Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal Hyperloop

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Maglev technology has existed for decades (and been in commercial operation in Shanghai since 2004).

Agreed. My point was they wanted to make sure their system worked. You don't build something and on your first try run it at max speed.

It is also extraordinarily expensive (which is why Musk's original plan was to use a turbine, until somebody figured out turbines don't work in vacuums).

LOL.

If they have come up with the money to build a maglev from LA to SF they should just do that and run a 500 kph service without the needless danger and complexity of the vacuum.

I don't disagree with you there. One small leak in the pipe and the pod will hit a wall of air. Also, if there is a power failure (or computer malfunction) and the pod looses its magnetic cushion, I am not convinced they can safely slow down the pod from 1000km/h on wheels or sliders.

[FFX-ME]

Originally Posted by acottawa

My bad. I read somewhere it was 190 mph.

I don't know. The guy in the video says that it "reached 70mph"... big whoop.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Musk creates ideas, not necessarily companies. I mean, it's doubtful that Tesla will ever become the dominant seller of cars or even a major player, but the launch of the company was the catalyst that caused electric cars in general to take off. 10 years ago people were doubtful that electric cars would ever be mass-market; now, everyone in the car industry knows that electric cars will take over someday, the only question is how soon.

GM had the EV1 a decade before Musk had the Tesla roadster. There were lots of startups and hobbyists building electric cars around the time that Musk decided to hijack one of those startups. Do people know that Tesla was not founded by Musk? Though he certainly has been influential, of course.

So yes, it was fully conceivable that electric cars would come along. If it wasn't Musk, some other billionaire would have done it. Engineers at the time could already foresee where electrification was going.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yes, they have skyrocketed to 0.53% to 0.55% of the market over the last 3 years. At this rate they should be up to 1% by the 2040s.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Things happen slowly at first, then faster.

You're both right. Disruptive technology does not have a linear adoption curve. How many people had smartphones in 2000? The big difference between consumer electronics and electric cars are the fact that there's no Moore's law for batteries (though there is a definite linear trend in reduction of cost for specific energy and a simultaneous trend in energy densification) and people keep cars for 10 years. This means the adoption curve will be more linear than smartphones and the changeover will take longer. The reason most people can't see disruptive technologies coming is specifically because people have a very hard time calling non-linear trends.

But several countries are no moving to completely ban gas car sales by 2040. They wouldn't do that if they weren't confident it could be done. And if you look at fuel standards for 2025, there's basically no way to meet them without hybridization and electrification of the entire fleet. It's happening much faster than people realize.

Mainstream analysts are calling it:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-accelerating

That coming boom in global battery capacity is going to massively drive forward EV manufacturing.

Mainstream media says the internal combustion engine is dead. The Economist had a really good article on it:

https://www.economist.com/news/leade...ed-world-death

https://www.economist.com/news/brief...-plummet-after

All that said, the Hyperloop is still junk. And not everything Musk proposes should automatically be accepted as sheer brilliance.

[acottawa]

I'm not sure if the economics of electric cars will be any different in 10 years. The "innovations" associated with electric cars have been mostly to put larger and larger batteries on the cars, which is not only devastating to the environment but offers diminishing returns. Gasoline prices are likely to decline over time as demand falls, electricity prices are likely to rise and nobody has marketable electric versions of light trucks (which represents a huge chunk of the vehicle market).

To me electric vehicles are like CFL bulbs, they have certain advantages and governments loved to promote them, but not many people wanted them. I don't think the internal combustion engine dies until somebody invents the equivalent of the LED.

[1overcosc]

The market shares are already up a lot for EVs. EVs made up only around 0.5% of all car sales in Ontario in the year 2016, but in the first six months of 2017 that's now nearly 2%. Quebec and BC are around 4%. Making our 5% target by 2020 is pretty achievable. I doubt any Canadian province is going to impose a ban on ICE sales by 2040 like France and the UK have done, though.

The ICE is doing to die; the only question is how soon. A lot of analysts are predicting EVs will have majority share of sales by the mid-2020s which I personally think is a tad too soon, but of course we shall see.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The "innovations" associated with electric cars have been mostly to put larger and larger batteries on the cars, which is not only devastating to the environment but offers diminishing returns.

There actually is a new technology being developed for Li Ion batteries which will double their capacity and make them safer. From what I understand it comes down to the way they prevent dendrites from forming on the electrodes and shorting out the battery. Currently a grids are inserted in the electrolyte between the electrodes, but that eats up half of the space. A new solid electrolyte has been developed, that completely blocks dendrites from forming, removing the need for the grid. Also, since it provides a solid, physical barrier between the electrodes, they won't short together (resulting in a catastrophic failure) if crushed or bent.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

GM had the EV1 a decade before Musk had the Tesla roadster.

And how many EV1s are left? ONE (1). The rest were recalled by GM and destroyed, despite the "owners" wanting to keep them (they were leased not sold, so when the lease was up, GM refused to renew it). It was the automotive industry's version of the Avro Arrow.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The market shares are already up a lot for EVs. EVs made up only around 0.5% of all car sales in Ontario in the year 2016, but in the first six months of 2017 that's now nearly 2%. Quebec and BC are around 4%. Making our 5% target by 2020 is pretty achievable. I doubt any Canadian province is going to impose a ban on ICE sales by 2040 like France and the UK have done, though.

The ICE is doing to die; the only question is how soon. A lot of analysts are predicting EVs will have majority share of sales by the mid-2020s which I personally think is a tad too soon, but of course we shall see.

There was a Q2 spike in sales. Hard to tell if that was a blip or a trend.

But either way, these sales are being inflated with massive subsidies which is not either sustainable or scale-able.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But either way, these sales are being inflated with massive subsidies which is not either sustainable or scale-able.

In Ontario yes, but BC and Quebec have far tamer subsidies. Quebec also has a forced-sale requirement (don't think BC does but I might be wrong).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But either way, these sales are being inflated with massive subsidies which is not either sustainable or scale-able.

In the long run the subsidies won't be necessary. Once EVs are produced in similar volumes to ICE vehicles, they should be as cheap if not cheaper. It is a chicken and egg thing. Costs won't come down until volume goes up but volumes won't go up until costs come down.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by roger1818

In the long run the subsidies won't be necessary. Once EVs are produced in similar volumes to ICE vehicles, they should be as cheap if not cheaper. It is a chicken and egg thing. Costs won't come down until volume goes up but volumes won't go up until costs come down.

That's why forced sale requirements (like what Quebec has) are a better way of promoting EV adoption than heavy subsidies (like what Ontario has). You require automakers bring their volume up, which in turn brings costs down. It also forces automakers to bring costs down in order to meet their quotas; as opposed to the situation in Ontario where an EV at $35,000 costs around the same as a regular car at $20,000 thanks to the subsidies; which means there isn't much incentive for any Ontario dealer to bring the cost down below $35,000.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

In the long run the subsidies won't be necessary. Once EVs are produced in similar volumes to ICE vehicles, they should be as cheap if not cheaper. It is a chicken and egg thing. Costs won't come down until volume goes up but volumes won't go up until costs come down.

Maybe, but technology that gets exponentially cheaper (say a microchip) usually has a low use of raw materials and relatively few parts. Technology that uses significant raw materials or has a significant number of parts is usually not subject to these pressures (which is why the price of airplanes, helicopters, cars, etc. have not fallen over time). Moreover, the competition will always be between a super-sophisticated battery weighting hundreds of kilograms and loaded with rare earth elements (which will increase in cost as demand rises) and a hollow steel tank.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There was a Q2 spike in sales. Hard to tell if that was a blip or a trend.

But either way, these sales are being inflated with massive subsidies which is not either sustainable or scale-able.

My brother was trying to buy Ford Focus Electric and was only able to get it from a dealership in Montreal after someone bailed out. Everything in Ontario and nearby is sold out 6 months in advance.
If anything it's the industry that's not being able to keep up.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Maybe, but technology that gets exponentially cheaper (say a microchip) usually has a low use of raw materials and relatively few parts. Technology that uses significant raw materials or has a significant number of parts is usually not subject to these pressures (which is why the price of airplanes, helicopters, cars, etc. have not fallen over time).

But they don't sell billions of airplanes and helicopters a year to bring costs down. Also, they are very complex to manufacture, which adds to the cost.

As for cars, they did see a massive price drop when Henry Ford started to sell the Model T. It was through mass production that they got the prices down. Electric cars have not reached that level of production yet.

As for comparisons to the electronics industry, the ICE drive-train is the discrete transistor (lots of large, components strung together) and the electric motor is the microchip (one simple component to replace them all). Maybe not on the same scale, but it is a cost reduction.

Moreover, the competition will always be between a super-sophisticated battery weighting hundreds of kilograms and loaded with rare earth elements (which will increase in cost as demand rises) and a hollow steel tank.

Yes a battery is more expensive than a gas tank but a transmission, catalytic converter and fuel injector are more expensive than noting (none of those are necessary on an electric car). Even the electric motor is much simpler to manufacture than an ICE. The battery is the only expensive part of an electric car and while the cost of the raw materials used to make one may remain constant or even go up in price, the NRE of it (and the entire car design) is still a significant portion of the cost. Once the technology has matured and the production volumes have increased by several orders of magnitude, the NRE will be a much smaller portion of the cost.

There is also the total cost of ownership. Yes you will need to replace the battery, but once the Lithium becomes the majority of the cost, the money you will get in trade will cover a significant portion of the cost of the new one. Other than that, the maintenance costs of an electric vehicle are minimal (no fluids to change and even the brakes will last longer because of regenerative braking).

Also, Li Ion batteries might be the CFL of battery technology? Who knows, maybe Hydrogen Fuel cells (or some other technology we don't even know about yet) will replace them and become the LED of battery technology that doesn't rely on rare metals.

I'm not saying electric cars will be half the cost of an ICE vehicle, but they are so much simpler, they can't help but be cheaper when manufactured in the same quantities.

[RTWAP]

Or someone solves the remaining technical challenges with lithium-air batteries. Lithium-air has about the same theoretical energy density as gasoline. Even if it never reaches that, it is still projected to be 5-10 times more weight efficient for the same energy capacity than lithium-ion.

And lithium isn't exactly rare. There may be rare earth materials required in small amounts for high-efficiency electric motors but lithium is plentiful. Current proven high-quality ore deposits are sufficient to at least 2100 (assuming 1 billion EVs are built between now and then).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

Or someone solves the remaining technical challenges with lithium-air batteries. Lithium-air has about the same theoretical energy density as gasoline. Even if it never reaches that, it is still projected to be 5-10 times more weight efficient for the same energy capacity than lithium-ion.

And lithium isn't exactly rare. There may be rare earth materials required in small amounts for high-efficiency electric motors but lithium is plentiful. Current proven high-quality ore deposits are sufficient to at least 2100 (assuming 1 billion EVs are built between now and then).

Plus lithium recycling technology is advancing quite fast as well.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

And lithium isn't exactly rare. There may be rare earth materials required in small amounts for high-efficiency electric motors but lithium is plentiful. Current proven high-quality ore deposits are sufficient to at least 2100 (assuming 1 billion EVs are built between now and then).

I don't think anyone thinks Lithium is the constraint. The problem is the rare earth metals, particularly neodymium (each electric engine needs a kilogram) which are very messy (and energy intensive) to extract.

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas...t-green-think/

Rare metals only exist in tiny quantities and inconvenient places—so you have to move a lot of earth to get just a little bit. In the Jiangxi rare earth mine in China, Abraham writes, workers dig eight-foot holes and pour ammonium sulfate into them to dissolve the sandy clay. Then they haul out bags of muck and pass it through several acid baths; what’s left is baked in a kiln, leaving behind the rare earths required by everything from our phones to our Teslas.

At this mine, those rare earths amounted to 0.2 percent of what gets pulled out of the ground. The other 99.8 percent—now contaminated with toxic chemicals—is dumped back into the environment. That damage is difficult to quantify, just like the impact of oil drilling.

And, as in every stage of the process, mining has hidden emissions. Jiangxi has it relatively easy because it’s digging up clay, but many mines rely on rock-crushing equipment with astronomical energy bills, as well as coal-fired furnaces for the final baking stages. Those spew a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the process of refining a material destined for your zero-emissions car. In fact, manufacturing an electric vehicle generates more carbon emissions than building a conventional car, mostly because of its battery, the Union of Concerned Scientists has found.

[roger1818]

^^^ According to Wikipedia:

Although neodymium is classed as a rare earth, it is a fairly common element, no rarer than cobalt, nickel, and copper, and is widely distributed in the Earth's crust

and

The reserves of neodymium are estimated at about eight million tonnes. Although it belongs to the rare-earth metals, neodymium is not rare at all. Its abundance in the Earth's crust is about 38 mg/kg, which is the second highest among rare-earth elements, following cerium.

then there is:

The bulk of current production is from China, whose government has recently imposed strategic materials controls on the element, raising some concerns in consuming countries and causing skyrocketing prices of neodymium and other rare-earth metals.
...

The uncertainty of pricing and availability have caused particularly Japanese companies to develop permanent magnets and associated electric motors with fewer or no rare-earth elements.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

^^^ According to

So when manufacturers stop selling electric motors and batteries with REMs then I guess that won't be in issue. In the meantime, with current technology there are significant doubts about the scalability or environmental benefit of electric vehicles, particularly for vehicles that don't get heavy use.

[Kitchissippi]

One idea I have is to maybe have a recharging rail (or catenary?) on the intercity highways much like for trains. These could be on dedicated/segregated lanes, maybe a even a tolled rapid (120+kph) ROW, where you have to surrender control of your vehicle to an automated self drive. So recharging on the fly, faster travel speed and a break from driving, all in a user-paid system — it could actually address many issues at the same time Of course cars would all have to be redesigned for it, but then it could also get rid of having to plug your car if garages and parking lots all had the same system, and could automatically integrate parking and recharging fees all into one in the future.