Battery Tech Advances, Prices Drop (2010 - 2025)

image by Grok

The battery revolution is transforming global energy systems. Energy storage is spreading across sectors and regions to cut fossil fuel use and drive a zero-carbon future. Comparing today’s electric vehicle (EV) batteries to the 2010 Nissan Leaf shows massive progress, and current technology is already delivering without needing a magical breakthrough. While future innovations will push further, today’s batteries are proving their worth right now.

Battery Technology Advancements

Lithium-ion battery chemistries dominate EVs. There are two primary Li-ion chemistries, nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) and lithium iron phosphate (LFP). LFP has a 45% EV market share in 2025, up from 41% in 2024. LFP growth is driven by low cost and safety. NMC has better energy density but a higher price. It's used in more demanding applications. CATL’s Qilin battery achieves 255 Wh/kg for NMC cells and 160 Wh/kg for LFP. 

Sodium-ion batteries can be 20% cheaper than LFP but have an even lower energy density. CATL and BYD produce sodium-ion cells suitable for smaller, short-range urban EVs. Solid-state batteries, hyped by Toyota and QuantumScape, promise higher performance but are stuck in development. Toyota’s obsession with solid-state is like little orphan Annie dreaming of tomorrow, always a day away. Silicon anodes and graphene-based batteries, advanced by Sila Nanotechnologies and others, enhance energy storage and charging speeds. This shows that there's a roadmap for continued improvement.

           

Gradual improvements, year-over-year, have delivered batteries that can do everything that we need right now. There's no need to wait for a big breakthrough.

No Breakthrough Needed

Comparing the cost and specs of the 2010 Nissan Leaf battery tech to 2025 cells proves we didn’t need to wait for a “game-changer.” The Leaf’s 24 kWh lithium-ion battery had 90 Wh/kg and a 73-mile range (EPA). At $750/kWh, the battery cost dominated the car's price tag. Today’s LFP or NMC batteries reach 160 to 255 Wh/kg, with ranges of 300 to 620 miles. A Tesla Model Y’s 75 kWh pack tops 300 miles, while premium NMC cells could hit nearly 400 miles for the same weight. Modern packs are 900 to 1,200 pounds and utilize efficient cell-to-pack designs. Modern charging speeds are much faster, with BYD’s 400kW stations reaching 80% in 10 to 20 minutes, far beyond the Leaf’s 50 kW DC charging. Modern durability is also better, with 2025 batteries holding 80% capacity after 200,000 miles, compared to the Leaf’s poor degradation. Today’s battery tech is electrifying cars, trucks, and grids, no solid-state fantasy required.

Battery Prices Plummet

Battery prices have plummeted since the Leaf’s $750/kWh in 2010. In 2024 alone, global pack prices dropped 20% to $115/kWh, with China’s LFP under $100/kWh. In 2025, prices are nearing $100/kWh globally, with $80/kWh expected by 2026. This will allow EVs to have price parity with gas vehicles. Falling raw material costs, Chinese production surplus, and manufacturing innovations drive this trend.

With these low prices, batteries will find their way into more applications. Energy storage for the grid and homes is just starting. With low prices, storage will be abundant. Imagine being able to draw from solar-charged batteries at any time, day or night, 24/7/365, avoiding peak rates and keeping the lights on during utility power outages. Batteries allow for this flexibility that intermittent sources alone cannot provide.

Electric Vehicles in 2025

Globally, EV sales reached 17 million in 2024, up 25% from 2023, with 2025 projections exceeding 20 million. China leads with nearly 60% of 2023’s registrations, followed by Europe and the US. Batteries now power grid storage, heavy trucks, and even short-range aviation. Supply chain and geopolitical challenges persist, but investment and collaboration will sustain progress.

Parameter	2010 EV Battery Tech (e.g., Nissan Leaf)	2025 EV Battery Tech (Today)
Cost	$750/kWh	~ $100/kWh
Gravimetric Energy Density	90 Wh/kg	160-255 Wh/kg
Charging Rate	50 kW	400 kW
Degradation	~4.2% annually (passive air cooling)	~1.0-1.8% annually (liquid cooling)
EV Range	73 miles (EPA)	250-620 miles

Over the past 15 years, incremental improvements have compounded, dramatically transforming battery technology. The 2010 Nissan Leaf’s 90 Wh/kg, $750/kWh battery offered a 73-mile range and slow 50 kW charging. Today, 2025 tech boasts energy densities that are twice as good (160-255 Wh/kg), at costs that are one seventh (~$100/kWh), and four times plus range (300-620-mile); while charging faster (400 kW vs 50 kW). Battery degradation has dropped from 4.2% to less than 2% annually, thanks to advanced cooling and materials, driving EV adoption and again demonstrating that current battery tech excels without waiting for breakthroughs.

Wrapping Up

Batteries are transforming our present, powering EVs with impressive ranges and rapid charging, significantly reducing reliance on fossil fuels. They enable renewable energy storage, stabilizing grids, and improving resilience. With improved density driving efficiency, costs are dropping. Reduced degradation ensures longevity, paving the way for a cleaner and more sustainable future. While future advancements promise even greater performance, there is no need to wait before deploying solutions. Continued innovation and recycling will amplify these impacts, making batteries the foundation of a future free from fossil fuels.

20 Laps Around Earth [Part 2]

I recently published a post about generating enough solar energy to drive a Tesla Model 3 around Earth 20 times.

I received a question: "What's the value of half a million miles of electricity, and how much CO2 does that offset?" Those are interesting questions. I thought this would be just a small update on the original post. As I began to figure out the answers, it became apparent that these questions were deep enough for a complete post of their own. So, let's figure out the answers.

The 20 laps were solar-powered, but what if they were grid-powered or gas-powered instead? This is what we'll compare.  

Grid Electricity: Costs & Emissions

Since our PV system was installed in 2007, there have been many changes, both in prices and emissions from our local utility. Therefore, I cannot simply use today's price or emissions values and multiply. Luckily, I recently posted a history of my local utilities price changes and emissions from then until now. So, let's apply those values to our fictional intercontinental equatorial highway and see what pops out.

From 2007 to 2025, PGE’s residential electricity prices increased from approximately 8.19 cents per kWh to ~17.43 cents per kWh. 

During this same period, CO2 emissions per kWh have decreased significantly, from an estimated 0.5 pounds per kWh in 2007 to approximately 0.05 pounds per kWh by 2025. This reduction is largely due to the closure of the coal-fired Boardman plant in 2020 and PGE’s increased use of wind.

Crunching the Numbers

Grid Powered

Taking each year's average utility cost and emissions, and comparing them with our corresponding generation, shows that our half a million miles of solar energy are worth $17,316, and we've avoided 14,605 kg of CO2 emissions by using solar rather than the grid.

What About a Gas Car?

Above, we just examined electricity generation, but this was framed in terms of vehicle miles traveled. For comparison, you could also view this as the cost and pollution associated with driving this distance in a gas car. So let's get some data for gas, then we can compare gas, grid, and solar.

First, we have to pick a gas-powered car for this comparison. Since we used a 2018 Model 3 for the EV, let's pick a popular 2018 gas-powered sedan. The average fuel economy for gas-powered sedans in 2018 was around 32-35 MPG. The 2018 Honda Accord has a combined MPG of 33MPG, which fits nicely in the average range from that time, and it was a popular model. So, for our comparison, we'll use the 2018 Honda Accord.

If you were to drive a 33MPG car for 500,000 miles, that would use 15,625 gallons of gasoline. If we spread this out over the same 18 years that we looked at above, that would be nearly 28,000 miles per year. A true road warrior value, but not impossible. Similar to how we didn't just take today's electricity price and use it for all of the EV charging, I'll be equally fair to the petroleum car and look at historic gas prices. And just as we used local electricity prices, we'll use local (Oregon) gas prices.

In 2007, regular gasoline was $2.27/gallon. The lowest-priced year during our time window was 2009, coming in at $1.86. Looking at the high price, the pandemic pushed the average price to $4.50 in 2022, with peaks over $5 in some areas.

Plugging in each year's average fuel cost, the half-million-mile drive comes in with a total fuel cost of over $39,000 and more than 134 metric tons of CO2 emissions. 

Year	Avg. Gas Price ($/gallon)	Gallons Used	Cost ($)	CO₂ Emissions (kg)
2007	2.27	841.75	1,910.92	7,480
2008	2.66	841.75	2,237.99	7,480
2009	1.86	841.75	1,566.29	7,480
2010	2.28	841.75	1,919.38	7,480
2011	2.95	841.75	2,483.24	7,480
2012	3.03	841.75	2,550.72	7,480
2013	2.85	841.75	2,396.99	7,480
2014	2.69	841.75	2,265.52	7,480
2015	1.83	841.75	1,540.79	7,480
2016	1.49	841.75	1,255.26	7,480
2017	1.79	841.75	1,509.30	7,480
2018	2.13	841.75	1,792.44	7,480
2019	1.99	841.75	1,678.56	7,480
2020	1.47	841.75	1,238.75	7,480
2021	3.50	841.75	2,946.13	7,480
2022	4.50	841.75	3,787.88	7,480
2023	4.00	841.75	3,367.00	7,480
2024	3.50	841.75	2,946.13	7,480
Total	-	15,151.515	39,393.29	134,652

To be clear, the CO2 emissions here are only considering the car's tailpipe emissions. To capture the true emissions related to burning gasoline, you need a complete well-to-wheel (drill & spill) analysis that looks at all the pollution created to pump, transport, and refine the crude into gasoline. However, we didn't do a well-to-wheel (or coalmine-to-atmosphere) analysis for the grid, nor did we look at the production and transport footprint for the solar panels. I'm not suggesting that this analysis isn't meaningful, just pointing out this limitation.

Gas, Grid, & Solar

So now we've looked at all three methods to fuel this 500,000-mile trek. Here's a summary table: 

Energy Source	Fueling Cost	Emissions
Solar	$0*	0 metric tons
Grid Power	$17,316	14.6 metric tons
Gas-Powered	$39,383	134.7 metric tons

* after the solar is installed and paid off.

Conclusion

Unsurprisingly, solar is the clear winner; it has zero tailpipe emissions and (once the panels are paid for) zero ongoing costs.

Second across the finish line is grid power with a cost of $17,316 and 14.6 metric tons of CO2.

Coming in last is the gas-powered Honda Accord, costing more than twice as much as the grid-powered trip, while spewing out an order of magnitude more CO2.

Tesla Model Y - 2 Year Review, Battery Degradation

Two years ago, we drove home in a new Model Y. It's been a great car for us. My wife and I both prefer to drive this vehicle over our 2nd car (2018 Model 3), so the Model 3 doesn't hasn't had much time out of the garage for the last 2 years.

As our Model Y celebrates its 2nd birthday, it has just over 17,000 miles on the odometer.

Let's look at where we've driven, the software and full self-driving (supervised) updates we've received, and the degradation of our pack.

Trip Check

Bend

In March, we took a 350-mile round-trip to Bend, Oregon to visit some old friends and do a little spring skiing. We were able to make the drive from Portland to Bend without stopping to charge. There are two Tesla charging locations in Bend. We stopped at the one closest to our friend's house to grab a few kWh before unloading. This was the first time that I've seen our car charging at more than 1000 miles per hour. This was impressive.

We charged to just over 50% and then headed to our friend's place. When we arrived, he was excited to see us, as well as to see the car. He had a NEMA 14-50 outlet installed in his garage for his future EV and wanted to know if it worked. I had my mobile charger (don't leave home without it) and the required adapter. We plugged it in and it worked fine.

The trip was great fun, and we had no issues getting home.

Corvalis

We've made multiple round-trip drives to Corvallis. The nice thing about this 160-mile drive is that we don't need to stop to charge at all. There are multiple places we could charge (Wilsonville, Woodburn, Salem, and soon Albany), but nothing's as convenient (or affordable) as charging up at home. 

Driving Stats

This year, we put over 8,000 miles on the odometer. In the first year, we put just under 9,000 miles on the road. 

We Supercharged 4 times this year, compared to just charging 1 time in our first year. This is a little ironic since we drove more in the first year.

Our longest non-stop leg of any drive was just over 100 miles from Mill City, OR (where we stopped for lunch) to Bend. This mountainous drive used 46% of our battery capacity. This is also when we hit our highest elevation of 4,807 feet on the Santiam Highway before passing through Sisters, Oregon. 

Tires

Our OEM all-season tires (Continental ProContact RX 255/45 R19 104W XL), which came on our Y when we picked it up, now have about 9,500 miles on them. Our winter tires (Michelin X-Ice Snow 255 /45 R19 104H XL BSW) have about 7,500 miles on them. 

The all-seasons are averaging 253 Wh/Mile (85% efficiency), while the winter tires are at 278 Wh/Mile (77% efficiency).

Accessories

In the first year, we installed a roof rack system on our Y, and it didn't significantly impact the range.

Firmware Updates and FSD 

We started our second year of ownership on software version 2024.21.5 and (21 updates later) we finished it on 2025.26.4.

These 21 updates improved the backup camera view, improved security, added a new owner's guide, better audio controls, forward collision warning improvements, made use of the mmWave radar for child left alone detection (more on this coming soon), and many more items.

The latest new feature of note is the addition of Grok in the vehicle. It will be interesting to see what this evolves into.

FSD (Supervised)

Many of these 21 updates included new FSD versions too. We're currently on FSD v13.2.9. This is the best version of FSD yet; autonomy is going to happen.

Battery Degradation

Below is an interesting Model 3 and Y battery degradation chart with several model years on it. As you can see, the 2023 and 2024 Model Ys have the lowest degradation rate. That's good news for us.

Now let's compare this to my measured results. 

As you can see, we have about 7% degradation here at the end of year two. EV batteries degrade faster in the first 2 to 3 years due to an initial chemical stabilization reaction. During early cycles, a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer forms on the anode. This consumes some of the lithium in the battery and reduces capacity. When the SEI layer stabilizes, degradation slows. So, perhaps next year's degradation will be lower.

This degradation brings our EPA-rated range down from 330 miles to 307 miles. Still more than enough for our needs, even fully loaded in winter. The usable battery capacity is estimated at 74.5 kWh, down from its initial 80.2 kWh. This is one of the reasons that we purchased a long-range EV. Some degradation is normal, and if we bought a vehicle that could just barely do what we needed, and then the capacity reduced, we'd be unhappy with the vehicle. 

Referrals 

If you're interested in a Model Y (or any other Tesla), you can use my referral code and we'll both get perks (https://ts.la/patrick7819).

If you want to track your Tesla's battery degradation, highest elevation, or longest road trip (mine's easy to beat), you can use my TeslaFi referral to get all kinds of cool stats. Using a referral code gets you an extra month free, and I get one too.

Choosing the Best Heat Pump: Air Source or Ground Source (Geothermal)?

Introduction 

A heat pump is a versatile system that can both heat and cool a home, a fact that remains unknown to many people. Unlike traditional heating or air conditioning units designed for a single purpose, heat pumps efficiently transfer heat in either direction, extracting it from the outside air to warm your home in winter or removing heat from your home to cool your space in summer. This dual functionality, combined with energy efficiency, makes heat pumps a great solution.

Choosing the Right Heat Pump for Your Home

With rising energy costs and growing environmental concerns, heat pumps have become a popular choice for efficient heating and cooling in homes across the US. These systems are a great alternative to traditional furnaces or air conditioners. However, choosing between an air-source heat pump (ASHP) and a geothermal* ground-source heat pump (GSHP) can be daunting. Each type has unique benefits, costs, and requirements, making the decision dependent on factors like budget, space, and climate. This guide compares ASHPs and GSHPs, exploring their costs, efficiency, installation needs, and suitability to help you determine which is best for your home as of 2025.

Key Points

• Air source heat pumps (ASHPs) are generally more cost-effective and easier to install, while ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) offer higher efficiency, especially in colder climates.
• ASHPs are generally better for urban and suburban areas due to lower installation costs and space requirements, but in cold climates, GSHPs may save more long-term.
• There are two types of ASHPs: One, Mini-split (aka ductless) and; Two, Central air (aka ducted).

Space and Installation

• ASHPs require less space and are easier to install, making them suitable for urban or smaller properties. The outdoor portion generally requires the same space as a modern central air conditioner.
• GSHPs need significant land (600-1,200 square meters) for ground loops or boreholes, which can be disruptive and costly to install.

Year by year cost reductions

Cost Comparison

ASHPs typically cost between $3,500 and $20,000, depending on whether it’s a ductless mini-split system ($3,500-$6,000 per indoor head) or a central ducted system ($12,000-$20,000). GSHPs generally range from $10,000 to $50,000 or more, with higher costs for larger structures or those requiring boreholes. Historical trends show costs have decreased significantly since 2000, when ASHPs were around $19,000 and GSHPs exceeded $50,000. 

Tax Credits

Federal tax credits currently offer up to $2,000 for ASHPs and 30% of cost (with no cap) for GSHPs. These incentives were scheduled to be available through 2032. However, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed July 4, 2025, impacted heat pump incentives by ending the $2,000 tax credit for ASHPs and 30% uncapped credit for GSHPs after December 31, 2025.

The Home Electrification and Appliance Rebates (HEAR) program, part of the Inflation Reduction Act, provides rebates for low- and moderate-income households for energy-efficient electric appliances and systems. This includes heat pumps, heat pump water heaters, electric stoves, ovens, dryers, and related electrical and home improvements. The program aims to make these upgrades more affordable, with potential rebates up to $14,000 per household. OBBBA also terminates the Home Electrification Rebate at the end of 2025.

Year by year performance improvements

Efficiency Comparison

As you can see in the graph above, heat pumps (which were already efficient) have continued to improve with each new generation of products. A standard air-sourced system in 2025 is more efficient than a typical ground-sourced system from 2 decades ago. This has made air-sourced systems practical in many more regions. 

Efficiency is measured by the coefficient of performance (COP). ASHPs have a COP of 3-4, while GSHPs reach 4-6. Since 2000, efficiencies have improved from COP 2-3 to 3-4 for ASHPs and 3-4 to 4-6 for GSHPs, driven by advancements in compressors, motor controllers, and heat exchangers.

Installation and Space Requirements

ASHPs are easier to install, requiring only an outdoor unit and minimal space, ideal for urban areas. GSHPs need significant land for ground loops or boreholes, making them suitable for larger properties but more disruptive to install.

Performance in Different Climates

ASHPs perform well in moderate climates but may lose efficiency below 32°F. There are cold-climate models of ASHPs designed to operate as low as 15°F, but they are generally more expensive. GSHPs provide consistent performance due to stable ground temperatures below the frostline (50-60°F), ideal for harsh winters. Hybrid heat pump systems combine a heat pump with a gas furnace or other backup heat source, switching between them based on outdoor conditions to optimize efficiency and comfort. They are ideal for regions with extreme temperature swings, offering up to 30% energy savings. This setup suits homes with existing furnaces, providing a cost-effective transition to greener heating while maintaining reliability during severe cold snaps.

Maintenance, Lifespan, and Noise

ASHPs require moderate maintenance and last 15-20 years. GSHPs have lower maintenance needs, with indoor components lasting 25+ years and ground loops 50+ years. ASHPs can be noisier due to outdoor units, while GSHPs are quieter. With variable speed motors, new models of ASHPs are quieter than their predecessors.

Pros and Cons

• ASHP Pros: Lower cost ($3,500-$20,000), easier installation, less space needed, suitable for urban areas.
• ASHP Cons: Lower efficiency below 32°F, higher operating costs, noisier outdoor unit. (Hybrid systems that use a furnace only on subfreezing can mitigate this)
• GSHP Pros: Higher efficiency (COP 6), lower operating costs, longer lifespan, quieter operation.
• GSHP Cons: Higher upfront cost ($10,000-$50,000+), significant land needed, complex installation.

Mini-Split or Central Air?

There are two primary types of ASHPs: ductless mini-split systems and ducted central systems, each offering distinct advantages depending on home layout and heating needs.

A mini-split ASHP is a ductless system with one outdoor unit connected to one or more indoor units. It's ideal for zone heating/cooling for homes without ductwork or to add more temperature control to an area that's poorly serviced by the current ducting.

A central air ASHP uses ductwork to distribute cooled or heated air throughout the home. It's suitable for whole-house climate control. Central ASHPs are a better fit for larger homes with existing ductwork.

Hybrid Heat Pump System

A hybrid heat pump system combines a heat pump with a traditional heating source, such as a gas furnace, to optimize energy efficiency and comfort. The heat pump handles heating and cooling during mild weather, while the secondary system activates in extreme temperatures. This setup is a good option for homes in regions with variable climates, like the US Northeast, where winters can be harsh, or for those seeking to lower utility bills while transitioning from fossil fuels. It suits properties with existing furnace infrastructure, offering flexibility and potential savings of up to 30% on heating costs, depending on usage and local energy prices.

Technological Improvements (2000-2025)

Since Y2K, heat pump efficiencies have improved due to variable-speed compressors, enhanced heat exchangers, and smart controls. Cold-climate ASHPs and better GSHP ground loop designs emerged by 2010. By 2025, integration with solar panels and advanced controls further boosted performance.

Summary Table

Aspect	Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP)	Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP)
Cost (2025)	$3,500-$20,000	$10,000-$50,000
Efficiency	COP: 3-4	COP: 4-6
Installation	Easier, less disruptive	Complex, requires groundwork
Space Needed	Less, wall-mounted	Significant, needs land
Performance in Cold	Decreases below 32°F	Consistent
Lifespan	15-20 years	25+ years (indoor), 50+ (loops)
Federal Incentive	Up to $2,000	30% of cost (no cap)

Which is Best for You?

The best choice depends on your budget, available space, and climate:

• If you prioritize long-term savings and have ample land, a GSHP might be more beneficial due to higher efficiency and lower operating costs.
• If you have limited space and a tighter budget, an ASHP is likely better due to lower upfront costs and easier installation.
• If you already have a home with ducting, a central ASHP can tap into these conditioned air highways.
• If you don't have existing ducting, ductless mini-split ASHP can give you the cool or warm air directly into the space you need it. Multiple heads may be needed for larger areas, but this allows for zone control, meaning you don't have to condition the spaces you are not using.

Consider your budget, space, climate, and incentives when deciding.

Citations:

• Energy Saving Trust: Air source heat pumps vs ground source heat pumps
• EnergySage: Air Source vs. Geothermal Heat Pumps
• The EcoExperts: Air Source vs Ground Source Heat Pumps
• GreenMatch: Air vs Ground Source Heat Pumps
• US Department of Energy: Heat Pump Systems
• Better Planet: Ground Source vs Air Source Heat Pumps
• EDF Energy: Ground source vs air source heat pumps

* Geothermal & Ground-source Terms

The terms geothermal heat pump and ground-source heat pump (GSHP) are often used interchangeably, but there are subtle distinctions:

• Geothermal Heat Pump: A broad term that refers to any system using the Earth's thermal energy for heating or cooling. This includes GSHPs but can also encompass systems tapping into deeper geothermal resources (e.g., hot springs or volcanic heat) for direct heating or power generation. In residential contexts, it typically means a GSHP.
  
  
• Ground-Source Heat Pump: Specifically refers to a heat pump system that uses the stable temperature of the ground (or groundwater) at shallow depths below the frostline to transfer heat to or from a building. It involves ground loops (or sometimes wells, lakes, or ponds) to exchange heat with the soil or water.

Key Difference: GSHP is a type of geothermal system focused on shallow ground heat exchange for residential or commercial use, while "geothermal" can include broader applications like deep geothermal energy for electricity. In practice, for residential applications, they usually refer to the same GSHP technology.

Benefits Solar Energy and VPPs for your Home and Neighborhood

Solar Data from Tesla App

Introduction

The above screenshot captures a day’s solar energy generation, storage, and use of 66.5 kWh in rainy Portland, Oregon. It also offers a glimpse into how one household harnesses solar power to meet its energy needs while contributing to the broader energy ecosystem. By participation in Portland General Electric’s (PGE) Smart Battery Pilot program, this setup shows the potential of distributed energy resources. The integration of solar energy systems with Tesla Powerwalls, represents a significant step toward sustainable living and grid resilience. We'll explore the implications of this, its financial and environmental benefits, and its impact on the neighborhood, particularly under a time-of-use electricity plan and virtual power plant (VPP) participation.

This screenshot showcases solar energy and its distribution across home use, EV charging, storage, and grid export, underscoring the potential of integrated home solar and battery systems.

Energy Distribution and Personal Benefits

The Tesla app screenshot illustrates a well-balanced energy distribution, with 57% (38.5 kWh) powering the home directly, 15% (10.0 kWh) charging an electric vehicle (EV), 18% (12.4 kWh) stored in the Powerwalls, and 10% (6.6 kWh) fed to the grid. This configuration highlights the system’s efficiency in meeting daily energy demands while leveraging storage for future use. Tesla's Charge-on-Solar feature allows surplus solar to charge the EV only when solar production outpaces the home's needs. With a total storage capacity of 40.5 kWh across three Powerwall 2s, the household can store excess solar energy generated during the day, as evidenced by the 12.4 kWh stored. This stored energy is used during peak rate times (5PM till 9PM) under the time-of-use (or time-of-day) plan. This strategy reduces reliance on grid electricity, which is costlier during peak hours, potentially saving hundreds of dollars annually depending on rate differentials.

Participation in PGE’s Smart Battery Pilot program further enhances financial benefits. The program compensates participants $1.70 per kWh for energy discharged during Peak Time Events, which occur approximately 10 times a year. If the household discharges 25 kWh per event, it could earn $42 per event, totaling ~$420 annually. This income, combined with the avoided peak costs and the net metering credits from the energy exported to the grid provides a robust financial incentive. Environmentally, the system displaces fossil fuel-based grid electricity with clean solar power, reducing the household’s and the grid's carbon footprint.

The integration of solar energy systems with battery storage represents a significant step toward sustainable living and grid resilience.

Neighborhood Impact and Grid Stability

The household’s energy setup has far-reaching implications for the neighborhood, particularly through its role in PGE’s VPP initiative. The 6.6 kWh exported to the grid, as depicted in the screenshot, contributes to a collective effort that stabilizes the grid during peak demand periods. When the sun is shining, the air conditioner units are running, and solar feed-in is helping power them. By aggregating energy from participating homes, a VPP event reduces the need for peaker plants, which are notorious for their high CO2 emissions. This collective action supports PGE’s goal of incorporating more renewable energy sources, enhancing grid reliability across the community.

Moreover, the local storage and generation of energy decreases transmission line demands. This reduces energy losses that occur over long distances and eases the strain on infrastructure, potentially delaying costly upgrades. If more neighbors adopt similar systems, the neighborhood could become a model of resilience, capable of withstanding outages more effectively. The Powerwalls’ backup capacity ensures the household remains powered during disruptions, a benefit that could extend to the community if adoption grows, mirroring successes seen in other regions during severe weather events.

Economically, widespread participation in VPP programs could lower electricity costs for the neighborhood by reducing the utility’s infrastructure investment needs. The compensation paid to participants, such as the $1.70 per kWh from PGE, also circulates money within the community, stimulating local economic activity. Environmentally, a neighborhood with high solar and battery adoption significantly cuts its collective carbon footprint, aligning with broader climate goals and reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

This system exemplifies how individual action can contribute to a sustainable and resilient energy future.

Conclusion

The Tesla app screenshot, showcasing one day's 66.5 kWh of solar energy generation and its distribution across home use, EV charging, Powerwall storage, and grid export, underscores the transformative potential of integrated solar and battery systems. For this Portland household with three Powerwall 2s, the setup offers substantial financial savings through time-of-use optimization and VPP earnings, alongside significant environmental benefits by reducing CO2 emissions. The neighborhood reaps rewards through enhanced grid stability, reduced transmission demands, and increased resilience, with the potential for economic and ecological improvements as adoption spreads. This system exemplifies how individual action can contribute to a sustainable and resilient energy future.

If you want solar and/or batteries for your home, here are some referrals: 

If you're within 50 miles of SunPath's office in Beaverton, Oregon, I recommend getting a quote from them for your solar project. Also (before or after you have the quote), tell them you were referred by Patrick from CarsWithCords.net, you'll get $500 off, and I'll receive a referral bonus.

If you're considering Tesla for your solar project, you can use my referral code (https://ts.la/patrick7819) for $500 off, and I'll receive referral points for Tesla merch.

   

Ω

Energy Wars

AI Image

No country has ever been invaded or bombed for their solar production capacity.

The air quality and emission reduction benefits from renewable energy are obvious and oft discussed. Today, I'd like to cover an equally important aspect of renewables that is mentioned far less frequently; let's talk about conflict and war.

Renewable energy is emerging as a powerful force in reducing global conflicts and fostering peace by decreasing reliance on finite (zero-sum) fossil fuels. Resources have long been a source of geopolitical tension. The shift to clean energy sources, such as solar and wind, offers a path to energy independence, thereby reducing the leverage that resource-rich nations hold over others. This transition has the potential to mitigate conflicts driven by competition for oil, methane, and coal reserves, which have historically fueled inequality, instability, war, and environmental damage.

Key Benefits and Challenges of Renewable Energy in Reducing Conflicts

Aspect	Benefits	Challenges
Energy Independence	Reduces reliance on imported fossil fuels, lowering geopolitical tensions.	Political capture by the fossil fuel industry.
Economic Stability	Creates jobs, reduces poverty, and stabilizes economies, lowering unrest.	Fossil fuel exporters may face economic instability during the transition.
Climate Impact	Mitigates climate-driven conflicts over resources, e.g., water and land.	Initial investment costs may strain developing nations.
Geopolitical Leverage	Cannot be weaponized, unlike oil and methane, promoting global peace.	As long as there are people, there will always be something else to fight over.

At the Sydney Energy Forum in 2022, U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm highlighted the unique advantage of renewables. She stated, “No country has ever been held hostage to access to the sun. No country has ever been held hostage to access to the wind. They have not ever been weaponized, nor will they be.” Her words are just as true now as they were then, and they underscore a critical point: unlike fossil fuels, which are concentrated in specific regions and controlled by a handful of nations, renewable energy resources are abundant and universally accessible. Solar and wind energy cannot be embargoed or manipulated to exert political pressure. This universal availability reduces the risk of energy becoming a tool for coercion, as seen in historical conflicts over oil fields or gas pipelines.

Supporting renewable energy is supporting a global peace plan.

Granholm further emphasized the broader implications of this shift, exclaiming, “Our move to clean energy globally could be the greatest peace plan of all.” By investing in renewables, countries can achieve energy security without relying on volatile regions or authoritarian regimes that control fossil fuel supplies. This reduces the incentive for conflicts over resource-rich territories, such as those in the Middle East, where oil wealth has often fueled proxy wars and international disputes. A world powered by clean energy is less likely to see nations vying for control of energy resources, as every country can harness its own wind, sun, or water to meet energy needs.

Distributed renewable energy is distributed social empowerment.

Moreover, the economic benefits of renewables can further promote peace. Clean energy projects create jobs and stimulate local economies, reducing poverty and inequality, which are often the root causes of unrest. Unlike oil wealth, which tends to concentrate in the hands of a few, renewable energy benefits can be distributed more equitably, fostering social stability. By addressing energy poverty in developing nations, renewables can also prevent resource-driven insurgencies, where competition for scarce resources fuels violence.

In conclusion, the global transition to renewable energy is more than an environmental necessity; it is a strategic move toward peace. By eliminating the weaponization of energy resources, as Granholm articulated, and mitigating the economic shocks caused by reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets, renewables pave the way for a more stable, equitable world. As nations embrace clean energy, they reduce the incentives for conflict, making renewable energy a cornerstone of global security in the 21st century as we move to a Future Free from Fossil Fuels.

Breaking the Barrier: Energy Efficiency Solutions for Renters and Landlords

Why Landlords Are Losing Money by Ignoring Energy Upgrades

Introduction

The push for energy efficiency in residential properties is vital for sustainability, yet renters and landlords face a unique challenge in making these improvements. Renters cannot install upgrades such as heat pumps, high-efficiency furnaces, insulation, solar panels, or energy storage systems on a home they do not own. While landlords, who typically do not pay the rental's unit utility bills, often see little reason to invest in energy efficiency. This misalignment creates a dilemma that hinders progress toward greener homes. Organizations like the Energy Trust of Oregon offer incentives to bridge this gap, providing solutions that benefit both parties. This article explores the renter-landlord dilemma, proposed solutions, and specific incentives available (as of July  2025 and things are changing quickly).

The Renter and Landlord Dilemma

The core issue lies in the split incentives between renters and landlords. Renters bear the cost of utility bills but cannot make structural changes without landlord approval. For example, installing a heat pump or adding insulation requires significant investment and property access, which renters often cannot authorize. And, why would a renter want to spend their own money upgrading a property that they do not own? Conversely, landlords, who do not pay the rental unit's utility bills, so they lack a direct financial motivation to fund these upgrades. While energy-efficient homes could increase property value and tenant satisfaction, the upfront costs and lack of immediate returns often deter action, limiting both parties ability to implement energy-saving upgrades. This creates a stalemate where neither party can fully capitalize on the benefits of energy efficiency. The challenge is particularly bad in older rental properties, where outdated systems lead to higher energy costs.

Possible Solutions

Addressing this dilemma requires aligning the interests of renters and landlords through incentives, education, and policy support. The Energy Trust of Oregon offers several programs to make energy efficiency upgrades accessible. 

• Incentives for a Renter-Landlord Win-Win Future

For renters, free Home Energy Reviews provide personalized recommendations to reduce energy use, while income-qualified households can access weatherization programs and community solar credits, which offer bill savings without requiring property ownership. Portland-area renters can attend free workshops by the Community Energy Project to learn low-cost energy-saving techniques, such as installing draft-stopping materials. For landlords, cash rebates reduce the cost of upgrades like heat pumps and insulation, making investments more attractive. These incentives, detailed in the table below. Beyond Oregon, the U.S. Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program supports low-income renters with free home upgrades, while California's DSIRE lists rebates and financing for multifamily properties. Policy measures, such as requiring energy efficiency disclosures in rental agreements or offering tax credits for landlords, could further encourage participation.

Landlord Incentives

The Energy Trust of Oregon provides cash rebates to landlords for energy-efficient upgrades in single-family and manufactured homes in Oregon and Washington. The following tables outline the incentives available:

Oregon Incentives for Single-Family and Manufactured Homes

Upgrade	Amount	Details
Ductless heat pump	$1,800	Replacing electric resistance heat, HSPF2 ≥ 8.10, contractor-installed
Ducted heat pump	$3,000	HSPF2 ≥ 7.5, replacing electric forced-air furnace, cannot combine with other heat pump incentives
Heat pump controls	$250	Qualifying products, contractor-installed, electric furnace backup, lockout at 35°F or lower
Extended capacity heat pump	$2,000	Qualifying products, no gas backup, cannot combine with other heat pump incentives
Gas furnace	$1,600	95% AFUE or greater, primary heat source, CO monitor required
Smart thermostat	Up to $250	Wi-Fi connected, qualifying products, contractor-installed
Attic insulation	$1.50/sq ft	R-18 or less to R-38+ for single-family, R-30+ for manufactured homes
Wall insulation	$2.25/sq ft	R-4 or less to R-11, manufactured homes not eligible
Floor insulation	$1.00/sq ft (single-family), $1.25/sq ft (manufactured)	R-11 or less to R-30+ for single-family, R-22+ for manufactured homes

Washington State Incentives for Detached Single-Family, Manufactured Homes, and Small Multifamily

Upgrade	Amount	Details
Gas furnace	$1,600	95% AFUE or greater, primary heat source, CO monitor required
Gas tankless water heater	$400	ENERGY STAR qualified, see product list
Smart thermostat	Up to $250	Wi-Fi connected, gas forced-air furnace, contractor-installed
Attic insulation	$1.25/sq ft	Gas-heated, R-11 or less to R-38+
Wall insulation	$1.25/sq ft	Gas-heated, R-4 or less to R-11, manufactured homes not eligible
Floor insulation	$1.25/sq ft	Gas-heated, R-0 to R-30+

These incentives are provided through qualified Energy Trust trade ally contractors, with applications required within 60 days of installation.

(https://www.energytrust.org/residential/residential-renters/)(https://www.energytrust.org/residential/incentives/furnace-and-heat-pump)

Conclusion

The renter-landlord dilemma hinders energy efficiency in rental properties, but targeted incentives from organizations like the Energy Trust of Oregon offer practical solutions. By providing free resources for renters and substantial rebates for landlords, these programs align financial and environmental goals. Broader adoption, supported by policy changes and increased awareness, could further enhance the impact, creating more sustainable and comfortable rental homes.

Tesla Plans Robotaxis in 37 Cities This Year

Scaling Tesla's Robotaxi Service:
50% of US Population by 2025

Tesla’s Robotaxi service launched in Austin, Texas, on June 22, 2025. On the recent financial call, Elon Musk announced that robotaxi service will expand significantly in Austin, launch in the Bay Area within one to two months, and cover 50% of the US population by the end of 2025. This an ambitious scalability plan. How many cities would the service need to operate in to cover 50% of the US population? 

The Austin pilot began with 10 to 20 Model Y vehicles in a 42-square-mile geofenced area, with safety monitors onboard. By July 2025, the fleet had grown to about 35 vehicles. The service relies on Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software, using cameras and AI. The service currently charges $4.20 per ride and is invite-only for select users.

Musk’s goal to reach 50% of the US population (approximately 170.9 million people) by year-end requires expanding to major metropolitan areas. Based on 2024 Census Bureau data, the top 37 metropolitan areas are home to about 171.7 million people. Musk has named Austin, the Bay Area, Phoenix, Florida (Miami/Tampa), and Nevada (Las Vegas) as targets, with more cities planned. The top 5 areas likely to be included, based on population and Musk’s statements, are:

• New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA (19.6 million): The largest US metro area, critical for population coverage.
• Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA (13.3 million): A key West Coast hub, complementing the Bay Area.
• Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI (9.9 million): A major Midwest market with high urban density.
• Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX (8.1 million): A Texas expansion alongside Austin, leveraging permissive regulations.
• San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley, CA (4.6 million): The Bay Area, explicitly named by Musk for near-term launch.

To cover 50% of the US population, Tesla would need to operate in approximately 37 metropolitan areas. Tesla’s generalized FSD approach is designed to adapt without city-specific mapping. Rapid deployment is possible since this method doesn't require detailed high def maps. Musk predicts over 1,000 Cybercabs in Austin by 2026, leveraging Tesla’s manufacturing capacity.

However, challenges persist. Videos show Austin robotaxis making errors, like veering into oncoming lanes, and a July 2025 incident involved a safety driver averting a train collision. Regulatory hurdles, like Texas’s September 2025 autonomous vehicle law and California’s strict permitting process, could delay expansion. Tesla’s current reliance on teleoperators limits cost efficiency, and achieving a 100:1 vehicle-to-supervisor ratio demands further software advancements.

Ride costs of $0.25 to $0.40 per mile could disrupt ride-hailing and reduce emissions. Success hinges on overcoming safety, regulatory, and trust barriers.

Wrapping Up 

In conclusion, Tesla’s Robotaxi service is poised to revolutionize transportation, targeting 50% of the US population by the end of 2025 with its expansion to 37 metropolitan areas, starting with Austin and the Bay Area. Despite challenges in safety, regulation, and public trust, Tesla’s cost-effective FSD technology and vast vehicle fleet offer a promising path forward. This service provides affordable mobility far below traditional ride-hailing rates. For those unable to drive due to age, disability, or financial constraints, Robotaxi offers unprecedented access, fostering inclusivity and reducing reliance on personal vehicles, potentially reshaping urban mobility for all.

Here's the complete list to get to half of the US population: 

	Metropolitan Area
1	Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown, TX: 2,368,947
2	San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley, CA: 4,579,599
3	New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA: 19,641,225
4	Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA: 13,288,904
5	Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI: 9,879,320
6	Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX: 8,100,037
7	Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX: 7,510,246
8	Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV: 6,432,346
9	Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL: 6,183,199
10	Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD: 6,268,536
11	Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta, GA: 6,345,112
12	Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ: 5,070,110
13	Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH: 4,919,294
14	Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA: 4,485,498
15	Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI: 4,365,250
16	Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA: 4,044,837
17	Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI: 3,706,478
18	San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA: 3,298,634
19	Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL: 3,342,048
20	Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO: 3,005,131
21	St. Louis, MO-IL: 2,818,249
22	Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD: 2,848,104
23	Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC: 2,805,115
24	Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL: 2,817,933
25	San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX: 2,703,378
26	Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA: 2,510,352
27	Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA: 2,428,209
28	Pittsburgh, PA: 2,346,747
29	Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas, NV: 2,336,989
30	Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN: 2,288,614
31	Kansas City, MO-KS: 2,221,297
32	Columbus, OH: 2,180,271
33	Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN: 2,142,193
34	Cleveland-Elyria, OH: 2,030,305
35	Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN: 2,104,235
36	Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC: 1,854,876
37	Jacksonville, FL: 1,713,432

Why You Need Solar - Ever Increasing Utility Bills

PGE: Electricity Costs and Emissions (2007–2025)

The cost of electricity and its environmental impact have been critical concerns for many energy customers for a long time. In 2007, the residential rate was 8.19¢ per kWh. Today in 2025, the price is more than double at 17.43¢.

Over the past couple of decades, electricity prices have risen steadily, while carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent emissions per kilowatt-hour (kWh) have decreased significantly. This article explores the historical trends in Portland General Electric's (PGE) residential electricity costs and emissions, key price change dates, and the transformative benefits of adopting solar panels and home battery systems, such as the Tesla Powerwall. By examining these trends and technologies, homeowners can better understand how to manage rising costs and contribute to a cleaner energy future.

Electricity Costs and Emissions Trends

From 2007 to 2025, PGE’s residential electricity prices increased from approximately 8.19 cents per kWh to 17.43 cents per kWh. That means PGE customers are now paying more than twice as much as they were in 2007. PGE is far from the only utility that's been raising rates. The average US electric bill is up ~40% from 2007 to 2025 (far outpacing inflation).

For PGE, each of these increases was approved by the Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC). Notable price changes include an 18% increase on January 1, 2024, adding about $24 to monthly bills, and a 5.5% increase on January 1, 2025, raising average bills to around $160 per month, according to OPB reports. Additional adjustments, such as a 2% increase in April 2024 for wildfire mitigation, highlight the dynamic ever-increasing nature of utility pricing.

CO2 emissions per kWh have decreased significantly, from an estimated 0.5 pounds per kWh in 2007 to approximately 0.05 pounds per kWh by 2025. This reduction is largely due to the closure of the coal-fired Boardman plant in 2020 and PGE’s increased reliance on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power, aligning with Oregon’s clean energy mandates and PGE’s goal of an 80% emissions reduction by 2030. These changes have made PGE’s energy mix cleaner, but rising costs continue to challenge homeowners.

Benefits of Solar Panels and Home Batteries

Installing solar panels and home battery systems, such as the Tesla Powerwall, offers significant advantages for PGE customers during this period of rising electricity costs and evolving energy policies. These benefits include cost savings, energy independence, environmental impact, and resilience against outages.

Cost Savings: Solar panels allow homeowners to generate their own electricity, reducing reliance on PGE’s grid and offsetting rising costs. For example, with rates reaching 17.43 cents per kWh in 2025, a solar system producing 10,000 kWh annually could save approximately $1,743 per year. Home batteries like the Tesla Powerwall store excess solar energy for use during peak pricing hours or at night, further reducing bills. Oregon’s solar incentives, including federal tax credits and potential state rebates, can lower installation costs, making solar and storage systems more accessible.

Energy Independence: Solar and battery systems provide greater control over energy consumption. By storing solar energy, homeowners can avoid purchasing electricity during high-cost periods, especially as PGE’s tiered rates increase (e.g., 19.45 cents per kWh for usage above 1,000 kWh in 2025). This independence is particularly valuable given the 18% and 5.5% rate hikes in 2024 and 2025, respectively.

Environmental Impact: With PGE’s emissions dropping to 0.05 pounds per kWh by 2025, solar panels further reduce a household’s carbon footprint by producing clean energy. Pairing solar with a Powerwall ensures that clean energy is used efficiently, minimizing reliance on grid power, which, despite improvements, still includes some fossil fuel sources. This aligns with Oregon’s sustainability goals and supports PGE’s clean energy transition.

Resilience Against Outages: The Tesla Powerwall provides backup power during outages, which are increasingly common due to wildfires and extreme weather in Oregon. With a capacity of 13.5 kWh, a single Powerwall can power essential appliances for hours, enhancing home resilience. This is particularly relevant given PGE’s investments in wildfire mitigation, which contributed to rate increases in 2024.

Timeline of Annual Price and Emissions Averages

The following table summarizes estimated annual average electricity costs and CO2 emissions per kWh for PGE residential customers from 2007 to 2025, based on EIA data, PGE tariffs, and emission trends:

Year	Average Cost per kWh (cents)	CO2 Emissions per kWh (lbs)	Notes
2007	8.19	~0.5	Initial high coal use
2008	8.49	~0.48	Emissions slightly lower
2009	8.68	~0.45	Economic factors
2010	8.87	~0.42	Baseline emissions
2011	9.54	~0.40	Policy shifts
2012	9.80	~0.38	Renewable integration
2013	9.93	~0.35	Minor price increase
2014	10.20	~0.33	More renewables
2015	10.50	~0.30	Emissions down
2016	10.80	~0.28	Steady increase
2017	11.10	~0.25	Inflation impact
2018	11.40	~0.23	Renewable growth
2019	11.70	~0.20	Pre-Boardman closure
2020	12.00	~0.18	Boardman closure
2021	12.30	~0.15	Rapid renewable growth
2022	12.60	~0.13	4% price increase
2023	13.00	~0.10	Lower emissions
2024	16.52	~0.08	18% rate hike
2025	17.43	~0.05	5.5% increase

Note: Emissions estimates are based on trends and PGE’s targets; exact figures may vary.

Conclusion

The period from 2007 to 2025 marks a transformative era for PGE residential customers, with electricity costs rising from 8.19 to 17.43 cents per kWh and emissions dropping an order of magnitude from 0.5 to 0.05 pounds per kWh. Solar panels and home batteries like the Tesla Powerwall offer a compelling solution, providing cost savings, energy independence, environmental benefits, and resilience. As PGE continues its clean energy transition, homeowners can leverage these technologies to mitigate rising costs and contribute to a sustainable future. For detailed tariff information, visit PGE’s rate information, and for sustainability data, check out PGE’s sustainability page.

Referrals

If you're within 50 miles of SunPath's office in Beaverton, Oregon, I recommend getting a quote from them for your solar project. Also (after you have the quote) if you tell them you were referred by Patrick from CarsWithCords.net, you'll get $500 off and I'll receive a referral bonus.

If you're considering Tesla for your solar project, you can use my referral code (https://ts.la/patrick7819) for $500 off and I'll receive referral points for Tesla merch.

   

Ω

The Future is Autonomous

Image by Grok

The future is poised to be increasingly autonomous. 

Do you wash your clothes by hand? If you are reading this, you most likely use a washing machine. The automated washing machine relieves you of the burden and labor of washing bedding, clothes, and other items by hand. This frees you up to pursue other things. 

Now imagine a machine that automatically collects the dirty laundry, properly sorts items, applies a stain stick to that salsa spot on your favorite shirt, loads the washing machine, selects the correct settings, adds the right detergents and fabric softner, when the spin cycle is complete, it moves the load to the dryer, includes your preferred scent dryer sheet; when the dryer is done, it fold thems, and finally put thems away. Autonomy promises to make this happen.

The use of automated machines has significantly improved our quality of life by reducing manual labor, increasing efficiency, and freeing time for creative and intellectual pursuits. Autonomy is the next level in automation evolution. Autonomy builds on the transformative impact that automation has already had in reshaping humanity. Autonomy enables systems to make decisions and adapt to dynamic environments without requiring human intervention. This shift promises to revolutionize industries, enhance personal convenience, and address complex global challenges.

Before automation, tasks like laundry were grueling and time-consuming. In the early 1800s, washing clothes involved hauling water from wells or rivers, heating it over fires, and scrubbing garments by hand on washboards. This process often took an entire day and required significant physical effort. The introduction of the washing machine marked a turning point. Early machines were powered by hand cranks; yet still reduced physical strain. Later, with the addition of electric motors and automation, the washing, rinsing, and spin-dry processes could all occur in sequence without a person needing to turn a crank. This innovation saved hours of labor, allowing people to redirect time toward education, other work, or leisure. By 2020, over 80% of households in developed nations included washing machines, transforming domestic life. This is just one example and it underscores how automation alleviates repetitive, labor-intensive tasks.

           

Autonomy is the evolution of automation. It promises to significantly enhance our quality of life by intelligently managing tasks while addressing global challenges.

Apply this same autonomy evolution to washing dishes, grocery shopping, lawn care, and more. Automation has already revolutionized industries, from manufacturing to healthcare. Assembly lines, powered by robotic arms, produce goods with precision and speed, reducing costs and improving access to products like cars and electronics. In healthcare, automated diagnostic tools analyze medical images with accuracy rivaling human experts, enabling faster treatment. These advancements have raised living standards, with global poverty rates dropping from 36% in 1990 to under 10% in 2020, partly due to automation-driven economic growth.

Autonomy will bring a next wave industrial revolution.

Autonomy represents the next frontier, where systems not only perform tasks but also make intelligent decisions. Autonomous vehicles use sensors and AI to navigate roads. This will reduce human error, which causes over 90% of traffic incidents. By 2030, projections suggest autonomous cars could reduce road fatalities by up to 80% in urban areas. In logistics, autonomous drones and robots optimize delivery routes, cutting costs and emissions. In agriculture, self-driving tractors and AI-powered systems monitor soil, infestations, and crop health, boosting yields while minimizing water, fertilizer, and pesticide use. These advancements promise to address global challenges like food security and climate change, with autonomous systems adapting to real-time data in ways static automation cannot. 

Beyond industry, autonomy can enhance personal life. Smart homes autonomously regulate temperature by looking at weather predictions and your usage patterns, lighting, and security, improving comfort and energy efficiency. Virtual assistants, evolving into autonomous agents, manage schedules, suggest activities, and even anticipate needs based on user habits. This shift frees individuals from mundane tasks, much like the washing machine did, allowing more time for creativity, relationships, and personal growth.

The trajectory from labor-intensive laundry to automated washing machines to autonomous systems illustrates a clear trend: technology evolves to serve human needs more intelligently. Autonomy builds on the foundation of automation, promising a future where systems not only work for us but also make smart choices for us, enhancing efficiency, safety, and personal quality of life while addressing global issues.