https://www.yahoo.com/news/electric-cars-cheaper-maintain-gas-103035661.html
“Maintenance costs for a battery-electric vehicle are 6.1 cents per mile, compared to 10.1 cents per mile for a conventional car with an internal combustion engine, according to research from the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.”
I’m still missing the total cost of ownership picture. Take a 2021 Chevy Bolt EV and a somewhat equivalent ICE car say a 2021 Ford Focus hatchback (assuming MSRP prices to keep thing simple). Drive them both 100k or 150k miles, count all maintenance, no subsidies, fuel cost differences (maybe $3/gal and $0.12/kWh), and factor final residual value. Which one costs more? That’s not taking into account any other issues related to recharging.
But I think adoption can only take off once the bottom line numbers work out. Just like it did for LED/CFL bulbs vs incandescent light bulbs.
ICE vehicles cost more to refuel, not just more for maintenance. EVs also last longer,
Major auto companies plan to be producing all or mostly electric vehicles in the next few years.
GM “said it planned to spend $35 billion on E.V.s in the five years ending in 2025. That’s the second increase in the last eight months. A year ago, G.M. said it would spend $20 billion in that period, and in November increased the figure to $27 billion.”
" Ford recently said it expected to spend $30 billion on electric cars and trucks by 2025."
GM has already said it will be producing 100% EVs by 2035. Ford said 40% of its vehicles will be EVs by 2030. Jaguar is going 100% electric. All major car companies have announced plans to go mostly electric.
The UK is banning sale of diesel and gas vehicles in 2030.
EVs have an additional value of not polluting and reducing the extreme costs of pollution, including healthcare and cleaning costs.
Doesnt that depend entirely on where the electricity to power the EV comes from? Going all EV will place a massive burden on the electrical grid. A burden that installing a few more solar panels will not be able to meet.
Has someone done this calculation to be sure?
Currently ~17M new cars (of all kinds) are sold in the US every year. The question is how much solar would we need to install every year to support that number, and how much are we installing now.
And another question is would burning more coal (or whatever) to charge all the new EVs be more or less polluting than the extraction and processing of oil to “charge” gasoline cars?
Says who? I looked at getting a used Nissan Leaf recently and the 8 year old models all had a range that was 30-40% of it’s original range. A new battery for them was cost prohibitive. EVs have NOT been mass marketed long enough to make the claim that they last longer. That’s a theoretical claim that has not been fleshed out in reality yet.
EVs are only predicted to make up 25% of new car sales by 2035. So this is also not correct.
source: Electric Cars Are Coming. How Long Until They Rule the Road? - The New York Times
I’ll bet cash that gets pushed back.
I wouldn’t posit to know what the average is (I’m sure someone has put it together, but I don’t care to research it). I would be hesitant to use Tesla’s guarantee as an average number though. It would seem imprudent for them to use an average number for the ‘there is definitely something wrong with your battery and we’re replacing it’ number.
Not that everything Tesla does is prudent, hah.
This I’ll agree with. The 8/120k number is the minimum expectation, not average results.
I think the answer to that depends very much on location. If you’re in WV where most of your electricity is from coal, then going EV is actually less good on the environment than sticking with ICE car. Another worthwhile aspect is the recycling of batteries. Projected to be 2 million metric tons of Li batteries by 2030. And that is not carbon neutral by any stretch of the imagination.
And like others mentioned, replacing the batteries on a 10-yr old car has not been priced in these calculations usually. On a Tesla model 3, a replacement battery itself costs $13.5k, $16k with installation! If you need one of these after each 100k miles, it impact both total cost of ownership and environmental friendliness considering only a very small fraction of current Li-batteries get recycled.
And another question is if our delivery systems can even handle such a surge in demand without significant upgrades? I think it’s been established that high voltage lines do have their own effects on the environment.
So many, many questions making it anything but a straightforward problem/solution. And as Shandrill says, you then need to adjust for a slew of regional and local variants.
I think it’s safe to say that nothing can be declared with any certainty.
“That’s because the way that electric vehicles are powered triggers longer-burning fires when they crash and get into serious accidents…So when an electric vehicle gets in a high-speed accident and catches on fire, damaged energy cells cause temperatures to rise out of control, and the resulting blaze can require a significant amount of water to put out.”
“While the NFPA has trained approximately 250,000 firefighters and emergency responders in the last 12 years on this issue, that leaves nearly 80 percent of the more than 1.1 million firefighters nationwide left to train, according to the organization. Of those, approximately two-thirds are volunteers and may be harder to reach.”
“The time on scene is more concerning than even the amount of water — the fact that I might have a unit tied up for multiple hours while it cools down,” he said. “I’m just babysitting, and that’s problematic.”"
But I’m sure you are aware that the Leaf is the worst example to pick from, given that it’s basically a Gen1 EV with no battery cooling and less advanced battery management.
Look at a used Bolt (or Volt, even though it’s not full EV) instead, then compare range loss. There’s plenty of reports of 200k+ Volts on the original batteries with good range left.
For me, the jury seems still out on LIDAR after Tesla decided against it. Since LIDAR cost has come down a lot, the decision to not include it - even on high margin vehicles -, even as a additional system along with cameras seems puzzling to me in absence of testing of reliability of the two option cameras with or without LIDAR.
Lidar seems essential for autonomous vehicles. It’s not as necessary for non-autonomous vehicles. It’s easy for Musk to say no to Lidar if he’s not actually building autonomous vehicles.
Lidar gives an exact distance measurement and 3-D image of objects. Cameras alone see a 2-D jumble of shapes and colors which computers then have to be taught to interpret as to distance, what the object is, how it’s moving, etc.
The lidar doesn’t require as much extensive coding, algorithms, and complex software as cameras.
Cameras alone can’t see distance and have to interpret it so it has to be determined through a jumble of stuff whereas lidar gives a close to exact measurement. Cameras require feeding into the software a vast amount of data. It’s so gigantic that experts think it can be done but the info will have to be stored on the cloud. Lidar takes a lot of pressure off the amount of data interpretation that must be done as the image it gets is clear insofar as to what it can see.
Lidar is commonly used in mapping and robots. It can even detect the movement and behavior of individual flying insects, with identification down to sex and species.
From most info I’ve read, as I said, Lidar seems absolutely essential to autonomous vehicles.
Already solved by using two cameras.
I think you are mistaken about what might have to be stored in the cloud. It’s not the vast amount of data captured by cameras. LIDAR probably captures a similar amount of data. In fact I’d guess that the amount of data depends on the precision, and you could get a similar amount of data from either device if you configure them for it.
What may have to be stored in the cloud is the training / learned data set, which allows to respond to the input quicker. In other words, if you want your system to recognize a billion objects and do it well, you need to store lots of data about all these objects, and you need the computing power to perform the recognition. It’s probably gonna be a trade-off between the cost (of in-car storage and processing power), speed (of external network vs in-car processing), and reliability (of external network). Personally I would not want to be in a car that couldn’t process its inputs “offline”.
I don’t understand why two cameras or multiple cameras would make a difference.