When an analyst make a comment like this you can tell that they are basing their analysis primarily on regulatory factors and probably ignoring the role of competition and scale in driving down costs. This is surely an underestimate of penetration.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I'll take this as confirming my view that commercial EV fleet operators will be inclined to develop their own charging infrastructure. With scale comes tremendous opportunity to save money on charging.
Notice also that a 260k private cars would suffice to offset about 10 kb/d of demand. But because these cars may put on 4 to 6 times as many miles per day as private, we're talking about a 40 to 60 kb/d impact.
That's the power of commercial flleets. You can see how with higher mileage there is even more incentive to squeeze costs out of charging. This creates a virtuous cycle where more spent on charging infrastructure motivates use of more EVs, which in turn makes good on the investment in cutting charging costs.
I expect to see this play out in the EV trucking space too. Once a fleet operator figures out that they can save money cutting out fuel retailers and even utilities, there will be no stopping them.
At the Electric Power Council conference in Tashkent on Saturday,
Saudi oil minister to meet Russian, Kazakh counterparts
Saudi's Falih calls for more work to cut global oil inventory
Saudi oil minister to meet Russian, Kazakh counterparts
Saudi's Falih calls for more work to cut global oil inventory
Here is a IMO interesting presentation form the (in the past notorious conservative) IEA renewable energy forecasters.
ValueAnalyst
Closed
Shale is so profitable at $50 oil that it's reducing production at a record rate.
U.S. oil rig count falls by most in week since May 2016 -Baker Hughes
Makes total sense.
U.S. oil rig count falls by most in week since May 2016 -Baker Hughes
Makes total sense.
1,000 PV panels per minute, renewables akin to a bond, with coupons of electrons
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
The growth projections for overall combined renewables capacity 2017-2022 is laughably low and will likely be eclipsed by 2019. IEA projections have been called out as a joke and they still toe the party line. Hilarious.
perhaps yes, perhaps no, IF you look at the secondary graphs they have with the 'if our projections are low then these higher results may actualize'
he points out India is quadrupling in 4 years, China is a world driver, methods of financing, 2/3rds of increase of capacity in next 5 years will be wind and solar, there are 10megawatt turbines being installed, there are 1,000 PV panels being produced every minute world wide and financially you treat PV/Renewables as bonds with ~100% cost upfront and clip coupons. watch the whole presentation.
the presenter said 70,000,000 people would get electricity for the first time ever in the next five years, and we need to bring electricity to 1.3 billion who have none
The presenter was said to be like Matt Damon. No one asked an obvious question, like in "The Martian" and "Bring Watney home" is it similar to Puerto Rico?
If 3.4 million HAD electricity and now don't, 2 months later, will Puerto Rico go ~100% renewables and distributed and initiate a "phase change" in the speed of adaptation, speeding things up even more?
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
The answer is quite clearly no. These projections are still the linear trajectory that's been proven wrong every year up to now. If someone is 180 degrees incorrect 15 times in a row, why should be be basing any conversation on their new thoughts?
Here's a good article on these same projections:
IEA: Renewable electricity set to grow 40% globally by 2022
40% growth by 2022 is so absurdly low it's now safe to label these projections disinformation. They can't be this wrong for this many years in a row by accident.
China's solar installs for the last three years are something like 15GW, 35GW, 60GW. They would need to literally stop installing altogether for the world to fall somewhere below the IEA's "accelerated projection". I don't think "stop installing solar" was in China's new 5 year plan.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Trump pitches Saudi Aramco to list IPO stock on the NYSE, calling it 'important' to the US - Trump pitches Saudi Aramco to list IPO stock on the NYSE, calling it 'important' to the US
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I do think that declining oil revenues will lead to instability in countries.
I do also think that "dirty cobalt" is an issue but there are alternatives... use other metals and/or clean up the cobalt supply chain.
Certainly not an authority of any kind, but I seem to remember that Co is found with other heavy metals ore like Ni, Cu, Au, As etc as a pollutant, and that some rich mines are located around Skellefteå (and Vaasa) where Northvolt is locating a battery factory. Not to mention the Russian town of Nikel, also not far away.
So it may well be possible to eschew lethal artesanal manual mines in the Congo for supplies of Co.
That would be great.
According to this article, Tesla already sources all its Cobalt from North America.
Tesla To Use All North American Resources For Planned Gigafactory
Tesla To Use All North American Resources For Planned Gigafactory
I never imagined when I was driving my little Zap Xebra that within so few years The Economist would be predicting that the future is electric.
As for BEVs powered by "dirty coal," I have no links to cite, but I've read that the dirtiest coal-fired plants are cleaner than even the cleanest gasoline-powered cars. The ICE is just so inefficient. But even if that were not the case, the grid is getting cleaner every year, and more and more people are powering their BEVs (and their homes) from rooftop solar panels. You can't do that with a stinker.
As for hedging Tesla, I know next to nothing about investing, but I don't think Tesla needs hedging. If the Model 3 is as good a car as I expect it to be, there'll be no stopping Tesla.
The problem here is that the whole analysis is based on policy driven demand. So only existing policies are counted here. This is clearly an underestimate to total demand. Moreover, a supply analysis should also be considered. How many GW of PV will be manufactured in coming years? Will this not all be installed? National and state policies impact local demand, but global demand will essentially clear the PV market within a reasonable range of prices. So at the top of the market PV makers set the number produced, while local policies determine where it will be installed.
It is striking that China's solar demand is coming to meet its production. Will production in China ramp up faster, will China become a net importer of PV, or will installation slow growth? I think these are the only possibilities, but it's not clear what will happen. My money would be on China stepping up production of solar and batteries.
Can WTI Hit $70 In 2018? | OilPrice.com
Berman thinks WTI oil could hit $67 by end of year, leaving $70s in sight for 2018. He puts a lot on the CI, comparative inventory metric, which is just that spread between current inventory and 5-year average. I think the average may be rising faster than inventory is falling. Nevertheless, there is some tightening of the market happening.
What continues to puzzle me is how the front end of the market continues to rise, now over $57, while Dec 2020 stays put at $50. While there is much talk of need for long cycle deep water production, the futures market is definitely not sending any supportive price signals. Even shale producers seem to be holding out for higher futures prices, but they aren't coming. The best this steep backwardation can do is drain inventory. But it's not clear why 2020 price expectations refuse to budge.
Berman thinks WTI oil could hit $67 by end of year, leaving $70s in sight for 2018. He puts a lot on the CI, comparative inventory metric, which is just that spread between current inventory and 5-year average. I think the average may be rising faster than inventory is falling. Nevertheless, there is some tightening of the market happening.
What continues to puzzle me is how the front end of the market continues to rise, now over $57, while Dec 2020 stays put at $50. While there is much talk of need for long cycle deep water production, the futures market is definitely not sending any supportive price signals. Even shale producers seem to be holding out for higher futures prices, but they aren't coming. The best this steep backwardation can do is drain inventory. But it's not clear why 2020 price expectations refuse to budge.
Similar threads
