So, electric cars won't become more popular until (1) they become cheaper than gasoline cars to purchase and operate, (2) charging infrastructure improves and (3) standard models have 200+ mile range.
Thinking about the first criterion for a bit, I'm guessing one of the big factors holding electric cars back right this moment is the cost of gasoline and oil. It's at $47 a barrel, pretty low compared to previous years (back when cars like the Tesla Model S and Nissan Leaf first came out). But how long is it gonna stay down there before it creeps back up to the $100 to $150 department again, do you think? And would such a price leap be enough to push customers to buy more electric cars?
Cheap oil won't last long. Even with cheap oil gas prices haven't dropped that much. It will go back up.
the real question in my mind is if it will stay cheap long enough to keep electric cars at bay for a time. If it does, there are laboratories working hard to create synthetic gasoline from renewable sources. If that happens, electric vehicles are fucked.
>>13815386
#1 is a reality in europe. However, #2 and #3 are still out of reach. So, electric cars are still shit because I can't go 400 miles, charge the battery in a couple of minutes, and then do another 400.
Until they invent batteries that last for hundreds of miles and don't take hours to charge, it's a no-sell.
>>13815386
How about we talk about the electricity production for these vehicles? It has to produced somehow, right? Renewables will not be able to match the demand for EVs. Nuclear would be a cleaner way of producing the electricity to meet demand, but muh Eco hippies won't stand for da big bad nuclear.
So how do you meet demand to power EVs?
Coal.
Yes, coal. We will go from making cleaner and more efficient gasoline engines to dirty coal burning, which is far worse for the environment than the ICE.
Good job Environmentalists, you just fucked the worlds shit up.
>>13816097
One, electricity grids tend to use a mixture of power sources, the net average emissions-per-kWh-to-your-plughole of which are lower than the equivalent energy needed to move your car about with an ICE.
Two, clean coal technologies are a thing. With the right technologies, it would be possible to make running a car on a coal power station's electricity at least a little cleaner than it using its own ICE.
Three, renewables are starting to take up a larger and larger portion of the energy mix as time goes on, meaning that the electricity from the grid is (slowly) getting cleaner with time. Meanwhile, your econobox's ICE remains as dirty as the day it came out of the factory.
Four, location of emissions. This is less to do with climate change and more to do with the localised effects of smog. ICEs must be operating at the point where the car needs its energy. Meaning that it has to be putting out emissions wherever it is. This might be in a mountain-rimmed city with an atmospheric inversion or some shit, giving a prime recipe for smog. Electric cars draw power from power stations far, far away. And even if they're coal, the power stations could be built in flat areas with good crosswind ventilation, preventing smog building up there.
Five, natural gas is also an economically viable source of power for electricity production, and it is cleaner-burning than coal (and efficiencies of scale in big-ass power plants make it cleaner than ICEs in all the little cars).
Six, thorium is another potential alternative. A form of nuclear power with much less dangerous waste products and which is pretty much impossible to weaponise. Less likely to rile hippies.
>>13815386
They can be made du jur mandatory pretty easily.
>>13815397
Electric cars can also become de facto mandatory through taxes on gasoline that mean only racers will buy it.
>>13816097
Renewables will have no problem keeping up with EVs when we finally sort out nuclear power.
>>13816097
Please, I dislike environmentalists as much as you but even with coal burning it's still more efficient.
ICE is incredibly inefficient, something on the scale of 30%
What's ICE guys
>>13816272
Internal Combustion Engine.
>>13816245
"sort out?" what do you mean "sort out?" nuclear power is fully sorted, m8, it's just not growing because the retarded general public is easily scared by a fear mongering media and anti nuclear activists.
Fun fact:
Every nuclear accident combined has killed less people than coal mining has in the last decade.
>>13815386
Point (1) is as stupid as saying:
>So, Mercedes won't become more popular until they become cheaper than Chevy's.
There's a market for cars of all price ranges, and many successful brands do not produce inexpensive models.
>>13816220
this is easily the most sensible post i've ever read on /o/.
>>13815386
>But how long is it gonna stay down there before it creeps back up to the $100 to $150 department again, do you think?
The thing is OP as oil prices climb this high other forms of obtaining oil become more viable to use such as fracking, oil shale, tar sands and super deep rig drilling,etc.
This means ICE's will probably be the dominant form of personal transportation on the planet for the foreseeable future.
EV's will remain a novelty by comparison unless a giant breakthrough occurs in battery technology/power grids and even then the price will be quite high in comparison to comparable ICE vehicles.
>>13816411
Whenever someone mentions Thorium, I cringe.
>>13816411
Except for the part where clean coal isn't really a thing
reminder that in about a decade, most electric sporty cars will have performance equivalent to the zombie 222 electric mustang.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAwIsKC7ROQ
it's certainly not a bad future by any means.
and the name for the old "but coal powers all the evs!" argument is called the "long tailpipe hypothesis", realize that a large baseload power plant charging up your car is a good deal more efficient and cleaner than burning gas in your engine
>>13817175
>most electric sporty cars will have performance equivalent to the zombie 222 electric mustang
and last a couple launches before running out of juice?
electric cars replacing ice as performance standard will not happen for many a decade. hybrid power will be juiced for all its worth.
>>13816527
>thorium is bad because a lot of people talk about it
>>13817192
take a look at what EV west is cooking up, their ev dune buggy is pretty rad.
also batteries are getting better at a pretty good pace as the good ones get cheaper and newer, better ones are developed. this is assuming there is no breakthrough which replaces LiPo as the standard
>>13816097
>Hurp pollution
>Posts picture of cooling towers
>>13815386
Here in Britain electric cars are already cheaper to buy and operate, but the infrastructure is so poor that only the most die hard green party loyalists actually drive them
There's literally three (3) charging stations in my county, one at the local harbour (for boats, but on shore so cars can use it too), one at the council offices and one at the court. EVERYWHERE else you need to go to a regular power outlet with the adapter and wait for the 6+ hour charging cycle
>>13817203
It doesn't solve any of the current problems.
>>13817216
how come? it solves the problem of not using overisize nuclear reactors meant to be used in submarines, thats already a start
>>13815397
Synthetic gasoline would be an absolute godsend. Ain't no way I want to give up my shitbox/coold car/insert something else here just because of running out of oil.
>>13818579
What, you mean like ethanol?
>>13817214
It's a shitty catch-22 situations with electric cars.
They won't get more popular until there's the infrastructure to support them, and the infrastructure to support them won't spread until they get more popular.
>>13815397
>synthetic gasoline
