Are EVs Really the Future—or Just a Stepping Stone?

[Dustin]

Hey everyone,
I’ve been thinking a lot about where electric vehicles really stand in the grand scheme of things. There's a ton of excitement around EVs—and for good reason. Cleaner energy, less noise, lower operating costs. But with all the advancements in hydrogen fuel cells, solid-state batteries, and even synthetic fuels, I’m starting to wonder:

Are EVs the endgame… or just one phase in a longer transition?

Would love to hear what you all think.

Are current EV technologies good enough to carry us for the next few decades?

What do you see as the biggest bottleneck—rare earths, infrastructure, battery tech?

And what would you bet on as the dominant vehicle tech by 2040?

Curious to hear from both the optimists and the skeptics. Let’s dig in.

 

[John]

I personally love a good Straight 6 or a V8.

But there is alot to be said for the simplicity of EVs. They use less moving parts, which should mean less maintenance. So for the average driver, means lower cost.

This report from the IEA give a great snapshot of what is happening:

LINK TO IEA EV REPORT - PDF

Or read on their webpage:
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2024

 

[Dustin]

I agree - there's a lot of things that "make sense" with EVs, even though they might not win over car enthusiasts who like the sound of their engines. I mean, the growl of a V8 provides of level joy an EV could never achieve.

That said, I think their are some significant hurdles many markets face in the broader adoption of EVs:
- Barrier for entry; they are quite expensive to purchase
- Charging infrastructure; in the western United States, there's a lot of wide open spaces with no charging stations (much less superchargers)

If we could sell EVs a prices BYD, maybe it'd make a difference.

 

[patarnoster]

I bought a Tesla Model Y coas I like tech toys but it is now a family car, fits two kids, and a dog, it's a daily driver not precious about it, its stood up really well to the test of time so far.

What I will note:

• I never charge outside of the home, so charging infrastructure is meaningless (Old way of thinking, eg. petrol stations) Why go somewhere else when I can fuel up at home, but I don't take it camping.
• Barrier for entry - its a car, they are not cheap, like any other car priced mid range, price is a factor for widespread adoption but over time second hand EVs will be dime a dozen and cheap.

Now for costs - I pay $4.80 to charge up the tank (Time of day tariff), which gets me 380 to 400 km, it's a stupidly cheap to run. (Not taking into consideration when solar reduces that by 30%)

I would never suggest someone buy an EV if they can't charge at home, that's where I would draw the line, oh and if you travel more than 400km in one direction.

Other than that, it's just another car that's stupid cheap to run.

 

[Dustin]

If there are situations where an EV shouldn't be recommended (ie. Traveling further than a round-trip will allow on a charge to make it back to your in-house charger), I struggle to see EVs becoming the primary type of vehicle in any region. At what point do we say they are too expensive to make and move on?

 

[John]

In my state of Victoria, the govt found they were missing out on tax revenue from fuel. This revenue goes towards maintaining the roads. So they put a yearly km travelled tax on all EVs. To pay their share of the road network maintenance. But a court ruled it unconstitutional. So now they pay nothing. AND they get discounts etc.

I think once there is more EV adoption, the incentives will disappear and the taxes will start to be applied.

Someone has to pay for the roads to be maintained….

 

[Chad]

I agree John. I think the supply of electricity will be the limiting factor. The incentives aren't going to last forever.

Countries that can adopt the new generation of safe small scale nuclear power will be far ahead of the game.

 

[Fundamental]

A great discussion, with many salient points being made. Power availability is a central issue; batteries provide one solution but are certainly not ideal in many applications, Hydrogen either in Combustion fuel or Fuel-Cell configuration could overcome the storage problems, but will require a massive investment in implementation ~ service stations, tankage, H2 generation etc. One thing for sure is that Australia will be way behind the rest of the developed world in adopting any new Technology. Which has its own pro's and cons

 

[John]

A great discussion, with many salient points being made. Power availability is a central issue; batteries provide one solution but are certainly not ideal in many applications, Hydrogen either in Combustion fuel or Fuel-Cell configuration could overcome the storage problems, but will require a massive investment in implementation ~ service stations, tankage, H2 generation etc. One thing for sure is that Australia will be way behind the rest of the developed world in adopting any new Technology. Which has its own pro's and cons

I know someone at the CSIRO, that told me that there had been analysis done on the Australian fuel supply storage capacity. And we bascially have a 1-2 weeks fuel supply (it is something tiny like that...so this is jsut approx). And this person was saying, that if a war broke out, we could be in alot of trouble. But EVs would still be working. Especially if you have solar and battery at home.


I mean...it wouldn't affect me. My doomsday prepping is A1. I would have at least a 12 month fuel supply! ;-) I wish.

 

[Fundamental]

2 weeks sounds about right, by then we would have run out of ammunition anyway.