When Will Electric Cars Become Mainstream?

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Ah come on now. I know you’re an engineer. That link is talking about the power required by an ICE to produce AC. An ICE is what, 20% efficient.?   
[...]
BTW , both my Volt and my wife’s Chrysler Pacifica PHEV, use less than 2kW to run the AC. I’ll take a screenshot next time I get a chance.

I turn it on in my ICE and it uses ZERO watts when it's colder outside than the cabin set temp. Your EV's A/C, in the same situation, would be sucking kWs like crazy.

[nctnico]

Wikipedia says 3kW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_air_conditioning with a reference to a scientific report.

Ah come on now. I know you’re an engineer. That link is talking about the power required by an ICE to produce AC. An ICE is what, 20% efficient.?   
Here’s the quote: “In a modern automobile, the A/C system will use around 4 horsepower (3 kW) of the engine's power, thus increasing fuel consumption of the vehicle.”

Which just proves the point, AC will reduce an ICEs autos range as well, but in a much less efficient manner.

BTW , both my Volt and my wife’s Chrysler Pacifica PHEV, use less than 2kW to run the AC. I’ll take a screenshot next time I get a chance.

You are rambling. The link says an AC on a car needs  typically 3kW (mechanical or electrical) to operate based on a scientific report. Why the hell go raving on about efficiencies? That it not the subject at all. And I really don't care about your car and your special case. It is besides the point. However it is logical that due to circumstances and type of AC some ACs in cars will need more power and some will need less. I shouldn't need to have to explain that. The report probably has some numbers on what kind of spread there is in AC power usage.

[mtdoc]

So your contention is that the energy efficiency of AC production from gasoline burned in an ICE is the same or better than the efficiency of AC production from a Lithium battery pack? THAT is the issue my ”raving” addressed.  Nothing more.

My “special case” was just a BTW - adding a data point to the discussion - that’s all. Obviously many factors affect this.

[nctnico]

So your contention is that the energy efficiency of AC production from gasoline burned in an ICE is the same or better than the efficiency of AC production from a Lithium battery pack? THAT is the issue my ”raving” addressed.  Nothing more.

That wasn't the topic of the discussion. What people where wondering about is how the AC will reduce the range of an EV. Given the fact that an EV carries much less energy with it the answer is 'a significant amount because an AC typically uses 3kW'. Others already provided examples with numbers. And because an ICE based car carries way more energy and is quicker to fill up people really don't have to care about efficiency.

[mtdoc]

So your contention is that the energy efficiency of AC production from gasoline burned in an ICE is the same or better than the efficiency of AC production from a Lithium battery pack? THAT is the issue my ”raving” addressed.  Nothing more.

That wasn't the topic of the discussion.

But  I was responding to your Wikipedia sourced figure.

because an AC typically uses 3kW'.

But we don’t know how much energy a modern EV  “typically” uses for AC. You have NOT provided a source documenting that. I and others first hand experience says it is much lower.

And because an ICE based car carries way more energy and is quicker to fill up people really don't have to care about efficiency.

Well yes, of course. They should care about efficiency, but most don’t. No one disputes that, do they?  Thermodynamics dictates that there is no free lunch. Nothing available to power a vehicle is going to have the energy density of gasoline. Not even close.

There will be a price to pay in terms of convenience for the inevitable transition from dirty, inefficient (yet convenient) ICE powered vehicles.  But it is happening anyways. It must.

[NiHaoMike]

Well yes, of course. They should care about efficiency, but most don’t. No one disputes that, do they?  Thermodynamics dictates that there is no free lunch. Nothing available to power a vehicle is going to have the energy density of gasoline. Not even close.

Biodiesel actually has slightly more energy per gallon than gasoline does. Thus plug in hybrids can still have a place in a 100% fossil fuel free world. (I doubt it will ever get to 100% due to niche uses.)

[nctnico]

Well yes, of course. They should care about efficiency, but most don’t. No one disputes that, do they?  Thermodynamics dictates that there is no free lunch. Nothing available to power a vehicle is going to have the energy density of gasoline. Not even close.

Biodiesel actually has slightly more energy per gallon than gasoline does. Thus plug in hybrids can still have a place in a 100% fossil fuel free world. (I doubt it will ever get to 100% due to niche uses.)

It wouldn't surprise me that by the time EVs have decent range and are affordable (IOW: 20 to 30 years from now) all ICE cars run on (mostly) bio-fuel and EVs are a solution to a problem which no longer exists. Worse, electricity is likely to become scarse once we turn all the fossil and nuclear power plants off. Bio-fuel OTOH can replace fossil car fuels gradually and it doesn't take any investment from the car owner. A couple of days ago I linked to an article which clearly stated a lot of people will not be able to afford an EV even though governments have set goals that say a large amount of new cars sold should be EVs. At some point reality has to kick in.
OTOH production of bio-fuel has been increasing every year and is currently responsible for a major reduction in CO2 emissions (also due to governments requiring to add bio-fuel to fossil car fuels). On a global scale EVs don't even register for CO2 savings due to their small numbers.

[mtdoc]

Biodiesel actually has slightly more energy per gallon than gasoline does.

I didn’t know that. Source?  In any case biodiesel requires large fossil fuel inputs to produce, so it is unlikely to be a long term solution.

[nctnico]

  In any case biodiesel requires large fossil fuel inputs to produce, so it is unlikely to be a long term solution.

You can say the same about solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc.

[coppice]

  In any case biodiesel requires large fossil fuel inputs to produce, so it is unlikely to be a long term solution.

You can say the same about solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc.

Solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc currently use quite a lot of fossil fuel in their construction. They don't require fossil fuels on an ongoing basis throughout their life. Every litre of biodiesel consumes a lot of fossil fuel in its production. So much that feeding some of the biodiesel back around the production loop, to be used instead of fossil fuels, doesn't currently work out well.

[nctnico]

  In any case biodiesel requires large fossil fuel inputs to produce, so it is unlikely to be a long term solution.

You can say the same about solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc.

Solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc currently use quite a lot of fossil fuel in their construction. They don't require fossil fuels on an ongoing basis throughout their life. Every litre of biodiesel consumes a lot of fossil fuel in its production. So much that feeding some of the biodiesel back around the production loop, to be used instead of fossil fuels, doesn't currently work out well.

Currently... but there are more ways of making bio-fuel and it doesn't need to be diesel. Just as with solar and wind bio-fuel also needs kick starting to become profitable.

[coppice]

  In any case biodiesel requires large fossil fuel inputs to produce, so it is unlikely to be a long term solution.

You can say the same about solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc.

Solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc currently use quite a lot of fossil fuel in their construction. They don't require fossil fuels on an ongoing basis throughout their life. Every litre of biodiesel consumes a lot of fossil fuel in its production. So much that feeding some of the biodiesel back around the production loop, to be used instead of fossil fuels, doesn't currently work out well.

Currently... but there are more ways of making bio-fuel and it doesn't need to be diesel. Just as with solar and wind bio-fuel also needs kick starting to become profitable.

What is needed to change bio-fuels to something more sustainable is some major technical breakthroughs. None of the current approaches are going to get us very far. If some of the current experimental work can be made efficient and scalable we might have direct sunlight to liquid fuel schemes in the future, which would solve the storage issues we see with most renewables today. However, this is mostly speculation right now.

[nctnico]

What is needed to change bio-fuels to something more sustainable is some major technical breakthroughs. None of the current approaches are going to get us very far. If some of the current experimental work can be made efficient and scalable we might have direct sunlight to liquid fuel schemes in the future, which would solve the storage issues we see with most renewables today. However, this is mostly speculation right now.

I beg to differ. There is a lot more going on than just lab experiments. I've already pointed towards Poet-DSM a couple of times who are making ethanol from plants (turning cellulose into ethanol) on an industrial scale. In Brazil about 50% of the fuel used is bio-fuel but they can use less efficient methods because they have large amounts of land and not so many people. IMHO Brazil is an interesting example of using bio-fuel because they use a gradual changeover approach which is affordable for the people and still results in a massive reduction of CO2 emissions.

Also the EU plans to ban crop based bio-fuels in 2021 but will continue to require fuel to have a minimum amount of bio-fuel mixed in. That further stimulates companies to come up with viable alternatives. The market for bio-fuel is already there waiting to be fulfilled.

[ahbushnell]

Aircons take energy at a rate determined by the climate and not your driving. So, a high speed motorway journey between cities doesn't use a huge amount of energy for the aircon, as the journey doesn't last long. Get stuck in traffic, and its a different story.

I just finished a trip in the western US that was 3700 miles.  It was high speed for the most part.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[mtdoc]

  In any case biodiesel requires large fossil fuel inputs to produce, so it is unlikely to be a long term solution.

You can say the same about solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc.

Solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc currently use quite a lot of fossil fuel in their construction. They don't require fossil fuels on an ongoing basis throughout their life. Every litre of biodiesel consumes a lot of fossil fuel in its production. So much that feeding some of the biodiesel back around the production loop, to be used instead of fossil fuels, doesn't currently work out well.

Yes, true. Another difference is that the fossil fuel input to solar panels, batteries and windmill production could be eliminated eventually. Biofuel production in any meaningful quantity on the other hand, requires petrochemical inputs by its very nature.

Experimental biofuels, like improved batteries, thorium reactors, etc., are a dime a dozen and at this time are essentially vaporware on any useful scale.

[ludzinc]

  In any case biodiesel requires large fossil fuel inputs to produce, so it is unlikely to be a long term solution.

You can say the same about solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc.

Solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc currently use quite a lot of fossil fuel in their construction. They don't require fossil fuels on an ongoing basis throughout their life. Every litre of biodiesel consumes a lot of fossil fuel in its production. So much that feeding some of the biodiesel back around the production loop, to be used instead of fossil fuels, doesn't currently work out well.

Yes, true. Another difference is that the fossil fuel input to solar panels, batteries and windmill production could be eliminated eventually. Biofuel production in any meaningful quantity on the other hand, requires petrochemical inputs by its very nature.

Experimental biofuels, like improved batteries, thorium reactors, etc., are a dime a dozen and at this time are essentially vaporware on any useful scale.

Thorium reactors aren't biofuel.

As for vapourware?  Thorium reactors were a proven tech, a solved problem, in the 1960's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#United_States

Choice to use Uranium was based around plutonium production.

[nctnico]

  In any case biodiesel requires large fossil fuel inputs to produce, so it is unlikely to be a long term solution.

You can say the same about solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc.

Solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc currently use quite a lot of fossil fuel in their construction. They don't require fossil fuels on an ongoing basis throughout their life. Every litre of biodiesel consumes a lot of fossil fuel in its production. So much that feeding some of the biodiesel back around the production loop, to be used instead of fossil fuels, doesn't currently work out well.

Yes, true. Another difference is that the fossil fuel input to solar panels, batteries and windmill production could be eliminated eventually. Biofuel production in any meaningful quantity on the other hand, requires petrochemical inputs by its very nature.

I'd like to see a source for that bold statement. I really don't see why you would need fossil fuels to create bio-fuels in the future. It simply doesn't make sense. After all fossil fuels are not a component of the end product. All what is needed is energy to run a process which converts plants (or whatever) into ethanol. Solar panels, wind turbines, etc also need energy to be manufactured.

[coppice]

Toyota is building the factory, Tesla semi is supposed to come with that battery technology.
These are not the new article, when Won Heng at the technical university of new bullshit has combined batteries and supercapacitors with lazers. It is the real deal.
My numbers are in the tesla semi thread. I'm not gonna repeat myself.

Toyota recently said they don't expect to have solid state batteries in the market until 2030.

[mtdoc]

  In any case biodiesel requires large fossil fuel inputs to produce, so it is unlikely to be a long term solution.

You can say the same about solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc.

Solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc currently use quite a lot of fossil fuel in their construction. They don't require fossil fuels on an ongoing basis throughout their life. Every litre of biodiesel consumes a lot of fossil fuel in its production. So much that feeding some of the biodiesel back around the production loop, to be used instead of fossil fuels, doesn't currently work out well.

Yes, true. Another difference is that the fossil fuel input to solar panels, batteries and windmill production could be eliminated eventually. Biofuel production in any meaningful quantity on the other hand, requires petrochemical inputs by its very nature.

I'd like to see a source for that bold statement. I really don't see why you would need fossil fuels to create bio-fuels in the future. It simply doesn't make sense. After all fossil fuels are not a component of the end product.

I didn’t say fossil fuels, I said petrochemicals- noy exactly the same. Chemical fertilzers and pesticides are petrochemicals required to produce the needed biomass yield for large quantities of biofuels. Just one example is the use of nat gas in the Haber-Bosch process used to produce nitrogen fertilizer. There are countless examples of pesticides in use that are derived from petrochemicals. And petrochemicals are used in the actual chemical production of the biofuel itself - for example, biodiesel production involves trans-esterification of vegetable oils and fats through the addition of methanol and a catalyst.

You could surely produce some types of biofuels in small amounts without petrochemicals, but never on the scale needed for widespread use.

Solar panels, wind turbines, etc also need energy to be manufactured.

Yes of course they do and I said so above.  The difference is that you could produce those with an entirely fossil fuel and petrochemical free process, IF that infrastructure was built. Initially, building that infrastructure would require large fossil fuel inputs, but once built it could in theory be maintained without fossil fuel or petrochemical input.  Unfortunately we have not developed that infrastructure and it’s likely too late now.  As I’ve said before on this forum, we’ve waited too long and as much as I’d love to see a day when our current standard of high energy living is maintained for the masses with an all electric, fossil fuel free technology, it ain’t gonna happen IMHO.

[Fungus]

Evidence? Doug doesn't need no pesky evidence. 

There is ample evidence, if you would just read it.

It just can't be linked to for copyright reasons, right?

Or you could open a browser and type “Tesla LA to SF”.  But then agin maybe you can’t.  Give it a try and try something new.  You might learn something. 
Try adding hwy 5  and hwy 101.   But don’t try Hg 1 because only way a Tesla could get from LA to SF is with a tow truck.

and
b) I don't care because it's a strawman argument, like arguing that Ferraris are pointless because you can't get a sofa in the back.

If I spent my life transporting sofas I'd buy something suitable. If not, I'll enjoy my daily-drive Ferrari and rent a truck once in a while.

[nctnico]

I didn’t say fossil fuels, I said petrochemicals- noy exactly the same. Chemical fertilzers and pesticides are petrochemicals required to produce the needed biomass yield for large quantities of biofuels. Just one example is the use of nat gas in the Haber-Bosch process used to produce nitrogen fertilizer. There are countless examples of pesticides in use that are derived from petrochemicals. And petrochemicals are used in the actual chemical production of the biofuel itself - for example, biodiesel production involves trans-esterification of vegetable oils and fats through the addition of methanol and a catalyst.

You could surely produce some types of biofuels in small amounts without petrochemicals, but never on the scale needed for widespread use.

Since when can't we use petrochemicals? I also doubt this becomes a problem because all these things are required to grow food (and leftovers to make bio-fuel from). Growing crops just for bio-fuel is heading towards the exit.

[coppice]

Since when can't we use petrochemicals? I also doubt this becomes a problem because all these things are required to grow food (and leftovers to make bio-fuel from). Growing crops just for bio-fuel is heading towards the exit.

Did you miss the "petro" part of petrochemicals? If we run out of coal and oil our entire process for feeding the 7 to 8 billion people now alive will be severely compromised.

[nctnico]

Since when can't we use petrochemicals? I also doubt this becomes a problem because all these things are required to grow food (and leftovers to make bio-fuel from). Growing crops just for bio-fuel is heading towards the exit.

Did you miss the "petro" part of petrochemicals? If we run out of coal and oil our entire process for feeding the 7 to 8 billion people now alive will be severely compromised.

First of all there still is a huge amount of oil and even more coal sitting in the ground so I wouldn't worry about running out especially if we stop burning those. Secondly CO2 emissions don't have to go to zero to stop/reverse climate change. Thirdly I'm very sure someone will find a new process to make fertilizer. That process probably already exists but is not economically viable yet. Many processes which are in place today are the most economical ones given the sources. Change the sources and a different process will become more economical. If more parts of plants are used by turning them into bio-fuel then food prices won't even rise that much.

[NiHaoMike]

Did you miss the "petro" part of petrochemicals? If we run out of coal and oil our entire process for feeding the 7 to 8 billion people now alive will be severely compromised.

And that's a good argument to replace fossil fuels with renewables where practical. As well as accelerate the development of sustainable agriculture.

[Kjelt]

Or we all should start to shift our daily meals from plants that grow on the surface and needs sun and unsalted water which will also become scarce towards stuff that grows in the dark like mushrooms and other fungus. Mmmmmmm.