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

[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.