Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
|
That guy doesn't say useful things, and if he does, it's by accident.
Over what period of time is he claiming 80% reduction in battery cost? The last 3 or so years, the costs have gone up due to inflation, supply chain issues, and scarcity of mined minerals.
$100/kWh is just a nice round number, not a tipping point of anything.
With $7,500-$10,000+ in taxpayer subsidies, EVs achieved 3% of vehicle sales. That means they have to "find $10,000" in added value just to meet 3% of sales, sans subsidy. Then they need to "find" additional value to further take market share.
What I mean by finding value, is anything that consumers perceive as value. The most direct way is to simply reduce the price, but it includes things like longer range batteries, more chargers, faster charging, quicker acceleration... anything that makes an EV more appealing than they currently are.
I believe EVs will find the $10k+ value eventually, but nowhere near as quickly as that Viking guy selling. There's another kid from New Zealand that reminds me of the Viking and takes it a step further by referencing Wright's Law, assuming EV sales double every year, and each doubling reducing overall vehicle price by 30%, then says we'd be insane to not buy Tesla stock based on the "facts".