I began this entry in September, 2021, and didn't publish it at the time. Probably because I was waiting for the moment of triumph. Still waiting.
For me it began with the decision to buy a car. And, heavily influenced by a grim factoid (an average internal combustion engine spews about six tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year), I landed on the obvious choice, a Tesla. I'd like to think the choice of model was meticulous, but it actually came down to something my mom insisted on doing when examining new cars: sitting in the back seat. The Model 3 was ... well, inadequate, the Model Y astonishingly generous. The Y cost more, but since we were interested only in extended range versions, not particularly much more, say $5,000. $60 grand later, and the car arrived IN OUR DRIVEWAY.
We were suddenly vaulted into the ranks of the cool. My grandson started counting Teslas for sport, and was rapturous over the Karaoke function. I performed endless range analyses, wondering just how far we could go without the dreaded recharge. Turns out, quite a distance. We can safely count on about 270 miles from full charge to cold sweat. Neither of us likes distance driving anyway, so we've managed nicely on a mere two visits to a supercharger. Otherwise, a "fill-up" takes about a minute a week, hooked up to our 220 volt outlet. It happens overnight, and would cost just over $7.50 for a zero to full charge. No oil change, no antifreeze, no transmission oil, as with ICE (internal combustion engines). So, operating costs about 1/6 of what my daughter pays for her prized CRV.
Now into the deep woods: thinking of Tesla as a possible investment. I have to warn you. There are fanatics out there, rabid on both sides. They are as fierce as the demo tree-hugger/repubble-fascist warriors. And, yes, I've ended up firmly on the Tesla side. Don't particularly love Elon (it's OK, he probably thinks I'm old), but that's irrelevant. I've talked before about black swans, as events. Elon is a black swan all by himself. He is one of those rare individuals who have, through sheer persistence, clarity of thought and (let's not forget how important this is) wealth, prodded the entire world into a new gear it didn't even know existed. Before Elon, EVs were eternally in the future, kind of like fusion. Now, you'd need to be brain-dead to deny that they are here, are better, will soon be cheaper, and will, in a very short time, devour ICE like seal puppies blinking at a polar bear. Except ICE companies aren't cute, so their passing will be far less cause for misty eyes.
Tesla is at the bleeding (intentional imagery) forefront of destructive change in its field. What is striking is that most folks on the anti-side don't even understand what that field is. They think it's cars. It's like talking about an elephant by analyzing its tusks. OF COURSE cars, but there's an entire convergence of technology and infrastructure Tesla is orchestrating that makes the ICE guys look like plumbers in tutus.
Start with the car. Teslas already match the safest cars on the road. Soon, there will be no competition whatsoever. Mind-bending performance. Hit that accelerator, hard, and you'll never want to go back. Really. Don't believe me? Just try one, once. Efficiency? Well, my Y's battery holds the energy equivalent of just over two gallons of gas. Those two gallons would take my daughter sixty world-wilting miles; I could plausibly get 300 Bonneville-dam miles (out of the EPA rated 330-mile range). So, five times more efficient, virtually no pollution. Maintenance? Well, basically none, at least for a LONG time. Price? Right now, at the upper end of mid-cost. Like a tricked-out SUV, which the Y actually IS. Tomorrow, cheaper, day after tomorrow, vastly cheaper.
But that's just the start. EVs are mobile batteries. So, Tesla is designing and building the best batteries the world has ever seen, at steadily decreasing price-points. So, while today's car batteries are relatively expensive, tomorrow's will become cheap, probably very cheap. And the supply will grow geometrically. Is that a problem? Yes, but a good one. Because there just happens to be a very good use for extra batteries, doing just what they do, storing energy.
Which brings us to the next feature of the Tesla elephant: energy production and storage. Tesla is designing and installing solar energy panels (a small, and relatively low-profit sideline), building and marketing home energy units (possibly a big deal), and building industrial scale energy storage solutions (potentially gigantic). A startlingly little-broadcast fact is that solar power is already the most cost-effective solution for new energy generation. A second startling fact is that wind power is the second most cost-effective solution. Both have the drawback that they are intermittent, particularly solar. So, peak generation often goes wasted, while low periods of generation might not meet peak demand. Here's where battery storage kicks in. A sufficiently robust battery adjunct perfects the already-cost effective solar-wind approach. Interestingly, the more solar/wind you build, and the more the grids are interconnected, the less battery storage needed overall. Massive "overbuilding" (aided by governmental energy policy) is the way to go. Hyper-abundant energy would result, at unimaginably low price-points. Tesla won't be the only player in this potentially colossal field, but it will be very big.
More than any other vehicles on the planet, Teslas are mobile computers. They receive and send data continuously, and most of the car's functions are controlled electronically. Updates occur over the air, and improvements in driving technology are made available instantly to the consumer. The game-changing aspect of this is FSD, full self-driving. It was perhaps foolish of Tesla to use the terminology so early in the game, as it was, and continues to be, aspirational. Nevertheless, the progress Tesla has made in the area is stupendous. There is no longer any realistic doubt that the functionality will mature to the point that FSD driving is vastly safer (by factor of 10 to 100) than humans. While there will unquestionably be deaths attributable to FSD, they will pale in comparison to the huge death rates we already experience. No-fault insurance, probably much cheaper than today's, will compensate for those vastly reduced deaths. You can debate the timeline to FSD, but would be foolish to deny its inexorable progress. As with most truly disruptive technologies, be prepared to be astonished by how soon it happens. To quote Elon: "two weeks?".
Implications? 1. Let the car drive while you do ... whatever. Play games, watch YouTube, do some serious work. That two-hour commute is now whatever you want it to be. Work four hours once you arrive, then go home. 2. Robotaxis. Why own a second car? Summon a ride at either end. Cost? Well, eventually far cheaper than owning that second or third car. 3. Robotaxis. Why own a car at all? Once you think of travel as a service, available at all times, at a nominal price, then going commando will make sense. 3. Robotaxis. Go ahead and own a car, or two, or ten. Just let a robo-fleet drive them all day long, paying you multiples of the ownership investment. Get rich AND help the planet!
Wider implications? 1. Death of taxi companies. Duhh. 2. Death of pay for parking. Staggering implications for urban and suburban land use. All those parking lots and structures, sitting empty, and available for new uses. 3. Death of the gas station and ALL those convenience stores. Sure, they'll put in chargers, but most of the charging will done at home, or in robo-taxi facilities. The chargers that do flourish will be just like Tesla's supercharging network; fast (relatively, of course), ubiquitous, and convenient. 4. Death of the big energy companies, particularly those producing and distributing oil/based products. There will continue to be a large piece of business utilizing natural gas as a feed stock and a niche for meeting peak demand at various places and times. 5. Death of conventional energy generation. In order: coal (already moribund), diesel/oil plants next in line, gas-fired plants later on, but also in big trouble. 5. Decentralization of the power grid. Near-universal local generation from solar and wind, infinite sharing of power storage and delivery. Energy flows both down (from the grid) and up (from homes, factories, farms).
Believe it or not, there are many, and even wider implications. This relates to the mathematics of disruption: the s-curve. There is a wonderful chart (distributed by Tony Seba, see his video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj96nxtHdTU) showing how disruptive technologies follow a common pattern of very slow development, attainment of a break-through, followed by a near-vertical rise in adoption, then by stabilization at a level of near-universal adoption. EVs are now clearly at the break-out point. Adoption will NOT occur in a linear way (as most automotive analysts predict), but rather exponentially, growing ten or twenty times in a very brief period of time (less than ten years). What Seba has pointed out is that we now have multiple disruptions occurring simultaneously. Each one would normally proceed on its own s-curve. However, the convergence of multiple technologies over the same time-frame will yield hyper-growth, and hyper-destruction.
Advances in biochemistry and genomics, accompanied by breakthroughs in processing information, are already disrupting medicine and agriculture. Vaccines can now be developed with unheard-of speed, and the curve will steepen. Medicines of all kinds will now be cultured, or brewed with designer yeasts and microorganisms. The field of brewing will revolutionize the production of foodstuffs, like proteins and starches. The implications for agriculture are staggering. Milk production will, fundamentally, collapse once its core ingredients (milk-fat, proteins, etc) are molecularly reproduced in the lab/factory. Meat production will follow a similar trajectory. Beyond Meat and Impossible are already producing products that compare reasonably well to ground beef. There is no reason whatsoever, however, why actual animal proteins (and other unheard-of, unimagined proteins as well) cannot be produced in volume in vats, at a fraction of today's cost in land, water, pesticides, fertilizer and fuel. Beef, dairy and grain-based farmers will be unable to compete; the value of their land will plummet. Rural America will be rudely transformed to ... something very different.
There is no point in debating this stuff. It's going to happen, whether we like it or not. Much of it will, unquestionably, be VERY good for the planet. The death of fossil fuels by forces the energy companies cannot yet comprehend or combat, will, possibly, save us all from extinction. And the rescue might occur far faster than even optimistic climate experts grasp. How deliciously ironic that the very things we need most are the very things that are the most cost-effective by any reasonable measure!
The bad is that literally billions of lives will be disrupted, some quite terribly. If ever there were a time for intelligent governmental planning, this is it. I think our build back better strategy should focus less on building solar and wind (that will happen anyway) and traditional infrastructure, and more on helping the people and society adjust to the fallout. Pumping money into the auto industry is simply folly. Those jobs will disappear. Better to help people retrain, possibly relocate to greener fields (literally). A massive surge in construction just to support short-term employment offers poor returns on investment, unless the things produced or improved contribute directly to the economy. Is that vague? Damn straight it is! Figuring it out won't be easy at all.
Better to end on a bright note: all this disruption will mean a vast decrease in the ultimate cost of living, world-wide. Tony Seba estimates a basic maintenance cost of living per person might drop to $250/month, $3,000 per year. The vast growth in world-wide GDP from the trends above would make supporting that yearly $3,000 trivial.
No comments:
Post a Comment