JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Rush vs Bob. Most interesting is Lutz's revelation that the Obama administration wanted to kill the Volt program because it was so capital intensive. So much for the "Obama" car.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
More anti-ev gibberish
- Thread starter qwk
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
A new low from Petersen, fear mongering over the GM test lab incident: http://seekingalpha.com/article/515811-is-lithium-ion-a-borgia-battery
Adm
Active Member
I somehow suspect that his income for these articles is significantly higher. Just speculation, but I can't see why a (ex?) corporate lawyer would spend so much time writing these articles and responding to all the comments for $1/100 page views.
smorgasbord
Active Member
He's previously disclosed a $1 million dollar investment in Axion stock, which is currently down to about 1/3 the price he got as an insider. He apparently caught the falling knife on additional purchases, too.
I believe he considers Li-Ion batteries and EVs as competition to Axion's lead/acid battery and micro-hybrid applications. When major investors started dumping Axion, I believe Petersen was trying to bolster the stock price by getting retail investors interested. Now that Axion is nonetheless a penny stock, and Seeking Alpha won't take articles directly about penny stocks, he mostly writes about the perceived competition and applications for Axion's products.
Frankly, I think there is considerable merit in start/stop technology and therefore for products like Axion's. Petersen is like that Coda salesman being discussed now--trying to boost sales by running down competitors. He'd be better off spending his time carping on ICE stocks about why they should be incorporating stop/start, rather than trying to run down EVs. Hard to believe that EVs are going to undermine the success of Axion.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
More likely that improvements in Lithium cells could undermine the success of Axion in the SS market. The PbC has low cost and high cycle life going for it, but a steep voltage drop and poor specific energy, so it has to be over sized and extremely shallow cycled to work, and it seems to need a dual battery system. A single battery lithium product might become competitive. I think there is a narrowing window where the Axion battery can gain some market share in the SS market, it might do better in the grid support and heavy rail industry.
Ok this time he's gone completely over the top. Downright irresponible to make such claims based on nothing but likely inaccurate media reports.
Norbert
TSLA will win
[Moderator's note: discussion about source of grid power is moved to Powering EVs: How Green is the Grid?]
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Whenever I read an article that says, "we're going to run out of [ insert your favorite commodity ]!" I am reminded of the Club of Rome. JP fails to give enough credit to the ability of a global economy to shift productive resources. To claim that aluminum, of all metals, is in short supply is preposterous. While I'll concede that refining aluminum is more energy-intensive than is iron, aluminum's abundance is 60% higher than iron's.
JP's comparison of metals price volatility to that of oil's fails to ask a relevant question: what fraction of lifetime ownership cost is subject to these variations? The cost of the bulk copper in a Model S can't be more than, what, $300? So a doubling of copper prices would add, what, another $300? I spend about $2,400/year on gasoline for one car, so the NPV of my gas expense over 10 years is about $18,600. So a one percent increase in the price of gasoline has a similar financial impact to a 100% increase in the price of copper.
Another question that JP fails to assess is what increase (if any) there is in the use of various elements between an ICE vehicle and an EV. We've discussed this before -- high-end ICE cars use more aluminum than cars did historically, and ICE vehicles use valuable rare earths in catalytic converters. JP still declines to acknowledge that Tesla uses no rare earths in its motor.
But even if EVs use more of some elements, will the global economy not be able to handle the extra demand? Let's suppose that each EV uses 100 pounds of copper, incremental to copper in an EV. (This is a completely made up number, but is probably conservatively high.) If so, then Tesla's annual production in 2013 would use about 1000 tons of copper, or about 0.006% of the world's copper production. If 2 million EVs, each using 100 extra pounds of copper, were sold each year, that would use 0.6% of the world's annual copper production. Why exactly is this going to collapse the world's non-ferrous metals market?
Lithium ore is not particularly scarce, and it has few other industrial uses. Aluminum ore is abundant. Phosphorous is plentiful and cheap. So what exactly is JP worried about?
I have decided, btw, to "stop feeding the pigeons", so I don't bother to post replies to JP anymore.
JP's comparison of metals price volatility to that of oil's fails to ask a relevant question: what fraction of lifetime ownership cost is subject to these variations? The cost of the bulk copper in a Model S can't be more than, what, $300? So a doubling of copper prices would add, what, another $300? I spend about $2,400/year on gasoline for one car, so the NPV of my gas expense over 10 years is about $18,600. So a one percent increase in the price of gasoline has a similar financial impact to a 100% increase in the price of copper.
Another question that JP fails to assess is what increase (if any) there is in the use of various elements between an ICE vehicle and an EV. We've discussed this before -- high-end ICE cars use more aluminum than cars did historically, and ICE vehicles use valuable rare earths in catalytic converters. JP still declines to acknowledge that Tesla uses no rare earths in its motor.
But even if EVs use more of some elements, will the global economy not be able to handle the extra demand? Let's suppose that each EV uses 100 pounds of copper, incremental to copper in an EV. (This is a completely made up number, but is probably conservatively high.) If so, then Tesla's annual production in 2013 would use about 1000 tons of copper, or about 0.006% of the world's copper production. If 2 million EVs, each using 100 extra pounds of copper, were sold each year, that would use 0.6% of the world's annual copper production. Why exactly is this going to collapse the world's non-ferrous metals market?
Lithium ore is not particularly scarce, and it has few other industrial uses. Aluminum ore is abundant. Phosphorous is plentiful and cheap. So what exactly is JP worried about?
I have decided, btw, to "stop feeding the pigeons", so I don't bother to post replies to JP anymore.
Thumper
Active Member
JP also fails to notice that the aluminum and copper from EVs is not lost to the world when the vehicle expires. It will be fairly cheaply and easily recycled.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Heard via ZCW that the Peugeot staff at London's Ecovelocity show were rubbishing EVs and pushing hydrogen. They're supposed to be there to promote the iOn (i-MiEV clone).
No surprise, anyone with any taste would never have a Volt or Leaf, horrible looking cars!
Last edited:
Similar threads
