Chevy Volt a Failure - GM to Layoff 1,300

The wisdom of crowds

Wielding Rocks and Knives, Arizonans Attack Self-Driving Cars

 

So batteries are no better today than they were 130+ years ago? Of course the cost of manufacturing batteries will come down. The price of manufacturing damn near any established technology goes down over time.*

You can try to hedge your bets at the end of your post by saying, "I am not saying that won't change someday," but the fact is, it inevitably WILL change someday. You're viewing the future through a 2018/2019 lens so that you can be right.

And you're still wrong. The price of lithium ion batteries related to cars has already dropped significantly, and is expected to continue to drop.



And, as far as stripping cobalt out of the batteries, that may not actually be the only answer, according to MIT.

All of that said, I'm curious which "potentially more cost-efficient technologies that have been disadvantaged" you believe "could have been way farther ahead by now" if not for government subsidies of EVs. That's really the crux of your argument. I'm open to the idea that the government is missing the boat on Technology X by subsidizing Technology Y. I'm curious what efficient-engine technology we're missing that you think is more viable than electric.

*Interesting that you suddenly narrowed the parameters to specifically only include lithium ion batteries instead of just battery technology in general. I didn't miss that. For the purposes of this argument, it's fairly moot since lithium ion is currently the predominant technology, but when you drag this thread up in five years, it should be noted that if a new, cheaper battery alternative emerges, it still counts toward my statement that it's a given that battery prices will eventually come down.

 

A third of all new cars sold seems like a pretty big niche.

Norway's electric cars zip to new record: almost a third of all sales | Reuters

 

The graph contains data from 12 studies, all of which show the cost of batteries HAS significantly dropped and is expected to continue to drop. You can scoff at it, I suppose, but it certainly comes across as "evangelical," as you put it.

Yeah, I found the graph using Google. So what? I don't apologize for it. Google is a resource, and you used it to look up the cost of cobalt. Don't condescend to me about using Google. The MIT story, which came out just a few days before I posted and came up in my FB news feed, shows that while you are so focused on the cost of cobalt, there are some really smart people out there engineering new ways around the problem. Yeah, things WILL change.

You do keep hedging your bets with phrases like "at this moment," and "I am not saying that won't change someday."

Also, you keep saying "forced." The government - and manufacturers - see potential in this technology and are "choosing" to support research into making it more cost-effective. If you think they should "choose" something different, I'd love to hear it. If you think they shouldn't choose to subsidize anything, then we're talking about withdrawing all government support of innovation across all industries so as not to "force" subsidies on anyone. No more government subsidies for research into cancer, ALS, communications, weapons manufacturing, etc. That's fine if you want to make that argument, but it's a different discussion altogether.

And, for all of the parts of my post that you chose to respond to, I notice you avoided the question of which promising technologies you believe are disadvantaged by government subsidies for research into EVs and battery technology.

 

Choosing to fund basic research and subsidizing products are entirely different things.

 

I can get a federal tax credit to replace my home's windows or install an EnergyStar rated central air conditioning system or to install solar panels on my roof. All those products are subsidized by the government. What's your point?

 

My point is that generally supporting scientific research is not the same as subsidizing what people buy in the marketplace. It's pretty simple. The government doesn't know what will come out of research, but when it subsidizes something in the marketplace it is choosing one thing over another, distorting the market, and inefficiently using resources.

 

HD is now taking orders for an all-electric motorcycle ... at $30,000.

Pegs, Not Pedals: Harley-Davidson Shows New E-Bike Concepts | GearJunkie

 

Before Electric Cars Takes Over, Someone Needs to Reinvent the Battery

 

I've wondered if we couldn't figure out a system of stations for swapping lithium-ion batteries to make longer trips possible and use existing technology. Make the battery quickly swappable like a forklift and pay a monthly fee to have access to battery stations.Because the batteries are the issue. I know working for Honda, it's been a bit of a quandary even when it comes to batteries for its hybrids. It's a company that has perfected the internal combustion engine . They don't have any institutional knowledge for the batteries. For a company that is emphatic that the engineering and production of all the major components are done in-house and in-company, having to go outside Honda to get its batteries introduces all sorts of variables to quality and a fear that reliability — the hallmark of the company — could be compromised.