Battery based electric vehicles of today and tomorrow.

[DarkBlack]

Unfortunately the average citizen reading hearing this battery propaganda, doesn稚 understand physics, finances, or chemistry.

 

[Oaktree]

Do you know why electric vehicles sell in Norway ? Checkout the taxes added to the IC vehicle and the tax payer funded subsidies paid on EV痴.
Nothing to do with being practical . It has all to do with what a Resident of Norway can afford on their after tax income .

Well, that statement might be a bit extreme, but you make a good point. EVs (and other eco-vehicles) are heavily subsidized with tax breaks and "free" charging stations. I wonder what the adoption rate would be if/when they had to stand on their own merits.

I think it was Germany, Britain, and some Central American country that noted they had accomplished whole days running on nothing but renewable energy. That trend will continue.

Other countries with shorter travel distances are now considerably ahead of the US in adopting EV's. Keep an eye on Ford, they seem to be the leader in traditional US manufacturers developing EV strategy - while Tesla has already become a major passenger car supplier in the US. In summary the future is already here.

Tesla has a roughly 2% market share. A decent-sized niche product to be sure, but hardly a "major" automaker.

What do those countries you mentioned consider "renewable" energy? Hydropower? Yeah that provides a good amount of power. Solar, wind, not so much. Not everyone has the ability (or desire) to put in a 2 acre solar farm just to charge their car. Wind in parts of the west, and solar in the sunbelt are certainly good auxiliary power sources but I don't see either of them becoming the primary method of generating power.

EVs have their place. As time goes on and the technology improves they might be practical for suburbanites who rarely take long trips. Country folk who need to drive long distances, maybe not. Then again that wouldn't be the first time the powers that be ignored the needs of us rural dwellers.

If EV's were the holy grail of the future, then why son't everyone have one? Ponder that for a while.

I made my comments and I'm done here. Not jousting with you over something that might become mainstream in 20 years but then may not ever.

They might be the norm someday, they might not. Maybe some new technology that hasn't even been invented yet will take the place of the ICE.

 

[/pine]

The EV market will continue to grow and for a large part of it battery energy will suffice...but technology will evolve with a more efficient alternative to batteries especially for taking the place of what most of us consider daily drivers etc...

Although the numbers will drop drastically gas (petrol) stations will still be around when the typical public charging stations have gone the way of the phone booth...!

 

[Agvg]

Of course I know the deal in Norway, but as many new developments it's funded of partial backed by government. Those EV benefits did come long before a EV was anything but a solution for the most hard core EV nerds, then came Leaf and when Tesla showed up and it exploded. In Norway all power is hydroelectric so EV cars are quite pollution free in use. And we can certainly use some of our oil money to support the development of new technology.

 

[Jchonline]

It is really simple for me. Once the technology for EVs is better than diesel for my uses I will consider it. Until then it is just a massive inconvenience and downright unsafe up in the mountains. I have seen Teslaç—´ on the side of the road in a blizzard on I-70. Double the discharge rate in freezing conditions? No thanks. Once these things have 1000 miles range with the heater or AC blaring full force in 20 degree I will take a look. Until then just a big waste of money for me. Before anyone jumps on climate change or CO2 emissions...my entire home is off grid solar so you can do the same before you decide to post anything to criticize.

 

[Jchonline]

Of course I know the deal in Norway, but as many new developments it's funded of partial backed by government. Those EV benefits did come long before a EV was anything but a solution for the most hard core EV nerds, then came Leaf and when Tesla showed up and it exploded. In Norway all power is hydroelectric so EV cars are quite pollution free in use. And we can certainly use some of our oil money to support the development of new technology.

Land area of Norway is 180k square miles. Land area of the US is 3797k square miles, or 21 TIMES the area. Once the EV tech that is great in Norway gets 21 TIMES better, it would be a fair comparison to its use in the US.
Norway population is 5 million. Capital Oslo has 500k. NY city alone has 8.5 million in an array of 302 square miles, or 596 TIMES smaller than Norway. Sorry the economies of scale in a country as small as one of our states with a total population less than many of our cities just doesnt provide a good use case.

 

[Egon]

The EV market will continue to grow and for a large part of it battery energy will suffice...but technology will evolve with a more efficient alternative to batteries especially for taking the place of what most of us consider daily drivers etc...

Although the numbers will drop drastically gas (petrol) stations will still be around when the typical public charging stations have gone the way of the phone booth...!

Yes, it would seem phones have advanced well beyond the phone booth technology!

 

[Jchonline]

I've read that this is myth, FUD originated by the oil industry and spread by the traditional auto industry that will lose much of the money they make today on after-sale maintenance. Renewable energy is already cheaper to produce than anything fueled by coal, that's a dying industry held together mostly by subsidies at this stage. And the subsidies for oil are huge including a few trillion spent in the Middle East in recent times. People with plug in vehicles don't fail to take this into account. That's naive propaganda to paint that short sighted attitude onto EV owners.

Petroleum and natural gas used to generate electricity for an EV results in greater efficiency than burning it in an IC engine, something like 2~3 times the miles per gallon of fuel consumed due to the more efficient conversion of btu's to forward motion comparing electric to an IC motor, and considering what is used for pipeline construction, trucking etc before the fuel reaches a gas station. And renewable energy - hydro, wind, solar - are increasing as a proportion of the world's total generating capacity. As renewable energy increases in importance some of the big generating plants planned for the future are being deferred or cancelled because demand for petroleum or coal based electricity is no longer climbing. I think it was Germany, Britain, and some Central American country that noted they had accomplished whole days running on nothing but renewable energy. That trend will continue.

Other countries with shorter travel distances are now considerably ahead of the US in adopting EV's. Keep an eye on Ford, they seem to be the leader in traditional US manufacturers developing EV strategy - while Tesla has already become a major passenger car supplier in the US. In summary the future is already here.

A few things here. One of the largest proponents of renewable energy in the US (he actually drove the rebates that we all now love for solar adoption) has switched gears and now says it wont work for the current economy and that we are actually harming the environment...and that it WILL NOT SCALE to meet out needs. Nuclear is the best option. His name is Michael Shellenberger, look him up.

Second do you have a 100% off grid home? Are you charging your vehicle in the evening when the sun is down on internal batteries in your home or only when the sun is out? Of course renewable energy is cheap to produce...thatç—´ not the problem. The problem is WHEN it is produced. It is a complete reversal for humans to use electricity when it is convenient for their renewable source vs using it when it is convenient for them (say when they get home from work).

The we look at hydroelectric infrastructure...being from CA you should be all too familiar with the COST of maintaining ( or lack thereof) hydroelectric power on the scale it takes to provide power to a city. Oroville was almost a complete catastrophe and it has everything to do with lack of maintaining aging infrastructure. IT IS EXPENSIVE. What is even worse is you dont get rid of any power lines if power is not generated locally at the site of need. So you still have line maintenance costs to deal with.

With Solar when you add the cost of batteries in EVERY business and home to provide the same level of service as the grid it is about 4 times the cost. Then we have to replace batteries every decade or more (some will be wasted) and panels every few decades. Sorry but you are full of it if you think it is cheaper to maintain a solar system with batteries than a purely on grid business or home.

The article you read about going an entire day on renewable was probably Germany. However have you bothered to look at their electricity costs over the past decade? Check out that TED talk above. It has skyrocketed. That is great for someone that can afford it, but for many it is unsustainable. The model is garbage. Yes that is right, the cost of electricity has risen by about 80% in the past 13 years.
German households and industry pay highest power prices in Europe | Clean Energy Wire

Show me a model that is BETTER than what we have and I will consider it. I will say it again, this is from the perspective of someone that has a 100% off grid solar home. I chose it because it was the BEST option for us.

 

[California]

I think some of you are looking at EV's from a rural perspective and you're right in that context, EV's aren't suitable there.

On the other hand the typical urban commuter spends 20 minutes getting to work - a different application than anyone rural. The urban commuters are the natural application for EV's today, and the soccer mommy who visits multiple local destinations, in a family that nearly always has a second car for the occasional 100+ mile trip to grandma's or the beach. Almost no one is claiming EV's are a universal solution to anything at this point in their evolution - so rebutting that false notion is irrelevant.

Re Oroville hydro in particular - that project was lobbied by the big commercial ag businesses 200 miles south of there to have the taxpayers subsidize cheap irrigation water for them, with electricity and excess water sent to Los Angeles claimed as additional benefits. More recently those big stakeholders have neglected paying for critical maintenance, much to the dismay of everyone downstream from the dam. They don't care. They don't live downstream, or on the farms they have invested in. Oroville dam and the interests powerful enough to lobby what the maintenance standards should be, aren't particularly relevant to using hydro to power EV's.

In summary EV's aren't a solution that fits everyone, and aren't proposed for everyone - as some of the detractors assert. They do have a place in some countries and even in some circumstances, in urban US. Arguing to make them go away is silly.

 

[Egon]

Oh the cost of those batteries!

Anyone familiar with the cost of constructing A nuclear plant including the raw materials required, the regular maintenance procedures and cost of spent fuel disposal. Chump change some would say.