I didn’t see anything in the article at all regarding speculation or futures markets of electricity with the one exception being a mention of some industrial operators signing long term contracts to buy oversupply.

Can you refer me to the section of the article you’re responding to?

I think the “swapping” may be a different use case the author is talking about. I don’t think the author was referring to an end-user executed swap to simply put in a charged battery.

This would be a service center option where a mechanic would have to take tools and removed panels and connectors to make the swap. Something done maybe only a few times, if ever, for a car during its life.

A structural battery pack is constructed to not be serviced in parts. The author calls this out with his comments on “replacing a single bad cell”. He’s right that this is a concern for structural battery packs. Here’s a Tesla structural battery pack when it was attempted to be disassembled:

There was more of that pink foam wrapping around the cells now exposed. All of that pink foam is needed for strength and its thermal properties because the battery pack is part of the structure of the vehicle carrying load forces.

Clearly replacing a bank of cells would be difficult to do if there was a cell failure, and no wear near cost effective for a consumer to have done on their car. The author is suggesting having some of THIS type of battery, but also another part of the battery in the standard hard plastic modular cases where the whole module could be removed and replaced (“swapped”)

The author is suggesting SOME of the battery be the pink foam type that is unserviceable, and SOME of the battery be behind panels in cases that a technician can swap at a service center when the module has reached the end of its life.

I had spare batteries for my smartphone for events like all-day conferences/conventions to swap batteries in the afternoon.

Sure, but how often are you going to all-day conferences. Once a year? Twice? Is it worth having the possibly 20% less battery capacity the other 363 days a year for that swapability?

Something seems missing from the description. What would make the most sense with the articles description is if there were two packs each with different chemistries. One cheap and low density, such as NA-Ion (Sodium-Ion) that could take care of 90% of EV driving needs for trips under, say, 100 miles. The second pack being a much higher density chemistry like NMC (Nickel, Manganese, Cobalt) which could add significantly more range for the same cubic cm of volume in the vehicle, but the battery would have far fewer cycles compared to other chemistries.

The idea being, beat the heck out of the Sodium Ion battery and make it easily serviceable/replaceable at the cost of range for the same volume consumed, while the NMC battery would be gently cared for and only called on in the more extreme demands of range.

If that’s what the author was trying to say, it was not clear.

This article is a bit confusing because its talking about the theoretical use cases of structural battery packs in EVs, the possible problems, and possible mitigations.

The Tesla Model Y has been using a structural battery pack for over 2 years (since 2022 model year, I think). While Hyundai/Kia may make different choices, the pros and cons from Tesla’s choices can be used as at least one path for what Hyndai/Kia want to keep or what they would want to change from Tesla’s choices.

Here’s the articles cited problems:

However, placing cells inside load-bearing components would also make them hard to replace, offsetting this practice.

In practice almost no service of the battery is done at the shop where the car is. If there is a fault anywhere in the pack, from a cell to a BMS component, the entire pack is swapped.

Most EV drivers rarely use all of their battery range; they only need it on long trips. Therefore, batteries built into load-bearing automotive components would not be needed for daily use; they could be maintained at the ideal charge level for the battery formulation and rarely used except for long trips.

This is such a strange description. This isn’t how EV batteries are used at all today, as far as I know, because it would be very inefficient in regular use. You wouldn’t want to put extra strain/stress/charge/discharge on specific cells in the battery. That would lead to unbalanced packs. Further it would be much less efficient and slower to charge the segregated pack that the article is describing. The more full a cell gets of charge, the harder/more power you need to work it to take additional charge. Also, deep discharge of cells significantly shortens their life. The author’s design description of a segregated pack would also experience much worse cold weather range reduction.

if the carmaker were to use modular battery packs, it would reduce the related cost of repairs across all of the car batteries; if they had better batteries, the need to replace them would be substantially reduced

Several automakers have tried making modular packs the way the author is describing them here. They turn out to be a bad choice because of all the extra stuff you have to do to make it flexible to accept fewer or more modules. This same thing happened to mobile phones. You used to have a removable battery, which was nice. However to make the battery removable, you had to add spring contacts, a separate tray to hold the battery, and a battery door. All of these things took space. The only time you’d ever use these, practically, would be years into the phone’s life you’d open it up to replace the battery once, maybe twice in the phone’s entire life. Manufacturers could just put a larger battery in and make it cheaper. Many phones don’t live long enough to ever kill their first battery.

The author of the article is well credentialed and has worked in the tech and automotive industry for years, so I’m very confused as to the content of this article. Its almost like it was written 3 years ago, even though it is showing a Feb 14th 2025 dateline.

there are multiple scenarios and budgets that can support these initiatives. In fact, many of the ideas I’ve proposed have already been implemented quickly in places I’ve lived:

All of those things still require dense urban environments. There’s a whole bunch of the world that doesn’t apply to that ICE vehicles rule. EV replacement of any of those ICE vehicles is a net gain for the CO2 reduction movement.

We could even argue that the carbon footprint associated with the early replacement of functioning vehicles, driven by fear of ICE vehicle restrictions, should be considered in the total cost.

That would be a valid argument if the replaced ICE vehicles were immediately going to the scrapyard, but I think you’d agree with me that isn’t what is happening with a replaced ICE vehicle. Further, I stipulated that I wasn’t advocating for people with nearly new ICE vehicles to immediately got out and buy an EV, but instead when they are planning on replacing their ICE with another ICE, and EV would be a better choice for the environment.

Here’s some data. 6.8% of new cars in the USA are EVs. That 6.8% replaced otherwise ICE vehicle purchases. I think if you’d ask most climate scientists if nearly 7% of new cars no longer running on fossil fuels they would say thats a substantial improvement.

Okay, I think I understand your position better, thank you.

The biggest flaw that I see in your approach is that nearly all of those changes require the population to decide to make the changes together. If that agreement isn’t there, the only other way to implement most of those would be with authoritarian decrees. There are places in the world where that is possible, but I wouldn’t call that a recommended solution to apply. A number of your suggestions would require additional funding too. That has to come from somewhere and the origin of that funding is also likely a contentious debate. Without everyone agreeing on the need for these things, few, if any will be implemented and that means more CO2 being emitted.

For example, ADEME (a French organization) estimates that: “A reduction in average meat consumption of 10 grams per day per person leads to a decrease of approximately 200 square meters in land footprint, as well as a 5.2% reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions.” (Source).

This is a good one that can be done at an individual level. It requires no agreement other than the person making the choice for themselves. This definitely resonates well on the “punk” of solar punk.

The meat reduction is the closest thing EVs for your cited solutions. Its an individual choice on the part of the consumer that can have the intended positive impact. That makes it extremely realistic as far as a component on the path to a full solution.

First, I see your post before mine was downvoted. That wasn’t me. I share a different opinion than yours, but your opinion is equally valid in this discussion. I see nothing in your post which is insulting or takes away from the discussion to deserve a downvote.

It seems way more sensible to act on what we know works now rather than hoping for future discoveries to save us.

So I don’t put words in your mouth, what do we “know works now” in your opinion that could be implemented in a faster time frame than EVs that would have a positive impact on the reduction of CO2?

You should also take into account for your analysis that sustaining a world with EVs as a drop-in replacement for ICE vehicles would require extracting significantly more rare earth metals than we currently do, requiring new mines that are known to impact biodiversity through significant earth and water pollution (not all environmental impacts are CO2-based).

Does this analysis work under the assumption that technology remains static and unchanging? Does it account for the efforts to decouple from exotic materials? We’ve already seen two very large steps that are in place commercially in EV consumer products, so this isn’t simply theoretical:

• Cobalt and Nickel used to be required for any usefully sized EV battery. Many current EVs now ship with zero Cobalt or Nickel in their batteries with the wide adoption of LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate).
• Lithium is another element that is pointed out as a downside for EVs because the environmental impacts from its extraction from nature. However, there are EVs in China on roads with zero lithium and instead use Sodium based batteries.

Considering how short a time it has taken industry to not only identify cleaner alternatives and get them into use, it suggests that an assumption in analysis that EV technology of one day projected over an infinite future may be flawed logic.

Full disclosure, I’m a EV owner/driver. Its not going to surprise you for me to say EVs are not a scam.

The most obvious and easy to understand part of problem solving is to define the desired end goal. In that picture for what many see as the solar punk vision, most people see few if any cars. So the natural conclusion would be to say that EVs are not part of the solution.

However, what far too many people ignore when problem solving is the transitional period between the start toward the goal and reaching it. For most solarpunk visions this will require decades of changes with massive impacts all around the world. This is why I believe EVs are not a scam. They are an important part of the transition.

Most “EVs are a scam” folks immediately point to public transportation as the reason why EVs are unnecessary. In developed urban centers this is true! While New Yorker may curse the MTA when waiting on a delayed train or a Dubliner waiting for the Tram, they cannot deny that they are able to perform nearly all functions of daily life with intercity trains, metro rail, and buses. However, when we look at the land where people live there are vast vast regions that are non-urban. Most of the people that live in those regions have limited access to public transportation. If cars disappeared overnight, it would be catastrophic for those populations and all of us that rely on them for portions of our food chain (as an example). The very closest bus stop to my house is 5.4 miles away, and only runs service for 8 months out of the year. The next closest one with daily service year round is 7.3 miles away, and that one has only two stops in the morning and two in the evening. Public transportation simply doesn’t serve my area at this time.

So realistically even if we had the money and the mandate right now (and we don’t) to throw our efforts behind wider access to public transportation, it would mean accepting many decades more of burning carbon based fuels in cars and trucks. Consumers will replace their vehicles during that time, and if and EV can be a choice that is less carbon (or no carbon at all!) being emitted into our atmosphere for its operation that is only a good thing.

Replacing an ICE car with an EV actually (for those that don’t have public transit options) moves the needle in the positive direction if the other choice is yet another ICE car.

Further, specifically for solar punk visions, the “punk” part for my understanding is a sense of independence or self reliance. A “do it yourself” or “don’t simple accept what is force upon you”. So an EV actually fits that well. That doesn’t mean a rejection of public transportation, but it does recognize that there’s more than one way to do something and sometimes that way is doing it yourself.

In my mind, EVs are a critical part of the transition to a solar punk future. We don’t get the luxury of skipping right to the end goal. We have to go through the long, messy, and less efficient transition. EVs are an important part of that.

I’ve seen this in the USA too. A local water co-op put a 1.2MW array floating on top of one the municipal water reservoirs. Along with carport and building PV arrays, they offsets 50% of the electricity consumed by the facility.

Their floating array also offsets some water lost to evaporation, but its too early for measurable numbers on that front so far.

PDF source

deleted by creator

That was true then and true now, but it doesn’t change that we are where we are today.

If we had lots of money and two EV’s I would still have one be short range.

I’m seeing a future where the EVs in our driveway play a much more important part of our home electricity storage. Depending on the scenario, two EVs with large-ish batteries may be more advantageous. I’ll admit the stars would have to align for this, but its a possible future.

I’d say it comes in three different forms:

• Manufacturer provided - As poster irk pointed out, they have a Hyundai and as part of the purchase it includes this service. I believe Tesla provides it for free during the warranty period. Ford gives it for free for 12 months from purchase. etc
• Auto club/subscription - This would be like AAA (or CAA in Canada). You pay an annual fee and get the service
• Car insurance provided - Lots of auto insurance companies include this in their policies or offer it for a substantial discount. Some auto companies operate their own fleet of roadside assistance vehicles (I think I’ve see Progressive trucks do this at one point). Other auto insurance companies will contract with a fleet management company. They’ll give you a number to call and a technician will be dispatched to your location and the insurance company takes care of the bill. This is what I had at one point and I think it costs me something like $20/year.

Maybe this is just another poverty thing because I only drive beaters and have the absolute cheapest insurance.

Until a few years ago, I always changed and maintained my own tires. A $10 tire plug kit saved me hundreds of dollars over replacing tires whenever I had a flat.

This is probably regional/country term. In the USA it means calling for a technician to drive a vehicle to your location and service the flat tire (or provide a replacement) at the roadside when you find you have a flat. What would the term be for that in your region?

They didn’t say they never had a flat. They said they never used the spare. For many, calling roadside assistance is the solution to a flat tire. @[email protected] it sounds like that has been a workable solution.

I’m glad to see this movement.

On a visit to India I saw how many tuk-tuks were in use, how they really formed a crucial portion of the transportation infrastructure, and how dirty (polluting) they were. It always struck me that these were ripe for electrification.

While the article is talking about new units designed from the ground up as EV, I wonder if there is a viable retrofit option. Seeing mechanics work on Tuk-Tuks in India was very impresssive. The parts are so common and interchangeable, and the tools and equipment needed to work on them were common. The body separates fairly cleanly and quickly away from the drivetrain giving, in my mind, the opening for a retrofit. As in, remove the petro drivetrain, reuse the body, and drop it on an EV drivetrain.

The article, again referring to the high end EV units, talk about extensive range with LFP batteries, but also cites the barrier to entry is the cost of these new EVs being prohibitive. I wonder if a less efficient/less powerful drivetrain could be introduced perhaps even using commonplace lead acid batteries and relying more on battery swaps for range extension.

The LFP batteries are made in China, and while Pakistan enjoys good relations, India and China’s relationship is a more tumultuous. Lead-acid batteries can be remanufactured domestically with limited infrastructure (and the input of cheap abundant domestic labor). I was introduced to this concept from this video showing a complete rebuild of a lead-acid battery with very simple tools on dirt ground.

There a number of arguments as to why this is the case and the article touches on these:

• One could make an argument that most drivers don’t use their spare (or don’t know how) and would call for roadside service anyway.
• Another argument is that the extra weight of the spare has to be hauled around for months or years before it gets used, if ever, and fuel is used for that extra weight costing the owner and increasing carbon emissions.
• More pragmatically the most likely answer is the auto makers found out they could simply stop giving out spare tires and it doesn’t cost them any customers, and increases the auto maker’s profits. Some will even sell you a spare tire at an extra fee meaning even more revenue.

My guess is of all these reasons, the third answer, cash grab is the real answer. The author gives us one sentence, but agrees with me.