When Will Electric Cars Become Mainstream?

[wraper]

Anyway, point me to those 10l/100km which you see somewhere https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

EDIT: I found mpg figure in assumptions. In any case, this is not some random figure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

I didn't feel need to comment more about already so flawed post, but OK. https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-is-required-to-build-an-electric-car

You don't believe everything your read on the internets, do you?

On that page, in the very first paragraph:

The Energy Density of gasoline is 44.4 MJ per kg, so it is useful to think that the energy in 1,125 liters of fuel (roughly 22 full tanks of gasoline) is what is needed to make a new EV! "

WRONG because 1 litre of gasoline isn't 1 kg of mass, more like 0.7[kg/l] => you'd need 1462 litres. (search energy density in the wikipedia).

2nd paragraph:

The battery capacity on Tesla’s Model S is 85kWh or 306MJ. You will need to fully charge your Model S 164 times to have spent 50GJ of energy or the equivalent of making another EV"

WRONG, because the best case round trip efficiency of li-ion batts is 90..95%, and still have to add to that charger losses. Hint: Teslas have calefaction for the batteries (for charging in cold places) and cooling (to dissipate batt's heat during recharge).

this will give you approximately 70,000 km (range for the 85 kWh battery is 426 km)

I'm glad to see he estimates 19.9 kWh per 100 km. That's not the real thing either (under normal driving habits), but at least isn't the much lower silly figures most EV fanboys try to make us believe.

Then this:

On an ICV, which will take 60 full tanks (50L tank) to compare with its 34 GJ at 25% eff

WRONG, look, 60[tanks]*50[litre]*34.2[MJ/l] -> 102.6 GJ, but 34GJ*4 is 136 GJ.

I stopped there. You get the idea, don't you?

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

To this day only 15 Tesla fires are known (2013-2018). Except a few, they happened after very severe crashes. As on Feb 2018 total of 300,000 Tesla cars were produced. That means around 1 in 20 000 of them caught fire.
In 2015 there were 263 million cars in US. With 174k car fires the same year, it's 1 fire per 1500 cars annually. Please note that Tesla number is during all years they were produced, not annually.
So now lets think again about:

So what's more likely to catch fire, a 12 volts car that's totally off or a car with a hundreds of volts, kilowatts inverter/power supply pushing charge into a massive li-ion battery?

Yes, let's think again but about the meaning of the saying "apples to oranges": you can't compare brand new EVs with +20 year old ICEs. (BTW we'll see how well EVs batteries, electrolytics and power electronics behave after 20 years)

And, also, Teslas aren't the only EVs there are. BMW's i3 also catch fire every now and then, and Leafs I guess, etc...

http://bmwi3.blogspot.com/2015/12/bmw-i3-melts-away-in-house-fire.html


https://www.autoevolution.com/news/bmw-i3-police-car-catches-fire-in-rome-bad-news-for-the-lapd-109367.html#


In any case, I was asking that question as a nerd: what do you as a nerd/engineer think is more likely to catch fire?

[wraper]

In any case, I was asking that question as a nerd: what do you as a nerd/engineer think is more likely to catch fire?

You may think what you want but real statistics are not in your favor. I don't want to buy anything designed by engineers for whom feels and superstitions matter more than real numbers. Old ICEs? Those Ford Kuga were 2013+. Also do you really think US uses mostly old cars? Even if only 1 in 20 of those 174k cars burned in 2015 were relatively new and we forget about the rest, statistics are still not in favor of them.

[wraper]

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/bmw-i3-police-car-catches-fire-in-rome-bad-news-for-the-lapd-109367.html#

but it's worth pointing out at this moment that the i3 was equipped with a range extender, which means it came with a small gasoline engine that would act as a power generator charging the batteries on the go.

And then https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/23/bmw-recalling-19000-i3-rex-units-fuel-vapor-fire-danger/

BMW will be issuing a recall for over 19,000 i3 REx (range-extended) cars towards the beginning of April due to concerns about fuel vapors potentially starting fires, according to recent reports.

Yep, good old ICE 

[wraper]

http://bmwi3.blogspot.com/2015/12/bmw-i3-melts-away-in-house-fire.html

Nice fact checking George  You didn't even read what was written there.

Also, neither the car, nor the home charging equipment, had anything to do with the fire. It was an unfortunate accident resulting from a fireworks event for a New Year's Eve celebration last year. Hours after cleaning up the debris from a neighborhood event, a trash can that had ashes from the fireworks ignited. Neighbors had gotten together for the fireworks display and the clean up. There must have been something placed in the trash that wasn't completely extinguished, and after a few hours of smoldering, it unfortunately caught on fire.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

But my point still stands: Teslas aren't the only EVs there are. Other EVs also catch fire every now and then. Add them up.

And you keep comparing apples to oranges (unknowingly it seems) because a new Tata Tiago or a Dacia Sandero (sold by the millions) is in no way comparable to a new Tesla Model S or an i3 not even to a Leaf that costs 4..8 times as much. When and if there are cheap EVs then we'll find out where do they cut corners/$.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

You may think what you want but real statistics are not in your favor. I don't want to buy anything designed by engineers for whom feels and superstitions matter more than real numbers.

Superstitions? What might be the MTBF of something that's turned off?

[wraper]

But my point still stands: Teslas aren't the only EVs there are. Other EVs also catch fire every now and then. Add them up.

All you gathered to show other EV fires was false. With tesla, it was easy to gather number made and number of fires as every fire is all over the news.

Superstitions? What might be the MTBF of something that's turned off?

Did you read what I and others said. ICE cars are not fully turned off. Not to say that even if they sort of would, energized wiring still would be there.

[wraper]

Then this:

On an ICV, which will take 60 full tanks (50L tank) to compare with its 34 GJ at 25% eff

WRONG, look, 60[tanks]*50[litre]*34.2[MJ/l] -> 102.6 GJ, but 34GJ*4 is 136 GJ.

I stopped there. You get the idea, don't you?

I didn't quote or check his calculations about fuel amount vs count of charge times as this was pretty much irrelevant for the question of how much energy it takes to make EV vs ICV (~1.5 times more). The parts I quoted come here (energy spent on manufacturing/CO₂ emissions): https://greet.es.anl.gov/files/vehicle_and_components_manufacturing

EV requires 50 GJ and 3,250 CO2 to manufacture while a normal ICV requires 34 GJ and 2,000 kg of CO2.

And CO₂ emissions during usage: https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php
After a first year of use ICV already will create more CO₂ emissions (manufacturing + usage).

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Yeah, ...hypermiling downhill with the A/C off :-)

Look, Hyundai says of the Ionic: 28 kWh battery, 280 km range => 10 kWh/100km and you say 14 kWh/100km, which is 40% more, right?

Teslas have wider tyres and a larger frontal cross section area and more power and weight and Tesla says 19.9 kWh/100km, now you do the math.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Ok, so the Teslas are the only EVs that catch fire spontaneously or in an accident... right?

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

And when we say an ICE runs 10 mpg is because we've put 1 gallon into the tank and it's gone 10 miles with it. But you, to begin with, to draw 10kWh off your batt have to take (about) 10/0.85 -> almost 12 kWh off the wall plug, something that very conveniently always forget to mention in the figures you give.

[wraper]

Ok, so the Teslas are the only EVs that catch fire spontaneously or in an accident... right?

Maybe, would not check for that. Does not matter if they are still tens of times less prone to that compared to ICV.

[wraper]

And when we say an ICE runs 10 mpg is because we've put 1 gallon into the tank and it's gone 10 miles with it. But you, to begin with, to draw 10kWh off your batt have to take (about) 10/0.85 -> almost 12 kWh off the wall plug, something that very conveniently always forget to mention in the figures you give.

LOL what? What this is supposed to imply?

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Ok, so the Teslas are the only EVs that catch fire spontaneously or in an accident... right?

Maybe, would not check for that. Does not matter if they are still tens of times less prone to that compared to ICV.

Which is something that you just don't know and keep comparing apples to oranges.

[wraper]

Ok, so the Teslas are the only EVs that catch fire spontaneously or in an accident... right?

Maybe, would not check for that. Does not matter if they are still tens of times less prone to that compared to ICV.

Which is something that you just don't know and keep comparing apples to oranges.

If you imply that Tesla is the least safe EV, then be it. Then I could say that the least safe EV is still tens of times safer than average ICV. Widespread EV fires are somewhat unheard of.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

And when we say an ICE runs 10 mpg is because we've put 1 gallon into the tank and it's gone 10 miles with it. But you, to begin with, to draw 10kWh off your batt have to take (about) 10/0.85 -> almost 12 kWh off the wall plug, something that very conveniently always forget to mention in the figures you give.

LOL what? What this is supposed to imply?

What part, exactly, you don't understand?

[wraper]

And when we say an ICE runs 10 mpg is because we've put 1 gallon into the tank and it's gone 10 miles with it. But you, to begin with, to draw 10kWh off your batt have to take (about) 10/0.85 -> almost 12 kWh off the wall plug, something that very conveniently always forget to mention in the figures you give.

LOL what? What this is supposed to imply?

What part, exactly, you don't understand?

You mention mpg and kWh, what conclusion I should make out of that oranges vs apples mentioning, not even comparison? That you cannot rate EV with mpg? Or cannot charge ICV?  . Or it's a news for you that EV don't generate free energy?
As of CO₂ emissions resulting from using EV, particular number was given, not nearly 0.

[wraper]

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

You mention mpg and kWh, what conclusion I should make out of that oranges vs apples mentioning, not even comparison? That you cannot rate EV with mpg? Or cannot charge ICV?  . Or it's a news for you that EV don't generate free energy?
As of CO₂ emissions resulting from using EV, particular number was given, not nearly 0.

If you say an EV consumes 10 kWh/100km in reality it has consumed 12 kWh off the wall plug => 12 kWh/100km not 10.
If you say an ICE consumes 10 litres/100km in reality is has consumed 10 litres off the gas pump. No tricks here, unlike above.

[wraper]

If you say an ICE consumes 10 litres/100km in reality is has consumed 10 litres off the gas pump. No tricks here, unlike above.

Where is the trick? In your imagination?

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

All the kWh/km figures the EV users give are wrong, to begin with.

[wraper]

All the kWh/km figures the EV users give are wrong, to begin with.

Those figures were not from EV users but from a government website.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Not those.