Interesting interview with Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe

[LonghornE63]

Motor trend does the lightening lap on the grand course at VIR. Don’t think they have run the model 3. I think Tesla was embarrassed last time with the P100Ds time. They did turn a lap at streets of willow(1.6 miles) in model 3 that was pretty impressive. But it took a bunch of tries, the first laps were slow, and they had Tesla techs galore to optimizing the car before they got fast laps.

They are really fast in a drag race. Especially an 8th mile. Not as much in a quarter, but still quick

That's my favorite issue for MT every year.

The One Lap Model 3 got 17th overall (40+) so that's pretty impressive. 7 days, 3,700 miles...... can't breakdown...... When you think about it, its crazy they are already trying to track these cars. (No, I don't think I'm ready to go that direction)

Like you, I'm running a Flat 6. (3.8L) and wouldn't trade it.

 

[GEORocks]

The point about licensing into the F-150 platform is the biggest piece for me. The F-150 is such a key part of the Ford portfolio and balance sheet that they won’t compromise the customer experience for ‘green’ I don’t think. The result will be a truck that truck guys want to drive - that also happens to pack all of the performance benefits of an electronic drivetrain.

It’s also the perfect vehicle to penetrate wide swaths of the personal and commercial markets. If they can make gains on the battery longevity to satisfy the blue collar ‘idle in the parking lot’ guy they will be so successful it could measurably accelerate the transition away from oil.

Most of us in O&G are familiar with the charts that project various 20-30 energy mix and use scenarios. What Rivian is doing could legitimately shift all of that forward significantly.

 

[tzrider]

That's my favorite issue for MT every year.

The One Lap Model 3 got 17th overall (40+) so that's pretty impressive. 7 days, 3,700 miles...... can't breakdown...... When you think about it, its crazy they are already trying to track these cars. (No, I don't think I'm ready to go that direction)

Like you, I'm running a Flat 6. (3.8L) and wouldn't trade it.

I have a 2013 c4s with the 3.8l. Hope the last of the naturally aspirated 911’s (besides the gt3’s) hold their value as well as the last of the air cooled 911’s. Although mine ain’t for sale. Love high revving cars where you have to work to get the power out of them, and prefer sucking sounds to whining sounds.

I would buy an EV truck though.

 

[Guy Smiley]

I love the idea of electric. But I sold my car 6 years ago and have been car-less ever since. I have no desire to own a $70,000 vehicle that depreciates like crazy. I wish they built cars the way they build airplanes. No one thinks anything of buying a 1960 Cessna 172, b/c with proper maintenance, that plane will last 100+ years. And, it'll appreciate in value at the same time!

So how do you get around without a car?

 

[Hornswin4845]

Until they can build and sell all electric vehicles for less than gas vehicles, this is just car porn. And it won't happen in the next twenty years.

I don’t know when it will happen, but right now electric vehicles are inferior and cost more. The only advantage is instant torque and acceleration, my gas vehicles accelerate more than I need or use so what’s the point?

 

[Hornswin4845]

I love the idea of electric. But I sold my car 6 years ago and have been car-less ever since. I have no desire to own a $70,000 vehicle that depreciates like crazy. I wish they built cars the way they build airplanes. No one thinks anything of buying a 1960 Cessna 172, b/c with proper maintenance, that plane will last 100+ years. And, it'll appreciate in value at the same time!

18 wheeler tractors are designed to go 1,000,000 miles, rebuild the engine and go another million. Brakes and tires last a few hundred thousand miles. Oil changes every 50,000.

 

[tzrider]

18 wheeler tractors are designed to go 1,000,000 miles, rebuild the engine and go another million. Brakes and tires last a few hundred thousand miles. Oil changes every 50,000.

Most big fleets run their tractors around 500k and then replace them with new ones. The maintenance cost goes way up after that, plus they are constantly improving the fuel efficiency. There is a market for the used, high mileage, tractors, but the big fleet operators don’t run them.

 

[LWULFE]

To be clear - I dont have an electric car, and as a car guy that races on weekends and spends too much time in my Jeep, I wont get one until the performance is better and more easily deployable than my current setup.


However.

The idea that electric cars aren't there because you can't drive one across the US is foolish. you can (maybe not to every single corner of the US, but the vast majority). Tesla would be happy to show you their supercharging system and how to get where you are going along with a map/route guidance today.

Also, this is a silly argument. The reality is that a 300 mile range would hit 99.9+% of all trips a typical family car would go on......


The idea that people wouldn't buy an electric car because they can't drive across the US is so ridiculous.

I am looking forward to purchasing an electric vehicle for my next car, but it will need to have much better range and faster charging capabilities. I am hopeful that Dr. Goodenough's team will have their battery in use by 2023 or 2024 and it will provide the range and faster recharging I desire. I am also hoping the fully autonomous technology is available by then.

My desire is to commute every other weekend much of the year to go skiing or hiking and be able to do so while sleeping,& relaxing or working while the car does the work to get me there. That requires longer range with 1-2 stops, but one stop can be for a full charge while I have a meal. FYI, the cost per mile for driving an electric vehicle is so low that it isn't an expensive drive.

 

[Dualthreat]

If your point is to say that you can buy a $10,000 new car that has a gas engine, and you can't buy a battery powered car for that same amount, I suppose I understand.

If there is an ICE car for sale for $10,000 in America it doesn't come to mind. Even a Mitsubishi Mirage G4 ES is $15, 690.

You can get a Honda Insight Hybrid that is electric the vast majority of the time for 22,830. Kelley Blue Book lists the average price for new light vehicles in Dec. 2018 as $37,577.

It's not just trucks, big SUVs, and premium models that have gone up in price.

 

[Dualthreat]

The only advantage is instant torque and acceleration, my gas vehicles accelerate more than I need or use so what’s the point?

Not destroying the ecosystem that supports your life on this planet. That provides you food and a living environment that is hospitable and sustainable.

 

[Dualthreat]

That’s a big exception. The battery is half the cost of an EV. But it is falling rapidly, as is the size, and hopefully weight, of the batteries

 

[Dualthreat]

The idea that electric cars aren't there because you can't drive one across the US is foolish. you can (maybe not to every single corner of the US, but the vast majority). Tesla would be happy to show you their supercharging system and how to get where you are going along with a map/route guidance today.

Also, this is a silly argument. The reality is that a 300 mile range would hit 99.9+% of all trips a typical family car would go on......

2018 Map. There are more now.

 

[Hotlanta Horn]

Pioneers get the arrows, settlers get the land...

EV’s are moving squarely into “settlement” territory

 

[Hotlanta Horn]

Not destroying the ecosystem that supports your life on this planet. That provides you food and a living environment that is hospitable and sustainable.

Fossil fuel burning isn’t what is destroying things...

It’s our food production system and preferences that are actually destroying things...

 

[Dualthreat]

Fossil fuel burning isn’t what is destroying things...

It's impossible to take anything you say after that seriously.

 

[Iceman]

So how do you get around without a car?

Walk (which I enjoy.....except in the dead of the summer), catch a ride with Uber or Lyft, or borrow my wife's car. We're about to have 4 kids spread across many schools, so I'm going to have to get a 2nd car here in the not too distant future. But, I've enjoyed being carless (and the savings) while it's lasted. Nirvana for me is living in a city like Barcelona, Buenos Aires, Valencia, Paris, etc where I can walk everywhere or hop on public transportation.

 

[tzrider]

2018 Map. There are more now.

Even the oil companies are starting to put charging stations in their stores. BP just bought Chargemaster and is beginning to install them in their stores. Several large gas station/C store chains in the U.S. have announced their plans to add charging stations. Putting them in existing stores will rapidly speed the availability. The sites already exist. The stores want them because it brings in more customers

 

[Iceman]

Operating cost per mile, including depreciation, is higher on a Cessna 172, than it is in my porsche. And top speed is pretty equal. As a crow flies.

I raced two stroke production GP bikes. The parts life cycle was like running a helicopter. We got 400 miles on pistons and about twice that before the crank had to be replaced. The cases and cylinders went maybe 5000 miles, if you never seized it up from running it too lean, where the power is. You can ruin the cases and cylinders seizing it once. Tires lasted 100 miles. Maybe.

People would come by our pits and ask how much the bikes cost. We always laughed because it depended whether they wanted to buy one, or actually ride it. Triple the amount to ride it.

But what a ride....

Yeah, I know the operating cost is higher per mile. Probably the only plane cheaper to operate than a Porsche would be an old tail dragger, b/c you don't need avionics. That said, it has nothing to do with my original comment, which was wishing cars were built to last like planes. We waste a lot of wealth & natural resources with our disposable car culture.

 

[tzrider]

Yeah, I know the operating cost is higher per mile. Probably the only plane cheaper to operate than a Porsche would be an old tail dragger, b/c you don't need avionics. That said, it has nothing to do with my original comment, which was wishing cars were built to last like planes. We waste a lot of wealth & natural resources with our disposable car culture.

They will if you are willing to spend the money on them. Porsche 911s from the 60’s and early 70’s sell for six figures and up. 20 to 50 times what they cost new.

Cars are cheaper to build and buy, that’s why they are disposable. They are mass produced. It’s cheaper to buy a new one than keep an old one on the road. Plus technological advances makes new cars so much better than the old ones. I love the old cars from the 60’s and 70’s. They bring back great memories, but then I drive one, and realize what a piece of shit they are in comparison. If you are a car lover, now is the golden age for automobiles. So many great cars to choose from, and they are far better than their predecessors, by any measure.

 

[Dualthreat]

So many great cars to choose from, and they are far better than their predecessors, by any measure.

Not to mention INFINITELY safer. And they are far quieter on the inside, can have much better audio systems, ride is much smoother. It's a completely different experience.

Much like the improvement of the interior of a train during the same period:

Hokkaido Railway 18-seat Gran Class carriage.

Hook'em Horns!

 

[BattleshipTexas]

All for around 70K.

It’s absurd what has happened to automobile pricing, I am however a poor so I know that is affordable to plenty.

Just don't buy new. Buy it for 20K whenever the person who bought it new has moved on to the next shiny toy.

 

[BattleshipTexas]

Not destroying the ecosystem that supports your life on this planet. That provides you food and a living environment that is hospitable and sustainable.

Isn't it creating a whole new set of problems with disposal of all these giant batteries that are so dangerous for water quality? It may be a good thing overall, but it does create new problems for all the old it solves. Also the electrons you put in the vehicle were produced with something, maybe even coal, likely natural gas, nuclear in some places.

 

[tzrider]

Isn't it creating a whole new set of problems with disposal of all these giant batteries that are so dangerous for water quality? It may be a good thing overall, but it does create new problems for all the old it solves. Also the electrons you put in the vehicle were produced with something, maybe even coal, likely natural gas, nuclear in some places.

The batteries can be recycled and the production of electricity creates less CO2 than ICE cars would running on fossil fuels, even if the electricity comes from coal.

 

[djw314]

The subscription idea sure takes spontaneity out of driving. If I need to run to the store right now to pick something up I would have to wait on the vehicle.

 

[BattleshipTexas]

The batteries can be recycled and the production of electricity creates less CO2 than ICE cars would running on fossil fuels, even if the electricity comes from coal.

CO2 isn't the only issue with burning coal. It is dirty and causes a lot of problems other than CO2. The recycling of batteries is pretty spotty. Theoretically a lot of it can be recycled, but that isn't happening much in reality as it is very expensive and not all is amenable to perfect recycling.

Note I am not against electric cars, this was a fascinating article and I hope this guy is very successful. We just get into the mode of "all X is good, all Y is bad" when both X and Y have pluses and minuses. Maybe X's pluses outweigh the minuses more than Y's do, but it is rarely a black and white issue. If we convert overnight to electric cars we are going to have massive battery disposal issues to address, and a threat to our ground water, even as our air grows cleaner.

 

[tzrider]

CO2 isn't the only issue with burning coal. It is dirty and causes a lot of problems other than CO2. The recycling of batteries is pretty spotty. Theoretically a lot of it can be recycled, but that isn't happening much in reality as it is very expensive and not all is amenable to perfect recycling.

Note I am not against electric cars, this was a fascinating article and I hope this guy is very successful. We just get into the mode of "all X is good, all Y is bad" when both X and Y have pluses and minuses. Maybe X's pluses outweigh the minuses more than Y's do, but it is rarely a black and white issue. If we convert overnight to electric cars we are going to have massive battery disposal issues to address, and a threat to our ground water, even as our air grows cleaner.

There are a lot of issues with ice vehicles besides CO2 as well.

 

[BattleshipTexas]

There are a lot of issues with ice vehicles besides CO2 as well.

Sure, they just aren't new issues, they are ones that we have lived with or dealt with for decades, not new surprises like what will happen with any quick change over to all electric.

 

[tzrider]

Sure, they just aren't new issues, they are ones that we have lived with or dealt with for decades, not new surprises like what will happen with any quick change over to all electric.

Electricity is new?

 

[Dualthreat]

Isn't it creating a whole new set of problems with disposal of all these giant batteries that are so dangerous for water quality? It may be a good thing overall, but it does create new problems for all the old it solves. Also the electrons you put in the vehicle were produced with something, maybe even coal, likely natural gas, nuclear in some places.

Lithium ion batteries are less toxic than most other battery types and can be recycled, but not in the regular blue recycling bins, they have to go to specific locations.

Electrons can be created at places like the wind production farms in Texas that Austin Energy gets its renewable energy from. You can sign up for entirely renewable energy by phoning them or going online to GreenChoice Energy here. I'd be delighted to have you join me. There have been times when it was the same price or cheaper than conventional energy production because the price of wind was locked in but the price of conventional was increasing. FYI.

Austin Energy customers are now getting almost one third of their electricity from renewable resources. That means Austin is on track to meet its sustainability goal of 55% renewable energy by 2025. In addition to solar power, Austin Energy receives 1,360 MW from other renewable sources, mostly Texas wind.

The East Pecos Solar Facility is the third utility-scale solar plant to provide clean, carbon-free energy to Austin Energy customers. It joins the Webberville Solar Farm located east of Austin, and the Roserock Solar Facility, which is also located in Pecos County.

Kirk Sorensen is one of the global leaders in knowledge of an apparently viable safe nuclear reactor design that essentially burns nuclear waste, and is unable to go out of control (like Chernobyl did, for example). It's called Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor (LFTR), and there was a design tested and running in the 1960s, before another design became the dominant design in the U.S. and most of the world. Learn about LFTR HERE. There are short videos if you don't want to watch the longer versions, which are fascinating. There is a short TED talk here.

 

[BattleshipTexas]

Electricity is new?

Having the majority of our population driving cars run by giant car batteries will be new when (if) it happens. I mean that is what is being proposed as a solution to CO2, right? There will be new challenges caused by that, even as it solves other ones.

 

[BattleshipTexas]

Lithium ion batteries are less toxic than most other battery types and can be recycled, but not in the regular blue recycling bins, they have to go to specific locations.

Electrons can be created at places like the wind production farms in Texas that Austin Energy gets its renewable energy from. You can sign up for entirely renewable energy by phoning them or going online to GreenChoice Energy here. I'd be delighted to have you join me. There have been times when it was the same price or cheaper than conventional energy production because the price of wind was locked in but the price of conventional was increasing. FYI.

Austin Energy customers are now getting almost one third of their electricity from renewable resources. That means Austin is on track to meet its sustainability goal of 55% renewable energy by 2025. In addition to solar power, Austin Energy receives 1,360 MW from other renewable sources, mostly Texas wind.

The East Pecos Solar Facility is the third utility-scale solar plant to provide clean, carbon-free energy to Austin Energy customers. It joins the Webberville Solar Farm located east of Austin, and the Roserock Solar Facility, which is also located in Pecos County.

Kirk Sorensen is one of the global leaders in knowledge of an apparently viable safe nuclear reactor design that essentially burns nuclear waste, and is unable to go out of control (like Chernobyl did, for example). It's called Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor (LFTR), and there was a design tested and running in the 1960s, before another design became the dominant design in the U.S. and most of the world. Learn about LFTR HERE. There are short videos if you don't want to watch the longer versions, which are fascinating. There is a short TED talk here.

So you are saying we can't even generate a majority of present electric needs with renewable sources and you are proposing adding the whole transportation system to the need for electricity? Saying lithium batteries are less toxic than other batteries is like saying rattlesnake venom is less toxic than cobra venom. It is still bad. All batteries have toxic materials, including lithium. If we change our whole transportation system to a battery intensive design, we better have a better plan than what I am seeing so far. I would love a completely safe nuclear reactor, but none in operation today are completely safe, are they? I hope Mr. Sorenson can improve that industry. Again, I am not against electric cars, cleaning up our air is an important priority. I just worry when those with a religious fervor paint things as X is all good and Y all bad. Every transportation design is going to have strengths and weaknesses and we need to acknowledge that and make rational choices. Maybe electric cars will be the best course, but don't pretend it doesn't present new challenges, just as it helps with air quality, it brings difficulties in other areas.

 

[McHorn]

So you are saying we can't even generate a majority of present electric needs with renewable sources and you are proposing adding the whole transportation system to the need for electricity? Saying lithium batteries are less toxic than other batteries is like saying rattlesnake venom is less toxic than cobra venom. It is still bad. All batteries have toxic materials, including lithium. If we change our whole transportation system to a battery intensive design, we better have a better plan than what I am seeing so far. I would love a completely safe nuclear reactor, but none in operation today are completely safe, are they? I hope Mr. Sorenson can improve that industry. Again, I am not against electric cars, cleaning up our air is an important priority. I just worry when those with a religious fervor paint things as X is all good and Y all bad. Every transportation design is going to have strengths and weaknesses and we need to acknowledge that and make rational choices. Maybe electric cars will be the best course, but don't pretend it doesn't present new challenges, just as it helps with air quality, it brings difficulties in other areas.

The co2 stuff is pretty much nonsense. Electric cars in reality won’t lower temperatures.

They will absolutely lower particulate emissions and move pollution out of population centers. That’s a very good thing.

 

[Dualthreat]

So you are saying we can't even generate a majority of present electric needs with renewable sources and you are proposing adding the whole transportation system to the need for electricity? Saying lithium batteries are less toxic than other batteries is like saying rattlesnake venom is less toxic than cobra venom. It is still bad. All batteries have toxic materials, including lithium. If we change our whole transportation system to a battery intensive design, we better have a better plan than what I am seeing so far. I would love a completely safe nuclear reactor, but none in operation today are completely safe, are they? I hope Mr. Sorenson can improve that industry. Again, I am not against electric cars, cleaning up our air is an important priority. I just worry when those with a religious fervor paint things as X is all good and Y all bad. Every transportation design is going to have strengths and weaknesses and we need to acknowledge that and make rational choices. Maybe electric cars will be the best course, but don't pretend it doesn't present new challenges, just as it helps with air quality, it brings difficulties in other areas.

I didn't say we cannot generate electricity with renewable sources.

I didn't propose adding a transportation system.

Your snake venom comparison is nonsensical.

Current nuclear generation of electricity may be one of the safer forms of generation behind wind and solar, as fossil fuel costs to the environment don't get figured into safety assessments the way a nuclear meltdown would. If you look at this chart of U.S. nuclear incidents / accidents you will find approximately 13 deaths since the 1950s, most are accidental as opposed to resulting from issues like out of control nuclear reactors. If you don't take the time to understand LFTR as I referenced above you will not understand why it is so fundamentally more safe as a nuclear energy design. LFTR is only one of multiple new nuclear designs being worked on to be brought to market by industry today.

This is my last post with you on this thread on these topics.

Hook'em Horns!

 

[tzrider]

Having the majority of our population driving cars run by giant car batteries will be new when (if) it happens. I mean that is what is being proposed as a solution to CO2, right? There will be new challenges caused by that, even as it solves other ones.

We are good at challenges.

 

[BattleshipTexas]

We are good at challenges.

We will need to be. Maybe it will be worth it. But those are burying their head in the sand, ignoring the fact that there will be challenges, are as much a part of the problem as those who go by the motto "all change is bad."