Where does this notion come from? No, seriously. Current electric cars are about the same weight on average as current gasoline cars (they tend to be heavier than other cars in their class, but the lighter classes are overrepresented currently, so it's about a wash). Same amount of material, and therefore.... they're somehow incredibly resource hungry? Where does this come from?
Or is the notion that batteries somehow consume incredibly rare resources? You're thinking of fuel cells, which take platinum (trivia: so do catalytic converters). For example, one of the most popular chemistries for EVs today is lithium phosphate. It's made of lithium salts (which are so abundant that their prices generally range from $4 to $8 per *kilogram*, and which are available at essentially limitless quantities in the oceans for $20-35/kg), phosphoric acid (one of the world's most common industrial chemicals, and found in soft drinks), sugar, iron powder, a porous polyethylene membrane (polyethylene being one of the cheapest and simplest plastics), graphite or amorphous carbon, and bulk electrolytes (formulations vary), plus casing, wiring, etc. What exactly in this mix are you seeing as incredibly rare? The cost of lithium phosphate batteries (and spinel cells as well) are predominantly capital costs, not materials costs.
Name one that's been able to raise the money for a commercial production venture (I.e., not just a little tiny pilot project). After all, they've been operating for years.
As for yuor "blah blah combine" combines don't exactly work on HYDROPONIC CROPS...
Combines work on whatever you design them to work on.
but apparently all analysts and people experimenting with it think that at $50/barrel that Algal Oil is perfectly economically viable.
If "all analysts and people" think it's so viable, why have all these companies been having so much trouble trying to raise capital for the past several years, even in this incredibly pro-green environment?
Whether or not EEStor is real or not is becoming increasingly unimportant. When they first started pushing their (questionable) tech, conventional li-ion cells on the market were 160Wh/kg and most of of the stable ones were ~$1/Wh and under 100Wh/kg. Now conventional li-ion cells are 200Wh/kg with longer life, the stable ones are under $0.50/Wh and rapidly headed toward $0.35/Wh or so, and there have been literally dozens of lab breakthroughs that if any one of each anode and cathode tech were commercialized, would make li-ion cells have the claimed energy density of EEstor's EESU. So, honestly, I don't really care all that much about whether they're legit or not anymore.
Hydrogen is already obsolete. I mean, come on, 6 figures for a fuel cell stack strong enough to run a car? 1/3rd the efficiency of EVs, and that's *if* you use fuel cells rather than combustion? 5 year fuel cell lifespans, tops? Many more moving parts (including a compressor)? An explosive, ozone-depleting fuel that leaks through almost anything, pools under overhangs, has a ridiculously low ignition energy, burns in almost any mixture with air, rapidly undergoes deflagration to detonation transitions, etc? That has no better range than a modern li-ion EV? And takes 3 times as long to fill as the high end rapid-charging EVs and 1.5 to 2x as long as the low-end rapid charging EVs? Why exactly is this supposed to be appealing?
Algae is a free floating aquatic plant so a lot of the labor intensities go away
Hydroponics isn't expensive because of labor. The labor on a hydroponic farm is, if anything, lower than on a conventional farm. It's expensive because of the massive amount of plastic and steel that you need. You're talking endless *acres* of plastic. And all plastics suffer UV degradation to some degree.
Hydroponic Wheat/Corn/etc is more expensive because it's wasteful and increases the energy costs associated.
Hydroponic *everything* is expensive because of capital costs. Staples are simply not grown in hydroponics because nobody wants to pay a fortune for them. The only things that are generally economically justifiable to grow in hydroponics are things that are *already* expensive due to labor costs.
Sieve.. isn't so simply for corn,
I take it you've never heard of a combine.
Again, it's not the harvesting that's the issue. It's not marginal costs at all. It's capital costs.
All you need to grow hydroponic algae is water circulation, sunlight, carbon dioxide and some nutrients in the water
You've made it obvious that you've never done hydroponics in your life.
and the "wear and tear" on transparent plastic tubes that simply have algae-bearing water running through them isn't going to be nearly as bad as other hydroponics.
Again, you make it quite obvious. UV creates free radicals in the plastic which causes crosslinking, making the plastics brittle. It happens in all plastics. Untreated thin film polyethylene (the cheap stuff) generally lasts for under a year before it becomes semi-opaque and so brittle even the stresses of a light breeze can break it. About the longest you'll get is thick, rigid, UV-treated polycarbonate, which is probably good for about 10 years in this kind of role, but I doubt they'd even dream of paying for that. They'd probably go with UV-treated PVC thin film tubing, good for 2-3 years. Or they might use some sort of fluorinated thin film. But that's still monstrously large capital costs for this kind of coverage, for such tiny revenue per acre (~$10k/year).
And their design was apparently conservative: you could build it, starting TODAY.
Yeah. *Fusion*? Better tell ITER that they're barking up the wrong tree.
And do we really want to get into the whole hydrogen boondoggle?
How do you distribute the electricity from your biomass reactor or your solar field to the cars?
Trivially. The US power grid is 92.8% efficient, and EVs stabilize the grid rather than destabilizing it (they're steady, predictable loads, and there's an increasing push to make them smart loads, too -- esp. with V2G).
Actually, the 5,000 gallons figure is for biodiesel, not ethanol. But again, that's just one company's figure, and they haven't produced anything close to that, so take it with a massive grain of salt.
The biggest problem with algae is that it is, by its very nature, hydroponics. Hydroponics is expensive for even things where most of the costs are labor, like lettuce and tomatoes. You'll never see "hydroponic wheat" or "hydroponic corn", because it'd 10x the price. Yet that's exactly the sort of thing they're proposing to do here -- hydroponics on an unthinkable scale. And even worse than most conventional hydroponics, you have to have the algae completely enclosed or competing species will get introduced. So that's even *more* plastic involved.
I can't see how it could ever be cost competitive. How can you have an acre of plastic and metal, where the plastic has to be replaced at regular intervals, amortize its costs on sales of 5k (or, more likely, fewer) gallons of biodiesel per year? I just can't see that happening.
The real blow-it-out-of-the-water numbers are when you eliminate "bio" from the equation, period. Corn yields 300-450 gallons of ethanol per acre. Sugarcane, about 550-850 gallons or so. Switchgrass can theoretically yield over 1000 gallons per acre and algae 5000, although those numbers are likely to get way smacked down by reality (especially the algae numbers). But let's just go with them. CAFE average is ~24mpg, and you get less mpg on ethanol, but hey, let's just say our cars get 40mpg. The average driver goes 12k miles per year, so corn can support 1.3 drivers/acre, sugarcane 2.3 drivers/acre, switchgrass 3.3 drivers/acre, and algae a way-over-optimistic 16.7 drivers/acre.
A compact linear fresnel reflector solar thermal generating station produces about 1MW nominal capacity for every 4 acres and has about a 20% capacity factor (in non-optimal sites). That's an actual MW per 20 acres, or 488,288,000Wh/acre-year. The Volt and Tesla Roadster both use about 200Wh/mi, so let's go with a more pessimistic 300Wh/mi after losses and with less efficient designs. That's 121.7 drivers per acre. I.e., it beats the pants off even the highly speculative numbers for algae. And it uses no water or fertilizer -- and we use *way* too much water as it is.
If you want land efficiency, converting the sun directly to electricity and using that electricity directly rather than having the intermediary stage of "plants" is the way to go. And we farm too darn much of this planet as it is already.
I was a coder and graphics devel for that project a while back... fun stuff.:) The original Falcon's Eye had stopped being maintained and wasn't even taking new patches, so Clive spun off Vulture's Eye.
According to the company's website, at least, the goats actually prefer a number of invasive plants, such as star thistle. They reportedly eat them first before munching on the (less nutritious) grass. They also like poison ivy -- it doesn't have the ill effects on them that it does on us.
Are you under the impression that the goats would have otherwise not breathed and farted** if they hadn't been used to trim the lawn? I assume they're being used for milk and/or hair in addition to grazing services; it'd be a waste not to. Or they could be males left over from breeding for milk-producing goats.
** -- Ruminant methane emissions are primarily through "belching" rather than flatus. Belching in quotes, as that's not exactly what happens; they transfer the bolus (cud) back and forth between the mouth and rumen. It is in the rumen that this methane is primarily produced, and it gets released in the mouth. Most of the remaining emissions come mainly from the decomposion of the manure. Flatus is only a small portion of their total methane emissions.
but so too is there evidence linking piracy and global temperatures.
You and I are looking at different things here. You're looking for proof. I'm looking for evidence. You're not going to get proof. But you can find evidence. Evidence is something that logically suggests but doesn't prove a conclusion. There is no logical connection between piracy and global temperatures.
As for the rest of your post, I'm at a loss as to how that defends the stance that coal is making West Virginians wealthier than they would be otherwise.
Hydrogen is not the equivalent of lithium in the fuel cells to batteries comparison. Platinum is the equivalent to lithium in that comparison. And platinum is *incredibly* rare. And mining it, unlike lithium, involves vast quantities of tailings, often toxic.
If you want the battery equivalent of hydrogen on a fuel-cells-to-batteries comparison, you're looking for electrons. Or more precisely, where they're located.
Just ignoring that the energy needed to produce batteries is far less than the vehicles consume in their lifetime... are you saying that electric-powered freight trucks can't exist? That's big news! You better inform Balqon, Modec, Smith Electric Vehicles, and ElectroRides that their products are impossible.
And do we really have to *yet again* cover the "long tailpipe" argument? Why won't this zombie die?
I wouldn't really call lithium mining "exporting our pollution". It's pretty tame -- you take salt flat brines, selectively precipitate out the salts you want, and return the remaining salts. It's not like you're ripping off mountaintops or contaminating freshwater with lead or something.
Anyway, as with all discussions of "reserves", this whole discussion is incredibly misleading. The concept of a reserves figure also has a market price and technology level associated with it. As market prices change and technology changes, what "reserves" are available in each country changes dramatically. For example, at high oil prices, Venezuela has more oil than Saudi Arabia. The same sort of thing is true with lithium. For example, one the Kings Valley, Nevada mine owned by Western Lithium Corp, which they're currently developing, has 50% more "reserves" at the minimum concentration they're planning to recover than the figure this articles gives for the entire United States. The entire Kings Valley was estimated back in the 70s/80s to have 11m tons LCE (lithium carbonate equivalent, the standard form for trading lithium).
Imagine what West Virginia would be like _without_ coal mining, however. Very pretty, I'm sure. But certainly far poorer.
Well, if WV coal deposits correlate at all with per capita income, I'd say it's probably negative. The only real exception seems to be Kanawha County, but that's simply because Charleston is there.
Well, what would you prefer? I once worked as a software gofer at a medical billing office for a hospital back in the mid/late '90s. The way it worked was: the patients and doctors wrote their information on paper. Someone would type that into a computer, and we'd get it in our office. That information would then be printed out, and the stacks passed off to dozens of women (almost exclusively women) sitting at computers. These women would then type the records into different software which would make records that we would need to transmit. Now, this was the mid/late 90s; the internet was well established, encryption software was widely available, etc... but we couldn't transmit the stuff over the internet. We couldn't even transmit over a regular modem. Regulations required that we send our records over a *bisync* modem. It was something like 2kbps, on a long distance call to Indianapolis. And it had a habit of cutting out in the middle of the night, and we'd have to start our transmissions over, which would sometimes cause us to build up a backlog of claims. We would rather have just driven CDs straight to their office (would have been significantly faster and cheaper), but that wasn't allowed. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if on the other end, the results were getting printed out and put back into computers yet again.
Really bloody awful. Talk about a huge waste of money and adding in a tremendous opportunity for errors to be introduced.
Gas better get really expensive if mass market EVs need to recharge every 200 miles
I'll never understand this concept. Gas cars don't have huge ranges because people like to drive for 7 hours on end without stopping to stretch, eat, or even use the restroom. Gas cars have huge ranges to get around the *inconvenience* of having to drive to the gas station in your everyday life, since they can't charge at home. I don't see the need for more than 200-250 miles of range. What sort of person feels that they absolutely have to be able to drive for 7 hours nonstop in their vehicle on those once-or-twice-a-year trips or the vehicle is worthless?
And really, the typical service available at roadside stations is a lot more interesting to me than the service available at a site that was very likely using belts to move around tons of material everyday (and may have had large ovens in operation, but they would probably burn something for that).
Don't ask a question that you don't want an answer for. You asked how much power businesses use; I showed you the first example that came up on Google. Now you're wanting charging to have to be at a specific business?
Is what you really want to know, "What's the cost of grid wiring per megawatt-mile installed?"
Their model is built around the sole exception that I listed. The Nissan-Renault partnership that PBP is working with is planning to put out a couple near identical midsize sedans with a single battery chemistry. That's great for now, but it can't scale or be sustained into the future.
If you want used, a used Prius pack that's still in full working order goes for about $750.
Honestly, those repair prices are nothing unusual for a main engine component. And it's for something that almost never fails out of warranty. Unlike, say, a transmission.
Slashdot Mirror
Where does this notion come from? No, seriously. Current electric cars are about the same weight on average as current gasoline cars (they tend to be heavier than other cars in their class, but the lighter classes are overrepresented currently, so it's about a wash). Same amount of material, and therefore.... they're somehow incredibly resource hungry? Where does this come from?
Or is the notion that batteries somehow consume incredibly rare resources? You're thinking of fuel cells, which take platinum (trivia: so do catalytic converters). For example, one of the most popular chemistries for EVs today is lithium phosphate. It's made of lithium salts (which are so abundant that their prices generally range from $4 to $8 per *kilogram*, and which are available at essentially limitless quantities in the oceans for $20-35/kg), phosphoric acid (one of the world's most common industrial chemicals, and found in soft drinks), sugar, iron powder, a porous polyethylene membrane (polyethylene being one of the cheapest and simplest plastics), graphite or amorphous carbon, and bulk electrolytes (formulations vary), plus casing, wiring, etc. What exactly in this mix are you seeing as incredibly rare? The cost of lithium phosphate batteries (and spinel cells as well) are predominantly capital costs, not materials costs.
Name one that's been able to raise the money for a commercial production venture (I.e., not just a little tiny pilot project). After all, they've been operating for years.
Name one that's cashflow positive.
As for yuor "blah blah combine" combines don't exactly work on HYDROPONIC CROPS...
Combines work on whatever you design them to work on.
but apparently all analysts and people experimenting with it think that at $50/barrel that Algal Oil is perfectly economically viable.
If "all analysts and people" think it's so viable, why have all these companies been having so much trouble trying to raise capital for the past several years, even in this incredibly pro-green environment?
Glass is more UV resistant, to be sure. But it also costs more. It also isn't quite as good at transmitting visible light.
Whether or not EEStor is real or not is becoming increasingly unimportant. When they first started pushing their (questionable) tech, conventional li-ion cells on the market were 160Wh/kg and most of of the stable ones were ~$1/Wh and under 100Wh/kg. Now conventional li-ion cells are 200Wh/kg with longer life, the stable ones are under $0.50/Wh and rapidly headed toward $0.35/Wh or so, and there have been literally dozens of lab breakthroughs that if any one of each anode and cathode tech were commercialized, would make li-ion cells have the claimed energy density of EEstor's EESU. So, honestly, I don't really care all that much about whether they're legit or not anymore.
Hydrogen is already obsolete. I mean, come on, 6 figures for a fuel cell stack strong enough to run a car? 1/3rd the efficiency of EVs, and that's *if* you use fuel cells rather than combustion? 5 year fuel cell lifespans, tops? Many more moving parts (including a compressor)? An explosive, ozone-depleting fuel that leaks through almost anything, pools under overhangs, has a ridiculously low ignition energy, burns in almost any mixture with air, rapidly undergoes deflagration to detonation transitions, etc? That has no better range than a modern li-ion EV? And takes 3 times as long to fill as the high end rapid-charging EVs and 1.5 to 2x as long as the low-end rapid charging EVs? Why exactly is this supposed to be appealing?
Algae is a free floating aquatic plant so a lot of the labor intensities go away
Hydroponics isn't expensive because of labor. The labor on a hydroponic farm is, if anything, lower than on a conventional farm. It's expensive because of the massive amount of plastic and steel that you need. You're talking endless *acres* of plastic. And all plastics suffer UV degradation to some degree.
Hydroponic Wheat/Corn/etc is more expensive because it's wasteful and increases the energy costs associated.
Hydroponic *everything* is expensive because of capital costs. Staples are simply not grown in hydroponics because nobody wants to pay a fortune for them. The only things that are generally economically justifiable to grow in hydroponics are things that are *already* expensive due to labor costs.
Sieve.. isn't so simply for corn,
I take it you've never heard of a combine.
Again, it's not the harvesting that's the issue. It's not marginal costs at all. It's capital costs.
All you need to grow hydroponic algae is water circulation, sunlight, carbon dioxide and some nutrients in the water
You've made it obvious that you've never done hydroponics in your life.
and the "wear and tear" on transparent plastic tubes that simply have algae-bearing water running through them isn't going to be nearly as bad as other hydroponics.
Again, you make it quite obvious. UV creates free radicals in the plastic which causes crosslinking, making the plastics brittle. It happens in all plastics. Untreated thin film polyethylene (the cheap stuff) generally lasts for under a year before it becomes semi-opaque and so brittle even the stresses of a light breeze can break it. About the longest you'll get is thick, rigid, UV-treated polycarbonate, which is probably good for about 10 years in this kind of role, but I doubt they'd even dream of paying for that. They'd probably go with UV-treated PVC thin film tubing, good for 2-3 years. Or they might use some sort of fluorinated thin film. But that's still monstrously large capital costs for this kind of coverage, for such tiny revenue per acre (~$10k/year).
And their design was apparently conservative: you could build it, starting TODAY.
Yeah. *Fusion*? Better tell ITER that they're barking up the wrong tree.
And do we really want to get into the whole hydrogen boondoggle?
How do you distribute the electricity from your biomass reactor or your solar field to the cars?
Trivially. The US power grid is 92.8% efficient, and EVs stabilize the grid rather than destabilizing it (they're steady, predictable loads, and there's an increasing push to make them smart loads, too -- esp. with V2G).
Actually, the 5,000 gallons figure is for biodiesel, not ethanol. But again, that's just one company's figure, and they haven't produced anything close to that, so take it with a massive grain of salt.
The biggest problem with algae is that it is, by its very nature, hydroponics. Hydroponics is expensive for even things where most of the costs are labor, like lettuce and tomatoes. You'll never see "hydroponic wheat" or "hydroponic corn", because it'd 10x the price. Yet that's exactly the sort of thing they're proposing to do here -- hydroponics on an unthinkable scale. And even worse than most conventional hydroponics, you have to have the algae completely enclosed or competing species will get introduced. So that's even *more* plastic involved.
I can't see how it could ever be cost competitive. How can you have an acre of plastic and metal, where the plastic has to be replaced at regular intervals, amortize its costs on sales of 5k (or, more likely, fewer) gallons of biodiesel per year? I just can't see that happening.
Erm, not "no" water, but still "minimal" water. There's some initial water needed to fill the closed-loop system.
The real blow-it-out-of-the-water numbers are when you eliminate "bio" from the equation, period. Corn yields 300-450 gallons of ethanol per acre. Sugarcane, about 550-850 gallons or so. Switchgrass can theoretically yield over 1000 gallons per acre and algae 5000, although those numbers are likely to get way smacked down by reality (especially the algae numbers). But let's just go with them. CAFE average is ~24mpg, and you get less mpg on ethanol, but hey, let's just say our cars get 40mpg. The average driver goes 12k miles per year, so corn can support 1.3 drivers/acre, sugarcane 2.3 drivers/acre, switchgrass 3.3 drivers/acre, and algae a way-over-optimistic 16.7 drivers/acre.
A compact linear fresnel reflector solar thermal generating station produces about 1MW nominal capacity for every 4 acres and has about a 20% capacity factor (in non-optimal sites). That's an actual MW per 20 acres, or 488,288,000Wh/acre-year. The Volt and Tesla Roadster both use about 200Wh/mi, so let's go with a more pessimistic 300Wh/mi after losses and with less efficient designs. That's 121.7 drivers per acre. I.e., it beats the pants off even the highly speculative numbers for algae. And it uses no water or fertilizer -- and we use *way* too much water as it is.
If you want land efficiency, converting the sun directly to electricity and using that electricity directly rather than having the intermediary stage of "plants" is the way to go. And we farm too darn much of this planet as it is already.
I was a coder and graphics devel for that project a while back... fun stuff. :) The original Falcon's Eye had stopped being maintained and wasn't even taking new patches, so Clive spun off Vulture's Eye.
According to the company's website, at least, the goats actually prefer a number of invasive plants, such as star thistle. They reportedly eat them first before munching on the (less nutritious) grass. They also like poison ivy -- it doesn't have the ill effects on them that it does on us.
Yeah, a friend of ours has a housetrained pygmy goat (it works surprisingly well!). Its waste looks kind of like oversized rabbit pellets.
Are you under the impression that the goats would have otherwise not breathed and farted** if they hadn't been used to trim the lawn? I assume they're being used for milk and/or hair in addition to grazing services; it'd be a waste not to. Or they could be males left over from breeding for milk-producing goats.
** -- Ruminant methane emissions are primarily through "belching" rather than flatus. Belching in quotes, as that's not exactly what happens; they transfer the bolus (cud) back and forth between the mouth and rumen. It is in the rumen that this methane is primarily produced, and it gets released in the mouth. Most of the remaining emissions come mainly from the decomposion of the manure. Flatus is only a small portion of their total methane emissions.
but so too is there evidence linking piracy and global temperatures.
You and I are looking at different things here. You're looking for proof. I'm looking for evidence. You're not going to get proof. But you can find evidence. Evidence is something that logically suggests but doesn't prove a conclusion. There is no logical connection between piracy and global temperatures.
As for the rest of your post, I'm at a loss as to how that defends the stance that coal is making West Virginians wealthier than they would be otherwise.
I didn't say it is. But it is evidence.
Hydrogen is not the equivalent of lithium in the fuel cells to batteries comparison. Platinum is the equivalent to lithium in that comparison. And platinum is *incredibly* rare. And mining it, unlike lithium, involves vast quantities of tailings, often toxic.
If you want the battery equivalent of hydrogen on a fuel-cells-to-batteries comparison, you're looking for electrons. Or more precisely, where they're located.
Just ignoring that the energy needed to produce batteries is far less than the vehicles consume in their lifetime... are you saying that electric-powered freight trucks can't exist? That's big news! You better inform Balqon, Modec, Smith Electric Vehicles, and ElectroRides that their products are impossible.
And do we really have to *yet again* cover the "long tailpipe" argument? Why won't this zombie die?
I wouldn't really call lithium mining "exporting our pollution". It's pretty tame -- you take salt flat brines, selectively precipitate out the salts you want, and return the remaining salts. It's not like you're ripping off mountaintops or contaminating freshwater with lead or something.
Anyway, as with all discussions of "reserves", this whole discussion is incredibly misleading. The concept of a reserves figure also has a market price and technology level associated with it. As market prices change and technology changes, what "reserves" are available in each country changes dramatically. For example, at high oil prices, Venezuela has more oil than Saudi Arabia. The same sort of thing is true with lithium. For example, one the Kings Valley, Nevada mine owned by Western Lithium Corp, which they're currently developing, has 50% more "reserves" at the minimum concentration they're planning to recover than the figure this articles gives for the entire United States. The entire Kings Valley was estimated back in the 70s/80s to have 11m tons LCE (lithium carbonate equivalent, the standard form for trading lithium).
Imagine what West Virginia would be like _without_ coal mining, however. Very pretty, I'm sure. But certainly far poorer.
Well, if WV coal deposits correlate at all with per capita income, I'd say it's probably negative. The only real exception seems to be Kanawha County, but that's simply because Charleston is there.
Well, what would you prefer? I once worked as a software gofer at a medical billing office for a hospital back in the mid/late '90s. The way it worked was: the patients and doctors wrote their information on paper. Someone would type that into a computer, and we'd get it in our office. That information would then be printed out, and the stacks passed off to dozens of women (almost exclusively women) sitting at computers. These women would then type the records into different software which would make records that we would need to transmit. Now, this was the mid/late 90s; the internet was well established, encryption software was widely available, etc... but we couldn't transmit the stuff over the internet. We couldn't even transmit over a regular modem. Regulations required that we send our records over a *bisync* modem. It was something like 2kbps, on a long distance call to Indianapolis. And it had a habit of cutting out in the middle of the night, and we'd have to start our transmissions over, which would sometimes cause us to build up a backlog of claims. We would rather have just driven CDs straight to their office (would have been significantly faster and cheaper), but that wasn't allowed. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if on the other end, the results were getting printed out and put back into computers yet again.
Really bloody awful. Talk about a huge waste of money and adding in a tremendous opportunity for errors to be introduced.
I think you may have failed reading.
At least compared to CNG and ethanol, the diesel maintenance costs appear to be notably *higher*
You know, maintenance? The subject we were talking about?
Gas better get really expensive if mass market EVs need to recharge every 200 miles
I'll never understand this concept. Gas cars don't have huge ranges because people like to drive for 7 hours on end without stopping to stretch, eat, or even use the restroom. Gas cars have huge ranges to get around the *inconvenience* of having to drive to the gas station in your everyday life, since they can't charge at home. I don't see the need for more than 200-250 miles of range. What sort of person feels that they absolutely have to be able to drive for 7 hours nonstop in their vehicle on those once-or-twice-a-year trips or the vehicle is worthless?
And really, the typical service available at roadside stations is a lot more interesting to me than the service available at a site that was very likely using belts to move around tons of material everyday (and may have had large ovens in operation, but they would probably burn something for that).
Don't ask a question that you don't want an answer for. You asked how much power businesses use; I showed you the first example that came up on Google. Now you're wanting charging to have to be at a specific business?
Is what you really want to know, "What's the cost of grid wiring per megawatt-mile installed?"
Their model is built around the sole exception that I listed. The Nissan-Renault partnership that PBP is working with is planning to put out a couple near identical midsize sedans with a single battery chemistry. That's great for now, but it can't scale or be sustained into the future.
If you want used, a used Prius pack that's still in full working order goes for about $750.
Honestly, those repair prices are nothing unusual for a main engine component. And it's for something that almost never fails out of warranty. Unlike, say, a transmission.