One of the problems that VW is about to encounter is that its interests as a manufacturer run directly opposite to its dealers' interests. VW wants to start selling pure electric cars because that is where the market is going. However any VW dealer who convinces a customer to buy an ICE car has also sold themselves good odds of a future revenue stream maintaining that car. However if they sell an electric car they are going to see that car less often.

Therefore VW can make electric cars, but its dealers will try to not sell them. This opens up an opportunity for new brands because people in the market for electric cars are likely to try to buy electric cars similar to the ones that they see on the road. Which means that shiny Tesla, those glorified golf carts you sometimes see, and all of the up and coming electric car brands in China and India that would love to break into Western markets.

The history of disruptive innovation suggests that the end result is likely to be that people switch to new companies and most existing car companies will go out of business. So far everything about the transition to electric has followed the usual course (including established companies publicly announcing that they are switching technologies because they know where the future is), so there is no reason to believe that the result will be different this time.

I think Audi sees this coming just as much as you do. I reserved the E-Tron a few months ago and my local dealer had _no_ idea what was going on. They told me they would be able to order one for me next year, even as I was making the order directly with Audi USA online. When I put my dealer's address in as a the pick-up location, the dealer emailed me the next day legitimately surprised to see the car added to their order system. Audi seems to have no plans to stock any of these at dealers, but instead ship them out as they are configured directly by customers, very much like Tesla does it.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/dealerships-dismiss-...

This is something many people don't get. There are far, far less parts (moving ones even) in EVs. Things like spark plugs(and the cables), fuel injectors, filters, alternators, fuel pumps, the myriad of belts and pulleys, valves. They don't even have a crankshaft. Or a clutch. Or much of a transmission for that matter. Power steering is generally electric too (no fluid or pumps there either), as is climate control. Even radiators are not usually present (maybe in the batteries, used far less often, mostly when charging). It does have a bunch more electronics, all solid state. Even the normal lead acid 12v battery they all have lasts longer, as there is no starter motor to pull lots of amps at once (they are also more gently topped off).

Parts that cannot exist cannot fail, and cannot be charged. Were not for the battery degradation ghost, people would be switching in droves already. But they are familiar with laptop batteries, and they think car batteries degrade the same way.

If the day comes where you can just drive to an autozone or the like, give them your old battery and drive off with a new one at a reasonable price, that's when things will suddenly shift.

Maybe, no matter what the technology, if you have vendor lock, that is just the case. No idea if it's internally profitable for Tesla or not. I also don't know how it's for something like Nissan Leaf.

The majority of people currently drive petrol / diesel cars that are old enough to be out of warranty (also the warranties are shorter, which is of course not a good thing). They have way way lower maintenance costs because there is free choice where to have the car serviced and a huge pool of personnel with the skill to do it. Even if you take your car to the dealership for maintenance, their prices are still influenced by the competition. My city probably has a hundred places where I can have my oil changed.

But who buys a 100,000 dollar car with the idea of saving some hundreds of dollars per year in maintenance costs anyway? Be it BMW or Tesla. It's a red herring.

We'll have to see how the maintenance industry will be for older and more main stream electric cars.

Reliability saves on time cost and uncertainty, as well as monetary costs.

When you say people, are you referring to people who are in a position where they could buy an electric car, but have not yet?

I personally feel the vast majority of people have not switched because:

1) Cost

2) Options (we're a country that loves SUVs/Trucks)

3) Housing / Charging

Funny enough, I could probably afford an electric vehicle, but I have no way of charging that vehicle due to my housing situation.

For a while, I was charging in the garage in my rental condo. They had a normal 110v power socket. Would take forever to charge from zero, but it was more than enough to offset a 25 mile commute each way(at around 4 miles/h)

Cost is still an issue, indeed.

That'd be 12h/day commuting, innit?

There are very few electric cars on the market that make the 180 mile trip without a long charging stop on the way in good weather, the Tesla and the Bolt are the only that I know of (though it has been a while since I've checked), and I'm not sure how I'd trust them for that rage in sub-zero temperatures.

And the longer trip would probably require at least two or three charges. While it requires stopping for gas in a gasoline car, that's a 5 minute stop, not the 30 minutes to an hour for even a fast-charge to 80% you get on an EV.

There is a shock ahead for the entire automotive supply chain. It is important we manage the human impact appropriately.

And the chances of that actually happening?

In the country where VW is headquartered? Not all that bad, I'd think.

In the US? Much worse, if history is any indication.

The Leaf also has oversized brake pads for when there is no regenerative breaking (battery is close to full).

That makes no sense in an electric car. Instead you'd drive the power steering directly with electric motors.

Don't they? Elsewhere in this thread it is said that these batteries are still some kind of lithium/polymer tech, so unless the capacity is severely artificially-restricted in both directions from the optimum storage charge, (a) it becomes dangerous and unusable when fully discharged and (b) it loses capacity continuously whenever it's close to full charge, even faster if it is at full charge with the power-source left connected.

That's of course a direct result of the current (imo broken) model where the dealers depend mostly on maintenance revenue. That means they make more money every time the product they sold you fails in some way.

This sets up conflicting incentives for car manufacturers as well, where their revenue, or that of their partners, would go down if the car becomes too reliable.

I believe Tesla had at some point stated that they wanted service to not be a profit center for them, which as a customer is something I'd really appreciate.

I don't know about you, but I never ever ever get my car serviced at a dealership unless it's either under warranty or a factory recall (free).

Certainly Dieselgate forced their hand but there may also be some appeasement to dealers since many new car buyers do the same as you.

You mean, "and most existing car companies get bought out by the now-larger new companies", no? A manufacturing base and logistics supply chain, at fire-sale prices, is nothing any sensible public company would hesitate to acquire.

And, given that they'd be acquiring the company's IP (e.g. its brand) along with the assembly lines, why not rename themselves to the more well-known name?

I fully expect that in 2050 we'll still have a company called Ford pumping out cars. They'll just be pumping out the "Ford Model Y" under Tesla [now Ford] ownership, or the "Ford Qin" under BYD Auto [now Ford] ownership.

Your scenario may happen with another car company, but not Ford. They would have to go bankrupt first.

Why would they do that? I didn't mean to suggest a regular acquisition (i.e. company X buys out company Y's outstanding shares to become the majority shareholder); I meant to suggest that these companies will likely enter Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, followed by an acquisition by a PE firm that parts the company out and sells its assets to other firms, where the brand of the old company is one of those assets, and the assembly lines are another, and the same company might want to acquire both, or just one.

Keep in mind, also, that when you buy a factory, you aren't buying the technology that runs the factory. You'd strip that out and replace it. No, you're buying the real estate, the buildings themselves, the central location close to shipping. (Which might not even be legally allowed to exist due to current zoning laws for the region, but is only grandfathered in or uniquely lobbied in to "protect local jobs.") And you're buying the pre-established arrangements with logistics providers (ports, over-land carriers, etc.) to get cars from that factory to destination cities; and the pre-established arrangements with suppliers to get regularly-scheduled shipments of raw materials like aluminum alloys, thermoplastics, minerals and lacquers to mix paint from, etc. to the factory.

It's the same reason that, say, Target wanted to acquire Zellers in Canada. There was nothing of value in any given Zellers store or warehouse; what was valuable was the real-estate and the logistics pipeline connecting the stores to the warehouses. (Target failed in Canada, but that was because they began leasing the real estate long before they were ready to begin operating the stores, just to ensure nobody else jumped on the deal. So they started with a giant debt from months of paying rent.)

At present current ICE companies are unwilling to sell these assets and electric startups are unable to afford them.

By the time that electric startups are driving current ICE companies into bankruptcy, electric startups will no longer need those assets (because they must have built their own before this happens) and therefore still won't buy them.

Please note that I'm not saying this out of pure speculation. I'm saying this because this is how past rounds of innovative disruptions played out. It is true whether we're talking about sailing ships to steam ships, wire excavators to hydraulics, integrated mills to minimills, or various generations of larger disk drives to smaller (until the rise of mobile devices making small good in and of itself ended that sequence of disruptions).

It is hard to look at what has been invested into existing auto technology and not imagine that it has to be worth something. But there is every reason to believe that it will be worth pennies on the dollar, and companies will end up in chapter 7 rather than chapter 11.

I don't think you're disagreeing with me here. I said "fire-sale" above—I meant pennies on the dollar. Liquidation of assets. It's just that PE firms think they can make money by getting underwater companies to favor ch11 over ch7, because then they can play negotiating hardball over specific assets that other companies might want (like real-estate), rather than those assets just being probated out at face value to creditors.

GM was already almost ch11'ed in 2008. They were sold to a PE firm, and the PE firm looked for buyers for its assets. They just couldn't find a buyer at the time, since the foreign electric market was still nascent, so no company wanted to grow into the American market at the time. Eventually, GM got propped up enough with government stimulus to buy itself back and keep going. If it hadn't, though, it'd probably have limped along for long enough that it could finally be sold some time in the last five years.

Also:

> By the time that electric startups are driving current ICE companies into bankruptcy, electric startups will no longer need those assets (because they must have built their own before this happens) and therefore still won't buy them.

Why wouldn't a Chinese auto-maker want to buy a set of American plants (which is to say, American real-estate to stamp out copies of their Chinese plants onto) if they wanted to expand their global business into the American market? Especially considering the likely-to-only-increase trade tariffs between the US and China—it may end up far cheaper to build a Chinese electric car intended for the US market in the US than in China.

As for the Chinese auto-maker, it is a chicken and egg problem. If the end result is Chinese EV makers having a big role in driving US auto manufacturers out of business, and they decide that they need US factories to do it, they will have to build those factories first. By the time the US auto company factories are for sale there will very much be a flavor of, "Gee, that would have been nice 5 years ago..."

That isn't to say that some Johnny-come-lately who entered the US market late won't be found to snap a few factories up. But at that point they'll probably be better off looking for buyers in unrelated industries.

ICE car maintenance is often required due to things like needed oil changes, broken timing belts, transmission failures, and other things that do not exist in EVs. When it comes to the fiddly electronic bits, ICE cars actually have more of those. For example if your mechanic tells you that your Mass Air Flow Sensor needs replacing, you're about to have a bad day. But that part doesn't exist in an EV because it doesn't need to regulate the flow of air to the engine.

Some parts that both have also fail less on an EV. For example out of your list, the brakes get approximately 1/3 of the use because most braking is done through regenerative braking.

I am aware of one part that fails more. EV tires need more frequent replacement because EVs generate more torque, particularly at low speeds. While drivers love the fast pickup, your tires don't.

As for independent assessments, attempts like https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191... have been made. Maintenance was less. By enough in some locations to make the actual total cost of ownership less. As real world data accumulates, more and better comparisons will be made. But given the principles of what is involved, it is pretty clear which way the long-term comparison is going to wind up going once electric technology matures and construction costs come down. (The biggest component of which is that batteries are still on their long-term 7% per year cost reduction.)

That's an interesting point. I've not driven an EV yet. Is the difference that marked?

Also, I wonder what effect this would have on driving on snow? Presumably there is the ability to do the equivalent of 'put it in second gear to pull away' you often do in an ICE?

I have not driven it on snow, so I can't answer how well that works. But there are no gears, nor a need for one.

ICE cars generate maximum torque in a relatively narrow range of speeds, which is why you need a transmission to keep the car engine where it is happy while the car itself goes at a wider range of speeds. By contrast electric cars generate their maximum torque at 0 mph, and work fine over a much wider range of speeds.

Early Teslas tried to have gears, but the torque was murder on the transmission. So now on the high performance models they simply have different gearing on the front and back wheels. With the idea that at low speed you get most of the force from the back, and at high speed you'll get more power from the front wheels. (The basic one drives like a sports car anyways.)

If you turn off traction control and slam the pedal down on snow bad things will happen, but it's not like it's incapable of putting out less torque if you give it a light touch.

That's the bit I was curious about. It seems obvious that would be the case. It'll be fun to try it one day!

dealers are going to have transform somewhat but after seeing the issues with Tesla its not like we don't have a place for dealers (I love my TM3 but damn if some people aren't trapped in repair hell).

With EV and the eventuality of self driving cars they could become depots for rentals and such. plus once EVs hit the roads in numbers there is always something to fix, service, or repair.

finally. working for a parts supplier I a wondering where my company will be in forty years

If you're not familiar with the degree to which they deceived regulators and the public I suggest the Netflix documentary. https://www.netflix.com/title/80118100 (Season 1, Episode 1).

Here in Europe there are people who have deliberately refused the VW fix because they'd rather keep the better fuel economy and engine response rather than comply with emissions regulations. Not complying is not exactly unheard of: instead of replacing faulty units people rip off diesel particulate filters and block EGR valves on diesel engines for performance and engine longevity reasons. Reducing pollution apparently isn't valued by the end-user market that much. And European car owners are very much price-sensitive because motoring in general is expensive and taxed high.

Owning a Volkswagen isn't basically a worse experience than before. Their PR image might have suffered a hit, sure. But VW is huge and people in Europe still buy them. Diesel has been a bit unpopular in Europe recently but that's mostly because some cities are limiting or planning to limit old diesel cars from accessing the city centres.

However, an automaker has a responsibility at a macro level because they sell so many cars.

Here's what seemed exceptional in the VW case.

1) They built cars with software that had a single purpose of misleading (lying is a more accurate term here) to regulators on their efficiency.

2) When caught they denied it.

3) When they couldn't deny it anymore they updated the software to mislead again (lying in hopes they could continue with the first lie)

4) By this point the highest levels in VW were involved.

Not meeting emissions regulations may not be a big deal for everyone but it impacts others and it has direct impact on others.

I'm not saying you are defending VW but I don't think anything they did was remotely defensible.

I don't think it could be considered defensible at any level, either. But I do maintain that the market really doesn't seem to care: therefore VW are still in business which is what the parent was wondering. If you had bought a VW you really wouldn't have any reason to not keep driving it, as the end-user.

Conversely, I do think people would be absolutely furious if VW had cheated in emissions and fuel mileage tests to make their cars seem to run on very little fuel but in practise the realistic mileage would be much lower for the majority of owners. And I mean much lower than the general gap between measured and actual fuel efficiency. In that case VW might really be struggling to survive if they didn't have better technology to show the market.

The vehicles were not emitting as much as specified in the papers.

This is a pretty serious offense and fineable (iirc) at up to 12.000 Euros per vehicle in Germany. (Instead, of course, car makers are allowed to give rebates only when you buy another one of their vehicles).

[1]https://medium.com/@jsemrau/mobility-illuminates-the-end-of-...

It's very likely that combustion cars will still exist in some form in 200 years for niche use, but for most other things things will be changed to accommodate EVs, just like they now accommodate combustion cars.

It’s about to get a whole lot worse.

I grew up outside of a city, with a garage, and electric.

It isn't the 1890s. Cities are less equipped for self-owned EVs than the rural.

There is one gas station in his town, the gas is way overpriced so everyone fills up during their weekly shopping trip and then drives back home. That puts a constraint on them. It's 70 miles home. Then a week later another 70 miles to get to the cheap gas station in the city. So 140 miles out of 300-350 on a tank of gas. Thus the local gas station is sort of immaterial to them since they don't use it if they can help it.

I asked him if he could deal with an electric car with 150 miles of range and he said, oh god yes. He knows that he's spending $300/month just to drive to go shopping. And with an electric he can start his shopping trip with a full charge. Come back and plug the car in and have full range again the next day.

Here's my heuristic. What are the places your car usually spends parked at, and do these places have at least a power outlet you can plug into(a proper charging stations is better of course)? For most city-dwellers, that's either their home, their workplace, or any other place they spend some time on (supermarkets?). Do any of these places, or places nearby, provide a way for you to charge? If yes, you should be fine.

Failing that, it starts to become less practical, as you'll have to rely on quick-charging (if it is even available).

Honestly, this isn't much of a concern medium term. Yes, it's problem now. But, as the EV fleet increases, so will the market pressures for a proper charging infrastructure. It costs much less than creating a gas infrastructure. Most places have electricity, they may require some upgrades, but that's relatively cheap (compare that to adding more gas stations).

And old lady that drives 1500 miles a year to go shopping might well find all of her charging needs are satisfied by plugging the car in while shopping Petco and Walmart. Because at that rate she only needs the car plugged in for an hour a week.

1500miles/52weeks -> 30 miles/week / 30 miles range per charging hour -> 1hr/week.

What city do you live in where EVs are impractical?

Even the small cities where I live are starting to make ICE vehicles feel a bit less convenient. Right now it's barely noticeable, but you can certainly see where it's headed.

Just as an example, things like going to the city for groceries, pulling into a parking space, and realizing that it is for EVs only. That was last year. This year, at the good grocery store anyway, a second bank of spaces were made EV only.

Point is, I can kind of see where this is all going. So if even small cities here in bass ackwards Wisconsin are doing this kind of thing, I'd have thought it would be rampant in the large cities?

I think of NYC as being more like Paris in that regard than Houston or Minneapolis. If you want to own any car in the future, I think living in NYC is not the place for you. I really do believe they are out to reduce the number of cars in NYC. (Or more precisely, I believe they are out to reduce the number of personally owned vehicles.) So it's not surprising to me that you don't see this sort of infrastructure in NYC.

And parking meters don't even exist in most of Brooklyn and Queens (or even a huge amount of Manhattan). That's a massive amount of infrastructure.

(Don't interpret this as an anti-electric-car argument, I just personally think it's better and maybe more likely that personally-owned-cars in general are what fade from NYC)

It is expected that some places are better positioned for an EV switch than others. That's ok.

One thing of note: dense cities like NYC are less amenable to cars in general. And at the same time, driving distances tend to be less, and there is congestion, all of which benefit EVs(engine is not turning if you are not moving, draw from other systems is negligible). If you don't drive as much as someone commuting in the bay area, then you might be able to get away with topping off whenever you go to a mall or something like that. Chargers are appearing at public parking buildings too. Also do you park you car in the street at your workplace? If they have their own parking, that could also eventually be a charging location (as it is in many workplaces elsewhere).

As we speak, my car is charging at my employer's parking garage (it's actually shared between several buildings, but you get the picture). By the time I end my shift I'll just disconnect and go home. I haven't charged at home in more than one year(although I have the ability). In fact, Chargepoint tells me it's already charged.

This means that I don't have to take time off my schedule to go to a gas station, all because of my employer. Given the proximity, I only have to charge once a week or less.

If you also have to park in the street at your workplace, then it won't be as convenient. But then again, I think finding a parking spot should already be stressful enough as it is :)

Hold on for a while. Cities will adapt, they will have no choice.

It's certainly not enough to rely on to charge a personal car, but it's increasing. I usually see the pay-per-minute rental cars parked in the spaces.

It might help that 220-240V is the standard voltage, it's a bit more worthwhile than 115V would be, but for more than a couple of points the existing wiring (streetlights etc) probably needs to be upgraded anyway.

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/electric-cars-charging-londo... (in case it's not clear, this is a street in London with a pavement/"sidewalk". The block paving is probably an attempt to make the area look more appealing.)

What I want to understand is, how does the price of gas play out with EVs - in ten years time, is gas literally going to be unaffordable for most people? Will gas stations start drying up?

I guess either people bring along what they need or they don‘t work. However I don‘t think EVs will fail because of a lack of gas stations. Obviously owners will invest in the future and also provide charging for EVs.

So there is a fuel distribution system, it's just very small-scale, or informal.

This probably already happens for remote farms etc — it's cheaper to have a large fuel tank, and pay for fuel to be delivered to it, rather than trying to drive tractors and other equipment for hours to the nearest town.

"VW will continue to modify its combustion engine technology after the new platform is introduced next decade. After 2050, there may still be some gasoline and diesel models in regions where there is insufficient charging infrastructure, according to Jost"

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeE3VkoDm14

It's not even in the same ballpark. Why are you trying to optimize for the very rare use-case?

You can keep using your trucks in the Sahara desert for as long as there is gasoline being made and replacement parts. Not sure what you are worried about.

That was an extreme example, I agree, not one of the best, just wanted to point out that using gasoline/diesel for vehicle transportation is a lot more failure-resistant compared to a power network.

And you said nothing about my point about the entire continent of Africa and about post-disaster interventions in the rest of the world. The last thing you want to hear after your house has been blown out by an earthquake or a tsunami is that the first responders can't get to you and your family because the power network is down so that they cannot move their vehicles. And such events (I mean, major natural disasters followed by extensive power-cuts) do indeed happen pretty often even in developed countries.

It really isn't. It all depends on which kind of disaster we are talking about. In many cases you can't get a tanker where you need to, you have to rely on whatever fuel stockpiles you have. If you have a fuel stockpile, guess what you do? You run a generator. Generator produces electricity, you charge from that. Not ideal, but it's an emergency anyway. This is disregarding other forms of local generation, such as solar.

> And you said nothing about my point about the entire continent of Africa

The entire continent of africa is bigger than the areas of the United States, India, China and some of Europe combined. I can't meaningfully comment on that large an area. Some places have cities and electricity just fine. Some do not. The places that do not, I have some difficulty accepting that they will also have easy and cheap access to fuel. But assuming it is a problem, then fine. They will take longer to switch.

> last thing you want to hear after your house has been blown out by an earthquake or a tsunami is that the first responders can't get to you and your family because the power network is down so that they cannot move their vehicles

This is such an enormous strawman! Have you EVER seen an electric fire truck? I haven't(let alone made by VW). But assume there are electric first responders only. You know one thing electric vehicles don't care? It's where their electricity come from.

Let's take an example from hospitals. In emergency situations, what do they do? They can't be without power during a surgery. So they have battery banks, backed up by a generator. I guess first responders would do similarly. And guess what, many already have power generators. Even AAA has generator trucks to rescue EVs.

If you have electricity you use that(even with no fuel). If you have fuel, you use that – and you can also use electricity. How convenient.

The point is, which you keep missing, is that EVs can run on electricity in whatever form. Have diesel available, but your car runs on gasoline only? Tough luck. Have "coal" electricity? It is as good as solar from the car's point of view. It's not the same for the environment, but neither are ICE cars.

You are trying to argue about a hypothetical situation where there is fuel readily available, but for some reason, somehow, electricity cannot be produced from it. And there is also no electricity. In this hypothetical world, have generators ever been invented? Or solar panels? Also, if resources are so constrained, why are we even worrying about cars? There are more pressing concerns.

Why do you keep ignoring solar? Wind? Have you seen any projects that bring power to poor communities in Africa? And have you seen how they DON'T rely on fuel tankers? It's all about microgrids! If they don't have sustainable power, they will NOT have refineries, or reliable fuel delivery.

Last, why are we even arguing about places in Africa with no power? They are in no condition of importing the latest generation vehicles anyway! Heck, most people in the developed world are not even driving current generation vehicles (myself included). So even if all manufacturers stopped producing internal combustion engines today, it doesn't matter. There is a sizable fleet that's not going away any time soon.

This is why this discussion is not productive. Can we focus in places where internal combustion engines are so ubiquitous that the are actually causing problems? Like India. Or China. Or the US. Not on some hypothetical gas station in the Sahara.

On roads we currently can do 3021 km averaging 81.2 km/h 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. : https://www.worldsolarchallenge.org/event-information/route_.... For past times https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Solar_Challenge

PS: You convert a model 3 to Solar electric + battery and get ~30 miles of range for free every day. That’s very significant in most disaster situations, and much better than gas in a post apocalyptic world.

> PS: You convert a model 3 to Solar electric + battery and get ~30 miles of range for free every day

Do you have more details? Last time I made a back of the napkin calculation its area wasn't enough for more than a couple of miles a day (assuming 4 miles per KWh).

This is assuming high end 44% solar panels and optimal parking as ‘possible’. Basicly 185″ L x 73″ W = 8.7 m^2 in high end panels - windshield but covering sun roof. Then gaining back by covering sides and having a little overhang on sides. Then you’re talking closer to 8m2 * .44 * 8 = 28 kWh per day, or half that at a more reasonable 22% efficient.

PS: Redoing my calculations and yea ~30 miles with 22% panels depending on how mad max the setup vs something more legal.

As to post disaster recovery, solar is actually very energy dense assuming your talking weeks of recovery. A gallon of gasoline is only 33kWh before generator effecency drops you to say 11kWh per pound. That’s great if your talking a 24 hour safty net, but sucks if it takes 3+ weeks to bring the grid back online. (33kWh / 7 / 3 / 6.3 pounds = 1/4kw per per day per pound at say 33% effecency that drops to 1/12kWh per day per pound. Need that for 24 h a day and your talking 1/288 kw per pound of fuel. And at the end of 3 weeks you need even more fuel.

On the other hand a pallet of solar panels in a field or parking lot can be setup with some boards and not much else. You will need an inverter, but with just that you drastically reduce the need for fuel even without batteries.

Commercial battery tech is going to have to improve a lot before this qualifier begins to hold.

I volunteer for a disaster relief organisation and have a background in logistics - I went to the Caribbean in response to Irma. I was on Antigua when Maria came through having just sent a shipment of aid forward to BVI.

I met the Dominican President the day after and had a team on the island within 14 hours (via sail boat believe it or not). Then I moved on to BVI a week or so later.

I saw first had what occurred in the direct aftermath of the disaster and I can say with confidence that shipping in and distributing replacement solid state (and reasonably lightweight) solar cells by air is immensely more simple and can be done much more quickly than getting fuel or oils in by sea. Palletised air freight is almost perfect for bringing in reasonably dense but reasonably lightweight panels like solar cells. And onward movement by underslung load on helicopter/chinnock or carried by aircraft like the C130/A400M with ability to land/take off on unprepared runways can carry in these loads easily. Further movement by hand is also relatively simple. All those things happened/aircraft were used (and many many more smaller ones) in the Caribbean response that I participated in.

We actually had the problem that too much materiel was coming in by air (particularly building supplies and plywood panelling) and had difficulty getting it stored and processed.

Meanwhile sea shipping was in a poor state.

Getting anything in by ship is chaos in the aftermath of hurricanes as ships and cargo are out of position all over the place as they avoid the storm. Ports are also often damaged as waves, storm surges and steep terrain can cause huge flash flooding and remove vast swaths of forest/buildings along the coast that floats out onto the sea and causes hazards to shipping, having trashed the port on its way through. This was particularly problematic in Dominica.

There can also be large lead times in getting bulk loads bought and shipped in which further complicates the disaster response.

Not only that, distribution of fuels in location is most often centralised through fuel stations, so damage to fuelling stations and pipe infrastructure meant that when fuel did arrive it was very difficult to get hold of and time consuming to obtain when it did arrive.

Meanwhile, we struggled through immense heat and bright sun 12 hours or so a day, perfect for solar power. On a small scale, people actually did use solar power to charge small electronics like phones and tablets. Phones, incidentally, which connected to cell towers often powered by diesel generators that struggled for fuel and could have benefited from augmented supply from PV.

And lets not forget, we don't necessarily need to set up multi kW PV systems in all homes, or large scale power plant scale solar farms. We need emergency distributed power generation, shelter and clean water. Next comes food and medicines. What you can get in quickly and is effective in the first 21 days is vital, and power and water often go hand in hand as we need power to run the purification pumps. I look forward to a time where shipping in solar panels are as cheap as shipping in plywood for temporary roof/building repair.

But all the above is not to say PV are the best or only solution. A mix of power generation is best and in any case the effectiveness of one or other method would depend on the disaster, geography and scale or response needed. But, it's important to think creatively and be open minded about technical solutions that are 'good enough' to preserve life and fill the gap between disaster and recovery. Cheap PV certainly has a place in that tool kit.

It depends on the disaster. Some disasters favor electric vehicles. Like charging your car from solar panels.

Also, petrol's only advantages are energy density and quick refueling. Once those issues are surmounted, petrol will be worse on nearly every front.

> The last thing you want to hear after your house has been blown out by an earthquake or a tsunami is that the first responders can't get to you

So keep those emergency vehicles petrol powered. They are a drop in the bucket of fuel consumption vs cars and semi trucks. Progress in the latter needn't be held back by the former.

Somewhat counterintuitively, that might be a good thing for the Africans. There was never a wired telephone network in many populated areas, for example, so they were able to migrate to wireless very quickly with no intervening transition. They never had coal/hydro/nuke plants, but not only will that not stop them from benefiting from cheap solar power, it will accelerate adoption.

If they don't have electricity at all, it's a bigger problem.

So my best option is to charge at work. Luckily for me, I my work is forward thinking enough to have a few places to plug-in! Expect my office has more than a few people, thousands more than a few people. What do I do?

Honest question. I always think about going electric but can't fathom a situation that doesn't bite me more than it helps. And I'm guessing I'm not alone, think of my coworkers, how 'bout anyone working downtown? What about Intel or Nike or any other large campus? It just doesn't seem like we live in a world where owning an electric car doesn't presuppose owning a home with a garage.

You won't try to cross a desert on a whim, without enough fuel(including jerry cans) or without a scheduled refuel stop. EV changes nothing in that regard. It will either be feasible or it will not. If it is not, then an alternate form of transportation is required.

If we are talking about deserts, we still favor EVs. You can have automated, solar-powered charging stations which require minimal logistics (unlike a gas station in the middle of nowhere which requires a truck visit every so often).

I expect a few internal combustion engine vehicles will be in use in some very remote areas for quite some time. Also in the hands of some enthusiasts.

Well, maybe not Nissan... the Leaf is still the main chademo holdout in the US.

But VW already sells or has ready products like the e-Golf (or indeed the Taycan mentioned in the article). So if you read this and think "Oh, I should buy an electric car" well that's fine, VW will sell you one of those today.

By going on the record stating as soon as 2026 ICEs are finished at the company, it clearly states that their lineup will be electrified shortly.

Because from what I‘ve heard the Norwegian government is pumping out a whole lot of subsidies to push EVs (including allowing to use bus lanes, which other vehicles are barred from)

- They have huge amounts of hydro so very cheap (and non-intermittent) domestic electricity

- They taxed ICE's to the point that a Tesla hit price-parity with an ICE

#2 is more interesting. Battery costs account for most of an EV's price premium today -- something like 30-40% of an EV cost is in the batteries. You look at the learning curves of battery production though and EV's are expected to hit price-parity with ICE's around 2023-2025.

When that happens, expect an EV avalanche similar to what you see now in Norway.

They have some pretty aggressive plans on electric cars, and they're very wealthy (ironically from oil...) consumers can buy them, and buy them at a high rate.

The Scandinavian countries will probably be first to 'no combustion' cars, my #1 bet is Norway, #2 Sweden, #3 Denmark. #4 Netherlands. After that, who knows. Maybe Hong Kong or Singapore i.e. where it's 'small, rich and the economics work'.

GDP per capita is a lot higher, and they have a sovereign wealth fund that owns almost 2% of all public stocks in the entire world.

So 'America is rich' and Americans on average have quite a lot of cash, but overall, not so much as they will flip to electric at a $40K price tag.

The Norwegians will flip to 100% electric soon. Also for social/political reasons as well though.

Kuwaitis are rich but they're not going electric anytime soon.

but, i hope electric cars will be more reliable than tesla has been. Tesla's reliability is now 3rd from the bottom, although i know there are a lot of reasons for this: (lots of new tech etc).

> After 2050, there may still be some gasoline and diesel models

There will still be plenty. My own estimate is that if electric (battery) cars are still a thing in 2050, it will be 50% that and 50% ICE. But more likely, again just IMHO as an interested but non-expert party, if h2 generation is "solved" sufficiently well by then, it will be 50-75% H2 fuel cell and 25% ICE.

The plan to deliver H2 instead of natural gas to homes by 2032 by Northern Gas is an example of how the H2 infrastructure can take over.

https://www.carscoops.com/2018/09/vw-group-set-record-year-d...

The summer before, my wife and I and our two kids and four of my in-law took it to Idaho for the solar eclipse.

Long range cars (and trailers) make for cost effective outdoor family travel options and I don't see that changing to ED soon (though I wouldn't mind if it did).

The EV is a superb idea and I will welcome it with open arms when governments mandate, subsidize, build, and generally support it, and when car companies solve the problems inherent to the EV. Until then, it is a fantasy that most people will simply not adopt for pragmatic reasons.

And yes, absolutely we are capable of building that infrastructure, but we are simply not willing. And let’s be real - car makes are not even making EVs (and I don’t mean hybrids), nor are they interested in making them because there is very little market for them. Again, yes, a chiken/egg problem, but a very real one.