Piles of Tesla owners stranded at charge stations abandons their EV's.

[MT]

And now! Eevblog's newest favourite   Aussie (ex UK) EV debunker! Well, after the superb "Auto Expert John Cadogan"... of course. 

Why NOBODY will build EV charging stations | MGUY Australia:

[rstofer]

Somebody should have told our shopping center.   They put in several stations for the convenience of their customers.  Many other malls are doing the same thing.

My view:  Unless a responder has driven an EV as their primary (perhaps only) vehicle for, say, 9 years, their opinion is irrelevant and should be flagged as such.  They know exactly diddly.

[tom66]

Meanwhile more EV charging stations were installed in 2023 than in 2022 in the UK, and 2022 beat 2021, and 2021... You get the picture.   But sure, there's NO business model for installing these chargers.  It's completely non-existent.

Still enjoying my ID.3, will be coming up on 9 months of ownership now.  Much better than the plug in hybrid that preceded it.

[TimFox]

Besides shopping centers, another business that I have seen install charging stations in Chicago is in the parking lot for laundromats, where the clients need to park for a while.

[pqass]

So there's no business model to setup dedicated charging plazas (like a gas station?) where (in addition to the chargers) prime locations are few and expensive.  Also, gas stations aren't cheap either with the large tanks in the ground and the evironmental cleanup during and afterwards.  It's typical of EV infrastructure to have most costs up front but at least the recurring energy delivery won't require a truck fleet.

But why the worry that Tesla will setup next door to you?  It sounds like they manged to get a business model that works for them.

I see a future where existing ammenities (tourist attractions, shopping, dining, etc) will put up a few chargers in their parking lots to attract shoppers. Typically, the property managment companies would own or lease-out the stalls like some solar companies will lease your roof (eg. a cut of production). 

If only all the operators would unite under one internet access point/marketplace so that customers can have a seamless experience; having timely knowledge of all nearby available chargers (their abilities and status) and the local attractions to entice/keep them.

From the news reporting, I'm surprised that the Tesla network still lead cutomers to unavailable chargers.

[tom66]

So there's no business model to setup dedicated charging plazas (like a gas station?) where (in addition to the chargers) prime locations are few and expensive.  Also, gas stations aren't cheap either with the large tanks in the ground and the evironmental cleanup during and afterwards.  It's typical of EV infrastructure to have most costs up front but at least the recurring energy delivery won't require a truck fleet.

But why the worry that Tesla will setup next door to you?  It sounds like they manged to get a business model that works for them.

I see a future where existing ammenities (tourist attractions, shopping, dining, etc) will put up a few chargers in their parking lots to attract shoppers. Typically, the property managment companies would own or lease-out the stalls like some solar companies will lease your roof (eg. a cut of production). 

If only all the operators would unite under one internet access point/marketplace so that customers can have a seamless experience; having timely knowledge of all nearby available chargers (their abilities and status) and the local attractions to entice/keep them.

It's already a whole lot better than it was a few years ago.  For rapid chargers you can nearly universally use a credit/debit card and bypass all that app bullshit.  There's also a few unifying companies that have RFID cards available that give you access to discounted tariffs (for instance I get 8% off the bill when I use my 'Electroverse' card).

For slow AC charging the situation is still "apps are the way" for the majority and it's a pain, though mostly the pain happens when first discovering, oh, this charger is run by Shell, so I need to go and register for those guys and set up my card with them.  And for some reason a lot of these companies haven't figured out Apple Pay, seriously, this is 2024, it's been around as an app integration for at least 5 years now.

From the news reporting, I'm surprised that the Tesla network still lead cutomers to unavailable chargers.

I suspect it didn't, Tesla does route people away from chargers like this.  It is probably the case that people went here because they knew it existed.  That said Tesla will never route its customers to 3rd party chargers so if this is truly the only supercharger for a while it could be a reason they all ended up there.  They should probably change that, though I can understand their reluctance as they are a bit like Apple in wanting to control the whole "experience".

[bdunham7]

My view:  Unless a responder has driven an EV as their primary (perhaps only) vehicle for, say, 9 years, their opinion is irrelevant and should be flagged as such.  They know exactly diddly.

OK, I have a 2014 model year EV so I guess I can say something?  Yes, EV charging stations are being built for various reasons but the observation that an EV charging station as a standalone business is hopeless if you expect a profit is still entirely true.  That sad fact has nothing to do with the various reasons that EV charging stations are being built--those reasons being things like a very large fraud settlement with VW or businesses and municipalities putting them in because they are required, encouraged or seen as the socially responsible thing to do, or simply as a way of dominating the market like Tesla.  But the EV charging business on its own doesn't work so there has to be another reason for someone to do it. 

You might think that all that doesn't matter and the only thing you care about is that the stations are being built.  Well, good luck with that in the long run and if you want an example of what might happen, take a look at L2 charging.  Our 2014 EV does not have HVDC charging, only L2.  That worked just fine for us for the first 5 years or so, charging mostly at home but using destination charging for certain extended trips.  We still can do that sometimes, but not as reliably or often because the L2 chargers have been going away and the remaining ones are overwhelmed.  There are no funds to maintain them and the business model is so bad that even paying fairly expensive rates won't allow the EV charging station owner to even maintain an existing, installed charger let alone install more, regardless of demand.

This hasn't killed off our EV use, just reduced our driving range a bit at times.  We'll take a different vehicle for long trips as always and the only difference is what we drive on some intermediate runs.  Home charging still works.  But my viewpoint is that depending on public EV charging is not a good long term plan at this point as it will either collapse or become badly overburdened once the subsides and growth euphoria subsides.  I already see lines at local EV charging stations, even the new Electrify America station near my house that really isn't on the road to anywhere. 

[wraper]

Dunno what's wrong with that Chicago charging station or those people who left those cars but in say Norway superchargers operate in much harsher weather conditions. I only know Chicago for being a world famous dysfunctional shithole, so prolly has to do something with that.

[Kleinstein]

Under the conditions of extreme cold the electric grid is under stress from high demand. Chances are the rates for the larger consumers are sky high now and those charging stations likely have to pay them or possibly even have to shut down to avoid overload / backouts.  A few stranded cars may be lesser evil compared to a black out.  In the US the electricity grid in many areas is quite weak.

The cold wether also adds quite some demand on the battery usage for heating the car. So those cars that are normally mainly charged at home suddently need an extra charge after only a relatively short drive.

[David Hess]

My view:  Unless a responder has driven an EV as their primary (perhaps only) vehicle for, say, 9 years, their opinion is irrelevant and should be flagged as such.  They know exactly diddly.

If I was going to buy an EV, then charging station available and reliability are prime concerns, and so far it seems like a losing proposition unless I can rely on only charging at home.

If individual charger availability and reliability is not being published in real time, then they are not available and reliable; they are hiding poor availability and poor reliability.

[TimFox]

Dunno what's wrong with that Chicago charging station or those people who left those cars but in say Norway superchargers operate in much harsher weather conditions. I only know Chicago for being a world famous dysfunctional shithole, so prolly has to do something with that.

Are you referring to the city I live in, or the one you see on Fox News TV?
When I traveled to Arctic Norway (Narvik) in February about 30 years ago, I dressed for Minnesota weather , but it was only so cold as Chicago;  never got to the Baltics.
I avoid sensational YouTube stuff: was that charging station inside the city limits, or northwest of Chicago which was hit much worse in last week’s storm?

[Homer J Simpson]

Why Hertz is Dumping Tesla

[TimFox]

A recent newspaper business section article pointed out that Tesla’s recent price cuts (reacting to competition) automatically reduced the resale value of Hertz’ inventory of Teslas for eventual resale as used cars.
Obviously, charging stations and vehicle sales need to bootstrap each other for full-scale adoption of EVs.

[tszaboo]

Why Hertz is Dumping Tesla

It's because the repair cost of Tesla is insanely high. I've seen a repair bill for a model X door that was more than a VW Golf. My boss spent more on his 3-4 year old Tesla on repairs for small accidents, and the charger that blows up in his car, then I did buying and running my Toyota. This is not a good indication for electric cars in general, because other car makers know how to make cars that can be repaired.

[bdunham7]

Are you referring to the city I live in, or the one you see on Fox News TV?

Chicagoland or the Chicago area, all the same, right?  I could live in Lake Forest and concerned (foreign) relatives would send me news stories about Harvey, IL.  The Tesla Supercharger was in Oakbrook.

[TimFox]

Oakbrook is not even in Cook County.
Wrapper apparently knows that Chicago is a “dysfunctional shithole”, but I doubt he has visited here.
I have lived in the city since 1970.

[nctnico]

A recent newspaper business section article pointed out that Tesla’s recent price cuts (reacting to competition) automatically reduced the resale value of Hertz’ inventory of Teslas for eventual resale as used cars.
Obviously, charging stations and vehicle sales need to bootstrap each other for full-scale adoption of EVs.

According to the news sources over here, Tesla refuses to sell their cars to Hertz with a guaranteed buy-back price where other manufacturers do offer a guaranteed buy-back price to rental companies like Hertz. On top of that repairs of Tesla's cars take long so the downtime is too long.

BTW: I never understood why companies that install public chargers require apps and seperate payments systems. It only make things harder for BEV users. Everyone has a debit / credit card. But I guess these companies have the same marketing geniuses onboard like electronic part manufacturers that require registration to see a datasheet 

[SiliconWizard]

The base reason is probably similar: tracking customers. It's nasty, but it's not stupid.

[PlainName]

Also, gas stations aren't cheap either with the large tanks in the ground and the evironmental cleanup during and afterwards.

Local supermarket put the tank above ground (it's inside what looks like a normal gas station shop, but that's just a front for the tank). No hole to dig, no hole to decontaminate and fill in when it's taken away. Set to one side of the car park so they didn't have to buy more prime estate. Only time it's not being used is when it runs dry.

Meantime, the same place has 4 spaces for charging EVs. It's rare to see them all being used at once, although generally at least one will be. They put those right outside the main entrance so you'd think using an EV would save having to walk very far

Edit: You think I'm exaggerating, so here's a pix

[themadhippy]

BTW: I never understood why companies that install public chargers require apps and seperate payments systems.

so they can charge a transaction  fee on top of th e charging rate

[bdunham7]

BTW: I never understood why companies that install public chargers require apps and seperate payments systems.

so they can charge a transaction  fee on top of th e charging rate

Why would they need their own app for that versus a regular credit card?  Chargepoint stations take credit cards but offer you a discount if you have one of their cards.  I used to see apps demanding monthly fees to 'subscribe', but I think that's gone away for the most part.

[themadhippy]

Why would they need their own app for that versus a regular credit card?

In the uk at least,you cant add a fee for just using a credit or debit card,the loop hole is to call it a transaction fee for using the app.

[bdunham7]

In the uk at least,you cant add a fee for just using a credit or debit card,the loop hole is to call it a transaction fee for using the app.

I guess I'm not understanding something.  Why not just charge the fee for using the charger?

[EEVblog]

BTW: I never understood why companies that install public chargers require apps and seperate payments systems.

That's my major gripe.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/U08Y_S4Cs2E

[wraper]

BTW: I never understood why companies that install public chargers require apps and seperate payments systems.

In case of Tesla, until recently superchargers were Tesla exclusive and owners likely already had an app for other reasons, so wasn't a big problem. As of the reasons why you wound not want card payment terminals, having unattended self-service points of sale poses a very high susceptibility to skimmer fraud.

[bdunham7]

In case of Tesla, until recently superchargers were Tesla exclusive and owners likely already had an app for other reasons, so wasn't a big problem. As of the reasons why you wound not want card payment terminals, having unattended self-service points of sale poses a very high susceptibility to skimmer fraud.

The Chargepoint stations have contactless card readers and I don't think any charging stations I've seen have stripe readers.  Their system seems OK, it's the multitude of little nickel-and-dime operations that have their own apps or cards.

[floobydust]

Dunno what's wrong with that Chicago charging station or those people who left those cars but in say Norway superchargers operate in much harsher weather conditions. I only know Chicago for being a world famous dysfunctional shithole, so prolly has to do something with that.

What is the low temperature limit and who's deciding to lockout charging- the charger or the battery pack?
I thought it was the car's battery pack will refuse fast charging if cold, that makes sense. Not sure if you can drive a cold car either.
I guess the battery heater has to be run and would expect the chargers to be OK. Cooling systems use glycol for low temps.

It's been a week of -38°C weather and did see one or two the Teslas on the road lol. But they live a pampered life, parked inside a heated garage so after a few hours on the road they cool down, freeze and... time to drive home, all done shopping. The hit on battery life with interior heater and battery heater on, must be significant.

[bdunham7]

What is the low temperature limit and who's deciding to lockout charging- the charger or the battery pack?

I doubt it was a direct intentional temperature lockout, especially since it didn't get ridiculously cold there--it's not Yellowknife.  But yes, the energy gets sucked out very quickly when the temperature goes well below freezing and the batteries have to warm up to charge if they are cold.  They do use energy to keep the battery warm when driving, so if you get on a charger right away it may not be a big deal.  But all those cars sitting outside getting cold soaked is going to be a headache.

[Siwastaja]

The cold wether also adds quite some demand on the battery usage for heating the car. So those cars that are normally mainly charged at home suddently need an extra charge after only a relatively short drive.

This is a dimensioning problem - if large number of people choose their EV based on the full battery capacity just barely being enough for their actual needs, there are going to be serious problems when everybody choose to make longer trips on the same day, even if weather is good. Cold weather exacerbates the problem. A lot of discussion is going on about quick charging power and how it needs to increase more and more and more, car manufacturers have stopped talking about battery capacity and started talking about their theoretical maximum fast charging power, yet realistically I can already see how people who depend on quick charging sit in their "capable of 150kW" vehicles, queuing for a vacant quick charger while charging at 0kW and actually consuming 2kW to stay warm, to finally find a free charger out of ten, which, all being in use, are running power-limited at 50kW since the provider doesn't want to pay for a larger main fuse contract for those short peaks.

So realistically, quick charging still means 30-50kW and if you are fine with that, then things are looking good for you. I was pondering between 40kWh and 60kWh Nissan LEAF, and chose the larger one, which means I can mostly do with home charging. That choice has already proven really good; if I stop for shopping/etc., I can see how all the DC quick chargers, with the CCS-only plug the Leaf doesn't even support, are lined up, while level 2 stations sit unused, so I can plug in and get maybe 10-20km of extra charge, which is enough because I chose the bigger battery pack.

Those who have to rely on the public charging network all the time create an exponential problem when there is any glitch. The expectation of charging EVs "like pumping in gasoline" was always wrong, and still is, but this is exactly what we get when "normal people" start adapting EVs. It's not going to be pretty, but quite obviously the current fossil thing isn't pretty either - when the temperature hits -30degC, there is epidemic of diesel vehicles dying and needing a tow, so 

[tom66]

It's very much dependent on the right vehicle for the right climate too.  One thing that surprises me is there is little effort from EV manufacturers to insulate the battery pack.  The cells are essentially directly connected to the steel casing and a cooling loop passes below - a small plastic layer provides a little bit of insulation, but pretty minimal.  EVs for colder climates might benefit from having batteries optimised for colder weather, with thermal insulation being prioritised. The cabin itself is also usually poorly insulated.  Single-glazed side windows are common, for instance, and door areas typically aren't thermally insulated.

Certainly the case that a heat pump is really good for longer range driving in winter.  My ID.3 gets about 200 miles on a full charge in summer, and in the 0C winters that are common to the UK (thanks jet stream) this only drops by about 10-15 miles with heating, heated seats, steering wheel and other accessories like lights on.  One thing is noticeable and that is when cold the battery power and regen are quite limited; this morning the car was at -2C and the regen was 50% available and acceleration was about 70% available.  However after about 10 miles of driving those power levels had been restored to nearly 100%.  VW got some flak for the early control firmware in their cars which would dump a load of heat into the battery (it is glycol-cooled/heated) to get these limits up sooner, as that would have a terrible impact on range for short journeys but kept the driving experience more consistent.  That has been changed in later software releases.  More efficient, but you get less power when the car is cold.  Engineering is a trade-off but I think the new solution is better.

Another factor is that some car manufacturers really haven't got the integration right.  To rapid charge, EV batteries ideally would be around 20-30C or so.  In the summer this is no issue; in winter, the pack needs longer to heat.  Tesla does pre-heat the battery if the car is 'navigated' to a charger, but most manufacturers don't (VW don't, for instance), nor do many manufacturers offer a 'preheat battery' option in the user-interface.  Allegedly, this is coming in a software update *soon*, but with no guarantee of when.  I don't rapid charge that often (90% of my driving is done at home) so it's not a big deal for me, but it really should have been there from the start.

Overall, my recommendation for EVs is:  if you regularly travel long distances, beyond the range of your car's battery, and/or you have no home charging and no destination charging, you probably want to wait before you get an EV.  They work really well for a lot of people, but not so well for others.

[EEVblog]

Overall, my recommendation for EVs is:  if you regularly travel long distances, beyond the range of your car's battery, and/or you have no home charging and no destination charging, you probably want to wait before you get an EV.  They work really well for a lot of people, but not so well for others.

John Cadoges just released a video complaining that charging an EV costs more than an ICE car.
Who buys a car without considering practical implications?
If you have a small garage you don't buy a huge RV. If you have to rely on fast charger networks, then don't buy an EV. If you need long range, don't buy an EV. etc etc. it's not rocket science.

[Siwastaja]

Using battery power to run battery heater for any other purpose than pre-heat for charging is a bad design mistake, IMHO. Discharging itself creates whatever waste power is required to heat up the battery, in the best possible location, within the cell itself, and bare minimum energy required to restore the efficiency. For fun, I tried my Nissan Leaf, which does not have any kind of battery heating (the smaller 40kWh pack does, with colossally stupid drive logic) which had sat for a few days unused outside at relatively stable -26..-27 degC, to see that power was limited from the usual 160kW to 90kW, which still offered plenty of acceleration. During winter, it is quite hard to find a road where you can get traction to enjoy much more power than that.

Using battery power to run battery heater always ends up more wasted energy. Engineers might think "it's not that much" and "it offers more consistent performance", but such thinking is prone to false assumptions. Maybe I want every drop of the precious energy, and don't mind reduced performance during times when one doesn't want the performance anyway.

But charging is different. Lithium ion chemistry is prone to lithium plating which is super detrimental to the cell lifetime, and actually dangerous, if charged at too high rates, and the maximum safe rate is strongly function of the temperature and also state-of-charge. If the pack is at -30degC, it's not only about DC quick charge anymore - even level2 AC charging rate would need limitation, especially beyond 80% state-of-charge. And in winter, you lose range, so you want to charge fully, even if you stop at 80% in summer.

The best idea, by far, is to charge quickly after coming to stop, and not wait so that the pack cools down. Therefore the waste heat of the battery pack itself does the job.

People have installed DIY thermal insulation on Leaf's battery pack, which conveniently comes with a plastic cover with voids between the cover and the metal pack itself, to be filled with polyurethane sheeting or similar. It's a big deal, because battery pack itself has a lot of thermal mass. Even the modest amount of thermal waste energy from driving the vehicle daily - or even every other day! - keeps the pack significantly above the ambient temperature if you add insulation. The big question is though, do you remove this insulation for summer? The very same Nissan Leaf packs are known to heat up in the summer if you try to road trip i.e. repeated quick charging, to the point of charging power dropping below 20kW, and the LMO chemistry is also known to specifically suffer from long-term high temperature storage - well any other li-ion chemistry is vulnerable to accelerated calendar fading, too.

[tom66]

Overall, my recommendation for EVs is:  if you regularly travel long distances, beyond the range of your car's battery, and/or you have no home charging and no destination charging, you probably want to wait before you get an EV.  They work really well for a lot of people, but not so well for others.

John Cadoges just released a video complaining that charging an EV costs more than an ICE car.
Who buys a car without considering practical implications?
If you have a small garage you don't buy a huge RV. If you have to rely on fast charger networks, then don't buy an EV. If you need long range, don't buy an EV. etc etc. it's not rocket science.

Oh dear, he really just annoys me now. Does he talk about anything other than how EVs are shit?  I used to enjoy his channel, it's a bit of a shame.   

Yes if you use a rapid charger every day you will probably pay more than petrol (though this is VERY network dependent), but you can charge on public AC charging here and it's still cheaper than petrol.  Or you can charge at home if you have a driveway and it's drastically cheaper than petrol.  I pay about 2 pence per mile,  that's approximately f-all in any reasonable currency, the tyres literally cost more, and the depreciation on the vehicle is certainly more.  The only catch to get this cheap rate: the charging time has to be scheduled by the electricity company.  They guarantee the vehicle will be charged by 6 am, but want to choose the best time to do so to maximise usage of renewable energy.

Even if I didn't have that and charged on regular on-peak electricity rates it would be cheaper, though the cost advantages are less.

Then add up the servicing and wear... My car has a 2-year service pattern which consists of a brake fluid check (replace if necessary), cabin air filter and body inspection.  I expect, based on normal treatment of the battery*, that the battery will outlive most other major components of the car.  (1,000 cycles @ 200 miles per charge is 200,000 miles; and modern Li-Ion cells should do even more than that.)

The other thing is, you can 'subscribe' to groups of charging networks and get a lower kWh rate, so if you do regularly use them you pay less overall.  The charging companies want to maximise usage of 'their' network, over others, because that helps them pay their investment back.  I personally don't bother because I'm not a frequent user of rapid chargers. 

_{*Avoiding long periods of storage at 100%, normally charging to 60-80% for daily usage, charging on AC more often than DC, and avoiding long periods of 0% in cold weather for instance.}

[Halcyon]

I've considered an EV on and off over the last 2 or 3 years. So far, the numbers just don't add up (for me). This also includes resale value.

These days, since I'm almost always working from home, I spend far less than I used to in fuel, maintenance, tyres etc... however despite my relatively low kilometres over the course of a year, the trips I generally do are relatively long (when I'm not flying). If I'm heading to Sydney and back in a day, I'm looking at ~200 kilometres round-trip, easily. If I'm working in Canberra, that's a 680-700 km round-trip and about 3.5 hours each way. I don't have the time to sit at a charger for an additional 30-60 minutes in Goulburn as I'm coming and going (time = money).

Then comes the overall cost of the car during the "life" of the car (life as in, the amount of time I generally own vehicles for, not until they are dead and due for significant repair costs). I'm far better off with an economical turbo petrol vehicle over EV. Will things change? Maybe? I'm seeing more and more investment into charging stations across Australia but it's no where near enough yet to address even the relatively minor issue of "range anxiety" for many drivers.

Australia is a huge country and not everyone can afford to live in or near the major cities, or even have a garage they can park/charge in overnight. If you're the type of driver that travels short distances (perhaps 20-30 minutes) and you have your own renewable charging infrastructure at home, it makes sense. For everyone else, you might break even, or even end up spending more.

[Ice-Tea]

That MGuys video is truly light on anything substantial, tbh. He doesn't get further than "shit is expensive". That's not even a back of the envelope calculation. Most large commercial sites like supermarkets etc. already have a mid-voltage connection. There's no extra cost there.

So: if you have a charger doing 50kw for 5h a day, you're making about 0.4€/kWh so about 100€/day or 35k per year. Feel free to move around some commas and dots but the idea that you can't possibly make a buck on EV chargers is just dumb. If you can get a reasonable occupancy rate, there's probably is no issue at all.

[newbrain]

Why Hertz is Dumping Tesla

Hertz and and Tesla have been in disagreement for a long time.

It's no surprise that the relationship would fall apart.
We now know they are both wrong, but Hertz less so.

The first believed EM waves propagated through an ether as transverse waves, while the second stated that they were longitudinal waves in a gas.

[nctnico]

BTW: I never understood why companies that install public chargers require apps and seperate payments systems.

In case of Tesla, until recently superchargers were Tesla exclusive and owners likely already had an app for other reasons, so wasn't a big problem. As of the reasons why you wound not want card payment terminals, having unattended self-service points of sale poses a very high susceptibility to skimmer fraud.

Don't think so. There are tons of unattended vending machines everywhere.

[Marco]

People have installed DIY thermal insulation on Leaf's battery pack, which conveniently comes with a plastic cover with voids between the cover and the metal pack itself, to be filled with polyurethane sheeting or similar. It's a big deal, because battery pack itself has a lot of thermal mass. Even the modest amount of thermal waste energy from driving the vehicle daily - or even every other day! - keeps the pack significantly above the ambient temperature if you add insulation. The big question is though, do you remove this insulation for summer? The very same Nissan Leaf packs are known to heat up in the summer if you try to road trip i.e. repeated quick charging, to the point of charging power dropping below 20kW, and the LMO chemistry is also known to specifically suffer from long-term high temperature storage - well any other li-ion chemistry is vulnerable to accelerated calendar fading, too.

That's the problem with air cooling.

It would be nice if Tesla would start offering vacuum insulation on their packs, where Tesla goes the industry follows, it would eliminate the problem. Power needed to keep pack warm becomes much smaller.

[nctnico]

So: if you have a charger doing 50kw for 5h a day, you're making about 0.4€/kWh so about 100€/day or 35k per year. Feel free to move around some commas and dots but the idea that you can't possibly make a buck on EV chargers is just dumb. If you can get a reasonable occupancy rate, there's probably is no issue at all.

You are only looking at the turnover. Now factor in the costs for maintenance, payment system, electric grid connection and purchase price per kWh. Don't be surprised you end up with making like 5 cents per kWh and this will need to pay for interest and profits. The biggest problem is that public charging is more expensive compared to running an efficient car on gasoline really quick so there is a limit to what companies can make from charging points. I also foresee that governments will set limits on prices for public charging points to prevent price gauging, especially for street level charging where people are stuck with one supplier.

[tom66]

Vacuum sealing the battery pack would be... interesting for Tesla.  They can't seem to get panels well aligned, so I have my doubts about that persisting.  Currently the packs are vented with expansion valves that prevent water ingress (normally!)

BTW: I never understood why companies that install public chargers require apps and seperate payments systems.

In case of Tesla, until recently superchargers were Tesla exclusive and owners likely already had an app for other reasons, so wasn't a big problem. As of the reasons why you wound not want card payment terminals, having unattended self-service points of sale poses a very high susceptibility to skimmer fraud.

Don't think so. There are tons of unattended vending machines everywhere.

Vast majority of charging stations are contactless without PIN anyway.  Contactless payment doesn't currently have any known viable attacks and phone payment is even more secure as it generates a new virtual card for each payment (kinda, the actual method varies).

[EEVblog]

Oh dear, he really just annoys me now. Does he talk about anything other than how EVs are shit?  I used to enjoy his channel, it's a bit of a shame.   

He seems to have a EV rerangement syndrone. But his audience seem to lap it up, so he's giving them what they want.

Then add up the servicing and wear... My car has a 2-year service pattern which consists of a brake fluid check (replace if necessary), cabin air filter and body inspection.  I expect, based on normal treatment of the battery*, that the battery will outlive most other major components of the car.  (1,000 cycles @ 200 miles per charge is 200,000 miles; and modern Li-Ion cells should do even more than that.)

My IONIQ costs $150 every 15k to service. Many people ask me why I bother. Err, just the tyre rotation alone would save me almost that amount. Not to mention it's still a 1.5ton lethal machine with steering, suspension, hydraulic brakes, and all the other stuff a normal car has.

I just changed my first tyres after 50,000km, but apart from that, the $150 service is the only major cost. That same 50,000km in my ICE would have cost me at least $10k in petrol, plus the way more expensive service.

[tom66]

So: if you have a charger doing 50kw for 5h a day, you're making about 0.4€/kWh so about 100€/day or 35k per year. Feel free to move around some commas and dots but the idea that you can't possibly make a buck on EV chargers is just dumb. If you can get a reasonable occupancy rate, there's probably is no issue at all.

You are only looking at the turnover. Now factor in the costs for maintenance, payment system, electric grid connection and purchase price per kWh. Don't be surprised you end up with making like 5 cents per kWh. The biggest problem is that public charging is more expensive compared to running an efficient car on gasoline really quick so there is a limit to what companies can make from charging points. I also foresee that governments will set limits on prices for public charging points to prevent price gauging, especially for street level charging where people are stuck with one supplier.

The biggest cost is capital.  These chargers are expensive (~50k euro for one 150kW charging unit) and need to be paid off somehow.  Investors are getting antsy because interest rates being high means they can make more on money markets and more stable capitalised companies rather than riskier EV charging startups.

Tesla has cheap charging for both Tesla and non-Tesla because their immense size means they can outcompete everyone on capital costs, they don't really need to worry. They also have a highly vertically integrated charging system, making the charger, power electronics and doing the install work mostly themselves (grid connections and groundworks are about all they outsource).

The grid connections problem is the big one, at least for the UK.  These lines last 100 years, but obviously someone has to pay for the install now.  The UK has decided that is the private market so costs have skyrocketed.  It doesn't have to be that way.  Large infrastructure is always better when built by public funds because the long term benefits to society (economic growth for instance) are not directly felt by private entities.

[EEVblog]

If I'm heading to Sydney and back in a day, I'm looking at ~200 kilometres round-trip, easily.

My IONIQ uses zero average charge going from Blackheath to Penrith 

[EEVblog]

Australia is a huge country and not everyone can afford to live in or near the major cities, or even have a garage they can park/charge in overnight. If you're the type of driver that travels short distances (perhaps 20-30 minutes) and you have your own renewable charging infrastructure at home, it makes sense. For everyone else, you might break even, or even end up spending more.

EV's make real sense if you can charge at home during the day from solar and/or at work for free. (For those not in Oz, over 30% of home here have solar, largest uptake in the world)
The more slient ride and no stinky exhaust are major benefits, but not game changers.
The IONIQ will get me up the the blue mountains and back one one charge easily, and almost to Newcastle and back. So not bad, but anything more and we'd be taking the ICE.

[Ice-Tea]

You are only looking at the turnover. Now factor in the costs for maintenance...

If I have to choose between paying the maintenance for a gasoline pump or EV charger, I'm thinking I'm going with the charger. Put another way (sample size = 1): times I saw a maintenance crew on pumps: many. On EV chargers: none.

payment system

These days, you can pay with a credit card on vending machines selling bags of patatoe chips. I'm sure it'll cost maybe a few %, but c'mon...

electric grid connection and purchase price per kWh

All in cost for domestic electricity is about 0.4€/kWh around here. I can't find a 50+ fastcarger anywhere close (not counting Tesla...) below 0.8€. I'm pretty sure that if you tap a mid voltage cabinet prices won't be higher and most likely lower.

Don't be surprised you end up with making like 5 cents per kWh.

I doubt that very much.

The biggest problem is that public charging is more expensive compared to running an efficient car on gasoline really quick so there is a limit to what companies can make from charging points.

Disagree. That's like saying "orchards can't possibly exist because they make less €/m² than gas stations do". That's not how that works. If there's a healthy margin to be had, you'll find people willing to operate chargers.

I also foresee that governments will set limits on prices for public charging points to prevent price gauging, especially for street level charging where people are stuck with one supplier.

I'm not sure what the argument is here. Government intervention can kill or foster any economic possibility, that's not unique to EV chargers.

[Siwastaja]

EV's make real sense if you can charge at home during the day from solar

Or, at home, living in any country with somewhat sensible energy politics such that the cost of fossil fuels is the same order of magnitude (say, within +/-50%) as electricity, per energy. For example, I understand how Germans have had hard time going EVs since their electricity cost is 3-4 times the cost of gasoline, so the EV's 4-5x better efficiency is almost gone. But you only have to cross the border to France to find sensible electricity cost. Or Norway, where both gasoline and electricity are relatively cheap for the living standard. Or Finland, where electricity is cheaper per energy than gasoline, so EVs are obviously massively cheaper to drive.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics

But yeah, home charging is still pretty much mandatory, I agree with that. And nothing's wrong with that. Discussion is now too much around improving DC quick charge network, and maximum peak charging power. Those are important, too, but the same problem can be solved from another direction as well: keep making those battery packs larger, and improve home/destination charging options. Quick charging is important to have, but if you have to quick charge all the time, demand will keep exceeding the response.

I mean, all that is needed is a very cheaply manufactured level-2 station, can be limited to low power like just 3-4kW, with some cheap but reliable microtransaction model for payment, then sprinkle those in parking lots, streets, etc. Just like those old-school parking meters next to the parking lanes on the streets. And those who live in apartments, many still have cars, right, and park them somewhere? We have had these things here since forever: https://www.vastavalo.net/albums/userpics/10716/normal__DSC0599-3.jpg . They are fused to just 6A or 10A, but the same idea can be extended to overnight EV charging pretty easily. We use them to heat ICE engine blocks so that they can start in the morning, what waste of energy.

[Marco]

Vacuum sealing the battery pack would be... interesting for Tesla.  They can't seem to get panels well aligned, so I have my doubts about that persisting.

You don't vacuum seal the pack, you just make a battery well and cover out of vacuum insulation panels.

There will be some cold bridging from punch through of mounting brackets, etc.

[Andy Chee]

It seems everyone has missed the white elephant in the room, which is that government policies and regulations in response to climate change targets, is what's artificially forcing vehicle manufacturers to phase out ICE production. 

Of course, these policies have a domino effect on EV infrastructure from; charging stations, power grid network reliability, and ultimately generating capacity.  But such policies also imply a future shift away from private vehicle ownership i.e. you don't need an EV for transport if you've got alternative transport options, or live in a 15-minute city.

This forum being a technology and engineering themed forum, probably naturally shies away from discussion of government response to climate change.  But everyone should acknowledge that it's the fault of government intervention, not the free market, that has led to the uptake of EVs (and solar panels, wind turbines, and everything so-called "green").

Is government intervention good or bad? Well I'm kicking that can of worms down the road for someone else to open.

[Halcyon]

If I'm heading to Sydney and back in a day, I'm looking at ~200 kilometres round-trip, easily.

My IONIQ uses zero average charge going from Blackheath to Penrith 

Yes, but that's in "holiday" mode. Not "travelling to the office in start-stop peak hour" mode. ;-)

I get your point though.

[nctnico]

It seems everyone has missed the white elephant in the room, which is that government policies and regulations in response to climate change targets, is what's artificially forcing vehicle manufacturers to phase out ICE production. 

Of course, these policies have a domino effect on EV infrastructure from; charging stations, power grid network reliability, and ultimately generating capacity.  But such policies also imply a future shift away from private vehicle ownership i.e. you don't need an EV for transport if you've got alternative transport options, or live in a 15-minute city.

This forum being a technology and engineering themed forum, probably naturally shies away from discussion of government response to climate change.  But everyone should acknowledge that it's the fault of government intervention, not the free market, that has led to the uptake of EVs (and solar panels, wind turbines, and everything so-called "green").

Is government intervention good or bad? Well I'm kicking that can of worms down the road for someone else to open.

You make it sound like a government is like a divine deity but in reality governments are what people have voted for (or allow) to rule them. So in the end subsidising technology that shifts society away from fossil fuels as an energy source, is a choice people are making by themselves. Maybe not individually but most certainly as a group.

[Zero999]

Dunno what's wrong with that Chicago charging station or those people who left those cars but in say Norway superchargers operate in much harsher weather conditions. I only know Chicago for being a world famous dysfunctional shithole, so prolly has to do something with that.

Are you referring to the city I live in, or the one you see on Fox News TV?
When I traveled to Arctic Norway (Narvik) in February about 30 years ago, I dressed for Minnesota weather , but it was only so cold as Chicago;  never got to the Baltics.
I avoid sensational YouTube stuff: was that charging station inside the city limits, or northwest of Chicago which was hit much worse in last week’s storm?

Narvik is much milder than Minnesota. It has a sub-polar oceanic, rather than a humid continental climate.

It's possible to build EV chargers which can cope with extreme temperatures. If they don't work when it's too cold or hot, then the blam falls on the person who bought or designed it. They failled to read the datasheet properly.

[Jeroen3]

What makes chargers not work when cold?
Do the plugs freeze to the units? Does the LCD stop working? (probably)

Or is is something stupid like the local 4G antenna being snowed in?

[PlainName]

but in reality governments are what people have voted for (or allow) to rule them

Far too simplistic. You cannot pick and choose manifesto items (if they even make it to a manifesto), so if neither of the main parties will do your thing (perhaps make further education free, as an example) then you're stuffed. And yet no free education is what people would have voted for, right?

Even when some party does offer your specific thing, and also ALL your things you want, the chances are they won't get anywhere and some nasty party will get in. But, hey, that's what people voted for.

Ask the Belarussians how easy tricky it is to be not ruled by those you rather weren't ruling you.

[nctnico]

Ask the Belarussians how easy tricky it is to be not ruled by those you rather weren't ruling you.

You are always free to start a revolution. Or choose to stay passive.

[tom66]

I think the problem with EV chargers in cold weather is cold soaked EVs charging slowly.  You might get the occasional issue with connectors freezing, which if it's a common problem would be resolved by putting a little heater in the docking pod.  The power electronics should be fine at -40C, they'll get warm enough in use anyway.

[tszaboo]

BTW: I never understood why companies that install public chargers require apps and seperate payments systems.

In case of Tesla, until recently superchargers were Tesla exclusive and owners likely already had an app for other reasons, so wasn't a big problem. As of the reasons why you wound not want card payment terminals, having unattended self-service points of sale poses a very high susceptibility to skimmer fraud.

Don't think so. There are tons of unattended vending machines everywhere.

I think it is so the government can control it who gets their car charged and who doesn't. I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but we saw 2 years back how tyrannical western governments can became. Think Canada. They de-banking people, taking away rights to "protect", forcing people to do things or they loose their jobs. You can fill up a petrol car, pay with cash, drive away. Put it in a jerry can, store it for a year. You need to register with address to be able to charge your electric car. Even if you would do that at a petrol station, you cannot do that with cash. And it "sometimes doesn't work". I don't like the idea TBH. Even if they wouldn't do it, they would have the option to do it.

[tom66]

I think it is so the government can control it who gets their car charged and who doesn't. I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but we saw 2 years back how tyrannical western governments can became. Think Canada. They de-banking people, taking away rights to "protect", forcing people to do things or they loose their jobs. You can fill up a petrol car, pay with cash, drive away. Put it in a jerry can, store it for a year. You need to register with address to be able to charge your electric car. Even if you would do that at a petrol station, you cannot do that with cash. And it "sometimes doesn't work". I don't like the idea TBH. Even if they wouldn't do it, they would have the option to do it.

But I can also just plug my car into any ordinary plug socket and charge it, so how does that tyranny work?  Ok it's not super fast but 24hrs of charging and I have a full battery. I know people who use that as a full time solution.

[tszaboo]

I think it is so the government can control it who gets their car charged and who doesn't. I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but we saw 2 years back how tyrannical western governments can became. Think Canada. They de-banking people, taking away rights to "protect", forcing people to do things or they loose their jobs. You can fill up a petrol car, pay with cash, drive away. Put it in a jerry can, store it for a year. You need to register with address to be able to charge your electric car. Even if you would do that at a petrol station, you cannot do that with cash. And it "sometimes doesn't work". I don't like the idea TBH. Even if they wouldn't do it, they would have the option to do it.

But I can also just plug my car into any ordinary plug socket and charge it, so how does that tyranny work?  Ok it's not super fast but 24hrs of charging and I have a full battery. I know people who use that as a full time solution.

https://twitter.com/OttawaPolice/status/1490398101072490496
"Anyone attempting to bring material supports (gas, etc.) to the demonstrators could be subject to arrest. Enforcement is underway. " So how? You want to go somewhere where they don't want you to go and they switch off charging. They might switch off charging for everyone, for you specifically, or for protesters. For example they say it's a lockdown.
I might not agree on why they were on strike, and their politics, but the government's response should instill fear into everyone.
Oh, and this: https://insideevs.com/news/537120/ev-chargers-switched-off-uk/

[tom66]

But how would "they" switch off charging?   My home charger is 7kW and dumb as a bag of rocks, I plug in, it gives me electrons.  My portable charger is dumb, I plug in, it gives me electrons slowly.  I can easily pull the telematics fuse for my car and that means no app connectivity so no remote control any more by me or any untrustworthy agent. 

I mean this argument is silly because "they" could easily stop people driving in any area, doesn't matter if it's petrol, electric, hydrogen, Fred Flintstone style or whatever.

Edit: on the EV charging 'law' that's a regulation that would require EV chargers to automatically schedule to off peak times but all chargers would feature an override button to allow peak charging.  It's about nudging people by making off peak the default.  The 4-7pm period on most power grids is usually the worst time because of high demand which can't be constrained (unlike industry which often can), requiring a lot of fossils to balance the grid.  At some points, it's been known for balancing costs to hit £3000/MWh, over 500x the normal rate.  Anyway, if you were really terrified by that, you could stock up on cheap portable chargers from AliExpress which run off a Ceeform or equivalent and just give you 32 amps of charging whenever you need.

[nctnico]

But how would "they" switch off charging?   My home charger is 7kW and dumb as a bag of rocks, I plug in, it gives me electrons.  My portable charger is dumb, I plug in, it gives me electrons slowly.  I can easily pull the telematics fuse for my car and that means no app connectivity so no remote control any more by me or any untrustworthy agent. 

If you'd buy a new charger, it looks like it has to have functionality that allows it to be shutdown remotely. I don't see how this helps further deployments of BEVs but with the grid at the limits of capacity, something has go to give.

I mean this argument is silly because "they" could easily stop people driving in any area, doesn't matter if it's petrol, electric, hydrogen, Fred Flintstone style or whatever.

I agree. Shutting down gas stations / charging stations / whatever for policing purposes is silly. It won't happen because it will only make matter worse.

[David Hess]

BTW: I never understood why companies that install public chargers require apps and seperate payments systems.

so they can charge a transaction  fee on top of th e charging rate

Why would they need their own app for that versus a regular credit card?  Chargepoint stations take credit cards but offer you a discount if you have one of their cards.  I used to see apps demanding monthly fees to 'subscribe', but I think that's gone away for the most part.

I have found that more places are offering their own card or account to get a discount because it avoids the credit/debit card transaction fees.  They cannot add a surcharge for using credit/debit, but they can offer a discount for using their card/account or cash.

[nctnico]

IMHO needing to charge for debit / credit cars fees is a clear sign the business is not being run well. A healthy company shouldn't need to nickel & dime over these kinds of things.

[MT]

Aaand noow, ladies and gentlemen , Mr MGUY! 

[tom66]

I suspect the reason a lot of 'slow' chargers don't do credit cards is:
- They were designed a while ago, and cheap contactless payment modules weren't available at the time;
- Accepting credit/debit card payment means you need to pass the industry standards for data security (unless you use a 3rd party which takes more a cut, but you still have to integrate with them);
- At least until recently, it was not possible to universally pay without a PIN - Contactless can still require a PIN, Apple/Android Pay do not as the device does the verification - adding a PIN pad to every device and making it vandalism resistant for instance is difficult especially on a smaller unit;
- No legal requirement to do so (unlike rapid chargers).

[PlainName]

Local Asda is all pay-at-pump and they accept credit/debit cards easily. Not a nice area and the petrol station is a bit away from the supermarket, so serious scope for vandalism. But there isn't any.

I don't see any reason why EV chargers should be different except to force use of their app. Esso will give me 3p off a litre if I use their card - I assume it's for the data: how often I fill up, how much, my mileage, etc.

[tszaboo]

I mean this argument is silly because "they" could easily stop people driving in any area, doesn't matter if it's petrol, electric, hydrogen, Fred Flintstone style or whatever.

I agree. Shutting down gas stations / charging stations / whatever for policing purposes is silly. It won't happen because it will only make matter worse.
[/quote]
That also has happened.
https://hungarytoday.hu/fuel-price-cap-hungary-gas-gasoline-hungarian-petrol-stations-capped-price/

It might not make sense, but since when are politicians known to do the sensible thing?

[tom66]

Local Asda is all pay-at-pump and they accept credit/debit cards easily. Not a nice area and the petrol station is a bit away from the supermarket, so serious scope for vandalism. But there isn't any.

I don't see any reason why EV chargers should be different except to force use of their app. Esso will give me 3p off a litre if I use their card - I assume it's for the data: how often I fill up, how much, my mileage, etc.

As I said before, it's very uncommon to find a rapid charger now that doesn't take a credit/debit card and as in the Esso example you get a discount if you use a magic card but you can still pay with a credit/debit card, and if there are any left it'll be the odd local authority one - under 1% I'd estimate.   It's only the slow "park for 4 hours" chargers that DON'T regularly take debit/credit cards and I think that's for mostly historical reasons (it wasn't seen as a viable requirement when they were installed).  With mobile payment now common they really should get with the game already.

The one thing you can't do with an EV rapid charger is pay in cash.  I don't think I've seen anyone offer that.

[nctnico]

I mean this argument is silly because "they" could easily stop people driving in any area, doesn't matter if it's petrol, electric, hydrogen, Fred Flintstone style or whatever.

I agree. Shutting down gas stations / charging stations / whatever for policing purposes is silly. It won't happen because it will only make matter worse.

That also has happened.
https://hungarytoday.hu/fuel-price-cap-hungary-gas-gasoline-hungarian-petrol-stations-capped-price/

This is not for policing (=law enforcement) purposes but just to avoid scarsity.

[MT]

- when the temperature hits -30degC, there is epidemic of diesel vehicles dying and needing a tow, so 

Complete and utter  ... Seams you still live in the beginning of the 1900's.

[Ice-Tea]

- when the temperature hits -30degC, there is epidemic of diesel vehicles dying and needing a tow, so 

Complete and utter  ... Seams you still live in the beginning of the 1900's.

I'm honnestly curious: why is that BS? 'Regular' diesel craps out at about -5C. With additives, maybe -20C.. That's what I was told, have things changed?

[nctnico]

I never really had problems driving a  diesel at -10 to -20 degrees C. During winter there are extra additives in the diesel fuel to make it useful at low temperatures but this diesel is only sold in the winter. So if you aren't using the car often enough and thus end up using 'summer diesel' in the winter, you could run into trouble.

[Siwastaja]

- when the temperature hits -30degC, there is epidemic of diesel vehicles dying and needing a tow, so 

Complete and utter  ... Seams you still live in the beginning of the 1900's.

I'm just reporting what we are seeing here, nearly every year. It's all over the news, and personal experience from people close to me show the same. There are many reasons why it happens, and I have personally not had this problem, but it is not bullshit.

Those who live up North so that -30deg happens many times every year (not just every other year) know how to prepare - they fill in the correct winter-grade diesel early on, replace fuel filters more often, install fuel line heaters, generally prefer "known to be reliable" makes and models.

You may disagree with the severity of the issue, but it's not complete and utter bullshit.

[tom66]

My father told me a story of truckers lighting fires under their (hopefully metal) fuel tanks after a really cold night to defrost the fuel, not sure if that's an old wives tale or an actual method.  You'd want to be pretty sure the tank was liquid tight!

[Siwastaja]

I'm honnestly curious: why is that BS? 'Regular' diesel craps out at about -5C. With additives, maybe -20C.. That's what I was told, have things changed?

I'm not an expert about diesel vehicles, but as far as I know, and I have owned a diesel vehicle here and operated it without issues down to -30degC, there are winter grades that go significantly below -20, something like -35 is not a problem if everything's right both with the fuel and the vehicle. Yet in real world, not everything is perfect. Failures with diesel vehicles - and not only failures to start, but actually failures after driving for some time - go steeply up below -30degC. It's not 100% failure, but even 1% failure rate is pretty bad when you have thousands and thousands of lambs commuting at the same time. At something relatively mild weather like -15..-20degC, the only way to make them fail is to erroneously use summer grade diesel.

[mikeselectricstuff]

But how would "they" switch off charging?   My home charger is 7kW and dumb as a bag of rocks, I plug in, it gives me electrons.  My portable charger is dumb, I plug in, it gives me electrons slowly.  I can easily pull the telematics fuse for my car and that means no app connectivity so no remote control any more by me or any untrustworthy agent. 

If you'd buy a new charger, it looks like it has to have functionality that allows it to be shutdown remotely. I don't see how this helps further deployments of BEVs but with the grid at the limits of capacity, something has go to give.

yes, recent Uk regs require all home EVSEs to have smart functionality for various funcitons, mostly sensible - ability remotely stop or limit to help grid balancing. I don't think this is currently implemented, but charger has to be capable - this would be done in combination with customer incentives to allow it.
Also timed charging with randomised start times enabled by default.
All of this is user-overrideable.

I mean this argument is silly because "they" could easily stop people driving in any area, doesn't matter if it's petrol, electric, hydrogen, Fred Flintstone style or whatever.

I agree. Shutting down gas stations / charging stations / whatever for policing purposes is silly. It won't happen because it will only make matter worse.

It's hilarious when the anti-EV conspiricy nutters claim that EVs are about "them" controlling you, when ICE cars are 100% dependent on fuel supply, whereas there will always be electricity, ultimately from your own wind/solar if you want complete independence.

[mikeselectricstuff]

I'm honnestly curious: why is that BS? 'Regular' diesel craps out at about -5C. With additives, maybe -20C.. That's what I was told, have things changed?

I'm not an expert about diesel vehicles, but as far as I know, and I have owned a diesel vehicle here and operated it without issues down to -30degC, there are winter grades that go significantly below -20, something like -35 is not a problem if everything's right both with the fuel and the vehicle. Yet in real world, not everything is perfect. Failures with diesel vehicles - and not only failures to start, but actually failures after driving for some time - go steeply up below -30degC. It's not 100% failure, but even 1% failure rate is pretty bad when you have thousands and thousands of lambs commuting at the same time. At something relatively mild weather like -15..-20degC, the only way to make them fail is to erroneously use summer grade diesel.

ISTR that in some very cold regioons, it's common to have mains power available at (truck?) parking spaces for engine block heaters

[PlainName]

[radar_macgyver]

It's a shame that Hertz is cutting back on EVs - I found them very easy to rent, even in relative "charging deserts" like rural Virginia or South Carolina. I would just pick a hotel that had a slow charger on site (usually free), and Hertz' policy was to return the car with >70% charge. That avoids the usual last-minute run-around to find a gas station right before returning the rental. I rented a Tesla just once, and couldn't get used to the controls (picture rush-hour SF Bay Bridge traffic, digging through three levels of on-screen menus to figure out why the effing auto wipers wouldn't turn on). After that I've rented Polestars (or more recently, a Bolt EV).

Temps here have got down to -25 C and my own Bolt EV limited its regen rate. I couldn't tell if the discharge rate was limited, but as @Siwastaja pointed out, the roads were too icy to take advantage of that anyway. There was a pronounced drop in estimated range, too.

[Siwastaja]

What makes chargers not work when cold?

Mostly the same reasons why they don't work when warm - stupid idiots overdesigning secondary functions, mostly related to things called "software", "cloud" and whatever. Very rarely the power electronics, or the connectors, or low-level firmware have any problems. In my opinion, poor reliability of public charging points due to poorly designed software, mobile applications etc. is the #1 problem for EVs right now, because you have to plan such that you always have 2-3 charging sites available within your battery range in case they are all broken at one site, and this is A LOT of wasted resources, because someone financed and built those stations.

But I hope this is getting better, especially EU forcing one-time payments without a mobile app.

[Siwastaja]

I think the problem with EV chargers in cold weather is cold soaked EVs charging slowly.

This reduced charge rate coupled with increased need for charging is the issue. If you "normally" have 50% of usage of the infrastructure, now at cold this exceeds 100% and queuing ensues. This is also why the larger battery pack is the answer: not only it reduces the need to charge at all, it also increases the charge rate given the same conditions, as the charge rate in certain temperature is relative to pack capacity (e.g. 0.5*C).

[nfmax]

I never really had problems driving a  diesel at -10 to -20 degrees C. During winter there are extra additives in the diesel fuel to make it useful at low temperatures but this diesel is only sold in the winter. So if you aren't using the car often enough and thus end up using 'summer diesel' in the winter, you could run into trouble.

That must be the problem with the Teslas in the OP - people were charging them using summer electrons!

[TimFox]

A little background about midwestern US weather leading up to the charging station difficulties:
Up until roughly Jan 10, the central US had been having a mild winter, with Chicago temperatures above historical averages and daytime temperatures above freezing. 
That was followed by a cold snap, which still persists as of this writing (Jan 16).
During this cold period, Chicago daytime temperatures have been around 0 F (-18 C).
(The joys of a continental climate; Chicago proper is moderated slightly by Lake Michigan, but its effect is much less than the oceans’.)
Following the problems at suburban charging stations on local TV news, many ev drivers were surprised at how fast they lost battery charge in the suddenly frigid weather and overcrowded the stations, resulting in some vehicles losing all charge while waiting for openings.
Charging plug’s being dropped into the snow and icing up didn’t help.

[Siwastaja]

It's hilarious when the anti-EV conspiricy nutters claim that EVs are about "them" controlling you, when ICE cars are 100% dependent on fuel supply, whereas there will always be electricity, ultimately from your own wind/solar if you want complete independence.

These "free thinkers" are usually controlled by such super simple propaganda that the obviousness of it is nearly hilarious. I'm not saying large masses are not being controlled, but it's much less obvious, and much less severe. "Free thinkers" seem to be worst - all you need to do is to say anything which is opposite to mainstream, and then you get any idea through, such as our daily lives being controlled by a scarce resource moderated by a few large superpowers being a good thing, and something that breaks free of this chain of control being evil.

[PlainName]

What makes chargers not work when cold?

Mostly the same reasons why they don't work when warm - stupid idiots overdesigning secondary functions, mostly related to things called "software", "cloud" and whatever. Very rarely the power electronics, or the connectors, or low-level firmware have any problems.

How does software go wrong, or stop working or whatever is happening, when it's cold? The only way that can happen is if there is code which says, paraphrase, "if (temp < x) print "sorry, too cold to work"".

OTOH, open pretty much any datasheet and it will say working temperature 0-70C, storage 'a bit wider range'. For -20C you're looking at expensive parts, and if they don't want to pay for those then that's not really a software problem.

[tom66]

I think the problem with EV chargers in cold weather is cold soaked EVs charging slowly.

This reduced charge rate coupled with increased need for charging is the issue. If you "normally" have 50% of usage of the infrastructure, now at cold this exceeds 100% and queuing ensues. This is also why the larger battery pack is the answer: not only it reduces the need to charge at all, it also increases the charge rate given the same conditions, as the charge rate in certain temperature is relative to pack capacity (e.g. 0.5*C).

Well, it's one answer to the question but I'm not convinced it is the right answer.

The better route is watching battery technology progressively improve and seeing fast charge rates increasing even at low temperatures, it's clear this is going to be less and less of a problem when combined with an increase in the availability of chargers.  If charging companies use systems like Kempower's satellites, you don't even need to install a lot of power electronics.  You could build a 5MW power electronics cabinet that can serve up to 100 cars with 50kW each, or 50 cars with 100kW and so on.   Since charging curves vary a lot between models and SoC this can serve many users at once at their optimal charging rate.

If you're worried about winter road trips now, then perhaps just hang on before committing to an EV, that's okay...  They aren't for everyone (yet).

Big batteries have lots of side effects: the car gets heavier (hich affects handling, safety, road wear and efficiency), the car gets more expensive (so less people can afford them) and the car uses more resources to manufacture so you need bigger battery factories, more mining for materials, and have a higher carbon impact.

IMHO carrying more than 60-70kWh for a normal hatchback sized car is a bit silly.  I don't really understand the ID.3 78kWh Family model for instance.  In its first edition it was too heavy to have a 5th seat!  The 58kWh ID.3 is pretty ideal for a modern car.  You can do 3 hours of driving without stopping to charge and the battery is large enough that it can accept reasonable rapid charging rates (100-130kW).  The way to improve it would be making that rapid charge rate higher, like 200kW.  Which cars like Ioniq 5 can do already with similar sized batteries.  I just didn't do enough road trips at the moment to justify the extra expense on the Ioniq 5 - it was ~£10,000 more than my ID.3 was for an equivalent, at the time - but I doubt the cells Hyundai are using are particularly special it's just a matter of that technology trickling down to other models eventually.

[Siwastaja]

How does software go wrong, or stop working or whatever is happening, when it's cold?

You missed the point. My point was, the rate of charging station failures does not go up with colder temperature that much; they fail too much even in nice summer weather. It is just that as charging becomes even more important, we focus on those failures more. So the software failures I referred to are temperature-independent.

[nctnico]

What makes chargers not work when cold?

Mostly the same reasons why they don't work when warm - stupid idiots overdesigning secondary functions, mostly related to things called "software", "cloud" and whatever. Very rarely the power electronics, or the connectors, or low-level firmware have any problems.

How does software go wrong, or stop working or whatever is happening, when it's cold? The only way that can happen is if there is code which says, paraphrase, "if (temp < x) print "sorry, too cold to work"".

OTOH, open pretty much any datasheet and it will say working temperature 0-70C, storage 'a bit wider range'. For -20C you're looking at expensive parts, and if they don't want to pay for those then that's not really a software problem.

It is not the software but communication modules, displays, buttons, etc which don't work when cold or hot IF these are not designed for the environment. Unfortunately some are hugely confident in using modules bought from Aliexpress for such applications.

[Siwastaja]

The better route is watching battery technology progressively improve and seeing fast charge rates increasing even at low temperatures

This is the point: by watching battery technology improve, you get increased capacity and increased fast charge rates, due to the sheer capacity. This is exactly what we can see: energy and power density of state-of-art li-ion has increased in perfect sync, i.e. the "C-rates" of the cells have not changed much. Anyone who claims "10-minute 20%-80%" as their target is therefore on the wrong track; increasing power capability alone is a compromise which decreases energy density and increases cost per kWh significantly. This is not what we need. We need cumulated small improvements in energy density and cost per kWh, which comes with similar cumulative improvements in charge rates.

I agree with you that 60-70kWh is pretty much the sweet spot, given the weight and cost issues which prevent going much higher. I have also first hand experience how a 35-40kWh pack requires planning and special care, "the EV mindset". Even with 70kWh you are not perfectly free of it, but it's much more convenient experience which more resembles driving a gasoline car, but without having to fill the tank so actually better! There still is a tad of range anxiety left at 60kWh, but it's much less severe than at 40kWh.

It is true though that a 60kWh pack is still quite heavy which is suboptimal for consumption and tire wear. Which is why we are watching battery technology improve. I would like the 60-70kWh class get lighter and cheaper (instead of adding even more capacity) and become THE standard "people's car" class, but at the same time, 35-40kWh class slowly disappear, just like the 2010-era 20kWh class has all but disappeared. As it stands now, quick charge stations are pretty much lined up with those vehicles that absolutely need that extra "20-minute" so actually 50-minute "EV stop" on a trivial trip like visiting grandpa's during winter time.

[Halcyon]

It's not going to be pretty, but quite obviously the current fossil thing isn't pretty either - when the temperature hits -30degC, there is epidemic of diesel vehicles dying and needing a tow, so 

I don't think that's ever been the case? Those living in cold conditions would be using diesel specific to those conditions. Diesel used in Scandinavian countries work far colder than -30 C.

In Australia, "winter diesel" is sold around Canberra and the alpine regions for this very reason.

[EEVblog]

It's hilarious when the anti-EV conspiricy nutters claim that EVs are about "them" controlling you, when ICE cars are 100% dependent on fuel supply, whereas there will always be electricity, ultimately from your own wind/solar if you want complete independence.

I did a poll last week:

[themadhippy]

I don't think that's ever been the case? Those living in cold conditions would be using diesel specific to those conditions

Certainly was in the past here in the uk,but then we've never been  geared up for the wrong type of  weather,even our railways suffer with the wrong type of snow

[Halcyon]

I don't think that's ever been the case? Those living in cold conditions would be using diesel specific to those conditions

Certainly was in the past here in the uk,but then we've never been  geared up for the wrong type of  weather,even our railways suffer with the wrong type of snow

Maybe the UK is the exception. But you guys claim it's a heatwave once it hits 30 degrees. We call it a warm summer's day. 

[floobydust]

I looked at what went wrong in Chicago with the Tesla charging and it's not clear.
The company knows damn well what happened, they have the telemetry and should issue a press statement lest EV's get demonized for the wrong reasons.

I would expect a cold Tesla to refuse charging until the heater got the battery temps up, courtesy of the charger power, and then inititate charging at reduced rate.

But they would be really worried about battery Li-plating- which is terribly destructive to the batteries.
"Degradation of LiBs during operation is one of the most complicated and critical issues that involve the variety of electrochemical side reactions in all the LiB components. Lithium plating is one of the most important degradation mechanisms of the anode electrode. The main impact of lithium plating is severe capacity fade. It occurs under three main working conditions: low-temperature charging, high C-rate charging, and high SOC charging."
source: Progress in Energy and Combustion Science Lithium Plating Mechanism, Detection, and Mitigation in Lithium-Ion Batteries

Most of the unhappiness in Chicago, it appears due to the huge battery capacity temp derating, almost 1/10 capacity at low temps so the sudden range cut freaked people out. I haven't compared newer LiPO4 how they do.
People expected the usual 45 minute charge time, and while waiting for a charger station, things cool off. The battery is a stuctural component and imagine how much heater power/time it takes to heat a 1,000lb blob plus metal casing.

Diesel engines work fine here, there is a block and fuel heater but truck stops leave semi's idling constantly though. They never shut the engines off on big trucks.

[pickle9000]

[tom66]

I looked at what went wrong in Chicago with the Tesla charging and it's not clear.
The company knows damn well what happened, they have the telemetry and should issue a press statement lest EV's get demonized for the wrong reasons.

I would expect a cold Tesla to refuse charging until the heater got the battery temps up, courtesy of the charger power, and then inititate charging at reduced rate.

This is pretty much what happens.  The car will still drive okay (at very reduced power) if the battery is cold but charging isn't possible until the battery has warmed somewhat.   Someone tested this, it took a good 45 minutes before their battery was hot enough to start accepting actual charging current.


It realistically isn't a problem until you get into -15C weather conditions, sustained for several days, and then get a lot of people who need to travel all at the same time, all without preheating their battery... perhaps because they know the supercharger is there and don't need the nav.  But the problem is average people used to fuel powered cars don't necessarily get this.  It's not necessarily an easy concept to explain.  I mean it takes enough effort to explain to people it's faster to leave a supercharger at 60% than 90%...

[thm_w]

This is pretty much what happens.  The car will still drive okay (at very reduced power) if the battery is cold but charging isn't possible until the battery has warmed somewhat.   Someone tested this, it took a good 45 minutes before their battery was hot enough to start accepting actual charging current.
youtube.com/watch?v=i-c8AUeKs5c

Interesting, surprised it takes that long with ~5-7kW heat going into the pack from -15C. 480kg of material + losses to the outside, maybe thats just what it takes.

[floobydust]

The cars are under-engineered or... hiding something.

Tesla can easily thermal model the battery pack/heater, it knows ambient temperature, and can estimate the energy required to heat or maintain the pack temperature.
Tesla can easily thermal model the cabin temperature and heater, it knows ambient temperature, and can estimate the energy required to heat or maintain the interiour temperature.

The cold battery capacity reduction is huge and we should all hush hush about it lol. It's likely protecting against battery damage at the expense of a dead car.

Graph is a popular notion the media promotes and does it include the heaters running?

[Siwastaja]

Graph is a popular notion the media promotes and does it include the heaters running?

Worse, it probably includes heaters running set for some ridiculously high cabin temperature like +23degC. -4F is just -20degC. Even my Nissan Leaf which has no battery heating, no thermal insulation, nothing fancy, gets more than 50% of the summer range at -20degC, even when it sits in the cold on my driveway, as I don't have a garage. For example last night it was -28*C for a few hours so the battery pretty much cooled down, in the morning it was -18*C and my consumption for the 60km drive was 22kWh/100km, when during summer it is like 16kWh/100km. But I did preheat the cabin and that is lacking from the number, so it would actually be 25kWh/100km. A lot more than in summer, but not even close to double. Then again, my cabin temperature is set at +16*C, which I feel is totally comfortable because it's obvious to me to put clothes on during winter time, and not count on parking right next to the door at the destination, which might be what American's are doing?

[Siwastaja]

But they would be really worried about battery Li-plating- which is terribly destructive to the batteries.

It really is, but remember it's a combination of three factors: high state-of-charge, low temperature, and high charging current. If you pick all three, you are going to have serious battery damage. But if you pick two, it's already better.

In real world, one usually does not need to charge a pack which is already nearly full, so it rules out one of the factors. (At the end of charge session, the battery pack has heated up already so charging can commence fully.)

In really extreme temperatures say -35degC though, charging currents need to be limited to very modest values even for, say, 50% SoC. It's probably tempting for a manufacturer to completely disable charging and take the PR hit. Now it is matter of taste whether you should be just pre-heating with 5kW and not charge, or pre-heat at 5kW and at the same time charge at 5kW. The end result is not too different - if you are expecting charging power of 100kW, and actually getting 50kW average out of the sessions, both options (only heat, no charging; or heat + slow charging) are very slow to start and the difference on average session charge rate is not big.

[SeanB]

I don't think that's ever been the case? Those living in cold conditions would be using diesel specific to those conditions

Certainly was in the past here in the uk,but then we've never been  geared up for the wrong type of  weather,even our railways suffer with the wrong type of snow

Maybe the UK is the exception. But you guys claim it's a heatwave once it hits 30 degrees. We call it a warm summer's day. 

Remember once, while watching CNN at tea time (Gulf War 1, we loved the real time reporting, and often got a lot of pilots coming in to watch, because we had a TV set that could get the broadcast no problem, but their one was in the shadow area from the mountain), we were treated to a part of the news hour about how London was sweltering under a summer heat wave, and people were dying, and it was 31C. Turned to my colleague Raven, and asked him when was it 31C here. He replied it was around half past seven in the morning, and currently was just under 40C. This was indoors. And in winter.

[YurkshireLad]

It's not going to be pretty, but quite obviously the current fossil thing isn't pretty either - when the temperature hits -30degC, there is epidemic of diesel vehicles dying and needing a tow, so 

I don't think that's ever been the case? Those living in cold conditions would be using diesel specific to those conditions. Diesel used in Scandinavian countries work far colder than -30 C.

In Australia, "winter diesel" is sold around Canberra and the alpine regions for this very reason.

I don't know if winter specific additives are added to diesel here in Canada. I certainly don't see the roads lined with abandoned diesel powered vehicles, or lines of tow trucks pulling them. 

[Dan123456]

It's hilarious when the anti-EV conspiricy nutters claim that EVs are about "them" controlling you, when ICE cars are 100% dependent on fuel supply, whereas there will always be electricity, ultimately from your own wind/solar if you want complete independence.

I did a poll last week:

Interesting results Dave! Thanks for sharing 

Although I have a feeling they might be a little skewed towards EVs due to your followers being interested / in the EEV space so would guess they might be more likely to give an EV a fair shake compared to your average Joe

That said, I am kinda surprised that the EV number isn’t actually higher in that specific situation since that is a car + constant fuel option vs car with possibly no fuel option in a SHTF situation!

I mean I don’t even particularly like EV’s but I would absolutely take that option unless the situation required me getting far, far away as quickly as possible (say like a nuke was gonna hit home and I had to be 500km away in 6 hours or something really specific like that)!

[tom66]

In terms of get out quickly:
- ICE can probably go further in a mad panic, but
- EV is more sustainable for an itinerant lifestyle (off-the-grid).

In apocalypse films/shows, some 20-30 years after a disaster happens, it's usually shown that the 'travellers' are surviving on scavenged fuel from abandoned cars.  I'd wonder whether solar+EV would be more sustainable.  Surely at a certain point that scavenged fuel is no good at all.  Though I suppose solar panels don't last forever, either.

[Dan123456]

In terms of get out quickly:
- ICE can probably go further in a mad panic, but
- EV is more sustainable for an itinerant lifestyle (off-the-grid).

In apocalypse films/shows, some 20-30 years after a disaster happens, it's usually shown that the 'travellers' are surviving on scavenged fuel from abandoned cars.  I'd wonder whether solar+EV would be more sustainable.  Surely at a certain point that scavenged fuel is no good at all.  Though I suppose solar panels don't last forever, either.

I reckon ICE would be better long, long term as you can scavenge different flammable solvents from everywhere or even just grow corn and make your own ethanol fuel forever  Cars will run on a lot more than just petrol, especially if it is an old carbureted engine

Plus this means you can use your solar panels to power your home rather than needing to share the energy across both 

That said, if we are only talking up to 5-10 years before all is back to normal, I’d take the EV personally and then try go scavenge some additional solar panels for my home / would just have to deal with sharing the panel with the car

[nctnico]

- EV is more sustainable for an itinerant lifestyle (off-the-grid).

No. Gasoline cars can run on ethanol which you can make from plants. Same for diesel. For electricity you need some form of generation and batteries. Neither last decades. Keep in mind that there are people driving around in model-T Fords which are over 100 years old. Also, you can't store electricity very long but liquid fuel can be stored much longer so you can drive all year long with an ICE car in case you are living in an area with large seasonal changes in the weather.

[tom66]

- EV is more sustainable for an itinerant lifestyle (off-the-grid).

No. Gasoline cars can run on ethanol which you can make from plants. Same for diesel. For electricity you need some form of generation and batteries. Neither last decades. Keep in mind that there are people driving around in model-T Fords which are over 100 years old. Also, you can't store electricity very long but liquid fuel can be stored much longer so you can drive all year long with an ICE car in case you are living in an area with large seasonal changes in the weather.

How large of a field of crops would you need to power one car?  I suspect a few solar panels is easier, you only need about 1kW to charge most EVs.  Also, not competing between your food and fuel demands is good.

The long term calendar aging of Li-ion batteries is a risk, agreed.

[tszaboo]

- EV is more sustainable for an itinerant lifestyle (off-the-grid).

No. Gasoline cars can run on ethanol which you can make from plants. Same for diesel. For electricity you need some form of generation and batteries. Neither last decades. Keep in mind that there are people driving around in model-T Fords which are over 100 years old. Also, you can't store electricity very long but liquid fuel can be stored much longer so you can drive all year long with an ICE car in case you are living in an area with large seasonal changes in the weather.

I'll take a horse. Think about Robert Merle: Malevil.

[themadhippy]

If the apocalypse involved  or caused a large electromagnetic pulse i wouldnt hold much hope of any ev,or any modern vehicle to  be much use.

[nctnico]

- EV is more sustainable for an itinerant lifestyle (off-the-grid).

No. Gasoline cars can run on ethanol which you can make from plants. Same for diesel. For electricity you need some form of generation and batteries. Neither last decades. Keep in mind that there are people driving around in model-T Fords which are over 100 years old. Also, you can't store electricity very long but liquid fuel can be stored much longer so you can drive all year long with an ICE car in case you are living in an area with large seasonal changes in the weather.

I'll take a horse. Think about Robert Merle: Malevil.

A horse or bycicle would make way more sense but the choice was between two cars.

How large of a field of crops would you need to power one car?

It depends on how much liquor you want to distill for your own consumption versus the amount of fuel for your car. And you don't need to grow crops specifically for fuel; that is a common misconception.  Every kind of plant can be fermented into alcohol / ethanol.

[mikeselectricstuff]

If the apocalypse involved  or caused a large electromagnetic pulse i wouldnt hold much hope of any ev,or any modern vehicle to  be much use.

The metal car body would provide quite a lot of protection. Especially if it was switched off at the time.

[Stray Electron]

IMHO needing to charge for debit / credit cars fees is a clear sign the business is not being run well. A healthy company shouldn't need to nickel & dime over these kinds of things.

  Clearly you don't live in the US! It's not about "need", it's about Profit.  Here, extra fees are a sign of a company that is doing well and and they can charge extras fees and make a fatter profit; and they can get away with it because they usually dominate their market.  Lesson 101 for a Harvard MBA.

[mikeselectricstuff]

How large of a field of crops would you need to power one car?  I suspect a few solar panels is easier, you only need about 1kW to charge most EVs.  Also, not competing between your food and fuel demands is good.

Many EVs will charge down to about 100V, so with the minimum J1772 rate of 6A it could be as low as 600W, though effificency likely poor due to baseline draw of whatever car systems are  powerd on during charging.
Of course at a pinch you could feed directly into the HV battery to charge at lower rates....

[Stray Electron]

If the apocalypse involved  or caused a large electromagnetic pulse i wouldnt hold much hope of any ev,or any modern vehicle to  be much use.

   If you're concerned about SHTF scenarios then get a Deuce and a Half. That's a 2 1/2 ton (off road cargo capacity) US military truck to some of you. They're diesel but will run on any liquid that will vaporize and burn and they use a mechanical fuel pump so they will run without a battery and they can be push started.  They do have glow plugs but they're generally not required for starting.  They are designed from the beginning to be a multi-fuel vehicle that can be started and operated without a battery and their are NO computers or other solid state electronics in them. Also keep in mind that jet fuel, diesel fuel, vegetable oil use motor oil, and used transmission fluid will all store longer than gasoline and the Deuce and a Half will run very well on any of them. And it might also be helpful that these have three axles and are six-wheel drive!  And, with a snorkel kit, they can operated completely underwater!

  But MPG is not their strong suit!

[AVGresponding]

If the apocalypse involved  or caused a large electromagnetic pulse i wouldnt hold much hope of any ev,or any modern vehicle to  be much use.

The metal car body would provide quite a lot of protection. Especially if it was switched off at the time.

Quite a lot of plastic panels on modern cars, especially EVs, to save weight...

[vad]

I suspect a few solar panels is easier, you only need about 1kW to charge most EVs.  Also, not competing between your food and fuel demands is good.

I am not an expert on solar, but according to a Forbes article a 1 kW solar system produces 750-850 kWh annually for average installation in North America. So charging Tesla Model 3 from 20% to 80% would take a whopping 2-3 weeks on average depending on battery option.

[David Hess]

I suspect a few solar panels is easier, you only need about 1kW to charge most EVs.  Also, not competing between your food and fuel demands is good.

I am not an expert on solar, but according to a Forbes article a 1 kW solar system produces 750-850 kWh annually for average installation in North America. So charging Tesla Model 3 from 20% to 80% would take a whopping 2-3 weeks on average depending on battery option.

1kW is the lowest common denominator because the common North America 120VAC 15A circuit provides a little more than that; typically 1.2kW without power factor correction.  Dedicated home chargers are more like 240VAC at 30A providing up to 7.2kW so could fully charge a Tesla battery overnight.

Few solar installations are limited to 1kW.

[vad]

I suspect a few solar panels is easier, you only need about 1kW to charge most EVs.  Also, not competing between your food and fuel demands is good.

I am not an expert on solar, but according to a Forbes article a 1 kW solar system produces 750-850 kWh annually for average installation in North America. So charging Tesla Model 3 from 20% to 80% would take a whopping 2-3 weeks on average depending on battery option.

1kW is the lowest common denominator because the common North America 120VAC 15A circuit provides a little more than that; typically 1.2kW without power factor correction.  Dedicated home chargers are more like 240VAC at 30A providing up to 7.2kW so could fully charge a Tesla battery overnight.

Few solar installations are limited to 1kW.

According to the National Electrical Code, a 240V, 30A receptacle can only sustain a continuous draw of 5,760W. Charging overnight qualifies as a continuous load. However, the main point is that a 1 kW supply from the grid is impractical for charging a typical EV at home, and 1 kW solar is ridiculously low for this purpose.

[nctnico]

How large of a field of crops would you need to power one car?  I suspect a few solar panels is easier, you only need about 1kW to charge most EVs.  Also, not competing between your food and fuel demands is good.

Many EVs will charge down to about 100V, so with the minimum J1772 rate of 6A it could be as low as 600W, though effificency likely poor due to baseline draw of whatever car systems are  powerd on during charging.

Efficiency is also a point. The German ADAC tested charging efficiency for BEVs from a 230V 16A outlet and measured losses up to 30%.

[PlainName]

If the apocalypse involved  or caused a large electromagnetic pulse i wouldnt hold much hope of any ev,or any modern vehicle to  be much use.

The metal car body would provide quite a lot of protection. Especially if it was switched off at the time.

It's steel. You need tinfoil for proper protection.

[Dan123456]

- EV is more sustainable for an itinerant lifestyle (off-the-grid).

No. Gasoline cars can run on ethanol which you can make from plants. Same for diesel. For electricity you need some form of generation and batteries. Neither last decades. Keep in mind that there are people driving around in model-T Fords which are over 100 years old. Also, you can't store electricity very long but liquid fuel can be stored much longer so you can drive all year long with an ICE car in case you are living in an area with large seasonal changes in the weather.

How large of a field of crops would you need to power one car?  I suspect a few solar panels is easier, you only need about 1kW to charge most EVs.  Also, not competing between your food and fuel demands is good.

The long term calendar aging of Li-ion batteries is a risk, agreed.

Surprisingly, the field wouldn’t need to be that big! 

“Through research performed at Cornell University, we know that 1 acre of land can yield about 7,110 pounds (3,225 kg) of corn, which can be processed into 328 gallons (1240.61 liters) of ethanol. That is about 26.1 pounds (11.84 kg) of corn per gallon.”

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/question707.htm

[nctnico]

1 acre is less than the surface of a soccer field. However, this number likely assumes professional farming using high grade fertilizer and high grade seeds.

[Monkeh]

- EV is more sustainable for an itinerant lifestyle (off-the-grid).

No. Gasoline cars can run on ethanol which you can make from plants. Same for diesel. For electricity you need some form of generation and batteries. Neither last decades. Keep in mind that there are people driving around in model-T Fords which are over 100 years old. Also, you can't store electricity very long but liquid fuel can be stored much longer so you can drive all year long with an ICE car in case you are living in an area with large seasonal changes in the weather.

How large of a field of crops would you need to power one car?  I suspect a few solar panels is easier, you only need about 1kW to charge most EVs.  Also, not competing between your food and fuel demands is good.

The long term calendar aging of Li-ion batteries is a risk, agreed.

Surprisingly, the field wouldn’t need to be that big! 

“Through research performed at Cornell University, we know that 1 acre of land can yield about 7,110 pounds (3,225 kg) of corn, which can be processed into 328 gallons (1240.61 liters) of ethanol. That is about 26.1 pounds (11.84 kg) of corn per gallon.”

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/question707.htm

And if your engine doesn't return the sort of fuel economy expected from a 1970s truck (I'm looking at you, America), that's quite a lot of fuel.

[tom66]

Efficiency is also a point. The German ADAC tested charging efficiency for BEVs from a 230V 16A outlet and measured losses up to 30%.

Do you have a link to that report?  1.1kW of losses is crazy high for a 3.6kW charger.  I measured the loss on my ID.3 at around 350W for a 7.2kW input.  I expect it is probably around 200-250W for a 3.6kW input. Most of it is expended on running battery pumps, contactors, computers, fans etc.  If the battery heater has to run that's another matter but typically not needed unless well below -10C.

[Dan123456]

1 acre is less than the surface of a soccer field. However, this number likely assumes professional farming using high grade fertilizer and high grade seeds.

Absolutely agree, my point is the bottom part (~12kg of corn per gallon of fuel) but wanted to keep the whole quote for completeness 

If I’m in a SHTF situation, I probably only need maybe 20-30 gallons of fuel for my car a year if my house is running off solar  I’d hardly be road tripping the wastelands 

Also, again this is in the 20+ year situation where solar panels would have 30+ years of degradation on them 

In a short term scenario, I would take the EV 

[m98]

If the apocalypse involved  or caused a large electromagnetic pulse i wouldnt hold much hope of any ev,or any modern vehicle to  be much use.

I wouldn't know where to drive during or after an apocalypse. Realistically, you would get stuck in a giant traffic jam, awaiting anything that happens trapped in your car on a road in the wide, open landscape. Where I live, the escape plan would probably be to grab a knife, a solid pair of boots and . But why are some people making everyday decisions in fear or hope of ending up in Mad-Max?

[David Hess]

I wouldn't know where to drive during or after an apocalypse. Realistically, you would get stuck in a giant traffic jam, awaiting anything that happens trapped in your car on a road in the wide, open landscape.

Back in the late 1990s, I sat in on emergency preparedness meetings in Orange County, California and always got a chuckle about that.  Any plan which relies on mass evacuation would never work because if the freeways were usable, then millions would be trying to use them.  The best option then becomes a vehicle with considerable off-road capability, like a motorcycle that can drive around traffic, but you are hardly going to evacuate your family on a motorcycle and they have a surprisingly short range between fueling.

Not too long ago we saw examples of this in Florida and the Gulf Coast when hurricanes prompted mass evacuations.   Even starting days ahead of time was not enough, and if traffic jams were not enough, the fuel stations along the evacuation routes ran out of fuel stranding even more people.  In the past I have occasionally kept enough 5 gallon cans of gas in the back of my pickup to double its range.

And if you think electric vehicles will save you from this, during the evacuations in California, some electric vehicle owners found themselves stranded when power was lost or even deliberately shut down over wide areas.

[Siwastaja]

Do you have a link to that report?  1.1kW of losses is crazy high for a 3.6kW charger.  I measured the loss on my ID.3 at around 350W for a 7.2kW input.  I expect it is probably around 200-250W for a 3.6kW input. Most of it is expended on running battery pumps, contactors, computers, fans etc.  If the battery heater has to run that's another matter but typically not needed unless well below -10C.

Let me play devil's advocate and suggest nctnico remembers the testing condition wrong, and is talking about charging at 230V 8A, not 16A as he says, and includes full charge with a rather long balancing/CV phase. Then 70% total efficiency would be probably spot on, due to the loads (pumps etc) you mention, unless manufacturer has paid special attention to minimize this draw. Charger efficiency itself is around 90% of course.

[BrianHG]

  



(Sorry about the commentator appearing like AI generated, but the story was too sweet...)

[Siwastaja]

What's wrong with burning wood? I'm 110% positive these "free thinkers" would piss their pants from excitement if they could burn wood supplied by some massive multinational company in their internal combustion engines (at least if it emitted enough black smoke), and it's only the freedom and creativity of others which pisses them. Wood grows by absorbing solar energy and CO2, releasing the same CO2 when burned. It can be easily stored and transported, and therefore one can burn wood when the wind and PV production are insufficient. The only potential issue is overuse. This is what I do to heat my house: heatpump using energy from the grid when it's cheap and clean, own PV when the sun shines, and during very cold and expensive periods, usually 1-2 weeks a year, burning oil and/or wood. The amount of oil and wood used is very small but it makes a big difference for total feasibility and safety.

But I understand free thinkers want unary solutions, preferably managed by communist state, or, alternatively, by large faceless corporations.

[tom66]

It's all about "green bad" basically.  If a technology has an environmental benefit then it's automatically bad because they don't trust people that promote and implement these kinds of solutions.  Fear of change perhaps?  Without getting too political that kind of is the definition of "conservativism" as a political viewpoint - everything's fine, don't change it.

[Andy Chee]

You can charge your EV from waste cooking oil as well!

[EPAIII]

Why would I need Apple Pay or a dedicated, auto company card? Visa, Master Card, and Discover have been around forever.

I'm not a big fan of EVs, and if I can't pay for a charge with my present cards, then it may be a long while before I get one.

So there's no business model to setup dedicated charging plazas (like a gas station?) where (in addition to the chargers) prime locations are few and expensive.  Also, gas stations aren't cheap either with the large tanks in the ground and the evironmental cleanup during and afterwards.  It's typical of EV infrastructure to have most costs up front but at least the recurring energy delivery won't require a truck fleet.

But why the worry that Tesla will setup next door to you?  It sounds like they manged to get a business model that works for them.

I see a future where existing ammenities (tourist attractions, shopping, dining, etc) will put up a few chargers in their parking lots to attract shoppers. Typically, the property managment companies would own or lease-out the stalls like some solar companies will lease your roof (eg. a cut of production). 

If only all the operators would unite under one internet access point/marketplace so that customers can have a seamless experience; having timely knowledge of all nearby available chargers (their abilities and status) and the local attractions to entice/keep them.

It's already a whole lot better than it was a few years ago.  For rapid chargers you can nearly universally use a credit/debit card and bypass all that app bullshit.  There's also a few unifying companies that have RFID cards available that give you access to discounted tariffs (for instance I get 8% off the bill when I use my 'Electroverse' card).

For slow AC charging the situation is still "apps are the way" for the majority and it's a pain, though mostly the pain happens when first discovering, oh, this charger is run by Shell, so I need to go and register for those guys and set up my card with them.  And for some reason a lot of these companies haven't figured out Apple Pay, seriously, this is 2024, it's been around as an app integration for at least 5 years now.

From the news reporting, I'm surprised that the Tesla network still lead cutomers to unavailable chargers.

I suspect it didn't, Tesla does route people away from chargers like this.  It is probably the case that people went here because they knew it existed.  That said Tesla will never route its customers to 3rd party chargers so if this is truly the only supercharger for a while it could be a reason they all ended up there.  They should probably change that, though I can understand their reluctance as they are a bit like Apple in wanting to control the whole "experience".

[EPAIII]

The US was undergoing a winter storm, a big one. I am still feeling it here in south Texas. I can only imagine the amount of stress and damage the electric grid in Chicago was undergoing. Everyone using electric space heaters to stay warm, trees falling on power lines, repair vehicles having trouble getting to the scene of problems. Ect. Ect. Ect.

I would bet that it was the grid and not that charging station that was at fault. Of course, this is an educated guess on my part and I could be wrong.

Dunno what's wrong with that Chicago charging station or those people who left those cars but in say Norway superchargers operate in much harsher weather conditions. I only know Chicago for being a world famous dysfunctional shithole, so prolly has to do something with that.

[tom66]

Why would I need Apple Pay or a dedicated, auto company card? Visa, Master Card, and Discover have been around forever.

I'm not a big fan of EVs, and if I can't pay for a charge with my present cards, then it may be a long while before I get one.

You can use either.  The problem with a regular contactless card is, depending on your card provider, you might be required to enter a PIN, and some EV chargers don't have pin pads.  Apple Pay and the like solve that by doing on-device verification.

For what it's worth, I've used both options for paying, and not had any issues yet.  And I think merchants can decide to omit the PIN check if they want but they risk fraudulent transactions being reversed.

[nctnico]

Efficiency is also a point. The German ADAC tested charging efficiency for BEVs from a 230V 16A outlet and measured losses up to 30%.

Do you have a link to that report?  1.1kW of losses is crazy high for a 3.6kW charger.  I measured the loss on my ID.3 at around 350W for a 7.2kW input.  I expect it is probably around 200-250W for a 3.6kW input. Most of it is expended on running battery pumps, contactors, computers, fans etc.  If the battery heater has to run that's another matter but typically not needed unless well below -10C.

You can Google 'Adac charging losses'

[Siwastaja]

Efficiency is also a point. The German ADAC tested charging efficiency for BEVs from a 230V 16A outlet and measured losses up to 30%.

Do you have a link to that report?  1.1kW of losses is crazy high for a 3.6kW charger.  I measured the loss on my ID.3 at around 350W for a 7.2kW input.  I expect it is probably around 200-250W for a 3.6kW input. Most of it is expended on running battery pumps, contactors, computers, fans etc.  If the battery heater has to run that's another matter but typically not needed unless well below -10C.

You can Google 'Adac charging losses'

Googled it. "Household socket" loss varied between 10 and 30 percent depending on the vehicle and conditions. So it's a little bit misleading to pick the worst-case number, but you did say "up to", so oh well.

It's not unsurprising Renault Zoe did worst at low power, because it has the most powerful AC charger so design is not optimized for lowest currents.

[tom66]

You can Google 'Adac charging losses'

Right, so the 30% figure seems to come from the Renault Zoe when charging off a "granny charger", which is well known to be inefficient at low current charging because of its "Chameleon" architecture, using the electric motor as part of the charging circuit.  This allows the car to charge at up to 43kW (older models) or 22kW (newer models) for rapid AC charging en-route.  It didn't end up being a successful method, with most car manufacturers standardising on DC CCS charging, including the new Zoe (which just has a standard 7kW charger now), but there are plenty of these cars around.

https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/elektromobilitaet/laden/ladeverluste-elektroauto-studie/#laden-daheim-so-hat-der-adac-gemessen

Whereas other EVs charging on 11kW (3 phase for EU) achieve efficiency typically greater than 90% and even when using a granny charger, efficiency of 85% is common.

While there are no doubt users of Zoe's still charging off granny chargers, to take a single model and apply its losses to all vehicles with the statement of "losses up to 30%" is grossly misleading, IMO.

[Ice-Tea]

I suspect a few solar panels is easier, you only need about 1kW to charge most EVs.  Also, not competing between your food and fuel demands is good.

I am not an expert on solar, but according to a Forbes article a 1 kW solar system produces 750-850 kWh annually for average installation in North America. So charging Tesla Model 3 from 20% to 80% would take a whopping 2-3 weeks on average depending on battery option.

Luckily cornfields grow overnight!

Also: I have about 13kWp on my roof.

[nctnico]

You can Google 'Adac charging losses'

Right, so the 30% figure seems to come from the Renault Zoe when charging off a "granny charger", which is well known to be inefficient at low current charging because of its "Chameleon" architecture, using the electric motor as part of the charging circuit.  This allows the car to charge at up to 43kW (older models) or 22kW (newer models) for rapid AC charging en-route.  It didn't end up being a successful method, with most car manufacturers standardising on DC CCS charging, including the new Zoe (which just has a standard 7kW charger now), but there are plenty of these cars around.

https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/elektromobilitaet/laden/ladeverluste-elektroauto-studie/#laden-daheim-so-hat-der-adac-gemessen

Whereas other EVs charging on 11kW (3 phase for EU) achieve efficiency typically greater than 90% and even when using a granny charger, efficiency of 85% is common.

While there are no doubt users of Zoe's still charging off granny chargers, to take a single model and apply its losses to all vehicles with the statement of "losses up to 30%" is grossly misleading, IMO.

In the context of this discussion it is not. Scroll up a few posts and you'll see somebody coined a 1kW number for a solar panel system to charge an EV from.

[nctnico]

I wouldn't know where to drive during or after an apocalypse. Realistically, you would get stuck in a giant traffic jam, awaiting anything that happens trapped in your car on a road in the wide, open landscape.

Back in the late 1990s, I sat in on emergency preparedness meetings in Orange County, California and always got a chuckle about that.  Any plan which relies on mass evacuation would never work because if the freeways were usable, then millions would be trying to use them.  The best option then becomes a vehicle with considerable off-road capability, like a motorcycle that can drive around traffic, but you are hardly going to evacuate your family on a motorcycle and they have a surprisingly short range between fueling.

The best thing is to seek shelter nearby or prepare your home to withstand whatever could come (or at least make sure it remains partly habitable). A long time ago I spoke to somebody in the Netherlands about mass evacuations because he was involved in planning crisis situations. In the NL there is a densely populated area with quite a few chemical plants. There is just no way to evacuate people from that area in case of trouble. So the advice is that when the alarm goes off (yes, we still have that!) to go inside, close doors / windows and shut the ventilation system off.

[Siwastaja]

In the context of this discussion it is not. Scroll up a few posts and you'll see somebody coined a 1kW number for a solar panel system to charge an EV from.

Yeah. That discussion was quite useless because firstly no one in their right mind would get a 1kW system for their prepper LARP, but probably 10kWp or so. But then again, when the nuclear winter hits then even that 10kWp doesn't produce much anything, and after 20 years the EV battery is dead anyway, just like most ICE cars and their spare parts, and if you have a working vehicle someone steals it from you, so we are back to horses anyway.

[themadhippy]

so we are back to horses anyway

none left mate mc donalds has bought em all

[Homer J Simpson]

so we are back to horses anyway

none left mate mc donalds has bought em all

That was Ikea

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/02/25/172869585/horsemeat-found-in-ikeas-meatballs

[nctnico]

In the context of this discussion it is not. Scroll up a few posts and you'll see somebody coined a 1kW number for a solar panel system to charge an EV from.

Yeah. That discussion was quite useless because firstly no one in their right mind would get a 1kW system for their prepper LARP, but probably 10kWp or so. But then again, when the nuclear winter hits then even that 10kWp doesn't produce much anything, and after 20 years the EV battery is dead anyway, just like most ICE cars and their spare parts, and if you have a working vehicle someone steals it from you, so we are back to horses anyway.

Agreed. Humans have used dogs, donkey, oxes, horses, elephants, etc for transport for thousands of years. People will be fine without a car. Any kind of car probably needs more effort to keep going compared to the benefits. Just attach some leashes to the steering wheel and put some horses in front of a car. You'll get an auto-pilot on top of it if you take the same route every time. Horses aren't stupid and remember the routes.

[richard.cs]

Right, so the 30% figure seems to come from the Renault Zoe when charging off a "granny charger", which is well known to be inefficient at low current charging because of its "Chameleon" architecture, using the electric motor as part of the charging circuit.  This allows the car to charge at up to 43kW (older models) or 22kW (newer models) for rapid AC charging en-route.  It didn't end up being a successful method, with most car manufacturers standardising on DC CCS charging, including the new Zoe (which just has a standard 7kW charger now), but there are plenty of these cars around.

The new Zoe still does 22 kW AC charging with a factory option for DC CCS but 43 kW is essentially dead in current production cars. I suspect unlike 43 kW charge points the 22 kW ones are here to stay - simply because there's a big mix of 7 kW (32 A single phase) and 11 kW (16 A 3 phase) cars around, so a 32 A 3 phase charger is the lowest common denominator that will charge both at full rate. That and AC chargers are comparatively cheap to install with costs that don't really scale with rating.

[Stray Electron]

I suspect a few solar panels is easier, you only need about 1kW to charge most EVs.  Also, not competing between your food and fuel demands is good.

I am not an expert on solar, but according to a Forbes article a 1 kW solar system produces 750-850 kWh annually for average installation in North America. So charging Tesla Model 3 from 20% to 80% would take a whopping 2-3 weeks on average depending on battery option.

1kW is the lowest common denominator because the common North America 120VAC 15A circuit provides a little more than that; typically 1.2kW without power factor correction.  Dedicated home chargers are more like 240VAC at 30A providing up to 7.2kW so could fully charge a Tesla battery overnight.

Few solar installations are limited to 1kW.

   About 99% of the home solar installations in Florida are 4kW systems, that's because that was where the big tax break and refund that was offered about 10 years ago stopped.  So you're still looking at several days of charging for an electric car and that's only if your solar produced  electricity isn't used for anything else.   OTOH Floridians are luckier than people in most other parts of the US and Europe in that they get large amounts of sunshine most days of the year and pretty much year round. Having lived in New England and Canada I can tell you that during the winter, the days are SHORT and it's often heavily overcast for days/weeks on end.  I think that there you could forget charging an electric car there at all during the winter and probably of good bit of of the spring and fall.

   Before I would consider a solar system and an rechargeable electric car as a practical alternative, I would like to hear from anyone that lives in a northern climate and that has a home solar system and that uses it to recharge an electric car with no other electrical input,  and see what their actual experience has been.

[David Hess]

Agreed. Humans have used dogs, donkey, oxes, horses, elephants, etc for transport for thousands of years. People will be fine without a car. Any kind of car probably needs more effort to keep going compared to the benefits. Just attach some leashes to the steering wheel and put some horses in front of a car. You'll get an auto-pilot on top of it if you take the same route every time. Horses aren't stupid and remember the routes.

If things get that bad, then a lack of individual transportation will be the least of anyones worries.  No number of draft animals will make up for lack of mechanized farming.  Farm tractors produce *hundreds* of horsepower continuously to get their work done.

The best thing is to seek shelter nearby or prepare your home to withstand whatever could come (or at least make sure it remains partly habitable). A long time ago I spoke to somebody in the Netherlands about mass evacuations because he was involved in planning crisis situations. In the NL there is a densely populated area with quite a few chemical plants. There is just no way to evacuate people from that area in case of trouble. So the advice is that when the alarm goes off (yes, we still have that!) to go inside, close doors / windows and shut the ventilation system off.

These days they call that "shelter in place".

Orange County had an alarm in case the San Onofre nuclear power plant blew up.  They could not be bothered to keep stocks of potassium iodine tablets because that would be "alarming", but they were happy to rely on unrealistic mass evacuations.

But then again, when the nuclear winter hits then even that 10kWp doesn't produce much anything, and after 20 years the EV battery is dead anyway, just like most ICE cars and their spare parts, and if you have a working vehicle someone steals it from you, so we are back to horses anyway.

I think an EV would be better over the medium term because you can have your own charging infrastructure, while almost nobody has the infrastructure to make their own gasoline and existing stocks will only last a couple years at most.

Diesel is an interesting option because some vegetable oils can be used, but then so are flex-fuel vehicles that can use pure alcohol.

[Siwastaja]

The new Zoe still does 22 kW AC charging with a factory option for DC CCS but 43 kW is essentially dead in current production cars. I suspect unlike 43 kW charge points the 22 kW ones are here to stay - simply because there's a big mix of 7 kW (32 A single phase) and 11 kW (16 A 3 phase) cars around, so a 32 A 3 phase charger is the lowest common denominator that will charge both at full rate. That and AC chargers are comparatively cheap to install with costs that don't really scale with rating.

The number of 22kW AC charging points is whopping, at least here they are much more frequently available than DC quick charging stations. Shopping malls, parking garages, etc.; while DC quick charging is focused on busy highways only.

We frequently make a 140km trip and because the kid sometimes needs a break midway we stop at such "highway hub" place, to see how all (eight) DC CCS fast charging spots are always in use and a line of Teslas etc. are forming to queue. Average charge rate, including the wait is definitely below 50kW. Then, there are two 22kW AC EVSEs there, which are also cheaper, but I have never seen anyone use them. I just plug the LEAF in and charge at 6kW. During half-an-hour stay, I don't get much charge (15km), but that brings up the question - what it the car charged at 22kW? That would be pretty decent, 55km in 30 minutes; not good for continuous "20%-to-60" roadtripping, but really fine for those occasions you need like 1.3 times the range your vehicle supports. Especially in winter, the speed difference between DC fast and AC charging disappears. If you are queuing 20 minutes to DC fast charging at -5kW (including cabing heating plus battery pre-heating) then charge at 50kW (limited by station-wide total power limit) for another 20 minutes, your effective rate ends up the same 22kW you could get from the 3-phase 32A AC EVSE, which would also require less battery pre-heating to begin with. And what's best, the infrastructure is so much simpler, you can literally get a 3x32A AC EVSE for 200EUR and all that's needed is some sort of payment system.

Besides, power electronics have been improving all the time, using modern parts and knowledge (SiC, GAN, modern inductor core materials, let's not get into details here, many here know the drill), a 22kW internal charger is not such a problem anymore. You don't need to use the inductance of the motor to do that.

So in TLDR, people are pissed by Nissan LEAF coming with the getting-obsolete Chademo DC quick charge but seeing the availability of 22kW charge points, if I could choose between having a 22kW AC charger, or CCS connector on my LEAF, I would probably now choose the former! And if I want a car for 1500km road trips in the middle of winter non-stop, I won't buy 90% of the EV models on the market, and probably not even long-range Tesla, just a good old ICE car. For the EV use pattern, AC might be still the right solution after all, even if Zoe wasn't as successful as they hoped for.

And specifically, I mean 22kW AC, coupled with getting large enough battery pack for 95% of the needs to begin with. The idea that you DC fast charge weekly or more often is doomed, I think, because the charge network cannot expand fast enough compared to the number of new cars sold, and it's detrimental to battery life, too.

[Siwastaja]

I think an EV would be better over the medium term because you can have your own charging infrastructure, while almost nobody has the infrastructure to make their own gasoline and existing stocks will only last a couple years at most.

These apocalypse dreams are interesting because they always have this scenario that no one can keep doing what they are currently doing, but you can somehow still start growing vegetables somewhere.

I mean, oil comes from holes that are drilled to ground, or to seabed, all over the planet. There are people who keep this running. What is the process which suddenly renders everyone incapable of keeping at least some of it running? But somehow still allows them to switch into growing massive fields of sunflowers and process the seeds into biodiesel?

In other words, I think the only scenario which completely renders our current energy resources inoperable are very gloomy, to the point of actually everybody dying out of something. In which case we are not going to engineer anything out of PV panels. But sure, shortages and increased prices, and some people being unable to get gasoline are realistic. Heck, not everyone on this planet currently can afford such lifestyle. Majority cannot.

[Zero999]

- EV is more sustainable for an itinerant lifestyle (off-the-grid).

No. Gasoline cars can run on ethanol which you can make from plants. Same for diesel. For electricity you need some form of generation and batteries. Neither last decades. Keep in mind that there are people driving around in model-T Fords which are over 100 years old. Also, you can't store electricity very long but liquid fuel can be stored much longer so you can drive all year long with an ICE car in case you are living in an area with large seasonal changes in the weather.

Not really. Pure ethanol is hygroscopic and will destroy an ICE.

If you want biofuel, use diesel and power it from rapeseed/corn oil. If you must have a petrol engine, then run it from biogas or a gasifier, which can run on waste.

Either way, I would have no use for a car, in an apocalypse. I'd be more interested in a small tractor to help me grow food.

It's all about "green bad" basically.  If a technology has an environmental benefit then it's automatically bad because they don't trust people that promote and implement these kinds of solutions.  Fear of change perhaps?  Without getting too political that kind of is the definition of "conservativism" as a political viewpoint - everything's fine, don't change it.

One could argue progressivism is bad, because it's change for change's sake, but this isn't the place to discuss that.

It's true there's an element of resistance to change, but the main reason I can think of is people don't like being told what to do. Many are tired of environmentalists lecturing them and governments taxing them because it's good for the planet. It's all about "green = authoritarianism = bad".

[Bud]

Do not worry about your vehicle in apocalypse. Someone will come and take it from you. Either the government for the state military needs or a group of organized thugs.

[vad]

I suspect a few solar panels is easier, you only need about 1kW to charge most EVs.  Also, not competing between your food and fuel demands is good.

I am not an expert on solar, but according to a Forbes article a 1 kW solar system produces 750-850 kWh annually for average installation in North America. So charging Tesla Model 3 from 20% to 80% would take a whopping 2-3 weeks on average depending on battery option.

Luckily cornfields grow overnight!

Also: I have about 13kWp on my roof.

How is the output at night?

What is your solution for storing solar panels output for just a few hours, making the energy available for overnight charging? How complex is the solution?

PS. Luckily, dent corn has a shelf life of 30 years as a food source and much longer as a fuel source. All you need for storage is a cool, dry place.

[Siwastaja]

What is your solution for storing solar panels output for just a few hours, making the energy available for overnight charging? How complex is the solution?

I just love this scenario that in apocalypse and total destruction of everything, you are farming your land, have still managed to have functioning PV system, even the sun is shining, and you have an EV you can charge, but the only problem is that.... you need to charge overnight because you have to drive to work in the morning!

[floobydust]

Do not worry about your vehicle in apocalypse. Someone will come and take it from you. Either the government for the state military needs or a group of organized thugs.

I fully expect Tesla's to croak without a connection to their HQ. I think it's 8-year term right now.
Have you renewed your Connectivity subscription? Sorry, we do not accept Zombie dollars lol. Lack of payment will lead to a brick...

I worked on an old vehicle that has no diodes, no transistors, no semiconductors - at all.
That was an uh huh moment at how far corporate overreach and monopoly building has gone.
It would survive EMP, works fine at -30°C and doesn't vampire suck monthly payments out of a person.
No safety features but you can drive.

[Marco]

No man is an island, no machinery either. Yeah, it will be slightly easier to keep diesel going for 100 years with stocked parts, a machine shop and a farming community to harvest seed oil (not a one man operation, with enough spare parts maintaining a PV field is a one man operation though). Eventually you're going to need an industrial civilisation to keep everything going though.

Absent an apocalypse, productivity is more important than complexity for the moment ... so combines are complicated as hell, but bang for buck ye olde self maintained tractors are for hobbyists only. Likewise fuel is expensive enough that mileage matters and some electronics are profitable.

[fourfathom]

I worked on an old vehicle that has no diodes, no transistors, no semiconductors - at all.
That was an uh huh moment at how far corporate overreach and monopoly building has gone.
It would survive EMP, works fine at -30°C and doesn't vampire suck monthly payments out of a person.
No safety features but you can drive.

Following this thread I was thinking of my old 1960's VW Bug.  I could keep that thing running with just a set of socket wrenches and a couple of screwdrivers.  Now eventually the gaskets will degrade and brake pads wear out, but when the rings/sleeves/bearings go I guess it's all over without a functioning machine shop.  Horses do start to sound pretty good, and manufacturing more horses is pretty low-tech.

But by then the zombies would probably have eaten my brain...

Re: EVs in the cold, we've got relatives in Finland, and a few weeks ago it was *COLD* (even for Finland in the winter).  We saw stories of many Teslas stranded on the roads; because of the reduced range they ran out of juice before they could reach a charging station.

[SiliconWizard]

There is like zero question that any simple ICE vehicle is more "resilient" than any EV. Even if there was no access whatsoever to official gas or diesel fuel (and if things get hairy, people will just start getting fuel out of abandoned vehicles for quite a while), you can pretty easily make your own fuel and at least run your vehicle for a good while. Diesel engines, particularly the simpler ones (as opposed to the high-pressure stuff that is more recent), can run on vegetal oil without a problem. Actually many people have been doing this, at least occasionally, for years. And of course, they can run at much lower temperatures than EVs.

[Marco]

It still boggles my mind that not one manufacturer offers a low temperature package consisting of vacuum insulation panels for the battery (obviously only works with water cooling)

[Marco]

SiliconWizard, you just need to be on an operating farm with an oil extraction mill and/or fermentation tank and still. Obviously this applies to pretty much everyone.

[BrianHG]

You can charge your EV from waste cooking oil as well!

Cooking oil can be clean filtered and run through most diesel engines with perhaps some adjustments.  So, if you want to use waste cooking oil from your fryers and don't mind your exhaust smelling like french fries, why don't we skip EV and use normal diesel ICE cars powered by our fast food waste?  The technology already exists...

Wait a minute, cooking oil's pollutants, the un-burned particulates which are exhausted, are actually really unhealthy for our lungs... 

[themadhippy]

why don't we skip EV and use normal diesel ICE cars powered by our fast food waste?  The technology already exists..

many have in the uk,and our good old goverment is there with there hand out demanding the fuel duty

[Andy Chee]

You can charge your EV from waste cooking oil as well!

Cooking oil can be clean filtered and run through most diesel engines with perhaps some adjustments.  So, if you want to use waste cooking oil from your fryers and don't mind your exhaust smelling like french fries, why don't we skip EV and use normal diesel ICE cars powered by our fast food waste?  The technology already exists...

Putting aside emissions regulations and climate change issues, "free" electricity from rooftop solar is usually more readily available than free waste cooking oil, particularly if that energy source gains mass common usage.

Another issue particularly in the USA is that waste oil often belongs to the big corporate waste companies i.e. taking waste oil is regarded as theft.

[EEVblog]

Latest John Cadogan video, guess the subject:

[Stray Electron]

Putting aside emissions regulations and climate change issues, "free" electricity from rooftop solar is usually more readily available than free waste cooking oil, particularly if that energy source gains mass common usage.

Another issue particularly in the USA is that waste oil often belongs to the big corporate waste companies i.e. taking waste oil is regarded as theft.

  You can't be serious! Why are you stealing used oil?   There are restaurants on very street corner and several in the middle of the block and they ALL use cooking oil and most will give it to you for the asking. The same with used motor oil and used transmission fluid and used gear box oil. I have a number of friends that use all of them in their diesel trucks.  But in some states they will stop trucks and check to see what fuel you're using and will issue you a very heavy fine if they find you using anything other than on-road diesel fuel. It's all about the revenue! North Carolina is very bad about that and i see them checking the fuel in trucks every time that I go through there.  Otherwise the use of other fuel sources would be much more common.  True some places do get paid for used oil but only pennies per gallon and if you're a friend or a regular customer, they will give it to you if you ask.

[pickle9000]

This is the craziest / funniest thread ever. Could you imagine a shortage of french fry oil in the US? Off grid living
hiding out from the bad guys . Wait I'll make some moonshine and run my car on that. And promptly grows some
corn, year later moonshine. Has a party and the moonshine s gone.... but it was a good party. The cornbread was
great. And the struggle continues.

In case I wasn't clear the bad guys are the french fry oil bandits. Not sure but I think its for cooking because they
all drive EV's.

[themadhippy]

You can't be serious! Why are you stealing used oil?

no surprise in a country were the local council claims your rubbish belongs to them ,even though you aint thrown it away yet.

https://news.yahoo.com/county-shuts-down-woman-thriving-213000893.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADvnVURbh2MzQkJkSfNMZlfW3uZEjSznMOAosyBdpJd0uj-Js9Dhv7goW2oIw_aAH7SXtB3NuSBP4lGAi1Y9SiztOi98R4ugPdWOWk7aK_lcBekUZWlqBQ2ElvZbz-rybLPlnHf3q5co9ULdgGCMt_DdRkuA0Qux7duVrgFsIyXH

the key statement

She explained to Palm Beach Daily News, “Whether or not it’s on the curb or in your house, if it’s trash, it’s the property of the Solid Waste Authority.”

[Siwastaja]

Re: EVs in the cold, we've got relatives in Finland, and a few weeks ago it was *COLD* (even for Finland in the winter).  We saw stories of many Teslas stranded on the roads; because of the reduced range they ran out of juice before they could reach a charging station.

We did, but we also saw a lot of stories of diesels stranded on the roads. Just like EV fanboys say EVs are problem-free in any weather, ICE fanboys say the same about diesel vehicles. Yet both fail at some similar-ish % in the real world.

Tow truck companies were asked by media about the relative numbers and their comment was pretty much that EVs did not stand out at all, so that their "gut feeling" was the failures are roughly in relation to having fewer EVs than ICE cars on the roads.

And BTW, it wasn't that particularly cold. There is some kind of mass psychosis (especially in classic media, but social media too) going on such that normal winter weather is touted as something extreme. It was a week between -23 .. -30 degC in the southern parts (and down to nearly -40degC up North) and that is totally absolutely normal for January here; you don't hit -30 every year but one could say nearly every other year, and -25 pretty much every year. Seems like people are suffering some kind of collective memory loss and lost touch with reality, in the presence of "new normals" ("climate changed so much so quickly we will never see snow again!") we have lost the idea what is the "old normal", and the fact that actual true reality is still pretty close to it.

[fourfathom]

And BTW, it wasn't that particularly cold.

I've been in the middle of a half-dozen Finnish winters over the course of 20+ years, and my son was there a few weeks ago (and of course we hear from our relatives often), and this winter did seem substantially colder than what I've experienced.  But my (very limited) experience doesn't begin to compare with yours, so I'm sure you are correct.

[Siwastaja]

And BTW, it wasn't that particularly cold.

I've been in the middle of a half-dozen Finnish winters over the course of 20+ years, and my son was there a few weeks ago (and of course we hear from our relatives often), and this winter did seem substantially colder than what I've experienced.  But my (very limited) experience doesn't begin to compare with yours, so I'm sure you are correct.

Yeah, 80% of winters have a really cold week or two. Gulf stream and proximity of the seas basically prevent long-sustained cold periods (usual in more continental areas like Siberia). Just that in some years this "really cold week" means -25, but sometimes -28, this year has been in the latter class so yes, maybe a little bit colder than usual, but I don't "feel" anything being weird like some apparently do for reasons I can't understand and call "mass psychosis". And I don't even like the cold so I have every reason for a personal "oh shit it's colder than ever" bias!

But when you have just one cold week, even if you visit during three coldest months, your visit would have 1/12 chance of coinciding with that cold week, so you need quite a few random visits to statistically see that, unless you plan ahead. Going up North is a good way to increase chances of experiencing temperatures below -30degC if you are masochistic enough to like it. I don't like cold at all, I would prefer building a heated glass bubble and put some palm trees inside. The positive side of the -25...-30*C week is that today it was -11degC in the morning and it feels so warm and cozy outdoors as you have adapted to the cold (and the EV consumption went below 20kWh/100km again, too). And I'm under the impression that adaption to cold happens more quickly, in a few days, than adaption to excessive heat, which would take weeks.

[tom66]

It's no comparison to -20C weather, but I found the ID.3 to be very good even in -5C which is pretty cold for the UK.  The only noticeable issue is that the power output is limited to about 80% of normal, but on icy roads you don't want to be accelerating too hard so it's not a major problem.

Preheating the car to deice it is fantastic.  It also turns the heated seats on, nice and toasty.  For some reason though it doesn't deice the mirrors, which are heated.  Well, I guess you can't have it all.  My Golf PHEV had the same limitation, so you had to sit in the car for 60s waiting for them to deice.  Since everything is software controlled it surprised me as an omission.  First world problems though right?

Seems once at temperature the heat pump uses about 1.5kW to maintain cabin temperatures at a comfortable 20C.  The implication would be then for a 3 hour drive, that is about 4.5kWh extra load, or roughly 8% of the battery.  In the real world the drop in range seems to be around 10% at these temperatures so that seems about right.

Haven't yet tried to see what a cold soaked battery will do for rapid charging though.

[Siwastaja]

Some observations from Nissan Leaf 60kWh:

* At -5degC heat pump power draw is approx. 1kW to maintain +16 cabin. I don't usually see any reason to use higher cabin setting. We use winter clothes in winter and it's inconvenient to overheat vehicles, shopping malls etc. Home is different, there you are spending more time and getting undressed.
* At -25degC this rises to 3kW all the time (resistive heating is probably used additionally)
* The phone app is buggy and crappy, and you can't choose what is on for preheating (e.g., seat heaters are on if you happened to leave the physical switches that way), but much better than nothing, it works and does the job.
* With fully charged battery, despite what marketing and manuals say, preheating always starts with battery power, which is unsurprising because of power path design (the compressor/PTC elements have to be connected to the battery, and having changeover contactors for mains-only would cost more, and battery charger has some hysteresis before it can start supplying power to the pack.)
* After battery charge has dropped to 98%, "charging" can commence simultaneously with preheating and it seems that battery net current is very close to zero, i.e., charger supplies DC power to the climate control circuits and battery is just paralleled in the circuit. This means with preheating you are always "losing" a few km of range because you can't get back to 100%. But of course the savings from preheating are bigger than this loss.
* At -25degC, battery efficiency loss in normal driving is probably more than I have assumed, something in range of 20%, because there seems to be unexplained loss component not shown by the drive computer (which obviously counts Wh coming out of battery, so battery ESR isn't part of measurement). This seems to be more significant range loss component than I have assumed previously, on par with the cabin heating loss. Since battery loss is directly proportional to current draw, this would mean unaggressive driving patterns, going smoothly instead of quick accelerations, are hugely important in winter.
* Still at -15degC or so, it seems driving power is not yet reduced,
* At -29degC, driving power was limited from the usual 160kW down to 90kW which is very noticeable in full acceleration, but quite frankly, EVs accelerate quickly so I could probably accept this power level year around.
* 60kWh LEAF does not have battery heater, which I think is just an advantage, given the 40kWh model which does but the logic is stupid beyond belief: ON at -20degC battery temperature, OFF at -10, using battery power down to 30% SoC, so better keep it connected to an EVSE in cold conditions. Heater power is around 300W I have heard.

[tom66]

The Leaf's preheating setup is better than the ID.3.  The ID.3 always preheats from the battery.  If you remember you turn on the battery charging once the battery reaches 99% so that it will top up both.  I might have to write a Home-Assistant automation for it. That said 98% battery vs 100% is not a big deal and I rarely aim to arrive at the destination on electric fumes so I can probably leave it for now.

The Golf on the other hand would preheat from the mains fine, and if you used a current clamp you could almost see the PTC heater current oscillating on and off at about 2Hz.  My guess was the battery was still in parallel but the charger was effectively maintaining a constant battery voltage.  Aircon never worked properly from the remote control, which sucked in summer.  They did at least fix that in the ID.3.

[Siwastaja]

Actual data from Norway where the winter has been pretty harsh too: https://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/klart-darligst-i-sprengkulden-helt-ekstremt/16370146/

TLDR, 87% of tow jobs were for ICE vehicles and 13% for EVs, while 23% of vehicles in Norway are EVs, so EVs are significantly more reliable in harsh winter conditions.

[Monkeh]

TLDR, 87% of tow jobs were for ICE vehicles and 13% for EVs, while 23% of vehicles in Norway are EVs, so EVs are significantly more reliable in harsh winter conditions.

Or a greater percentage of EV drivers are either smart enough not to venture out, or in a work or financial position not to venture out. There's a lot of factors.

Better, I think, to say that those numbers suggest EVs aren't demonstrating worse reliability in those conditions.

[CatalinaWOW]

This shows examples of what I see in almost all discussions of EVs.  The threads are largely populated by two groups of people.  People whose use case is easily adapted to EVs and those whose use case doesn't fit well with current EV technology.  What both groups have in common is a belief that their use case is universal.

The really positive thing about this thread and this forum is that those two groups are not the only, and not even the dominant voices.

[Zero999]

I wonder if there's anyone else here who doesn't care because they don't own a car?

I cycle most places and when I do want to go longer distances, faster, I have a small motorcycle which does over 120mpg and is cheap to tax and insure and that only gets used every couple of weeks. I can see why most people have a car and the arguments for and against ICE vs EV. As I said in the other post, a lot of the anti-EV sentiment comes from people who feel as tough they're being forced to changed and don't like being told what to do. If governments really want people to get EVs, then they need to make it as easy for people to get them, not bully people into it.

[Siwastaja]

Or a greater percentage of EV drivers are either smart enough not to venture out, or in a work or financial position not to venture out. There's a lot of factors.

I thought about that first, but then it appeared to me that because ICE cars have been there forever, it is also more likely their total number includes vehicles not in active use, especially because old ICE cars are really cheap and one can afford to just keep them registered (I have one spare, too), while EVs are so expensive to buy you have to drive them. This would cause the opposite effect to what you say.

In any case, it's worth seeing the numbers are the same order of magnitude. For something this unscientific not taking fine details into consideration, less than 2x difference is not meaningful. 10x would be.

[Siwastaja]

People whose use case is easily adapted to EVs and those whose use case doesn't fit well with current EV technology.  What both groups have in common is a belief that their use case is universal.

Sure, that's always been the case and I don't believe people are so stupid to think their use case is universal (I hope), rather nearly everyone totally agrees with you to the point of it being so obvious not to be mentioned.

It's interesting though how the advances in EVs constantly shift the portions of these groups. With the first-generation (ignoring 1800's EVs and small one-offs etc. of 1900's) production EVs of early 2010's, they matched with maybe the use pattern of 5%, if even that - only commuting or driving in city; for the occasional longer trip rent an ICE car. Those days are long past. Now longer trips are not the question of being possible at all, but rather that some heavy-duty use cases are still inconvenient with EV. Now EVs suit for maybe 50% of people. If the current pace keeps going, we are going to hit 90-95% in less than 5 years, I believe. The actual transition is still slower of course, because being suitable for someone on my opinion is totally different from someone actually wanting to buy it, and wanting to buy something is then again different from being able to buy it.

[bdunham7]

I thought about that first, but then it appeared to me that because ICE cars have been there forever, it is also more likely their total number includes vehicles not in active use, especially because old ICE cars are really cheap and one can afford to just keep them registered (I have one spare, too), while EVs are so expensive to buy you have to drive them. This would cause the opposite effect to what you say.

Hmmm...I have both an EV and an old all-wheel-drive SUV.  If I needed a tow because I was stuck in the snowy mountains which vehicle do you think I'd be more likely to be in?

Norway and the US upper-midwest are two different places and I can tell you without any equivocation that the latter is a tough place to operate any EV.  EVs have been fairly scarce there until pretty recently, so lets wait and see what a decade of salt exposure does to your average Tesla. 

[tom66]

I thought about that first, but then it appeared to me that because ICE cars have been there forever, it is also more likely their total number includes vehicles not in active use, especially because old ICE cars are really cheap and one can afford to just keep them registered (I have one spare, too), while EVs are so expensive to buy you have to drive them. This would cause the opposite effect to what you say.

I don't follow.  People buy a vehicle to suit their use cases... but they aren't going to drive their car just because it cost a lot of money.  I don't take my car out around the block every night to "get my money's worth".  I bought it in part because I have a long commute, and I prefer EVs, and there are environmental benefits... Driving it more would negate much of that?

What would be useful is annual mileage statistics between fuel types.  IIRC the last time the study was done in the UK it unsurprisingly showed that diesel and hybrid drivers did more miles than petrol drivers.  I would expect EVs to be somewhere in the middle.

[EEVblog]

I don't follow.  People buy a vehicle to suit their use cases... but they aren't going to drive their car just because it cost a lot of money.  I don't take my car out around the block every night to "get my money's worth".  I bought it in part because I have a long commute, and I prefer EVs, and there are environmental benefits...

The overall life cycle environmental benefit is questionabale (and probably un-knowable, there are just too many variable). But they certainly have environmental benefits in local air pollution. We literally call our ICE car the "stinky" because of the exhuast. It's amazing the difference you notice between the EV and the ICE. Just sitting there in idle in the drive way the ICE can fill with exhaust fumes. Yet if you don't own an EV you just don't notice the exhaust as you are used to it.
Also obvious benefits in the energy supply chain infrastructure.
Add in the silent ride, the ability to charge at home (from excess solar in my case for zero cost), and the knowledge that regen breaking isn't wasting energy, there is a lot to like about EV's. But they aren't for everyone, and anyone who pushes them as a universal solution to climate change is an idiot.

[nctnico]

Recently I rode along in a Tesla and didn't notice it was particulary silent compared to my own car (a relatively cheap model from Ford / Volvo). The last 20 years decent ICE cars have been made very silent. It depends on the brand though. About 15 years ago I drove a Renault diesel and it was absolutely silent; I recall trying hard to hear the engine rev up but failed. Tire noise is dominant and in that respect EVs aren't different.

[tom66]

Recently I rode along in a Tesla and didn't notice it was particulary silent compared to my own car (a relatively cheap model from Ford / Volvo). The last 20 years decent ICE cars have been made very silent. It depends on the brand though. About 15 years ago I drove a Renault diesel and it was absolutely silent; I recall trying hard to hear the engine rev up but failed. Tire noise is dominant and in that respect EVs aren't different.

Teslas are not particularly quiet on the inside at highway speeds, the problem really is that Tesla do not spend as much on NVH as other car manufacturers do (at the same price points at least).  The boss has a Model 3 and the company has a Toyota sedan for occasional business use, I would say the Toyota is quieter on motorways, despite having nigh on 180,000 miles on it and being a diesel.

I've been in a few EVs and ICE cars and I would say on the interior they're pretty close once up to speed. With ICE you still have that low rumble from the engine that is difficult to filter out, but the majority of the noise is from air hitting the body and the tyres.

Around the city though at low speeds the lack of acceleration sound is very nice and makes being stuck in slow moving traffic more pleasant.

[tom66]

I don't follow.  People buy a vehicle to suit their use cases... but they aren't going to drive their car just because it cost a lot of money.  I don't take my car out around the block every night to "get my money's worth".  I bought it in part because I have a long commute, and I prefer EVs, and there are environmental benefits...

The overall life cycle environmental benefit is questionabale (and probably un-knowable, there are just too many variable). But they certainly have environmental benefits in local air pollution. We literally call our ICE car the "stinky" because of the exhuast. It's amazing the difference you notice between the EV and the ICE. Just sitting there in idle in the drive way the ICE can fill with exhaust fumes. Yet if you don't own an EV you just don't notice the exhaust as you are used to it.
Also obvious benefits in the energy supply chain infrastructure.
Add in the silent ride, the ability to charge at home (from excess solar in my case for zero cost), and the knowledge that regen breaking isn't wasting energy, there is a lot to like about EV's. But they aren't for everyone, and anyone who pushes them as a universal solution to climate change is an idiot.

Ehhhh... Yes they're not a universal solution but they are part of the solution.

We're going to have to reduce the impact that transport has on the climate.  Just speaking about the UK, 24% of emissions are due to transport, of which roughly half of that is passenger cars. So approximately 10% of all CO2 emissions in this country due to cars.  And cars are low hanging fruit as electrification goes... Aircraft aren't going electric any time soon, and whilst it'd be nice to have trains, buses and bicycles everywhere, this country was built around the car, so we're going to be driving cars for some time.

There are obviously impacts from manufacturing EV batteries but most studies show that these extra emissions are 'paid off' well within the useful life of the car.  The UK has a pretty clean electricity grid; average emissions of 250gCO2 per kWh put the per-mile CO2 average of an EV at around 60g per mile.  A petrol car is typically 2.5x-3x ignoring refining and exploration emissions.  If the EV is charged on "off-peak" electricity more often, the fraction it emits falls further.

But I'd be lying if that was my primary reason for getting an EV.  After all I'm just one person and still some 98-99% of people drive combustion cars, so it's really not making any significant difference.  I got an EV because... I wanted an electric car, if that makes any sense?  They are nicer to drive as you say, they seem like a better use of energy (to me it's absurd how much of that precious fossil fuel energy we throw away propelling a car inefficiently) and they don't require anywhere near as much maintenance or care as an ICE car.

[fourfathom]

Re: cabin noise, perhaps it's just a BMW thing, but some models were so quiet inside that BMW decided to pipe some engine noise into the cabin.  Customers *wanted* to hear that rumble.  Me, I've only got ICE vehicles, but for my last "road trip" car one of the factors in my choice was cabin noise.  I want a quiet ride!

[nctnico]

Re: cabin noise, perhaps it's just a BMW thing, but some models were so quiet inside that BMW decided to pipe some engine noise into the cabin.  Customers *wanted* to hear that rumble.  Me, I've only got ICE vehicles, but for my last "road trip" car one of the factors in my choice was cabin noise.  I want a quiet ride!

I agree. Piping engine noise or using a speaker (yes, those systems exist!) to have (more) motor sound inside the cabin seems like total crap to me. And yet we'll see BEVs with just that. AFAIK Toyota has some BEV models lined up which emulate stick shifting including the RPM dial and motor sound    FFS!

[vad]

The only obvious impact of the electrification of transportation is the export of greenhouse gases and other emissions to countries like China. While environmental pollution with carcinogens in China is less likely to affect your neighborhood, CO2 spreads in the atmosphere quickly, so exporting CO2 doesn't work here.

It's challenging to estimate the exact comparative carbon footprint of BEVs vs ICE vehicles. With a BEV, you are prepaying your climate change contribution. Whether a specific ICE or BEV results in higher or lower overall CO2 emissions depends on factors like make and model, driving habits, annual mileage, and the vehicle's lifetime.

For instance, if you're a trader driving 200 miles per day, 250 days a year in your Tesla Cybertruck, you're likely contributing less to CO2 emissions than if you were driving a petrol RAM 1500 for that job. On the other hand, if you're a casual driver with range anxiety who only uses a car for weekly groceries and rents a petrol car for longer trips, your carbon footprint may be significant compared to if you owned ICE car instead.

[fourfathom]

Re: cabin noise, perhaps it's just a BMW thing, but some models were so quiet inside that BMW decided to pipe some engine noise into the cabin.  Customers *wanted* to hear that rumble.  Me, I've only got ICE vehicles, but for my last "road trip" car one of the factors in my choice was cabin noise.  I want a quiet ride!

I agree. Piping engine noise or using a speaker (yes, those systems exist!) to have (more) motor sound inside the cabin seems like total crap to me. And yet we'll see BEVs with just that. AFAIK Toyota has some BEV models lined up which emulate stick shifting including the RPM dial and motor sound    FFS!

This reminds of the cars driven by the general public in the short story "The Marching Morons" by C.M. Kornbluth (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51233/51233-h/51233-h.htm).  This story obviously influenced the films "Robocop" and "Idiocracy".

[BrianHG]

Re: cabin noise, perhaps it's just a BMW thing, but some models were so quiet inside that BMW decided to pipe some engine noise into the cabin.  Customers *wanted* to hear that rumble.  Me, I've only got ICE vehicles, but for my last "road trip" car one of the factors in my choice was cabin noise.  I want a quiet ride!

The quietest ride I've even been in was a few decades ago when driving a Jaguar XJ12.  The engine was almost completely silent and you were almost virtually isolated from road and wind noise on the highway compared to most other cars.  Except at a stand still and very slow city traffic speeds in an EV, I would call it the most comfortably quiet ride I ever experienced.

[David Hess]

I agree. Piping engine noise or using a speaker (yes, those systems exist!) to have (more) motor sound inside the cabin seems like total crap to me. And yet we'll see BEVs with just that. AFAIK Toyota has some BEV models lined up which emulate stick shifting including the RPM dial and motor sound    FFS!

We used to joke about this in connection with small engine cars.  Install a big sound system facing out to produce the V-8 rumble of your choice, and a little servo arm below the running board to push on the pavement and tilt the vehicle when you gun the simulated engine.

[Dan123456]

I don't follow.  People buy a vehicle to suit their use cases... but they aren't going to drive their car just because it cost a lot of money.  I don't take my car out around the block every night to "get my money's worth".  I bought it in part because I have a long commute, and I prefer EVs, and there are environmental benefits...

The overall life cycle environmental benefit is questionabale (and probably un-knowable, there are just too many variable). But they certainly have environmental benefits in local air pollution. We literally call our ICE car the "stinky" because of the exhuast. It's amazing the difference you notice between the EV and the ICE. Just sitting there in idle in the drive way the ICE can fill with exhaust fumes. Yet if you don't own an EV you just don't notice the exhaust as you are used to it.
Also obvious benefits in the energy supply chain infrastructure.
Add in the silent ride, the ability to charge at home (from excess solar in my case for zero cost), and the knowledge that regen breaking isn't wasting energy, there is a lot to like about EV's. But they aren't for everyone, and anyone who pushes them as a universal solution to climate change is an idiot.

Ehhhh... Yes they're not a universal solution but they are part of the solution.

I honestly don’t know man. I think focusing on the grid (and future of the grid) should be the priority as EV’s powered by coal aren’t really any better.

Just remember for every kW of fuel you aren’t burning, you have to build another kW worth of power plant.

Imagine the number of solar / wind farms you would need if 100% of vehicles were EV’s. Some countries would probably be more solar cells than land!

If you build new nuclear plants rather than solar / wind to pick up all the slack, you probably are right! But, at least here in Aus, the anti-nuclear peanuts are still rampant so we would most likely just build more and more coal and gas power plants which doesn’t really change anything.

[Siwastaja]

Hmmm...I have both an EV and an old all-wheel-drive SUV.  If I needed a tow because I was stuck in the snowy mountains which vehicle do you think I'd be more likely to be in?

According to these kind of unofficial statistics from tow companies, most likely the old all-wheel-drive SUV, because the #1 reason for tow is not getting stuck in snow, but the vehicle failing to operate due to cold, so the ground clearance and 4WD are red herrings. This is the case in Nordic countries at least, where the roads are kept in acceptable driving conditions, or like in Norway, if that is impossible to do continuously, then the road is closed until a snowplow gets there and then everyone who's lined up drive behind those plows.

On the other hand, if you end up driving in thick snow on unmaintained roads, then you are more likely to get stuck in your (2WD?) EV, but this use case is rare enough not to show in statistics, at least not here in Nordic countries. Maybe it's different in the land of freedom with more land area, longer distances, and as such, more unmaintained roads? Then surely there is a real problem with EVs, because even if you make them in 4WD and large ground clearance, driving long distances between chargers, in snow or mud, consumes so much energy that you need a more energy dense storage system than li-ion.

[Ice-Tea]

I don't follow.  People buy a vehicle to suit their use cases... but they aren't going to drive their car just because it cost a lot of money.  I don't take my car out around the block every night to "get my money's worth".  I bought it in part because I have a long commute, and I prefer EVs, and there are environmental benefits...

The overall life cycle environmental benefit is questionabale (and probably un-knowable, there are just too many variable). But they certainly have environmental benefits in local air pollution. We literally call our ICE car the "stinky" because of the exhuast. It's amazing the difference you notice between the EV and the ICE. Just sitting there in idle in the drive way the ICE can fill with exhaust fumes. Yet if you don't own an EV you just don't notice the exhaust as you are used to it.
Also obvious benefits in the energy supply chain infrastructure.
Add in the silent ride, the ability to charge at home (from excess solar in my case for zero cost), and the knowledge that regen breaking isn't wasting energy, there is a lot to like about EV's. But they aren't for everyone, and anyone who pushes them as a universal solution to climate change is an idiot.

Ehhhh... Yes they're not a universal solution but they are part of the solution.

I honestly don’t know man. I think focusing on the grid (and future of the grid) should be the priority as EV’s powered by coal aren’t really any better.

Often stated, but wrong:

(Poland runs mainly on coal)

Just remember for every kW of fuel you aren’t burning, you have to build another kW worth of power plant.

Also remember that burning fuel is about 25% efficient in your car and about 50% in an electricity plant.

Imagine the number of solar / wind farms you would need if 100% of vehicles were EV’s. Some countries would probably be more solar cells than land!

Fun fact: you don't have to imagine it. Just google the research:

If you build new nuclear plants rather than solar / wind to pick up all the slack, you probably are right! But, at least here in Aus, the anti-nuclear peanuts are still rampant so we would most likely just build more and more coal and gas power plants which doesn’t really change anything.

I kinda wonder where you get it that they would just build more and more coal and gas. There's a considerbale drive around the world and AUS for PV and wind.

EDIT: some wonky stuff happening with the pictures, removed them from the post body. You can open the attachments.

[tom66]

I honestly don’t know man. I think focusing on the grid (and future of the grid) should be the priority as EV’s powered by coal aren’t really any better.

Just remember for every kW of fuel you aren’t burning, you have to build another kW worth of power plant.

Imagine the number of solar / wind farms you would need if 100% of vehicles were EV’s. Some countries would probably be more solar cells than land!

If you build new nuclear plants rather than solar / wind to pick up all the slack, you probably are right! But, at least here in Aus, the anti-nuclear peanuts are still rampant so we would most likely just build more and more coal and gas power plants which doesn’t really change anything.

This is very country dependent, I know Australia has a lot of coal on its grid.  But it also has a lot of solar which can be used during the afternoon peak to charge cars.

The thing about EVs is they're reasonably agnostic to when they are charged.  Mine charges predominantly at night but it's on an 'intelligent' tariff where the energy provider can shift the windows it charges in according to when excess wind power is available.  In a country with a lot of solar, you might charge more often during the day.  I work from home a fair bit, so my car is parked on my drive most of the day, all I say is "I want 70% battery by 6am, charge whenever you can".

In the UK at least, it's common to have times when there is excess wind, but due to curtailment on the grid from stability services (the minimum stable reserve of spinning generators) and nuclear power plants (which can't shut down quickly) the wind power just can't be used unless there's matching instantaneous demand.  And due to the contracts with renewable energy providers, this energy has to be bought (this part is the government subsidy called the CfD scheme).  So this energy gets used, in part by EVs, and energy providers just want to almost give it away, because if it doesn't get used, they have to pay even more.  Negative electricity pricing.  It's a weird market phenomenon.

On a smaller scale some regions of the UK have capacity limits - there is renewable energy in one area and demand in another but the line capacity between the two can't meet that.  So there are hyperlocal tariffs that encourage demand in the same region that generation is occurring in, reducing losses and maximising utilisation. 

Until the UK has substantial grid level storage (hours to days worth), this situation isn't going to change, though other users of this cheap renewable energy might shift things around (for instance, electric arc furnaces for steel making have been in the news recently - these can switch on and off nearly instantly). 

The intelligent tariff I have has minutely control of the car, last night's charging session is attached, it's interesting to think about what might be going on at the grid level to trigger these charging events.  The car's charging is controlled over its 4G modem but I can charge it any time I like if I don't want the discount - the charger is just a dumb AC unit from Rolec that makes electrons available once the car's CP pin does its thing.

[Dan123456]

I honestly don’t know man. I think focusing on the grid (and future of the grid) should be the priority as EV’s powered by coal aren’t really any better.

Just remember for every kW of fuel you aren’t burning, you have to build another kW worth of power plant.

Imagine the number of solar / wind farms you would need if 100% of vehicles were EV’s. Some countries would probably be more solar cells than land!

If you build new nuclear plants rather than solar / wind to pick up all the slack, you probably are right! But, at least here in Aus, the anti-nuclear peanuts are still rampant so we would most likely just build more and more coal and gas power plants which doesn’t really change anything.

This is very country dependent, I know Australia has a lot of coal on its grid.  But it also has a lot of solar which can be used during the afternoon peak to charge cars.

I agree with you 

I just think a lot of people think EVs are the magic bullet and everything is going to fall into place around them without taking the time to think how things work (and how a massive numbers of new EVs will affect things) “up stream” 

I think we are far better off looking at the other ~90% of greenhouse emissions first rather than the ~10% that comes from cars (especially as all we are really doing with EV’s is kicking the emissions issue up the stream).

[Dan123456]

I honestly don’t know man. I think focusing on the grid (and future of the grid) should be the priority as EV’s powered by coal aren’t really any better.

———————

Often stated, but wrong:

(Poland runs mainly on coal)

So are you arguing we should just replace all fuel with coal powered EVs as one study suggests it might be better?

I’m no environmental activist be that sounds like a pretty bad idea to me 

Edit: my bad, I broke the quote thing. One day I’ll get the hang of it 

[Andy Chee]

I honestly don’t know man. I think focusing on the grid (and future of the grid) should be the priority as EV’s powered by coal aren’t really any better.

———————

Often stated, but wrong:

(Poland runs mainly on coal)

So are you arguing we should just replace all fuel with coal powered EVs as one study suggests it might be better?

I’m no environmental activist be that sounds like a pretty bad idea to me 

I presume EVs are better, not because they run from coal, but because they are fuel agnostic (i.e. nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, waste veggie oil, timber, hydrogen, natural gas, mice running in wheels, whatever).

[Ice-Tea]

I honestly don’t know man. I think focusing on the grid (and future of the grid) should be the priority as EV’s powered by coal aren’t really any better.

———————

Often stated, but wrong:

(Poland runs mainly on coal)

So are you arguing we should just replace all fuel with coal powered EVs as one study suggests it might be better?

I’m no environmental activist be that sounds like a pretty bad idea to me 

Edit: my bad, I broke the quote thing. One day I’ll get the hang of it 

I'm not saying we should do that. I'm saying that even if we did that the CO2 emissions would be lower.

[nctnico]

I honestly don’t know man. I think focusing on the grid (and future of the grid) should be the priority as EV’s powered by coal aren’t really any better.

———————

Often stated, but wrong:

(Poland runs mainly on coal)

So are you arguing we should just replace all fuel with coal powered EVs as one study suggests it might be better?

I’m no environmental activist be that sounds like a pretty bad idea to me 

It is. You can make a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation which shows there is no way a BEV running on coal is a better alternative compared to an efficient hybrid. The researchers publishing papers saying otherwise always leave hybrids out. How convenient.... As a mid-term solution, hybrids are actually a better choice given the current circumstance in order to bring CO2 emissions down as these are more affordable and useable for a wider range of people.

[Andy Chee]

I honestly don’t know man. I think focusing on the grid (and future of the grid) should be the priority as EV’s powered by coal aren’t really any better.

———————

Often stated, but wrong:

(Poland runs mainly on coal)

So are you arguing we should just replace all fuel with coal powered EVs as one study suggests it might be better?

I’m no environmental activist be that sounds like a pretty bad idea to me 

It is. You can make a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation which shows there is no way a BEV running on coal is a better alternative compared to an efficient hybrid. The researchers publishing papers saying otherwise always leave hybrids out. How convenient.... As a mid-term solution, hybrids are actually a better choice given the current circumstance in order to bring CO2 emissions down.

Not all hybrids are the same, hybrids come in different energy splits and topologies (series vs parallel). For example, 100kW ICE/100kW electric motor, versus 5kW ICE/195kW electric motor, versus 195kW ICE/5kW electric motor.

So when you say hybrids are a better choice, which hybrid model (and topology) are you talking about?  The 5kW ICE/195kW electric motor hybrid seems worse than a 200kW fully electric.

[nctnico]

That doesn't matter. It all comes down to fuel consumption per km which translates to CO2 emissions per km.

[tom66]

The only hybrids worth getting (imo) would be cars using drivetrains similar to the Toyota HSD, or plug-in hybrids if you use case allows a lot of electric-only operation.

I found the fuel economy in my PHEV on petrol only to not be much better than a regular petrol car, because it's just a parallel hybrid all it can really do is regen from braking and add a little bit of power boost on acceleration.  For motorway cruising at 70mph/120kph it was not much more efficient than any other car.

Mild hybrids are just there to game the test cycle, in the real world they do very little for emissions.  However the 48V architecture of most MHEVs is a stepping stone to having electric air conditioning and electric catalyst heating (formerly required for Euro 7, since dropped) which is why car manufacturers are going that way.

[Marco]

I think we are far better off looking at the other ~90% of greenhouse emissions first rather than the ~10% that comes from cars (especially as all we are really doing with EV’s is kicking the emissions issue up the stream).

If you want net zero in 30 years in the west, everything has to happen in parallel. New major fossil fueled infrastructure and machinery needs to stop in the near future because it all needs to meet economic end of life by then (biofuel won't scale, synthetic fuel will be wildly expensive even in comparison to dealing with hydrogen).

If you give the rationalizers a finger, they will take off your arm. You have to force electrification + hydrogen and it all starts now, for 10% use, even for 1% use. Only the nichiest of niches can be allowed to imagine a future on biofuel or synthetic fuel. Otherwise everyone will and nothing will happen.

PS. every new concrete plant should be Brimstone process or similar too right about now, every new steelplant hydrogen reduction based etc.

[David Hess]

If you want net zero in 30 years in the west, everything has to happen in parallel. New major fossil fueled infrastructure and machinery needs to stop in the near future because it all needs to meet economic end of life by then (biofuel won't scale, synthetic fuel will be wildly expensive even in comparison to dealing with hydrogen).

If you give the rationalizers a finger, they will take off your arm. You have to force electrification + hydrogen and it all starts now, for 10% use, even for 1% use. Only the nichiest of niches can be allowed to imagine a future on biofuel or synthetic fuel. Otherwise everyone will and nothing will happen.

The "needs to stop" plan will not work because of the economics which it ignores.

There are niche fossil fuel uses which cannot be currently replaced short of synthetic fuels, and the increased costs of synthetic fuels would be devastating.  For an example I will pick farm equipment.  We did the math a couple years ago on electric tractors and it was not feasible at any cost because of increased weight increasing ground pressure, which is already a problem, and if that was not enough, each tractor would require multiple heavy replaceable traction batteries, each of which costs more than an existing tractor.  Is increasing capitol equipment costs by almost an optimistic order of magnitude acceptable?  Do current solutions include the cost of famine?

Now there is a solution based on economics, but politics prevents it in multiple ways.  Simply apply the cost of the negative externalities of fossil fuels, which is another way of saying carbon tax.  Scale it up over time to prevent economic disruption.  The problems here however are just as intractable.  Citizens do not trust the government to collect another tax without rent seeking, and politicians will not support it because it will not facilitate rent seeking.

[Miyuki]

The "needs to stop" plan will not work because of the economics which it ignores.

There are niche fossil fuel uses which cannot be currently replaced short of synthetic fuels, and the increased costs of synthetic fuels would be devastating.  For an example I will pick farm equipment.  We did the math a couple years ago on electric tractors and it was not feasible at any cost because of increased weight increasing ground pressure, which is already a problem, and if that was not enough, each tractor would require multiple heavy replaceable traction batteries, each of which costs more than an existing tractor.  Is increasing capitol equipment costs by almost an optimistic order of magnitude acceptable?  Do current solutions include the cost of famine?

Now there is a solution based on economics, but politics prevents it in multiple ways.  Simply apply the cost of the negative externalities of fossil fuels, which is another way of saying carbon tax.  Scale it up over time to prevent economic disruption.  The problems here however are just as intractable.  Citizens do not trust the government to collect another tax without rent seeking, and politicians will not support it because it will not facilitate rent seeking.

EV tractors and long-haul trucks are a wet dream and all sane people know it. But you can have various gas fuels, like biomethane or hydrogen. Even reforming such fuels to liquid form is not that prohibitively expensive.
There will be some gas-fired powerplants anyway. Renewables cannot cover the needs of places like Europe during winter months. So there will be some form of huge gas storage.
Citizens do not trust the government because it is running like a chicken without a head from wall to wall. There are no long term plans based on science and experts.

[tom66]

Now there is a solution based on economics, but politics prevents it in multiple ways.  Simply apply the cost of the negative externalities of fossil fuels, which is another way of saying carbon tax.  Scale it up over time to prevent economic disruption.  The problems here however are just as intractable.  Citizens do not trust the government to collect another tax without rent seeking, and politicians will not support it because it will not facilitate rent seeking.

A solution that has been proposed in the past and implemented in a few areas, for personal taxes, is the so-called revenue neutral carbon tax.

Basic idea, everyone who files a tax return gets say $1,000 back every year.  Everyone pays (say) 20c extra in fuel taxes.  Maybe 2c extra per kWh of natural gas for heating, 3c extra per kWh of electricity... whatever the figures happen to be.  So in the net, no one loses, the average taxpayer pays no more.  But now you have an economic incentive to reduce that 20c by choosing a more efficient vehicle or an EV, or even by driving less.  The return amount can be adjusted to take into account dependents and location if needed.  The law that is introduced is that the tax must be revenue neutral, so that the amount returned at the end of the year is proportionate to the average amount collected.

Applied at a larger scale, carbon taxation is pretty much the only way we could get the technology we need developed in time to meet net zero.  Capitalism works in mysterious ways but if there's a way to make money from it, people will.  You could imagine for instance if we start offering (for instance) $1 per tonne of CO2 verifiably removed from the atmosphere that suddenly the investment in direct air capture would shoot up.  Similarly applying a $1 per tonne tax on aviation CO2 would incentivise airlines to invest in other carbon neutral fuelling solutions (the EU are mandating SAF at a ratcheting percentage for air travel, which is a good start, but the wrong direction to approach it from IMO.)

[Dan123456]

If you want net zero in 30 years in the west, everything has to happen in parallel. New major fossil fueled infrastructure and machinery needs to stop in the near future because it all needs to meet economic end of life by then (biofuel won't scale, synthetic fuel will be wildly expensive even in comparison to dealing with hydrogen).

If you give the rationalizers a finger, they will take off your arm. You have to force electrification + hydrogen and it all starts now, for 10% use, even for 1% use. Only the nichiest of niches can be allowed to imagine a future on biofuel or synthetic fuel. Otherwise everyone will and nothing will happen.

The "needs to stop" plan will not work because of the economics which it ignores.

There are niche fossil fuel uses which cannot be currently replaced short of synthetic fuels, and the increased costs of synthetic fuels would be devastating.  For an example I will pick farm equipment.  We did the math a couple years ago on electric tractors and it was not feasible at any cost because of increased weight increasing ground pressure, which is already a problem, and if that was not enough, each tractor would require multiple heavy replaceable traction batteries, each of which costs more than an existing tractor.  Is increasing capitol equipment costs by almost an optimistic order of magnitude acceptable?  Do current solutions include the cost of famine?

Now there is a solution based on economics, but politics prevents it in multiple ways.  Simply apply the cost of the negative externalities of fossil fuels, which is another way of saying carbon tax.  Scale it up over time to prevent economic disruption.  The problems here however are just as intractable.  Citizens do not trust the government to collect another tax without rent seeking, and politicians will not support it because it will not facilitate rent seeking.

Completely agree 

I’m a big proponent of nuclear power for this reason 

It’s not a 100% perfect alternative, but it is, in my mind, the best option we have between environmentally friendliness and realistic economics.

Coal isn’t great long term (I think pretty much everyone can agree to that to some degree) and renewables just aren’t currently reliable or economically feasible enough so if we started gradually replacing coal with nuclear now (and supplementing it with renewables), we could make some real difference without making electricity prices skyrocket through the roof or having to reinvent all transport and machinery

[Marco]

For an example I will pick farm equipment.  We did the math a couple years ago on electric tractors and it was not feasible at any cost because of increased weight increasing ground pressure, which is already a problem, and if that was not enough, each tractor would require multiple heavy replaceable traction batteries, each of which costs more than an existing tractor.  Is increasing capitol equipment costs by almost an optimistic order of magnitude acceptable?  Do current solutions include the cost of famine?

Did you know that there are warehouses doing the almost impossible task of running forklifts on hydrogen already? Without subsidy even. Given that it's literally too hard for rocket engineers, it's one of the greatest miracles of engineering of the last 100 years ... or the problems with hydrogen are hopelessly exaggerated.

Hydrogen fuel cell heavy machinery is close to commercialisation. It doesn't have quite the economic advantages of forklifts, so some mild force will be needed, but it ain't order of magnitudes.

[Marco]

I’m a big proponent of nuclear power for this reason 

Nuclear is orthogonal. Doesn't matter how cheap electricity is, synthetic fuel will be hopelessly expensive. Biofuel is cheap enough, but doesn't scale.

If you let industries just bungle on and pin your hopes on synthetic fuel or sequestration, net zero is a lost cause.

[jonpaul]

Batteries activity like all chemical reactions are goverened by the Arrhenius equation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrhenius_equation

Thus for every 10 dge C or K fall in temperature, the activity is reduced by 1/2.

This applies universally, and batteries cvannot escape the result.

Less efficiency. less capacity by 1/2 for a 10 deg C or F decrease in T.

This is the reality, however much the ecoreligionists find it unpalatable.

Jon

[Marco]

Less efficiency. less capacity by 1/2 for a 10 deg C or F decrease in T.

Nope, reaction speed and reaction efficiency are not related in that way, you're just making it up.

Also the theoretical limit for thermal resistance of insulation is infinity, well short of infinity would be good enough.

[jonpaul]

Arrhenius plots for Li-ion battery ageing as a function of temperature ...
Nov 30, 2022Abstract (NCA + LNO) cathode and Si/graphite anode (∼3% Si) and 0.1 Ah lab-made pouch cells with LiNi Mn Co O (NMC111) cathode and a graphite anode. The results of the Arrhenius plots are analysed in the context of C-rate, cell ageing, and electrode properties.
https://www.sciencedirect.com › science › article › pii › S0378775323013241
Temperature-driven path dependence in Li-ion battery cyclic aging
The 7 % capacity loss during this 35 °C aging is sufficient to shift the onset of Li plating below 20 °C, therefore dramatically increasing the battery life. 4. Conclusions. A total of 36 temperature aging paths in the range of 0 °C-45 °C were investigated by cyclic aging of commercial Li-ion pouch cells.
https://www.sciencedirect.com › science › article › pii › S1002007118307536
Temperature effect and thermal impact in lithium-ion batteries: A ...
The acceptable temperature region for LIBs normally is −20 °C ~ 60 °C. Both low temperature and high temperature that are outside of this region will lead to degradation of performance and irreversible damages, such as lithium plating and thermal runaway.
https://pubs.acs.org › doi › 10.1021 › acsenergylett.9b00663
Temperature Considerations for Charging Li-Ion Batteries: Inductive ...
The Arrhenius equation ... Effect of Temperature on the Aging rate of Li Ion Battery Operating above Room Temperature. Leng, Feng; Tan, Cher Ming; Pecht, Michael ... Monte Carlo assisted sensitivity analysis of a Li-ion battery with a phase change material. Journal of Energy Storage 2021, 35 , 102269.
https://iopscience.iop.org › article › 10.1149 › 1945-7111 › ab6c56
Understanding Adverse Effects of Temperature Shifts on Li-Ion Batteries ...
Understanding Adverse Effects of Temperature Shifts on Li-Ion Batteries: An Operando Acoustic Study. Wesley Chang 7,8,1,2,3, ... To carefully demonstrate the Arrhenius relation of these ... Tan C. M. and Pecht M. 2015 Effect of temperature on the aging rate of li ion battery operating above room temperature Sci. Rep. 5 12967. Go to reference in ...
https://www.researchgate.net › publication › 363866213_Arrhenius_plots_for_Li-ion_battery_ageing_as_a_function_of_temperature_C-rate_and_ageing_state_-_An_experimental_study
Arrhenius plots for Li-ion battery ageing as a function of temperature ...
Nov 1, 2022Arrhenius plots for Li-ion battery ageing as a function of temperature, C-rate, and ageing state - An experimental study November 2022 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.232129 CC BY 4.0 Authors:...
https://iopscience.iop.org › article › 10.1149 › MA2022-023352mtgabs
Ageing Rate of Li-Ion Battery Cells As a Function of Temperature, C ...
Oct 9, 2022Ageing Rate of Li-Ion Battery Cells As a Function of Temperature, C-Rate, and State of Health ... of the two Arrhenius slopes denotes a transition between the dominating ageing mechanism and also denotes the optimum temperature at which the battery cell has the highest service life. ... Arrhenius plots based on ageing rate for (a-e) commercial ...
https://www.mdpi.com › 2076-3417 › 8 › 10 › 1786
Evaluation of Present Accelerated Temperature Testing and Modeling of ...
Battery manufacturers and device companies often test batteries at high temperature to accelerate the degradation process. The data collected from these accelerated tests are then used to determine battery performance and reliability over specified nominal operating temperatures. In many cases, companies assume an Arrhenius model, or prescribe a decade rule to conduct the data analysis.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu › abs › 2022JPS...54932129K › abstract
Arrhenius plots for Li-ion battery ageing as a function of temperature ...
The V-shape of the Arrhenius plots signifies the crossover between the two dominating ageing mechanisms - solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) growth in the high temperature range and lithium deposition in the low temperature range.
https://www.semanticscholar.org › paper › Arrhenius-plots-for-Li-ion-battery-ageing-as-a-of-–-Kučinskis-Bozorgchenani › 64e37bc2d9384180744d9b83ff7f0ea588662b62
Arrhenius plots for Li-ion battery ageing as a function of temperature ...
Nov 1, 20222024 Estimation of the representative temperatures of a typical electrochemical battery cell when cooling under natural convection conditions G.V. Kuznetsov E. V. Kravchenko Engineering, Physics Journal of Energy Storage 2023

[coppercone2]

lion battery likes around 50-60c

[Marco]

So many links, so much quoting ... ctrl-f for efficiency, zero results.

[coppercone2]

someone told me its lowest esr at like 60c.

I think I notice it before too it feels like sometimes when the drill batteries get hot some power tools have a really heavy torque . Like when you run a small drill on overload with a big hole saw. jam jam jam but if you finally get it hot you get a hole

same thing with my cutoff wheel tool, when its cold you can easily get a jammed blade. But keep trying and when the battery feels hot you can get through a plate thats buckling a little and pressing on the blade and being a PITA. It seems the hot batteries provide enough juice to keep the wheel spinning and grind away the slight deflection that crushes it.

I think I notice it the most with a M12 power drill and the M12 cutoff wheel and the variable speed 20v dewalt deburring tool. Angle grinders running flap disks too but usually if you have skill you won't stall those or benefit from the lower ESR if you got the light touch with the grinder. But for hole saws and linear abrasive cutting the extra current makes or breaks the tool. You can't really use skill to overcome a problem like slight pressure from the deflection or just bulk friction from hole saws. That is usually a question of impossible fixturing or just plain luck.

[pickle9000]

I honestly don’t know man. I think focusing on the grid (and future of the grid) should be the priority as EV’s powered by coal aren’t really any better.

———————

Often stated, but wrong:

(Poland runs mainly on coal)

So are you arguing we should just replace all fuel with coal powered EVs as one study suggests it might be better?

I’m no environmental activist be that sounds like a pretty bad idea to me 

I presume EVs are better, not because they run from coal, but because they are fuel agnostic (i.e. nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, waste veggie oil, timber, hydrogen, natural gas, mice running in wheels, whatever).

EV efficiency reduces component count not to mention regen. No transmission, There's a reason diesel electric
locomotives and heavy equipment exist.

[Siwastaja]

Batteries activity like all chemical reactions are goverened by the Arrhenius equation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrhenius_equation

Thus for every 10 dge C or K fall in temperature, the activity is reduced by 1/2.

Mostly OK, but you are missing two facts:
1) Arrhenius equation is a practical observation, a generalization of many reactions. It's not a law of physics. Different reactions behave differently. It's also an interesting question whether (dis)charging a li-ion cell counts as "chemical reaction" at all.
2) Relative numbers are meaningless when we need absolute numbers. For example, if initial efficiency is 90%, then quadrupling the losses is catastrophic for something like EV driving range. If initial efficiency is 99%, then quadrupling losses is nearly meaningless.

In EV batteries specifically, larger capacity battery pack (made of same technology than a comparison pack) gets linear advantage in losses and power capability. E.g., if a 30kWh pack is able to produce 100kW of driving power and 30kW of charging power with 90% average efficiency, a 60kWh pack made of same cells produces 200kW of driving power, 60kW of charging power, at 95% average efficiency.

Additionally, EVs can utilize thermal insulation and battery heating when being charged from mains. (Using battery power to heat battery would result in similar loss than just letting the battery heat up from its internal losses.) How well is stuff like this done depends on vehicle - also how much it's needed. It's worth understanding what would be the worst case efficiency, in case battery is charged, then left to cool without connection to mains power, for a few days so that the large thermal mass of battery cools down to equilibrium with ambient. Then battery efficiency loss might be large enough that it can't be ignored anymore - I'd say in range of 10-40% depending on vehicle and driving habits, at temperature like -30degC.

[tom66]

Batteries activity like all chemical reactions are goverened by the Arrhenius equation

Lithium ion batteries are not chemical batteries (they work completely differently to the majority of other batteries which undergo chemical changes in their discharge/charge process), and consequentially their performance does not match the Arrhenius equation.  And your 1/2 capacity lost per 10 deg C is absolute madness.  My car is at worst down 15% capacity at -5C, compared to 30C ambient.

The issue with lithium ion batteries in low temperature is their open circuit voltage falls and ESR increases and so less capacity is usable under low temperatures, the car must ensure that the cell voltage does not fall below the critical level.  The capacity is not lost - just inaccessible.  This is why EVs appear to reduce in available range and many EVs expend energy on heating the battery up as it makes this capacity accessible once the battery has warmed up.

The loss of range in EVs in low temperatures is principally due to the reduced efficiency of cabin heating, battery, and tyres, and for vehicles without a battery heater the reduction can be greater.  Usually winter weather carries other factors like heavier wind and rain which impact efficiency too, but having a heatpump makes a huge difference, which is why the majority of EV models have a heatpump as at least an option now.

[Siwastaja]

Yeah, the claim about capacity loss to half per each 10degC is usual jonpaul, total and obvious bullshit which is obvious to anyone who has ever used batteries of any kind. What would even be the reference level? Your range is 400km at +25degC so it must be 200km at +15degC and 100km at +5degC? Just ridiculous.

Even if you mentally modeled li-ion battery as chemical reaction, then capacity relates to amount of material that can react, and Arrhenius is not claiming disappearance of reagents into thin air, that would be rewriting pretty much everything we know about our universe. Instead, analogous to reaction rate going down is increase in voltage sag, in other words, increase in ESR or decrease of efficiency.

When capacity is defined as charge (coulombs, Ah), you get full capacity out even at -30degC, if you can accept using low discharge currents near end of the curve to prevent voltage sagging below the under-voltage lockout levels of the loads like the drive inverter - this is exactly why EVs start limiting power at the end of discharge, finally entering a limb mode: they are making sure you get pretty much every Coulomb out.

Then again, when capacity is defined as energy capacity (Wh), then you have capacity loss which is actually equal to the efficiency loss. Note that even if the loss doubled per each 10degC (which isn't true, but it's in the same ballpark, so let's play along), it's totally different from remaining efficienc (or energy capacity) halving. This is elementary school math: when loss doubles 1% -> 2%, efficiency (and thus energy capacity) doesn't halve, but goes from 99% to 98%, a 1.01% difference, not 50% as jonpaul is saying. The percentage of jonpaul being wrong is then 4950.49504950...%, which doesn't much differ from his usual contributions.

[fourfathom]

EV efficiency reduces component count not to mention regen. No transmission, There's a reason diesel electric
locomotives and heavy equipment exist.

And that reason is torque at zero RPM.  There are other reasons (on ships, for example) but torque and low-RPM capability are (I believe) the big reasons, not efficiency.

[Andy Chee]

I honestly don’t know man. I think focusing on the grid (and future of the grid) should be the priority as EV’s powered by coal aren’t really any better.

———————

Often stated, but wrong:

(Poland runs mainly on coal)

So are you arguing we should just replace all fuel with coal powered EVs as one study suggests it might be better?

I’m no environmental activist be that sounds like a pretty bad idea to me 

I presume EVs are better, not because they run from coal, but because they are fuel agnostic (i.e. nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, waste veggie oil, timber, hydrogen, natural gas, mice running in wheels, whatever).

EV efficiency reduces component count not to mention regen. No transmission, There's a reason diesel electric
locomotives and heavy equipment exist.

Traditional diesel electric locomotives do NOT have batteries to capture regen energy, thus energy efficiency is no different to any other ICE.  i.e. braking is converted into heat.

[Andy Chee]

Batteries activity like all chemical reactions are goverened by the Arrhenius equation

This is the reality, however much the ecoreligionists find it unpalatable.

Lithium ion batteries have some behaviour characteristics of capacitors i.e. not entirely a chemical reaction

The effect of the Arrhenius equation needs to be scaled down appropriately.

[BrianHG]

 



(Sorry about the commentator appearing like AI generated, but the story was too sweet...)

Ok, it wasn't a joke...

[SiliconWizard]

Well, stone age. Do we realize that most of electricity generated worldwide comes from burning fossil fuels, coal being one of the most popuiar? It's barely less stone age than burning wood.

[fourfathom]

Well, stone age. Do we realize that most of electricity generated worldwide comes from burning fossil fuels, coal being one of the most popuiar? It's barely less stone age than burning wood.

At least trees capture CO₂ and generate O₂.

[tom66]

EV efficiency reduces component count not to mention regen. No transmission, There's a reason diesel electric
locomotives and heavy equipment exist.

And that reason is torque at zero RPM.  There are other reasons (on ships, for example) but torque and low-RPM capability are (I believe) the big reasons, not efficiency.

That and a very flat torque curve.  The typical EV power/torque curve looks like constant torque up to something like 30 mph, then constant power after that.  The power only ramps down when Vmax is hit - motor speed approaches limits or inverter cannot drive motor efficiently any faster.

Some hybrids take advantage of this; my GTE would use the electric motor to flatten the ICE torque curve, resulting in (besides between gear shifts) a relatively constant 375Nm of torque at the gearbox input. ICE and EV motor are in parallel in that car, with a clutch to isolate the ICE when not in use, and with the gearbox after both.  That meant it shifted gears in electric mode, one of the few EVs to do so. An ICE varies its torque as speeds increase until it hits peak torque-rpm (somewhere around 2500-3500 rpm, lower for diesel).

Note that for EVs it can actually be beneficial to have a gearbox;  Porsche's Taycan has a 2-speed auto for the rear motor, and the BMW i8 PHEV had something similar.  It adds weight but lets you optimise the motor for a smaller operating range.  Tesla take the approach of differential gearing, at low speeds the front motor is dominant, and high speeds the rear motor takes over, with each being tuned for different speeds of operation.  This reduces complexity, but means they can never have both motors operating at high speeds, reducing power and changing stability, and they have to make the rear motor capable of propelling the car at Vmax (but that's really only relevant for track usage).

When capacity is defined as charge (coulombs, Ah), you get full capacity out even at -30degC, if you can accept using low discharge currents near end of the curve to prevent voltage sagging below the under-voltage lockout levels of the loads like the drive inverter - this is exactly why EVs start limiting power at the end of discharge, finally entering a limb mode: they are making sure you get pretty much every Coulomb out.

Then again, when capacity is defined as energy capacity (Wh), then you have capacity loss which is actually equal to the efficiency loss. Note that even if the loss doubled per each 10degC (which isn't true, but it's in the same ballpark, so let's play along), it's totally different from remaining efficienc (or energy capacity) halving. This is elementary school math: when loss doubles 1% -> 2%, efficiency (and thus energy capacity) doesn't halve, but goes from 99% to 98%, a 1.01% difference, not 50% as jonpaul is saying. The percentage of jonpaul being wrong is then 4950.49504950...%, which doesn't much differ from his usual contributions.

The interesting thing about well made lithium-ion batteries is that they are very close 100% efficient when discharged slowly (C < 0.1).  In fact, losses in the battery are bad, as they signal unwanted reactions are occurring, which reduces the cycle life of the cell.  There is an excellent video on coulombic efficiency of lithium-ion batteries here.  What's interesting is how bad the Nissan cells are in comparison to most other manufacturers. 

[nctnico]

An ICE varies its torque as speeds increase until it hits peak torque-rpm (somewhere around 2500-3500 rpm, lower for diesel).

It is not that simple. It depends entirely on how the ICE is 'tuned' / configured. For example, most turbo-diesels have a flat torque / rpm graph right up to where maximum power begins because that gives the sensation of the strongest accelleration to the driver. Try to race somebody with a turbo diesel with a manual gear and you'll notice most people will shift up once the torque 'runs out'. But this is the spot where the engine starts to develop maximum power and shifting up takes the engine to an RPM range with less power output... so you'll see their car getting smaller in the rear view mirror while you are keeping your foot down and let the engine run in the maximum power rpm range.

[David Hess]

I think I notice it before too it feels like sometimes when the drill batteries get hot some power tools have a really heavy torque . Like when you run a small drill on overload with a big hole saw. jam jam jam but if you finally get it hot you get a hole

same thing with my cutoff wheel tool, when its cold you can easily get a jammed blade. But keep trying and when the battery feels hot you can get through a plate thats buckling a little and pressing on the blade and being a PITA. It seems the hot batteries provide enough juice to keep the wheel spinning and grind away the slight deflection that crushes it.

I think I notice it the most with a M12 power drill and the M12 cutoff wheel and the variable speed 20v dewalt deburring tool. Angle grinders running flap disks too but usually if you have skill you won't stall those or benefit from the lower ESR if you got the light touch with the grinder. But for hole saws and linear abrasive cutting the extra current makes or breaks the tool. You can't really use skill to overcome a problem like slight pressure from the deflection or just bulk friction from hole saws. That is usually a question of impossible fixturing or just plain luck.

I had problems with the brushed M12 drill being under powered for drilling holes for wiring, and the M12 brushless circular saw was almost useless with the smaller normal output batteries.  In both cases I managed to overheat a battery without any apparent benefit from lower ESR.

The larger and higher output M12 batteries improved on this of course, especially for the M12 brushless circular saw, and I ended up buying the M12 brushless drill just for more torque for drilling big holes.  That Milwaukee released "high output" M12 batteries implies that they also eventually saw it as a limitation.

I really like the M12 tools for their compact and light form factors but it came with performance limitations.

[EEVblog]

The issue with lithium ion batteries in low temperature is their open circuit voltage falls and ESR increases and so less capacity is usable under low temperatures, the car must ensure that the cell voltage does not fall below the critical level.  The capacity is not lost - just inaccessible.  This is why EVs appear to reduce in available range and many EVs expend energy on heating the battery up as it makes this capacity accessible once the battery has warmed up.

The loss of range in EVs in low temperatures is principally due to the reduced efficiency of cabin heating, battery, and tyres, and for vehicles without a battery heater the reduction can be greater.  Usually winter weather carries other factors like heavier wind and rain which impact efficiency too, but having a heatpump makes a huge difference, which is why the majority of EV models have a heatpump as at least an option now.

If you can endure the cold within the car (i.e. no heater) you could maybe eek out extra range my putting it in ECO mode and driving slowly and carefully, thus reducing the impact of increased ESR.
Not generally a problem in Australia though of course.

[coppercone2]

what is madness is the picture that you would see to show the gasoline production chain with a red gas can at the end.

begin with a 1000 meter drilled bore, a oil well, a oil tanker, a refinery, a gasoline delivery truck, a gasoline station, finally the red can. Typical distance traveled (excluding the highly windy refinery plumbing) is at least 2000 miles. the production montage would have the world map with the red dashed line arrows on it  . Or a disturbingly long time lapse of the ship traveling across the god damn ocean. Maybe it even get attacked by houthi pirates.

the tree burning generator is a highly optimized solution. Like damn when you build it you can even recharge the battery operated chain saws with it. practically a von numan machine. Where is that from, pandora?

[themadhippy]

the tree burning generator is a highly optimized solution.

Apart from the shipping of the wood pellets from canada to the uk,meanwhile the uk pays to have its rubbish shipped off to sweden were its burnt and turned into electricity

[EEVblog]

what is madness is the picture that you would see to show the gasoline production chain with a red gas can at the end.
begin with a 1000 meter drilled bore, a oil well, a oil tanker, a refinery, a gasoline delivery truck, a gasoline station, finally the red can. Typical distance traveled (excluding the highly windy refinery plumbing) is at least 2000 miles. the production montage would have the world map with the red dashed line arrows on it  . Or a disturbingly long time lapse of the ship traveling across the god damn ocean.

I spent a decade working in the oil exploration industry. You don't know the half of it!

[tom66]

If people are wearing blankets to extend the range of their EV, they're idiots, as simple as that.  I drive with the heating on at the speed limit (or more, err, I mean, I'd never do that officer) and I've never had a problem.  I've driven at -5C with heavy oncoming wind and got 10% worse efficiency to summer.  The idea that EVs are unusable with heating on in the winter is FUD spread by people with an agenda, simple as that.

[Siwastaja]

If people are wearing blankets to extend the range of their EV, they're idiots, as simple as that.

Of course. Instead of blankets, just use winter clothes. You can't drive without heating though, totally impossible and unsafe. You can try and you quickly see how the windows are in frost in 15 minutes. Unless you put the fan to nearly max, and sit in the cold "wind", which is just even more horrible. Walking outdoors is one thing, your body makes the heat when all your muscles are in motion. Sitting standstill in cold wind is just too horrible.

Lowest level of heating available sure. It is equally stupid to use +23degC setting and wonder how the range disappears. +16 is plenty if you have any winter clothing on, as you probably should because what are you going to do when you arrive at destination? Usually get out of the car and walk for some distance. It happens, if you are comfortable walking for some distance at, let's say -10degC, then the same amount of clothing is quite fine for sitting in a car at +15 or so. If you use any more heating, you are sweating and need to take off the clothes, which is just waste of time and effort. Keep them on.

Besides, -5 is nothing, especially with any modern EV with heatpump. It's after -15..-20 when heating power starts to go through roof. And after -20, battery efficiency starts to drop, too, unless you have a warm garage, or drive all the time / use battery heating to keep the battery warm. At -30, real range is halved from the summer numbers, as the heating is now constantly hogging 4kW or so and battery efficiency has maybe dropped to 75%.

[MT]

If people are wearing blankets to extend the range of their EV, they're idiots, as simple as that.  I drive with the heating on at the speed limit (or more, err, I mean, I'd never do that officer) and I've never had a problem.  I've driven at -5C with heavy oncoming wind and got 10% worse efficiency to summer.  The idea that EVs are unusable with heating on in the winter is FUD spread by people with an agenda, simple as that.

Dont be so harsh on the Chinese, see how they are smiling and are happy under the blankets! 

[tom66]

I experimented the other day with the heating in my car.  I tried 'off' and '20C' and the difference was 48 miles range vs 45 miles range, when the battery was at a low state of charge.

I drove home 33 miles with the heating on and arrived home with 8 miles of range, which perfectly matched the so-called "guess-o-meter" (I generally find the indicated on the car to be accurate, usually slightly pessimistic).

This is one issue with Tesla's marketing.  They make exaggerated claims about the range capability of their cars, and the in-car display tends to be overly optimistic.  I would want the range meter in any car to be generally pessimistic.  Tools like ABRP can take into account the actual range of the car (regardless of the display).

[MT]

1 year ago this happened!



and 1 year later, same dude at same company charging station:

https://youtu.be/K64HQ5ZPfdQ?t=740s

[bdunham7]

I've driven at -5C with heavy oncoming wind and got 10% worse efficiency to summer.  The idea that EVs are unusable with heating on in the winter is FUD spread by people with an agenda, simple as that.

Or maybe people who have a different concept of "winter".  If you have a heat pump system (not everyone does) then -5C is fine.  But -5C isn't what the temperature was where the situtation happened as mentioned in the title of this thread.

[Siwastaja]

I've driven at -5C with heavy oncoming wind and got 10% worse efficiency to summer.  The idea that EVs are unusable with heating on in the winter is FUD spread by people with an agenda, simple as that.

Or maybe people who have a different concept of "winter".  If you have a heat pump system (not everyone does) then -5C is fine.  But -5C isn't what the temperature was where the situtation happened as mentioned in the title of this thread.

Yes. People living in Alaska, Siberia, or maybe Northern Finland, are unlikely to buy EVs anyway: not only temperatures can go down to -35degC regularly, and -50degC peak cold, distances are long so a "short trip to neighbor's for a coffee" might be 300km one way, without civilization in-between. People want to be self-sustained so they will have their own tanks of gasoline/diesel, maybe thousand of liters/gallons, and some old-ish car they know inside out and can service on the road. Number of such people is also counted in thousands, not millions, so totally irrelevant in the big picture. EVs are clearly not for them.

This leaves EV use in a bit more inhabited areas: say Southern Canada, obviously USA as whole, Southern / up to mid Finland for example. And that would limit the temperatures to usually down to -25degC or so, and maybe -35degC absolute peak. And this is within the realm of possibilities for current EVs, as long as you plan ahead a bit and know the limitations.

Of course, having to plan ahead sucks; limitations sucks. On the other hand, if you have to endure with some limitations for a week or two every 2-3 years, maybe it's not too bad. Nearly all so-called "failures" are not actually total technical failures, car stopping midway, just car losing 10-20% more range than in cold yet bit less extreme weather these same drivers have experienced before. I mean, if you have already driven in -15degC and noticed your range dropped by 30%, then maybe it's a stupid idea to assume it's not going down much further at -30degC, and to assume every charging station in existence is always operational.

But there have always been people who get stranded even with a gasoline car because they are out of fuel. Even such trivially simple planning with huge safety margins (like, the range is 800km, stations available every 50km) is too difficult for some.

[David Hess]

what is madness is the picture that you would see to show the gasoline production chain with a red gas can at the end.

begin with a 1000 meter drilled bore, a oil well, a oil tanker, a refinery, a gasoline delivery truck, a gasoline station, finally the red can. Typical distance traveled (excluding the highly windy refinery plumbing) is at least 2000 miles. the production montage would have the world map with the red dashed line arrows on it  . Or a disturbingly long time lapse of the ship traveling across the god damn ocean. Maybe it even get attacked by houthi pirates.

the tree burning generator is a highly optimized solution. Like damn when you build it you can even recharge the battery operated chain saws with it. practically a von numan machine. Where is that from, pandora?

Luckily for us the science of economics can easily and accurately measure the cost of an extended supply chain for the end user with a single number.  There is no need to guess.

Well, except for politicians putting their thumbs on the scale for their favored industries.  It is part of their nature to ignore economics.

[CatalinaWOW]

Luckily for us the science of economics can easily and accurately measure the cost of an extended supply chain for the end user with a single number.  There is no need to guess.

Well, except for politicians putting their thumbs on the scale for their favored industries.  It is part of their nature to ignore economics.

Well, sort of.  They can easily and precisely generate a number, which may indeed reflect reality for a little while.   But very few demand curves are really static and well defined, and politicians are not the only ones affecting them.  News media, scientists, social influencers, and many others "put their fingers on the scale", often not intentionally.  In addition the total economic system is so interconnected with so many feedback loops that no one can accurately model it. 

The most recent blatant example of this is all of the myriad disruptions of the markets caused by the COVID situation.  Large auto companies made decisions based on those economic models.  And suddenly everyones economic models were wrong and Rasberry Pi''s became unavailable for a couple of years. 

[Ranayna]

I don't follow.  People buy a vehicle to suit their use cases... but they aren't going to drive their car just because it cost a lot of money.  I don't take my car out around the block every night to "get my money's worth".  I bought it in part because I have a long commute, and I prefer EVs, and there are environmental benefits...

The overall life cycle environmental benefit is questionabale (and probably un-knowable, there are just too many variable). But they certainly have environmental benefits in local air pollution. We literally call our ICE car the "stinky" because of the exhuast. It's amazing the difference you notice between the EV and the ICE. Just sitting there in idle in the drive way the ICE can fill with exhaust fumes. Yet if you don't own an EV you just don't notice the exhaust as you are used to it.
Also obvious benefits in the energy supply chain infrastructure.
Add in the silent ride, the ability to charge at home (from excess solar in my case for zero cost), and the knowledge that regen breaking isn't wasting energy, there is a lot to like about EV's. But they aren't for everyone, and anyone who pushes them as a universal solution to climate change is an idiot.

Related:
Last summer, i drove behind a vintage car for some time. I don't remember what make and model, but i have to assume that it was a car without catalytic converter.
That car stunk to high heavens. And the smell lingered in my car for quite a while after it was gone.

Maybe in the past we were all desensitized to that smell, otherwise i have no idea how anyone was able to stand it.

[SiliconWizard]

We would just momentarily put AC in air recycling mode, which was rather effective at blocking smell from the outside. Still works.

[Marco]

Yes. People living in Alaska, Siberia, or maybe Northern Finland, are unlikely to buy EVs anyway

If we make it to net zero, when blue/synthetic fossil fuel costs a multiple in fuel costs, I think they will. If we don't soon, it won't be because of maintaining the status quo, it will be because of societal collapse. So then the wood gassifiers will have the last laugh.

Money is a good motivator and the continued existence of the status quo a fantasy.

Compared to all the real problems facing humanity in the near future, net zero is just an appetizer. If they can't handle that, it's all over.

[tom66]

Yes. People living in Alaska, Siberia, or maybe Northern Finland, are unlikely to buy EVs anyway

If we make it to net zero, when blue/synthetic fossil fuel costs a multiple in fuel costs, I think they will. If we don't soon, it won't be because of maintaining the status quo, it will be because of societal collapse. So then the wood gassifiers will have the last laugh.

Money is a good motivator and the continued existence of the status quo a fantasy.

Compared to all the real problems facing humanity in the near future, net zero is just an appetizer. If they can't handle that, it's all over.

My fear is that as a species we can't comprehend the changes needed to fight climate change and we will fail.    If we started 20 years earlier with actual serious efforts then it might have been possible but we are past that point now and we are in to the "mitigate damage" rather than "things could be normal" set of outcomes.  No chance of hitting 1.5C,  even 2C looks unlikely,  more likely somewhere like 2.7-3.5C by 2050.

Now I don't think we will make ourselves extinct or anything so crazy but we will definitely see some very negative shifts in how the climate behaves which will lead to food shortages, resource shortages (particularly fresh water), mass migration and war.

Shame.  Been nice being on this planet as it is though.  Enjoy the ride. 

(It's still worth trying to minimise our impact where we can.)

[Ranayna]

We would just momentarily put AC in air recycling mode, which was rather effective at blocking smell from the outside. Still works.

True, but once the smell was inside, it was already too late. And good luck to the pedestrians and cyclists
And i am more referring to the general past. For a single car you can try to block the smell. But back then these were the norm, and you had not one stinky car, but hundreds.

Being in my early fourties, i do not really remember the pre catalytic converter times though. And i'm glad for that.

The reduction of localized emissions alone is a massive benefit of EVs. At some point there will be someone annoyed by the exhaust smell of a now current, then vintage, car and can't imagine how cities must have smelled. And i like this scenario. It's a hopeful picture of the future, amonst many, many other bleak ones.

[nctnico]

We would just momentarily put AC in air recycling mode, which was rather effective at blocking smell from the outside. Still works.

True, but once the smell was inside, it was already too late. And good luck to the pedestrians and cyclists

Agreed! Sometimes I get passed by motor cycles when cycling and their exhaust smell is horrible. Worst are the old timer cars without catalythic converters.

And i am more referring to the general past. For a single car you can try to block the smell. But back then these were the norm, and you had not one stinky car, but hundreds.

Being in my early fourties, i do not really remember the pre catalytic converter times though. And i'm glad for that.

Be happy about that for sure. When I was a kid you could smell what a car was running on from 20 meters away. Fortunately there wheren't that many cars back then as there are now.

[coromonadalix]

sucks more to follow big trucks  with their black smoke exhausts than following pre cathalytic  cars  ...

or cars who pump oil more than gaz

[Monkeh]

sucks more to follow big trucks  with their black smoke exhausts than following pre cathalytic  cars  ...

If only it were possible to make powerful diesel engines which aren't terrible.

Alas, NIH syndrome strikes again.

[PlainName]

Have they not been cleared up some? I passed quite a few lorries today and didn't notice any smoking, nor did I need to put the aircon on recirculation. OTOH, there was one white van which was putting out a cloud of grey stuff and which I could see far enough away that the recirculation was on before I got a whiff of what it was.

[tom66]

EV disadvantage:  I seem to have been enjoying instant torque a bit too much and have gone through 2mm of tread in 10 months, over the last ~10,000 miles.  The tyres are now due replacement.  Funny that my tyres will likely cost more per mile than the electricity to propel the car.

[AVGresponding]

Worth remembering that EV-specific tyres have less grip than ordinary ones.

[tom66]

Worth remembering that EV-specific tyres have less grip than ordinary ones.

My car runs on regular tyres, not eco or EV specific ones.  (Bridgestone Turanza.)  I'll probably swap the rear ones - with the most wear - for some Michelin CrossClimates and then the front for the same when they come due.

[nctnico]

EV disadvantage:  I seem to have been enjoying instant torque a bit too much and have gone through 2mm of tread in 10 months, over the last ~10,000 miles.  The tyres are now due replacement.  Funny that my tyres will likely cost more per mile than the electricity to propel the car.

Probably you got very cheap or low quality tyres. Such wear is not uncommon for cheap tyres in general. Stick to the A-brands but don't buy low friction or energy saving tyres. These are super noisy and don't offer good grip when it is wet (been there, done that).

[Miyuki]

Related:
Last summer, i drove behind a vintage car for some time. I don't remember what make and model, but i have to assume that it was a car without catalytic converter.
That car stunk to high heavens. And the smell lingered in my car for quite a while after it was gone.

Maybe in the past we were all desensitized to that smell, otherwise i have no idea how anyone was able to stand it.

I have several vintage vehicles and the smell is heavily dependent on what fuel you have and engine construction (one can differentiate vehicle by smell  )
When I rarely take a car to the city and get stuck in some traffic I feel a little guilty, because it is quite something when it idles.
Even the gas stations used to be way more stinkier, especially in summer. Some people like it.
But even modern diesel cars are stinky, not to mention after a few thousand km and a few years. And European cities are full of them.

[SeanB]

Yes the smell depends heavily on the vehicle type, and the condition of the engine. A Trabant is not exactly going to be a star emissions wise, simply because of the 2 stroke engine and full loss oil it used. Lada somewhat better, provided it has been serviced, which many were not exactly done to OEM level, admittedly poor as it was. Depends, though the biggest change was going to entirely unleaded fuel, which was a great change in making city air better, not dumping tons of soluble lead into the environment every year.

[Siwastaja]

I hate the smell of modern diesel engines the most. Those that most definitely pass on emission tests, while running a cheat program (which everyone has, not just VW who was made the scapegoat), or when brand new from the factory, in ideal conditions. Yet in real world, especially in cold weather, these stink like crap. With old diesels, at least you get the oily smell, not that weird, sweet smell of new diesels. I don't know which one is worse for your health. Probably both.

[AVGresponding]

Worth remembering that EV-specific tyres have less grip than ordinary ones.

My car runs on regular tyres, not eco or EV specific ones.  (Bridgestone Turanza.)  I'll probably swap the rear ones - with the most wear - for some Michelin CrossClimates and then the front for the same when they come due.

If you don't use EV-specific tyres, you'll be giving up some range to the higher rolling resistance of normal ones.

[tom66]

Worth remembering that EV-specific tyres have less grip than ordinary ones.

My car runs on regular tyres, not eco or EV specific ones.  (Bridgestone Turanza.)  I'll probably swap the rear ones - with the most wear - for some Michelin CrossClimates and then the front for the same when they come due.

If you don't use EV-specific tyres, you'll be giving up some range to the higher rolling resistance of normal ones.

The same is true for any car.  There is a tradeoff between grip and economy.  It looks like VW chose grip in this case, though it does vary between the models.  The base ID.3 (with the smaller 45kWh battery and smaller 148hp motor) does come with eco tyres.  Since I'm rarely running on electric fumes, I don't need to eek out the last few percent.

[nctnico]

In the end your life / safety is worth more compared to saving a few bucks.

[PlainName]

Surely one would drive within the capabilities of the vehicle. And saving a few bucks may mean the difference between driving and not driving (or, worse, using worn out 'sticky' tyres).

[Marco]

In the end your life / safety is worth more compared to saving a few bucks.

I doubt you can ignore vehicle weight for tire design, especially for aquaplaning.

In the end everything is a compromise.

[tom66]

Surely one would drive within the capabilities of the vehicle. And saving a few bucks may mean the difference between driving and not driving (or, worse, using worn out 'sticky' tyres).

Even the best driver in the world misjudges their ability from time to time.  If I recall correctly the statistic is something like 75% of drivers think they are above-average in their skill.  And some things are unpredictable, like someone skidding in front of you or an animal jumping out in front.  A good tyre gives you extra margin when things go wrong to stop, especially so in poor conditions.

That is why I always bought good tyres even for my shitty cars.

[nctnico]

Surely one would drive within the capabilities of the vehicle. And saving a few bucks may mean the difference between driving and not driving (or, worse, using worn out 'sticky' tyres).

Even the best driver in the world misjudges their ability from time to time.  If I recall correctly the statistic is something like 75% of drivers think they are above-average in their skill.  And some things are unpredictable, like someone skidding in front of you or an animal jumping out in front.  A good tyre gives you extra margin when things go wrong to stop, especially so in poor conditions.

That is why I always bought good tyres even for my shitty cars.

Amen to that. It is always the people who claim that they drive 'safely' who overlook the fact that while driving you have absolutely no control over the surroundings. Like somebody overlooking a red light and crossing right in front of you. Good tyres are the difference between 'pfew' and a crash. I change my tyres well before they are at the legal limit. As soon as the wear indicators start to get close to the main profile, I have the tyres replaced. The deeper the profile, the better the handling on wet roads.

I have been driving for decades and every now and then people still manage to amaze me by showing some kind of weird ass driving I have not seen before or a situation that hasn't occured to me before. There is always a new surprise behind the corner.

[Siwastaja]

Since I'm rarely running on electric fumes, I don't need to eek out the last few percent.

This is the second time I hear this rationalization from you (the previous one was about in context of Leaf's slightly stupid preheat mode losing 1-2% of battery capacity), but I think about it in the exact opposite way: any energy saving gives you more margin against running on "electric fumes". As long as it doesn't involve too big sacrifice on buy price or safety, even 1-2% gains on efficiency are important. At the end of the day, I have somewhere I need to go, and if I had better preheat logic adding 2% and better tires adding 3% then I would arrive at the destination with maybe SoC=20%, which I would be much more comfortable with than 15% because, like you, I hate running on electric fumes. (Actually, 15% is the lowest SoC I have ever ran to on my Leaf, so I have no idea what happens at 0%.)

[nctnico]

Just like cars on gasoline, there is always a bit more range left. Recently I rode along with someone in a Tesla. The car had 2% of range left at arrival and afterwards we needed to get to a near by Tesla supercharger as all the EV charging points where occopied. It all worked out well; especially since I got a free lunch out of it and left the meter running .

And again, there is no price tag to put on your safety. Efficient tyres have less grip so they are not better in any way. Having good grip means having friction and friction means material gets rubbed off which in turn costs energy. There is no silver bullet to get around that.

[PlainName]

A good tyre gives you extra margin when things go wrong to stop, especially so in poor conditions.

They should do, but only if you drive like you have shitty tyres on. Once you drive in a way that the good tyres let you, you've just moved the goalposts along a bit, but now when you are caught out it will be worse and you won't have had the practice in recovery.

Having said that, I use expensive grippy tyres on my bike because I'm a wuss, and teflon tyres on the car because I'm cheap

[tom66]

Since I'm rarely running on electric fumes, I don't need to eek out the last few percent.

This is the second time I hear this rationalization from you (the previous one was about in context of Leaf's slightly stupid preheat mode losing 1-2% of battery capacity), but I think about it in the exact opposite way: any energy saving gives you more margin against running on "electric fumes". As long as it doesn't involve too big sacrifice on buy price or safety, even 1-2% gains on efficiency are important. At the end of the day, I have somewhere I need to go, and if I had better preheat logic adding 2% and better tires adding 3% then I would arrive at the destination with maybe SoC=20%, which I would be much more comfortable with than 15% because, like you, I hate running on electric fumes. (Actually, 15% is the lowest SoC I have ever ran to on my Leaf, so I have no idea what happens at 0%.)

I get you, but I think like all things in engineering it has a balance. I would rather have a safer vehicle with better tyres and lose a bit more efficiency and consequentially have to charge for a minute longer on a road trip, than find myself with an airbag in my face having crashed into a ditch.  I had a BMW i3 as a loan car whilst my prior GTE was being fixed, and found it to be unnervingly unstable at higher speeds.  It has very skinny eco tyres as standard, which might be okay in summer, but would definitely feel dubious in wet weather.  The moose test isn't that impressive.  Tyre size 155/70R19 vs 215/50R19.

[PlainName]

As long as it doesn't involve too big sacrifice on buy price or safety, even 1-2% gains on efficiency are important. At the end of the day, I have somewhere I need to go, and if I had better preheat logic adding 2% and better tires adding 3% then I would arrive at the destination with maybe SoC=20%, which I would be much more comfortable with than 15% because

I try not to get to that point (not that I have an EV but in micromanaging things). Couple of anecdotes:

1. Used to pare anything not absolutely essential to DOS (yes, that far back) from memory. Ran all sorts of tools to achieve than and maximise the memory available to programs. Continued same with Windows, but now it's to ensure performance (games, see), so non-essential backgrounders pruned religiously. No desktop gadgets, monitors, nothing that might use a little of the CPU. Eventually wound up with a new build W7, so much memory I could have a RAM disk without running out of physical RAM, and enough CPU that I have 30(!) task tray items plus three gadgets, and some furniture enhancements. The relief of not having to worry about anything except using the PC was significant. And, even now, quite a few years later, as you can see from the task tray count I am still nicely relaxed about not giving a toss for slight performance efficiency.

2. Phone, small  battery. You can guess the rest - whatever might slow down battery use by even a fraction was worth killing off, and I had tools to keep it killed off. Even ran an app that would turn off WiFi if the phone was idle for 10 mins, or no connection was made for that time. Automatically turned it on again when the lock screen was unlocked, etc. Three different battery monitors let me track how it was doing. Then I got a phone with a decent batter, which the OS dealt with errant and wasteful apps, and it would last days without my needing to do anything special except use it. Again, that was such a relief.

If I had an EV, the very last thing I would want to be doing is micromanaging power saving. Just turn that temperature control down 1C to save a minuscule amount, and if 1C would do that why not 2C? Hell, just have no heating at all ! No thanks, I would want to just drive it and not get OCD about stuff I can never win at.

[nctnico]

A good tyre gives you extra margin when things go wrong to stop, especially so in poor conditions.

They should do, but only if you drive like you have shitty tyres on. Once you drive in a way that the good tyres let you, you've just moved the goalposts along a bit, but now when you are caught out it will be worse and you won't have had the practice in recovery.

This reasoning doesn't fly. It is not like you'll be driving twice as fast simply because there are speed limits. And there is something like common sense as well. About a year ago I found myself driving high up in the mountains in Switserland on a wet, windy mountain road while it was snowing a bit. No way I'm going to push the car to the limits in such a situation. In such situations I drive extra careful and let the locals I collect in the rear view mirror pass when possible.

[Psi]

IMHO the main advanced of good tyres are
 - Less road noise
 - If you push things further than you should, or you just misjudge a corner or the road surface then you're much less likely to lose control and go off the road.   I agree with nctnico, if you have good tyres you shouldn't be using them in the region where generic tyres would fail but where you're good tyres work totally fine.

Their benefits should be there for when you accidently push things too hard or misjudge something.
If you push them hard all the time then you're back in the same position where you run the risk of losing control if you accidently push them that tiny little bit more.

[PlainName]

A good tyre gives you extra margin when things go wrong to stop, especially so in poor conditions.

They should do, but only if you drive like you have shitty tyres on. Once you drive in a way that the good tyres let you, you've just moved the goalposts along a bit, but now when you are caught out it will be worse and you won't have had the practice in recovery.

This reasoning doesn't fly. It is not like you'll be driving twice as fast simply because there are speed limits. And there is something like common sense as well. About a year ago I found myself driving high up in the mountains in Switserland on a wet, windy mountain road while it was snowing a bit. No way I'm going to push the car to the limits in such a situation. In such situations I drive extra careful and let the locals I collect in the rear view mirror pass when possible.

"Risk compensation". You might not be driving twice as fast but you probably won't be leaving such a large gap to the car in front and stuff like that. There are lots of ways to exceed the capability of your motor other than flat out speed, you know

My Golf goes like it's glued to the road (despite the cheap tyres) whereas a Dacia I have to drive wallows all over the place and is generally not as capable. So I drive it in an appropriate fashion and don't have any more risk of catastrophe than I do in the Golf. If one isn't able to stay within the limits of the vehicle I question if they should be allowed on the road - not all vehicles are super safe and forgiving of driver faults, after all, but many people nevertheless manage to not run them off the road or smash into things.

[nctnico]

Again, it is not just about your own driver skills but the ability for the car to stay on the road if something unforeseen happens.

[Siwastaja]

If I had an EV, the very last thing I would want to be doing is micromanaging power saving.

Of course. It is the designer's job to "micromanage" such things.

[AVGresponding]

In the end your life / safety is worth more compared to saving a few bucks.

I doubt you can ignore vehicle weight for tire design, especially for aquaplaning.

In the end everything is a compromise.

Ah yes, thank you for reminding me of the other major EV consideration; weight.

So, if someone insists on using normal tyres on their EV, they need to choose a higher load index. Which means stiffer sidewalls, and more road noise. Back to square one... (almost)

Since I'm rarely running on electric fumes, I don't need to eek out the last few percent.

This is the second time I hear this rationalization from you (the previous one was about in context of Leaf's slightly stupid preheat mode losing 1-2% of battery capacity), but I think about it in the exact opposite way: any energy saving gives you more margin against running on "electric fumes". As long as it doesn't involve too big sacrifice on buy price or safety, even 1-2% gains on efficiency are important. At the end of the day, I have somewhere I need to go, and if I had better preheat logic adding 2% and better tires adding 3% then I would arrive at the destination with maybe SoC=20%, which I would be much more comfortable with than 15% because, like you, I hate running on electric fumes. (Actually, 15% is the lowest SoC I have ever ran to on my Leaf, so I have no idea what happens at 0%.)

I get you, but I think like all things in engineering it has a balance. I would rather have a safer vehicle with better tyres and lose a bit more efficiency and consequentially have to charge for a minute longer on a road trip, than find myself with an airbag in my face having crashed into a ditch.  I had a BMW i3 as a loan car whilst my prior GTE was being fixed, and found it to be unnervingly unstable at higher speeds.  It has very skinny eco tyres as standard, which might be okay in summer, but would definitely feel dubious in wet weather.  The moose test isn't that impressive.  Tyre size 155/70R19 vs 215/50R19.

Narrower tyres give better wet performance, as they are less prone to aquaplaning. High speed instability is far more likely due to the greater side area/height:wheelbase/track ratio.

[nctnico]

In the end your life / safety is worth more compared to saving a few bucks.

I doubt you can ignore vehicle weight for tire design, especially for aquaplaning.

It is not like BEVs are twice as heavy. The difference is a few hundred kilograms at most between comparable cars.

[PlainName]

a few hundred kilograms at most

"Quarter of a ton"

The actual weight, and thus effect, depends how you describe it

[Zero999]

I wonder if modern cars with traction control promote more risky driving because the driver gets less of a hint they're pushing it to the limit before they lose control. Perhaps the car should warn the driver when they're pushing it, by gently vibrating the seat and making a noise?

[temperance]

Golf 4: 1107 kg
Golf 5: 1302 kg
Golf ID3: 1705 kg
Golf ID4: 1966 kg

For the Golf 4 and 5 you have to add fuel or something like 40 kg.

That's not "a few hundred kilograms at most between comparable cars" but 650 kg. This requires heavier brakes, better tires and a change in driving style. The recent change however in driving style seen on motorways seems to be slaloming between cars when a suitable gap on no matter which lane has been found because you can overtake cars in a matter of seconds with those machines. So I adapted my driving style to leave even a larger gap between me and the car in front of me to give way to the idiots.

When I was a teenager a golf GTI was a very fast car and many youngsters killed themself (and very often their friends too. The weekend tragedies.) because they overestimated their driving skills while running on coke and pills. Today people are driving around in cars with acceleration figures close those of a formula 1 car.

[David Hess]

I wonder if modern cars with traction control promote more risky driving because the driver gets less of a hint they're pushing it to the limit before they lose control. Perhaps the car should warn the driver when they're pushing it, by gently vibrating the seat and making a noise?

Yes, various driver stability improvements promote riskier driving.

When anti-lock brakes first became available there was an opportunity to study their effects on drivers.  Some cities required taxi fleets to have anti-lock brakes so there was plenty of good data.  Initially the number of collisions went down, but as the drivers became accustomed to anti-lock brakes, the number of collisions increased until it reached the previous level, and on average the collisions became more serious.

I would sure like traction control for driving over snow and ice.  Spinning out on a highway 395 and getting stuck off the side of the road once was one time too many, even if everybody else on the highway did the same thing when the freezing rain started.  Had this happened a few miles further on, I would have crashed down the side of a mountain.  Since I cannot afford a new vehicle, and maybe I would not want one anyway, I installed a weather station so I can keep better track of outside conditions, beefier tires, and am adding a front bumper with tow hooks and big fog lights for better visibility in rain, snow, and fog.

[coromonadalix]

I wonder if modern cars with traction control promote more risky driving because the driver gets less of a hint they're pushing it to the limit before they lose control. Perhaps the car should warn the driver when they're pushing it, by gently vibrating the seat and making a noise?

i have it on mine,  sound alarm and blinking sign in the dash,  but  sometimes it goes against you,   
it may or will choke the motor output,  but when you really need it  nada niet, it become dangerous to a certain extent

many feature are a give and take .... some are good, some are discuttable

you have lane assist, front and rear obstacles detection,  dead angle detection  ........    too much snow on the top winshield, the car complains    ... too much dew in the habitacle   car complains  ...........

[Siwastaja]

Golf 4: 1107 kg
Golf 5: 1302 kg
Golf ID3: 1705 kg
Golf ID4: 1966 kg

That's not "a few hundred kilograms at most between comparable cars" but 650 kg.

You are comparing some older generation of ICE vehicles with modern-day EVs, while missing the fact ICE vehicles also became heavier. It's a weird idea how a 300kg, maybe 350kg battery pack would make the car weigh 650kg more, and it obviously doesn't - add the fact that electric motors have excellent power density, so the weight has to come from somewhere else.

So the big question is, why are cars getting heavier and more SUV-like all the time, worsening aerodynamics as well? I don't like it. It's also crap on fuel efficiency. This trend affects both ICEs and EVs. And EV designers get some slack from regenerative braking and think they can get away with extra weight, which I don't like either.

Same can be said about tires. Wider, and wider, and wider, despite the fact that optimum tire width was found decades ago and the increases have almost exclusively negative effects, including both increased fuel consumption and worse grip. They are also more expensive to buy.

I would like to see a VW Golf class EV with weight less than 1200kg. While some advances in battery energy density would be still needed to reach that goal, it seems to me it's actually not the #1 problem anymore. Too much weight from everything else than the battery. Just think about the sudden 200kg increase between your quoted Golf 4 and 5 numbers. Where did that come from? I mean, you can get pretty decent EV battery in that 200kg!

[nctnico]

According to what I've read in various articles is that safety features like airbags, re-inforcements, crumple zones, etc are adding the the weight. In addition to that, cars keep getting bigger by about 2cm per year. The latter is due to car manufacturers wanting to sell you a bigger 'the same' car without you thinking you are buying a more expensive model. The Volkswagen Polo is a classic example of a car that has been inflated over the years. But once the entry level model got too big & expensive, car manufacturers put a new entry level car on the market. Like the Volkswagen Up . And the upsizing cycle starts again.

[coppice]

So the big question is, why are cars getting heavier and more SUV-like all the time, worsening aerodynamics as well? I don't like it. It's also crap on fuel efficiency. This trend affects both ICEs and EVs. And EV designers get some slack from regenerative braking and think they can get away with extra weight, which I don't like either.

The claim is reaching 5 stars for NCAP testing means cars need a lot more material to strengthen them, even though they are now using higher strength steels. Its the same reason that window area is shrinking, and reversing cameras are becoming a necessity. I remember in 1992 when Toyota released a massively reworked Camry. Its was considered a breakthrough update. People loved the car in most ways, but a lot wouldn't buy it because it felt like looking through the slit of an armoured car. Now pretty much every car is like that.

[Marco]

Contemporary VW Golf 1.5 is still ~1300 kg and has 5 star NCAP.

[temperance]

The weight figures quoted earlier didn't take the ICE version into account. Meanwhile I found a complete list. A golf 7 with a 1.2 l TSI engine is about 1205 kg. A blue motion version is about 1377 kg and 2.0 TDI weighs 1.366 kg.

It also seems it wasn't honest to compare those numbers with a ID4 because the ID 4 is about 30 cm longer than a golf 7. The difference in weigh between a 2 L TDI and an ID3 is about 300 kg. (with a full fuel tank.)

[David Hess]

...

In addition to that, cars keep getting bigger by about 2cm per year. The latter is due to car manufacturers wanting to sell you a bigger 'the same' car without you thinking you are buying a more expensive model.

...

The US EPA has their hand in that also.  Fuel economy standards are indexed by weight and size encouraging larger vehicles which are less fuel efficient.  This has killed smaller pickups over the past decades; my 2002 pickup looks tiny compared to the smallest available pickups today.

[tom66]

Ah yes, thank you for reminding me of the other major EV consideration; weight.

So, if someone insists on using normal tyres on their EV, they need to choose a higher load index. Which means stiffer sidewalls, and more road noise. Back to square one... (almost)

The load index for my vehicle's tyre is just 95V, which is very much in the normal range.  A VW Golf Mk8 runs on 92V which represents at most 50kg less per wheel.

I wonder if modern cars with traction control promote more risky driving because the driver gets less of a hint they're pushing it to the limit before they lose control. Perhaps the car should warn the driver when they're pushing it, by gently vibrating the seat and making a noise?

Yes, various driver stability improvements promote riskier driving.

When anti-lock brakes first became available there was an opportunity to study their effects on drivers.  Some cities required taxi fleets to have anti-lock brakes so there was plenty of good data.  Initially the number of collisions went down, but as the drivers became accustomed to anti-lock brakes, the number of collisions increased until it reached the previous level, and on average the collisions became more serious.

I think there probably is some risk compensation, but it's worth noting in nearly every country the number of people killed in road accidents every year has been falling.  Cars are safer, whether that is through airbags and crumple zones, or collision avoidance systems.  I certainly wouldn't choose to drive without these systems.

In terms of 'safe until it isn't', I think that's particularly noticeable with ESP (electronic stability).  I did notice in my previous Golf that it really was nailed to the road in corners, but there were times where you could just about feel the ESP system reaching its control authority and the car becoming a lot more dynamic.  This was particularly noticeable in wet weather.

[tom66]

The weight figures quoted earlier didn't take the ICE version into account. Meanwhile I found a complete list. A golf 7 with a 1.2 l TSI engine is about 1205 kg. A blue motion version is about 1377 kg and 2.0 TDI weighs 1.366 kg.

It also seems it wasn't honest to compare those numbers with a ID4 because the ID 4 is about 30 cm longer than a golf 7. The difference in weigh between a 2 L TDI and an ID3 is about 300 kg. (with a full fuel tank.)

ID.4 is a baby SUV, compare with something like a Tiguan/Audi Q3/etc.

This is a good website for size comparisons:
https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/volkswagen-id4-2020-suv-vs-volkswagen-tiguan-2020-suv/
https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/audi-q3-2018-suv-vs-volkswagen-id4-2020-suv/

In general, for the MEB-platform VW's (ID-anything) they tend to ride a bit higher because you sit on top of the battery pack, and you sit so much further forward because there is only a few things in the front engine compartment (no 'frunk' like a Tesla, but a larger boot, which is better IMO.)  The interior space in the ID.3 is very surprising for its size, easily as good as some larger SUVs, but the rear headroom is roughly the same as a Golf (I'm 6'3" and wouldn't recommend someone much taller get one, unless you get the glass roof which gives a little extra space.)

[Marco]

about 300 kg. (with a full fuel tank.)

Lets say 25% weight difference. Add that to the different weight distribution, higher tire pressure with a different suspension and different wear patterns.

[coppice]

ID.4 is a baby SUV, compare with something like a Tiguan/Audi Q3/etc.

I've been in a Tiguan, and I've been in an ID4. The ID4 seems a lot bigger. I don't think they are comparable. Car sizes are deceptive. We have a Honda Jazz and a Volvo V90. The V90 seems huge compared to the Jazz, yet there is less than a 25% difference in length.

[tom66]

ID.4 is a baby SUV, compare with something like a Tiguan/Audi Q3/etc.

I've been in a Tiguan, and I've been in an ID4. The ID4 seems a lot bigger. I don't think they are comparable. Car sizes are deceptive. We have a Honda Jazz and a Volvo V90. The V90 seems huge compared to the Jazz, yet there is less than a 25% difference in length.

If you look at the Carsized comparison you'll see the ID.4 is about 7.5cm longer than the Tiguan and 4.4cm taller;  the width is essentially the same.  The 4.4cm taller is eaten up by the battery pack height so I suspect interior height is no better than the Tiguan.  And whilst the ID.4 is a tad longer, it will just feel roomier anyway because MEB platform cars are like that.  (MEB platform is anything in the ID.n series, as well as ID.buzz and other products.)

The ID.3 is way roomier than my Golf GTE Mk7 was, I can have the seat all the way back so front passenger has almost 2ft of space in front of them and you could still comfortably get a smaller adult in the back, but the overall dimensions of the two vehicles are nearly identical.  In a 'normal' position for the driver/passenger you get easily enough space for two 6'3" people to sit in the back which was never possible in the Golf.  This is because there is no engine and transmission up front so you sit very far forwards.  The balls of your feet rest almost against the wheel well and the wheel sits only about 12-15cm from the very front of the car.  This does have a disadvantage though: I constantly find myself parking too far forwards and have to correct.  It's hard to unlearn years of parking longer-nose cars.  I'll figure it out eventually.

https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/volkswagen-golf-2012-5-door-hatchback-vs-volkswagen-id3-2019-5-door-hatchback/

[CatalinaWOW]

ID.4 is a baby SUV, compare with something like a Tiguan/Audi Q3/etc.

I've been in a Tiguan, and I've been in an ID4. The ID4 seems a lot bigger. I don't think they are comparable. Car sizes are deceptive. We have a Honda Jazz and a Volvo V90. The V90 seems huge compared to the Jazz, yet there is less than a 25% difference in length.

That 25% works out to a meter.  If an extra meter gets allocated to the passenger compartment is would seem ocean liner spacious.   Even if the passenger compartment doesn't get it all there is plenty for a huge difference in feel.  If you are willing to accept another 25% you can get one of our American crew cab behemoths.  They do seem extremely roomy inside, even for me and my son (both well over 2 meters tall).  Of course finding parking spots, turning around and escaping the fuel pump are all far more difficult.  I am willing to be "cramped" into a somewhat smaller vehicle.

[coppice]

ID.4 is a baby SUV, compare with something like a Tiguan/Audi Q3/etc.

I've been in a Tiguan, and I've been in an ID4. The ID4 seems a lot bigger. I don't think they are comparable. Car sizes are deceptive. We have a Honda Jazz and a Volvo V90. The V90 seems huge compared to the Jazz, yet there is less than a 25% difference in length.

That 25% works out to a meter.  If an extra meter gets allocated to the passenger compartment is would seem ocean liner spacious.   Even if the passenger compartment doesn't get it all there is plenty for a huge difference in feel.  If you are willing to accept another 25% you can get one of our American crew cab behemoths.  They do seem extremely roomy inside, even for me and my son (both well over 2 meters tall).  Of course finding parking spots, turning around and escaping the fuel pump are all far more difficult.  I am willing to be "cramped" into a somewhat smaller vehicle.

If you are tall the Honda Jazz is one of the best small cars to drive.  I can thoroughly recommend them. I can't fit in many fairly large (by European standards) cars, but I can happily drive that Honda for hours.