They call it the "Tesla shock" and the article says that by 2040 there will be 150 million electric cars. Yet a few paragraphs later they admit that there will be 2 billion cars in use in 2040 (ergo 90% internal combustion engines).
I'm not saying that the progress is not impressive, but 10% maximum market share in 24 years doesn't feel like a shock.
I hear what you're saying, but I think the shift will happen faster than is commonly anticipated. The simplest way to sense this is to just drive a Tesla. Doing so is reminiscent of seeing early iPhones. There is a strong sense of, "Ah, yes, this is obviously the future."
As soon as the initial cost of electrics becomes remotely competitive with gas-powered cars, pretty much everyone is going to want one. Yes, there will be the much-ballyhooed challenges of installing charging stations in parking garages and so forth. All those commonly cited issues will remain issues, but they'll be like AT&T's initial network congestion due to iPhones: short-term problems that'll be overcome because the product is that good.
10% of cars being electric is huge when it comes to limiting demand. It's enough to whittle gasoline capex down to practically nothing, raising its price and driving more and more electric adoption.
Electric cars are an order of magnitude more efficient than ICE cars. The only thing keeping them from going mainstream is the existing industrial base. With growth now impossible in that sector, mainstream adoption is just around the corner.
Sure, but many of those cars in use by 2040 got sold new before today or will be sold in the next 10 years. In many places around the world, driving a 30 years old car is not uncommon (I mean, parts of Mexico still have this as the most common type of cab: http://www.zonalatina.com/Zldata313a.jpg ).
Now, the current market share of electric cars for new cars in the US is 0.62% (it is 0.08% in China). By 2040, in terms of new car sales, the market share is expected to be 35% worlwide [1]. That is a 6 orders of magnitude increase (at 2x each time) in 24 years, using the US number. So, extrapolating and saying the market share doubles every 4 years (24/6), you'd be reaching 70% electric in new cars by 2044 without regulation. With regulation banning non-electric cars as soon as it make sense for each country, I expect it to go 50% of all new cars electric one year, 100% the next.
Either way, by 2048 the number of new gasoline cars will be negligible, but the existing stock of cars already sold might take a few more decades to dwindle.
Yeah, its really a stretch. The Royal Dutch Shell guys apparently used a combined efficiency trends + electric car market share to get to a "total mean gas demand" peak. As far as I can tell for poorly articulated arguments, is that it goes something like this: We can model the gas market as the total cars on the road multiplied the average gas mileage per car multiplied by the average miles per car. As a composite number, the average gas mileage is affected strongly by cars which are on the road but use no gas. For each percent of market share which is electric only cars, its equivalent to something like a 3 - 5% reduction in the average gas mileage figure. And total market growth slows, and the percentage of electric cars rises, the actual aggregate demand for gas is going to start going down. Which hasn't happened in a sustained way since the invention of the automobile.
Well, it is a shock if you make 95% of those internal combustion engines electric too, that's it, hybrid, because they are way more efficient.
For example, just adding supercaps means you could recover 20 to 30% of your energy from regenerative braking. This will happen when tech is ready(cheap in big quantities), and it is getting ready. It is not just Tesla, but hundreds of companies working on those problems.
But also, the real shock is making cars self drive because suddenly your cars do not need to stay in a static place for hours in cities. Today cars carry an average of 1.1 to 1.05 people in cities, but are made to carry 5 to 6 people, they weight over 1500kilograms for moving 80 kilos.
If you can make cars 5/6 smaller like you can easily do with electric(it is very hard to make a small 4 stroke engine) you can improve enormously the efficiency and reduce contamination of cities.
Yeah, that seems like a rather optimistic (from the oil industry's perspective) projection that electric cars will be adopted gradually. Seems more likely that there will become a point when electric cars are better/cheaper than gas even for low-end vehicles, and then from then on there's no reason to keep making gas-burning cars except for specialized purposes.
One argument in favor of a gradual transition though is limited battery supply. However, if there's a market for more cells, I don't see any reason to expect that the necessary factories won't be built.
I really don't see why that sentence deserves a smiley. Ice caps doomed seems to mean a lot of unexpected, including threatening, consequences for me and you.
I think 150 million is a crazy underestimate. Since electric vehicles will be categorically better than gas vehicles, companies will be forced to produce them just from competition.
The article is focused on the market for gasoline and oil, not on the market for new and used cars.
Demand for oil has been consistently rising for 100 years. Imagine you run an oil refinery and 5 years ago you thought the market would rise 25% by 2040. Now you discover that it will not grow at all. Pretty shocking.
Here are a few things to be considered, and have all be well discussed on hn. Some things we know for sure such as:
- Ride sharing means much fewer vehicles needed to do the same thing. Current numbers would indicate by quite a lot, this was before pooled ride sharing was widely used.
Other things we don't know, but we will learn in years ago:
- How do overall global demographic shifts change the demand for vehicles?
- Will employment trend changes reduce the amount of commuting time?
- Will self-driving tech be coupled with all-electric cars?
- Electric seems like it will be a commodity function, but will self driving? Or will there be some other platform effect that makes the vehicle business overall look and behave much more like software?
- How quickly does improved safety from self-driving lead to much lighter vehicles due to regulatory changes? (lower gasoline usage, with or without electric)
- Will regulators decide to impose outright bans on gasoline vehicles for environmental reasons?
- Will there be a carbon tax and if so will it be high enough to make gasoline unfavorable to electric?
- Will regulators decide to ban non-self driving vehicles for safety reasons? Presumably, this would remove old cars from the road quickly.
- Will continued improvements in electric vehicle manufacturing lead to dramatically more favorable economics over gasoline vehicles? (This seems very possible to me, given the simplification of electric motors.)
- Will major ride sharing companies get exclusive transportation rights to municipalities or even nation-states? Will those ride sharing companies be manufacturing their own vehicles?
Whatever parts do or don't happen, it seems like a giant mistake to draw a linear line and predict how things will look in 2044.
Ride sharing means fewer vehicles existing, but many more vehicles on the road.
Today my car goes with me to work, and then it goes home with me. If I accept ride sharing, then it has to also travel empty. Each time I use the car, the car must first drive to where I am. This roughly doubles the number of cars on the road.
With self-driving, it gets worse. I can send small children places alone. This means they can visit friends whenever they like, and they can participate in more activities.
In going from an 8 cylinder to a Prius you are going to save more gas than in going from a Prius to a Tesla, and even though we might not all be driving Teslas anytime soon the majority of us will drive more efficient cars.
Old observation: "The difference between two headlights & one headlight is a whole lot less than the difference between one headlight & no headlights."
A hybrid may sip a fraction of the gas a V8 consumes, but a pure EV doesn't need any of the gasoline infrastructure at all. (My casual calculations indicate you can run an EV off home solar for half the price of the car.)
8-cylinders are maybe 5% or less in Europe. But there are many 1000cc engines instead. A Prius is "only" 15-20% more efficient than a similar non-hybrid, even less if you consider diesels (which pollute more even though they consume less fuel).
I heard that claim before, that Tesla's aren't a huge increase in efficiency over a Prius. It was based on the fact that they were powered by the grid and a mix of coal, gas, and hydro power in the US which generates carbon emisisons.
Assuming the future goes more green, which it getting looks that way, electric cars will get more efficient over time since the grid will change.
Your current Prius will always be the same level of efficiency though. A 40 mpg car won't magically become a 800 mpg one like an electric one will when it's powered by solar.
Sidenote: it's better for the environment to buy a used Ford pickup truck than to buy a new Prius. The pickup will have been made in one factory while the Prius is made from parts from all around the world. It's already done a million miles by the time you buy it. Tesla not only has zero emissions, but they're also vertically integrated. For me, it's not all about which is the cheaper option to own. It's about what's going to help the environment the most.
Tesla is quite good at PR, and adding Tesla in a headline gets clicks. The article does say it's all the car companies, not just Tesla though.
Also Hydrogen vehicles are a thing now. Trains coming online in Germany, and Toyota are selling hydrogen cars now in Japan/USA. There are shipping container sized hydrogen production stations being produced in Germany that run on solar.
Hydrogen powered cargo ships have already been made as well. However, I'm not sure if hydrogen generation on board ships has been explored yet. Who knows... it may be possible for ships to run without ever needing to refuel if generation is done on board.
Now it's possible to use the extra power from renewables to make Hydrogen. Often solar and wind are over provisioned so they can provide extra when the sun or wind is low. However when wind or sun is high, the extra power is just wasted. Many home solar systems for example work on charging three days worth of power in case there are a couple of cloudy days. So even though conversion is only currently around 35% efficiency, that power would have gone to waste anyway.
The writing is on the wall for fossil fuels. I think this is the main reason why so many big funds are divesting from fossil fuels.
Hydrogen powered cargo ships have already been made as well. However, I'm not sure if hydrogen generation on board ships has been explored yet. Who knows... it may be possible for ships to run without ever needing to refuel if generation is done on board.
Sorry. Go back and study thermodynamics again. If you have the energy to generate hydrogen, you might as well use that energy to move the ship. You're always going to spend more energy generating the hydrogen than you will get back burning it or combining it in a fuel cell. The one exception is if you start from just the right feedstock to generate the hydrogen from, like some hydrocarbon. The leading candidate now is natural gas. However, in that case, the byproduct is CO2 -- so what's the point?
Or, maybe you were thinking of hydrogen as energy storage? Batteries are far better than hydrogen as far as that goes.
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Electric cars are absolutely a thing; if you pay close attention you will spot a decent number of them in a day's worth of driving. Dedicated supercharging infrastructure is already fairly widespread, and basic wall electricity is already everywhere and is available as a second resort.
So sure, hydrogen cars themselves may exist, but the infrastructure does not, and I'm not aware of many people who reasonably expect that it ever will exist. Electric cars seem to have already won in the competition of "what renewable will replace gas".
Has the storage problem of hydrogen been solved? I thought that a) most containers leak hydrogen, and b) hydrogen makes (most) containers brittle over time?
Or do these new trains use some kind of (electric) hydrogen fuel cell, that doesn't work like traditional combustion?
Self driving cars will mean the huge shift. As rehashed many times, most people won't buy a car but rather use it on demand. Right now a car is driven perhaps 15 000 miles a year which means probably two hours a day. This will jump to 12, perhaps 18 hours a day. Maintenance costs and reliability will be king and electric cars are huge leaders in that.
Considering that use of cars is highly synchronised for commute times, and people's pride in car ownership as a status symbol extends to spending a non-trivial portion of their annual income on depreciation to ensure their car is unsullied by previous owners, I'm not so sure...
We'll have to see how the Chevy Bolt does. That's the first mass-market electric car.
Electric car tax credits in the US are halved after a manufacturer sells 200,000 electric cars. Chevy is likely to hit that in a year or so. So is Tesla.
As a fan of all electric cars, I really hope the Bolt does well. However, my understanding is that GM/LG only have enough battery manufacturing capacity for 50,000 units a year. So that puts a major cap on how much success it can have, at least initially.
This is why Tesla longs are so bullish on the stock... even if the other car companies instantly switched all their models to electric, there wouldn't be enough battery supply to meet that demand for years. Tesla, on the other hand, should be sitting pretty with their Gigafactory 1.
I have to say that it's insteresting how the IEA consistently, year over year, underestimates the growth of renewables and overestimates the growth of fossil fuels.
Oil will not be cheap forever. It is a scarce resource that will only become even more scarce as we go hence the price inevitably will go up.
In terms of Tesla (and electric cars for that matter), I never had the need to own a car because I happen to live in a cosmopolitan city that has a good transportation network. However, since I am now moving into the suburbs I am thinking to buy a car and I am pretty sure it will be a Tesla because electric makes sense if you happen to care about the environment.
That being said, I am not convinced that electric powered vehicles are better for the environment in this very moment because 8% to 15% of the electricity is lost in transmission and electricity generation is not a zero sum game. However, this can change very rapidly if we happen to build more localised sources of energy such as local photo cells, etc. - and yes solar roofs is the way to go.
More electric cars on the road means that oil will be cheaper for everyone else. The fossil fuels industry has massive infrastructure that isn't going away anytime soon, I'd guess their growth period is over though.
There is going to be a very long transition from combustion engines to electric motors.
Broadly maybe yes, but much of that infrastructure pays for itself because of the volume that goes through it. That includes processing plants as well as gas stations.
To take gas stations as an example, if 25% die off, that increases the everyday inconvenience of filling up gas, which may push X number of people to buy an EV over an ICE even considering the fuel cost. So then there will be even less volume, and more gas stations will close, so you will have a death spiral. Ironically it may become harder to fill up gas than to charge your EV.
Not saying this is what's going to happen, rather pointing out that the death of oil will be complex and it will be beautiful. :D
Not if the oil is instead refined for aviation, petrochemical, and shipping uses.
The article seems to suggest that the increase in demand for those applications will more than make up for the decline in gasoline, electricity and heating demand.
The real change will happen when EVs themselves become cheaper than gasoline equivalents. And that is probably going to happen sooner than a lot of people expect.
When Ferrari begins to make EV, we will know gasoline demand have been decimated, but it's an existential question for exotic supercar manufacturer with a long lineage & tradition that plays so much in to their brand.
Ferrari have stated that they will never make a fully EV vehicle. I'm not sure what Enzo Ferrari would think.
I would be very interested to know what an EV supercar will look like I expect something like sub two second range with instant torque and lightweight composite material.
I get giddy thinking about the torque to weight ratio of such vehicles.
I would like a future where I can download the plans for a super-car engine, like Ferrari/Lambo/Porsche/Etc where I can have my 3D printer print me an engine at whatever scale I want and put it into my go-kart...
Well, all I can say is if these gasoline car companies - many of whom have actually experimented with EVs - don't follow through, they're going to learn the lesson of Kodak.
Note the word "Gasoline" not fossil fuels burnt inside cars. The age of electrics is not here, nor does this article predict it anytime soon. Gas stations beside the road aren't going anywhere, at least not worldwide.
>> While the agency anticipates a gasoline peak, it still forecasts overall oil demand growing for several decades because of higher consumption of diesel, fuel oil and jet fuel by the shipping, trucking, aviation and petrochemical industries.
One have to be blind and ignorant if you believe that the number of cars will double by 2040. I believe they will be halved, if not quartered or more. Have they not seen any of the self-driving cars appearing, and getting here much faster than most anticipated?!
[+] [-] oblio|9 years ago|reply
I'm not saying that the progress is not impressive, but 10% maximum market share in 24 years doesn't feel like a shock.
Also, the polar ice caps are doomed :)
[+] [-] jseliger|9 years ago|reply
As soon as the initial cost of electrics becomes remotely competitive with gas-powered cars, pretty much everyone is going to want one. Yes, there will be the much-ballyhooed challenges of installing charging stations in parking garages and so forth. All those commonly cited issues will remain issues, but they'll be like AT&T's initial network congestion due to iPhones: short-term problems that'll be overcome because the product is that good.
[+] [-] vinceguidry|9 years ago|reply
Electric cars are an order of magnitude more efficient than ICE cars. The only thing keeping them from going mainstream is the existing industrial base. With growth now impossible in that sector, mainstream adoption is just around the corner.
[+] [-] lazaroclapp|9 years ago|reply
Now, the current market share of electric cars for new cars in the US is 0.62% (it is 0.08% in China). By 2040, in terms of new car sales, the market share is expected to be 35% worlwide [1]. That is a 6 orders of magnitude increase (at 2x each time) in 24 years, using the US number. So, extrapolating and saying the market share doubles every 4 years (24/6), you'd be reaching 70% electric in new cars by 2044 without regulation. With regulation banning non-electric cars as soon as it make sense for each country, I expect it to go 50% of all new cars electric one year, 100% the next.
Either way, by 2048 the number of new gasoline cars will be negligible, but the existing stock of cars already sold might take a few more decades to dwindle.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-ev-oil-crisis/
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pipio21|9 years ago|reply
For example, just adding supercaps means you could recover 20 to 30% of your energy from regenerative braking. This will happen when tech is ready(cheap in big quantities), and it is getting ready. It is not just Tesla, but hundreds of companies working on those problems.
But also, the real shock is making cars self drive because suddenly your cars do not need to stay in a static place for hours in cities. Today cars carry an average of 1.1 to 1.05 people in cities, but are made to carry 5 to 6 people, they weight over 1500kilograms for moving 80 kilos.
If you can make cars 5/6 smaller like you can easily do with electric(it is very hard to make a small 4 stroke engine) you can improve enormously the efficiency and reduce contamination of cities.
[+] [-] elihu|9 years ago|reply
One argument in favor of a gradual transition though is limited battery supply. However, if there's a market for more cells, I don't see any reason to expect that the necessary factories won't be built.
[+] [-] wiz21c|9 years ago|reply
I really don't see why that sentence deserves a smiley. Ice caps doomed seems to mean a lot of unexpected, including threatening, consequences for me and you.
[+] [-] tokipin|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oliv__|9 years ago|reply
More like a pretty severe :( in my book.
[+] [-] MarkMc|9 years ago|reply
Demand for oil has been consistently rising for 100 years. Imagine you run an oil refinery and 5 years ago you thought the market would rise 25% by 2040. Now you discover that it will not grow at all. Pretty shocking.
[+] [-] intrasight|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AJ007|9 years ago|reply
- Ride sharing means much fewer vehicles needed to do the same thing. Current numbers would indicate by quite a lot, this was before pooled ride sharing was widely used.
Other things we don't know, but we will learn in years ago:
- How do overall global demographic shifts change the demand for vehicles?
- Will employment trend changes reduce the amount of commuting time?
- Will self-driving tech be coupled with all-electric cars?
- Electric seems like it will be a commodity function, but will self driving? Or will there be some other platform effect that makes the vehicle business overall look and behave much more like software?
- How quickly does improved safety from self-driving lead to much lighter vehicles due to regulatory changes? (lower gasoline usage, with or without electric)
- Will regulators decide to impose outright bans on gasoline vehicles for environmental reasons?
- Will there be a carbon tax and if so will it be high enough to make gasoline unfavorable to electric?
- Will regulators decide to ban non-self driving vehicles for safety reasons? Presumably, this would remove old cars from the road quickly.
- Will continued improvements in electric vehicle manufacturing lead to dramatically more favorable economics over gasoline vehicles? (This seems very possible to me, given the simplification of electric motors.)
- Will major ride sharing companies get exclusive transportation rights to municipalities or even nation-states? Will those ride sharing companies be manufacturing their own vehicles?
Whatever parts do or don't happen, it seems like a giant mistake to draw a linear line and predict how things will look in 2044.
[+] [-] tropo|9 years ago|reply
Today my car goes with me to work, and then it goes home with me. If I accept ride sharing, then it has to also travel empty. Each time I use the car, the car must first drive to where I am. This roughly doubles the number of cars on the road.
With self-driving, it gets worse. I can send small children places alone. This means they can visit friends whenever they like, and they can participate in more activities.
[+] [-] bkmrkr|9 years ago|reply
In going from an 8 cylinder to a Prius you are going to save more gas than in going from a Prius to a Tesla, and even though we might not all be driving Teslas anytime soon the majority of us will drive more efficient cars.
[+] [-] ctdonath|9 years ago|reply
A hybrid may sip a fraction of the gas a V8 consumes, but a pure EV doesn't need any of the gasoline infrastructure at all. (My casual calculations indicate you can run an EV off home solar for half the price of the car.)
[+] [-] bonzini|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marricks|9 years ago|reply
Assuming the future goes more green, which it getting looks that way, electric cars will get more efficient over time since the grid will change.
Your current Prius will always be the same level of efficiency though. A 40 mpg car won't magically become a 800 mpg one like an electric one will when it's powered by solar.
[+] [-] esotericsean|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tehwebguy|9 years ago|reply
Plus CA will give you $2500 back if you make under like 200k.
The lease ends up being like $0.12 per mile with taxes and fees.
It's not a great car or anything but it's a ridiculous deal.
[+] [-] feadog|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vesrah|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] renesd|9 years ago|reply
Also Hydrogen vehicles are a thing now. Trains coming online in Germany, and Toyota are selling hydrogen cars now in Japan/USA. There are shipping container sized hydrogen production stations being produced in Germany that run on solar.
Hydrogen powered cargo ships have already been made as well. However, I'm not sure if hydrogen generation on board ships has been explored yet. Who knows... it may be possible for ships to run without ever needing to refuel if generation is done on board.
Now it's possible to use the extra power from renewables to make Hydrogen. Often solar and wind are over provisioned so they can provide extra when the sun or wind is low. However when wind or sun is high, the extra power is just wasted. Many home solar systems for example work on charging three days worth of power in case there are a couple of cloudy days. So even though conversion is only currently around 35% efficiency, that power would have gone to waste anyway.
The writing is on the wall for fossil fuels. I think this is the main reason why so many big funds are divesting from fossil fuels.
[+] [-] feadog|9 years ago|reply
Sorry. Go back and study thermodynamics again. If you have the energy to generate hydrogen, you might as well use that energy to move the ship. You're always going to spend more energy generating the hydrogen than you will get back burning it or combining it in a fuel cell. The one exception is if you start from just the right feedstock to generate the hydrogen from, like some hydrocarbon. The leading candidate now is natural gas. However, in that case, the byproduct is CO2 -- so what's the point?
Or, maybe you were thinking of hydrogen as energy storage? Batteries are far better than hydrogen as far as that goes.
[+] [-] CydeWeys|9 years ago|reply
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Electric cars are absolutely a thing; if you pay close attention you will spot a decent number of them in a day's worth of driving. Dedicated supercharging infrastructure is already fairly widespread, and basic wall electricity is already everywhere and is available as a second resort.
So sure, hydrogen cars themselves may exist, but the infrastructure does not, and I'm not aware of many people who reasonably expect that it ever will exist. Electric cars seem to have already won in the competition of "what renewable will replace gas".
[+] [-] e12e|9 years ago|reply
Or do these new trains use some kind of (electric) hydrogen fuel cell, that doesn't work like traditional combustion?
[+] [-] _ph_|9 years ago|reply
the storage - you need very high pressure tanks to store them, and while this can be done, this is not cheap and easy
the inefficiency of creating and storing the hydrogen. When you compress a gas a lot of energy is lost by the heat produced by the compression.
So a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle will be 3x less efficient in electricity consumption than a battery electrical vehicle.
[+] [-] chx|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notahacker|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] superdude|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|9 years ago|reply
Electric car tax credits in the US are halved after a manufacturer sells 200,000 electric cars. Chevy is likely to hit that in a year or so. So is Tesla.
[+] [-] srb-|9 years ago|reply
This is why Tesla longs are so bullish on the stock... even if the other car companies instantly switched all their models to electric, there wouldn't be enough battery supply to meet that demand for years. Tesla, on the other hand, should be sitting pretty with their Gigafactory 1.
[+] [-] Daishiman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _pdp_|9 years ago|reply
In terms of Tesla (and electric cars for that matter), I never had the need to own a car because I happen to live in a cosmopolitan city that has a good transportation network. However, since I am now moving into the suburbs I am thinking to buy a car and I am pretty sure it will be a Tesla because electric makes sense if you happen to care about the environment.
That being said, I am not convinced that electric powered vehicles are better for the environment in this very moment because 8% to 15% of the electricity is lost in transmission and electricity generation is not a zero sum game. However, this can change very rapidly if we happen to build more localised sources of energy such as local photo cells, etc. - and yes solar roofs is the way to go.
[+] [-] kneel|9 years ago|reply
There is going to be a very long transition from combustion engines to electric motors.
[+] [-] tokipin|9 years ago|reply
To take gas stations as an example, if 25% die off, that increases the everyday inconvenience of filling up gas, which may push X number of people to buy an EV over an ICE even considering the fuel cost. So then there will be even less volume, and more gas stations will close, so you will have a death spiral. Ironically it may become harder to fill up gas than to charge your EV.
Not saying this is what's going to happen, rather pointing out that the death of oil will be complex and it will be beautiful. :D
[+] [-] stale2002|9 years ago|reply
Your car sits idle 98 percent of the time.
Once self driving hits, you only need a 10th of the cars that you needed before. And that 10 percent electric penetration rate becomes 100 percent.
[+] [-] Reason077|9 years ago|reply
The article seems to suggest that the increase in demand for those applications will more than make up for the decline in gasoline, electricity and heating demand.
The real change will happen when EVs themselves become cheaper than gasoline equivalents. And that is probably going to happen sooner than a lot of people expect.
[+] [-] brilliantcode|9 years ago|reply
Ferrari have stated that they will never make a fully EV vehicle. I'm not sure what Enzo Ferrari would think.
I would be very interested to know what an EV supercar will look like I expect something like sub two second range with instant torque and lightweight composite material.
I get giddy thinking about the torque to weight ratio of such vehicles.
[+] [-] XJOKOLAT|9 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJD-Ip1meuE
[+] [-] greenhatman|9 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qodSfhk360
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT7KKxoAvvk
[+] [-] samstave|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xorxornop|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blahi|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm101|9 years ago|reply
Note the word "Gasoline" not fossil fuels burnt inside cars. The age of electrics is not here, nor does this article predict it anytime soon. Gas stations beside the road aren't going anywhere, at least not worldwide.
>> While the agency anticipates a gasoline peak, it still forecasts overall oil demand growing for several decades because of higher consumption of diesel, fuel oil and jet fuel by the shipping, trucking, aviation and petrochemical industries.
[+] [-] laser|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stolsvik|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kuschku|9 years ago|reply
People won't suddenly shift their work schedule around, so they'll all need to use cars at the same time, still.
But they'd also use the cars for additional courier services.
[+] [-] pimlottc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skoocda|9 years ago|reply
They mean "global gasoline demand has peaked". They have literally said the opposite.
Is this the new way to write headlines?
It's like people saying "I could care less". The proper euphemism is "I couldn't care less" because otherwise, you actually do care.