can be short-term and political influences on prices of course. Right now it’s Trump’s sanctions on Iran that are pushing up oil prices. Instabilities in oil-producing countries or shipping lanes could also influence prices and wars could cause spikes in oil prices and lawmakers’ decisions about incentives and disincentives will play a role in pricing of every product in play but the long-term trend is falling oil prices. There will still be a need for oil-based lubricants and feedstocks for the chemical industry and it’ll be a long time before commercial and military aircraft can dispense with petroleum-based fuels but the general trend is pretty obvious.Oil will get cheaper in the long run.There are some constraints on this downward price trend. Prices can’t fall below the cost to produce distribute and refine oil. But there’s quite a lot of oil production where the costs are largely sunk and it’s not very expensive to keep pumping. Prices could fall a very long way before oil producers will give up production.This has implications for the electrification of transportation. So long as energy from oil is cheap and getting cheaper there must be a matching trend in battery performance and prices or else oil as an energy source will stabilize its market share and progress towards electrification of transportation will hit a wall. Those who are eager to see transportation electrified must hope for battery tech to improve significantly.
Depends on your definitions. Just about the entire population has “pipelines” to ship electricity straight to their homes and businesses. Oil quickly runs out of pipeline and shifts to tanker trucks, then to individuals having to go out and buy tanks of fuel and transport them individually. The price of putting 50 L of petroleum fuel in my car (including the cost of my time in going to a petrol station and filling it up) is a lot more than the cost of sending the equivalent electricity to my garage wall socket at night.
Depends on your definitions.Just about the entire population has pipelines”” to ship electricity straight to their homes and businesses. Oil quickly runs out of pipeline and shifts to tanker trucks”””” then to individuals having to go out and buy tanks of fuel and transport them individually. The price of putting 50 L of petroleum fuel in my car (including the cost of my time in going to a petrol station and filling it up) is a lot more than the cost of sending the equivalent electricity to my garage wall socket at night.”””
Tom, while volume production and sharp competition will certainly cause battery prices to fall, you won’t see 1/4 prices solely through those mechanisms. To get to the really big price cuts, batteries will have to perform better and exploit cheaper materials.
I think it’s likely we’ll see both better-performing batteries and cheaper materials in batteries. But the specifics of what, exactly, and when, and cost implications, are not known to us in advance.
And so forecasting is necessarily fuzzy, you dig? The word ‘certainty’ doesn’t really belong in our conversations.
Peak Oil said the same thing.
Peak Oil said the same thing. “” “””
No, fool. You must be shocked to learn most large vessels circulate seawater for engine cooling. Biofouling is a thing.
A thing engineers know how to deal with.
Doesn’t matter, because it is too expensive.
” The price of putting 50 L of petroleum fuel in my car (including the cost of my time in going to a petrol station and filling it up) is a lot more than the cost of sending the equivalent electricity to my garage wall socket at night. ” <-- A very important reason why gasoline cars are still moving, but dead.
” next year, your “
” So long as energy from oil is cheap and getting cheaper, there must be a matching trend in battery performance and prices, or else oil as an energy source will stabilize its market share and progress towards electrification of transportation will hit a wall. ” <-- And it seems to be a certainty that battery prices will fall 4 fold as manufacturing massively expands and is further automated. Because every effort to improve performance must fail commercialization for performance to stagnate, that isn't likely either.
No, it’s not. It takes about 3 cents to send 30 kw-hr of natural gas 1000 miles in pipelines. It costs 3.2 cents per kw-hr to transport electricity 500 miles via 500 kv AC lines. All numbers from EIA.
No it’s not. It takes about 3 cents to send 30 kw-hr of natural gas 1000 miles in pipelines. It costs 3.2 cents per kw-hr to transport electricity 500 miles via 500 kv AC lines. All numbers from EIA.
No moron, they are only observing the oil price is going up, the idea of peak oil has nothing to do with that fact. ” Peak Oil said the same thing. Please learn of the topic which you troll about. “And because most of our exportable petrocarbon is natural gas, that won’t do a damn thing” Where have you been? We are the number one OIL exporter now. And by this time next year, we will be a NET oil exporter. Nat Gas has nothing to do with this topic. “they are clearing a profit now” PROVE IT! Let’s see the bank statements? No? Then this is as fake as one of our emails you cooked up claiming came from me blah, blah, blah. “Short selling is desperate, not intense. ” Wrong “before the Model 3’s success is undeniable” Hahahahahahah
No moron they are only observing the oil price is going up” the idea of peak oil has nothing to do with that fact. “”Peak Oil said the same thing. Please learn of the topic which you troll about.””””And because most of our exportable petrocarbon is natural gas”””” that won’t do a damn thing””””Where have you been? We are the number one OIL exporter now. And by this time next year”””” we will be a NET oil exporter. Nat Gas has nothing to do with this topic.””””they are clearing a profit now””””PROVE IT! Let’s see the bank statements? No? Then this is as fake as one of our emails you cooked up claiming came from me blah”” blah”” blah.””””Short selling is desperate”””” not intense. “”””Wrong””””before the Model 3’s success is undeniable””””Hahahahahahah”””
Why does that matter, when the fluid for example in a lead/acid battery is already real fugly?
Why does that matter when the fluid for example in a lead/acid battery is already real fugly?
Its Peak Oil BS all over again.
Its Peak Oil BS all over again. “” “””
As the oil price goes up to $100-120 per barrel,” Its Peak Oil BS all over again. Oh, and if it were to go that high, the US can simply re-instate the oil export ban. Then oil prices in the use will drop to $80 or less while the rest of the world’s will skyrocket. “There was 2015 discussion of Tesla and ending the age of oil.” Tesla will be luck to be around in 2022. And it won’t end the age of oil. When it comes to evolving ethics in a dynamic regulatory environment, most investors go with what they know. They know Tesla is a badly-run company that has yet to figure out how to move metal around its own factory floor. They know Tesla has almost never met a production goal. They know Tesla cannot break into the mass market (the cheapest available Model3 is at fifty grand, with the subsidy). They know Tesla’s technology and materials science is insufficient to its goals. They know Tesla faces stiff, rising competition from more experienced market players. They know Tesla is led by a CEO whose social media strategies mirror a broadly-disliked president. They know Tesla’s CEO has bet the firm’s future on a political ideology that provides subsidies that will not last. They know Tesla’s CEO sees no problem cross-subsidizing the firms of family members. And they know Tesla’s CEO has settled with the SEC on charges of stock manipulation which cost the firm that has never made a profit $20 million. There is no shortage of preexisting business norms and regulations that could bring Tesla down. Should the investment community ever believe Washington is coming for Silicon Valley, they will ditch the weak players first. It doesn’t get weaker than Tesla – ergo why the short-selling of Tesla is already so intense.
As the oil price goes up to $100-120 per barrel”””Its Peak Oil BS all over again. Oh”” and if it were to go that high”” the US can simply re-instate the oil export ban. Then oil prices in the use will drop to $80 or less while the rest of the world’s will skyrocket.””””There was 2015 discussion of Tesla and ending the age of oil.””””Tesla will be luck to be around in 2022. And it won’t end the age of oil.When it comes to evolving ethics in a dynamic regulatory environment”” most investors go with what they know. They know Tesla is a badly-run company that has yet to figure out how to move metal around its own factory floor. They know Tesla has almost never met a production goal. They know Tesla cannot break into the mass market (the cheapest available Model3 is at fifty grand with the subsidy). They know Tesla’s technology and materials science is insufficient to its goals. They know Tesla faces stiff rising competition from more experienced market players. They know Tesla is led by a CEO whose social media strategies mirror a broadly-disliked president. They know Tesla’s CEO has bet the firm’s future on a political ideology that provides subsidies that will not last. They know Tesla’s CEO sees no problem cross-subsidizing the firms of family members. And they know Tesla’s CEO has settled with the SEC on charges of stock manipulation which cost the firm that has never made a profit $20 million. There is no shortage of preexisting business norms and regulations that could bring Tesla down. Should the investment community ever believe Washington is coming for Silicon Valley”” they will ditch the weak players first. It doesn’t get weaker than Tesla – ergo why the short-selling of Tesla is already so intense.”””””””
It’s still a lot cheaper to transport electricity than it does to transport oil, natural gas, or hydrogen. It truly will be the Century of Electricity.
It’s still a lot cheaper to transport electricity than it does to transport oil natural gas or hydrogen. It truly will be the Century of Electricity.
This article makes no sense in light of fundamental principles of macroeconomics.
Look, if it’s true that transportation will become largely electrified over the next twenty years (I think it *is* true, incidentally), then demand for oil is going to go into a long-term slump. That’s going to put downward pressure on oil prices.
There can be short-term and political influences on prices, of course. Right now it’s Trump’s sanctions on Iran that are pushing up oil prices. Instabilities in oil-producing countries or shipping lanes could also influence prices, and wars could cause spikes in oil prices, and lawmakers’ decisions about incentives and disincentives will play a role in pricing of every product in play, but the long-term trend is falling oil prices. There will still be a need for oil-based lubricants and feedstocks for the chemical industry, and it’ll be a long time before commercial and military aircraft can dispense with petroleum-based fuels, but the general trend is pretty obvious.
Oil will get cheaper, in the long run.
There are some constraints on this downward price trend. Prices can’t fall below the cost to produce, distribute and refine oil. But there’s quite a lot of oil production where the costs are largely sunk, and it’s not very expensive to keep pumping. Prices could fall a very long way before oil producers will give up production.
This has implications for the electrification of transportation. So long as energy from oil is cheap and getting cheaper, there must be a matching trend in battery performance and prices, or else oil as an energy source will stabilize its market share and progress towards electrification of transportation will hit a wall. Those who are eager to see transportation electrified must hope for battery tech to improve significantly.
Depends on your definitions.
Just about the entire population has “pipelines” to ship electricity straight to their homes and businesses.
Oil quickly runs out of pipeline and shifts to tanker trucks, then to individuals having to go out and buy tanks of fuel and transport them individually. The price of putting 50 L of petroleum fuel in my car (including the cost of my time in going to a petrol station and filling it up) is a lot more than the cost of sending the equivalent electricity to my garage wall socket at night.
Hmmmm. I wonder what the 1E6/ml of bacterial cells per 0.2μm pore-size-filtered seawater think about your seawater battery plans….
Hmmmm. I wonder what the 1E6/ml of bacterial cells per 0.2μm pore-size-filtered seawater think about your seawater battery plans….
Boeing has already tested biofuels in airplanes. It works fine. Jet engines are not picky about fuel, because the compressor section makes the incoming air very hot, and most everything will burn on contact with it. Biodiesel is already used on the ground, and it comes from soybeans and the like, so it is renewable.
Boeing has already tested biofuels in airplanes. It works fine. Jet engines are not picky about fuel because the compressor section makes the incoming air very hot and most everything will burn on contact with it. Biodiesel is already used on the ground and it comes from soybeans and the like so it is renewable.
Unwanted corrosion is also an issue. But if you’re asking about the hydrogen-generating chemicals, those tend to react violently with water, and need special handling to exclude moisture. As Tom said, batteries do involve controlled (and sometimes reversible) corrosion of at least one of the electrodes (usually the anode).
Unwanted corrosion is also an issue. But if you’re asking about the hydrogen-generating chemicals those tend to react violently with water and need special handling to exclude moisture.As Tom said batteries do involve controlled (and sometimes reversible) corrosion of at least one of the electrodes (usually the anode).
Yes — the same as any battery.
Yes — the same as any battery.
Don’t you mean corrosion?
Don’t you mean corrosion?
There may be ways to electrify ships using seawater. Especially smaller ships. Seawater batteries come to mind, or various chemicals that release hydrogen upon contact with water, but these options don’t seem to be very developed so far. The latter especially has challenges with storage, handling, and waste streams.
There may be ways to electrify ships using seawater. Especially smaller ships. Seawater batteries come to mind or various chemicals that release hydrogen upon contact with water but these options don’t seem to be very developed so far. The latter especially has challenges with storage handling and waste streams.
” Peak Oil said the same thing. ” <-- So what? The has no bearing on the fact the price of oil is up and staying there for a while. and of course you are the only one trolling. " Where have you ... with this topic. " <-- Of course it does idiot, most fossil fuels are used for power generation of heavy transportation like ship or power plants. Gasoline is the least of it. " PROVE IT! Let's ... blah, blah, blah. " <-- Moron, the numbers were here on this blog, and I can forward to anyone who wants it, the email Vuukle sent to me when you made the comment you erased. And I expect some people here remember seeing it. You wrote a stupid lie on the internet, it's not your first time, you should be used to it. " Wrong " <-- Uhuh. If Tesla does not need a new cap raising round before next your, your idiot hero shorts are going down. " Hahahahahahah " <-- 3rd best selling sedan in the country. Use these key words to search this blog, " tesla model 3 top selling us car model ". Or don't, it's clear you don't care what's real anyway. You are only a troll telling stupid lies.
Oil will still be used for chemicals for quite a while. Coal and methane can be used for that too, but oil is the most convenient. There are ways to make them from CO2, but that typically requires cheap energy to make hydrogen from water and to capture the CO2. Currently it’s cheaper to make hydrogen and CO/CO2 from the fossil fuels. As technology improves, advanced carbon materials like graphene etc will also need a carbon source. But those often favor methane over oil. As for fuel use, after land transportation, there are still ships and planes. LNG seems like a good bet for ships until someone figures out a safe compact nuclear option. LNG might work for planes too, if one can make the tanks light enough. Better materials could help with that. Eventually maybe batteries will get good enough. Until then, my bet for planes is on methanol, as I’ve mentioned before.
Oil will still be used for chemicals for quite a while. Coal and methane can be used for that too but oil is the most convenient. There are ways to make them from CO2 but that typically requires cheap energy to make hydrogen from water and to capture the CO2. Currently it’s cheaper to make hydrogen and CO/CO2 from the fossil fuels.As technology improves advanced carbon materials like graphene etc will also need a carbon source. But those often favor methane over oil.As for fuel use after land transportation there are still ships and planes. LNG seems like a good bet for ships until someone figures out a safe compact nuclear option. LNG might work for planes too if one can make the tanks light enough. Better materials could help with that. Eventually maybe batteries will get good enough. Until then my bet for planes is on methanol as I’ve mentioned before.
No, it’s not. It takes about 3 cents to send 30 kw-hr of natural gas 1000 miles in pipelines. It costs 3.2 cents per kw-hr to transport electricity 500 miles via 500 kv AC lines. All numbers from EIA.
“No moron, they are only observing the oil price is going up, the idea of peak oil has nothing to do with that fact. ”
Peak Oil said the same thing. Please learn of the topic which you troll about.
“And because most of our exportable petrocarbon is natural gas, that won’t do a damn thing”
Where have you been? We are the number one OIL exporter now. And by this time next year, we will be a NET oil exporter. Nat Gas has nothing to do with this topic.
“they are clearing a profit now”
PROVE IT! Let’s see the bank statements? No? Then this is as fake as one of our emails you cooked up claiming came from me blah, blah, blah.
“Short selling is desperate, not intense. ”
Wrong
“before the Model 3’s success is undeniable”
Hahahahahahah
Why does that matter, when the fluid for example in a lead/acid battery is already real fugly?
” Its Peak Oil BS all over again. ” <-- No moron, they are only observing the oil price is going up, the idea of peak oil has nothing to do with that fact. " the US can simply re-instate the oil export ban " <-- And because most of our exportable petrocarbon is natural gas, that won't do a damn thing. " Tesla will be luck to be around in 2022. And it won't end the age of oil. " <-- You will be broke before Tesla is, they are clearing a profit now. The falling cost of batteries is the end of gasoline as a personal vehicle fuel. " When it comes ... experienced market players. " <-- If word one of what you'd said was true you'd have a point. " They know Tesla is led by a CEO whose social media strategies mirror a broadly-disliked president. They know Tesla’s ... already so intense. " <-- Short selling is desperate, not intense. If they can't drive down the stock enough before the Model 3's success is undeniable, they lose big. Your conspiracy theories about DC "coming for" Silicon Valley have no more reality tot hem than your insistence DC will nationalize SpaceX. You are a bullshitter all the more pathetic because you actually believe all a lot of your own FUD. The fundamental thing is, Tesla is making the best BEVs in their classes, and batteries are only becoming better. So you lose.
A bit of a shortfall in the understanding of economics. As more and more electrics take to the road the demand for oil will decrease…that means the price for fuel will also decrease…to a point. My guess is that most new internal combustion will turn to natural gas or propane, as there is a critical mass that oil needs. And as gasoline becomes used less and less, there may be a push for biobutanol or something like it to replace what remains of the gasoline market. Those drivers may have to pay quite a bit more. But as they would be a minority, the majority would feel no pain themselves and vote it in. Another thing to consider is that cars last quite a while. If if we stopped making them today, half of those cars could still be on the road in 20 years. I am just saying the transition will take quite a bit of time…but may be accelerated at some point by State laws
A bit of a shortfall in the understanding of economics. As more and more electrics take to the road the demand for oil will decrease…that means the price for fuel will also decrease…to a point.My guess is that most new internal combustion will turn to natural gas or propane as there is a critical mass that oil needs. And as gasoline becomes used less and less there may be a push for biobutanol or something like it to replace what remains of the gasoline market. Those drivers may have to pay quite a bit more. But as they would be a minority the majority would feel no pain themselves and vote it in.Another thing to consider is that cars last quite a while. If if we stopped making them today half of those cars could still be on the road in 20 years.I am just saying the transition will take quite a bit of time…but may be accelerated at some point by State laws
Driverless electric cars combined with ride-sharing will likely become the main type of commuter transport before 2030 so instead expect 15 years to end of age of oil.
Driverless electric cars combined with ride-sharing will likely become the main type of commuter transport before 2030 so instead expect 15 years to end of age of oil.
Fully agree. In addition as EV’s have a longer lives, less cars need to be manufactured
Fully agree. In addition as EV’s have a longer lives less cars need to be manufactured
“As the oil price goes up to $100-120 per barrel,”
Its Peak Oil BS all over again.
Oh, and if it were to go that high, the US can simply re-instate the oil export ban. Then oil prices in the use will drop to $80 or less while the rest of the world’s will skyrocket.
“There was 2015 discussion of Tesla and ending the age of oil.”
Tesla will be luck to be around in 2022. And it won’t end the age of oil.
When it comes to evolving ethics in a dynamic regulatory environment, most investors go with what they know. They know Tesla is a badly-run company that has yet to figure out how to move metal around its own factory floor. They know Tesla has almost never met a production goal. They know Tesla cannot break into the mass market (the cheapest available Model3 is at fifty grand, with the subsidy). They know Tesla’s technology and materials science is insufficient to its goals. They know Tesla faces stiff, rising competition from more experienced market players.
They know Tesla is led by a CEO whose social media strategies mirror a broadly-disliked president. They know Tesla’s CEO has bet the firm’s future on a political ideology that provides subsidies that will not last. They know Tesla’s CEO sees no problem cross-subsidizing the firms of family members. And they know Tesla’s CEO has settled with the SEC on charges of stock manipulation which cost the firm that has never made a profit $20 million. There is no shortage of preexisting business norms and regulations that could bring Tesla down. Should the investment community ever believe Washington is coming for Silicon Valley, they will ditch the weak players first. It doesn’t get weaker than Tesla – ergo why the short-selling of Tesla is already so intense.
It’s still a lot cheaper to transport electricity than it does to transport oil, natural gas, or hydrogen. It truly will be the Century of Electricity.
I think people underestimate the interaction effect of battery electric vehicles plus ridesharing. Even without autonomy, with a car like a $35k Tesla Model 3, TCO for a ridesharing operator is pretty attractive. Costs for ridersharing will fall, adoption will increase and as a result a relatively small number of cars can displace a significant amount of oil demand from passenger vehicles. As and when autonomy matures, the trend will dramatically accelerate, as the economics of shared use vehicles becomes highly disruptive, and we’ll start to see it used extensively in road freight as well.
I think people underestimate the interaction effect of battery electric vehicles plus ridesharing. Even without autonomy with a car like a $35k Tesla Model 3 TCO for a ridesharing operator is pretty attractive. Costs for ridersharing will fall adoption will increase and as a result a relatively small number of cars can displace a significant amount of oil demand from passenger vehicles. As and when autonomy matures the trend will dramatically accelerate as the economics of shared use vehicles becomes highly disruptive and we’ll start to see it used extensively in road freight as well.
Hmmmm. I wonder what the 1E6/ml of bacterial cells per 0.2μm pore-size-filtered seawater think about your seawater battery plans….
Boeing has already tested biofuels in airplanes. It works fine. Jet engines are not picky about fuel, because the compressor section makes the incoming air very hot, and most everything will burn on contact with it. Biodiesel is already used on the ground, and it comes from soybeans and the like, so it is renewable.
Unwanted corrosion is also an issue. But if you’re asking about the hydrogen-generating chemicals, those tend to react violently with water, and need special handling to exclude moisture.
As Tom said, batteries do involve controlled (and sometimes reversible) corrosion of at least one of the electrodes (usually the anode).
Yes — the same as any battery.
Don’t you mean corrosion?
There may be ways to electrify ships using seawater. Especially smaller ships. Seawater batteries come to mind, or various chemicals that release hydrogen upon contact with water, but these options don’t seem to be very developed so far. The latter especially has challenges with storage, handling, and waste streams.
Oil will still be used for chemicals for quite a while. Coal and methane can be used for that too, but oil is the most convenient. There are ways to make them from CO2, but that typically requires cheap energy to make hydrogen from water and to capture the CO2. Currently it’s cheaper to make hydrogen and CO/CO2 from the fossil fuels.
As technology improves, advanced carbon materials like graphene etc will also need a carbon source. But those often favor methane over oil.
As for fuel use, after land transportation, there are still ships and planes. LNG seems like a good bet for ships until someone figures out a safe compact nuclear option. LNG might work for planes too, if one can make the tanks light enough. Better materials could help with that. Eventually maybe batteries will get good enough. Until then, my bet for planes is on methanol, as I’ve mentioned before.
A bit of a shortfall in the understanding of economics. As more and more electrics take to the road the demand for oil will decrease…that means the price for fuel will also decrease…to a point.
My guess is that most new internal combustion will turn to natural gas or propane, as there is a critical mass that oil needs. And as gasoline becomes used less and less, there may be a push for biobutanol or something like it to replace what remains of the gasoline market. Those drivers may have to pay quite a bit more. But as they would be a minority, the majority would feel no pain themselves and vote it in.
Another thing to consider is that cars last quite a while. If if we stopped making them today, half of those cars could still be on the road in 20 years.
I am just saying the transition will take quite a bit of time…but may be accelerated at some point by State laws
Driverless electric cars combined with ride-sharing will likely become the main type of commuter transport before 2030 so instead expect 15 years to end of age of oil.
Fully agree. In addition as EV’s have a longer lives, less cars need to be manufactured
I think people underestimate the interaction effect of battery electric vehicles plus ridesharing. Even without autonomy, with a car like a $35k Tesla Model 3, TCO for a ridesharing operator is pretty attractive. Costs for ridersharing will fall, adoption will increase and as a result a relatively small number of cars can displace a significant amount of oil demand from passenger vehicles. As and when autonomy matures, the trend will dramatically accelerate, as the economics of shared use vehicles becomes highly disruptive, and we’ll start to see it used extensively in road freight as well.