Illustrating EV’s S Curve

April 17, 2022

Not really a fair comparison, Matt Teske on Twitter made a comparison of Miles/gallon (~25) to miles/kwh( ~3) – he says, “So, to go the same distance on gas with electricity you need 8.33 kWh. At $0.15 this totals to $1.25.”

OK but without getting too literal about it, electricity is cheaper. It’s looking like we are on the upward sweeping “S curve” – but there’s a daunting “valley of death” moment right now.


7 Responses to “Illustrating EV’s S Curve”

  1. renewableguy Says:

    Interesting thought on the differences bewteen gas and electric costs.

    Wife’s car subaru forester. 30mpg, 4.50/gal. 15,000 miles per year, 20 lbs co2 per gallon, 500 gallons per year, 10,000 lbs co2 per year, $2250 / year

    2015 Tesla Modle S: 3 miles/kw-hr, 10 cents/ kw-hr, Illinois co2 600 lbs/mw-hr electricity, .6lbs/kw-hr, 5000 kw-hrs/ year electric use, $500/ year, 3000lbs/year co2.

    tesla costs 1750 dollars less per year, tesla pollutes 7000 lbs less co2 per year.

    The electric car is just superior to the gas car in cost of operation and pollution.

    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      Wife’s car subaru forester. 30mpg, 4.50/gal. 15,000 miles per year, 20 lbs co2 per gallon…

      Does that include the CO2 from the fuel processing overhead, or just the CO2 from direct combustion within the vehicle?

    • Gingerbaker Says:

      30 mpg in a Forester? I’m betting that is not around town, which is the majority of days. Meanwhile, a Tesla driven around town is likely to get better mileage than when on the highway.

      I’d guess a 30% adjustment needed in the final figures.

      • renewableguy Says:

        I may have been slightly generous to the Forester. My wife drives at around 27 mpg, so I figure that I can do better than that. She has the lead foot and I have mostly a feather foot when driving gas. When I’m in my model S, I enjoy when I want. 🙂

  2. According to the Manhattan Institute’s Mark Mills, EVs are headed for a major materials bottleneck:

    A recent analysis by the Wood Mackenzie consultancy found that if EVs are to account for two-thirds of all new car purchases by 2030, dozens of new mines must be opened just to meet automotive demands—each mine the size of the world’s biggest in each category today. But 2030 is only eight years away and, as the IEA has reported, opening a new mine takes 16 years on average.

    Despite these and similar analyses, many countries, and many US states, are now proposing to accelerate deployment of solar, wind, and battery technologies without clear plans for overcoming the material shortfalls. One study sponsored by the Dutch government offered a blunt statement of reality: “Exponential growth in [global] renewable energy production capacity is not possible with present-day technologies and annual metal production.”

    Another area of concern for these new technologies is their future cost, which will be inseparable from the velocity and scale of their entry into the market. Today, future plans for solar, wind, and battery technologies assume costs will continue to fall significantly, as they have over the last decade. But the implications of record-breaking demands for mineral commodities suggest the reverse is more likely.

    • renewableguy Says:

      To top it off, China processes most of the important metals that makes the world more vulnerable to their authoritarian government. Should they decide to take Taiwan, we are without their metals they need or are we going to say go ahead, we need the metals more than democracy. My guess is Fox News would take the side of China.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: