Pagani Looking to Venture Into the World of Electric Vehicles

KingFrog

(Banned)
837
United States
NOYB
Taken in isolation yes, but it has to be balanced against the reduction in footprint of the ICE powered vehicles it replaces.

Even taking into account the environmental impact of generating the energy to power an EV, they are still significantly less of an impact that ICE's, by up to 50 times less CO2 produced per km, as they are significantly better in terms of power efficiency than ICEs. As electric generation moves to lower impact models that difference will only increase, and ICE's have almost zero hope of even keeping pace.

In the West as far as re-fueling infrastructure goes it has a lot lower initial footprint that many suspect, particularly given the advances in recharging speeds and efficiencies, not to mention that EV's (particularly for commercial) allow for battery swaps.

As such I would not agree that we would be looking at clsoe to 100+ years to see benefit from this at all.
Our current electric grid can't support mass scale electric vehicle use . Recharge stations are not independent from the current grid . We litteraly need to rebuild the ENTIRE grid . That's a huge footprint . Lets just look at how much of an effect building our current infrastructure took and multiply that many times over since the new electric grid must be significantly better . This is assuming ICE cars are still in the 30-20% range . The current solution ( which you are alluding to ) is having charging stations independent from the grid that can rapidly charge a car . Logistically cars would have to recharge more often than ICE cars AND at a similar rate per mile . I can get 400 mile range in 3 mins at any pump . I think a tesla can rapid charge in like 15 mins right ? Do the math ..
 

Scaff

Moderator
26,409
United Kingdom
He/Him
ScaffUK
ScaffGTP
Our current electric grid can't support mass scale electric vehicle use . Recharge stations are not independent from the current grid . We litteraly need to rebuild the ENTIRE grid . That's a huge footprint . Lets just look at how much of an effect building our current infrastructure took and multiply that many times over since the new electric grid must be significantly better . This is assuming ICE cars are still in the 30-20% range . The current solution ( which you are alluding to ) is having charging stations independent from the grid that can rapidly charge a car . Logistically cars would have to recharge more often than ICE cars AND at a similar rate per mile . I can get 400 mile range in 3 mins at any pump . I think a tesla can rapid charge in like 15 mins right ? Do the math ..
Um, doing the math is part of my job!

Most of what I've cited is from an internal paper I recently wrote for the Automotive Software and Consulting company I work for, and being honest no we do not need to rebuild the entire grid at all (certainly not worldwide), nor did I allude to a single solution. What's already emerging is a omni-channel approach to hybrid and electric vehicles, with recharge stations in car-parks (both private and public), the fact that people can charge from home (which for many drivers in the most populated areas will be all they need for 80%+ of travel). Commercial EV's are looking at replaceable battery packs, which remove downtime, can be charged overnight using existing grids and deal with a large percentage of long distance demand. Your position also assumes that battery technology is either static in terms of development, or slow to change, none of which is even close to true, in fact quite the opposite (range for battery size is increasing, and the nex-gen of nano-wire and graphine batteries will charge far, far faster, and resist memory issues way above current Li batteries. That's also without looking at embedded remote charging, via road laid cables in the long term, the first of which has just opened in Sweden.

The pace of change in regard to EV development, on all fronts, is staggering and being driven by a range of factors. The issues you raise are to be frank rather old ones, ones that are already well on the way to being addressed, and not in 100+ years, but in the next decade.
 

KingFrog

(Banned)
837
United States
NOYB
Um, doing the math is part of my job!

The pace of change in regard to EV development, on all fronts, is staggering and being driven by a range of factors. The issues you raise are to be frank rather old ones, ones that are already well on the way to being addressed, and not in 100+ years, but in the next decade.

I have made it quite clear TWICE, that the 100 years remark is in regards to its carbon footprint. There's no way in hell all of this infrastructure is going to net a - CO2 footprint in ten years.

Under our CURRENT infrastructure CURRENT Ev's take up 50,000 miles to beat out ICE vehicles in a CO2 footprint. Ev's have not reached the stage of requiring grid updates. Once they hit 15% of cars' the grid will become overloaded " The utilities have plenty of time to plan ahead. Beshir, who has been researching how EVs might impact the grid for the better part of a decade, says he doesn’t see any real impact to the grid until around 15 percent of vehicles on the road go electric. A Bloomberg New Energy Finance report released last summer projects that level of uptake will happen by 2035."

https://www.wired.com/story/electric-cars-impact-electric-grid/

You keep ignoring that tiny little detail. We will HAVE TO invest in upgrading our entire grid. We can't just patchwork it in. The ONLY other alternative is to have dedicated charging stations and ban at home charging.

All the cities that have underground electric lines will have to lay down new cables. All the old cables will have to be taken down and replaced. Millions of transformers will have to be replaced. New factories will have to be made etc. Our electric use is going to skyrocket. It's going to take at least a century to net a negative CO2 carbon footprint.
 

Scaff

Moderator
26,409
United Kingdom
He/Him
ScaffUK
ScaffGTP
I have made it quite clear TWICE, that the 100 years remark is in regards to its carbon footprint. There's no way in hell all of this infrastructure is going to net a - CO2 footprint in ten years.
And I have already addresed that point (with source), a fact that shouting at me doesn;t change.

EV's already (with current US power generation sources) have a lower per mile and whole life CO2 cost than ICE's. So no its not going to take 100 years (well unless you work only with data from the 90's).


Under our CURRENT infrastructure CURRENT Ev's take up 50,000 miles to beat out ICE vehicles in a CO2 footprint. Ev's have not reached the stage of requiring grid updates. Once they hit 15% of cars' the grid will become overloaded " The utilities have plenty of time to plan ahead. Beshir, who has been researching how EVs might impact the grid for the better part of a decade, says he doesn’t see any real impact to the grid until around 15 percent of vehicles on the road go electric. A Bloomberg New Energy Finance report released last summer projects that level of uptake will happen by 2035."

https://www.wired.com/story/electric-cars-impact-electric-grid/

You keep ignoring that tiny little detail. We will HAVE TO invest in upgrading our entire grid. We can't just patchwork it in. The ONLY other alternative is to have dedicated charging stations and ban at home charging.
Ah I see, you are working on the premise that the US is the entire world, its not. Nor does the source you used paint quite the same gloomy picture you are. Nor would you have to ban overnight charging, and that argument is even countered in your own source!

"These nighttime hours—when EVs are conveniently parked in garages and curbs—are the cheapest time to charge. This fact isn’t lost on EV manufacturers. “Most EVs have systems that allow you to say, ‘OK, I am leaving at 8 am,’ so the computer can calculate the rate at which it needs to charge so it is fully charged by the time you need to leave,” says Kelly. In this way, individual EVs spread their demand for juice over the course of the night.

This charging pattern would be ideal for utilities. In order to satisfy the day and night peaks and valleys of electricity demand, utilities typically have to spin up, and shut down power plants. All that cycling is expensive. Remember, EVs can use as much energy, or even more, an entire home to charge. In an ideal situation—where cars in a given neighborhood or city stagger out their overnight charging needs—the valleys would raise to meet average daytime uses. With more overall demand, and less diurnal variation, generating electricity gets be cheaper. And, because of the way utilities are regulated, that cost gets reflected in your bill, regardless of what you drive."

Nor does your souce back upi the collapse of the US grid, that's a scenario based on an immediate whoelsale switch from ICE to EV, something no one at all is prediction, however the pace of change over in the US is slower than the global average, so the US utilities have time to adapt. None of which however supports the 100 - 300 years to net gain on CO2 reductions at all. Well unless the US move to 100% oil generated electricity and EV vehicle technology grids to a halt right now!

So no I've not ignored the tiny details at all, I do however seem to have read your source better than you did.

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/defaul...ner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

Edited to add: And in related news - http://europe.autonews.com/article/...che-plans-network-of-500-fast-chargers-for-us

All the cities that have underground electric lines will have to lay down new cables. All the old cables will have to be taken down and replaced. Millions of transformers will have to be replaced. New factories will have to be made etc. Our electric use is going to skyrocket. It's going to take at least a century to net a negative CO2 carbon footprint.
Again based on the US model (well apart from the last part, whole life CO2 is still cheaper for EV's regardless), the US still isn't the world and in terms of renewable power generation the US is unfortunately no longer the world leader in either use or technology (which is in reality the daftest gift the US ever gave to China).

Edited to add: I almost forgot, you mentioned that China (among others) would slow EV take-up as you couldn't see them skipping a generation, however as I said they are not only doing so, but doing so in a world leading manner. When I posted that I forgot to source it, so:

WW-K-12-20171.png


As for EV take-up on a global basis, its an exponential growth pattern (with China a major driving factor):

WW-C-12-2017.png


In addition the two largest (by market share globally) manufacturers of EVs are Chinese (BYD and BAIC), with Tesla coming in third and BMW forth, and Chinese OEMs filling five of the top ten OEMS in terms of global market share.

http://www.ev-volumes.com/country/total-world-plug-in-vehicle-volumes/
 
Last edited:
Guys?! You can´t be serious?! How in the entire world would you ever prefer driving an full electric Pagani instead of a Pagani Zonda with a perfect AMG V12 that trembles everything around it?? HOW?? Are all petrolhead (like me) dead by now?? I really can`t understand it.

But ok... go ahead, drive your envoirement destroing (battery production and removal with all the toxics) full e-cars. That means that I will still have petrol until my last days, for my supercars with a good old perfected combustion enginge. :)

We are not all dead. Petrol for another 50 years and then I can die a happy man :)