Electric Vehicle conversion for 700/900 ?

[TonyS9]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

I'm confused Tony - what part of that post you quoted is off-topic?

The thread is about the possible conversion of a 7/9xx to electric power, therefore any and all options of conversion can be considered.

Recycling used batteries is a perennial nightmare and from what i understand, the allegedly recyclable batteries fitted to BEVs aren't all they seem, taking much more energy and cost to recycle than was originally estimated.

If you recall, you and i have discussed the fact we aren't ready for full uptake of BEVs for many reasons, no need to reiterate those conversations here. Also have you seen the price of gas lately? Much of the reason it is so high is because the renewables failed us this year so instead of having (essentially) free wind and solar power, many countries had to revert to using gas to fuel power stations. High demand creates shortages which in turn create higher prices.
Now factor in increased use of BEVs, most are charged at night when solar power isn't an option. You can see a problem straightaway i'm sure!

As for those fields of Zoes, the OP isn't wrong although the story behind it seems somewhat skewed :

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/el...ndoned-france/

Have a read, draw your own conclusions. I'd suggest the truth lies somewhere in between what the OP suggested and what this report suggests.

I'd certainly agree the whole BEV scenario is worrying, just like the proposed uptake of air-source heat pumps and also ground source heat pumps. Once the temperature drops below a certain point with either of those, they become ineffective at heating and just consume power - more power in fact than if they were transferring heat as they would constantly be trying to achieve heating when there's no heat to be had! Just like a fridge runs continuously when it's low on gas because it can't pull the temperature down inside the fridge.
Oh yeah, guess what? Those heat pumps use electricity to power them! Where is that electricity coming from? Same place as all the BEVs? This year has already proved renewables can't provide, therefore gas was used but hang on a minute - that produces pollution doesn't it?

We're just going round in circles here with the greenie-eco-warriors causing more problems than they're solving and demanding things happen now when we don't have the technology to do it, even if it was affordable.

As for a hydrogen engine conversion, yes it would be an extremely viable proposition if it wasn't for the cost and difficulty of producing and storing hydrogen. It burns cleanly with water/steam being the main exhaust component - not pollution because it's already in the atmosphere. Also water can be used so isn't a pollutant.

Again another list of off topic false information that I have reesearched throughly and categorically disagree with, and feel very strongly that people have been influenced by deliberate misinformation funded by the fossil fuel industry.

The topic of the thread is how to do an EV conversion, not whether batteries are recycleable, how much energy it takes, or if there are enough materials to convert the entire fleet of global cars. Also not the reasons for high priced fuel, or whether wind had let the country down, not heatpumps and their energy supply, not whether a load of Zoes are sitting in a field for whatever reason.

As for Hydrogen, this is another source of misinformation. Here are some verifyable facts;

1. Hydrogen storage of electricity is less than 35% efficient, compared with batteries that are 90% efficient. If there are any problems supplying heat pumps or BEVs with electricity its going to be 3x worse with Hydrogen.
2. Hydrogen requires rare and valuable materials that are priced by the kg, battery materials are priced by the ton. A FCEV needs 10x the amount of these materials that combustion cars need.
3. Practical Hydrogen vehicles are heavier, have lower range, are more expensive, have less major features (like 4WD) and less performance than a similar sized BEV. (have a look at the 2020 Mirai against a Model 3).
4. Hydrogen is expensive and will always be expensive. Its simply extra processing from electricity, and grossly inefficient plus you need a huge amount of infrstructure that is not going to payback..unless everyone commits to FCEVs, which can't happen any time soon because of the power requirements. I also suspect that there is not enough fuel cell materials to make enough consumers of Hydrogen to make it pay back. Of course if you go for a Hydrogen Piston engine the vehicle and engine is uber cheap, but it goes from grossly inefficient to 3x worse than that. It would payback with 1/3 of the vehicles, but people would be paying for the price of the vehicle on a yearly basis on fuel. This is the rediculous senario that JCB are pushing, of course they have to go for 350 bar tanks instead of the expensive 700bar ones use in cars, meaning 2x the amount of space and/or half the duration between fill ups and of course the higher costs. That said they aren't really pushing it, but a few people are making a big deal out of it because people like Hydrogen because it seems like petrol.
5. There is no way people are going to make their own Hydrogen conversion safely, or even allow professional to do it. Its just too dangerous. It has to be designed by proper mechanical design engineers not mechanics or technicians, but fully qualified people to proper standards with exactly the right parts and then tested to destruction.
6. Any attempt at solving Hydrogens containment, efficiency or cost just ends up causing other serious problems. Ultimately its inefficiency is caused by physics not engineering. Cheaper fuel cell can be made but they are even more grossly inefficient.
7. Battery charging is always a contentious point, but every building and nearly every room in most countries has charging outlet today, albeit a little slow.


Ultimately if we are going to go from digging energy up out of the ground to making it from renewables (or Nuclear), its needs to be efficient otherwise you are into multiples of miltiples of investment, time, structures and so on. Hydrogen has been beaten to death by the fossil fuel companies who want to make Hydrogen from fossil fuels and claim an improvement while in a "transition" to Green Hydrogen. Its utter utter BS from start to finish.

What you say about going around in circles is somewhat true, but I've been thinking/reading/research this for over 30 yrs. Ultimately we need to engineer a more efficient society and that is hard, and not going to easily understood by those making investment decisions but its been happening and it mostly going in the right directlion. The move to BEV is fantastic from all aspects that matter and any that are a problem (like child labour in the congo) can and are absolutely being managed, pretty much every negative is misinformation, it cannot be done quickly enough IMO. Heat pumps are not even in the same ball park, and I would be very cautious. Renewables are also fantastic but clearly need intermittency managed, baseload generation is a noose not an aiim. From my point of view most of the answers are very clear. Hydrogen has no place in an EV world. Throw money at renewables, insulation, BEVs and battery manufacturing and work hard on large scale storage.

Batteries work, and work well, people like BEVs they are better products than combustion cars for most people. Any problem with them has either already been solved, or is worth solving. The only real difficult I can see in the future is home charging for street parking, but really its fairly easy to solve.

[Laird Scooby]

First, it wasn't off-topic and second, it's not necessarily misinformation. Have you ever considered you may have researched misinformation too?

Also if you're not going to consider whether the batteries can be recycled when choosing them for a BEV conversion then you've failed at the first hurdle, it defeats the object of creating a car powered by (allegedly) renewable energy.

Who mentioned hydrogen storage of electricity? Wasn't me! The use was an alternative fuel in a petrol vehicle. As for the costs etc, we are already agreed about that - i made that point in my "misinformation" that you then confirmed.

You're failing to see the point about people charging their vehicles, go and look at the incomer fuse in your house and do some maths on fast chargers Vs slow chargers for BEVs then work out if you'd need to uprate the supply in your house. If the answer is yes (it will be unless you've gone wrong somewhere) then it stands to reason that all other houses with 100A or less incomer fuses (there are some still with 63A fuses) will need upgrading to use a fast charger.
Do that and it quickly becomes apparent the entire neighbourhood will need upgrading. If a neighbourhood needs upgrading then pretty soon an area will need it, if several areas need it that becomes a region and if regions need it, then the whole country will and ultimately the generators that power the country.

That is going to be the ultimate problem with BEVs, whether they become affordable or not, whether batteries become easily recycled or not or whether a "fast-change" battery system is developed with a standard footprint/architecture so instead of plugging a BEV in overnight to charge, you simply drive into a "filling station" and the motive batteries are swapped in a rapid process, preferably an automated one to eliminate risks and problems.

No problem is insurmountable but at the present time, there are too many problems for BEVs to be practical for a large amount of the population.

[ukvolvo]

Quoting youtube videos which is where all your figures come from does not make you more informed than most buddy sorry. Who funded those videos is just as valid question. Was it car industry funded shock horror.


Bob lazar was telling people decades ago how he built a hydrogen generator and that it needed parts classed as for nuclear industry despite been not dangerous materials. Beyond that there was no issues with hydro so consumers had no issue except project fear around explosions...yeah vaporized petrol is safe a houses too.

There was a guy years ago on youtube who had a generate as you go system and he got a job for US defense and disappeared, same the the BP guy who had a "accident" after cracking it. They sussed make as you go and shelved it in my opinion for later.

All of the energy argument etc is plain rubbish anyway as if we embrace renewables the efficiency loss is irrelevant. Its all about emissions. I am a big electrical advocate just not in cars when we dont have the battery technology. It should be on roofs everywhere contributing to the grid and infrastructure. Anyone who told you lithium batteries are easy to recycle is a absolute fibber. I would still use the batteries in a house system as the demand on them should be less thus offering longer life. Driving a car hard and fast charging it at a higher c rating over and over will kill batteries you just wait.

The internet is a agenda pushing tool now and you have to read between all the lines or you just become easily led.

Thats my 2p anyway, i think folk are very easily led into whatever rhetoric is wanted these days. Electric cars are the next hype.

[TonyS9]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

First, it wasn't off-topic and second, it's not necessarily misinformation. Have you ever considered you may have researched misinformation too?

Also if you're not going to consider whether the batteries can be recycled when choosing them for a BEV conversion then you've failed at the first hurdle, it defeats the object of creating a car powered by (allegedly) renewable energy.

Who mentioned hydrogen storage of electricity? Wasn't me! The use was an alternative fuel in a petrol vehicle. As for the costs etc, we are already agreed about that - i made that point in my "misinformation" that you then confirmed.

You're failing to see the point about people charging their vehicles, go and look at the incomer fuse in your house and do some maths on fast chargers Vs slow chargers for BEVs then work out if you'd need to uprate the supply in your house. If the answer is yes (it will be unless you've gone wrong somewhere) then it stands to reason that all other houses with 100A or less incomer fuses (there are some still with 63A fuses) will need upgrading to use a fast charger.
Do that and it quickly becomes apparent the entire neighbourhood will need upgrading. If a neighbourhood needs upgrading then pretty soon an area will need it, if several areas need it that becomes a region and if regions need it, then the whole country will and ultimately the generators that power the country.

That is going to be the ultimate problem with BEVs, whether they become affordable or not, whether batteries become easily recycled or not or whether a "fast-change" battery system is developed with a standard footprint/architecture so instead of plugging a BEV in overnight to charge, you simply drive into a "filling station" and the motive batteries are swapped in a rapid process, preferably an automated one to eliminate risks and problems.

No problem is insurmountable but at the present time, there are too many problems for BEVs to be practical for a large amount of the population.

The recycleablilty has no more relevance than the recycleablility of combustion engines, I was trying to avoid going off topic. But if you really want google Lithium Ion recycling, several companies will pop up that claim 100% recycling, the only thing that is being worked on is the cost. Not being able to recycle anything is totally false information, according to physics we CAN recycle everything including nuclear fuel (it requires gross amounts of energy and is exceedingly difficult). If we can refine elements 1-10% concentrated in rock, we can refine them from high concentrations in batteries.

As mentioned the only problem with recycleability is cost, and that is also a volume issue. It can be hard for recycling to compete with mining whein mining has a huge head start and massive scale to work with to get its cost down. However the materials are in high demand and recycling is already being invested in because battery manufacturers are trying to secure supplys. Frankly there have not been enough dead batteries available to payback large investments in the past, and although that is still the case, many can see that it is now worth that investment. Small batteries from mobile phones and laptops had had different problems recycling, but that is because they are small and collection is a problem. Large combustion starter batteries are recycled near 100% because they are large, people don't want them lying about their house.

As for home charging I have of course already done the maths and considered how it will be done, as have the National Grid and pretty much all grid authorities. They have reported to gov't in reports that you can read that "it is not a problem with the normal policies and incentives already used".

The plan is for destination chargers to be only 7-8kW, ie a single 30A circuit, this is plenty fast enough for overnight charging, in many case 3kW wall socket charging (level 1) is sufficient for most, but 7kW (level 2) offers a better degree oif flexibility. Only commercial organisations running EV trucks or lots of vehicle will need an upgrade. For home users its not a problem, if you can cook you can charge, most chargers use incomming current sensing (ie a CT at the incomer). If you are cooking, power showering, charging 2 EV and run close to the limit, if will cut the charging until things calm down. Of course you know very well that off-peak tarif will be used by EV owners, and those don't start until late in the evening or after 12. EV charging is a highly flexible load, its actually a grid asset you can be paid for. If you are at 63A again you just have less flexibility, but you can charge 1 or 2 cars at night. Also you have to take into account that most people are not doing their full range every day, you don't need to charge every day. However you might plug in to use an opportunistic tarif that pays you to charge on excess energy. This kind of smart charging is on the increasing and has huge possibilities to make money from your EV (if it has vehicle to grid capability). Imagine being paid to charge, then selling that charge back to the grid at peak rates, or even if there is a sudden frequency drop, FCAS is extremely well paid and car chargers could support this.


Converting a Petrol vehicle to use Hydrogen will be grossly grossly expensive to run, it will simply not be allowed and you won't be able to buy the fuel (as is the case now). Even trucking companies can't make a business case for it with a fixed route. Some are trying, but so far it seems like hot air, noone (other than unprofessional poorly informed chance investors) is biting.

EVs are not going to happen overnight, it will take 10 yrs to start with to convert 50%, its unlikely we will build any more capacity to manufacturer than that. There will be some things that need to be rolled out like residential street charging, and maybe a few households or local transformers will need upgarding eventually. They are expecting some upgrades within the normal operations.

They havn't run into any bottlenecks yet, some countries like Norway are already 70% EV sales, EU sales are 20% of the market and rising fast, they already overtook diesel. UK isn't far behind. Demand is higher than supply, prices are increasing and deliver times extending. At the end of the day those responsible for electricity are more than happy to sell us more electricity and take over from oil, and ensure that it can be delivered.

Its seems like there are alot of excuses used with an anti-EV attitude, ultimately its a case of do you want to do it or not and simply resolve any issues. Its not rocket science, it basic engineering we already know, the technology enabler was the battery density and cost.

[Clan]

Originally Posted by peterbl

Has anyone done any research into converting a 700/900 vehicle to electric drive.
Our 1990 740 has been a trusty transport since bought new and we would like to keep it able to run in London and let it help the planet.
It is our thinking that it is preferable to convert good solid vehicles to electric rather than throw away all that engineering with its carbon footprint only to create a heap more CO2 in building what would be an inferior vehicle.

Any helpful thoughts?
I understand that some may hate the idea of an electric drive in an old Volvo and I respect that opinion.

It will never pay off , I would carry on as long as petrol is available .. The electric motor needs around a 10:1 gear ratio with the wheels , this is pretty universal on all electric cars . you already have a 4:1 ratio with the axle from the propshaft so the motor is going to need a different ratio somehow to what is in its standard electric motor built in gearbox . you could put a motor directly to the gearbox input shaft but you will end up driving everywhere in third gear which the car gearbox wasn't designed for and loose efficiency .

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Clan

It will never pay off , I would carry on as long as petrol is available .. The electric motor needs around a 10:1 gear ratio with the wheels , this is pretty universal on all electric cars . you already have a 4:1 ratio with the axle from the propshaft so the motor is going to need a different ratio somehow to what is in its standard electric motor built in gearbox . you could put a motor directly to the gearbox input shaft but you will end up driving everywhere in third gear which the car gearbox wasn't designed for and loose efficiency .

I think you are right about this Clan - it would be unlikely to ever pay off. I've heard that there are garages that will undertake the work for about £30,000.

I did have a think through this problem in the RB thread a few months ago:

https://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showp...postcount=1490


... so the cost of the parts alone might be something around £10,000 - and that might well be using non-current (if you excuse the pun, it wasn't intended when I wrote it) parts.

I'd realised there would be a need for a reduction gear:

https://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showp...postcount=1492

... about 2:1 I think (pretty rough calculations), but that would be far better than lugging around a manual gearbox, then driving in third as many conversions have done.

I concluded that considering an EV conversion for the RB was a useful thought experiment, but that it made no sense. I suppose I may re-visit that conclusion around the RB's 50th birthday in 2030.

Alan

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by TonyS9

The recycleablilty has no more relevance than the recycleablility of combustion engines, I was trying to avoid going off topic. But if you really want google Lithium Ion recycling, several companies will pop up that claim 100% recycling, the only thing that is being worked on is the cost. Not being able to recycle anything is totally false information, according to physics we CAN recycle everything including nuclear fuel (it requires gross amounts of energy and is exceedingly difficult). If we can refine elements 1-10% concentrated in rock, we can refine them from high concentrations in batteries.

As mentioned the only problem with recycleability is cost, and that is also a volume issue. It can be hard for recycling to compete with mining whein mining has a huge head start and massive scale to work with to get its cost down. However the materials are in high demand and recycling is already being invested in because battery manufacturers are trying to secure supplys. Frankly there have not been enough dead batteries available to payback large investments in the past, and although that is still the case, many can see that it is now worth that investment. Small batteries from mobile phones and laptops had had different problems recycling, but that is because they are small and collection is a problem. Large combustion starter batteries are recycled near 100% because they are large, people don't want them lying about their house.

As for home charging I have of course already done the maths and considered how it will be done, as have the National Grid and pretty much all grid authorities. They have reported to gov't in reports that you can read that "it is not a problem with the normal policies and incentives already used".

The plan is for destination chargers to be only 7-8kW, ie a single 30A circuit, this is plenty fast enough for overnight charging, in many case 3kW wall socket charging (level 1) is sufficient for most, but 7kW (level 2) offers a better degree oif flexibility. Only commercial organisations running EV trucks or lots of vehicle will need an upgrade. For home users its not a problem, if you can cook you can charge, most chargers use incomming current sensing (ie a CT at the incomer). If you are cooking, power showering, charging 2 EV and run close to the limit, if will cut the charging until things calm down. Of course you know very well that off-peak tarif will be used by EV owners, and those don't start until late in the evening or after 12. EV charging is a highly flexible load, its actually a grid asset you can be paid for. If you are at 63A again you just have less flexibility, but you can charge 1 or 2 cars at night. Also you have to take into account that most people are not doing their full range every day, you don't need to charge every day. However you might plug in to use an opportunistic tarif that pays you to charge on excess energy. This kind of smart charging is on the increasing and has huge possibilities to make money from your EV (if it has vehicle to grid capability). Imagine being paid to charge, then selling that charge back to the grid at peak rates, or even if there is a sudden frequency drop, FCAS is extremely well paid and car chargers could support this.


Converting a Petrol vehicle to use Hydrogen will be grossly grossly expensive to run, it will simply not be allowed and you won't be able to buy the fuel (as is the case now). Even trucking companies can't make a business case for it with a fixed route. Some are trying, but so far it seems like hot air, noone (other than unprofessional poorly informed chance investors) is biting.

EVs are not going to happen overnight, it will take 10 yrs to start with to convert 50%, its unlikely we will build any more capacity to manufacturer than that. There will be some things that need to be rolled out like residential street charging, and maybe a few households or local transformers will need upgarding eventually. They are expecting some upgrades within the normal operations.

They havn't run into any bottlenecks yet, some countries like Norway are already 70% EV sales, EU sales are 20% of the market and rising fast, they already overtook diesel. UK isn't far behind. Demand is higher than supply, prices are increasing and deliver times extending. At the end of the day those responsible for electricity are more than happy to sell us more electricity and take over from oil, and ensure that it can be delivered.

Its seems like there are alot of excuses used with an anti-EV attitude, ultimately its a case of do you want to do it or not and simply resolve any issues. Its not rocket science, it basic engineering we already know, the technology enabler was the battery density and cost.

Interesting stuff Tony, you've hit the nail on the head about recycling though - cost. As far as i can see, it's not going to be possible ever to recycle BEV batteries cleanly and cheaply - emphasis on the second word! As for ICEs, many are recycled on a daily basis by engine reconditioners, in fairness that was once an expensive process, now it's relatively cheap. With that in mind, yes it will become cheaper to recycle batteries but the difficulties remain.

Hydrogen sadly won't ever become practical unless they find a way to store it more safely, it is in terms of lack of pollution, the ideal fuel but as you point out, cost is once again a limiting factor.

I assume you mean it will take another 10 years to get anywhere near 50% capcity for BEVs as we've already had them for some considerable time. I suspect that will also be an ambitious target.

Bottlenecks will undoubtedly happen, most of the National Grid is considerably outdated and unless homeowners are happy to have their concrete floors dug up to replace the incoming cables to the meter/incomer. That will restrict charging capability for thousands of homes built from at least the late 60s to about early 80s and possibly after that.

As for the technological enabler, hmmmmmm, open to debate. Elon Musks Tesla cars used technology in the motors to increase their efficiency found by their namesake of Nikola Tesla with a few tweaks that aren't advertised, i suspect designing them so that the rotor formed Halbach arrays to improve efficiency and power further. This was the big game-changer IMHO, it changed electric cars from being glorified milk floats with a 20mph top speed and limited range to viable propositions for transport. They then had to develop battery technology to cope with the varying demands of this type of motor and the varying loads it would encounter.

At present i still don't see BEVs as viable for myriad reasons and i suspect other technology such as anti-gravity and ionic propulsion will overtake the race of the BEV people to the goal of having pollution free transport. Don't poo-poo that idea - the technology already exists and the USAF have had a hypersonic aricraft in service since 1994 that uses both of those techniques plus warp drives. However they try to keep it quiet and deny all knowledge of it and the vast majority of people seeing one of these things assumes it's a UFO.

Let's face it, much of our technology we use and take for granted today had its roots in military origins - GPS, internet, mobile phones and so on. It's only a matter of time before anti-gravity engines and ionic propulsion filter their way down from the military echelons of secrecy to the man in the street. If i could reduce the weight of my 760 by half with an anti-gravity engine (and improve the aerodynamics of course!) i could arguably have a car that would go from 0-60 in 4-5 seconds and return 40-80mpg. Note i said arguably, there are many factors i haven't even considered let alone worked into a practical theory, it's just a basic idea of reducing weight will improve acceleration and economy - aerodynamics would be the limiting factor, certainly above 60mph but you get the idea of where this could go with the right development. That alone would reduce pollution if all petrol engined vehicles used similar.

[TonyS9]

Originally Posted by Clan

It will never pay off , I would carry on as long as petrol is available .. The electric motor needs around a 10:1 gear ratio with the wheels , this is pretty universal on all electric cars . you already have a 4:1 ratio with the axle from the propshaft so the motor is going to need a different ratio somehow to what is in its standard electric motor built in gearbox . you could put a motor directly to the gearbox input shaft but you will end up driving everywhere in third gear which the car gearbox wasn't designed for and loose efficiency .

Payoff depends on fuel prices, cost of the conversion and the mileage you do. Today you are correct, this is only done for cherished classics which we are in that market, although 700/900s are really treated as a cheap reliable workhourse. It has already been stated that its cheaper to buy a proper EV. This isn't really the point, althought cost will scare off some, others will wait for prices to reduce and/or ease of conversion with readily available bolt-on kits will make a difference. luckily we have been spared another year for fuel tax increases, but they can't make EVs/batteries any faster so more demand would not have helped anyway.

I don't envisage it being longer than 3-4 yrs before prices are sensible to do a conversion for a Volvo. Much of the cost or effort will be in restoration unless you have a long term garaged example. Mine is on life support now 2-4 major rust repairs this year (following quick patch ups in previous years), tobe expected for an outside car.

Electric motors don't "need" any specific ratio, its just chosen for a certain set of parameters of space (motor size), torque and rpms. You can make gearless direct drive motors, and some do for inwheel motors. Electric motor make torque directly at the outer edge, by increasing the diameter you can increase the torque for the same power input. Generally its a better result to remove the gearbox and prop shaft at least and chose a suitable sized motor. For transplants sometimes the gear ratio needs to be changed to get the right characteristics. There was a good example with a landrover where the transfer box was replaced with a Tesla motor module, retaining the existing drive shafts. It needed a gear ratio change so that it could have a decent top speed. This is why you are better trying to replace all the drive components and go for a nicely engineered drop in solution. CV drive like the IRS 940 would be done with a Tesla drop in replacing the diff, although the wheels are probably smaller dia than the Tesla, you might have to do with top speeds of 100mph, but 0-60 would come up in about 5s, assuming you have the same amount of batteries.

While there is a optimum gear ratio for acceleration dependant on torque, the main reason you have gears on a combustion engine is because they are utterly pathetic outside the power band. Electric motors only need one ratio because they have a wide torque band that starts at 0 rpm. You don't even need a clutch.

[TonyS9]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

I assume you mean it will take another 10 years to get anywhere near 50% capcity for BEVs as we've already had them for some considerable time. I suspect that will also be an ambitious target.

I think you are talking about market year sale capacity.. I am talking about 50% of EV in the field, not sales. Its not a hard calculation. We already have near 20% of EV sales in the market. At the current rate of development we will have 100% of sales by 2025 using a s-curve model. This is also based on price parity ($100/kwh, currently $130), and available capacity meeting demand (So prices can drop again). Then using expected capacity of the market for replacement, by 2030 you are at 50%, probably earlier as mfrs get slightly over invested.

It is a hot topic though and most legacy makers are in another world at the moment, they are still denying what Tesla has done and what they are going to do. Elon Musk does tend to over state certain things, but he stands his ground and comes up with the goods. In my opinion and alot of others there will be mega fall out of legacy makers in the very near future unless they are bailed out..again. They are still talking about 50% of sale by 2030, that is way off the mark. He might be wrong about FSD, and starlink is a bit of an experiment, but I do think he has cars/batteries nailed and is thinking in the correct scale for production.

As a technology change things happen much faster than people think and history has shown this, major market changes happen in <10 yrs. I have a manufacturing background and my employment history is peppered with redundancy because of this, I used to make Video Recorders, now everyone can make, edit, download/upload movies on their phones.

The information to estimate this isn't all confirmed, the last few pieces of the puzzle are coming together now. LFP batteries removes the Nickle supply issue and reserves it for high capacity applications like trucks (there was never an issue with Lithium). Highly automated battery production from Tesla hasn't really started yet, but it will in the next 2 yrs in their 4 new factories across the world. It will be added to the encumbent battery manufacturers who are mostly working on slow timescales indicated by their customers (the combustion makers). You will be able to count the big car EV manufacturers on one hand in 5 yrs. Noone will want combustion cars, they will be seen as dirty, expensive and difficult to drive, and the big makers won't have the capacity or profit margin to pay off their debts. The battery makers will be making most of the money, this is why car makers made engines and gearboxes.

Over the next few years you wil see bigger and bigger investment in battery production as auto makers realise they are screwed, but it will probably be too late. It already looks too late for the likes of Toyota and Ford. VW is still not profit making and they had a forced head start thanks to diesel gate, but this is only a few years.

After 2025 you are probably going to see alot of Teslas, Chinese and Korea EV on the road (perhaps with Ford and Toyota badges who knows). New combustion cars like Aston Martins will be given away for £1000 as they go out of business.. I might buy one for track days.

[ukvolvo]

In the midst of this electric talk another point to be researched is the environmental impact of the lithium extraction alone and the aquifers it drains/ habitats it destroys in places.

I am not stubborn so i am always open to new information but i will eat hay with a donkey if the electric car trend does not become a battery nightmare in decades. Lithium batteries are just too dirty for this scale i still think. Companies will say anything to get what they want but in reality which is where i live, it will be very different.

For profit Corners will be cut, and people will be affected. There will be batteries dumped and incorrect recycling etc etc. I just have a awful feeling about it. If i am proved wrong long term i can live with that better reality.