I didn't think I'd see it this fast, ICE is history...

I agree with all of the aobve, however, the customers who buy "cars" don't seem to.

They don't seem to think a 2000 pound car with 400 HP is as fast as a 3000 pound car with 600 HP !!

 

Since it is pretty much impossible to separate the enforced restrictions on ICE and the encouragement of EV’s from politics; maybe just move the thread to P&R and lift the thread bans ?

 

EV charging station volume is driven by two factors:

1.) Demand
2.) Technology

The demand side is easy: There are not enough EV cars on the road to make it cost effective to have a whole bunch of of charging stations. In the cities and towns there are a lot of charging stations-all designed to fulfill the "local" commute. Where charge stations are still rare are on the "long haul" highway runs. But that is changing-and fast. As EV cars come down in price (which they are), gain in range (which they are) the EV population will grow. And with that the number of charging stations will grow to meet that demand/need. It's called capitalism, it worked in the past and will for EV cars also. Most estimates say that we will have a nationwide infrastructure of required size/expanse in about 5-7 years. Not 100% everywhere but adequate to allow for full EV mobility across the country.

Technology is also changing. Current "best in class" battery energy levels are Li-Ion cells of around 175 Wh/kg. New solid state Li batteries are in the 200Wh/kg rang. This is a 14% increase, which will lead to a 10-12% increase in range for any EV car. And Li-Sulfur batteries are seeing about 325-350 wh/kg. This is a real game changer-as this is an 86% to 100% increase in battery power. And thus will get you a similar increase in range. And yes-Li-Sulfur cells are still 5 years or more away (from large scale commercial mfg.) but they will come.

Also note that the theoretical energy density of the LI-Sulfur chemistry is around 2700 wh/kg. And this is a whopping 15 times increase over current best. Now we will never get 100% of the theoretical, and it will take 25-50 years to get into the 1000-2000 wh/kg range. But 25-50 year sis really a very short period of time, in terms of the changes we are discussing.

So how about cost? Solid state batteries are estimated to cut current Li-Ion batteries by 60-70%. So a big change in costs. This will open up the EV cars to the "average" buyer, cost wise.

And then there is range. There are two ways of dealing with this. One is using more efficient batteries-which is happening. The other way is to increase the number of charging stations-which as mentioned, is also happening. But what is also happening, and will be of critical value, is the greatly decreased battery charge times that exist now. 3 years ago, when I was designing an all electric LeMans car for the Garage 56 program we needed to do swapable batteries, changed in the pit lane in order to have any chance at all. Issue was those battery packs were massively expensive, and we needed a lot of them. Made the program difficult to justify on cost grounds. (But not technical/performance reasons.)

Now, just three years later it is now possible to do a complete battery recharge (150 kw and up) in 4-5 minutes, in pit lane. Still not as fast as a 90 liter ICE petrol fill up. But in 3 years we have gone from a situation where we needed to swap batteries to one where we use one battery and charge it in pitlane. And this was with current battery technology. Solid state batteries will bring the charge rate down to about 2 minutes or less. Now please note-I am not saying that you can do this with a street EC car. We can get such fast charge times because we are not concerned with (near to the same degree as street EV) with thermal loading of the battery. That is we will beat the battery to death over the race, but that is okay.

So what about street EV cars? Well, I believe (with a lot of data to back me up) that if you can get a full battery charge at a "highway" charge station down to 10-15 minutes then you have made this recharge time competitive with ICE/petrol fill ups. The argument is that a typical stop (highway) for fuel is around 10-15 minutes. (This includes fuel, food, toilet, etc) So if you are spending 10-15 minutes at the fuel stop anyway-what difference does it make if it is petrol of electricity?

So there will be an ever increasing EV car population, with more and more charging stations across the country. It is an inevitable process. It will not mean the end of the ICE car-just a big change in how/where they are used. They will (ultimately) change from the standard, typical form of personal transportation to be more like a person's boat or plane. The standard, everyday car (Assume a Toyota Corolla-BMW 3 Series-Typical SUV/PU Truck) will be a hybrid to begin with, and then very quickly joined by EV versions, perhaps at same time.) And why be upset about that? As a basic point to point mode of transportation these cars will be very bit as good, or better than an ICE powered car. And for that purpose-why would you bemoan the change?

But your ICE powered car will become a purely recreational vehicle. You may keep it at home, maybe in a car club (imagine a car marina/car hanger) and you will drive your EV car to your ICE car and then use your ICE car on the track or for a pleasure cruise on the local street roads.

I am surprised that everyone only sees the negative in all of this. I see a different future.

1.) There will be more EV vehicles every day, every year.
2.) These EV cars will equal, and then surpass, the abilities of an ICE car-for their intended, primary, purpose. (Point to point transportation)
3.) There will be more and more "Self driving cars" and intelligent road networks. And with people working more and more from home, the demand/need for a privately owned basic car will be diminished greatly. We are already seeing this in many cities were the younger generation no longer buys a car. They use taxis, public transportation, etc. Add self driving "carbots" and why need a personally car-ICE or EV?
4.) But ICE cars will not be outlawed outright. It will probably become like owning a boat or a plane. (ICE powered). You may be limited in total number of miles driven and where you can drive it. (Most likely in cities.)
5.) But I would think-at least for the foreseable future-that these type cars would be driven away from city centers, on what we would call "country roads".
6.) These roads (think "Tail of the Dragon" type roads.) would probably not have many (any?) "carbots" on them, little overall traffic, be away from attention from city dwelling tree huggers. So that is where you could drive (and really-where you would want to drive) your ICE recreational vehicles.
7.) We are already moving this way. City centers (London, Oxford, etc) are outlawing ICE cars and even EV cars. And notice the growth in Race track car clubs-Its where a lot of owners go to drive their cars-Porsches, Ferraris, Bimmers, Loti, etc. They have realized the the open road is too dangerous to go fast, too many cops, too much social "finger pointing" , too much hassle to enjoy their cars. So how do they now use these cars? As 4 wheel versions of a boat or plane. They drive to where the car is, drive on the race track and/or a nice drive in the country with other owners-on the nicest country roads they can find.

It will be a different world-but not necessarily a worse world-automotive wise.

Cheer up!

 

There are plenty of dim consumers around and marketeers will always exploit them.

They don't tend to research much further than the headlines.
Bless them

 

The previous 7-8 pages of posts here that are mostly compliant demonstrate that it's possible. It's OK to cite laws, regulations or prospective legislation and what can be forecast to happen as a result of those; but don't get into value judgements about whether those laws or regulations or the people making them are good or bad for the world, for a country, or for other people, in your opinion.

 

You're about 5 years late here. Tesla's charging network covers the whole country now (as well as all of Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and most of China), and EA's network covers most of the US as well for non-Tesla's. At this point the only thing holding back EVs for regular cars is just about changing public perception and having more automakers commit to making real EVs and scaling manufacturing.

 

Tesla’s charging stations cover about 58% to 62% of what ICE stations cover across the USA. I was part of the engineering group that did that analysis.
My point was that, right now, it is difficult to find recharge stations at sufficient intervals along stretches of US highways right now.

All as I said. But hey, 2 years, 4 years, 5 years - it is all the same in the end.

 

The situation is worse in Europe. The electrification is still a work in progress, and I suppose that's what is holding up people to adopt it now.
I expect a massive rush towards electrification in 2028/30 just before the ban of ICE. By then EVs will have received the latest technologies.

 

Very interesting post, thanks for sharing your views. Not that I like the way we are heading to but well informed input are always welcome.
What about the electricity production capacity? Here in Europe they do not even know if they can produce enough electricity if we get a very cold winter....

 

Yep, starting January 1st, 2021.
But not calculated on dry weight: above 1.800 kgs (= 3.970 lbs) in "Driving Order", which means at least with driver's weight included.
Then, the tax is 10€ per kilos above the threshold of 1.800 kgs.

Rgds

 

You mean ban on new ICE ?

I suspect this will keep the "classic" market more than buoyant.
And I doubt that we'll see Ferrari 812's dropping to Nissan Leaf prices.

 

In London it's woeful.
Tesla closed it's showroom in the financial centre at Canary Wharf.
Barely see any charging stations.
Cycling is already the future of personal transportation in cities, and there is a growing loss of transport revenue.

 

Interesting !

So your Tesla and Porsche Taycan will pay extra.
But your 911 Turbo is free.

I know which one I'll choose

 

I'm not "philosophically" against it: in a way, it makes "some sense"; as for myself, I have been saying that cars have grown too heavy for years.
Trouble is that in this country, taxation is a national sport, and complicating it another one.
The original idea was to tax all SUVs, so the first threshold was to be 1.300 kilos (about 2.870 pounds); why not?
Then, our dear M.Ps realized that it would means taxing almost all cars produced in France...
So in the end, the threshold crept up to 1.800 kilos / 3.970 pounds; then on top of that, you have a system of deductions for second end cars entering the french market, considering their age, etc...

I have been waiting for a fair logical refutation of my own personal theory for years: we are obliged to have our cars passing a technical exam every two years ( = the "contrôle technique"), during which their emissions are measured. Why not, then, multiply the mileage accomplished between two controls by the actual measured emissions of the vehicle, and tax it accordingly?
Ah, yes, but it would be too simple, and furthermore, the owners of the most polluting vehicles (= the oldest vehicles in circulation) are usually those with the lowest income, so it would not be moral to tax those with lowest income the most...actually, taxing emissions has very few to do with actual emissions!
Well, if the tax has another purpose than taxing emissions but should also serves as egalisation of the incomes, then how could it be logical?
Answer: it is not. You buy a large, big, luxury car, you pay the maximum emission tax, whether you drive said vehicle a lot or not; it has actually almost nothing to do with emissions.

Not that I do not love this country, I do; but logic and taxes do not work together here...

Rgds

 

Not sure what criteria you used, but it certainly isn't. Even in the most desolate stretches of I-94 in North Dakota you'll find a supercharger every 100 miles or so. On heavily traveled corridors like I-95 its getting down to every 10 miles or so. With any Tesla on sale today you can get to any part of the continental USA easily. Take a look at this map (you can turn on circles around the superchargers to see how much area they cover).

 

I understand your points !

France has also probably factored into their equation that the heaviest vehicles damage road surfaces the most.

HGV's being the worst offenders

 

Cycling does not work in places where the daytime temperatures hover well above 100ºF or below 30ºF for months at a time.

 

I can never understand why cycling is pushed as an alternative to mechanised transport.
It's unpractical in severe climate conditions, but also unrealistic for most of the population, on the ground of age, physical condition, vulnerability, etc ...

 

There is still plenty of the SW that is not ufficiently covered.

Take Witchitaw Ka to Trinidad Co,
OR Midland Tx to Cloudcroft NM,

 

Ofcourse.

You could probably also throw in Seattle due to its rain factor

 

City mayors are pushing bicycles and are backed up with major investment.

If you want a society where everyone is equal bicycles provide part of that nirvana.

 

Of course it will be mandated by the government - and guess what? Government officials will be excluded from the requirements.
Goodbye Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini, Range Rover, Jaguar and a few others, if the electric is forced in
they won't sell enough to be viable.

 

Every one ?

A recent survey here in Bordeaux (South of France) showed that only 8% of the population is interested in cycling.

The proportion goes down as low as 2% for the above 50.

All this cycling craze is pushed by the ecologist lobby that is anti-car, and people in power pander to them for votes.

 

Mao’s China was particularly good on that front.

 

Also, cycling will never be as profitable for a government than the motor car industry.