I doubt it, for years to come, because lower demand leads to lower prices, not higher prices. Only taxes would make costs go up in that situation.
I watched a documentary on PBS that discussed the cost of solar power and how it had dropped to the point that the local power company used its political power to make installing rooftop solar illegal (or impractical). This put all the installers out of business. The events took place in Las Vegas, and Nevada made the rules. Eventually, there was so much furor among Nevadans, that the Governor and legislature changed their minds. Big companies screw little ones frequently. The show was on Independent Lens and is called “Jonathan Scott’s Power Trip”. Well worth watching. I was surprised to see this come from Scott (HGTV star).
Only up to a point. Once lower demand causes much lower production, goods move into a more niche market where the few left who want them are going to have to pay more for them because it’s more expensive to produce them on a small scale than it was on a large, efficient scale.
You could get a new horse-drawn buggy for less than 50 bucks in the late 1800’s. In today’s dollars that’s around $1,000. Today, it’s 3 times that for a cheap-looking one. If you want one that looks “authentic,” it’s even more. If such things were still remotely in demand you’d see lower prices because you wouldn’t just have a few guys hand building the things in their barns, you’d have them being manufactured at factories.
For stuff like gasoline, you’ll see prices drop as supply increases due to lower demand at first. But eventually, after the oil companies pull out of making gasoline and reserve supplies drop because collectors are buying them up, the price of gas will increase again since there will be some demand from the gearheads who do not want to convert their classics to electric, and almost no replenishment of supply. If at some point we go back to gasoline being distilled on a small scale rather than large-scale thermal cracking at refineries, it’s gonna cost a lot of money for the few people left who want it.
That might work if it was only the US making and using gasoline. It’s used world-wide, and many of the highest use areas will not be converting large fractions of their cars and trucks to batteries for many years to come. In 30 years, maybe. I bet government policies will have a much bigger effect.
Oh, I’m definitely not suggesting it’s gonna happen any time soon. People were still using horses for transportation decades after the car was invented, after all. My grandma used to talk about the horse-drawn wagon that delivered her milk as late as the 1930’s. But eventually, it’s going to happen, and gasoline will be as anachronistic as a buggy is today.
That’s the opposite of California.
California’s Rooftop Solar Mandate Hits Snag With Housing Market Set for Slowdown | Greentech Media
I think that is low… 97% for the battery, 95% for the controller, 95% for the motor, 95% for the transmission gives us 85% efficiency for the car itself.
The power plant to the car’s battery is 35% nat gas powerplant, 90% transmission lines and transformers, 90% for the battery charger, 97% for the battery so 28% (close to your 33%) for delivered kW-hrs to the battery.
Wells to wheels is then about 28% for the electric car and about 20% for the modern ICE powered car. A bit closer than the post. Toyota is claiming 38% from their new small engines in the article I linked.
Seems the ICE isn’t dead yet.
Bottom line… the Tesla with the biggest battery is carrying the energy equivalent of 3.5 gallons of gas with a 350 mile range or 100MPGe). For an equivalent car (say an Audi A7) that gets 25 mpg… that would require 14 gallons of fuel to match the range of the Tesla, but actually holds 19 gallons for a 475 mile range.
(posted by another engineer… an automotive engineer)
California’s VERY high cost of homes, with their VERY high cost of power, and constant sunshine makes a great case for solar. Hawaii, as well.
Until, of course, no one can afford to live there because this will add another $50K to the price of every home just for the panels and invertors. Toss in another $50K for the batteries and charge controllers. Maybe $100K is peanuts to a $2 Million dollar home but it is a substantial add to the average US home price of $285,000.
An acquaintance who lives in Cali has solar panels on their home now has to pay for power to charge their 2 EVs. They used to be grid-neutral but the power needs of the cars more than sap their solar.
In my area, solar alone is getting close to making financial sense. $20K in 20-year life solar panels to replace $2100 in yearly power cost is just about at the tipping point for me. To go off the grid would require $30K in batteries… and we aren’t there just yet and may never BE there with the increasing battery supply demand of EVs
Fueled by the high-tech demand. The pay is obscene. I lost an engineer last year. He was 35 with a BS from Boston College. Good C# and java programmer. $300k/yr. Obviously I couldn’t match that. Average salary is over $150k.
You need $150K just to live within 40 miles of the job. That $300K at least shortens your commute from your 1000 sf home.
The salaries they need to pay is part of the reason for this… https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/23/why-companies-are-fleeing-california.html
My wifes company has a presence in California. They are thinking of moving out also. The main reason for their decision has to do with Covid. For most jobs the company is work-at-home. After several months they found it is working very well. They are shutting down expensive realestate and expensive salary locations. They can hire engineers at lower costs who live in cheaper parts of the US. Many tech companies have been going to work-at -home for years. Technology has caught up with very fast internet connections and apps like Zoom or (My favorite) Microsoft Teams. My company is work-at-home right now. It’s working fine. Productivity never dropped. But it has to be managed correctly.
Agree with that one! Some corporate cultures do well with that, some don’t. And some should learn.
It really opens up your hiring options as well as reduces costs for your company and the employee.
My wife’s nephew designs networks and has worked from home for about 20 years.
The factor you’re ignoring is the supply. The demand curve can’t show the price without a supply curve intersecting it.
I understand the supply curve - there’s a HUGE amount of oil available in the next decade, so only government intervention would lead to higher prices with lower demand.
While the supply of crude oil may be relatively stable, the supply of refined product is not as stable, and can change quickly.
Short term (like when a hurricane hits), yes, but long term there’s a pretty good match between refining capacity and demand.
But back to cars…
If you look at a pipeline map of North America, you will see that nearly every place is interconnected
Refined products are also transported by both pipelines and tankers.
There are always unintended and unforeseen consequences when things are forced. I don’t know exactly what minerals are involved, but an ad for a silver company the other day was projecting huge increases in silver prices due to only half of the projected need compared to the current known world sources. Not to mention the terrible condition of the grid and the need to first harden it from foreign attack. Just not a high priority for most people.
The biggest problem I have with my engineers is preventing them from burning out. When working at home some feel obligated to put in more hours. I guess it has to do with the fact they aren’t wasting 2 hours every day driving into work. We’ve been meeting our schedules and exceeding requirements. I’ve given them extra days off. After one big release I gave each one a long weekend (above and beyond their normal vacation schedule).
3 Likes
@MikeInNH Thank you, sir, for being a manager who values and respects your subordinates, recognizing their positive work ethic.