×

that link has already been submitted, but you can try to submit it again.

all 18 comments

[–]shaim2 6 points7 points  (10 children)

Data they are using for EV growth is too conservative.

In 2018 Tesla alone is expected to move at least 400,000 EVs (Model S,X and 3 combined). Compared to the total of 214K EVs from all manufacturers in 2017. Growth rate my be significantly above the 50% per year they are projecting.

Also: 50% per year, from 4% in 2020 is 30% in 2025 and complete market dominance by 2030.

[–]_F4ceplant 3 points4 points  (8 children)

It's easy to have high growth rates when market penetration is still low. Maintaining a >25% growth rate for more than a few years is not very likely. Not only do you need to increase commodity recovery, you need to build more factories, you need more manpower/trained personnel, etc, all need to increase at roughly the same rates. In the end, I think growth will be limited by how fast we can develop and produce systems that will power the future EV's, how fast we can build the necessary infrastructure to transport energy to the vehicles and how easy it will be to access means of recharging/refilling an EV.

[–]shaim2 1 point2 points  (7 children)

There is some truth there, but I think EVs will increase will push the grid to evolve quickly, rather than wait for the grid to be ready.

Also, starting 2020, you have self-driving coming in. In urban areas, robo-taxis will probably become the norm, replacing private ownership (to a significant degree by 2025). So the issues with charging and power supply in the cities becomes a non-issue (it'll be solved by the large fleet operators). In the suburbs, local solar generation can solve a lot of the problems.

So we're really going to see two revolutions intertwined. It's going to be fun.

[–]_F4ceplant 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I don't know if it's going to be fun. It'll be interesting for sure. But a lot will (have to) change, and it will be more than just two intertwined revolutions. Electrifying transport, from people to freight, self driving cars, car sharing, and partly because of that how and where we produce, transport, store, consume and trade in energy. It's not just a technical change, it requires changes in culture and law making too. There's only so much you can do given a finite time span, 2030 is only 13 years away. Each change is big enough in itself, now we are more or less forced into doing that all in once. We cannot afford to make any mistakes, especially when it comes to energy. We can do with a few days without food and water. We just can't do without energy.

[–]demultiplexer 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I'd go so far as saying that socially, it has the potential of being a massive disaster, well beyond the recession. Depending on how you measure it, the second or third largest type of employment evaporates relatively overnight, 10% point unemployment growth over the course of less than a decade. Fuck the energy question, how will you keep the riots in check?

[–]_F4ceplant 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Yes, there will be losses of jobs in the oil industry, petrochemical industry, transport industry, most likely other industries as well and there will be jobs lost due to general automation and mechanization of labor. Perhaps unemployment will rise, but not by a lot, if at all. New jobs will be created as well. Younger people will choose jobs in different sectors, some people will be retrained for different jobs and in 10-20 years a lot of employees will have to retire anyway. It's mostly going to be a shift from one type of job to another.

[–]GregorMacdonald[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

More broadly, another effect to think about is market capitalization bleeding out of the global auto sector into an array of smaller businesses that employ less people. I think there's a second-round labor shock coming to the global auto industry.

[–]hitssquad 0 points1 point  (1 child)

starting 2020, you have self-driving coming in [...] So the issues with charging and power supply in the cities becomes a non-issue

If a vehicle is charging, it can't be making money (unless it is a trolley).

[–]demultiplexer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup. So it'll likely be charging while driving. Seems like a very obvious near-term innovation.

[–]Alimbiquated 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's going to be fun.

Yeah, if you think politics are fun now, just wait till self driving vehicles put all the truck and taxi drivers out of a job.

[–]GregorMacdonald[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Perhaps collective auto analyst forecasts for 2018 EV sales are indeed too conservative. However, the utility of the more conservative projection is to show that, already, the prospect that ICE will lose their grip on marginal growth is very real. While I don't think Tesla will move 400K units next year--I hope they do. The point remains, whether you think EV sales are growing at 35%, or will occasionally jump to a 50% or more growth rate, the opportunity to return to sales growth for ICE is slipping away rapidly.

[–]GregorMacdonald[S] 4 points5 points  (6 children)

"The tiny, almost hard-to-detect market share growth of EV is reminiscent of the buildout of wind and solar power and how market share growth of fossil fuel in electricity generation was halted. Ten years ago, combined wind+solar stood at just 0.84% share of total US power generation. In the first half of this year, that share reached a full 9.00%. (the forecast for the full year is ~8.57%). But in an overall system that has been running with zero demand growth, at about 4000 TWh per year, the entry of wind+solar has been a zero-sum game. What are the useful lessons here for the auto industry?"

[–]Iamyourl3ader -1 points0 points  (5 children)

and how market share growth of fossil fuel in electricity generation was halted.

But not actual growth....

Ten years ago, combined wind+solar stood at just 0.84% share of total US power generation. In the first half of this year, that share reached a full 9.00%. (the forecast for the full year is ~8.57%).

9% for wind/solar? That doesn't match anything I've seen. Are you sure you're talking about the United States?

[–]GregorMacdonald[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

The exact figure is that combined wind and solar provided 9.09% of US power generation in the first six months of 2017. As we roll through the second six months, I'm projecting that share will fall some, and that the full year average will be closer to 8.5%. When you say "that doesn't match anything I've seen" it does raise the question as to how familiar you are with EIA data sets. Because this is all from EIA monthly data, which you can take in .xls form or through their API. Hope this helps.

Do you read, for example, Electric Power Monthly from EIA? I have been working with these data sets for over 15 years.

Moving on to your other comment, natural gas has enjoyed enormous growth in the power generation system, with broad new capacity gains. However, on a net basis, actual growth of the fossil fuel category in US power generation has indeed been halted for the obvious reason that coal has seen such substantial retirements. Another framing that might be useful: coal's retreat has been exploited by both natural gas, and wind and solar, with the latter two technologies edging out NG on a generation basis.

Note: all the figures I refer to are generation, not capacity.

[–]Iamyourl3ader 0 points1 point  (3 children)

The exact figure is that combined wind and solar provided 9.09% of

I think you mean wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas, etc.....not just wind/solar. Do you mind linking to the specific page from EPM where you found 9.09% for wind/solar?

However, on a net basis, actual growth of the fossil fuel category in US power generation has indeed been halted

Well you didn't specify the US in that comment...

[–]GregorMacdonald[S] -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

No. I did not mean those other renewables and I am not here to argue with trolls who, cite their knowledge of the data to create disputes, but clearly have no experience with the data in the first place.

[–]Iamyourl3ader 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. I did not mean those other renewables and I am not here to argue with trolls who, cite their knowledge of the data to create disputes, but clearly have no experience with the data in the first place.

I think you meant to say:

I don't know what I'm talking about so I won't give you a link. There isn't a link that backs up my claim about EPM. But anyways, your a troll for asking me to provide a link.

[–]Iamyourl3ader 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gregor holds a B.A. in English and Social Anthropology from Denison University, and an M.F.A. in Creative Writing from the University of Iowa Writer’s Workshop. A master at prediction, Gregor predicted the "end of cheap oil" in 2013 (available to watch free on YouTube). Gregor is a renowned mathematician at his local elementary school and has been known to tutor 4th grade math.

LMFAO. The saddest part, it's all true.