YouTube 1. I had no idea Teslas weighed so much 2. Here is one going 10.4

[zooomer]

Sickmint, IDK why you posted an article saying making low Cobalt batteries is hard. Was there a point?

Roboto. Again, you don't need to charge fast at home. IDK why you can't understand that.
For high peak demand, VW group already has 400KW charging stations in operation. Tesla has showcased powerwalls at charging stations to lower grid demand and offer high peak output. Easy problem to solve. Tesla already has 1MW chargers in works for the semi. Do you REALLY think Elon just forgot about the grid? Like he just made a semi and a charger and is gunna be like 'oh shit, I forgot how much juice these things need. I wish I had roboto and sickmint on my staff'. SMDH....

7% of the Mojave desert was an example to illustrate how little we need. Obviously you wouldn't generate all of your power from one location. The talk about grid problems and such is just BS spread by alarmists. It's an easily solvable issue. Non issue really. Solar is moving ahead regardless of our debates and it's carbon free. At the end of 2017 solar was 1.5% of US power generation. With a doubling every few years it doesn't take long to add the power generation you're saying we'd need. And even if we banned ICE today (not saying we should or anyone is talking about that, just illustrating a point) solar at current pace would keep up with ICE being displaced over the next 20 years. Get it?

CA has CARB so people get rid of older cars. It's a state with more newer vehicles than most. And my 50% CA figure is a fact, well known, well publicized. It's not my fault you don't know it or didn't look into it or maybe don't understand it. I think you speed read my post.

Yeah, gas power density is way higher than lithium ion. So what? What exactly is the point?

 

[sickmint79]

Sickmint, IDK why you posted an article saying making low Cobalt batteries is hard. Was there a point?

yes, since you said

Battery chemistry is now an information technology.

i thought that article would help you realize battery chemistry has to do with... chemistry, not information technology. this appears to have failed

 

[Mr_Roboto]

Sickmint, IDK why you posted an article saying making low Cobalt batteries is hard. Was there a point?

Roboto. Again, you don't need to charge fast at home. IDK why you can't understand that.
For high peak demand, VW group already has 400KW charging stations in operation. Tesla has showcased powerwalls at charging stations to lower grid demand and offer high peak output. Easy problem to solve. Tesla already has 1MW chargers in works for the semi. Do REALLY think Elon just forgot about the grid? Like he just made a semi and a charger and is gunna be like 'oh shit, I forgot how much juice these things need. I wish I had roboto and sickmint on my staff'. SMDH....

7% of the Mojave desert was an example to illustrate how little we need. Obviously you wouldn't generate all of your power from one location. The talk about grid problems and such is just BS spread by alarmists. It's an easily solvable issue. Non issue really. Solar is moving ahead regardless of our debates and it's carbon free. At the end of 2017 solar was 1.5% of US power generation. With a doubling every few years it doesn't take long to add the power generation you're saying we'd need. And even if we banned ICE today (not saying we should or anyone is talking about that, just illustrating a point) solar at current pace would keep up with ICE being displaced over the next 20 years. Get it?

CA has CARB so people get rid of older cars. It's a state with more newer vehicles than most. And my 50% CA figure is a fact, well known, well publicized. It's not my fault you don't know it or didn't look into it or maybe don't understand it. I think you speed read my post.

Yeah, gas power density is way higher than lithium ion. So what? What exactly is the point?

The truth is people are going to need to charge cars on the go if they do trips. You mentioned charging in the time it takes to have a gas car. Yeah there may be workarounds to it like batteries but you're still averaging a significant amount of power which does influence the grid. Ever notice them banning conventional light bulbs, or how com ed will give ya $50 for your old fridge? There's reasons for that; It's that the grid its self has congested spots that will need big upgrades.

CA is not the rest of the US. Give it up. Apples and oranges comparison in many cases. The needs of someone in the midwest in a rural town are going to be significantly different than someone living in NYC or downtown LA.

50% is not "commonly known." That's a .gov web site I posted the link to in my previous post that says you're 100% wrong. I've provided more citation than you have to this moment and certainly more numbers than you have.

In terms of you being statistically smarter than everyone else, I'd like to see your math on that personally.

 

[Yaj Yak]

 

[95SC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=186&v=Cjib5a587BM

 

[Thirdgen89GTA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=186&v=Cjib5a587BM

The GIF is worth Reusing for this video.

 

[jason05gt]

People aren't buying cars? No, the market has shifted so that less people are buying cars and more are buying SUVs but Tesla still sells more S's than X's and the model 3 is selling strong. Ford stopped production of most cars, Now GM. It's poorly thought out. Obviously some people are still buying cars. Telsa has ate into the market and low gas prices have given these clueless executives the illusion that it's time to stop selling cars but it was a mistake for GM. The Cruze sells well, they are stopping in anticipation of reduction in sales. Spike in gas prices or when Ford shuttles lines would have given plenty for GM to sell.

People aren’t buying cars overall in the US. SUV’s, CUV’s and Trucks are dominating the market.

Look at the production shift as evidence of this. You can argue this all you want, but the data is on my side. Even good selling sedans like the Accord and Camry are struggling. You keep mentioning Tesla selling sedans, well they do but they are a rounding error in US production. And let’s look at Telsa for example, they are working on the Model “Y” which will be a mass produced 7 passenger CUV. Musk has thrown out some substantial numbers for production of the Y.

Telsa sold 200k vehicles in the US at the start of quarter 3. IDK where you got they produced 170k at end of 3rd quarter. Not that it matters when you're talking about 17M. The fact that you'd bring this up proves my assumption and point that you don't understand the situation. I never claimed Tesla was selling some huge amount of cars or that globally EV's were a huge portion. What I said was 1% is half way there in an exponential curve. The human mind thinks linearly so it's not an intuitive function to understand what I said. But we've already hit the half way mark (as a function of time) for EV adoption.

I think you’re confused with sales vs. production. Sales are great, but Tesla has a supply problem at their plants. My production data is very close.

You keep pointing to this “1%” exponential curve, but where’s the beef? Any data that you have to support this would be helpful to show us in the global market. I don’t think anyone is arguing that EV’s aren’t growing in market share and will continue to. Many of us are refuting the unsubstantiated claims you’ve thrown out previously in terms of timelines. Anyone with 5 minutes and google can easily see what the market is going to look like in 3-5 year as many of manufacturers have released their product pipeline. EV’s aren’t going to overtake ICE vehicles anytime soon.

The banning of petrol sales is supported by my intelligence which runs counter to what the average person would see. Watch some Ray Kurzweil videos to understand better. People don't know that we're half way to powering the world by solar, they didn't see the iphone coming, hardly anyone saw Tesla coming, businesses thought the internet was a fad. People can't see the future of exponential growth adoptions so the 'facts' you speak of are presented by people who think they have good evidence but they are just wrong.

AI & Robotics vs mass transportation is different. These are new industries being created.

I posted the laws in the works in many forward thinking green friendly countries. The “bans” will eventually come, but again not at the timeframe your magic ball is predicting. It’s likely not going to occur in the next decade.

 

[zooomer]

yes, since you said

Battery chemistry is now an information technology.

i thought that article would help you realize battery chemistry has to do with... chemistry, not information technology. this appears to have failed

You don't know what the term means.
Standard technology is based in knowledge of something. You learn steadily more and the technology progresses. Think of medicine/drugs like this last century. You're mixing chemicals and trying new things. Getting that knowledge is based on luck/skill/time and progresses linearly.

Information technology is based on data and the ability to manipulate it for further development. So rather than mixing chemicals and seeing what happens, you break the chemicals down to data a computer can manipulate and simulate. This type of technology has exponential growth. The word 'information' seems to have confused many of you.

The truth is people are going to need to charge cars on the go if they do trips. You mentioned charging in the time it takes to have a gas car. Yeah there may be workarounds to it like batteries but you're still averaging a significant amount of power which does influence the grid. Ever notice them banning conventional light bulbs, or how com ed will give ya $50 for your old fridge? There's reasons for that; It's that the grid its self has congested spots that will need big upgrades.

CA is not the rest of the US. Give it up. Apples and oranges comparison in many cases. The needs of someone in the midwest in a rural town are going to be significantly different than someone living in NYC or downtown LA.

50% is not "commonly known." That's a .gov web site I posted the link to in my previous post that says you're 100% wrong. I've provided more citation than you have to this moment and certainly more numbers than you have.

In terms of you being statistically smarter than everyone else, I'd like to see your math on that personally.

-Again, upgrading the grid isn't an issue. And no one has brown outs due to using light bulbs. Lefties love to pass laws to save the world. that's what that was about.

-Yeah. CA has more growth and grid problems than other areas. Of course different areas have different challenges. The challenges in CA and large cities are much more difficult. You're point would help my argument, not yours.

-Sorry. I assumed you guys were able to use google and paid attention to such things. My mistake for giving this much credit. I'll try and dumb down my replies and cite links so you guys can keep up.
LMGTFY which would bring you to https://qz.com/1224296/california-i...fter-generating-too-much-energy-from-the-sun/

How do I know I'm smarter than most people? Well, because an IQ of 100.1 or above means you're smarter than most and I have taken IQ tests. Regardless it's self evident from my life's accomplishments or speaking to me or seeing who has knowledge in this debate. I mean Christ, I have to add the definitions of the terms I use just speaking normally.
https://paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html
You do know what an IQ test means right?

 

[zooomer]

People aren’t buying cars overall in the US. SUV’s, CUV’s and Trucks are dominating the market.

Look at the production shift as evidence of this. You can argue this all you want, but the data is on my side. Even good selling sedans like the Accord and Camry are struggling. You keep mentioning Tesla selling sedans, well they do but they are a rounding error in US production. And let’s look at Telsa for example, they are working on the Model “Y” which will be a mass produced 7 passenger CUV. Musk has thrown out some substantial numbers for production of the Y.

Really? Like NO cars at all. wow, who would have known...roll eyes. People buy all kinds of vehicles. Fewer people are buying cars than they used to but plenty still do. Not even sure of your point here anyway??

You keep pointing to this “1%” exponential curve, but where’s the beef? Any data that you have to support this would be helpful to show us in the global market. I don’t think anyone is arguing that EV’s aren’t growing in market share and will continue to. Many of us are refuting the unsubstantiated claims you’ve thrown out previously in terms of timelines. Anyone with 5 minutes and google can easily see what the market is going to look like in 3-5 year as many of manufacturers have released their product pipeline. EV’s aren’t going to overtake ICE vehicles anytime soon.

When you post post things like this and others laugh I have a hard time responding because I don't know how to approach you. I have to chew through a lot of data and questions. -Do they know how to google -Are they lying or just dumb -why don't they ever research themselves before posting and looking stupid -If I post links to every point will the length of the post make them not read it -Which words do I need to provide a link to their meaning...

Having posted I realized you may have been asking if I can show you how 1% is half way in an exponential curve. I would suggest you google the terms.

 

[sickmint79]

You don't know what the term means.
Standard technology is based in knowledge of something. You learn steadily more and the technology progresses. Think of medicine/drugs like this last century. You're mixing chemicals and trying new things. Getting that knowledge is based on luck/skill/time and progresses linearly.

Information technology is based on data and the ability to manipulate it for further development. So rather than mixing chemicals and seeing what happens, you break the chemicals down to data a computer can manipulate and simulate. This type of technology has exponential growth. The word 'information' seems to have confused many of you.

really? i have a degree in computer science and work in information technology. it sounds like you do not even have a grasp of basic science. that computers help you do science does not magically transform battery chemistry into information technology. if you read the article i posted it has nothing to do with information technology - whether talking about improving present batteries nor in working with others in the labs. i already gave you the tennis balls and pvc pipe example before to show the difference as well. battery chemistry will never move at the pace of information technology, and battery chemistry itself is not "information technology" just because hey guys, they use computers too! if that is your bar you can just claim literally everything "is information technology."

your own use case is more futuristic than reality and certainly isn't describing recent history or current state. example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180724110028.htm

"Even the largest supercomputers are struggling to model accurately anything but the most basic chemistry. Quantum computers simulating nature, however, unlock a whole new way of understanding matter. They will provide us with a new tool to solve problems in materials science, medicine and industrial chemistry using simulations."

 

[Yaj Yak]

holy fuck this dumpster fire of a thread has me rolling

 

[zooomer]

really? i have a degree in computer science and work in information technology.

I'd ask the school for your money back.

Improvements in battery density and power storage were linear and slow for a century or more. As they crossed over to an information technology, the rate of progress changed and continues to do so. That is why something like lead acid remains today and it's ~100 years old. But other means of storage, nickle cadmium, ion, polymer, fluorine, etc are causing massive leaps in the tech. On top of that, the application of the asset is improving in the same way. That is why in 10 years range on electric cars has doubled, charging speed is 10x and improvements in the next 2-5 years will continue on that path eventually enabling electric flight, 1000 miles vehicles, etc.

This is REALLY basic stuff. Like nearly anyone can get it. Look at what EV's were avail 10 years ago, then 5 years ago, now and look at what is already in the pipeline to be released in 2-3 years. What exactly are you trying to argue here? You're like the only dude on the planet that can't add the 2+2

10 years ago, minimal selection. Leaf was coming up with 80 miles range. Specialty TEsla roadster decent range, Everything was slow charging. Like 8 hours.

5 years ago Model S, increases range to 260 miles for standard car. Supercharger network lowers charge time to 1 hour.

Today Model S at 335 miles range.

In 2 years, VW/Porsche has reduced charge time to 20 minutes. Roadster has 620 mile range. Rivian Truck 400+ mile range.

5 Years, first vehicles with solid state batteries. Even faster charge time, 2x the energy density, electric flight possible, charge speed even faster.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/en...ithium-batteries-to-debut-this-year-in-drones

What don't you understand about that? That's all in a 15 year span.

 

[jason05gt]

Really? Like NO cars at all. wow, who would have known...roll eyes. People buy all kinds of vehicles. Fewer people are buying cars than they used to but plenty still do. Not even sure of your point here anyway??

I never said NO cars, I said that people aren't buying cars which is supported by trends and data.

https://www.autonews.com/article/20...0-5-as-cars-sputter-but-17m-year-within-sight

My point above was more to correct your misinformation from earlier posts.

When you post post things like this and others laugh I have a hard time responding because I don't know how to approach you. I have to chew through a lot of data and questions. -Do they know how to google -Are they lying or just dumb -why don't they ever research themselves before posting and looking stupid -If I post links to every point will the length of the post make them not read it -Which words do I need to provide a link to their meaning...

Having posted I realized you may have been asking if I can show you how 1% is half way in an exponential curve. I would suggest you google the terms.

I think the majority of people in this thread understand exponential growth. No need to Google it. I was simply asking for any data or evidence to support your positions. You seem to think that your opinion is vastly superior to everyone else’s including experts in the field. And BTW before you call people dumb, liars, or incompetent make sure that what you are stating is correct. As I mentioned above, you seemed tripped up on sales vs production numbers which is listed within Tesla’s financial releases.

Even the most environmental friendly sources say that EV’s SALES won’t exceed ICE sales until the 2040-2050. Again, I don’t think that anyone here is refuting that EV’s will grow in the near future. It doesn’t take a genius to see that virtually every manufacturer has significant EV plans in the next product cycle. What many of us are laughing at are your timelines for “ICE bans” and EV’s taking over the market.

 

[jason05gt]

holy fuck this dumpster fire of a thread has me rolling

I'm wondering if we are being trolled by Genxist.

 

[Yaj Yak]

i wish [MENTION=396]Mike K[/MENTION] was adding to this thread

 

[Mike K]

I'd ask the school for your money back.

Improvements in battery density and power storage were linear and slow for a century or more. As they crossed over to an information technology, the rate of progress changed and continues to do so. That is why something like lead acid remains today and it's ~100 years old. But other means of storage, nickle cadmium, ion, polymer, fluorine, etc are causing massive leaps in the tech. On top of that, the application of the asset is improving in the same way. That is why in 10 years range on electric cars has doubled, charging speed is 10x and improvements in the next 2-5 years will continue on that path eventually enabling electric flight, 1000 miles vehicles, etc.

This is REALLY basic stuff. Like nearly anyone can get it. Look at what EV's were avail 10 years ago, then 5 years ago, now and look at what is already in the pipeline to be released in 2-3 years. What exactly are you trying to argue here? You're like the only dude on the planet that can't add the 2+2

10 years ago, minimal selection. Leaf was coming up with 80 miles range. Specialty TEsla roadster decent range, Everything was slow charging. Like 8 hours.

5 years ago Model S, increases range to 260 miles for standard car. Supercharger network lowers charge time to 1 hour.

Today Model S at 335 miles range.

In 2 years, VW/Porsche has reduced charge time to 20 minutes. Roadster has 620 mile range. Rivian Truck 400+ mile range.

5 Years, first vehicles with solid state batteries. Even faster charge time, 2x the energy density, electric flight possible, charge speed even faster.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/en...ithium-batteries-to-debut-this-year-in-drones

What don't you understand about that? That's all in a 15 year span.

I've pounded my fist on the table with this exact argument here for quite awhile now and people just ignore it. The "well batteries have been available for a century" argument has been made here an embarrassing amount of times. A select few on this forum are unwilling to concede that there have been any advancements in batteries over the last 15 years, even if only cost per kilowatt.

 

[Yaj Yak]

thats it

 

[jason05gt]

What's interesting is that some of the battery technology has been out there for decades. For example, I read the same fluoride battery article and it stated that the technology was around since the 70's, but the temps needed kept it from moving forward.

So was it a lack of funding, lack of consumer interest, or just plain malice by the Big 3 that kept competing technology suppressed?

 

[zooomer]

I think the majority of people in this thread understand exponential growth. No need to Google it. I was simply asking for any data or evidence to support your positions. You seem to think that your opinion is vastly superior to everyone else’s including experts in the field.

Even the most environmental friendly sources say that EV’s SALES won’t exceed ICE sales until the 2040-2050. Again, I don’t think that anyone here is refuting that EV’s will grow in the near future. It doesn’t take a genius to see that virtually every manufacturer has significant EV plans in the next product cycle. What many of us are laughing at are your timelines for “ICE bans” and EV’s taking over the market.

Well, I proved that the exponential growth is there. You seem to want to ignore the fact that I proved my point. You have also ignored the math of EV's overtaking ICE and ignored the charts and my data and simply diverted to saying the experts in the field say... Which is exactly why and how I think and know I'm smarter than most. You, those here laughing, the experts, are all wrong. Mike and I are right. Not the first time. This happens to me often. It's where my arrogance comes from. Solar is the same.

 

[Fish]

Ohh man, Now I have to go back and read this thread. Its like ClubGP nostalgia.

 

[zooomer]

Ohh man, Now I have to go back and read this thread. Its like ClubGP nostalgia.

Ah...the good ole days....
I love arguing

 

[sickmint79]

I'd ask the school for your money back.

i didn't put in all that time playing counter-strike for nothing bro

Improvements in battery density and power storage were linear and slow for a century or more. As they crossed over to an information technology, the rate of progress changed and continues to do so. That is why something like lead acid remains today and it's ~100 years old. But other means of storage, nickle cadmium, ion, polymer, fluorine, etc are causing massive leaps in the tech. On top of that, the application of the asset is improving in the same way. That is why in 10 years range on electric cars has doubled, charging speed is 10x and improvements in the next 2-5 years will continue on that path eventually enabling electric flight, 1000 miles vehicles, etc.

they are linear for chemistries and the big changes that are greater are from hopping from one chemistry to another, which is no small task, and a FUCKTON of r&d needs to be done getting stuff into a lab into reality and into actual manufacturing production. here is a good quora article on that: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...trend-if-any-regarding-energy-to-weight-ratio

they didn't "cross into an information technology"

i just linked you an article talking about removing cobalt which is pure chemistry work

i just linked you the **edge of fucking computing** with quantum computers just now starting to model any chemistry, which notes that even simulating the most basic fucking chemistry was incredibly difficult. yet you are going to claim what, the last 10 years of growth was due to this?

battery chemistry is CHEMISTRY

Over the last six years, Tesla and Panasonic [which supplies batteries to Tesla] have reduced cobalt dependency by about 60 percent already. That’s already very low. We think it’s going to be difficult for them to go much lower because you run into engineering problems.

engineering problems? don't be a dope bro! just use artificial intelligence with machine learning and the blockchain!

There are things like advanced lithium-ion batteries, which use little cobalt and could be here in a couple of years. But we’re really getting toward the physiochemical limit of what those materials can do.

physiochemical what? don't be a pussy bro just double the size of your computing cluster! amazon resources are cheap!

To me, the next generation is something like solid-state batteries with the solid anode, but they’re a long way off. Other things, like sodium-ion batteries, are still on the lab scale and you need to get from lab to research to pilot testing, to cathode testing to battery testing. We’re looking at least 10 more years for that.

lol where did this idiot get his degree, from holiday inn? lab schmlab test schmest my buddy writes QA tests for accenture, he can bang those out in java in no time lol what a dumbass.

This is REALLY basic stuff. Like nearly anyone can get it. Look at what EV's were avail 10 years ago, then 5 years ago, now and look at what is already in the pipeline to be released in 2-3 years. What exactly are you trying to argue here? You're like the only dude on the planet that can't add the 2+2

10 years ago, minimal selection. Leaf was coming up with 80 miles range. Specialty TEsla roadster decent range, Everything was slow charging. Like 8 hours.

5 years ago Model S, increases range to 260 miles for standard car. Supercharger network lowers charge time to 1 hour.

Today Model S at 335 miles range.

In 2 years, VW/Porsche has reduced charge time to 20 minutes. Roadster has 620 mile range. Rivian Truck 400+ mile range.

5 Years, first vehicles with solid state batteries. Even faster charge time, 2x the energy density, electric flight possible, charge speed even faster.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/en...ithium-batteries-to-debut-this-year-in-drones

What don't you understand about that? That's all in a 15 year span.

i'm not saying shit isn't improving. i'm saying
1. batteries are not information technology
2. batteries and tesla technology cannot be compared to tvs or iphones

 

[sickmint79]

Even the most environmental friendly sources say that EV’s SALES won’t exceed ICE sales until the 2040-2050. Again, I don’t think that anyone here is refuting that EV’s will grow in the near future.

meanwhile the zoomer timeline is what? in 7 more years 128% of new car purchases will be EVs?

per https://www.wardsauto.com/industry-voices/understanding-consumer-behavior-influences-ev-purchases

"Often, we see a male skew in the audience most interested in electrics, where annual household income levels are most likely to be $125,000 or higher, well above the annual median household income of about $59,000."

you know, at some point i think we're going to run out of those households.

"An IPSOS study says, “It is important that consumer target needs are understood: incentives are important to middle class buyers,” so income-related targeting and incentive messaging could useful ways for marketers to segment the EV audience in order to ensure relevancy and purchase consideration"

it hardly seems fair that we should be taxpayer subsidizing new car purchases either, particularly going deep into the adoption scale. even now i think it's fuck all stupid, my taxpayer money went on to subsidize zoomer's luxury car purchase? what the fuck? times elventy?

 

[Fish]

In terms of being 'better'. I guess you'd have to define what better means. Smarter? of course, that's just a statistical fact. Stronger? More successful? Better at life? Sure. Nice? Humble? Prob not. "Better" doesn't define the criteria we're talking about so it's kind of a pointless word in this context. I'm 'better' than plenty of people in many ways, others are better than me in others. I think that holds true for everyone. And better only means you're in the top 49.9%. Hardly impressive.

THERE HE IS!!!!!! THERE IS THIS FUCKING GUY!!!! I went back all the way to page 2 to read this and found it more recently.

I'm wondering if we are being trolled by Genxist.

Zooomer would probably make Genxist cry IRL.

EV will be the future, but Im not going to bother predicting when or how. Who knows what will be discovered that can further advance the technology needed to power it further than it currently is. I dont know why anyone would argue that it will not be a thing in the future. Oil is finite. Humans cannot keep consuming fossil fuels at the rate it is and expect that things will keep on forever. Hence why ICE will be a hobby and EV will be for everyone else.

I just want to be like iRobot and turn on manual mode and cause a huge crash in the Musk tunnel that will be built in Chicago cause Im trying to blow the whistle on some killer robots.

 

[jason05gt]

Well, I proved that the exponential growth is there. You seem to want to ignore the fact that I proved my point. You have also ignored the math of EV's overtaking ICE and ignored the charts and my data and simply diverted to saying the experts in the field say... Which is exactly why and how I think and know I'm smarter than most. You, those here laughing, the experts, are all wrong. Mike and I are right. Not the first time. This happens to me often. It's where my arrogance comes from. Solar is the same.

You provided one graph that shows that current sales conditions are leaning towards exponential growth, but exponential growth isn’t a given nor eternal. You are ignoring economic conditions, oil prices, and constraints both on the manufacturing and resources side. As the EV industry grows, there will be supply constraints on Cobalt and Lithium. Without those resources to build batteries, your exponential growth prediction could very well turn into an “S” curve. Additionally, your timelines are vastly accelerated based on current EV product cycles, regulatory, and manufacturing processes. You can’t just flip over a production line overnight, in many cases it takes years from the beginning of the engineering phase to Job 1. Lastly, worldwide the cost of EV’s is still prohibitive to many. Look at the best selling car in India and China. Until EV’s come down significantly in price to the $10K USD level, cost is going to be a barrier in emerging countries.

I think that’s where we agree to disagree.