We Need to go Faster

We Need to go Faster

Not faster in terms of driving, but in terms of conversion away from ICE engines. We are currently going at a snail's pace in terms of the global vehicle fleet. I can only hope that when TM starts cranking out the M3 that the traditional car companies will make more effort to convert away from ICEs. I very occasionally see a MS or a Leaf up here in Canada, but mostly it's just ICE vehicles. Perhaps things look better in the US.

dansplans | 26 luglio 2016

Don't hold your breath waiting for ICE manufacturers to see the light. There are a huge number of offerings available from the traditional manufacturers, which they do not support, or actually believe in.

The entry level GM ICE vehicle retails for about $10,000. The Hybrid version is $30,000. Which do you think they are encouraging you to buy?

peter123wallace | 26 luglio 2016

ICE will be in store only for enthusiasts in the future. EV/Hybrid will be standard worldwide.

bb0tin | 26 luglio 2016

You are quite correct.
Elon has stated himself that he thought CE manufactures would be moving much faster than they are.
His second Second Master Plan shows that Tesla is now prepared to move as fast as possible.

codyb12889 | 26 luglio 2016

I feel like it will be a very interesting downward spiral that starts for ICEs once the model 3 breaks through the affordability factor and a few other manufacturers get on board giving people more of a feel of choice.

This is absolutely a guess but I feel like we are about 10 - 15 years away from seeing EVs have the majority of the road in the US thanks to the hold that oil has on our economy and our government.

What is really amazing is that just a few short years ago not many people would even imagine the possibility of EVs having the majority of the road.

Currently the average age of cars on the road is about 11.5 years old and is still rising tho at a slower rate than in the past. EVs lead by the M3 have some serious potential to break this trend thanks to cost of ownership offsetting financing cost making them (hopefully) a more viable option for the average consumer once production is closer to a more mainstream capacity. When these factors come together you have potentially a perfect storm for a much faster switch but guessing the mindset of the public on things like this is about like guessing the lottery numbers.

Vehicle age report from the IHS:

press DOT ihs DOT com/press-release/automotive/average-age-light-vehicles-us-rises-slightly-2015-115-years-ihs-reports

grega | 27 luglio 2016

Hard to make things go faster without the government forcing it. Fortunately it's happening in various countries around the world, but still not fast enough, and may not be enough batteries if they went any faster.

I'm glad to see Prius making a more respectable hybrid (Prime?). Only 22 miles EV - but it gives some EV goodness while staying familiar, removing range anxiety, decreasing battery requirements, cheap to run and can charge in an average power socket overnight. Pity it's got a normal engine and not a tiny generator.

Tesla remains a far better choice... but we need lots of companies to make small steps faster.

dansplans | 27 luglio 2016

Now this is a design I can get behind.

Plenty of 100% EV range with a tiny motor for charging only. Most would only ever need the electric range but for a couple long trips a year.

bb0tin | 27 luglio 2016

You said "This is absolutely a guess but I feel like we are about 10 - 15 years away from seeing EVs have the majority of the road in the US..."
You are correct that the majority of new sales will be 100% EV in 10-15 years, but the majority of cars on the road will not be. This is just the math of the situation.

You said "Hard to make things go faster without the government forcing it."
The government will force it. Governments are going to ban new ICE cars starting in 10-15 years. The US will follow. But simple economics and a better choice may make it unnecessary.

bb0tin | 27 luglio 2016

The world needs to be to be 100% fossil free. A hybrid will not get us there.
The battery performance in a few years will make a pure EV cheaper and better than a hybrid anyway.
There will be no market for a hybrid in the future.

dansplans | 27 luglio 2016

I am not in favor of the hybrids that are generally available. I don't understand the rational for underpowering an electric car and cramming almost a full size gasoline engine into it too.

The BMW i3 is different. You could drive it for years without ever using any gas. When it does need some extra range, the tiny engine sips the gas. Not a solution, but a much better transitional idea than the majority of hybrids out there.

dansplans | 27 luglio 2016

BTW this intelligent type of hybrid technology could eliminate range anxiety entirely, which would greatly aid the speedy adoption of an all electric society.

peter123wallace | 27 luglio 2016

Do you people agree that ICE should be permitted for enthusiasts with a special licence?

EcLectric | 27 luglio 2016

Let's be realistic. A government that can force its citizens to drive a certain type of car, even though that car is more expensive or less convenient - has a name: North Korea. And such a government does not allow the creation of enough wealth for many people to have cars at all. So let's forget about the government forcing anything or 'standardizing' on electric propulsion. Electric cars will win when they can beat ICE cars financially. There is no other way.

So how does society achieve this goal - of creating an electric car that will be cheaper to purchase/operate than an ICE car? We create a better battery. Who will create a better battery? An individual who has the education, the desire, and the opportunity to do so. Elon talked about the Gigafactory being the machine that creates the machine. We need to create (or improve) the machine that creates this inventor. We have such machines in the US:

All we can do is make sure these labs are funded, and run by the best possible management. And if you're not happy with the speed of progress, you can always try to come up with a better idea to compete with these labs.

grega | 27 luglio 2016

Hi @EcLectric, borrowing your descriptions I think the government already forces citizens to buy slightly more expensive products that are less convenient. Companies once dumped their waste in the rivers, and that was hugely cost effective and genuinely had no long term downside at a low volume.

But it couldn't happen in bulk at a societal level. The government had to enforce that even though the companies didn't want it. Same as you can't take your personal trash and throw it in the river.

It's not Communistic to enforce that rule. And as long as every company has the same rules there is room for competition and wealth creation.

bb0tin | 27 luglio 2016


EcLectric | 28 luglio 2016


That's quite a stretch. There's quite a difference between "don't wipe out the river for your own convenience" and "you must buy an electric car". My point is that a reasonable government (one that is not totalitarian) can only go so far in influencing what people do. They tried to stop everyone from drinking alcohol in the '20s. How'd that turn out? They tried to get everyone to drive 55 mph. How many people obeyed that law?

You cannot simply legislate (or wish into existence) a better world. And really, a government does not have the right to decide what 'better' means. It IS totalitarian for a government to decide what is 'better' and force the citizens to use some technology against their will.

In the end, yours is not a good comparison because of the numbers. The thousands of people who use the river vs a handful of industrialists with their factories. The industrialists (rightfully) lose. In the case of legislating electric cars, the people will win and the government will lose.

If you want to save the planet, you need to 'win over' people with a compelling electric car, which is why Elon is an industrialist and not a politician.

carlk | 28 luglio 2016


You are absolutely wrong on that. The only reason for a (non-totalitarian) government to exist is for it to take care of society's good. This is to balance the free market system where the driving force is individuals, or individual private enterprises, seeking for their own good. As a necessity that often need to conflict with good of the society. It's not the question of whether government should be involved it's just the question of how to make a "best" balance. Everyone's idea of best balance is different of course but when you say government should not be involved in our life it is just foundamentally wrong.

Every day you get out of bad from the first galss of orange juice you drink and cereal you eat to when you get on the road to drive to work or take public transportation and breath the outside air everything you do has the government involved. Unless you live in a cave by yourself your life can be very miserable if it is not.

And no there is nothing totalitarian about it when the government is elected by all of its citizens. The government is just doing what majority of voters wanted it to do. Using your industrialist Elon's example he would never have gone to where he is today if not for those clean air policies enacted in California by government elected by green leaning voters in the state. Matter of fact neither Tesla nor Prius back then would likely even exist.

dansplans | 28 luglio 2016

The tyranny of the majority can be just as dangerous, and even more harmful than despots and dictators in charge. At least under a dictatorship there is no illusion of choice or free will.

A good example of what I mean is the gross underfunding of school boards in some places. State law may require all tax increase to be voted on before becoming law. (100% democratic notion) Quite often such tax increases are voted down, as those without children see no personal benefit, and act in their own personal, self interest. Money is not allocated. Teachers get laid off to balance the books. Class sizes grow. Education suffers.

A dictator would simply order the hiring of more teachers. Of course, when test scores do not live up to the expectations of the dictator, the teachers could be taken out and shot. That, however, is a discussion for another day.

codyb12889 | 28 luglio 2016

@bb I actually feel like by the 15 year mark seeing electric as a majority on the road (at least in most metro areas) is a possibility.

Some points to why I feel that way:

If you look at the average age of vehicles on the road right now based on the IHS report I feel like we are going to start reaching a high turnover threshold in 3 - 5 years which if all goes according to plan the Model 3 and a few other pure EVs will be in the affordability range with cost of ownership actually making them cheaper than ICEs in the long run. Vehicle purchases are one of the places where a lot of people still really sit down and look at all the numbers.

Ride-sharing apps are already starting to reduce the rate of car ownership and the people working for those ride share apps have huge incentive to switch to EV as that equals a massive increase in profits through expense reduction. I have actually already ran into a couple of ride share drivers that have reservations on M3s but I use ride sharing about 15 - 20 times a month so they seem to represent a small percentage right now but those people are definitely taking notice and evaluating the situation. The potential cost reductions passed on to the customer could also highly influence the reduction of personal ownership. Considering the master plan seems to involve turning the M3 into a fleet of ride sharing cars in a way this could wipe out a very serious amount of ICEs on the road.

The one thing that is very difficult here to predict is the actual adoption rate once affordability is a non factor. Currently you could argue that uptake is being driven by the early adopters and by government incentives and would be completely right. The thing about that is that we could easily see the complacency with ICE vehicles be broken by enough EVs going into circulation.

Unfortunately right now EVs are still somewhat labeled as something for "tree huggers" or what ever label that is slapped on by the people that will deny that pollution is bad and tell you that pumping smog into the air is just fine. In my opinion absolutely the greatest thing Tesla has done up to now is to break a lot of people away from that stigma and make EVs something that can look good, be fun, be affordable (once the M3 lands), be safer, and happen to have a by product of being much cleaner. It is continuing this trend that is going to accelerate adoption in a way that I would argue none of us can even take a shot at guessing right now. Once the M3 production is fully ramped up we will have a much more clear picture of the landscape.

grega | 28 luglio 2016

Hi EcLectric. CarlK has already answered some of what you said but I'll add a bit.

There are many steps between "don't wipe out the river for your own convenience" and "you must buy an electric car", but multiple steps doesn't make them unrelated.

The government is responsible for the big picture (in theory!). Rivers being polluted was not important (mostly) - when it was a small amount of pollutant that got watered down a lot, and sickness downstream was difficult to track. Many people wouldn't have accepted the connection. We got better at that, the government forced regulations that cost companies money and would have increased product prices. Now by default we know when we buy things that they don't destroy our rivers as far as we can tell.***

Cheaper production that threw waste in the river was cheaper. There was no way that letting competition choose the winner would have rewarded the cleaner company, especially if their river pollution was not affecting most of the buyers. So it's okay for the government to enforce a healthier "big picture", it's one of their jobs really. The government ends up having to deal with the sick poor people down stream, those sick poor people still vote, it costs the government money so why shouldn't they find a way of charging the polluters for those costs... some tax that encourages the polluters to do the right thing.

Let competition then have companies trying different ways of doing the right thing. We don't want to tell them how it's done, unfortunately our politicians don't have the know how often. But they should penalise those companies that try to hide doing the wrong thing.

*** some of the Natural Gas leaking out into rivers near CSG Fracking, with claims all around of innocence, is a side issue to the above.

carlk | 28 luglio 2016


I don't understand why you think a dictator will hire more teachers instead of closing schools and put money into his bank account? Not a very logical argument.

dansplans | 28 luglio 2016

@carlk My argument is the illogical one?

bb0tin | 28 luglio 2016

You said "@bb I actually feel like by the 15 year mark seeing electric as a majority on the road (at least in most metro areas) is a possibility."
In certain small metro area by regulation, yes. But not in a global sense, and not in a country like the US. and it is because of simple math.
There were over 1 billion vehicles on the road in 2010. The number of vehicles has been increasing. The vast majority of new cars will be ICE for the next few years. The number of vehicles produced per year is about 100 million. Tesla will not be making a few million per year for several years. So you are likely to not see sales of EV outsell ICE until say at least 2025 i.e. in about 10 years. By then you will have 1.5 billion ICE vehicles on the road. To have EV cars the majority in 15 years you will need to eliminate almost the entire population of ICE cars, i.e. over 1 billion cars, over a period of 5 years. It ain't gonna happen.

codyb12889 | 29 luglio 2016

@bb I am only speaking on the US. Sorry for that confusion.

While as I stated Tesla has opened up EVs in an amazing way I am only saying they are leading the way and the real shift will require other manufacturers joining the trend which we are already seeing begin to happen.

I do not think that regulation is what will make it happen but a breaking down of a few key barriers in the areas of accessibility and social acceptance. Elon and Tesla in general have set these things on a course that goes unbelievably into uncharted area that absolutely no one can say how it is going to play out.

This is something that I would really like to hear your thoughts on what is holding that back, aside from the math, and discuss more in depth the lines of thinking to come up with what is an agreeable forecast of sorts because you do have some counter points to my thinking on the subject. If you want to chat more on it message me at newcarclub AT gmail with your preferred method of talking, which is hopefully skype but I can accommodate whatever.

bb0tin | 29 luglio 2016

I am quite happy discussing it here as it may be of interest to others.

The main problems holding EV's back in the past were:
1) Lack of performance i.e. range and power
2) Lack of choice and desirability
3) They cost more than equivalent ICE vehicles
Tesla have solved all of the above issues, and other manufacturers are slowly doing so.

The issue in the next couple of years is:
1) They still cost more than equivalent ICE vehicles

In about 2017/ 2018 the situation will be:
1) They cost the same or less (lifetime cost is much less) than an equivalent ICE
2) There is not the production capacity to supply the demand

By about 2020 the situation will be:
1) They cost less than the equivalent ICE car
2) There will be even less relative production capacity to supply the demand

The situation after 2020 will be:
Most people will prefer an EV to an ICE but the production capacity will not be there. The economics of battery cost reductions, and simpler and cheaper EV vehicle production should be blindingly obvious to everyone by this stage. But there is the well known 'Disruption Dilemna' stopping the ICE manufactures from doing the inevitable now. There is the lack of appreciation of exponential change by the general population. There is a lack of appreciation of the regulations which will come in force to seriously tax, or prohibit, the purchase of ICE vehicles about 2025-2030. None of this is speculation on my part, it is clearly shown by what is happening now.

The problem is that it takes a long time to create the factories to mass produce the batteries and cars. It takes several years of lead time, unless a world war effort is undertaken. The market, left to it's own devices will not do what is required to satisfy the demand until around 2025. That is why I say that most new sales will be EV in 10-15 years.
But because it will take so long to ramp up production, and because the existing ICE population is so large, and because people want to get their average 10-15 year life out of a new car, most of the vehicle population will not be electric until at least 2035 i.e. 20 years. The caveat is that if the world got it's act together now, these projections could be brought forward many years. Car sharing will reduce the car population significantly, but that will be a gradual effect, and will not have taken place to any significant degree for 10 years.

In summary, the writing is clearly on the wall for ICE cars now. It will not be long before the average consumer would prefer an EV to an ICE. The ICE manufacturers need to start a swift transitioning now, or they will lose the market to new players.

codyb12889 | 29 luglio 2016

I still extend my invitation to talk on these things elsewhere and will happily agree to that conversation being posted in its entirety, I just feel like the forums are a bit non conducive to good conversation thanks to back and forth time as well as a lack of notifications when some one has replied to a comment but we can try to keep it going here.

It seems that most of your argument is centered around production capabilities when going beyond 2017/18 and I have to hugely disagree with you there.

It is no longer a situation of hiring and training hundreds if not thousands of people like assembly lines in the past. You make a good reference to a "world war effort" but technology has come quite a long ways since last time that type of ramp up was even considered. Now production capability is simply limited by if you can get the investors to design and implement robotic equipment which matches your needs and hiring people to fill certain gaps of moving things around to be sure that everything else can run smoothly.

ICE manufacturers experience the same advantages but even now they require more investment on that side thanks to the larger amount of moving parts than an EV has. ICEs have to source these parts and have machines or humans put in place and test. ICEs have already invested billions in reducing this cost of production while very very few companies have even begun to try to apply this process when it comes to EVs because simply put there are few major manufacturers even considering making them yet. This fact alone leads to either a dramatic drop in price or a great increase in profit margins in the very near future for everyone involved in EVs.

As for the battery side of your production argument by most standards you are right and this is the most likely choke point. My main argument there would be the fact that batteries have not changed in their basic principle in quite a few years and even tho lithium mines mostly have plenty to give they have scaled back that mining in an attempt to match demand instead of crashing prices. This is purely speculation but I believe the gigafactory is not meant to attempt to supply 100% of needs but to set an industry standard that the companies who have been around for a while can easily meet in terms of cost and production output. The battery "veterans" are not going to give up profit margin on an idea and can very easily move to meet the qualifications to stay relevant as they have proven the ability to do that more than any other industry in my opinion.

On top of production problems which we can only speculate on you also mention people wanting to get the average 10 - 15 years out of a new car. This average that you say people are looking for is entirely wrong from all the numbers I have. In 2002 the average ownership period for a vehicle was 38 months when combining new and used car purchases. In 2015 ownership hit a record high of roughly 77 months. Most experts agree that this is attributed to a soft economy and the rising cost of purchasing a new car.

Let's not forget that these numbers have been significantly reduced from what they should be by cash for clunkers and a couple of other programs. Those programs took millions of older cars off the road and replaced them with newer cars shifting statistics in at least a meaningful way.

This is my speculation but based on new car sales numbers for the year of 2016 and on the shift in stats one could easily say that we have never had a time where the general population of the US is more anxious to purchase a new vehicle assuming their conditions fit. When it comes to ICEs the purchasing scenario only stand to get worse as prices are driven up by labor costs, taxes, rising interest rates, and other factors as well as the price of gas being back on the climb increasing the overall cost of ownership. At the same time EVs have a significant opportunity to capitalize on technology and optimizations in manufacturing that were discovered and implemented by the ICE makers to be able to win strongly in both purchase price and cost of ownership.

What we have is a perfect storm for EVs to make a move and as more ICE makers make a shift on at least a few models those production problems become less and less as companies move in to fill gaps as quickly as possible. I would say that the gigafactory is an attempt to monopolize car companies attempting to jump into EVs but this is pure speculation.

All in all we basically agree on everything besides for the production side which you are kind of the devil's advocate to my optimism. You may be already an expert in this but I hope you will take a look at the currently available robotic solutions and what the lead times are on an established process and come back and say if you think that time is shorter or longer than you estimate it as now because I feel like that is the only place we really differ.

bb0tin | 29 luglio 2016

You said "It seems that most of your argument is centered around production capabilities when going beyond 2017/18 and I have to hugely disagree with you there."
Correct. Current ICE production is 100 million cars a year. Tesla will produce about 700,00 in 2018 and perhaps 1-2 million in 2020. No other car manufacturer has plans anywhere near this i.e. EV production will be about 1% of ICE production in 2020.

You said "It is no longer a situation of hiring and training hundreds if not thousands of people like assembly lines in the past."
It is not a matter of the number of workers. It is a matter of how long a lead time it takes to create a factory and production line, never mind the design phase. It is taking Tesla years to get the Model 3 into production. Add that lead time to the fact that no ICE manufacturer has mentioned any intention to mass produce EVs by 2020, and you can see that there is no way that we will have the required mass production of EVs to meet demand in 2020.

You said "On top of production problems which we can only speculate on you also mention people wanting to get the average 10 - 15 years out of a new car. This average that you say people are looking for is entirely wrong from all the numbers I have..."
You are looking at it the wrong way. An owner who gets another car after a few years expects to sell their existing car to another owner, thus that car stays in the population of cars. This continues from owner to owner until the car reaches an average age of 10-15 years. This means that roughly half the cars are still on the road 10-15 years after they are produced. You would not consider that the average house is removed from the housing pool after the average ownership period, and the same applies to cars.

You said "What we have is a perfect storm for EVs to make a move and as more ICE makers make a shift on at least a few models those production problems become less and less as companies move in to fill gaps as quickly as possible."
I totally agree with the perfect storm, as I described in my previous post. The issue is twofold. Firstly, the car manufacturers are not ramping, have expressed no interest in ramping, and now cannot ramp, quickly enough to satisfy the demand for EVs in 2020. Secondly, as I have said, the existing pool of ICE cars is so large that it will take decades to remove them. Even if every new car sold today was an EV, it will still take about 10 years before half the vehicles are EVs. This is simply the math.

You said "All in all we basically agree on everything besides for the production side which you are kind of the devil's advocate to my optimism."
Produce your numbers and convince me that your optimism is possible to play out :-)

Tesla-David | 29 luglio 2016

I would recommend watching this youtube lecture by Tony Seba entitled (Clean Disruption - Why Energy & Transportation will be Obsolete by 2030 - Oslo, March 2016). It addresses timelines for EV adoption and displacement of ICE vehicles. I found it to be very informative and worthwhile.

EcLectric | 29 luglio 2016


Let me first say that I enjoy a nice respectable debate. Let's keep it civil.

My argument is that people have the things that make life pleasant because of science, and not because of the government. We are talking about an advancement like clean power - energy use that doesn't turn our world into a polluted, unpleasant, unstable place to live. I believe the solution to this particular problem lies in science and individuals. Governments themselves do not make scientific advancements and never have. No fundamental advancement has come about through a committee. Advancements were made and inspired by individuals, such as Tesla, Edison, Lavoisier, Fleming, Einstein.

Sure, a government can help provide funding and other resources required to allow individuals to invent or study (as can a business), but you cannot force advancements by government edict. And you can't change reality by holding hands and wishing it were so (the pentagon never left the ground, I swear).

So I repeat. The government can fund research or nudge people to try something with temporary incentives, but it cannot legislate (force) people to drive electric cars.

EcLectric | 29 luglio 2016

By the way, I think in the end, the government will have helped electric cars to win by funding the DOE.

dansplans | 29 luglio 2016

well said EcLectric

I would add that inertia is one of the most powerful forces in the universe, and there will be a number of people who will always believe that ICE vehicles are superior, no matter the facts.

The other seemingly ignored factor here, seems to be the push back that will occur from the existing car cabals. Tesla will be attacked directly, and much more severely than has occurred thus far. To date Tesla has been nothing more than a rounding error to the profits of big auto.

GM is already trying to get at Tesla's breakfast with the Bolt. GM will have a 1-2 year running head start on the model 3, and if the Bolt is hugely successful, could severely hamper the model 3's early market share and success.

bb0tin | 29 luglio 2016

You said "but it cannot legislate (force) people to drive electric cars."
It can, and they will. They do it by taxing or banning ICE cars. This is already happening with banning diesel, it is already happening by banning cars which are older than a certain date, it is already happening by taxing cars based on emissions, and it will happen by banning the purchase of ICE cars.

bb0tin | 29 luglio 2016

You said "GM will have a 1-2 year running head start on the model 3, and if the Bolt is hugely successful, could severely hamper the model 3's early market share and success."
The Bolt will only have a 1 year head start.
The Bolt is scheduled to sell in the tens of thousands. The Model 3 is scheduled to sell in the hundreds of thousands to millions i.e. 10X to 100X the Bolt. It does not matter how 'successful' the Bolt is, it will not impact the Model 3 to any degree that is cared about.

codyb12889 | 29 luglio 2016

@Tesla-David good video thanks for the link.


You are going based on the idea that by default a large amount of ICEs will stay in circulation which is where we disagree. Ride sharing apps and even the ride sharing model presented by Elon stand to destroy the demand for cheap cars significantly demeaning the ability for those ICEs to stay in circulation. This is exactly why expanding the ride share idea is a large part of "the master plan". Currently in big cities the cost of using ride sharing versus owning a car is at a tipping point. EVs taking over the ride share area will drop those prices making car ownership some thing that people do not need by necessity and pay a premium to have.

insurancejournal DOT com/news/national/2015/05/19/368711.htm

As ride sharing continues to take over the growth it creates in EVs just based on the economics of that business is astonishing and creates a growth curve that quickly becomes exponential.

With that being said it does come back to the production problems you spoke of before but I stand by my argument that lead times are no where near what they use to be. I would also point out that overall demand being reduced by more optimal use of vehicles solves a good deal of this problem.

bb0tin | 29 luglio 2016

I am not disagreeing with the changes coming.
I am disagreeing with the magnitude and speed of those changes from a purely math perspective.
I gave the numbers which I believe support the time frame I specified.
Would you supply the numbers which you believe support the time frame that you specified.

codyb12889 | 30 luglio 2016


I think Tesla-Davids video does a FAR better job of explaining it than I can and is based the same premises that I am going on.

My link from above

insurancejournal DOT com/news/national/2015/05/19/368711.htm

I linked this above as a reference to the ownership situation but there are so many differing opinions and numbers on the long term effects that I can only say to find the decline numbers you feel like are the most true and apply those to your math. With less purchasing more ICEs go to the scrap yard instead of back on the road.

This idea would require some adjustment in your math to remove the idea that the ICEs that are replaced are guaranteed to stay on the road with another owner which very much would have been the situation in the past.

If you apply those declines in ownership with the growth of ride share drivers looking to be as economic as possible with EVs I think you would see your estimate at least come closer to mine.

If you have not done it grab an Uber somewhere and talk with the driver about how busy they are and what their thoughts are on EVs and the growth of ride sharing. Nothing beats on the ground human interaction. I can say that out of talking with a couple hundred of them spread out between a few states and on both coasts I have seen a direct correlation between how much they work and how informed they are on EVs as well as how likely they are to buy one just to continue driving ride share. The interesting thing there is that also correlates to just how many cars they are taking off the road by being 1 driver transporting 10 - 20 or more people per day.

bb0tin | 30 luglio 2016

I have read the article you linked to and it does not support your time frame.
I gave the numbers which I believe support the time frame I specified.
Would you supply the numbers which you believe support the time frame that you specified.

grega | 30 luglio 2016

I agree that autonomous uber and ModelX buses are a big step in ushering in more efficient transport and wide adoption of EVs. It'll be slower than we want but such is life.

The other side effect I wonder about is the impact on trains. Naturally what I want is door to door convenience of my own car. But what if a tesla app organised a car to pick me up and drop me at my nearby train station (which is a faster trip to the city), including train ticket, and when I get off ANOTHER tesla is ready to take me the last part of my journey?

How big a side effect in increased popularity of mass transit do we see?

EcLectric | 1 agosto 2016


I know on your planet they have banned diesels and old cars.... but this is earth! You must not get around much. I drive behind diesel trucks, school buses and cars (ever heard of the US Volkswagen emissions scandal?) every day. I live in the US, but I've been all over the world and in most of it, there are no such bans. And I'm not saying its impossible to influence what people drive. My point is that unless driving electric cars is compelling - people won't allow the government to ban every other option.

Before you reply, please look up the meaning of the word 'ban'. It doesn't mean 'to discourage'.

bb0tin | 1 agosto 2016

You said "there are no such bans"
Your statement is utterly false as you could have determined for yourself if you had bothered.
Please do some research. You may like to start with Paris.

You said "Before you reply, please look up the meaning of the word 'ban'. It doesn't mean 'to discourage'."
I suggest you google 'paris ban diesel'
It would be nice that you would then acknowledge that your statements are incorrect, but I doubt you will do so.

nick.thorley | 1 agosto 2016

I think plugin hybrids would be the best in the short term. It would give people the opportunity to mainly use electric but also give them that security of 300 - 500 mile range based on fuel for the times when charging stations arent large enough or available to recharge. Over time people would learn to adapt to EV's better making the eventual transition much easier.

bb0tin | 2 agosto 2016

You were correct in the past, but not no longer. I too saw hybrids as a short term solution but that time has passed. We cannot afford to keep putting ICE cars on the road which have a average lifetime of 10-15 years. The economics of a pure electric car are better than a hybrid car. If the ICE manufacturers would abandon hybrid and ICE development ASAP, everyone will be better off, including those ICE manufacturers.

grega | 2 agosto 2016

No, if in some alternate universe we decided to immediately use every bit of battery capacity to switch as many new cars as possible to electric, we'd only concert a small portion for 10 years.

Far better to have 3 times that volume of mostly electric cars with 1/4 the electric range plus extender ICEs. It would speed the transition and reduce the "outrage".

But we don't live in that alternate place of course.

bb0tin | 2 agosto 2016

You appear not to have read my post properly.
I said 'abandon development' not 'abandon production'
Perhaps you would like to post again after you have reconsidered.

dansplans | 2 agosto 2016

I posted this before. It is NOT a hybrid. Tiny gas powered generator for peace of mind only.

Plenty of 100% EV range with a tiny motor for charging only. Most would only ever need the electric range but for a couple long trips a year.

dansplans | 2 agosto 2016

Oh and BMW will loan you an ICE car for free if you want to take an extended road trip but fear for your ability to find chargers etc.

grega | 2 agosto 2016

@bb0tin I read your post correctly.
We both realise there aren't enough batteries to go around, this necessitating non Electric options for a while.

I'm arguing that an EREV (not a hybrid) is a quicker path. Need to develop more EREVs short term. But mid term the IcE has to go.

finman100 | 2 agosto 2016

So it uses two fuels? that's a hybrid. and it has a tailpipe? and a tank for liquid well as a battery for propulsion? that's a hybrid.

EVs are no gas no oil. ever. period.

bb0tin | 2 agosto 2016

Yoiu said "We both realise there aren't enough batteries to go around, this necessitating non Electric options for a while."
That is why they need to develop them ASAP.

You said "I'm arguing that an EREV (not a hybrid) is a quicker path."
Please explain how it is quicker than going straight to fully electric.
Please explain what path you are talking about. If you are talking about Climate Change action then the answer is now no.

EcLectric | 2 agosto 2016


I said "in most of it (the world) the are no such bans".

Paris may be a big city, but I don't think it qualifies as 'most of the world'. The city did manage to pass a ban on pre-1997 cars during certain hours during the week. I didn't see any reference to a diesel ban going into effect.

I think you and I agree on the direction things will go. We disagree on the tone and the order of things. I don't like the tone of a statement that means:

"The smart people in the government will decide what is best for people and then force them all to drive a certain kind of car, whether or not there is a suitable technology available for that car or not."

I prefer the statement:

"The people of Paris have gotten tired of air pollution and have decided to ban older cars, which produce a huge amount of pollution vs newer cars that have smog controls. In deference to people with 'classic cars', the ban only includes commute hours - to discourage people from commuting in their classics."

The first statement is how I read your post, and why I responded the way I did.

I agree with the Paris ban, but it is much more limited in scope than you implied, and it is a looooong way from legislating the use of electric cars.

grega | 2 agosto 2016

Yes a EREV is a specific type of hybrid. At its core it's an EV - it functions entirely on electric for a sizeable number of miles, it's judged on its EV performance alone, and requires battery & motor expertise to make it work well. But when it's driving further it has a generator for that.

So yes a hybrid, but not like a Prius which is at its core an ICEV (with electric assistance).

@bbotin - how is going EREV quicker than straight to EV?

Okay 60 million cars made a year, and the gigafactory was going to enable 500,000 by doubling worldwide battery production. Meaning the world can make a million cars as 200-mile EVs (though we should remember that those existing batteries are already being used too).

Anyway, lets assume all the batteries are for cars, and just for illustration lets say we had a little more than double the quantities actually available up front. And double production every 2 years? I propose that this is all a stretch we won't see (but wish we could!).

Path 1: EV direct - battery 200miles
2017 - enough batteries for 1.2 million cars. 2% of cars EV
2019 2.4million cars, 4%
2021 8%
2023 16%
2025 32%
2027 64%
2029 All cars EV.

Path 1: EV90 (EV 90% of the time, ICE range extender 10%) - battery 100 miles

2017 - enough batteries for 2.4 million cars. 4% of cars EV90s
2019 4.8million cars, 8%
2021 16%
2023 32%
2025 64%
2027 All cars EV.

That's just an example.
* EVs 90% of the time would mean that 10% of the time it's an ICEV producing CO2
* twice as many EV90s as EVs is not twice as good for the environment - more like 1.8times in terms of CO2
* EV90 removes all range anxiety without requiring any infrastructure up front.
* EV tech requires manufacturers to develop good battery tech and motors
* ICE engines are well understood by manufacturers and mechanics, plenty of support
* allows lower kW charging at home (cheaper installation of charger technology)

I don't think we can have exponential battery growth, but it wouldn't be linear either. If I'd said we'll linearly build 4 gigafactories a year (2 million extra cars a year) and start with 2 million cars a year in 2017, it'd take 30 years to get all EV or 15 years to get EREV - which makes EREV substantially quicker. I'm not trying to be perfect in my prediction, just illustrate why EREVs can be better for the environment more quickly even in the most optimistic of battery growth scenarios.

If EREV are 90% electric then that's a lot better for the climate while ever every battery is being drafted into car usage. You could even make the batteries 1/3 the size (70 mile) and get triple the EREV vs EV ratio with further environmental gain.