As electric cars become more common, the ability to charge them will as well. Apartments will offer it. Parking lots will offer it. Hell, at some point Denny's will offer inexpensive charging with breakfast the same as they offer wifi. Businesses will offer charging to their employees. Fast food restaurants will offer charging while you eat lunch. Grocery stores will offer charging while you shop (with affinity points!).
Essentially, you'll be able to charge your car anyplace you stop to eat. instead of a gasoline station on every street, there will be a half dozen electrical charging locations on every street.
90% of people do not drive long distances over a month worth of days each year.
I have 1 "long" vacation each year (250 miles each way). Every few years I have an extra "long" vacation during a year (300-500 miles each way).
Even at today's prices, electricity is saving you $10 per week for a sedan type car (more vs low mileage vehicles). So you would have $520 to rent a car for your trip. When oil prices go back up, it's going to go back to saving over $1000 per year in fuel costs alone.
And it's also saving about $600 a year in maintenance cost savings. So there's another trip covered.
---
As the number of electric cars increase, the network benefit of gasoline stations will fall and the price of gasoline per gallon will go up. Fewer gallons of gasoline sold per month will mean higher prices per gallon to cover fixed costs. But that's probably 15 years off and we will have much bigger issues by that time anyway.
Until quite recently you were paying about $16,000 more for fuel over the life of your truck for that capability. Now it's about $8,000. (It may be much worse for your truck than I'm stating tho as those figured are based on 28mpg car vs the cost of electricity at 10 cents per kwh. Electric contracts go down as low as 8cpkwh and truck mileage can easily drop below 28mpg).
Your truck is actually more of a niche vehicle than electric cars. Electric cars match the most common use cases except they are about $25,000 too expensive. As the price drops, they could take over 75% of the market.
Leigh Christie's post on this is great. After tons of useful graphs and information...
"Note: I have not actually done a curve fit, so I can not comment on the exact percentage. But given that it's doubling roughly every 9-14 years, I'd say 5-8% sounds about right!"
Batteries are continuing to improve in dramatic ways. Dropping in price by about 5-8% per year, increasing in capacity about 5-8% per year.
Second, there was no mention of 'white" prior to your post in this article.
You are introducing racism where it didn't exist.
What I am astonished is that the was able to beat the hell out of her, and there was no other evidence. What did police do before video evidence? I give them the benefit of the doubt for acting quickly- he may have killed or seriously injured her with each additional kick.
To be fair, you really need to add in the 2 to 3 trillion for the gulf war immediate expenses to protect the oil fields.
And probably some add on costs of radicalization because we repeatedly invaded middle eastern countries and killed tens of thousands of civilians to protect the oil fields.
There are many many dictatorships around the world... several committing genocide right now and much weaker militarily than Iraq was at the start of the gulf war. But they don't have oil. So their genocide's continue unabated.
So the trillions spent were to protect oil. And the 4,000 lives lost were to protect oil. And the thousands permanently crippled were to protect oil.
Look, I thought saying " I'm not part of a democracy where the majority votes for representatives who vote on bills or (lucky them) votes on referendums." would be sufficient to clue people in but I failed to account for Poe's law.
My statement was intended to be an extreme example which highlights the selectiveness that people argue against their taxes being spent only on things they agree with.
They live in a larger society and different people want different things. For example, if the ACA is cancelled there is a very good chance I'll die 2 to 3 years sooner and have a lower quality of life years before that. I've paid in close to 300,000 in income taxes. So I want money spent on the ACA.
Others may want it for cable in the boonies, or food for poor children.
We don't get to say directly. And it's an invalid argument for not spending YOUR taxes on some particular item. Someone ELSE'S taxes are being spent on that item because they voted for a representative who made sure it was funded.
I'm retired and I eat well (wild caught salmon, steak, veggies, organic free range eggs) on less than $8 per day for all three meals. Wine is mostly out but vodka and rum are in budget as are sodas. (tho two buck chuck isn't bad and fits).
You are quoting prices for eating out.
I eat out really nicely once per quarter ($50 per person). I eat out about once a week ($12 per person).
Rest of the time, I cook myself healthy meals at low costs.
Yes, tolls. Why pay taxes to maintain our residential streets. I don't use most of them. Put in rfid toll readers and charge people who use particular roads to use them.
I'm in favor of publicly funded police, fire fighters, an army, navy, marine and air force, a court system, a school system, a working sewer system, and well maintained roads as long as they are funded by a voluntary tax on anyone who supports funding them.
I only want to pay taxes for the things I need right now. I'm not part of a democracy where the majority votes for representatives who vote on bills or (lucky them) votes on referendums.
My underlying point is that higher population means tighter limits to growth. Faster non-renewable resource depletion (including pesticides and fertilizers but also any other non-renewable), the amount of water each person can use per year (month, day), faster soil exhaustion, etc.
Some we can solve with technology (we've been doing good with food so far but the result has been a feedback loop to higher than expected population) but the faster and larger our population grows, the less time we have to discover that technology.
The most likely scenario is not a smooth curve to steady state but an over shoot and then a decline to a lower stable state. Which is a very dry polite way of saying mass death and potentially war. And we have cataclysmic weapons now which we lacked during the prior world wars.
Just remember that even clean energy ends up as waste heat that must be radiated out into space. Any excess and independent of AGW, the earth starts to heat.
If energy per person continues to grow at the same rate it has since the 1600s, in less than 500 years the earth is over 212 degrees. Energy per person is another limit to growth. And the more people we have, the lower that limit. If we have 20 billion instead of 5 billion, the ultimate cap on energy per person is going to be 1/4th as much.
Recycling is well under 100% efficient. It's a good thing but we lose a significant amount of usable material each pass thru the recycling part of the system.
The book "Limits to Growth" includes recycling in it's models.
Conservation and less consumption per person are our best bet but it really only changes to day we hit the limits not the fact that we will hit the limits. We can't sustain our current population level much less the potential for 12 billion by 2100 now projected by the UN.
We now use more of many nonrenewable resources each year than we did during all of last century.
The projected maximum has been increasing my entire lifetime.
I have a theory about that.
Picture humans as a bacteria or virus.
Now picture a modern developed lifestyle as penicillin. It has a strong selective pressure- reducing reproduction from 6-12 children to roughly 2 children.
No picture any part of the population is immune for any reason to that selective pressure. It could be "stupid about birth control when horny" which I've personally witnessed leading to 4-5 children instead of 2. It could be "religious beliefs for having more children". It could be "birth control fails slightly more often even when used properly". It could be being less distracted by modern conveniences.
Over time, that group of people who are immune to the selective pressure of modern lifestyle will become a larger part of the overall population and cause the anticipated maximum to rise.
Anyway, I think that's why it isn't going to top out as they expect.
On the flip side tho- you do have Calhoun's rat universe experiments which showed overpopulation alone can lead to complete collapse and extinction even when provided with plentiful food and water.
In 1978, based on models they predicted CO2 would be around 380ppm by 2000. That prediction turned out to be pretty accurate. Giving credence to their other predictions. They only predicted heating island effects and made no global warming predictions.
They predicted consumption rates for non-renewable resources based on population increases and standard of living increases and those consumption predictions have also been reasonably accurate.
Based on the theoretical amount of available non-renewable resources (not proven resources), they predict we will hit limits to population growth based on in ability to increase production of those non-renewable resources and then a decline in our ability to increase production at a reasonable cost.
It could be the non-renewable resources we use to make fertilizers or pesticides (if that happens, food becomes more expensive).
It could be the less well known metals used in many industrial processes.
It could be usable water.
As the population grows, every non-renewable resource will simultaneously come under much higher pressure each year than it faced each century only a couple decades earlier.
At current rates of growth copper was protected to run out in roughly the same time frame. Copper is at record prices (adjusted for inflation) and about three times the inflation adjusted price it was from 1978 to 2000. It's too expensive to make pennies from any more and thieves pull copper wiring out of houses now due to it's value.
So we'll definitely need an inexpensive replacement for copper. Iron looks like it's good til past 2300 so we are fine on raw iron.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying we'll ever "run out" of anything. Just that demand for the amount annually mined will make it unusably expensive in practical terms. If copper cost as much as gold, we'd still have copper but we couldn't use it to wire houses any more. Copper doesn't have to get as expensive as gold to be practically unusable. If copper were $45 per pound, we'd probably be unable to use it for many current applications.
I get your point on fungibility. It's a good one. The fundamental underlying point is that human population continues to grow. The UN recently raised the potential maximum population by 2100 to 12 billion people. Standards of living (and resource consumption) are rising rapidly combined with population increase. It's not sustainable.
As the parent article and other articles said, our usage is at all time highs. Other articles have shown we are using as much per year as we used to use per century of many major non-renewable resources.
It's clearly unsustainable. We'll figure out new products or we'll hit the wall.
And there are many walls to hit. If it's not metals, it might be pesticides, or fertilizers, or pollution.
Some of the items are scary spot on (like the amount of carbon dioxide we would see in the atmosphere).
A bunch of MIT types calculated that based on total assets in the earth (not just available to extract), we would hit several "limits to growth" between 2020 and 2100.
For example: We used as much chromium in 2014 as we did from 1900 to 2000 combined.
Many of their projections are following. Food is a little higher- but so is population.
Here's the unavoidable situation they said we would hit.
Using so many resources that we overshoot the carrying capacity of the earth and then permanently lower it as a result. So if 6 billion were what it could carry for a very long time, by going to 12 billion, we might reduce the capacity to 3 billion.
And it projects a very rapid population reduction. 70 years to fall from 12 billion back to 1950s level populations.
The projection is we'll run low on multiple indusrial metals at the same time and prices of those metals will skyrocket.
---
Now the fun bit. It's too late to do anything about it. We passed the point of no return back in the 1990s. It's a genuine "bend over and kiss your ass goodbye" situation.
And the good news... Many of us will be dead by 2040-2050 when it starts to get nasty tho we may see some signs as early as 2035 (I'll be 74 then-- my most likely lifespan is to 2038).
Did you get straight A's or did your grades take a hit because of your class load? Lower grades exclude you from select jobs and sometimes change the entire path of your career.
Did you intern? Because a lot of companies don't like to hire people without experiece.
Was it a Stem degree? If so, you are pretty sharp because stem degrees are much harder than many other degrees. You may be atypical if so. If it's not a hard degree, your achievement is less impressive.
Pretty much. It's a necessity of going commando. And it's a necessity if you eat a lot of spicy food and don't want a burn/rash. You can spit wash with TP first and then dip TP in a freshly flushed toilet and wash the area til it comes back clean in under 30 seconds.
I don't wash after most farts tho.
I have had friends who lost girlfriends over dental hygiene. Girls do not like to kiss mouths after they turn septic. It's nauseating. And they won't always tell you. Fortunately, i was clued in while very young. It was unpleasant to hear but I love kissing.
Slashdot Mirror
As electric cars become more common, the ability to charge them will as well. Apartments will offer it. Parking lots will offer it. Hell, at some point Denny's will offer inexpensive charging with breakfast the same as they offer wifi. Businesses will offer charging to their employees. Fast food restaurants will offer charging while you eat lunch. Grocery stores will offer charging while you shop (with affinity points!).
Essentially, you'll be able to charge your car anyplace you stop to eat. instead of a gasoline station on every street, there will be a half dozen electrical charging locations on every street.
90% of people do not drive long distances over a month worth of days each year.
I have 1 "long" vacation each year (250 miles each way).
Every few years I have an extra "long" vacation during a year (300-500 miles each way).
Even at today's prices, electricity is saving you $10 per week for a sedan type car (more vs low mileage vehicles). So you would have $520 to rent a car for your trip. When oil prices go back up, it's going to go back to saving over $1000 per year in fuel costs alone.
And it's also saving about $600 a year in maintenance cost savings. So there's another trip covered.
---
As the number of electric cars increase, the network benefit of gasoline stations will fall and the price of gasoline per gallon will go up. Fewer gallons of gasoline sold per month will mean higher prices per gallon to cover fixed costs. But that's probably 15 years off and we will have much bigger issues by that time anyway.
Under ideal circumstances it takes me 7 minutes to pump 10 gallons from start to finish.
It looks like gasoline pumps deliver 4.25 gallons per minute when running properly.
So a 50 gallon truck tank would be about 12 minutes to fill plus my 5 minutes of overhead or about 17 minutes.
It's a balance of costs to benefits.
Until quite recently you were paying about $16,000 more for fuel over the life of your truck for that capability. Now it's about $8,000. (It may be much worse for your truck than I'm stating tho as those figured are based on 28mpg car vs the cost of electricity at 10 cents per kwh. Electric contracts go down as low as 8cpkwh and truck mileage can easily drop below 28mpg).
Your truck is actually more of a niche vehicle than electric cars. Electric cars match the most common use cases except they are about $25,000 too expensive. As the price drops, they could take over 75% of the market.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-tr...
Leigh Christie's post on this is great.
After tons of useful graphs and information...
"Note: I have not actually done a curve fit, so I can not comment on the exact percentage. But given that it's doubling roughly every 9-14 years, I'd say 5-8% sounds about right!"
Batteries are continuing to improve in dramatic ways. Dropping in price by about 5-8% per year, increasing in capacity about 5-8% per year.
First, I've never heard that before.
Second, there was no mention of 'white" prior to your post in this article.
You are introducing racism where it didn't exist.
What I am astonished is that the was able to beat the hell out of her, and there was no other evidence. What did police do before video evidence? I give them the benefit of the doubt for acting quickly- he may have killed or seriously injured her with each additional kick.
This is really insightful.
To be fair, you really need to add in the 2 to 3 trillion for the gulf war immediate expenses to protect the oil fields.
And probably some add on costs of radicalization because we repeatedly invaded middle eastern countries and killed tens of thousands of civilians to protect the oil fields.
There are many many dictatorships around the world... several committing genocide right now and much weaker militarily than Iraq was at the start of the gulf war. But they don't have oil. So their genocide's continue unabated.
So the trillions spent were to protect oil. And the 4,000 lives lost were to protect oil. And the thousands permanently crippled were to protect oil.
People actually argue that.
Look, I thought saying " I'm not part of a democracy where the majority votes for representatives who vote on bills or (lucky them) votes on referendums." would be sufficient to clue people in but I failed to account for Poe's law.
My statement was intended to be an extreme example which highlights the selectiveness that people argue against their taxes being spent only on things they agree with.
They live in a larger society and different people want different things. For example, if the ACA is cancelled there is a very good chance I'll die 2 to 3 years sooner and have a lower quality of life years before that. I've paid in close to 300,000 in income taxes. So I want money spent on the ACA.
Others may want it for cable in the boonies, or food for poor children.
We don't get to say directly. And it's an invalid argument for not spending YOUR taxes on some particular item. Someone ELSE'S taxes are being spent on that item because they voted for a representative who made sure it was funded.
I'm retired and I eat well (wild caught salmon, steak, veggies, organic free range eggs) on less than $8 per day for all three meals.
Wine is mostly out but vodka and rum are in budget as are sodas. (tho two buck chuck isn't bad and fits).
You are quoting prices for eating out.
I eat out really nicely once per quarter ($50 per person).
I eat out about once a week ($12 per person).
Rest of the time, I cook myself healthy meals at low costs.
I thought I had gone far enough but failed to consider Poe's Law.
You may want to look Poe's Law up if you are not familiar with ti.
And yes- I'm using the school system too. It produces workers who can pay for taxes when my income drops in retirement.
Yes, tolls. Why pay taxes to maintain our residential streets. I don't use most of them. Put in rfid toll readers and charge people who use particular roads to use them.
I'm in favor of publicly funded police, fire fighters, an army, navy, marine and air force, a court system, a school system, a working sewer system, and well maintained roads as long as they are funded by a voluntary tax on anyone who supports funding them.
I only want to pay taxes for the things I need right now. I'm not part of a democracy where the majority votes for representatives who vote on bills or (lucky them) votes on referendums.
My underlying point is that higher population means tighter limits to growth. Faster non-renewable resource depletion (including pesticides and fertilizers but also any other non-renewable), the amount of water each person can use per year (month, day), faster soil exhaustion, etc.
Some we can solve with technology (we've been doing good with food so far but the result has been a feedback loop to higher than expected population) but the faster and larger our population grows, the less time we have to discover that technology.
The most likely scenario is not a smooth curve to steady state but an over shoot and then a decline to a lower stable state. Which is a very dry polite way of saying mass death and potentially war. And we have cataclysmic weapons now which we lacked during the prior world wars.
Just remember that even clean energy ends up as waste heat that must be radiated out into space. Any excess and independent of AGW, the earth starts to heat.
If energy per person continues to grow at the same rate it has since the 1600s, in less than 500 years the earth is over 212 degrees. Energy per person is another limit to growth. And the more people we have, the lower that limit. If we have 20 billion instead of 5 billion, the ultimate cap on energy per person is going to be 1/4th as much.
back when 25/3 was the max speed, it was seamless.
Now that I downgraded to 25/3, I get a 2-3 second lag before youtube videos start.
Comcast is messing with to make it have poor performance.
it's okay, I can still watch multiple videos while downloading and playing boom beach. But there is that 2-3 seconds of lag at the start.
No lag before web browsing.
Recycling is well under 100% efficient. It's a good thing but we lose a significant amount of usable material each pass thru the recycling part of the system.
The book "Limits to Growth" includes recycling in it's models.
Conservation and less consumption per person are our best bet but it really only changes to day we hit the limits not the fact that we will hit the limits. We can't sustain our current population level much less the potential for 12 billion by 2100 now projected by the UN.
We now use more of many nonrenewable resources each year than we did during all of last century.
Latest UN projections are now up to 12 billions.
The projected maximum has been increasing my entire lifetime.
I have a theory about that.
Picture humans as a bacteria or virus.
Now picture a modern developed lifestyle as penicillin. It has a strong selective pressure- reducing reproduction from 6-12 children to roughly 2 children.
No picture any part of the population is immune for any reason to that selective pressure. It could be "stupid about birth control when horny" which I've personally witnessed leading to 4-5 children instead of 2. It could be "religious beliefs for having more children". It could be "birth control fails slightly more often even when used properly". It could be being less distracted by modern conveniences.
Over time, that group of people who are immune to the selective pressure of modern lifestyle will become a larger part of the overall population and cause the anticipated maximum to rise.
Anyway, I think that's why it isn't going to top out as they expect.
On the flip side tho- you do have Calhoun's rat universe experiments which showed overpopulation alone can lead to complete collapse and extinction even when provided with plentiful food and water.
Replacement rate is slightly higher than 2.0 children due to death prior to reproduction.
For example, a female has 2 children. one is killed in a car accident at the age of 19 without having had children.
I think you missed my point.
In 1978, based on models they predicted CO2 would be around 380ppm by 2000. That prediction turned out to be pretty accurate. Giving credence to their other predictions. They only predicted heating island effects and made no global warming predictions.
They predicted consumption rates for non-renewable resources based on population increases and standard of living increases and those consumption predictions have also been reasonably accurate.
Based on the theoretical amount of available non-renewable resources (not proven resources), they predict we will hit limits to population growth based on in ability to increase production of those non-renewable resources and then a decline in our ability to increase production at a reasonable cost.
It could be the non-renewable resources we use to make fertilizers or pesticides (if that happens, food becomes more expensive).
It could be the less well known metals used in many industrial processes.
It could be usable water.
As the population grows, every non-renewable resource will simultaneously come under much higher pressure each year than it faced each century only a couple decades earlier.
.
At current rates of growth copper was protected to run out in roughly the same time frame. Copper is at record prices (adjusted for inflation) and about three times the inflation adjusted price it was from 1978 to 2000. It's too expensive to make pennies from any more and thieves pull copper wiring out of houses now due to it's value.
So we'll definitely need an inexpensive replacement for copper. Iron looks like it's good til past 2300 so we are fine on raw iron.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying we'll ever "run out" of anything. Just that demand for the amount annually mined will make it unusably expensive in practical terms. If copper cost as much as gold, we'd still have copper but we couldn't use it to wire houses any more. Copper doesn't have to get as expensive as gold to be practically unusable. If copper were $45 per pound, we'd probably be unable to use it for many current applications.
I get your point on fungibility. It's a good one. The fundamental underlying point is that human population continues to grow. The UN recently raised the potential maximum population by 2100 to 12 billion people. Standards of living (and resource consumption) are rising rapidly combined with population increase. It's not sustainable.
As the parent article and other articles said, our usage is at all time highs. Other articles have shown we are using as much per year as we used to use per century of many major non-renewable resources.
It's clearly unsustainable. We'll figure out new products or we'll hit the wall.
And there are many walls to hit. If it's not metals, it might be pesticides, or fertilizers, or pollution.
The cost of mining materials disolved in the ocean has been estimated to be over 10,000 per ounce with current technology.
The key bit is we are consuming many resources like this.
Magnesium, zinc, chromium (stainless steel), manganese, molybdenum, iron, coal, etc. etc. etc.
Recycling is less to much less effective than 100%.
The real key was holding a much lower population. We didn't do that. It's already too late.
http://collections.dartmouth.e...
Some of the items are scary spot on (like the amount of carbon dioxide we would see in the atmosphere).
A bunch of MIT types calculated that based on total assets in the earth (not just available to extract), we would hit several "limits to growth" between 2020 and 2100.
For example: We used as much chromium in 2014 as we did from 1900 to 2000 combined.
here's a summary of the 30 year update.
http://www.unice.fr/sg/resourc...
Many of their projections are following.
Food is a little higher- but so is population.
Here's the unavoidable situation they said we would hit.
Using so many resources that we overshoot the carrying capacity of the earth and then permanently lower it as a result. So if 6 billion were what it could carry for a very long time, by going to 12 billion, we might reduce the capacity to 3 billion.
And it projects a very rapid population reduction. 70 years to fall from 12 billion back to 1950s level populations.
The projection is we'll run low on multiple indusrial metals at the same time and prices of those metals will skyrocket.
---
Now the fun bit. It's too late to do anything about it. We passed the point of no return back in the 1990s. It's a genuine "bend over and kiss your ass goodbye" situation.
And the good news... Many of us will be dead by 2040-2050 when it starts to get nasty tho we may see some signs as early as 2035 (I'll be 74 then-- my most likely lifespan is to 2038).
Well, it depends on what you are going for.
Did you get straight A's or did your grades take a hit because of your class load? Lower grades exclude you from select jobs and sometimes change the entire path of your career.
Did you intern? Because a lot of companies don't like to hire people without experiece.
Was it a Stem degree? If so, you are pretty sharp because stem degrees are much harder than many other degrees. You may be atypical if so. If it's not a hard degree, your achievement is less impressive.
Pretty much. It's a necessity of going commando. And it's a necessity if you eat a lot of spicy food and don't want a burn/rash. You can spit wash with TP first and then dip TP in a freshly flushed toilet and wash the area til it comes back clean in under 30 seconds.
I don't wash after most farts tho.
I have had friends who lost girlfriends over dental hygiene. Girls do not like to kiss mouths after they turn septic. It's nauseating. And they won't always tell you. Fortunately, i was clued in while very young. It was unpleasant to hear but I love kissing.