Apple partnering with tech giants for big clean energy buy

Posted:
in General Discussion
Apple, eBay, Samsung, and Sprint have joined forces to purchase clean power from a new wind farm owned and developed by Apex Clean Energy.

Windfarm


The wind farm, named the White Mesa Wind project, will be located in Crocket County, Texas. When completed in 2021, it will be capable of supplying 500 megawatts of power to the surrounding area.

Founded in 2009, Apex Clean Energy is a wind-energy company based in Virginia with 13 wind energy projects in Oklahoma, Texas, and Illinois.

Apple will be the largest purchaser in the agreement. Between the four companies, the purchase totals 75 megawatts of clean energy-- or enough to power roughly 20,000 homes. The agreement will enable those involved to access cost-effective renewable energy from Apex.

Californian energy liaison company 3degrees facilitated the agreement.

Lisa Jackson, Apple's Vice President of environment, policy, and social initiatives spoke of the agreement.

"We're proud to be powering all of Apple's operations around the world with 100 percent renewable energy and driving the private sector to support the clean energy transition. Businesses of all sizes and of varying energy needs can help bring new, renewable energy online. This collaborative agreement in Texas is a model we hope others will replicate."

Apple has been spearheading quite a few new green projects. In September, Apple brought three wind farms on the grid in China.

Apple has also helped to encourage other companies, as well as their component suppliers, to move to using renewable energy. The project, known as the China Clean Energy Fund, provides both funds and information to companies interested in utilizing green energy in their supply chain.

This is extremely important, as a majority of a consumer electronics company's carbon footprint is in manufacturing and shipping. For example, 70% of Apple's corporate carbon footprint lies in their supply chain.

Tim Cook mentioned that Apple is brainstorming new ways to encourage third-party product manufacturers, like those who make cases or accessories, to think about their energy use. In the future, it's possible that Apple may offer a special badge or certification for mindfully produced goods, in addition to culling what gets sold in official Apple Stores.

Having Samsung, Sprint, and eBay on board for the agreement could spur more changes across the industry. Consumers are beginning to expect a company to do more in terms of sustainability and environmental stewardship, and any company that eschews environmentally-friendly practices could be left behind.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    How many more millions of birds are these companies willing to kill and remove from our environment?

    If these companies were genuinely concerned about “renewable” power sources, they’d back next-generation nuclear power (aka “molten salt reactors”, “pebble bed reactors”). Solar and wind power don’t even come close to the efficiency of nuclear.
    bigtdsjony0
  • Reply 2 of 19
    How many more millions of birds are these companies willing to kill and remove from our environment?

    Nowhere as many as cats kill. 

    lolliver
  • Reply 3 of 19
    toysandme said:
    How many more millions of birds are these companies willing to kill and remove from our environment?

    Nowhere as many as cats kill. 

    When a cat does it, it’s nature’s way. When a windmill farm does it, it’s an abbatoir.
  • Reply 4 of 19
    toysandme said:
    How many more millions of birds are these companies willing to kill and remove from our environment?
    Nowhere as many as cats kill.
    When a cat does it, it’s nature’s way. When a windmill farm does it, it’s an abbatoir.
    Are you an uneducated bird lover, or are you a tool of the carbon lobby?

    Climate change will drive entire species to extinction (never mind what it'll do to us). The bird deaths due to windmills are unfortunate, but a much lesser price to pay. No person (or indeed any creature) can live entirely without footprints; unless you're willing to self-euthanize, you're going to have impacts on other entities, birds or others. Are you a vegetarian? Are you willing to attempt to legislate that everyone else become one? If not, your protests are a transparent deception.

    All that said, I'm strongly in favor of developing next-gen nuclear. It's good to have options. But there is no possible way we're going to have any significant portion of our energy use served by new nuclear reactors in the next 10 years, even if we start construction right now. You want nuclear? Good, go for it, but in the meantime we need other options. And in any case, it is not a sensible investment for Apple or other companies. It's speculative and very long-term, whereas solar and wind can be put in place in a year, give or take.
    auxiominicoffeewatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 19
    mobirdmobird Posts: 621member
    As I have mentioned previously, we have been driving between our homes in Colorado and Arkansas for the past decade and have observed the installation of massive wind farms across Kansas and Colorado. We make this drive 3-4 times a year and during all the different seasons. It is amazing how often the turbines sit idle while we are making these trips. The pumpjacks keep running 24/7 and have been doing so for decades...
    And by the way, there is no way in hell I am making the drive in a electric car.
    Just saying...

    edited November 2019
  • Reply 6 of 19
    toysandme said:
    How many more millions of birds are these companies willing to kill and remove from our environment?
    Nowhere as many as cats kill.
    When a cat does it, it’s nature’s way. When a windmill farm does it, it’s an abbatoir.
    Are you an uneducated bird lover, or are you a tool of the carbon lobby?

    Climate change will drive entire species to extinction (never mind what it'll do to us). The bird deaths due to windmills are unfortunate, but a much lesser price to pay. No person (or indeed any creature) can live entirely without footprints; unless you're willing to self-euthanize, you're going to have impacts on other entities, birds or others. Are you a vegetarian? Are you willing to attempt to legislate that everyone else become one? If not, your protests are a transparent deception.

    All that said, I'm strongly in favor of developing next-gen nuclear. It's good to have options. But there is no possible way we're going to have any significant portion of our energy use served by new nuclear reactors in the next 10 years, even if we start construction right now. You want nuclear? Good, go for it, but in the meantime we need other options. And in any case, it is not a sensible investment for Apple or other companies. It's speculative and very long-term, whereas solar and wind can be put in place in a year, give or take.
    You got me. I’m part of the Cat Lobby.

    Also, nuclear is the only source (other than hydroelectric) which can be relied on for 24/7 power. Wind and solar only work when the winds blow and the sun shines. Power isn’t stored when these “renewable” power sources are not producing electricity. And wind power shuts down for safety if the winds are too strong.
    edited November 2019 bigtdsjony0
  • Reply 7 of 19
    mobird said:
    And by the way, there is no way in hell I am making the drive in a electric car.
    Just saying...

    Really? Most current electric cars can get you 3+ hours of highway driving between full charges. Full charge in an hour or less. That's usually a good time to get out, have a meal, stretch your legs, etc.

    If the Lithium-CO2 (7x energy density of current) batteries work out you could see EVs with 1000+ mile ranges. That technology is still in early development so I don't know what the charge speeds will be. There are some new ways of handling current lithium cells that allow for much faster charging, although that would take new pack designs and faster rated chargers (many 50KW around Alberta - mostly down south though, 100, 150, 200KW chargers are widespread in Europe and parts of North America).

    SpamSandwich Said:SpamSandwich said:
    Power isn’t stored when these “renewable” power sources are not producing electricity. 
    Power IS stored in the UK, Germany, Australia…
    lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 19
    thttht Posts: 4,029member
    mobird said:
    As I have mentioned previously, we have been driving between our homes in Colorado and Arkansas for the past decade and have observed the installation of massive wind farms across Kansas and Colorado. We make this drive 3-4 times a year and during all the different seasons. It is amazing how often the turbines sit idle while we are making these trips. The pumpjacks keep running 24/7 and have been doing so for decades...
    And by the way, there is no way in hell I am making the drive in a electric car.
    Just saying...

    Kansas and Oklahoma get 30% to 35% of their energy from wind. Colorado doesn’t have that much installed capacity, and are sitting at 15% or so. Wind energy is generally, not always, generally, nocturnal along the USA wind corridor from the Dakotas going south to west Texas. That is, most of the wind energy is generated at night and early mornings. So, during most daytime hours, they likely will be spinning slower.

    They may not be spinning “fast” when you make your drives, but they are doing their jobs if they are generating that much energy in those states. And spinning slowly is a feature of modern wind turbines versus the videos of super fast spinning wind turbines seen on TV. Their height, size and slower rotation rates eek out more energy out of the wind and are less harmful to life in terms of noise, birds, and over the grand scheme of things, less harmful for everyone.

    When the offshore wind turbines are built off USA coasts, now those will be very very big. 6, 8, 12 MW turbines versus the 1, 2 To 4 MW turbines used for land-based wind turbines.
    lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 19
    thttht Posts: 4,029member

    How many more millions of birds are these companies willing to kill and remove from our environment?

    If these companies were genuinely concerned about “renewable” power sources, they’d back next-generation nuclear power (aka “molten salt reactors”, “pebble bed reactors”). Solar and wind power don’t even come close to the efficiency of nuclear.
    There are already billionaires backing nuclear. More power to them if they can decrease nuclear costs down by half. People would love it if the costs of nuclear went down by a quarter even. As it stands today, renewables plus storage is going to be 2x to 3x, probably 4x, cheaper than nuclear. Pretty hard to beat those economics.
    edited November 2019 lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 19
    RhythmagicRhythmagic Posts: 63unconfirmed, member
    Cool
  • Reply 11 of 19
    mobirdmobird Posts: 621member
    mknelson said:
    mobird said:
    And by the way, there is no way in hell I am making the drive in a electric car.
    Just saying...

    Really? Most current electric cars can get you 3+ hours of highway driving between full charges. Full charge in an hour or less. That's usually a good time to get out, have a meal, stretch your legs, etc.
    These trips already take 2 days and I am not interested in adding another day to the trip and good luck finding a charging station across a large swath of Kansas.
    I'll continue to use a vehicle with a combustible engine.
  • Reply 12 of 19
    mobirdmobird Posts: 621member
    tht said:
    mobird said:
    As I have mentioned previously, we have been driving between our homes in Colorado and Arkansas for the past decade and have observed the installation of massive wind farms across Kansas and Colorado. We make this drive 3-4 times a year and during all the different seasons. It is amazing how often the turbines sit idle while we are making these trips. The pumpjacks keep running 24/7 and have been doing so for decades...
    And by the way, there is no way in hell I am making the drive in a electric car.
    Just saying...

    Kansas and Oklahoma get 30% to 35% of their energy from wind. Colorado doesn’t have that much installed capacity, and are sitting at 15% or so. Wind energy is generally, not always, generally, nocturnal along the USA wind corridor from the Dakotas going south to west Texas. That is, most of the wind energy is generated at night and early mornings. So, during most daytime hours, they likely will be spinning slower.

    They may not be spinning “fast” when you make your drives, but they are doing their jobs if they are generating that much energy in those states. And spinning slowly is a feature of modern wind turbines versus the videos of super fast spinning wind turbines seen on TV. Their height, size and slower rotation rates eek out more energy out of the wind and are less harmful to life in terms of noise, birds, and over the grand scheme of things, less harmful for everyone.

    When the offshore wind turbines are built off USA coasts, now those will be very very big. 6, 8, 12 MW turbines versus the 1, 2 To 4 MW turbines used for land-based wind turbines.
    The turbines are not "spinning slowly", they are not spinning at all.

    The turbines that run parallel and in close proximity to I-70 and are very visible at night, are many times idle. As mentioned, our trips vary and we have noted many times the fact the turbines are idle. We actually look forward to this portion of our trip and are disappointed when they sit there collecting dust.
  • Reply 13 of 19
    thttht Posts: 4,029member
    mobird said:
    tht said:
    mobird said:
    As I have mentioned previously, we have been driving between our homes in Colorado and Arkansas for the past decade and have observed the installation of massive wind farms across Kansas and Colorado. We make this drive 3-4 times a year and during all the different seasons. It is amazing how often the turbines sit idle while we are making these trips. The pumpjacks keep running 24/7 and have been doing so for decades...
    And by the way, there is no way in hell I am making the drive in a electric car.
    Just saying...

    Kansas and Oklahoma get 30% to 35% of their energy from wind. Colorado doesn’t have that much installed capacity, and are sitting at 15% or so. Wind energy is generally, not always, generally, nocturnal along the USA wind corridor from the Dakotas going south to west Texas. That is, most of the wind energy is generated at night and early mornings. So, during most daytime hours, they likely will be spinning slower.

    They may not be spinning “fast” when you make your drives, but they are doing their jobs if they are generating that much energy in those states. And spinning slowly is a feature of modern wind turbines versus the videos of super fast spinning wind turbines seen on TV. Their height, size and slower rotation rates eek out more energy out of the wind and are less harmful to life in terms of noise, birds, and over the grand scheme of things, less harmful for everyone.

    When the offshore wind turbines are built off USA coasts, now those will be very very big. 6, 8, 12 MW turbines versus the 1, 2 To 4 MW turbines used for land-based wind turbines.
    The turbines are not "spinning slowly", they are not spinning at all.

    The turbines that run parallel and in close proximity to I-70 and are very visible at night, are many times idle. As mentioned, our trips vary and we have noted many times the fact the turbines are idle. We actually look forward to this portion of our trip and are disappointed when they sit there collecting dust.
    Looks like you are unlucky then. Wind energy has doubled in Colorado over the last 10 years and it has 35% share in Kansas. They do indeed work.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 19
    How many more millions of birds are these companies willing to kill and remove from our environment?

    If these companies were genuinely concerned about “renewable” power sources, they’d back next-generation nuclear power (aka “molten salt reactors”, “pebble bed reactors”). Solar and wind power don’t even come close to the efficiency of nuclear.
    Yet... I've seen clear evidence with my own eyes that the area under the wind turbine becomes a safe place for ground nesting birds to nest and raise their young. The turbine keeps the raptors away which are the main predator of these chicks.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 19
    How many more millions of birds are these companies willing to kill and remove from our environment?

    If these companies were genuinely concerned about “renewable” power sources, they’d back next-generation nuclear power (aka “molten salt reactors”, “pebble bed reactors”). Solar and wind power don’t even come close to the efficiency of nuclear.
    For the record, nuclear is NOT a renewable. It is low/no carbon, but to does consume fuel that is finite and has to be dug up, processed and transported. Waste still has to be managed. The current business environment makes new nuclear difficult as companies seem to want to privatize the profits while de-risking to the public.

    Don't get me wrong, I also think nuclear can be doing more but it is not the magic bullet either.
    tht
  • Reply 16 of 19
    mknelson said:
    mobird said:
    And by the way, there is no way in hell I am making the drive in a electric car.
    Just saying...

    Really? Most current electric cars can get you 3+ hours of highway driving between full charges. Full charge in an hour or less. That's usually a good time to get out, have a meal, stretch your legs, etc.

    If the Lithium-CO2 (7x energy density of current) batteries work out you could see EVs with 1000+ mile ranges. That technology is still in early development so I don't know what the charge speeds will be. There are some new ways of handling current lithium cells that allow for much faster charging, although that would take new pack designs and faster rated chargers (many 50KW around Alberta - mostly down south though, 100, 150, 200KW chargers are widespread in Europe and parts of North America).

    SpamSandwich Said:SpamSandwich said:
    Power isn’t stored when these “renewable” power sources are not producing electricity. 
    Power IS stored in the UK, Germany, Australia…
    I am only referring to the US in this instance.
  • Reply 17 of 19
    mobird said:
    As I have mentioned previously, we have been driving between our homes in Colorado and Arkansas for the past decade and have observed the installation of massive wind farms across Kansas and Colorado. We make this drive 3-4 times a year and during all the different seasons. It is amazing how often the turbines sit idle while we are making these trips. The pumpjacks keep running 24/7 and have been doing so for decades...
    And by the way, there is no way in hell I am making the drive in a electric car.
    Just saying...
    You keep telling this story like it means something. It means absolutely nothing. What matters is, do those turbines produce power more economically than non-renewable sources? What about when you factor in the price of carbon? The answer is sometimes "yes" to the first question, and always "yes" to the second.

    As for your need for a very-long-range capable car: whatever. You want to keep using gas, I don't need to fight with you. You represent an extreme end of a bell curve. (In fact, it's probably nothing like a bell curve, but in any event you're in a tiny minority of car drivers who need extremely long range.) EVs will make financial and practical sense to an rapidly increasing portion of the market over the next few years. And it may take time, but battery tech *will* get to where you need it to be to be practical for you.
    toysandme said:
    How many more millions of birds are these companies willing to kill and remove from our environment?
    Nowhere as many as cats kill.
    When a cat does it, it’s nature’s way. When a windmill farm does it, it’s an abbatoir.
    Are you an uneducated bird lover, or are you a tool of the carbon lobby?

    Climate change will drive entire species to extinction (never mind what it'll do to us). The bird deaths due to windmills are unfortunate, but a much lesser price to pay. No person (or indeed any creature) can live entirely without footprints; unless you're willing to self-euthanize, you're going to have impacts on other entities, birds or others. Are you a vegetarian? Are you willing to attempt to legislate that everyone else become one? If not, your protests are a transparent deception.

    All that said, I'm strongly in favor of developing next-gen nuclear. It's good to have options. But there is no possible way we're going to have any significant portion of our energy use served by new nuclear reactors in the next 10 years, even if we start construction right now. You want nuclear? Good, go for it, but in the meantime we need other options. And in any case, it is not a sensible investment for Apple or other companies. It's speculative and very long-term, whereas solar and wind can be put in place in a year, give or take.
    You got me. I’m part of the Cat Lobby.

    Also, nuclear is the only source (other than hydroelectric) which can be relied on for 24/7 power. Wind and solar only work when the winds blow and the sun shines. Power isn’t stored when these “renewable” power sources are not producing electricity. And wind power shuts down for safety if the winds are too strong.
    So to answer my own question, I'm going with "he's snarkily ignorant".

    In fact, wind and solar can be (and are!) paired with large batteries to provide 24/7 power. At the moment, in the US, we generally don't bother with this because we have enough capacity to deal with their intermittency, including (annoyingly) gas-fired plants which can be brought up and down fairly quickly. Over time that will change, and you'll see lots of battery capacity coming up here too.
  • Reply 18 of 19
    mobird said:
    As I have mentioned previously, we have been driving between our homes in Colorado and Arkansas for the past decade and have observed the installation of massive wind farms across Kansas and Colorado. We make this drive 3-4 times a year and during all the different seasons. It is amazing how often the turbines sit idle while we are making these trips. The pumpjacks keep running 24/7 and have been doing so for decades...
    And by the way, there is no way in hell I am making the drive in a electric car.
    Just saying...
    You keep telling this story like it means something. It means absolutely nothing. What matters is, do those turbines produce power more economically than non-renewable sources? What about when you factor in the price of carbon? The answer is sometimes "yes" to the first question, and always "yes" to the second.

    As for your need for a very-long-range capable car: whatever. You want to keep using gas, I don't need to fight with you. You represent an extreme end of a bell curve. (In fact, it's probably nothing like a bell curve, but in any event you're in a tiny minority of car drivers who need extremely long range.) EVs will make financial and practical sense to an rapidly increasing portion of the market over the next few years. And it may take time, but battery tech *will* get to where you need it to be to be practical for you.
    toysandme said:
    How many more millions of birds are these companies willing to kill and remove from our environment?
    Nowhere as many as cats kill.
    When a cat does it, it’s nature’s way. When a windmill farm does it, it’s an abbatoir.
    Are you an uneducated bird lover, or are you a tool of the carbon lobby?

    Climate change will drive entire species to extinction (never mind what it'll do to us). The bird deaths due to windmills are unfortunate, but a much lesser price to pay. No person (or indeed any creature) can live entirely without footprints; unless you're willing to self-euthanize, you're going to have impacts on other entities, birds or others. Are you a vegetarian? Are you willing to attempt to legislate that everyone else become one? If not, your protests are a transparent deception.

    All that said, I'm strongly in favor of developing next-gen nuclear. It's good to have options. But there is no possible way we're going to have any significant portion of our energy use served by new nuclear reactors in the next 10 years, even if we start construction right now. You want nuclear? Good, go for it, but in the meantime we need other options. And in any case, it is not a sensible investment for Apple or other companies. It's speculative and very long-term, whereas solar and wind can be put in place in a year, give or take.
    You got me. I’m part of the Cat Lobby.

    Also, nuclear is the only source (other than hydroelectric) which can be relied on for 24/7 power. Wind and solar only work when the winds blow and the sun shines. Power isn’t stored when these “renewable” power sources are not producing electricity. And wind power shuts down for safety if the winds are too strong.
    So to answer my own question, I'm going with "he's snarkily ignorant".

    In fact, wind and solar can be (and are!) paired with large batteries to provide 24/7 power. At the moment, in the US, we generally don't bother with this because we have enough capacity to deal with their intermittency, including (annoyingly) gas-fired plants which can be brought up and down fairly quickly. Over time that will change, and you'll see lots of battery capacity coming up here too.
    Batteries at the individual home level are an interesting idea and I’ve looked into the Tesla Powerwall. It’ll take serious competition and advances in battery tech before they are affordable for a large swath of the US public. I also like the idea of electric vehicles... more than their practical reality. They are still not as widely available, range competitive or affordable as ICE vehicles.
  • Reply 19 of 19
    mobird said:
    As I have mentioned previously, we have been driving between our homes in Colorado and Arkansas for the past decade and have observed the installation of massive wind farms across Kansas and Colorado. We make this drive 3-4 times a year and during all the different seasons. It is amazing how often the turbines sit idle while we are making these trips. The pumpjacks keep running 24/7 and have been doing so for decades...
    And by the way, there is no way in hell I am making the drive in a electric car.
    Just saying...
    You keep telling this story like it means something. It means absolutely nothing. What matters is, do those turbines produce power more economically than non-renewable sources? What about when you factor in the price of carbon? The answer is sometimes "yes" to the first question, and always "yes" to the second.

    As for your need for a very-long-range capable car: whatever. You want to keep using gas, I don't need to fight with you. You represent an extreme end of a bell curve. (In fact, it's probably nothing like a bell curve, but in any event you're in a tiny minority of car drivers who need extremely long range.) EVs will make financial and practical sense to an rapidly increasing portion of the market over the next few years. And it may take time, but battery tech *will* get to where you need it to be to be practical for you.
    toysandme said:
    How many more millions of birds are these companies willing to kill and remove from our environment?
    Nowhere as many as cats kill.
    When a cat does it, it’s nature’s way. When a windmill farm does it, it’s an abbatoir.
    Are you an uneducated bird lover, or are you a tool of the carbon lobby?

    Climate change will drive entire species to extinction (never mind what it'll do to us). The bird deaths due to windmills are unfortunate, but a much lesser price to pay. No person (or indeed any creature) can live entirely without footprints; unless you're willing to self-euthanize, you're going to have impacts on other entities, birds or others. Are you a vegetarian? Are you willing to attempt to legislate that everyone else become one? If not, your protests are a transparent deception.

    All that said, I'm strongly in favor of developing next-gen nuclear. It's good to have options. But there is no possible way we're going to have any significant portion of our energy use served by new nuclear reactors in the next 10 years, even if we start construction right now. You want nuclear? Good, go for it, but in the meantime we need other options. And in any case, it is not a sensible investment for Apple or other companies. It's speculative and very long-term, whereas solar and wind can be put in place in a year, give or take.
    You got me. I’m part of the Cat Lobby.

    Also, nuclear is the only source (other than hydroelectric) which can be relied on for 24/7 power. Wind and solar only work when the winds blow and the sun shines. Power isn’t stored when these “renewable” power sources are not producing electricity. And wind power shuts down for safety if the winds are too strong.
    So to answer my own question, I'm going with "he's snarkily ignorant".

    In fact, wind and solar can be (and are!) paired with large batteries to provide 24/7 power. At the moment, in the US, we generally don't bother with this because we have enough capacity to deal with their intermittency, including (annoyingly) gas-fired plants which can be brought up and down fairly quickly. Over time that will change, and you'll see lots of battery capacity coming up here too.
    Batteries at the individual home level are an interesting idea and I’ve looked into the Tesla Powerwall. It’ll take serious competition and advances in battery tech before they are affordable for a large swath of the US public. I also like the idea of electric vehicles... more than their practical reality. They are still not as widely available, range competitive or affordable as ICE vehicles.
    Now that, we can have a reasoned discussion over.

    I wasn't talking about home batteries at all, but as you say, they're interesting. Much like electric cars, there's an adoption curve, and we're much closer to the start of that curve.

    I was talking about utility-sized batteries, and those are most definitely cost effective right now, in many locations. Utilities don't face the same set of constraints as vehicles (or phones) do, so some technology options become available there that aren't possible in cars- flow batteries, pumped hydro, etc. See for example https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/71714.pdf, which discusses this in section 2, even though it favors li-ion. For a brief overview of storage and projections for the US, see https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40072 .

    As for ICE vehicles, what you say is more true than not for the moment, if you discount the cost of carbon (which you shouldn't, but that's apparently a pointless discussion here). However, that appears to be changing rapidly, despite the race-suicidal efforts of the current administration. I've seen estimates that ICEV TCO will exceed EV TCO by 2022/2023, and they seem plausible to me, but even if that turns out to be wrong, it won't be for long. And in the (likely?) event of a democratic congress and administration starting in 2020, that trend will only get stronger.
Sign In or Register to comment.