Lithium–air battery, they could make electric cars practical.

215 posts / 0 new
Last post
Bort
Bort's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 15 sec ago
Joined: 06/01/2012 - 17:15
Posts: 9115
Location: Holding the proverbial flashlight

scrumpypaul wrote:
I’m quite interested in this topic. Currently running a Honda Jazz 1.2 litre which is now ten years old. It has been a reliable car. I’ve covered 131,000 miles in that time. My MPG is around 50, give or take. I drive very gently. Most of my driving is the short (12-14 miles) commute to go to work or collect my children. The most miles I do in a jaunt is maybe up to 50 miles round trip, rarely more than that when I think about it, though I may do a couple of these length trips in a single day. Next month I retire, so taking away my journey to work, my mileage is going to drop substantially, I reckon to around 8,000-10,000 miles per year.

Anyway, I bought the car new, it cost me around £9,000 ($12,000).

On the basis of my MPG, the fuel over the decade (looking at roughly £1.15-£1.20 per litre or so) is around £14,000 ($19,000) – that figure is variable, bearing in mind fluctuations of fuel costs.

Car tax is £100 a year, so £1,000 ($1,350)

I’ll not include annual servicing costs or usual tyre changes etc, neither will I include any one-off repair costs I’ve had to do because that is just the luck of the draw. Neither will I include whatever my car is worth now.

So, without these costs, my 131,000 miles have cost me £24,000. Call it $32,000.

When I think of these costs, an electric car such as the Nissan Leaf starts to become attractive. I can get a deal through work where a Leaf is (after a £499 / $650 deposit) £199 / $262 per month. They will fit a fast charger at my home. This will be for three years then I can either hand back the car or give them about £10,000 ($13,200) and the car is mine. So the three years would be £7,663 ($10,000) – if I was to keep the car then it would cost me £17,663 ($23,200). This is on the basis of (in those three years) 6,000 miles per year. Extra miles are 10p / 13c per mile. Of course, if I buy the car after three years then I can do as many miles as I like in it. According to the blurb, the Leaf costs around 2p per mile, so if I did 131,000 miles it would cost me £2,620 ($3,500) in fuel. Grand total is just over £20,000 ($26,500), not including the servicing or other ad-hoc costs.

My thoughts are to maybe, potentially keep my little Jazz for those longer journeys and have something like a Leaf as my day to day car.

Certainly, the sums start to make sense. By the way, EV’s don’t pay car tax in the UK.

So over ten years, my costs would be around £3,000 ($4,000) less than even my very frugal Jazz.

Food for thought.

SP


EV cost of ownership has been calculated by many experts and basically a Model 3 will beat a Toyota Yaris for lifetime ownership cost. The more miles you drive the more you will save.
Arguing with naysayers is pointless, i’ll bet similar arguments were used with the horse drawn carriage, but suffice it say they lost. The best way to retire gasoline is not to argue facts with entrenched positions, its to help get EVs on the market, buy them and let creative destruction handle the rest because it will, the EV is a superior product.

The Journal of Alternative Facts

"It is critical that there is a credible academic source for the growing and important discipline of Alternative Facts. This field of study will just keep winning, and we knew that all the best people would want to be on board. There is a real risk in the world today that people might be getting their information about science from actual scientists."

 

RollerBoySE
RollerBoySE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: 12/13/2014 - 11:23
Posts: 1034
Location: Sweden
mattheww wrote:
The commuter argument sounds great until you actually try to live with it. The reality is that even vehicles that are used almost exclusively for travel to/from work, are occasionally asked to make long journeys. A vehicle incapable of making those trips is worth a lot less than one that is capable of making them. If you own such a vehicle, what do you do when you need to travel more than a couple hundred miles? You have two choices, and neither is good. You can wait for the batteries to be recharged (and that implies a 4-8 hour wait) along the way, or you can rent a vehicle that is capable of such a trip (expensive). That expense is likely to be several hundred dollars because odds are if you are going that far, it isn’t a day trip. So the so called commuter vehicle for most potential customers will result in a substantial outlay for a rental at regular (although hopefully infrequent) intervals. That vastly diminishes the value of the short range vehicle.

That is exactly why Tesla is the only viable electric vehicle alternative for most customers. They have built a network of “SuperChargers” (80% of full charge in half an hour), which makes it practical to travel longer distances with their vehicles.

So far the price of a Tesla have prohibited normal people from buying one, hopefully that will change with the upcoming model 3.

Rufusbduck
Rufusbduck's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 day ago
Joined: 04/04/2012 - 15:34
Posts: 10401
Location: Golden state

sidecross wrote:
Rufusbduck

Problem solving is a grade above most work.

The concept of a “Paradigm Shift” first written about by Thomas Kuhn in 1962 has yet to be fully used in how we do or could do everyday tasks.


My personal experiences back you up. My apologies to all if I come across as a heavy but it’s depressing how much like lemmings we are in the face of the obvious. It’s not just the science that needs to overcome but social inertia. I’m just as guilty as anyone when it comes to living down to immediate desires instead of up to my ideals. That level of self awareness seems only found in Saints and enlightened Mystics. I’m too impatient, thinking we should be further along than we are given how long the problem has been known of.

Three Tanna leaves to give him life, nine to give him movement. But what if he eats the whole bag?

Scott

SawMaster
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/03/2015 - 17:18
Posts: 1802
Location: SC USA

One solution I’ve been calling for is long-distance automotive rail trans-shipment. They’re doing it with cargo containers so why not cars? If we set up an infrastructure to support it, you could go coast-to-coast as fast as you can drive it without driving. On arrival you need no rental car and you have scads of cargo space compared to flying or normal bus and train travel, plus you load/unload just once each. A similar system could be made for express inter-city service like SF to LA. Comfortable coaches for the people and sleeper cars on the longer runs. Kind of like using an ocean ferry service. Part of the infrastructure is already there; it would give the rail industry a financial boost which could be used to upgrade and modernize their track systems for faster more efficient service for everything.

Another is creating something like ‘landports’ at the edges of large cities . Like airports, but busses or light rail instead. Park in a secure lot, then relax as you go to nearly where you’re headed stress-free. At the inner terminals you have taxis, short route busses, bike rentals etc. As the town grows, the now much more valuable land is sold at a profit and the ‘landport’ moves further out.

The biggest part of the problem in the US is the low occupancy rate of cars- just 1.2 people per car. That could be doubled cutting road congestion in half, halving infrastructure wear and pollution at the same time. Construction folks have been carpooling like that for ages when working out-of-town jobs, each person doing one week driving their car, then riding till their turn comes around again. Carpooling works but almost nobody does it- why? And as we see on driving videos, lots of oriental places use motor scooters which could be given their own lanes and now you’ve got 4 people where there were 1.2 before. Combine scooter rental with landports and trail trans-shipment and you’ve cut down traffic to the point where our current infrastructure will be adequate for the foreseeable future and the money spent on building yet more roads can go toward better things instead. And none of this prevents you from driving your own car if you want to so there’s no ‘loss of freedom’, but more of it instead. All eminently do-able right now with no need for more technology and making it far easier to implement the new technologies as they arrive since there’s less it needs to be applied to.

The things which are good for the majority will happen either willingly or they will be forced on us. Which way that happens is our choice. EV’s and new battery technology can be put to use right now to great effect even if it won’t be universal but we’re going to have to change our ways a little to best benefit from it.

Phil

sidecross
sidecross's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: 10/31/2015 - 18:55
Posts: 711
Location: North America

SawMaster wrote:
One solution I’ve been calling for is long-distance automotive rail trans-shipment.

I remember reading that rail transport is second only to the bicycle as the most efficient use of energy when measuring energy in to energy needed.

The U.S. made a tactical error in developing our highway system while ignoring the rail system.

“You must have a plan, if you don’t have a plan, you will become part of someone else’s plan.” Terence McKenna

SawMaster
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/03/2015 - 17:18
Posts: 1802
Location: SC USA
sidecross wrote:
The U.S. made a tactical error in developing our highway system while ignoring the rail system.

Absolutely. Europe has lots of high-speed rail that gets heavily used, we have nearly none. Another lost opportunity which has bitten us in the butt.

Phil

RollerBoySE
RollerBoySE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: 12/13/2014 - 11:23
Posts: 1034
Location: Sweden

sidecross wrote:
SawMaster wrote:
One solution I’ve been calling for is long-distance automotive rail trans-shipment.

I remember reading that rail transport is second only to the bicycle as the most efficient use of energy when measuring energy in to energy needed.

The U.S. made a tactical error in developing our highway system while ignoring the rail system.

That is true, but ONLY for densely populated areas like the central parts of western Europe. The USA is however NOT densely populated, so the relatively low cost highway system have served the country well. And with new technology like self driving electric vehicles it will be an asset in the future too.

What is needed though is heavy investment in modern clean electric production, like nuclear and solar cells. Oil/gas/coal just won’t cut in the future.

Bort
Bort's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 15 sec ago
Joined: 06/01/2012 - 17:15
Posts: 9115
Location: Holding the proverbial flashlight

RollerBoySE wrote:
sidecross wrote:
SawMaster wrote:
One solution I’ve been calling for is long-distance automotive rail trans-shipment.

I remember reading that rail transport is second only to the bicycle as the most efficient use of energy when measuring energy in to energy needed.

The U.S. made a tactical error in developing our highway system while ignoring the rail system.

That is true, but ONLY for densely populated areas like the central parts of western Europe. The USA is however NOT densely populated, so the relatively low cost highway system have served the country well. And with new technology like self driving electric vehicles it will be an asset in the future too.

What is needed though is heavy investment in modern clean electric production, like nuclear and solar cells. Oil/gas/coal just won’t cut in the future.


Nuclear is far too expensive. Solar and wind have now destroyed it in cost.
Someone made the argument that a carbon tax would actually make nuclear attractive since the CO2 offset credits it generates would add to its bottom line and make it profitable. So ironically republicans have done us a favour because as plants retire no one will be willing to pay to replace them since the economics are underwater.

The Journal of Alternative Facts

"It is critical that there is a credible academic source for the growing and important discipline of Alternative Facts. This field of study will just keep winning, and we knew that all the best people would want to be on board. There is a real risk in the world today that people might be getting their information about science from actual scientists."

 

mattheww
mattheww's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 2 months ago
Joined: 05/06/2014 - 08:52
Posts: 185
Location: SW Pennsylvania

And of course cheap Nuclear Fusion power has been ‘just around the corner’ for 50+ years now. We have spent billions trying to develop it, but a commercial system is still decades away as far as I can tell. I expect we will see renewables rendering fusion uncompetitive long before there is a commercially viable fusion based energy system. If we had invested half as much money in Solar as we have in Fusion, solar would have a much larger ‘footprint’ than it has today.

Rufusbduck
Rufusbduck's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 day ago
Joined: 04/04/2012 - 15:34
Posts: 10401
Location: Golden state

In 2013 a 5 year test began using Thorium-MOX in a conventional nuclear power plant. This is the article I found. Pretty nifty. Normally a fission reactor is supplied with enriched uranium and has very nasty plutonium as a by product. Thorium-MOX has 10% plutonium and very little waste so it actually uses up the waste from early generation reactors. Lockheed Martin Skunk Works is working on a Compact fusion reactor. “New fusion reactor” search leads to more articles on this.

Three Tanna leaves to give him life, nine to give him movement. But what if he eats the whole bag?

Scott

JamesB
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 5 days ago
Joined: 08/24/2011 - 14:43
Posts: 1025
Location: France
Bort wrote:
Nuclear is far too expensive. Solar and wind have now destroyed it in cost.

I wish solar would be more ubiquitous but among other reasons (grid etc..) cost is still not an avantage compared to nuclear in a lot of places.

RollerBoySE
RollerBoySE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: 12/13/2014 - 11:23
Posts: 1034
Location: Sweden
JamesB wrote:
Bort wrote:
Nuclear is far too expensive. Solar and wind have now destroyed it in cost.

I wish solar would be more ubiquitous but among other reasons (grid etc..) cost is still not an avantage compared to nuclear in a lot of places.

!http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/910914comparativelcoesandsystemcosts.png!

The breakdown for Sweden (2015) is a bit different:

47% Hydro
34% Nuclear
11% Wind
8% CHP/Thermal (oil/gas)

Hydro is obviously the cheapest way to produce electricity, but nuclear isn’t too bad either (our reactors where built in the ’70-ies, today they would be expensive to build).
Wind is the “cuckoo in the nest”, can’t carry it’s costs without subsidies when compared to hydro and nuclear (the subsidies are taken from hydro and nuclear).
CHP is horribly expensive (compared to the other types).

We are dependant on cheap energy for our standard of living in Sweden, it’s dark and cold this far north.

sidecross
sidecross's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: 10/31/2015 - 18:55
Posts: 711
Location: North America

“Serious nuclear power plant accidents include the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), Chernobyl disaster (1986), Three Mile Island accident (1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961).”

Until the serious problems of nuclear energy by-products are fully solved, nuclear energy is not a viable solution. Sad

“You must have a plan, if you don’t have a plan, you will become part of someone else’s plan.” Terence McKenna

sidecross
sidecross's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: 10/31/2015 - 18:55
Posts: 711
Location: North America

“Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans”

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/scientists-earth-endanger...

Smile

“You must have a plan, if you don’t have a plan, you will become part of someone else’s plan.” Terence McKenna

Bort
Bort's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 15 sec ago
Joined: 06/01/2012 - 17:15
Posts: 9115
Location: Holding the proverbial flashlight
JamesB wrote:
Bort wrote:
Nuclear is far too expensive. Solar and wind have now destroyed it in cost.

I wish solar would be more ubiquitous but among other reasons (grid etc..) cost is still not an avantage compared to nuclear in a lot of places.

!http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/910914comparativelcoesandsystemcosts.png!


Your data is years out of date, here is an article from today
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/09/14/carbontracker-declares-renewable-po...

and a couple more

https://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/03/wind-solar-cheaper-than-fossils-nuc...
https://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/26/wind-solar-can-generate-electricity...

The Journal of Alternative Facts

"It is critical that there is a credible academic source for the growing and important discipline of Alternative Facts. This field of study will just keep winning, and we knew that all the best people would want to be on board. There is a real risk in the world today that people might be getting their information about science from actual scientists."

 

sidecross
sidecross's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: 10/31/2015 - 18:55
Posts: 711
Location: North America

Bort wrote:

Your data is years out of date, here is an article from today
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/09/14/carbontracker-declares-renewable-po...

and a couple more

https://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/03/wind-solar-cheaper-than-fossils-nuc...
https://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/26/wind-solar-can-generate-electricity...


+1

Western European insurance companies are calling for fossil fuels to be kept in the ground to prevent unsustainable loses to be paid from Climate Change.

U.S. insurance companies have an additional problem in that they are heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry. Sad

“You must have a plan, if you don’t have a plan, you will become part of someone else’s plan.” Terence McKenna

hank
hank's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 15 hours ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:52
Posts: 9639
Location: Berkeley, California
Quote:
The U.S. made a tactical error in developing our highway system while ignoring the rail system.

Regrettably:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/interstatemyths.cfm

Quote:
Congress should have put the money into transit instead of the Interstate System.

This was not an option in 1955 and 1956 when the congressional debate took place. At the time, transit was provided mainly by private companies. No one in the industry, in State and local governments, or in Congress imagined that the Federal Government would support these companies financially. In fact, the only thing the American Transit Association asked Congress to do was exempt buses from the gas tax. Congress did so.

That page also debunked as a myth the story that rapidly moving ICBMs on trailers, to enable retaliation after a nuclear first strike, was part of the design spec.

More on that here:
http://www.ijbhtnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_4_July_2014/7.pdf

Quote:
The U.S. Interstate Highway System was created in 1944, but construction was stalled by disputes over funding and urban route locations. The 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act resolved these issues. It also changed the name of the Interstate System to the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. National defense figured prominently in lobbying and national defense continues to be cited by historians as a compelling justification for the Interstate System and for the greatly expanded federal role in highway construction. This paper critically evaluates the defense argument for the Interstate Highway System. It concludes that the defense argument does not stand up well to close scrutiny, and that if defense had indeed been a paramount concern, the Interstate Highway System would have had a very different configuration from the one enacted in 1956.

That was all before multiple independent steerable reentry warheads and smaller lighter stronger H-bombs. I recall a caller to a talk show, a few years back, saying that he was one of the launch control guys under that mountain in Colorado at the peak of the cold war and “we target time zones, not cities” or words to that effect.

I sure hope we stay smarter than we were in the 1950s and 1960s ….
http://assets.amuniversal.com/6517672056810134b7a5005056a9545d

sidecross
sidecross's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: 10/31/2015 - 18:55
Posts: 711
Location: North America

The Military Industrial Complex which today would include Silicon Valley with its connection to ‘Smart Weapons’ and its ties to the Nation Security Agency has always used national security to boost profits.

The argument to build highways for a defense from nuclear attack was the ticket for profit using fear as its reasoning.

We are currently in the Holocene Extinction, the Earth’s Sixth, and some still seem to argue that we arrived at this situation from sound policy. Sad

“You must have a plan, if you don’t have a plan, you will become part of someone else’s plan.” Terence McKenna

hank
hank's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 15 hours ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:52
Posts: 9639
Location: Berkeley, California

Yeah, I’ve been hoping the IWW is learning Chinese …

Pride and attribution in workmanship helps toward solving a lot of quality control problems — here, there, everywhere.

Bort
Bort's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 15 sec ago
Joined: 06/01/2012 - 17:15
Posts: 9115
Location: Holding the proverbial flashlight

The Journal of Alternative Facts

"It is critical that there is a credible academic source for the growing and important discipline of Alternative Facts. This field of study will just keep winning, and we knew that all the best people would want to be on board. There is a real risk in the world today that people might be getting their information about science from actual scientists."

 

sidecross
sidecross's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: 10/31/2015 - 18:55
Posts: 711
Location: North America

hank wrote:
Yeah, I’ve been hoping the IWW is learning Chinese …

Pride and attribution in workmanship helps toward solving a lot of quality control problems — here, there, everywhere.


The IWW which began in 1905 and flowered with Big Bill Haywood was soon to fade away. I am, however, still a member.

The IWW was certainly a sound concept with labor being world wide issue and the IWW tried to argue against racism.

In the U.S.today Union Labor is just 11%. I am 72 years old and worked four four different unions and currently receive a Union Pension which is on the verge of being bankrupt. If I was to begin work today as a young person, I could not reach the good fortune I do have now. Sad

“You must have a plan, if you don’t have a plan, you will become part of someone else’s plan.” Terence McKenna

sidecross
sidecross's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: 10/31/2015 - 18:55
Posts: 711
Location: North America

“You must have a plan, if you don’t have a plan, you will become part of someone else’s plan.” Terence McKenna

RollerBoySE
RollerBoySE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: 12/13/2014 - 11:23
Posts: 1034
Location: Sweden

What I don’t understand is why GM doesn’t make EV:s that can be fast charged and set up their own chain of “SuperChargers”. That would put the range anxiety to rest. Or are they maybe not really serious about EV:s?…

Bort
Bort's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 15 sec ago
Joined: 06/01/2012 - 17:15
Posts: 9115
Location: Holding the proverbial flashlight

RollerBoySE wrote:
What I don’t understand is why GM doesn’t make EV:s that can be fast charged and set up their own chain of “SuperChargers”. That would put the range anxiety to rest. Or are they maybe not really serious about EV:s?…

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/08/11/50-tips-slowing-electric-car-revolu...
see number 7

The Journal of Alternative Facts

"It is critical that there is a credible academic source for the growing and important discipline of Alternative Facts. This field of study will just keep winning, and we knew that all the best people would want to be on board. There is a real risk in the world today that people might be getting their information about science from actual scientists."

 

Rufusbduck
Rufusbduck's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 day ago
Joined: 04/04/2012 - 15:34
Posts: 10401
Location: Golden state

The Chevy Bolt should compete with the model S in both range and price.

Three Tanna leaves to give him life, nine to give him movement. But what if he eats the whole bag?

Scott

RollerBoySE
RollerBoySE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: 12/13/2014 - 11:23
Posts: 1034
Location: Sweden
Rufusbduck wrote:
The Chevy Bolt should compete with the model S in both range and price.

But without “SuperChargers” it’s not a viable alternative to any Tesla (as a single/primary car)!

sidecross
sidecross's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: 10/31/2015 - 18:55
Posts: 711
Location: North America

Rufusbduck wrote:
The Chevy Bolt should compete with the model S in both range and price.

the G.M. Volt has had design problems with their battery choice in high and low temperatures.

“You must have a plan, if you don’t have a plan, you will become part of someone else’s plan.” Terence McKenna

dw911
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 06/27/2014 - 07:44
Posts: 591
Location: UK
RollerBoySE wrote:
What I don’t understand is why GM doesn’t make EV:s that can be fast charged and set up their own chain of “SuperChargers”. That would put the range anxiety to rest. Or are they maybe not really serious about EV:s?…

Would you pay much more than lip service to electric vehicles if you already had a product selling millions of unit a year
A product you have a worldwide network of dealers/ engineers/equipment/parts suppliers already set up for ICE powered vehicles.
A product that’s simple and easy to use and time tested for over a hundred years.
A lighting fast refuelling network on every street corner almost, giving it unlimited range.
Not to mention all the vested intrests in you continuing to sell ICE powered vehicles, from government, big business, the oil industry to name but a few.

Most economies are oil based, can’t see that changing anytime soon,not with the abundance of oil around and more reserves being found all the time,so whilst electric vehicles will make inroads it will likely be fairly slowly ,electric vehicles may even just be a stop gap until someone smart comes up with something better than both ICE or EV powered vehicles.

Till the oil runs low, expect business as usual with a few electric vehicles sprinkled in among all the ICE powered vehicles

Rufusbduck
Rufusbduck's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 day ago
Joined: 04/04/2012 - 15:34
Posts: 10401
Location: Golden state

Oil comes with a price tag we can’t afford and can no longer ignore. It’s going to end badly if we don’t recognize that. Other countries have and are moving away from oil, we can and we must. It will take time, even more so with “we can’t do it this minute so we shouldn’t try at all” thinking. It took more than decades to put gas stations on every corner in a time when all construction was done by hand. That got done and so will this. When need drives…

Three Tanna leaves to give him life, nine to give him movement. But what if he eats the whole bag?

Scott

sidecross
sidecross's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: 10/31/2015 - 18:55
Posts: 711
Location: North America

dw911 wrote:

Would you pay much more than lip service to electric vehicles if you already had a product selling millions of unit a year
A product you have a worldwide network of dealers/ engineers/equipment/parts suppliers already set up for ICE powered vehicles.
A product that’s simple and easy to use and time tested for over a hundred years.
A lighting fast refuelling network on every street corner almost, giving it unlimited range.
Not to mention all the vested intrests in you continuing to sell ICE powered vehicles, from government, big business, the oil industry to name but a few.

Most economies are oil based, can’t see that changing anytime soon,not with the abundance of oil around and more reserves being found all the time,so whilst electric vehicles will make inroads it will likely be fairly slowly ,electric vehicles may even just be a stop gap until someone smart comes up with something better than both ICE or EV powered vehicles.

Till the oil runs low, expect business as usual with a few electric vehicles sprinkled in among all the ICE powered vehicles


The Titanic when it sailed in 1912 was the most sophisticated and safest ship ever manufactured. They were so confident that life boats had the capability to carry less than half on board.

Hubris and failure usually have a strong connection.

“You must have a plan, if you don’t have a plan, you will become part of someone else’s plan.” Terence McKenna

Pages