|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 25, 2021 16:48:20 GMT
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The problem today, "note today", is EV are excellent for certain applications. The limiting factor is energy density. I think 40% of cars sold in 2030 will be electric. They will be practical for limited range commuters. Local haul freight will be electric. Long haul? Nope. Energy density. Construction equipment? Nope. Farm equipment? Nope. If there is a breakthrough in battery technology, that will change the equation. Wind and solar do not have the generation capacity (intermittent nature), to provide the energy requirements. Nuclear does, as well as fossil fueled electric plants. The US uses approximately 7 million barrels of oil per day for transportation. The GW requirements to replace that are huge. I think a lot of the "Energy density" question can be compensated for by efficiency, and elimination of waste, and this is an area one begins to think about when operating an EV. ICE engines do not make efficient use of the energy produced by burning gas/diesel. A lot of it is wasted in heat, and doesn't really get applied to the wheels. With electric generation, we cannot power down generators during off-peak because it takes too long to bring them back up, so a lot of the energy produced during off-peak hours is wasted. In your EV, you can set your charging hours so that it only charges during off-peak hours. In fact, that's how most people on time of use electrical plans do just to reduce their electric bill. The secondary effect it has is to reduce the wasted generation during those hours. I'll actually add one application that you didn't mention: airlines and military aircraft. Maybe bio-fuels in the future, but I don't have an idea currently how that can be eliminated. Increased use of EVs, though, has the effect of improved air quality in cities, and that's the biggest benefit in what I see. I promised earlier to post some screen shots to illustrate the current state of charging in the US. These screen shots come from the "Chargeway" app, and I use that because I can't easily screen shot from the navigation console in my Tesla which is used to plan trips including charging stops. The key in what you are seeing is this: Red markers are Tesla chargers. Blue markers are non-Tesla DC chargers that Teslas can use. Green markers are public AC chargers that Teslas can use. No markers are there for places like KOA campgrounds or other RV hookups which Teslas, or any EV can use. The higher the number, the more power. 7 is a 250 KW charger. 6 is a 150 KW charger. This map is set up to show me only chargers for my Tesla, and doesn't reflect chargers that will not accomodate me. For this reason, the Tesla dots usually appear on top, and will block out other chargers if they overlap. Zoomed out to get a quick view of the US: Can you spot any gaps of 200 miles or more in there? As I zoom in, more chargers become visible, and even in areas where I can't see chargers at one level of zoom, others will appear: If I start zooming in on the state where I live: And as before, if I zoom in more, more charging stations will appear. But we only use them when we travel. If you look along I-5 southbound, or I-90 Eastbound, do you see the density of charger stations currently available? What if I want to travel down and see my daughter living in California: Can you see any gaps I can't navigate even if I figure only 60% of my car's range? (Car's range is over 300 miles, and it is about 800 miles from my house to her house). Remember when I objected to the claim the guy made that you cannot drive an EV from Dallas to Denver? Here's why I objected: There is no gap in there I cannot drive, and nothing that would even give me range anxiety. But for Sig's friend in North Dakota, why I said he should have taken his J1772 adapter to go north from Fargo: You can see that Tesla has the area covered along I-94, but going North from Fargo, someone would need to be safe and carry his J-1772 adapter. This site does not show chargers currently under construction, but there is a large number of chargers currently under construction. Even if I want to go someplace like Yellowstone National Park, there's no need for range anxiety: Keeping in mind that this map does not show places like KOA campsites, what would worry me? If I go someplace like Yellowstone, I'm going to be staying either in a campground with an RV hookup, or in a hotel nearby, so a level-2 charger is all I need to charge while I'm sleeping. So the next time you run into an article, or a video where someone is talking about not being able to travel where you want to travel in an EV, you have a visual on what I'm seeing that makes it so those trips don't stress me. If I have a 75 KWH battery, and I pull up to a 250 KW charger with 20% charge, I'm not going to be staying there for 30 minutes or an hour. I'm only going to need 15 - 20 minutes to COMFORTABLY get me to the next place I need to stop and take a break. If I get to my destination, I have all night to use a level 2 charger (which is actually better for the battery anyway). And of course, the biggest point that people are missing in their discussion: I never go to a charge station when I'm doing my normal driving at home - never. I charge at home. I ONLY use charging stations when I'm travelling. Now there ARE some neighborhoods, especially some I'm thinking of in CA, where chargers need to be built in places like multi-unit housing where garage parking is limited. That's one of the challenges being discussed, and being worked on currently, so 5 years from now, the situation will not look like it does now.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 25, 2021 16:54:47 GMT
There are many videos on YouTube of people road tripping in their Teslas. I'm not going to go find them to post them. If you go looking for them, forget the guys trying to test how long it takes to get a full charge - they're testing something people just don't do in normal travel. Look at someone actually taking a trip. Some are better than others, and some are smarter than others, obviously. But it does show that it is possible, and comfortable, and I know that was my biggest hangup before actually buying the car. I think it's the biggest hangup other people have as well. It's a different mindset, but that doesn't make in inconvenient.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 25, 2021 17:44:46 GMT
Agree with all you wrote. That's why I said 40%, 2030.
I am used to high horse electric motors. I think they are wonderful!
I wanted to buy a used Leaf for my wife. She couldn't overcome the current limitations. Used Leafs are very inexpensive. I figure it will take another year of gentle coaxing. The 240V is not an issue for me. I have them scattered all over the place on the farm, warehouses etc.
Being we don't plan to be home in the cold, winter performance is not an issue. She loves to drive. An electric vehicle will pay for itself within a few years.
An electric vehicle, with current battery technology, cannot replace my 3500 RAM.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 25, 2021 20:33:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 25, 2021 20:53:52 GMT
That's exactly the article I was thinking about when I said "Don't look for ... because they're testing something you don't do." That's not how you're going to charge. He did several things wrong. For starters, he ran his battery so low that the car wouldn't pre-condition to supercharge, so he started out slow. It wouldn't matter what charger he was at at that point because the car is going to limit the charge it is accepting to protect the cold battery. Another thing he did was charge to full. That's not what you'd normally do. Normally, on a charge stop, you're going to charge to 80% full at max. When you get above 80% charged, then the charge is going to slow down, and as you get above 90%, you're probably not charging any faster with the super-charger than you would when you plug into a 220 at your home. What I think would be more representative of actual travel would be testing a charge between 10% and 80%.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 25, 2021 21:21:58 GMT
That's exactly the article I was thinking about when I said "Don't look for ... because they're testing something you don't do." That's not how you're going to charge. He did several things wrong. For starters, he ran his battery so low that the car wouldn't pre-condition to supercharge, so he started out slow. It wouldn't matter what charger he was at at that point because the car is going to limit the charge it is accepting to protect the cold battery. Another thing he did was charge to full. That's not what you'd normally do. Normally, on a charge stop, you're going to charge to 80% full at max. When you get above 80% charged, then the charge is going to slow down, and as you get above 90%, you're probably not charging any faster with the super-charger than you would when you plug into a 220 at your home. What I think would be more representative of actual travel would be testing a charge between 10% and 80%. I think it depends on how you drive, what your goals are etc. When I drive, I have a destination in mind and don't stop until I need fuel. I fuel, then leave right away. We normally use rest areas to relive ourselves. Adequate parking, fast on and off. Wife has learned not to screw around....LOL. Sight seeing is different. We see something and stop, which is where a elec car would work ok. Thing that might not be in our favor, is after sitting at a charge site charging for 15 mins, wife would want to be on the road. I continue to believe that electric cars will have a market. I also continue to believe that ICE engines will not abruptly come to an end in 2035 or even 2050. The market will be shared, depending on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 25, 2021 21:28:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 25, 2021 23:53:18 GMT
Although not really technical, that's a really good article.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 26, 2021 1:45:54 GMT
That article led me back into reading about developmental batteries. There are a lot of interesting concepts, but there's a big difference between science and engineering, and I can't tell if many of the researched possibilities are just science projects, or if they are something that can be commercially produced. I'm from an engineering background myself, and looking at whether something can be put into production is always top of mind for me. Ratty, maybe you should look at Carbon Nanotube batteries before you invest everything in Lithium .
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 26, 2021 2:46:08 GMT
Thats why I said battery technology today. Physical limitations of energy transfer/storage will prevent what some wish. Energy density IS a large problem. Temperature high and low are a large problem.
Fossil fuels do not have those problems.
Another is true costs and who will bear the brunt of the cost. Those on the bottom of the ladder will pay dearly for battery technology.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 26, 2021 2:56:31 GMT
Battery technology is like fusion energy. Read that it is just around the corner. Problem is, that corner is a long ways down the hall.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 26, 2021 3:19:06 GMT
Thats why I said battery technology today. Physical limitations of energy transfer/storage will prevent what some wish. Energy density IS a large problem. Temperature high and low are a large problem. Fossil fuels do not have those problems. Another is true costs and who will bear the brunt of the cost. Those on the bottom of the ladder will pay dearly for battery technology. Fossil Fuels DO have temperature problems, especially the heavier ones like Diesel. I had plenty of military time in Korea trying to start diesel vehicles, and I know plenty of people who were not able to start their cars during the most recent cold snap. They appear differently, and they produce more heat, but it's not true to say they don't have issues, especially in the cold. The reason carbon nanotubes caught my attention was because it was one of two that promised to significantly expand the effective temperature band and also offer much greater energy storage. The other was liquified gas electrolyte lithium batteries. A company named "Nawa" actually has some sort of carbon nanotube battery in production, but I don't see where it is used. The liquified gas electrolyte lithium battery showed a curve where it is effective at temperatures between -60 and +55 degrees C, and one researcher claiming the bottom end was actually -80C. The carbon nanotube is a bit new to me and seems to be more effective at higher temperatures. A gas electrolyte, if it is as dense as claimed, would not have the problem associated with thickening and resistance that liquid and solid electrolytes have. The article made it sound like it was going in production, but when I look for corroboration, I don't find it.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 26, 2021 3:35:32 GMT
Thats why I said battery technology today. Physical limitations of energy transfer/storage will prevent what some wish. Energy density IS a large problem. Temperature high and low are a large problem. Fossil fuels do not have those problems. Another is true costs and who will bear the brunt of the cost. Those on the bottom of the ladder will pay dearly for battery technology. Fossil Fuels DO have temperature problems, especially the heavier ones like Diesel. I had plenty of military time in Korea trying to start diesel vehicles, and I know plenty of people who were not able to start their cars during the most recent cold snap. They appear differently, and they produce more heat, but it's not true to say they don't have issues, especially in the cold. The reason carbon nanotubes caught my attention was because it was one of two that promised to significantly expand the effective temperature band and also offer much greater energy storage. The other was liquified gas electrolyte lithium batteries. A company named "Nawa" actually has some sort of carbon nanotube battery in production, but I don't see where it is used. The liquified gas electrolyte lithium battery showed a curve where it is effective at temperatures between -60 and +55 degrees C, and one researcher claiming the bottom end was actually -80C. The carbon nanotube is a bit new to me and seems to be more effective at higher temperatures. A gas electrolyte, if it is as dense as claimed, would not have the problem associated with thickening and resistance that liquid and solid electrolytes have. The article made it sound like it was going in production, but when I look for corroboration, I don't find it. ICE engines today have no problem at -20F. My diesel pickup doesn't have a block heater. It started after sitting for 2 weeks at -31F. Gas, with fuel injection etc also has no issues. 20 years ago? Only a Cummins diesel had the cold start figured out. Today, they all seem to start. I am hopeful an improvement in battery technology will show up. I don't think it is right around the corner anymore.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Mar 26, 2021 8:42:16 GMT
Ultimately the engines, or fuels, all of them are clean, very clean.
From there it's just about economics, the idea that we have a climate emergency is daft, it's built around RCP8.5 the world is actually running at half of RCP2.5 so if a CO2 tax feels needed on some precautionary basis then it would be around the $20/T mark but it must include the full cycle costs not some cock and bull play that we have now. would ICE or EV prevail I would suggest that the biggest electric sector would be hybrid without the plug-in option? The good news is that this would allow a learned understanding of electric and localized full-electric usage say city centers. My beef with all this is the obvious fraud yes fraud with wood chip burning etc. the politics stink and so do the proponents.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 26, 2021 16:36:35 GMT
Ultimately the engines, or fuels, all of them are clean, very clean. From there it's just about economics, the idea that we have a climate emergency is daft, it's built around RCP8.5 the world is actually running at half of RCP2.5 so if a CO2 tax feels needed on some precautionary basis then it would be around the $20/T mark but it must include the full cycle costs not some cock and bull play that we have now. would ICE or EV prevail I would suggest that the biggest electric sector would be hybrid without the plug-in option? The good news is that this would allow a learned understanding of electric and localized full-electric usage say city centers. My beef with all this is the obvious fraud yes fraud with wood chip burning etc. the politics stink and so do the proponents. This is not a climate change issue in my mind. This is what it is about: I'm sorry, but that's not clean, and it is not healthy. That's a normal day in Los Angeles. Many of our other cities are not far behind. Let's take a few cities where I have actually lived. Seoul: Busan definitely has its days: Tulsa: I'd put San Francisco, but in the pictures, it's rather difficult to tell if I'm looking at a bad air day, or a foggy day. I don't want to exaggerate. "Clean" needs to be quantified even when we're talking about emissions from cars. One thing those pictures illustrate is that what we've been doing in not adequate. I can't blame the younger folks for wanting to do something different because honestly, this emperor we're praising has no clothes. Economics must be there, and that's where I've been saying fuel cells still fall short. ICE vehicles are where they are today because of more than a century of development. EVs have nowhere near that history, but by the time fuel and maintenance costs are figured in, they are likely as economical, or more so than ICE vehicles - especially in places like Korea where gas prices convert to over $5.00 USD/gallon (It may be less so in the US where our gas is relatively cheap, but I still think it works out to be more economical here.) The air in cities is a real health issue. Regulating cars by themselves is not the whole answer, but it has to be a part of the solution.
|
|