EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: Dundarave on February 14, 2020, 01:34:43 am
-
Possibly I’m a complete idiot, but according to U.S. stats, in 2018 the United States alone used an average of about 391.40 million gallons of refined gasoline (or 9.32 million barrels) per day (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10 (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10))
According to Wikipedia, 33.7 kilowatt hours of electricity is equivalent to one gallon of gasoline, so the daily equivalent in gas would be 391.4 million x 33.7 kWh = 13,190 million kWh. That’s many millions of new kWh per day that would be needed to replace all the gas-powered vehicles with electric vehicles.
Even if we take into consideration that gasoline is only 20% efficient in car engines, and we assume electricity in cars is 100% efficient (which it is not), that’s still 2,638 million kWh PER DAY of new electrical generation needed to replace gasoline. Even at 10% electric vehicle penetration, that’s 263.8 million kWh per day of new generation capacity needed according to my calculations. And this is just the U.S. alone (since the stats were easily available), let alone the rest of the world.
I haven’t heard of any plans from any governments anywhere about building new capacity for electrical power to replace the energy currently supplied by automobile gasoline, except a few wind generator farms and solar power road experiments (lol). Am I missing something completely? What's going to happen to a nation's electrical demand when the adoption of electric vehicles gets beyond the novelty stage?
-
.... Even at 10% electric vehicle penetration, that’s 263.8 million kWh per day of new generation capacity needed according to my calculations.
https://www.power-technology.com/features/the-worlds-biggest-solar-power-plants/ (https://www.power-technology.com/features/the-worlds-biggest-solar-power-plants/)
The ten largest solar power plants in the world
Tengger Desert Solar Park, China – 1,547MW
Sweihan Photovoltaic Independent Power Project, UAE – 1,177MW
Yanchi Ningxia Solar Park, China – 1,000MW
Datong Solar Power Top Runner Base, China – 1,070MW
Kurnool Ultra Mega Solar Park, India – 1,000MW
Longyangxia Dam Solar Park, China – 850MW
Enel Villanueva PV Plant, Mexico – 828MW
Kamuthi Solar Power Station, India – 648MW
Solar Star Projects, US – 579MW
Topaz Solar Farm / Desert Sunlight Solar Farm, US – 550MW
Example of 850 megawatts one.
(https://i2.wp.com/solarfeeds.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/rsz_solar-energy-system-panels-power-cells-farms-pr52k9e.png?fit=800%2C534&ssl=1)
-
The Palo Verde nuclear power plant in Arizona is the largest nuclear power plant in the United States with three reactors and a total net summer electricity generating capacity of about 3,937 MW.
-
A lot of gas is spent idling in traffic. Ideally the efficiency of an electric will mean little to no electricity usage when standing still. Regenerative breaking should help also provide a bit of boost. Most of the energy will go directly into movement and not lost as heat or just keeping the engine idling. Still it is a lot of electricity but better than burning fossil fuels... it should come from clean energy as much as possible (hydroelectric, wind and solar would be most ideal).
Also one thing we need to change drastically is the size of vehicles and materials used. Smaller cars, lighter materials. A lot of waste in single-occupancy vehicles going to and from work. As much as carpooling helps, most people will still be lone drivers. Yes I know safety and all... but something the size of a smart car for daily commuting and cheap as possible so many people can afford to have one. Then have a larger sedan or mini SUV for family trips.
Then there's Twike:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twike (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twike)
(https://assets.newatlas.com/dims4/default/76b6656/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1139x640+0+0/resize/1200x674!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.newatlas.com%2Farchive%2Ftwike-5-pedal-assist-car-1.jpg)
It is going to take more than just electric cars... we need to solve congestion and parking issues as well, perhaps graduated working schedule start and end times, more telecommuting, changing urban sprawl and development. The future needs better planning and modifying our behaviours.
-
"At the upper reaches of our atmosphere, the energy density of solar radiation is approximately 1,368 W/m2 (watts per square meter). At the Earth's surface, the energy density is reduced to approximately 1,000 W/m2 for a surface perpendicular to the Sun's rays at sea level on a clear day."
The future is up to you :-)
-
The future needs better planning and modifying our behaviours.
When? The problem is right here right now. If you really look at the actual problem closely then there is only one conclusion: electric cars aren't the solution. EVs hinge on the pipe dream that one day (nobody knows when) we have renewable electricity which gets stored overnight in batteries made from unicorn dust. And Toyota already knows that; they have no plans to produce EVs (cars with battery + electric motor) at all. Instead they go for hybrids and (longer term) hydrogen. Toyota had it right when they introduced the hybrid car. At this moment the key is to switch to hybrids ASAP in order to reduce CO2 emissions and harmful pollution. Hybrids are affordable technology which doesn't need a massive investment in new infrastructure. In the EU car manufacturers will get a fine if they don't meet CO2 emissions limits. As a result the car manufacturers are franticly focussing on hybrids (one after another get introduced) and not so much on electric cars. They can't make enough EVs due to battery material shortage even if they could get them sold in large enough numbers. Not to mention there is more and more evidence that EVs cause more polution with the current sources of electricity. A recent German study shows that an EV causes more harmfull polution like Sulphur and NOx (based on the German electricity mix) compared to a hybrid.
All in all: a good & extremely simple step forward would be that more countries make inefficient cars more expensive to buy and to produce. That has a way bigger effect on CO2 emissions compared to putting a few EVs on the road.
-
I charge my Tesla 100% with my solar electric system.
-
What about all the electric energy to drill, extract, transport and refine a gallon of gasoline? That must be quite a lot and could be used for charging.
-
Problem is NOT making it.
Problem is the last mile distribution to the consumer. To ALL and EVERY SINGLE citizen.
Unlike internet access, you cannot use "smarter" signaling and cables (optical) to push more capacity.
You need physical copper and lots of it. And also many many many more transformer stations (or DC converters for DC distribution). In many places you simply wouldn't have place to put it..
Amount of infrastructure needed to be built (generation and distribution) would multiply price of electricity to the point that even expensive gasoline in EU (compared to USA prices) would be cheap.
In Croatia charging is now free. Next year they are planning to start charging for electricity. Few people I know that have EV are trying to get rid of it. You pay price premium for a car, and now you will pay for the mileage too..
-
A lot of gas is spent idling in traffic.
In a modern car, idling uses less than 10 ml/minute, even without auto start/stop.
-
The immediate issue is distribution at street level.
A few Teslas on a street, each charging at say 20kW (which itself needs an upgraded feed to the house, probably 3 phase) and the transformer at the end of the street will blow up :) So there is no way EV will work for serious commuters.
EVs will work for little cars doing short journeys, and a lot of people do that. What we don't know is how many people are willing to limit themselves to a little runabout vehicle, with little or no heating or aircon, when everything suggests people want the opposite. They could also run a big car like a Tesla but again only if they don't drive it much.
And modern diesels are really efficient. A VW Golf will do nearly 70mpg on a long run and amazingly averages over 50 in slow moving traffic. I never saw that in my petrol days; 10mpg in traffic was normal. When you get to the stage when you are filling up the tank only once a month, the case for getting rid of it is exactly zero.
-
Solar, wind, fossil and nuclear.
Even burning coal to make electricity is way more efficient than burning gas in your car.
The state of the art commercially operating coal generator has around 47.6% efficiency, and the average is around 40%, which is way higher than 31% in gas engines.
But it isn't. It is a very common misconception. Coal typically sits at 1000gr/CO2 per kWh electricity. Use that for an EV and the EV will produce about 200gr CO2/km (plus a shitload of NOx and SO which is the stuff that kills you). An efficient hybrid emits less than 100gr/CO2 per km (without taking addition of bio-fuels into account) AND emits almost no SO2 (even in China where <10ppm Sulphur content in fuel is mandatory) and several times less NOx.
BTW: This website has some very interesting numbers on how car makers are (not) on track to meet the EU CO2 emissions targets: https://www.paconsulting.com/insights/2019/co2-emissions-are-increasing/ (https://www.paconsulting.com/insights/2019/co2-emissions-are-increasing/). Toyota is the only manufacturer which is on target. The rest is way off. And to give an idea of how little impact EVs have on CO2 emissions: In 2019 EVs had a 12% market share in the Netherlands and yet the average CO2 emission per new car went up instead of down. In 2015 the average new car (sold in the NL) emitted 105gr CO2 per km; in 2019 that has increased to 117gr CO2/km. And this is under the false assumption EVs don't emit any CO2 so the actual number is much higher. To me it is very clear that car manufacturers have -yet again- been succesful at lobbying to allow a 'solution' which doesn't work out. Fortunately the EU has been clever enough to set emission limits. The Netherlands even went a step further with an extra sales tax based on CO2 emission so inefficient cars are more expensive to buy.
-
According to Wikipedia, 33.7 kilowatt hours of electricity is equivalent to one gallon of gasoline, so the daily equivalent in gas would be 391.4 million x 33.7 kWh = 13,190 million kWh. That’s many millions of new kWh per day that would be needed to replace all the gas-powered vehicles with electric vehicles.
"Needed"? How about changing our lifestyle. Start by decentralising and stop consuming so much.
-
According to Wikipedia, 33.7 kilowatt hours of electricity is equivalent to one gallon of gasoline, so the daily equivalent in gas would be 391.4 million x 33.7 kWh = 13,190 million kWh. That’s many millions of new kWh per day that would be needed to replace all the gas-powered vehicles with electric vehicles.
"Needed"? How about changing our lifestyle. Start by decentralising and stop consuming so much.
It is too late for that. The problem is that good jobs are near cities so prices of houses went up astronomically. This means that both partners of a family need to work because you can't afford housing from a single income. In turn this leads to finding a home somewhere close (but never optimal) to both companies where the jobs are so the commute isn't too far. A lot has to do with planning. The city I live in is relatively young (I'm older) and instead of having industry at the edge of the city the industrial/commcercial areas are mixed with the housing areas so -in theory- people can have a short commute.
-
There has been a lot of new developments in making better and especially cheaper solar panels with acceptable efficiency.
So I imagine it's going to become a no-brainer to put solar panels on the roof of most buildings within the next 10 years.
Even if you don't feed onto the grid, being able to charge your electric car from it makes a ton of sense. (using powerwall or other intermediate storage unit)
Even in situations where solar panels are currently not considered due to not getting a lot of sun.
The economics/feasibility can quickly change if the price drops to 1/3.
Imagine being able to inkjet print solar cells onto a material. The price could potentially fall an order of magnitude once the technology full matures. That's probably more like 20 years away but 5-10 years is enough for a considerable price drop that makes it normal to have panels on your roof.
There's a reason Tesla is working on their powerwall and solarroof products.
-
Most of the energy will go directly into movement and not lost as heat or just keeping the engine idling.
Well, that "lost energy" is the reason why you're not freezing... And since EVs don't provide that kind of losses you have to convert your limited supply of electrical energy into heat, draining your battery even faster. Sure, that problem doesn't occur in california, but here in europe it's a different story.
Or to quote one of my friends who develops eletric heaters for EVs: "You can either park in a warm car or drive a cold one."
-
The immediate issue is distribution at street level.
Agreed. It needs handling, but there is a lot of work in progress on that, specifically on optimising the use of existing infrastructure (cables, transformers, etc.). Some upgrading is inevitable, but there is time to do it.
A few Teslas on a street, each charging at say 20kW (which itself needs an upgraded feed to the house, probably 3 phase) and the transformer at the end of the street will blow up :) So there is no way EV will work for serious commuters.
20 kW home charging is neither necessary nor desirable. Even serious commuters are going to spend at least 12 hours at home, and in the UK are unlikely to be travelling much more than a 200 mile round-trip daily. Something like 60 kWh should be enough for that commute, and a bog standard 7 kW single phase charger will manage that in 9 hours or so. Yes some people travel further regularly, but it is uncommon (here) and there are solutions to do it with EVs.
We did make a mistake in the UK in giving domestic consumers high-current single-phase supplies rather than modest 3-phase ones like most of Europe. That piece of history is going to bite us, but at least we didn't standardise on 110/220 split phase. That brings in all sorts of excitement when you try to combine it with three phase.
EVs will work for little cars doing short journeys, and a lot of people do that. What we don't know is how many people are willing to limit themselves to a little runabout vehicle, with little or no heating or aircon, when everything suggests people want the opposite. They could also run a big car like a Tesla but again only if they don't drive it much.
Vast swathes of UK households own two or more cars, where at least one is only ever used as a short distance runabout. People who never drive far buy long-range vehicles for the corner cases, stuff like long distance holidays and so on. Very few actually need more than one such vehicle. Bear in mind that the 2013/14 average commute distance in the UK was 8.8 miles - much of the car owning population just don't drive very far.
I am not really sure where you've got the idea you can't have much heating or air con. Yes, it impacts range a bit but so what - I have been known to turn the heating/AC off on my EV to eek a few extra miles out but it's the exception rather than the norm (and I have done it on petrol vehicles too, heating might be "free" but AC has a noticeable fuel cost). Heating wise EVs behave like any other modern car with climate control except you don't need the engine running or to wait for 150 kg of cast iron to heat up before you can demist. The only thing you can't do is whack everything up to the max and expect it to blast in 10+ kW of raw heat like you might do in a leaky 1980s car to try and dry out the footwells.
And modern diesels are really efficient. A VW Golf will do nearly 70mpg on a long run and amazingly averages over 50 in slow moving traffic. I never saw that in my petrol days; 10mpg in traffic was normal. When you get to the stage when you are filling up the tank only once a month, the case for getting rid of it is exactly zero.
The financial case maybe, though that depends rather on the price of a tank. The environmental case, both from a local air quality perspective and from a wider CO2 emissions one certainly doesn't drop to zero. Air quality in my city is awful, and modern diesels are a major contributor.
-
The immediate issue is distribution at street level.
Agreed. It needs handling, but there is a lot of work in progress on that, specifically on optimising the use of existing infrastructure (cables, transformers, etc.). Some upgrading is inevitable, but there is time to do it.
There is no time to do an EV transition in order to meet the goals of the Paris agreement. That is the whole kicker!
On average a 100% transition to EVs will need about 25% extra generation capacity. Most countries are already struggling to get to a significant amount of renewable electricity for the current electricity consumption. Let alone that consumption increases by 25%. On top of that there will also be a higher demand for electricity for heating as well in countries which are (traditionally) using natural gas to heat homes and need to switch to heat pumps. Over here politicians bring up nuclear power regulary.
And nobody knows for sure whether the investment in EV infrastructure pays off. What if bio-fuels and/or hydrogen turn out to be better alternatives (Toyota seems to believ they are) or batteries become so good you only need superchargers and 'charging at the doorstep' becomes a thing of the past.
-
that’s 263.8 million kWh per day of new generation capacity needed according to my calculations.
The generation capacity is there already, but only in off peak hours.
-
There is no time to do an EV transition in order to meet the goals of the Paris agreement. That is the whole kicker!
The infrastructure has to meet the actual requirements of the cars on the roads, which are growing fairly slowly. Yes we could do with a more rapid transition, but the cables in the street only need to power the cars that actually exist rather than the ones we wish existed.
On average a 100% transition to EVs will need about 25% extra generation capacity. Most countries are already struggling to get to a significant amount of renewable electricity for the current electricity consumption. Let alone that consumption increases by 25%. On top of that there will also be a higher demand for electricity for heating as well in countries which are (traditionally) using natural gas to heat homes and need to switch to heat pumps. Over here politicians bring up nuclear power regulary.
Personally I distribution as the bigger technical challenge but generation is still important. Note the current large different between peak and average demand and corresponding poor utilisation of the generation assets - we have sufficient powerstations to provide peaks at weekdays 5pm in midwinter, and then at all other times we don't run them all. That's good to some extent because some of the ones we use to handle the peaks are very polluting, but there is a significant amount of capacity available outside of peak times.
Nuclear inevitably has to be a part of the generation, especially in the short-medium term. It's main problems are political rather than engineering, something it seems to share with on-shore wind.
And nobody knows for sure whether the investment in EV infrastructure pays off. What if bio-fuels and/or hydrogen turn out to be better alternatives (Toyota seems to believ they are) or batteries become so good you only need superchargers and 'charging at the doorstep' becomes a thing of the past.
These things are possible but in my opinion unlikely. All investment has risks.
Biofuels need land area, fertilisers, etc. and compete with resources for food crops. I suspect they will be part of the solution, but the quantity available will be limited so they will get used on the things most difficult to do without energy dense liquid fuels, aviation perhaps.
Hydrogen is a bugger to store and not that efficient to create. In fact it's such a pain to store and transport that the best approach is probably to stick it to some carbon atoms. Electrolytically produced hydrogen + carbon from biofuels to create synthetic propane for instance, about the most hydrogen-rich thing that will sensibly liquefy.
If batteries became that good, why would people (the subset with driveways at least) not want to charge at home?
-
There is no time to do an EV transition in order to meet the goals of the Paris agreement. That is the whole kicker!
The infrastructure has to meet the actual requirements of the cars on the roads, which are growing fairly slowly. Yes we could do with a more rapid transition, but the cables in the street only need to power the cars that actually exist rather than the ones we wish existed.
You are missing the point. The goal is to reduce CO2 emissions short term. It is clear EVs aren't going to help with that. By the looks of it there are better ways to achieve the goals quickly. So where does that leave EVs? Some are calling EVs a temporary solution.
Biofuels need land area, fertilisers, etc. and compete with resources for food crops. I suspect they will be part of the solution, but the quantity available will be limited so they will get used on the things most difficult to do without energy dense liquid fuels, aviation perhaps.
That is old thinking. There is a new breed of bio-fuels slowly but steadily taking over: the kind that is made from the parts of the plants we don't eat. So instead of competing with food production these bio-fuels help make food production cheaper because more of the plants is used. From many plants only the seeds get eaten and the rest of the plant is discarded. The conversion process (even though it basically comes down to brewing beer and distilling it) isn't easy but a few companies have cracked this problem and are currently running industrial scale factories.
And I don't see why hydrogen causes big problems. It is already used widely in the industry so transport and storage are solved problems. Toyota just introduced an updated version of their Mirai hydrogen car. If you compare hydrogen transport and storage to that of electricity then hydrogen is cheaper and easier. Australia with their large deserts and stable political climate would be ideal for a massive solar to hydrogen industry. Hydrogen can be transported using ships around the world. You can't do that with electricity; you need to generate and store that locally. I've seen a report about Germany which states a hydrogen infrastructure is 4 times cheaper compared to that for electric vehicles. Also China is investing a lot in hydrogen lately because EVs aren't cutting it.
If batteries became that good, why would people (the subset with driveways at least) not want to charge at home?
Depends on where you are but in the Netherlands 70% of the households doesn't have a driveway. 30% of the homes in the west part of Belgium doesn't have a mains connection which is suitable to charge an EV (something to do with split phase). Also why would you want to plug in your car every day if you can fill it up once a week (or even less) at a supercharger? In the end the reason is the same where it comes to putting fuel in your car. Do you want to mess around with it at home? What if you have two cars but only one driveway? You want to go out of bed every night to swap the cars around. And not to forget that batteries may need active cooling/heating while charging which is likely to cause noise due to pumps and fans running. Some Tesla owners are not happy with the noise the car makes while it is charging outside. These are the little details which are often overlooked.
-
You are missing the point. The goal is to reduce CO2 emissions short term. It is clear EVs aren't going to help with that. By the looks of it there are better ways to achieve the goals quickly. So where does that leave EVs? Some are calling EVs a temporary solution.
It leaves them as a partial solution to a big problem, a problem that if we manage to solve it will be done by many such partial solutions. They are also quite nice cars to drive, and an excellent solution to local air quality problems.
The real problem is that vast numbers of people have gotten used to a massively energy intensive lifestyle, and trying to change that in a short enough timeframe is doomed to failure. As a result we need to find some way to to support that energy intensive lifestyle with lesser CO2 emissions.
Biofuels need land area, fertilisers, etc. and compete with resources for food crops. I suspect they will be part of the solution, but the quantity available will be limited so they will get used on the things most difficult to do without energy dense liquid fuels, aviation perhaps.
That is old thinking. There is a new breed of bio-fuels slowly but steadily taking over: the kind that is made from the parts of the plants we don't eat. So instead of competing with food production these bio-fuels help make food production cheaper because more of the plants is used. From many plants only the seeds get eaten and the rest of the plant is discarded. The conversion process (even though it basically comes down to brewing beer and distilling it) isn't easy but a few companies have cracked this problem and are currently running industrial scale factories.
I agree progress is being made but it is far from a solved problem to do on sufficient scale, with acceptable levels of external energy input, and whilst keeping a closed nutrient cycle (waste parts of food crops are normally ploughed back into the soil). Another partial solution just like EVs, and if you are going to have a mix of EVs and biofuels it makes sense to use the biofuels where the energy density is essential.
And I don't see why hydrogen causes big problems. It is already used widely in the industry so transport and storage are solved problems.
High pressure hydrogen has a low energy density and low specific energy when you include the weight of the containers.
Cryogenic hydrogen is much better in that regard but is still a long way off liquid hydrocarbons because even liquid cryogenic H2 isn't very dense. It's clearly the best option for bulk transport but it scales poorly because small tanks have a lot of surface area compared to their volume so boil-off becomes a problem.
Last time I looked most H2 cars were using metal hydrides as storage. That keeps the pressures more sensible but again it eats into specific energy. It is probably the only practical solution for vehicles, but is totally different technology from that used in industry which seems to be high-pressure for small quantities and cryogenic for large ones.
If batteries became that good, why would people (the subset with driveways at least) not want to charge at home?
Depends on where you are but in the Netherlands 70% of the households doesn't have a driveway. 30% of the homes in the west part of Belgium doesn't have a mains connection which is suitable to charge an EV (something to do with split phase).
Again, it's a partial solution that's not applicable to everyone, that doesn't make it suitable for no-one. Note that the Belgium problem is essentially a solvable mixture of engineering and paperwork - the 220 V phase-phase delta system is just a bit oddball and sufficiently niche that charger standards and car manufacturers don't account for it (many cars would charge from it just fine, but it upsets things like safety interlocks if they're not designed to expect it).
Also why would you want to plug in your car every day if you can fill it up once a week (or even less) at a supercharger? In the end the reason is the same where it comes to putting fuel in your car. Do you want to mess around with it at home? What if you have two cars but only one driveway? You want to go out of bed every night to swap the cars around. And not to forget that batteries may need active cooling/heating while charging which is likely to cause noise due to pumps and fans running. Some Tesla owners are not happy with the noise the car makes while it is charging outside. These are the little details which are often overlooked.
Personally I love that I don't have to go to a petrol station when I drive my girlfriend's EV (our main car), it feels like such a pain now when I have to go out of my way to fill up my petrol car, or queue or worry about petrol station opening times. If we're talking about a car that only needs charging once a week then why would you swap the cars over every night? A need for heating and cooling is associated with high power charging which I am not convinced is needed for home charging.
-
From a UK perspective switching ALL private transport to electric would require approximately 20% more electricity generation.
An EV uses energy about 4~5x more efficiently than a gasoline vehicle. In addition we have around 15% "spare" capacity at any one time (our electricity usage is dominated by a winter peak which is driven by resistive heating in off grid homes).
It will require new power generation but certainly nothing more than a few power plants (but hopefully renewable energy plants).
One benefit that is not often classified is that EVs can draw energy when there is an excess of supply - e.g. a smart charger could supply an EV when renewable plants would otherwise have to shut down to avoid oversupply conditions. A colleague of mine charges his EV on night time electricity where the price can often be less than 1p/kWh. He shifts demand away from the evening peak where possible. Home solar systems can also be configured to send a "start charging" command to a car when more sun is available than can be absorbed by other loads in the home, and the Type2 standard supports variable charge current from 5 ~ 32A single phase, with the car reducing current within 10 seconds of the command being issued, allowing the ebb and flow of solar energy to be precisely tracked.
-
Australia with their large deserts and stable political climate would be ideal for a massive solar to hydrogen industry.
For some weird reason large deserts are not ideal sources of hydrogen. :palm:
You also completely contradict yourself. You literally just said massive areas for solar are impractical, now they are? As we have seen many times before, the lack of consistency and logic in your arguments seems like trolling.
-
Australia with their large deserts and stable political climate would be ideal for a massive solar to hydrogen industry.
For some weird reason large deserts are not ideal sources of hydrogen. :palm:
You also completely contradict yourself. You literally just said massive areas for solar are impractical, now they are?
Where did I ever state massive areas for solar are impractical? I didn't. In densely populated areas solar is expensive due to land costs (so economic viability becomes an issue) and you'll still need the storage as well. Also solar panels work much better in areas with a lot of sun close to the equator. This automatically translates to areas where they have large deserts. Australia is a very good choice both geographically and politically. Put a solar farm in a desert, transport the electricity to a harbour where it can be converted to hydrogen using sea water and use the same seawater to float a big tanker which can then take the hydrogen whereever it needs to go (the tanker itself can be powered by hydrogen as well). This is not a solution for today but it can be in say 5 to 15 years from now.
You can't deny solar and wind need massive amounts of land area and in some places land is scarce. So a solution which allows to take energy from one place to another may turn out to be more economical compared to generating all electricity locally.
-
A few Teslas on a street, each charging at say 20kW (which itself needs an upgraded feed to the house, probably 3 phase) and the transformer at the end of the street will blow up :) So there is no way EV will work for serious commuters.
I have just bought a Tesla Model 3. Installed a 7 kW charger on my house. Park my car in front and plug in each night. It takes about 4 hours to charge the car for my commute each day. Total commute distance, just under 100 miles.
Before I bought it, I calculated that I could plug into an ordinary 3 pin outlet and it would charge the car although I would have to start charging as soon as I get home.
If I have gone to see my reletives (150 miles each way) plugging the 3 pin overnight certainly gets enough range to get home again comfortably.
[edit]
I saw an interview with a representative from some electrical generation company. They noted that the total demand on the grid in the UK had gone down over the last decade or so. The estimates of the total power EVs would use would push it back up to where it was then, so there would be no issue with the distribuition. The use of smart charging to regulate the demand could be used to flatten the peaks in the demand.
I think that interview was at Fully Charged Live last year, but I can't find it with a quick look.
-
This is such a non-issue that grid-load-sensitive charging is on a slow development cycle.
Most residential EV charging already happens overnight, when the rates and load are lowest.
We have both solar and EVs. Our net energy use is still positive, but we are providing power to the grid during peak times rather than being part of the load as we were five years ago. Chopping off the peaks and filling the valleys is a huge benefit to the power grid, and it's happening widely enough to eliminate the need for infrastructure expansion.
-
I haven’t heard of any plans from any governments anywhere about building new capacity for electrical power to replace the energy currently supplied by automobile gasoline,
Probably because there isn't any. What makes you think that governments have long-term plans for everything? ;D (or for anything)
Maybe it'll all come from the Moon or something, given how getting there again is becoming a thing.
Jokes aside, there are a few hints already to partially answer your question: if electric vehicles become the norm (which is likely at this point, although not 100% certain), it's very likely that a lot fewer people will own individual vehicles, so the overall energy consumption for transport should decrease. This is rather sad, knowing that individual transport was an essential tool of individual freedom (IMO), but this trend is already there. So if there is any "plan" (which I don't think there is, at least not any precise plan), I think it's probably this: drastically decreasing the use of individual transport over time. That may not be something many of us want to hear, but yeah. If it's not an actual plan, it will just be a natural consequence.
-
This is such a non-issue that grid-load-sensitive charging is on a slow development cycle.
Welll... as it happens an article got published today saying that the public charging points in Amsterdam are providing less power between 18:00 and 21:00 to prevent overloading the grid. And this is with just a handful of electric cars.
-
This is such a non-issue that grid-load-sensitive charging is on a slow development cycle.
Welll... as it happens an article got published today saying that the public charging points in Amsterdam are providing less power between 18:00 and 21:00 to prevent overloading the grid. And this is with just a handful of electric cars.
Of course. Most grids already get easily overloaded during winter at some hours due to heating, and in summer due to air conditioning. This isn't going to get any better if we draw even more power without adding significant production. How can anyone deny that? ::)
-
This is such a non-issue that grid-load-sensitive charging is on a slow development cycle.
Welll... as it happens an article got published today saying that the public charging points in Amsterdam are providing less power between 18:00 and 21:00 to prevent overloading the grid. And this is with just a handful of electric cars.
Of course. Most grids already get easily overloaded during winter at some hours due to heating, and in summer due to air conditioning. This isn't going to get any better if we draw even more power without adding significant production. How can anyone deny that? ::)
Well... in Amsterdam most homes are heated with natural gas. And this is not a production problem but a distribution (wiring) problem.
-
It is always amusing to see people running numbers and so forth to show how something just won't be practical when in fact some of us have been doing it for years. Here in SoCal, EVs and solar power work just fine and it doesn't seem likely that there will be any need for infrastructure changes to accommodate future EV growth. I fully understand the problems faced in other areas related to grid capacity, climate, space, etc. EVs won't work everywhere for everybody--but they don't have to. The answer to the OPs question is that EV adoption is likely to take several decades and even then won't be a 100% conversion. There will be plenty of time to make changes if they are necessary.
As for the exact source of the extra power, the easiest solution is to use the excess overnight capacity that exists almost everywhere. That alone will suffice for any imaginable EV expansion here for quite some time.
-
"Needed"? How about changing our lifestyle. Start by decentralising and stop consuming so much.
Capitalism creates discipline and I don't think we can abandon it on the scale needed without falling into chaos, especially in a democracy. Continuing civilization for much longer is turning out to be an intractable problem and climate change is the least of the worries.
-
The immediate issue is distribution at street level.
A few Teslas on a street, each charging at say 20kW (which itself needs an upgraded feed to the house, probably 3 phase) and the transformer at the end of the street will blow up :) So there is no way EV will work for serious commuters.
20kW charging is really unusual for domestic EV charging. My PHEV has a 16A charger, i.e. 3.6kW. A bigger pure-EV car might have a 7.2kW onboard charger; some cars have 16A 3ph chargers which support up to 11kW but as you state would need 3ph. Most EV users will be perfectly cared for by a 7.2kW supply and indeed many will be fine on a 3.6kW charger.
The average UK commute is about 20 miles, assume both ways have to be covered by EV charging then 40 miles of range will require around 10kWh of energy to provide (4 mi/kWh). That can be done in under an hour and a half on a 7kW supply and within 3 hours on a 3.6kW one.
I think it's likely we'll need spot upgrades of the DNO network in places as the assumption is generally 6kW average per home, but likely only on crowded older estates.
New UK homes are also to be built with 3 ph supply directly which should help. Old UK homes generally have 80A or 100A 1ph supply; some homes are stuck on 60/63A feeds which will likely need upgrades as 32A car chargers are installed.
EVs will work for little cars doing short journeys, and a lot of people do that. What we don't know is how many people are willing to limit themselves to a little runabout vehicle, with little or no heating or aircon, when everything suggests people want the opposite. They could also run a big car like a Tesla but again only if they don't drive it much.
Well I do try to maximise the EV-only range on my PHEV but still use heating and air con. As EVs become more commonplace they will start to look and drive more like normal cars. Cars like the e-208/Corsa-e and e-Golf show that manufacturers are still interested in making "normal cars that happen to be electric". Which really is what we need, not weirdmobiles like the Leaf and Peugeot iOn.
And as Tesla has shown, there's a large market for luxury/high-end vehicles that are electric.
-
I have seen arguments that the conversion to EV's will actually lower the total power consumption. This is because to refine 1 liter of gasoline, it takes between 2 .. 5 kWh of electrical power. (Numbers I found online vary wildly, unfortunately.) There are some huge power plants next to the oil refineries here on the Maasvlakte in the Netherlands, for example.
Assuming a new EV replaces an ICE car, and assuming it takes 3.5 kWh to refine 1 l of gasoline, this means that:
- The EV at (say) 150 Wh/km would go for 23.3 km on that 3.5 kWh used to refine 1 l of gasoline.
- The ICE car at (say) 7.5 l / 100 km would go for only 13.3 km on 1 l. (plus it would use the 3.5 kWh also.)
Lots of assumption here, I know. Only part of the puzzle, but interesting. I do not think that generating power for all those EV's is the problem. Distributing it and making it conveniently accessible is.
Ben
-
But how does that stack up against all the extra energy needed for the batteries of an EV? Mining and processing the materials isn't happening by itself and the energy required will need to be generated as well. Well to wheel analysis show an EV has quite a large CO2 footprint to produce.
-
This is such a non-issue that grid-load-sensitive charging is on a slow development cycle.
Welll... as it happens an article got published today saying that the public charging points in Amsterdam are providing less power between 18:00 and 21:00 to prevent overloading the grid. And this is with just a handful of electric cars.
That's my point. A fixed time schedule is *not* load sensitive. Just setting a fixed time period is good enough. There isn't a pressing need to communicate real-time load information.
The crude load-shedding (A/C and water heater off) schemes of decades past initially sounded as if they would directly apply to EV charging schedules. But they aren't really in the same category as routine EV charging, which is easily done in the middle of the night when load-shedding isn't needed.
-
This is such a non-issue that grid-load-sensitive charging is on a slow development cycle.
Welll... as it happens an article got published today saying that the public charging points in Amsterdam are providing less power between 18:00 and 21:00 to prevent overloading the grid. And this is with just a handful of electric cars.
That's my point. A fixed time schedule is *not* load sensitive. Just setting a fixed time period is good enough. There isn't a pressing need to communicate real-time load information.
No. You are making false assumptions. The public charging points in Amsterdam are dynamically / realtime configured based on the amount of energy the local grid can deliver. The 18:00 to 21:00 time frame is standard but it can be changed if necessary. And more places are going to follow simply because it is necessary.
-
But how does that stack up against all the extra energy needed for the batteries of an EV? Mining and processing the materials isn't happening by itself and the energy required will need to be generated as well. Well to wheel analysis show an EV has quite a large CO2 footprint to produce.
- You're moving the goal posts. That was not the OP's question.
- Various studies have been done on this subject, of course. I remember one by TNO (an independent research institute in the Netherlands) and the conclusion was that a battery EV had a much lower CO2 footprint during its lifecycle. It was 4 or 5 years ago, so by now it should be even better.
Edit: here is that report (only in Dutch available): http://publications.tno.nl/publication/34616575/gS20vf/TNO-2015-R10386.pdf (http://publications.tno.nl/publication/34616575/gS20vf/TNO-2015-R10386.pdf)
Ben
-
No. You are making false assumptions. The public charging points in Amsterdam are dynamically / realtime configured based on the amount of energy the local grid can deliver. The 18:00 to 21:00 time frame is standard but it can be changed if necessary. And more places are going to follow simply because it is necessary.
And that's fine. Most public AC charging is opportunity based. Charging while visiting the shops or eating at a restaurant. During which time you can put 30-50 miles of range on your car, enough for PHEV to get home, or an EV user to get to a rapid charger or reduce the time spent charging at home.
Visit a rapid charger if you want to be assured that it will charge quickly. Those will not be throttled because they are generally (at least >50kW units) connected directly to the local high voltage grid (11~33kV) which has huge excess capacity inside towns and cities.
EV use requires a different mode of thinking but once you figure it out, it really is at least as convenient if not more convenient than owning a petrol car. I haven't visited a petrol station in 1 month. I started with 5/8th of a petrol tank, now I have just under 1/2. So it should last another month until my next long trip when I will start burning petrol again. My car just charges overnight or I make sure that I can stop for an hour or two at my destinations.
-
No. You are making false assumptions. The public charging points in Amsterdam are dynamically / realtime configured based on the amount of energy the local grid can deliver. The 18:00 to 21:00 time frame is standard but it can be changed if necessary. And more places are going to follow simply because it is necessary.
And that's fine. Most public AC charging is opportunity based. Charging while visiting the shops or eating at a restaurant.
No. Not in Amsterdam where people have no private parking space at all.
-
But how does that stack up against all the extra energy needed for the batteries of an EV? Mining and processing the materials isn't happening by itself and the energy required will need to be generated as well. Well to wheel analysis show an EV has quite a large CO2 footprint to produce.
- You're moving the goal posts. That was not the OP's question.
- Various studies have been done on this subject, of course. I remember one by TNO (an independent research institute in the Netherlands) and the conclusion was that a battery EV had a much lower CO2 footprint during its lifecycle. It was 4 or 5 years ago, so by now it should be even better.
That depends entirely on how much you drive with your EV. Various well to wheel studies show you need to drive between 50k km and 225k km to break even with an EV compared to similar sized cars. The simple conclusion is that an EV isn't reducing CO2 emissions straight away. And it isn't moving goal posts entirely. EVs need to be built at some point and that does take energy as well. Apples and oranges both grow on trees.
-
But how does that stack up against all the extra energy needed for the batteries of an EV? Mining and processing the materials isn't happening by itself and the energy required will need to be generated as well. Well to wheel analysis show an EV has quite a large CO2 footprint to produce.
- You're moving the goal posts. That was not the OP's question.
- Various studies have been done on this subject, of course. I remember one by TNO (an independent research institute in the Netherlands) and the conclusion was that a battery EV had a much lower CO2 footprint during its lifecycle. It was 4 or 5 years ago, so by now it should be even better.
That depends entirely on how much you drive with your EV. Various well to wheel studies show you need to drive between 50k km and 225k km to break even with an EV compared to similar sized cars. The simple conclusion is that an EV isn't reducing CO2 emissions straight away. And it isn't moving goal posts entirely. EVs need to be built at some point and that does take energy as well. Apples and oranges both grow on trees.
The conclusion isn’t simple. Read the report I linked in my original message. It calculated the lifecycle cost.
Ben
-
No. You are making false assumptions. The public charging points in Amsterdam are dynamically / realtime configured based on the amount of energy the local grid can deliver. The 18:00 to 21:00 time frame is standard but it can be changed if necessary. And more places are going to follow simply because it is necessary.
And that's fine. Most public AC charging is opportunity based. Charging while visiting the shops or eating at a restaurant.
No. Not in Amsterdam where people have no private parking space at all.
So, problem solved, yes?
Ben
-
Visit a rapid charger if you want to be assured that it will charge quickly. Those will not be throttled because they are generally (at least >50kW units) connected directly to the local high voltage grid (11~33kV) which has huge excess capacity inside towns and cities.
They may not be throttled by the grid but they will be throttled by Tesla. I remember seeing an article Tesla said rapid charger abusers will be banned from rapid chargers.
-
The simple conclusion is that an EV isn't reducing CO2 emissions straight away. And it isn't moving goal posts entirely. EVs need to be built at some point and that does take energy as well. Apples and oranges both grow on trees.
The conclusion isn’t simple. Read the report I linked in my original message. It calculated the lifecycle cost.
The conclusion is very simple. I have read and seen various similar reports with different outcomes. But they all come down to the same conclusion albeit with a different distance to a break even point. Note that many of these reports are written towards a certain outcome so you have to take a whole bunch of them to get somewhere near the truth.
No. Not in Amsterdam where people have no private parking space at all.
So, problem solved, yes?
No. Not by a long shot. I can't read the full article because it is behind a pay-wall https://www.ad.nl/auto/vermogen-elektrische-laadpalen-omlaag-anders-stad-op-zwart~a1878199/ (https://www.ad.nl/auto/vermogen-elektrische-laadpalen-omlaag-anders-stad-op-zwart~a1878199/) but it says in the headline that one EV equals to 10 households where it comes to electricity consumption. That is far worse than I expected.
-
No. You are making false assumptions. The public charging points in Amsterdam are dynamically / realtime configured based on the amount of energy the local grid can deliver. The 18:00 to 21:00 time frame is standard but it can be changed if necessary. And more places are going to follow simply because it is necessary.
And that's fine. Most public AC charging is opportunity based. Charging while visiting the shops or eating at a restaurant. During which time you can put 30-50 miles of range on your car, enough for PHEV to get home, or an EV user to get to a rapid charger or reduce the time spent charging at home.
Visit a rapid charger if you want to be assured that it will charge quickly. Those will not be throttled because they are generally (at least >50kW units) connected directly to the local high voltage grid (11~33kV) which has huge excess capacity inside towns and cities.
EV use requires a different mode of thinking but once you figure it out, it really is at least as convenient if not more convenient than owning a petrol car. I haven't visited a petrol station in 1 month. I started with 5/8th of a petrol tank, now I have just under 1/2. So it should last another month until my next long trip when I will start burning petrol again. My car just charges overnight or I make sure that I can stop for an hour or two at my destinations.
Dont bother with realistic/generallised arguments that electric cars work for the majority of people. nctnico will endlessly come up with corner cases and "positions" that cannot be solved. As above:
EVs won't work everywhere for everybody--but they don't have to. The answer to the OPs question is that EV adoption is likely to take several decades and even then won't be a 100% conversion. There will be plenty of time to make changes if they are necessary.
-
The simple conclusion is that an EV isn't reducing CO2 emissions straight away. And it isn't moving goal posts entirely. EVs need to be built at some point and that does take energy as well. Apples and oranges both grow on trees.
The conclusion isn’t simple. Read the report I linked in my original message. It calculated the lifecycle cost.
The conclusion is very simple. I have read and seen various similar reports with different outcomes. But they all come down to the same conclusion albeit with a different distance to a break even point. Note that many of these reports are written towards a certain outcome so you have to take a whole bunch of them to get somewhere near the truth.
Again, not comparing break-even but total lifecycle. Break even doesn’t matter. (And will only get better.)
No. Not in Amsterdam where people have no private parking space at all.
So, problem solved, yes?
No. Not by a long shot. I can't read the full article because it is behind a pay-wall https://www.ad.nl/auto/vermogen-elektrische-laadpalen-omlaag-anders-stad-op-zwart~a1878199/ (https://www.ad.nl/auto/vermogen-elektrische-laadpalen-omlaag-anders-stad-op-zwart~a1878199/) but it says in the headline that one EV equals to 10 households where it comes to electricity consumption. That is far worse than I expected.
That article is based on a press statement from elaad.nl, a company selling these smart charging solutions. If you searched for 5 seconds you would have found the original press release here: https://www.elaad.nl/news/persbericht-innovatie-maakt-laadpalen-sociaal-en-voorkomt-stroomstoringen/ (https://www.elaad.nl/news/persbericht-innovatie-maakt-laadpalen-sociaal-en-voorkomt-stroomstoringen/)
(F)Actual data is is totally absent. I did find some numbers elsewhere for average yearly household use in the Netherlands though: 2830 kWh. A car drives on average around 15000 km/y, so that’s around 2250 kWh. So the numbers are similar and do not differ by an order of magnitude. On average.
Ben
-
I have seen arguments that the conversion to EV's will actually lower the total power consumption. This is because to refine 1 liter of gasoline, it takes between 2 .. 5 kWh of electrical power. (Numbers I found online vary wildly, unfortunately.) There are some huge power plants next to the oil refineries here on the Maasvlakte in the Netherlands, for example.
Assuming a new EV replaces an ICE car, and assuming it takes 3.5 kWh to refine 1 l of gasoline, this means that:
Lots of assumption here, I know. Only part of the puzzle, but interesting. I do not think that generating power for all those EV's is the problem. Distributing it and making it conveniently accessible is.
This is wildly out, well to pump efficiencies of petroleum are around 80% and upwards, much of the energy to drive that process is "waste" byproducts of the process its self. You could make a pure electricity equivalent but that falls into the same trap as the car powered by petrol vs person walking powered by imported high emboldened energy foodstuff that happens to use a lot of petrol. Power plants co-located with refineries are because there is a large stream of low value/cost oil (by)products.
-
I have seen arguments that the conversion to EV's will actually lower the total power consumption. This is because to refine 1 liter of gasoline, it takes between 2 .. 5 kWh of electrical power. (Numbers I found online vary wildly, unfortunately.) There are some huge power plants next to the oil refineries here on the Maasvlakte in the Netherlands, for example.
Assuming a new EV replaces an ICE car, and assuming it takes 3.5 kWh to refine 1 l of gasoline, this means that:
Lots of assumption here, I know. Only part of the puzzle, but interesting. I do not think that generating power for all those EV's is the problem. Distributing it and making it conveniently accessible is.
This is wildly out, well to pump efficiencies of petroleum are around 80% and upwards, much of the energy to drive that process is "waste" byproducts of the process its self. You could make a pure electricity equivalent but that falls into the same trap as the car powered by petrol vs person walking powered by imported high emboldened energy foodstuff that happens to use a lot of petrol. Power plants co-located with refineries are because there is a large stream of low value/cost oil (by)products.
Not sure we're talking about the same thing? The power plants I mentioned are needed to power the refineries. Some are coal powered, some natural gas. Not byproducts of the process at all.
Ben
-
(F)Actual data is is totally absent. I did find some numbers elsewhere for average yearly household use in the Netherlands though: 2830 kWh. A car drives on average around 15000 km/y, so that’s around 2250 kWh. So the numbers are similar and do not differ by an order of magnitude. On average.
You don't understand the problem at all. This has nothing to do with averages but peak demand. The grid in a street is designed for a domestic load. This means that they fit a street with a transformer and wiring which is enough to feed all the homes at peak demand with some margin. Add some big extra loads and you'll see that the wiring can't handle the total load while the homes are at peak demand. Something has got to give. Even on the elaad.nl website it says 1 EVs is equal to the (peak) demand of 10 homes. The real challenge is to do the math to determine at what point the wiring is not enough to charge all EVs parked in a street sufficiently.
-
(F)Actual data is is totally absent. I did find some numbers elsewhere for average yearly household use in the Netherlands though: 2830 kWh. A car drives on average around 15000 km/y, so that’s around 2250 kWh. So the numbers are similar and do not differ by an order of magnitude. On average.
You don't understand the problem at all. This has nothing to do with averages but peak demand. The grid in a street is designed for a domestic load. This means that they fit a street with a transformer and wiring which is enough to feed all the homes at peak demand with some margin. Now when all the homes are near maximum usage the margin gets thinner. Now add some big extra loads and you'll see that the wiring can't handle the total load. Something has got to give. Even on the elaad.nl website it says 1 EVs are equal to the demand of 10 homes. The real problem is to do the math to determine at what point the wiring is not enough to charge all EVs parked in a street sufficiently.
As it says in the original AD article, peak demand is between 17.00 and 21.00h. No need for all cars to be charged during that time, and that is exactly the solution elaad.nl is promoting. Which has been talked about for years, smart charging, smart metering, it's nothing new. Investments in infra structure will have to be made, for sure, but it is nothing the grid cannot handle.
Ben
-
More on smart metering for EV's: I thought I'd do a little spreadsheet test to see how this works out with some data from the Netherlands. See attached image.
[attach=1]
Netherlands average daily energy use w/o EV's is now ca. 8 kWh. I put in some guestimates how this is divided up over the day. This gave a peak power of 0.8 kW. So to keep everyone happy, adding an EV to this household should not increase peak power at any time. This leaves around 4.5 kWh of charge for the car, which is a range of 30 km. Average daily km here is around 40 km so it falls a bit short. But this is not an order of magnitude problem.
Ben
-
Not enough is not enough. Also your calculation leaves zero margin and you accounted for only 1 car per household. At some point changing / expanding the wiring in the streets will be required. The costs for this operation will mostly be driven by the amount of labour involved so it doesn't really matter how big the problem is. It is going to be costly.
-
Not enough is not enough. At some point changing / expanding the wiring in the street will be required.
Oh please, that has been happening for the last 100 years. Plus, the average house around here has a 240 V 16 A 3 phase main fuses. (25 A optional for free.) That's 11.5 kW. Don't you think there's some overcapacity in the grid, compared to the 0.8 kW peak power in the spreadsheet I showed. Just the other week, the power co was increasing the power available here in the street. (A distribution box is in front of my house so I had a chat with them.) You know what they did? Upgraded the fuses in the distribution box.
The costs for this operation will mostly be driven by the amount of labour involved.
Ya think?
Ben
-
Not enough is not enough. At some point changing / expanding the wiring in the street will be required.
Oh please, that has been happening for the last 100 years. Plus, the average house around here has a 240 V 16 A 3 phase main fuses. (25 A optional for free.) That's 11.5 kW. Don't you think there's some overcapacity in the grid, compared to the 0.8 kW peak power in the spreadsheet I showed. Just the other week, the power co was increasing the power available here in the street. (A distribution box is in front of my house so I had a chat with them.) You know what they did? Upgraded the fuses in the distribution box.
See my last edit. You only accounted for 1 car per household and your calculation leaves zero margin. Being able to upgrade the fuses is just anecdotal evidence. If it where so easy they wouldn't need to resort to limiting the power in Amsterdam for handling just a few EVs.
-
You don't understand the problem at all. This has nothing to do with averages but peak demand. The grid in a street is designed for a domestic load. This means that they fit a street with a transformer and wiring which is enough to feed all the homes at peak demand with some margin. Add some big extra loads and you'll see that the wiring can't handle the total load while the homes are at peak demand. Something has got to give. Even on the elaad.nl website it says 1 EVs is equal to the (peak) demand of 10 homes. The real challenge is to do the math to determine at what point the wiring is not enough to charge all EVs parked in a street sufficiently.
To solve that math problem you need some numbers. I've no idea how they do things there, but I don't really need to. The problem is the assertion that 1 EV is 10X the peak demand of a home--this is just silly, even if you can put forth some plausible calculation for it. EV charging could be that much, but it certainly doesn't need to be. 7.2kW is plenty, 3.6kW will do for all but the truly dedicated commuter. So are you claiming that the peak household there is 720 watts? Or are you using a DCFS number for the EV charging rate?
-
I have seen arguments that the conversion to EV's will actually lower the total power consumption. This is because to refine 1 liter of gasoline, it takes between 2 .. 5 kWh of electrical power. (Numbers I found online vary wildly, unfortunately.) There are some huge power plants next to the oil refineries here on the Maasvlakte in the Netherlands, for example.
Assuming a new EV replaces an ICE car, and assuming it takes 3.5 kWh to refine 1 l of gasoline, this means that:
Lots of assumption here, I know. Only part of the puzzle, but interesting. I do not think that generating power for all those EV's is the problem. Distributing it and making it conveniently accessible is.
This is wildly out, well to pump efficiencies of petroleum are around 80% and upwards, much of the energy to drive that process is "waste" byproducts of the process its self. You could make a pure electricity equivalent but that falls into the same trap as the car powered by petrol vs person walking powered by imported high emboldened energy foodstuff that happens to use a lot of petrol. Power plants co-located with refineries are because there is a large stream of low value/cost oil (by)products.
Not sure we're talking about the same thing? The power plants I mentioned are needed to power the refineries. Some are coal powered, some natural gas. Not byproducts of the process at all.
Ben
Your stated figure for the electricity "required" to produce petrol is nonsense, even taking the complete well to pump efficiency of the process (which include all sorts of energy inputs/losses) doesn't come up with that much energy use.
This much smaller amount of energy required is not even used as electricity, but other forms of energy input (for example a widely produced graph below).
Co-location of refineries and power generation is not because refineries use enormous amounts of power but because they can share low value products which would be expensive to transport, if its not low grade fuel then likely steam/heat.
Your estimate would have refining using 7x the total electricity use of all industry in the Netherlands, and more than the entire countries electricity consumption. Its plainly wrong and misleading to then use that for any sort of comparison or calculation.
-
Not enough is not enough. At some point changing / expanding the wiring in the street will be required.
Oh please, that has been happening for the last 100 years. Plus, the average house around here has a 240 V 16 A 3 phase main fuses. (25 A optional for free.) That's 11.5 kW. Don't you think there's some overcapacity in the grid, compared to the 0.8 kW peak power in the spreadsheet I showed. Just the other week, the power co was increasing the power available here in the street. (A distribution box is in front of my house so I had a chat with them.) You know what they did? Upgraded the fuses in the distribution box.
See my last edit. You only accounted for 1 car per household and your calculation leaves zero margin.
Yes, the average number of cars per household in the Netherlands is... 1.
Being able to upgrade the fuses is just anecdotal evidence.
Doesn't matter, the logic in the 10 x power statement is still flawed. They must be assuming every EV has to charge at 11 kW (I assume, no data was provided.) I showed that this is hardly necessary.
If it where so easy they wouldn't need to resort to limiting the power in Amsterdam for handling just a few EVs.
In Amsterdam the average number of cars per household must be even less. Almost none of my friends living in Amsterdam own a car. (Yes, because there is no place to park them.)
Looking at my spreadsheet, during daytime (which I left at 0 kW in my example) more power is available for visitors etc.
Ben
-
Your stated figure for the electricity "required" to produce petrol is nonsense, even taking the complete well to pump efficiency of the process (which include all sorts of energy inputs/losses) doesn't come up with that much energy use.
This much smaller amount of energy required is not even used as electricity, but other forms of energy input (for example a widely produced graph below).
Co-location of refineries and power generation is not because refineries use enormous amounts of power but because they can share low value products which would be expensive to transport, if its not low grade fuel then likely steam/heat.
Your estimate would have refining using 7x the total electricity use of all industry in the Netherlands, and more than the entire countries electricity consumption. Its plainly wrong and misleading to then use that for any sort of comparison or calculation.
Thank you, that is certainly interesting information. Not talking WTP here. The energy needed to go from crude oil to gasoline I remembered was too high, if I search again I get around 6 kW / gallon = 1.6 kW / liter. This is apparently from US DOE figures, but I cannot find the original reference.
Does that sound more credible?
Can you tell me where you got the data for the 7 x total electricity use?
Ben
-
You don't understand the problem at all. This has nothing to do with averages but peak demand. The grid in a street is designed for a domestic load. This means that they fit a street with a transformer and wiring which is enough to feed all the homes at peak demand with some margin. Add some big extra loads and you'll see that the wiring can't handle the total load while the homes are at peak demand. Something has got to give. Even on the elaad.nl website it says 1 EVs is equal to the (peak) demand of 10 homes. The real challenge is to do the math to determine at what point the wiring is not enough to charge all EVs parked in a street sufficiently.
To solve that math problem you need some numbers. I've no idea how they do things there, but I don't really need to. The problem is the assertion that 1 EV is 10X the peak demand of a home--this is just silly, even if you can put forth some plausible calculation for it. EV charging could be that much, but it certainly doesn't need to be. 7.2kW is plenty, 3.6kW will do for all but the truly dedicated commuter. So are you claiming that the peak household there is 720 watts? Or are you using a DCFS number for the EV charging rate?
Its pointless to argue around and around without examples of the actual constraints to peak delivery. As example in Australia (What Drives Residential Energy Demand? An Investigation of Smart Metered Electricity Data, H Fan UNSW 2017) residential households are peaking at 2.1kW on 19kWh/day (both averages), much higher peaks are delivered without problem.
Assuming a car doesn't participate in balancing with delivering energy, and it only consumes as instructed there is 30kWh/day available per residential household without any increase in peak use. Commercial and industrial locations (where the commuters work) are another lump of available energy to consider. This all adds up to completely feasible from the delivery point of view when average distance per vehicle per day is less than 40km, and there are approximately 2 vehicles per household (figures come out just above or just below this depending on source). Even pushing the quantiles you'd see the vast majority of households would be accommodated with zero changes.
-
Thank you, that is certainly interesting information. Not talking WTP here. The energy needed to go from crude oil to gasoline I remembered was too high, if I search again I get around 6 kW / gallon = 1.6 kW / liter. This is apparently from US DOE figures, but I cannot find the original reference.
Does that sound more credible?
Can you tell me where you got the data for the 7 x total electricity use?
If you can't be bothered to quote references for your data why should I do it for you?
-
If you can't be bothered to quote references for your data why should I do it for you?
I assumed you had it handy as you posted a graph out of it.
As I said, I tried finding the original reference for my statement. I could only find secondary refs and the numbers varied a bit. It was not laziness on my part, sorry if I made that impression. As soon as I find it, I will amend my post.
Edit: Using the google instead of duckduckgo I think I found it, but am still trying to wrap my head around it:
https://greet.es.anl.gov/files/hl9mw9i7
Ben
-
If you can't be bothered to quote references for your data why should I do it for you?
I assumed you had it handy as you posted a graph out of it.
As I said, I tried finding the original reference for my statement. I could only find secondary refs and the numbers varied a bit. It was not laziness on my part, sorry if I made that impression. As soon as I find it, I will amend my post.
Its all laziness on your part:
Power plants co-located with refineries are because there is a large stream of low value/cost oil (by)products.
Not sure we're talking about the same thing? The power plants I mentioned are needed to power the refineries. Some are coal powered, some natural gas. Not byproducts of the process at all.
I could spend hours getting all the geolocations of power stations in the Netherlands to pull that apart, but you're just putting up more vague nonsense without references that is expensive for others to verify. There is a gas power station right in the middle of the Rotterdam refinery complex, using.... a (by)product of refining. Your points miss the absolute fundamentals. You are free to show the list of co-located resources and their feedstocks to show how they are importing fuels.
-
A lot of gas is spent idling in traffic. Ideally the efficiency of an electric will mean little to no electricity usage when standing still.
Mr car is start/stop anyway.
With a gas engine heat that would have been lost anyway can be used to heat the car instead.
With electric (here in UK where its usually cold) you need to use some battery power to keep warm.
At the moment there simply aren't enough charge points so I will stick with my 2016 "clean" diesel for now.
At my last MOT my cars emissions were almost zero.
Diesel cars have moved on a long way in recent years.
-
A lot of gas is spent idling in traffic. Ideally the efficiency of an electric will mean little to no electricity usage when standing still.
Mr car is start/stop anyway.
With a gas engine heat that would have been lost anyway can be used to heat the car instead.
With electric (here in UK where its usually cold) you need to use some battery power to keep warm.
Just because you can use a small portion of the waste heat from the combustion engine doesn't bring it anywhere near the energy efficiency of the pure electric alternative. There are sources for "real use" energy consumption figures:
https://ev-database.uk/car/1138/Tesla-Model-3-Long-Range-Dual-Motor
Even when needing to use significant energy for passenger comfort, the total energy use per km is still half when compared to an efficient diesel: 22kWh/100km vs 4l/100km or 40kWh/100km and thats only comparing the corner case of cold highway driving. For city driving the gap widens to the other corner where previous posters have been claiming the 5x advantage of electric cars over combustion, but all cases have the electric car using less energy overall.
Price and/or lifecycle costs (monetary or external/environmental) are much less separated, if at all.
-
The biggest mistake people seem to make with EVs is they assume people are going to be depleting the entire battery every single day. That is not going to be the typical use case. Most people are using their cars to go to work and back, maybe go home for lunch. For the most part a typical user will be able to just plug it into a regular 120v outlet and it will be topped up by morning. Either way, most people will be charging at night when demand is low.
Either way, we pay for hydro service, it's up to the hydro companies to figure out how to provide the product if demand suddenly goes up. It's like anything else.
-
Its all laziness on your part:
You must have overlooked the reference I gave after editing the post. It sites 3-6% external electrical energy needed.
I could spend hours getting all the geolocations of power stations in the Netherlands to pull that apart, but you're just putting up more vague nonsense without references that is expensive for others to verify. There is a gas power station right in the middle of the Rotterdam refinery complex, using.... a (by)product of refining. Your points miss the absolute fundamentals. You are free to show the list of co-located resources and their feedstocks to show how they are importing fuels.
I'm sorry if I have upset you, and please do not spend hours getting all the locations. Here is a list of power plants on that specific location using coal and natural gas:
Coal, biomass: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrale_Maasvlakte and https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engie_Centrale_Rotterdam
Natural gas: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enecogen
I could not find any using byproducts of refining. I'm sure there must be as much re-use as possible, just couldn't find any refs.
Ben
-
ISTR reading something recently from National Grid in the UK that consumption has been falling in the last few years due to energy saving lamps etc. Their TL;DR was that there is no significant problem nationally, though there may be some local distribution that needs beefing up.
If & when V2G becomes a serious thing, EVs can help manage the grid more effectively.
-
There was an interesting article on The Times website
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/confessions-of-an-electric-car-virgin-fq3lsz8tv (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/confessions-of-an-electric-car-virgin-fq3lsz8tv)
about driving a Nissan Leaf 1000 miles from London to Edinburgh and back. What was unusual was that it itemised the cost of recharging. Unfortunately the link seems to have lost this vital info, unless someone knows better.
But, he apparently spent £130 on electricity at charging points. This is a real sort of trip, not back home every evening. But £130 is serious, could do that in a petrol car for less, even my 3.9l Range Rover would only be twice that and carrying 400kg of load as well. Did 400 miles to Cardiff and back all in a 9 hour day, charging time? Twice in the garage for 10 minutes each time, petrol cost just under £100. So about 20mpg driving into a 50-60mph wind unladen, 400kg load back.
I don't commute, when an electric car would be fine, but make occasional long trips carrying a real load.
And does hydrogen work? I remember from years ago about storing hydrogen. The molecule is so small that it is near impossible to stop leaking, even with a metal to metal seal. Like hydraulics, over about 250 bar metal to metal won't seal, hence the O ring fittings, but an O ring won't seal hydrogen. Does anyone have any real knowledge of storing hydrogen they can share please?
For short journeys why not retrofit standard cars with lead acid batteries and one motor. Not trying to leave rubber on the road, just get to the local shops. Any number of cars to retrofit and lead isn't in short supply. And, lead can be recycled, unlike, according to my scrappy, lithium. Apparently putting a lithium battery in for recycling causes it to explode. I have seem 12 year old cars in the scrappy, why?, cam belt snapped so write off the whole thing. We can do a whole lot better than we are at the moment.
-
From UK National Grid : https://www.nationalgrid.com/5-myths-about-electric-vehicles-busted (https://www.nationalgrid.com/5-myths-about-electric-vehicles-busted)
-
And does hydrogen work?
Yes. You can buy production hydrogen cars. Toyota expects to sell around 10.000 to 20.000 of their Mirai hydrogen car this year (forget the exact number but it is somewhere in that ball park).
-
There was an interesting article on The Times website
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/confessions-of-an-electric-car-virgin-fq3lsz8tv (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/confessions-of-an-electric-car-virgin-fq3lsz8tv)
about driving a Nissan Leaf 1000 miles from London to Edinburgh and back. What was unusual was that it itemised the cost of recharging. Unfortunately the link seems to have lost this vital info, unless someone knows better.
But, he apparently spent £130 on electricity at charging points.
The article look interesting but is paywalled. £130 seems excessive but plausible. If he drove with a heavy right foot on motorways all the time and the heating on flat out he might get as little as 2.5 miles per kWh in a leaf (guessing here, I get about 3.7 in a Zoe in midwinter with a mix of urban and motorway driving). 1000 miles is then 400 kWh which would suggest he was paying £0.32 per kWh. That's perhaps believable if he only charged at those silly-expensive ecotricity-owned motorway chargers. Alternately he may be counting some other costs, like that a lot of charging networks require you to load a minimum amount of around £10 onto their app before you can use their chargers.
TLDR: I can believe he spent £130 but I think the journey should be possible at closer to £40-50.
-
There was an interesting article on The Times website
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/confessions-of-an-electric-car-virgin-fq3lsz8tv (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/confessions-of-an-electric-car-virgin-fq3lsz8tv)
about driving a Nissan Leaf 1000 miles from London to Edinburgh and back. What was unusual was that it itemised the cost of recharging. Unfortunately the link seems to have lost this vital info, unless someone knows better.
But, he apparently spent £130 on electricity at charging points.
As others have said, it is paywalled unfortunately. It would be interesting if you could post a bit more data from that article.
I often use http://abetterrouteplanner.com (http://abetterrouteplanner.com) to get good guesstimates for my EV trips. If I enter a return trip in a 2018 40 kWh Leaf, I get a trip of 1289 km using 203 Wh/km = 262 kWh. Charging is done on Chademo stations, like from the ecotricity.co.uk network. They charge 30p per kWh. (15p if you're already a customer apparantly.) So that adds up to 78.6 UKP. That is indeed a lot!
If you were to use a Tesla model 3 using the Tesla supercharger network, it would cost around 49 UKP according to the same site.
And does hydrogen work?
There are a few. A list can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fuel_cell_vehicles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fuel_cell_vehicles)
They have been promised as the car of the future for many years, but I haven't seen them take of anywhere really.
Ben
-
There are a few. A list can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fuel_cell_vehicles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fuel_cell_vehicles)
They have been promised as the car of the future for many years, but I haven't seen them take of anywhere really.
Well, last year Toyota sold 48 Mirais in the Netherlands compared to 10 in the years before. This year they expect to sell close to 200. That is pretty similar to when electric cars where first introduced. Give it time. I see myself buying a hydrogen car rather than an EV because I can't charge it from my own outlet and are likely to depend on whatever company is going to exploit the charging point in the street. A hydrogen car doesn't need a very dense infrastructure in order to be useable. In the (relatively small) city I live in there are 15 to 20 gas stations. If there is one hydrogen filling station nearby then that would be good enough to make a hydrogen car useful. Germany and Denmark seem to already have a useable hydrogen filling infrastructure. In the long run there will some competition too so the prices can't be jacked up to insane levels. Then again.. I expect my next car to be a hybrid in a couple of years.
-
Seeing a lot of "Netherland" or "Amsterdam" words in this discussion, are these places, considered as the "ideal" reference for this particular topic of discussion ? :-//
-
Seeing a lot of "Netherland" or "Amsterdam" words in this discussion, are these places, considered as the "ideal" reference for this particular topic of discussion ? :-//
Can you be more specific about what the "ideal" reference should be?
And why are you asking? You think it's not?
-
Seeing a lot of "Netherland" or "Amsterdam" words in this discussion, are these places, considered as the "ideal" reference for this particular topic of discussion ? :-//
Yes because (together with Norway) the Netherlands is furtest ahead with adoption of EVs. So the challenges 'we' have here will pop up somewhere else too. Perhaps the Netherlands is even a better blueprint compared to Norway because the Netherlands doesn't have a large source of renewable electricity (unlike Norway where they get nearly all the electricity from hydro).
-
I wonder if the underground hydrogen production by reforming in situ actually has a chance to work or is just a disingenuous boondoggle.
I just don't see how doing it in situ makes carbon capture any easier. If you burn the underground deposits with air you need to have filters which are not only able to pass the hydrogen (which is easy) but also the nitrogen and NOx (which I doubt is easy). If you burn it with pure oxygen you now have to pay for the pure oxygen production. Not to mention all the potential problems of trying to contain supercritical CO2 in the first place.
-
Seeing a lot of "Netherland" or "Amsterdam" words in this discussion, are these places, considered as the "ideal" reference for this particular topic of discussion ? :-//
Yes because (together with Norway) the Netherlands is furtest ahead with adoption of EVs. So the challenges 'we' have here will pop up somewhere else too. Perhaps the Netherlands is even a better blueprint compared to Norway because the Netherlands doesn't have a large source of renewable electricity (unlike Norway where they get nearly all the electricity from hydro).
Norway is great but by no means a reproducible example. All of Norway is atypical. A very large country with very very few people. A large part of electricity production from hydro as you said (partly thanks to the inherent characteristics of the land). An incredible wealth due to exploiting oil, allowing them to invest a lot and allowing a significant fraction of the population to buy expensive stuff. Etc.
As I said above, I absolutely don't believe EVs are going to replace current vehicles one by one. If they ever replace them altogether, that'll probably be a lot fewer vehicles in circulation, except in very particular regions (such as Norway, Switzerland maybe, and a few others.)
-
Yes because (together with Norway) the Netherlands is furtest ahead with adoption of EVs. So the challenges 'we' have here will pop up somewhere else too. Perhaps the Netherlands is even a better blueprint compared to Norway because the Netherlands doesn't have a large source of renewable electricity (unlike Norway where they get nearly all the electricity from hydro).
You have significant EV penetration due to coercive tax policies (and very high taxes overall), but no parking space and according to you, inadequate wiring. Perhaps Bangladesh will run into the same issues someday. I think that most of the rest of us will be OK.
-
Just to inject a bit of levity. Could the car heater be smart silicon and do something useful like mining Bitcoins?
Practically though, I have a heat pump at home that is at least twice as efficient at converting kW-Hs to BTUs or Joules as a resistor. Since an EV's drive electronics and batteries generate heat that has to be dissipated, does anyone know if any EV uses some of the waste heat to heat the passengers? Or even better, has a heat pump to heat/cool the passengers and electronics?
BTW, my first car back in the 70s had a 5 liter V8. Efficient it was not but it had a terrifically good heater that could peel the skin off your nose in the coldest weather (-25 C) I drove it in.
-
Seeing a lot of "Netherland" or "Amsterdam" words in this discussion, are these places, considered as the "ideal" reference for this particular topic of discussion ? :-//
Yes because (together with Norway) the Netherlands is furtest ahead with adoption of EVs. So the challenges 'we' have here will pop up somewhere else too. Perhaps the Netherlands is even a better blueprint compared to Norway because the Netherlands doesn't have a large source of renewable electricity (unlike Norway where they get nearly all the electricity from hydro).
I'm waiting for the Dutch to come out with a roof rack mounted wind generator car.
;)
-
Since an EV's drive electronics and batteries generate heat that has to be dissipated, does anyone know if any EV uses some of the waste heat to heat the passengers? Or even better, has a heat pump to heat/cool the passengers and electronics?
There is isn't much waste heat from the electronics, probably not enough to be worth using for passenger heating, though there may be a single coolant loop to use whatever heat is available from any source.
Some cars do use heat pumps, both for battery thermal management (heating or cooling) as well as passenger compartment. Sometimes whether or not heat pumps are fitted depends on the country they are sold in.
Here's some info on the Hyundia Kona /Kia E-Niro thermal management system :
https://electricrevs.com/2018/12/20/exclusive-details-on-hyundais-new-battery-thermal-management-design/
-
As mikeselectricstuff says a single coolant loop is common. The Zoe uses a liquid cooled inverter and motor coupled with a very conventional-looking radiator. It has heat-pump heating/cooling of the passenger compartment which can pump heat from or dump it to this coolant loop. Waste heat can therefore be used to heat the cabin, though there's not generally a huge amount of it and really it just assists the heat pump a little by giving it a lower temperature differential to work with. Below about 4 °C outside it switches to resistive heating with a corresponding efficiency hit.
The same power electronics and therefore the same coolant loop is also used when charging, so if heating the cabin during (or shortly after) charging (some of) that waste heat is also recovered.
-
Below about 4 °C outside it switches to resistive heating with a corresponding efficiency hit.
People tend to forget that heat pumps don't work well when outside temps are below 0˚C because the (outside) evaporator turns into a frozen solid lump of ice: https://www.temperzone.co.nz/FAQ/Understanding-Defrost-Cycle/ (https://www.temperzone.co.nz/FAQ/Understanding-Defrost-Cycle/)
-
Since an EV's drive electronics and batteries generate heat that has to be dissipated, does anyone know if any EV uses some of the waste heat to heat the passengers? Or even better, has a heat pump to heat/cool the passengers and electronics?
Yes, most EVs do this. As Mike points out, the heat isn't much, but on my Golf GTE, it's enough to keep the cabin at 20'C if the outside is at 15'C, for instance, and not require any input from the electric heater. On Teslas, the heat produced by the autopilot computer (100W+) is dissipated into the general cooling loop, which can be used for cabin heat if needed.
The e-Golf comes with a heat pump, as do a few other EVs, however it's not that common. Apparently the compressor is about twice as large as a standard AC compressor, so the cost is likely higher (on the e-Golf it is an £800 option from memory.) That said, at full blast, the air con on my car pulls 3.2kW, which makes it somewhere around a 12,000 BTU system. That is about what you'd use for a small room heat pump so maybe there are other factors at play here, such as efficiency or non-flammable refrigerants.
The Golf GTE is actually rather clever in terms of thermal design: there are three coolant loops, one for the engine, one for the EV motor and power electronics, and one for the battery and charger. It can cool the battery using the air conditioning, if you have a lead foot and are enjoying the hybrid sport mode a bit much, whilst scavenging heat from the engine if it is still warm after an extended drive. For that reason, on longer trips, I run the engine, then as I get to my destination, I switch to electric, which means the engine provides the cabin heat as it cools down for about 15 minutes or so.
-
Don't forget 'Negawatts', the decline in electricity consumption arising from improvements in efficiency of electricity-consuming devices. There is a short section on this in the latest issue of Drax Electric Insights (https://www.drax.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/200207_Drax_19Q4_Report_3.pdf (https://www.drax.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/200207_Drax_19Q4_Report_3.pdf)) which reviews the changes in Great Britain's electricity system over the past decade:
Electricity demand has fallen steadily over the decade even though the population has grown 7% and GDP risen by a quarter in that time. Britain now consumes one-eighth less electricity, through a combination of shifting economic production, milder winters meaning less demand for electric heating, and improving energy efficiency. For example, a modern 42” LCD TV has triple the screen area of an old 21” square TV, but uses only half as much electricity.
The referenced data are a population growth from 62.8M to 66.9M, and a GDP growth from £1.7T to £2.2T (Office of National Statistics). Annual electricity demand fell by 13% over the decade (~332TWh to ~288TWh, from the graph in the report). Peak annual generation (including imports) looks to have been around 2005-2006.
If this reduction arises from the causes claimed, it not only frees up generating capacity, but also distribution network capacity. Electric cars will need to be recharged at the same places where the old, power hungry TVs were used!
On another (but related) topic from the report the carbon intensity of the UK generation mix has now fallen to the level where simple resistive electric heating produces less CO2 per kWh than the 'fleet average' domestic gas central heating boiler:
The move towards condensing boilers means the efficiency of the UK’s gas boilers is improving over time, but too slowly to help with climate change. The average efficiency of gas heating has risen from 82% to 86% over the last decade, meaning that the carbon emissions from producing 1 kWh of central heating or hot water only fell from 225 grams in 2010 to 215 grams in 2019.
In comparison, standard electric heating would have produced 500 grams of CO2 per kWh2 of heat delivered back at the start of the decade, more than double that from a gas boiler. As electricity production has shifted away from fossil fuels, Britain has reached the point where it is cleaner to use electric heating than a gas boiler for the first time ever.
Averaged over 2019, simple electric heaters produced 207 grams of CO2 per kWh of heat. We would now have to blend 12% hydrogen (by volume) into the mains gas grid for Britain’s boilers to be as clean as simple electric radiators. As the carbon intensity of electricity continues to fall, it will be impossible for hydrogen blending to keep pace with the carbon reductions, and only complete hydrogen switch-over will have the chance to compete on environmental grounds.
At current rates, it is about three times as expensive to heat using resistive electric heating compared with gas (though this ignores the lower maintenence costs of an electric system - no annual boiler service). It should be technically possible to blend up to 20% hydrogen into the current gas grid, without modifying existing gas-burning devices. Of course, this will only reduce overall CO2 emission if it is generated using 'clean' electricty, or in association with CCS.
Eit to add disclaimer: A friend of mine is a director of Drax plc
-
I'm curious as to how charging is to work for a street full of terraced houses where nobody has allocated parking and charging cables would have to run across a public footpath?
Various options:
- Charge at work if possible
- Charge using a rapid charger at the supermarket/petrol station (like a regular car, just with a longer wait)
- Charge using on-street charging furniture (e.g. Ubitricity in London have lamp-post chargers)
The first two are easier to solve. On-street charging is a hard problem and requires a lot of investment. For most users though, a charge rate of 2-3kW would be sufficient for overnight charging.
About 50% of people in the UK have access to driveways. EV charging is "easy" for these people, and they should be the initial target, as their demand for rapid, destination and work charging will allow others without off-street parking to charge.
When away from home, I have trailed cables under cable protectors across the street to charge my car, which is a technique that is actually endorsed by Hampshire County Council:
https://www.hants.gov.uk/transport/ev-charging-points/ev-charging-guidance (https://www.hants.gov.uk/transport/ev-charging-points/ev-charging-guidance)
-
I'm curious as to how charging is to work for a street full of terraced houses where nobody has allocated parking and charging cables would have to run across a public footpath?
Various options:
- Charge at work if possible
- Charge using a rapid charger at the supermarket/petrol station (like a regular car, just with a longer wait)
- Charge using on-street charging furniture (e.g. Ubitricity in London have lamp-post chargers)
The first two are easier to solve. On-street charging is a hard problem and requires a lot of investment. For most users though, a charge rate of 2-3kW would be sufficient for overnight charging.
About 50% of people in the UK have access to driveways. EV charging is "easy" for these people, and they should be the initial target, as their demand for rapid, destination and work charging will allow others without off-street parking to charge.
When away from home, I have trailed cables under cable protectors across the street to charge my car, which is a technique that is actually endorsed by Hampshire County Council:
https://www.hants.gov.uk/transport/ev-charging-points/ev-charging-guidance (https://www.hants.gov.uk/transport/ev-charging-points/ev-charging-guidance)
The whole idea of being allowed to store your personal possessions on public property (i.e. leaving your car permanently parked on a public road) might perhaps be reconsidered...
-
The whole idea of being allowed to store your personal possessions on public property (i.e. leaving your car permanently parked on a public road) might perhaps be reconsidered...
Yes, one of the biggest mistakes that was made when the "motor-car" became commonplace was not mandating that you have a private location to store it if you want to own it.
Hence we have streets cluttered with cars parked on public property. And it gets more complex because they often aren't parked in front of the owner's home, so trailing charging cables or installing charging equipment in a specific location funded by the resident is a pain.
Unfortunately I think this is too far gone to change.
-
So 50% of the car owning public aren't allowed to have their car near their home.
Nice, can't see that being unpopular at all.
I didn't say that at all, but well done for creatively misreading it.
What I said was on-street charging is hard and expensive. Off-street is easier to solve and requires less infrastructure. So the infrastructure will initially target those who have driveways but on-street charging will still need to be solved. That will require lamp-post charging, or in kerb charging or weatherproof tracks in the pavement. There are many proposals and many successful implementations (GMEV for Manchester, Ubitricity in Oxford and London, etc.)
The important thing to take from this is that 50% of people will find it relatively easy to work with an electric vehicle given they have access to a driveway, so that is who we should be promoting electric vehicles to right now, while working on improving the situation for people without charging on their street.
-
The whole idea of being allowed to store your personal possessions on public property (i.e. leaving your car permanently parked on a public road) might perhaps be reconsidered...
Yeah, let's progress backwards. I fear that the future will be worse than the present.
-
https://jalopnik.com/the-tesla-model-3s-superbottle-easter-egg-is-a-fascin-1830992728 (https://jalopnik.com/the-tesla-model-3s-superbottle-easter-egg-is-a-fascin-1830992728)
Apparently, Tesla is a leader in EV cooling systems. In the Model 3, a combined expansion tank, pump and distribution manifold, gives them a cost and packaging efficiency advantage.
Another innovation is using the drive motor windings as a resistance heater, instead of a separate heater.
Elsewhere, I’ve read that Tesla’s Supercharger network is well integrated into the navigation software. If you choose a Supercharger as the destination, the car will heat the battery en route to allow the best fast charging rate as you arrive.
-
Now, what's with that saying that EVs were much less complicated than ICEs?
-
Now, what's with that saying that EVs were much less complicated than ICEs?
They are arguably more complicated than some ICEs, but so what if a 2020 Tesla model 3 is more complex than a 1979 Ford Fiesta. The only sensible comparison has to be to contemporary ICEs. Yes an EV has a somewhat complex battery management system which in some cases include active cooling. It also has fewer moving parts, fewer precision machined parts, lesser maintenance requirements, a simpler drivetrain, etc.
All modern cars are complex machines however they are propelled.
-
Now, what's with that saying that EVs were much less complicated than ICEs?
They are arguably more complicated than some ICEs, but so what if a 2020 Tesla model 3 is more complex than a 1979 Ford Fiesta. The only sensible comparison has to be to contemporary ICEs. Yes an EV has a somewhat complex battery management system which in some cases include active cooling. It also has fewer moving parts, fewer precision machined parts, lesser maintenance requirements, a simpler drivetrain, etc.
Now you focus purely on the drivetrain. If you look at the big picture an EV and ICE car are equally complicated. The complicated bit is just in different areas. For example: the cooling system of an ICE based car is much less complex compared to an EV which needs to actively cool and heat drive electronics and the battery pack. If you compile an entire list you'll see it will be equal. Also cars are engineered for a certain MTBF so all in all the overall reliability will be the same.
-
Anybody arguing they are less complex is just repeating what they've heard. There is nothing simple about the motors or drive electronics. If they were at all simple they wouldn't be swapping entire units they'd be repairing them and reinstalling. A modern vehicle is made with repairability in mind. EVs are made so the big components can be swapped and sent off to be rebuilt. Imagine if you had to do that with your ICE vehicle. Leaking valve cover gasket? Well you need to pay to replace the engine and we'll have you back on the road. This is less of an issue for lower performance models where the motors and drive electronics aren't being stressed but any high performance model(Tesla, Porsche, jaguar, etc...) It's a constant issue. That's just a warranty issue until it runs out though. Aside from the method of propulsion they all have AC/heater systems, body electronics, cooling systems, brakes, suspension... Multi component systems that can all fail due to wear and tear or design failures.
Realistically nobody is going to be working on their own ev systems because they're actually more complicated. An engine and transmission are just Legos that occasionally require some measurements to make sure the pieces fit. Anybody can do it and many do.
-
Now you focus purely on the drivetrain. If you look at the big picture an EV and ICE car are equally complicated. The complicated bit is just in different areas. For example: the cooling system of an ICE based car is much less complex compared to an EV which needs to actively cool and heat drive electronics and the battery pack. If you compile an entire list you'll see it will be equal. Also cars are engineered for a certain MTBF so all in all the overall reliability will be the same.
Well that was my point, the bit you missed when quoting me was:
All modern cars are complex machines however they are propelled.
All modern cars have complexity and most of the non-drivetrain complexity is common to ICE and EV; ABS and traction control, lots of airbags, various passenger comfort and entertainment things, reversing sensors, proximity radars, lane following, etc.
Of the complexity which is not common to both:
ICEs have huge numbers of complex moving parts in both engine and drivetrain, and then lots of sensors and control electronics associated with optimising performance and emissions.
EVs have a chunk of power electronics to do motor drive and then a complex battery management system. They may or may not have active temperature management of the battery.
So with everything else common to both, the question is if a modern ICE and transmission is more or less complex than an inverter drive and managed battery. I can see an argument that they're similar, and I can see an argument that the EV is less complex because the most complex part (the battery and BMS) is actually made largely of many identical chunks of cell + electronics.
In reality of course, complexity is unimportant, especially some theoretical assessment of how much entropy is contained within the vehicle. It's as pointless as if we took all the design documentation and ran it through gzip and argued one car was less complex and therefore better because the resulting file size is smaller. What end users actually care about is not complexity itself, but the corresponding impact on reliability (as failure probability * cost of repair) and routine maintenance cost.
-
The important thing to take from this is that 50% of people will find it relatively easy to work with an electric vehicle given they have access to a driveway, so that is who we should be promoting electric vehicles to right now, while working on improving the situation for people without charging on their street.
The car industry would like that because it means business as usual while CO2 savings only exist on paper. The world is better served by promoting (subsidising) more efficient cars today. All across Europe the average CO2 output per car is increasing despite the EVs being sold. There is something terribly wrong with the idea that EVs can lower CO2 emissions within the timeframes set by the Paris agreement.
Also the chances are high that by the time 'kerb charging' is implemented it is no longer needed due to bio-fuels, hydrogen or even better batteries.
-
Now, what's with that saying that EVs were much less complicated than ICEs?
The complexity of the cooling system might be magnified a bit by the detailed writing style of David Tracy at Jalopnik.
For those who liked this article, there's another article with a video comparing Tesla Model 3, Chevy Bolt, and BMW i3:
https://jalopnik.com/watch-us-dig-into-a-totally-disassembled-tesla-model-3-1833772985 (https://jalopnik.com/watch-us-dig-into-a-totally-disassembled-tesla-model-3-1833772985)
Less painful video link at Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgu6mkKZwNg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgu6mkKZwNg)
For non mechanical engineers who want to confuse themselves, here's a very verbose article about how car door locks and latches work: :)
https://jalopnik.com/this-is-why-you-cant-unlock-a-car-door-if-someone-is-tr-1827837275 (https://jalopnik.com/this-is-why-you-cant-unlock-a-car-door-if-someone-is-tr-1827837275)
-
If you compare hydrogen transport and storage to that of electricity then hydrogen is cheaper and easier.
Only advantage of hydrogen is energy density and speed of refill. Otherwise it is (still) one of most inefficient way of storing (electrical) energy. Attach: screenshot from YT video of channel "Real Engineering". Disclaimer: I am not against EV's as such.
-
@ogden: that video has been debunked to dust several times already. :palm: In reality the prices are much closer especially if you have to rely solely on public charging spots. Also add in the extra costs you'll need to pay (one way or another) to upgrade the grid to allow charging an EV. And it is not just my opinion. Look around at how installation of hydrogen infrastructure is being ramped up nowadays.
-
@ogden: that video has been debunked to dust several times already. :palm:
Fine. Show pointers to debunking instead of dumb facepalm.
-
@ogden: that video has been debunked to dust several times already. :palm:
Fine. Show pointers to debunking instead of dumb facepalm.
That would mean repeating parts of several old threads. I suggest you read them carefully. Also get some actual numbers on hydrogen prices and electricity prices from public charging spots.
-
Now you focus purely on the drivetrain. If you look at the big picture an EV and ICE car are equally complicated. The complicated bit is just in different areas. For example: the cooling system of an ICE based car is much less complex compared to an EV which needs to actively cool and heat drive electronics and the battery pack. If you compile an entire list you'll see it will be equal. Also cars are engineered for a certain MTBF so all in all the overall reliability will be the same.
An ICE needs:
- Exhaust systems
- Emissions control systems
- Various air/oil/fuel/transmission filters
- A multispeed transmission, CVT, *and/or* hybrid system
- A starter motor/alternator and battery supply for such (if not hybrid)
- A turbo (on some models)
- A radiator capable of dissipating >60kW for cruising speeds
- A litany of engine sensors
- Timing belts and belt driven water pumps
- and so on
None of that is needed by an EV.
And modern EVs, including the Model 3, use a slightly more complex cooling system, sure. But even they have started using the EV motor to heat the coolant. The Model Y is slated to have 25% less wiring km than the Model 3, despite being a larger vehicle.
I don't see how you can say EV and ICE are even remotely comparable in terms of complexity.
-
Don't forget 'Negawatts',
...
latest issue of Drax Electric Insights (https://www.drax.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/200207_Drax_19Q4_Report_3.pdf (https://www.drax.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/200207_Drax_19Q4_Report_3.pdf))
The move towards condensing boilers means the efficiency of the UK’s gas boilers is improving over time, but too slowly to help with climate change. The average efficiency of gas heating has risen from 82% to 86% over the last decade, meaning that the carbon emissions from producing 1 kWh of central heating or hot water only fell from 225 grams in 2010 to 215 grams in 2019.
In comparison, standard electric heating would have produced 500 grams of CO2 per kWh2 of heat delivered back at the start of the decade, more than double that from a gas boiler. As electricity production has shifted away from fossil fuels, Britain has reached the point where it is cleaner to use electric heating than a gas boiler for the first time ever.
Averaged over 2019, simple electric heaters produced 207 grams of CO2 per kWh of heat. We would now have to blend 12% hydrogen (by volume) into the mains gas grid for Britain’s boilers to be as clean as simple electric radiators.
Oh god help us - another load of 'experts' who don't understand the difference between average and marginal emissions! :palm: |O |O |O
(Actually, I'm sure they do understand marginal emissions, but it doesn't suit the agenda/public message).
Sorry but they are talking complete b*ll**ks! The average carbon intensity of the grid is irrelevant for this purpose; using averages is a statistical abuse. There is a relatively fixed amount of low carbon electricity feeding the UK grid from hydro, nuclear and biomass sources along with variable levels of wind and solar. But with rare exceptions, it is all much less than the total demand. You can't buy 'average emission electricity'; when you use, and thus purchase additional electricity from your supplier, you are effectively contracting with them to go to the market to buy enough new power to satisfy your new demand. They can't buy any more nuclear, wind or solar power (except in rare situations) - the only available sources are from dispatchable generators which are primarily gas and coal. (And just maybe, a little bit of biomass from Drax?)
That means that if you were to switch 1MW of gas heating to electricity, the grid would have to supply that new 1MW load from mainly gas fired power stations, perhaps with some coal fired power (but not for much longer). CCGT emissions are currently running at arounf 470g CO2eq/kWh, WTW.
That will change eventually when enough new wind and nuclear power has been added to the grid to displace most gas generation and make up for the nuclear stations which are to be decomissioned, but I can't see that happening for at least 15 years and probably a lot longer, but I could easily be wrong on that as government priorities can easily change radically over timescales > 5 years.
So assuming we were to add, say, 5GW of new heating and EV load over the next 5 years. How long would it be before a significant amount of that (say 30%) is supplied by wind and solar over the course of a year? We have had a few weeks recently with surplus wind power at times of low demand (overnight), due to the storms but they are very much the exception, and overnight surplus is not useful for all users, such as EV users who can't recharge at home. Until that time that 5GW will have to be generated almost exclusively from CCGT at 470g/kWh.
-
That would mean repeating parts of several old threads. I suggest you read them carefully. Also get some actual numbers on hydrogen prices and electricity prices from public charging spots.
Hydrogen pricing is £10 per kg here, seems to be the same in the States roughly [1]
A Mirai has a 5kg tank, so £50 to refuel.
It goes less than 300 miles on that, but let's be generous and assume 300 miles. That's £0.15 per mile.
I paid £0.15/kWh for public charging. But let's assume £0.39/kWh which is at the high end of expense. At 4.5 mile per kWh (e-Golf spec, and achievable in real world at 70 mph) that's £0.086/mile for even the most expensive EV charging station. If you pay £0.15/kWh then it's 3.3p per mile. If charging on domestic electricity at night at 7p/kWh then that's 1.6p/mile
In the real world the cost of a vehicle is generally dominated by its deprecation rather than its fuel cost.
[1] https://cafcp.org/content/cost-refill
-
@ogden: that video has been debunked to dust several times already. :palm:
Fine. Show pointers to debunking instead of dumb facepalm.
That would mean repeating parts of several old threads. I suggest you read them carefully. Also get some actual numbers on hydrogen prices and electricity prices from public charging spots.
LOL. I provided info. If you say it is debunked - provide info in return so *everybody* here can see what you mean with "already debunked". Facepalming or mentioning unknown/obscure old threads is not enough. Give just link(s), do not do "repeating" or whatever you mean with that
-
I don't see how you can say EV and ICE are even remotely comparable in terms of complexity.
That is your problem; perhaps you think all mechanical stuff is complex. All the items you listed are extremely simple mechanical systems which are well understood. Drive belts for example are known for at least 1000 years.
@ogden: do your own homework instead of posting lame pictures which say nothing.
-
I don't see how you can say EV and ICE are even remotely comparable in terms of complexity.
That is your problem; perhaps you think all mechanical stuff is complex. All the items you listed are extremely simple mechanical systems which are well understood. Drive belts for example are known for at least 1000 years.
I didn't say it wasn't understood, but it is complex. There is no doubt that an electric vehicle has a simpler mechanical complexity than an ICE vehicle and I would argue once the reliability of sensors, additional motors/coolant pumps/gearbox actuators (if automatic) etc are considered, that an ICE vehicle has a more complex electrical system as well.
The servicing schedule of an ICE car vs an EV car should make this obvious. Most cars require regular filter and oil changes, whereas the Model 3 has no required servicing besides a differential oil change at 120k miles and a body inspection every 40k miles.
-
Now you focus purely on the drivetrain. If you look at the big picture an EV and ICE car are equally complicated. The complicated bit is just in different areas. For example: the cooling system of an ICE based car is much less complex compared to an EV which needs to actively cool and heat drive electronics and the battery pack. If you compile an entire list you'll see it will be equal. Also cars are engineered for a certain MTBF so all in all the overall reliability will be the same.
An ICE needs:
- Exhaust systems
- Emissions control systems
- Various air/oil/fuel/transmission filters
- A multispeed transmission, CVT, *and/or* hybrid system
- A starter motor/alternator and battery supply for such (if not hybrid)
- A turbo (on some models)
- A radiator capable of dissipating >60kW for cruising speeds
- A litany of engine sensors
- Timing belts and belt driven water pumps
- and so on
None of that is needed by an EV.
And modern EVs, including the Model 3, use a slightly more complex cooling system, sure. But even they have started using the EV motor to heat the coolant. The Model Y is slated to have 25% less wiring km than the Model 3, despite being a larger vehicle.
I don't see how you can say EV and ICE are even remotely comparable in terms of complexity.
It seems you don't understand cars that well. Most of that is what we call... An engine. Yes, an ICE needs an engine. What do you think an ev drive electronics system is made of? An atmel mcu and a single mosfet? The battery/drive electronics/motor are not simple and not serviceable by Joe Bob other than to replace aside from the battery which he may be just as likely to damage as repair.
-
@ogden: do your own homework instead of posting lame pictures which say nothing.
You did not produce *any* picture, lame or not.
Hydrogen price (https://cafcp.org/content/cost-refill): $12.85/kg
64$ to fill Mirai is not that far from 85$ mentioned in "lame picture".
Your turn. This time provide results of your homework, not :blah: :blah:
[edit] Electricity price (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a) 13$/kWh is not that far as well.
Resource that says that hydrogen cost is €11.29 per kg + VAT:
http://www.h2-suedtirol.com/en/hydrogen/faqs/ (http://www.h2-suedtirol.com/en/hydrogen/faqs/)
-
Hydrogen pricing is £10 per kg here, seems to be the same in the States roughly [1]
The industrial cost per ton are a better indicator than current pump cost for a mass adoption scenario, which is driven by sky high overheads due to low volumes.
Hydrogen doesn't have an electricity grid to piggy back on, so it needs more upfront investment ... it needs state support.
-
A modern vehicle is made with repairability in mind.
Really? I am utterly unconvinced there having wrestled with cars that needed an hour of disassembly to change a headlight bulb or spark plugs.
EVs are made so the big components can be swapped and sent off to be rebuilt. Imagine if you had to do that with your ICE vehicle. Leaking valve cover gasket? Well you need to pay to replace the engine and we'll have you back on the road.
This is pretty common with ICE car parts. Part exchange the faulty thing and pay the cost of having it refurbished in a factory but take a different reconditioned one to fit to your car. Starter motors, alternators, shock absorbers, gearboxes are all commonly handled this way.
-
I don't see how you can say EV and ICE are even remotely comparable in terms of complexity.
That is your problem; perhaps you think all mechanical stuff is complex. All the items you listed are extremely simple mechanical systems which are well understood. Drive belts for example are known for at least 1000 years.
I didn't say it wasn't understood, but it is complex. There is no doubt that an electric vehicle has a simpler mechanical complexity than an ICE vehicle and I would argue once the reliability of sensors, additional motors/coolant pumps/gearbox actuators (if automatic) etc are considered, that an ICE vehicle has a more complex electrical system as well.
Sorry but you can run an ICE engine from an 16 bit microcontroller running at several MHz. Including taking care of the sensors (which are only a few: throttle position, air mass, lambda, coolant temperature, crank shaft and knocking). A typical battery pack for an electric moped has a similar processor on board just to manage the battery pack with an equal amount if not more sensors (most for temperature). And we have not gotten to the drive train and cooling system electronics themselves yet.
Also don't disregard the mechanical complexity of the drive train of an EV. In a regular ICE car the engine delivers about 100Nm to 300Nm. In first gear a car can develop about 1000Nm on the wheels. In an EV with a fixed gear ratio this ratio will need to be optimised between maximum speed and minimum torque. A regular car has a 1st gear ratio of around 14 to 15 where an EV sits around 10. This means that the motor in an EV has to produce 40% to 50% more torque (rotational force) to pull the car away. Also the motor in an EV runs at much higher revs. Up to 10k RPM. This means needing high quality parts and high precision manufacturing to keep the rotor balanced. There is nothing uncomplicated about it from a manufacturing perspective!
-
@ogden: do your own homework instead of posting lame pictures which say nothing.
You did not produce *any* picture, lame or not.
Hydrogen price (https://cafcp.org/content/cost-refill): $12.85/kg
64$ to fill Mirai is not that far from 85$ mentioned in "lame picture".
Your turn. This time provide results of your homework, not :blah: :blah:
[edit] Electricity price (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a) 13$/kWh is not that far as well.
Over here hydrogen costs 10 euro per kg. Electricity from a public charging point costs 0.47 euro ct per kWh on average from Allego (excluding an hourly tarif if you leave the car parked for too long in some cases). So the Mirai costs 50 euro for a full load of hydrogen and an average EV (480km at 225Wh/km) costs 50.76 euro. Now tell me; given the better range and shorter fueling times for hydrogen which car would people who can't charge from their own sockets prefer?
-
A modern vehicle is made with repairability in mind.
Really? I am utterly unconvinced there having wrestled with cars that needed an hour of disassembly to change a headlight bulb or spark plugs.
EVs are made so the big components can be swapped and sent off to be rebuilt. Imagine if you had to do that with your ICE vehicle. Leaking valve cover gasket? Well you need to pay to replace the engine and we'll have you back on the road.
This is pretty common with ICE car parts. Part exchange the faulty thing and pay the cost of having it refurbished in a factory but take a different reconditioned one to fit to your car. Starter motors, alternators, shock absorbers, gearboxes are all commonly handled this way.
If you've wrestled it's because you didn't know what you were doing or attempting to skip some step. Maybe you're not mechanically inclined. I don't know.
While a few parts CAN be rebuilt the majority are not. Cheap shocks can be rebuilt but are usually junked because they aren't worth it(they're mostly cheap). Alternators are rare failures and mostly the same(lots of them you can replace the regulator which most commonly fails). I've repaired transmissions, auto and manual, in the shop. They aren't that difficult. Anything with a core charge is destined to be rebuilt if possible. But you pay a reduced cost in that case(depends on parts but 50% isn't rare). Automatic transmissions are the one place where they should be repaired in shop but usually aren't because it's too dirty or people don't understand them well enough to get quality repairs done. It's why transmission shops still exist.
The most common problems are the engine. Replace a drive belt, replace a sensor, replace an injector, replace a camshaft, replace a turbocharger (depending on failure these can be rebuilt too), replace a carbon canister, replace seals, thermostat, radiator, rubber hoses.. It's not hard. To replace any of you EV power train means getting all 4 wheels off the ground, removing the battery(usually) then dropping the subframe to even access the components you need and then all you can do is replace the huge thing for large cost because the rebuild/repair cost isn't known. I've only worked on the BMW i3, i8(I know it's only a hybrid) and active e though as for first hand EV experience. I have talked with friends who work at Tesla though(some techs and a shop manager).
-
Yes. Working on a car definitely takes practise. First time I changed a timing belt I needed a day. The next time only a couple of hours (on the same car that is).
-
Over here hydrogen costs 10 euro per kg. Electricity from a public charging point costs 0.47 euro ct per kWh on average from Allego (excluding an hourly tarif if you leave the car parked for too long in some cases). So the Mirai costs 50 euro for a full load of hydrogen and an average EV (480km at 225Wh/km) costs 50.76 euro.
Public chargers "over there"? :) It was about charging @home, in US. Whatever. Even using your numbers cost to fully charge Tesla 3 equipped with 50kWh battery (400km range): 50*0.47=23.5 EUR.
Now tell me; given the better range and shorter fueling times which car would people who can't charge from their own sockets prefer?
Diesel :-DD
-
The whole idea of being allowed to store your personal possessions on public property (i.e. leaving your car permanently parked on a public road) might perhaps be reconsidered...
Yeah, let's progress backwards. I fear that the future will be worse than the present.
Why should removing a subsidy for motor vehicles be going backwards? It sure is nice for car owners when they can externalise their costs but take the example of big cities such as London with less than 1 car per 3 residents, or Amsterdam with 1 car per 4 residents. Could the space taken by cars be more productively used for other purposes? Such as making more road space to reduce congestion? Why should the majority subsidise the minority?
Cars don't scale up for transport in big cities, if you want that lifestyle live out in the country where land is cheap.
-
An ICE needs:
- Exhaust systems
- Emissions control systems
- Various air/oil/fuel/transmission filters
- A multispeed transmission, CVT, *and/or* hybrid system
- A starter motor/alternator and battery supply for such (if not hybrid)
- A turbo (on some models)
- A radiator capable of dissipating >60kW for cruising speeds
- A litany of engine sensors
- Timing belts and belt driven water pumps
- and so on
[...]
I don't see how you can say EV and ICE are even remotely comparable in terms of complexity.
An EV needs:
-Neodymium magnets.
-Lots of expensive copper.
-A heavy and costly electric motor that weights MORE than an ICE
-Delicate hi power electronics for the inverter (hundreds of kiloWatts !)
-Single speed transmission with differential.
-A 12V battery just like the ICEs
-A 60..100 kWh battery made of thousands of Li-Ion cells
-A complicated BMS
-A charger for the Li-Ion battery
-A cooling/heating system with pumps for the Li-Ion battery
-A cooling system with pumps for the electric motor
-A cooling system with pumps for the power electronics.
-An electric motor driven HVAC with heat pump
-A litany of current, voltage and other sensors for the BMS, inverter, electric motor, and cooling systems.
-and so on
-
Over here hydrogen costs 10 euro per kg. Electricity from a public charging point costs 0.47 euro ct per kWh on average from Allego (excluding an hourly tarif if you leave the car parked for too long in some cases). So the Mirai costs 50 euro for a full load of hydrogen and an average EV (480km at 225Wh/km) costs 50.76 euro.
Public chargers "over there"? :) It was about charging @home, in US. Whatever. Even using your numbers cost to fully charge Tesla 3 equipped with 50kWh battery (400km range): 50*0.47=23.5 EUR.
Now tell me; given the better range and shorter fueling times which car would people who can't charge from their own sockets prefer?
Diesel :-DD
Electricity vs hydrocarbon vs hydrogen vs whatever as a fuel source varies wildly from country to country. Same topic 5 years ago:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/problems-if-we-all-had-tesla-cars/msg705793/#msg705793 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/problems-if-we-all-had-tesla-cars/msg705793/#msg705793)
Things have changed a little since then but it still rides on the electricity price (everywhere?) having no transport taxation, and the majority of countries taxing fuel at much higher rate. As alternative energy sources for transport start to become significant then there will be changes to the way they are priced/taxed. Distance and/or weight based pricing for vehicle use could be introduced to level that. Radical changes in taxation have occurred before in Australia where the government provided rebates (subsidies) to convert or purchase LPG cars, and then just years later upped the taxes on LPG:
https://www.mynrma.com.au/membership/my-nrma-app/fuel-resources/the-story-behind-the-rise-and-fall-of-lpg (https://www.mynrma.com.au/membership/my-nrma-app/fuel-resources/the-story-behind-the-rise-and-fall-of-lpg)
The economics of that fuel source fell apart, and people went back to petrol/diesel.
-
An EV needs:
-Neodymium magnets.
Not necessarily
-Delicate hi power electronics for the inverter (hundreds of kiloWatts !)
Delicate ?
Are we seeing significant failures of electronics over the last few years of production EVs ? Nope.
-A complicated BMS
-A charger for the Li-Ion battery
Just electronics.
-A cooling/heating system with pumps for the Li-Ion battery
-A cooling system with pumps for the electric motor
-A cooling system with pumps for the power electronics.
Often a single heating/cooling system
-A litany of current, voltage and other sensors for the BMS, inverter, electric motor, and cooling systems.
-and so on
Again, just electronics. simple and reliable.
-
-Delicate hi power electronics for the inverter (hundreds of kiloWatts !)
Delicate ?
Are we seeing significant failures of electronics over the last few years of production EVs ? Nope.
This is one of the things I find quite impressive about electric power in vehicles to date, whether its full EVs or hybrids. There is a substantial amount of high power, high stress, electronics built to minimum cost in all of them, but you hardly ever hear serious complaints about the reliability of this part of the system.
-
Wait for the capacitors to start to dry...
-
Wait for the capacitors to start to dry...
Toyota has been shipping millions of hybrids, operated in all sorts of climates, for a very long time. Some people are obviously going to skimp on their electronics, to save a few bucks, and wreck the long term reliability of their products. However, Toyota has already set a benchmark for the long term reliability a reasonable implementation of electric drive and kinetic energy recovery can achieve in real cars in real world environments.
-
Still too soon and still too few pure EVs, but time will tell. At least a hybrid might be able to go on w/o the EV part, perhaps.
[...]
Amen. I'm not going to argue with a hackers boss ;D It would seem you're liking that EV quite much, then, right? I guess you have taken it apart. Did you like what you've seen in there?
-
There's a very simple answer for cold climates: run a generator at home, use less fuel than a conventional car, and actually make use of the heat as a bonus.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-ev-charged-with-diesel-generator-still-cleaner-than-conventional-car-61942/ (https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-ev-charged-with-diesel-generator-still-cleaner-than-conventional-car-61942/)
Wait for the capacitors to start to dry...
They use film capacitors, not electrolytics.
http://techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/ginv/i1mech.html (http://techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/ginv/i1mech.html)
-
Don't even need to do that even using hydro with the crazy rates it's still cheaper than a gas car from what I've been told.
-
Over here hydrogen costs 10 euro per kg. Electricity from a public charging point costs 0.47 euro ct per kWh on average from Allego (excluding an hourly tarif if you leave the car parked for too long in some cases). So the Mirai costs 50 euro for a full load of hydrogen and an average EV (480km at 225Wh/km) costs 50.76 euro.
Public chargers "over there"? :) It was about charging @home, in US. Whatever. Even using your numbers cost to fully charge Tesla 3 equipped with 50kWh battery (400km range): 50*0.47=23.5 EUR.
Now tell me; given the better range and shorter fueling times which car would people who can't charge from their own sockets prefer?
Diesel :-DD
Electricity vs hydrocarbon vs hydrogen vs whatever as a fuel source varies wildly from country to country. Same topic 5 years ago:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/problems-if-we-all-had-tesla-cars/msg705793/#msg705793 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/problems-if-we-all-had-tesla-cars/msg705793/#msg705793)
Things have changed a little since then but it still rides on the electricity price (everywhere?) having no transport taxation, and the majority of countries taxing fuel at much higher rate. As alternative energy sources for transport start to become significant then there will be changes to the way they are priced/taxed. Distance and/or weight based pricing for vehicle use could be introduced to level that. Radical changes in taxation have occurred before in Australia where the government provided rebates (subsidies) to convert or purchase LPG cars, and then just years later upped the taxes on LPG:
https://www.mynrma.com.au/membership/my-nrma-app/fuel-resources/the-story-behind-the-rise-and-fall-of-lpg (https://www.mynrma.com.au/membership/my-nrma-app/fuel-resources/the-story-behind-the-rise-and-fall-of-lpg)
The economics of that fuel source fell apart, and people went back to petrol/diesel.
Yes, sure. Then there is depreciation and service cost. My point was that hydrogen generation & fuel cell is way more inefficient than battery charge/discharge, that's it. @nctnico proudly tried to convince that what I say is lame, it was debunked long ago, yet as we see he struggle to debunk it even using cherrypicking of data.
-
An EV needs:
-Neodymium magnets.
-Lots of expensive copper.
So does a hybrid ICE; and if the coming EU regulations are anything like future US ones, then pretty much every new car will be mild hybrid or full hybrid. Not all EVs require neodymium magnets, the original Model S for instance is rare-earth magnet free (AC induction motor) as is the Chevy Bolt (if I recall correctly.) Also, the Model 3 motor contains a large amount of aluminium where technically feasible, to reduce the manufacturing cost.
-A heavy and costly electric motor that weights MORE than an ICE
Really? I'd like to see sources on this. Are you comparing a fully assembled ICE vs an EV motor+drive inverter? What counts as part of the "ICE" here? Is this just the block? The whole car including the battery vs. ICE car?
-A 12V battery just like the ICEs
Model Y is slated to not have a 12V battery any more [1], and this is the trend in the EV industry.
-A 60..100 kWh battery made of thousands of Li-Ion cells
-A complicated BMS
-A charger for the Li-Ion battery
-A cooling/heating system with pumps for the Li-Ion battery
-A cooling system with pumps for the electric motor
-A cooling system with pumps for the power electronics.
-An electric motor driven HVAC with heat pump
-A litany of current, voltage and other sensors for the BMS, inverter, electric motor, and cooling systems.
-and so on
Finally we get onto some actual parameters that an EV really needs and the key differences between EV and ICE.
But all of these things are electronics that are faily reliable. Voltage sensor? You mean a couple of resistors into the ADC pin of an embedded controller? I think that will survive a million miles :).
You have not got O2 sensors sitting in hot exhaust streams heated to 600C. You have not got oil pressure and temperature sensors. You have not got camshaft position sensors, knock sensors, fuel injectors, a multi-shaft gearbox actuation system (if automatic; my auto PHEV-hybrid has 12 actuators in its gearbox), MAF sensors, a throttle body actuator, etc.
For what it's worth, anyone thinking about a hydrogen vehicle as less complex: they're EVs, with 100kW inverters and Li-Ion batteries, just with a hydrogen power plant (fuel cell) on board. It's always seemed odd to me that you'd carry your power generation with you, because it will always be less efficient to make a small power generation station than a larger one. Perhaps we should just have a way of storing the energy we need in some kind of "battery"...
[1] https://insideevs.com/news/332478/tesla-model-y-to-ditch-12-volt-battery-95-less-wiring-than-model-3/
-
And no catalytic converter full of high-value metals conveniently positioned for a chav with a battery powered angle grinder to remove while the car is unattended...
-
-Delicate hi power electronics for the inverter (hundreds of kiloWatts !)
Delicate ?
Are we seeing significant failures of electronics over the last few years of production EVs ? Nope.
This is one of the things I find quite impressive about electric power in vehicles to date, whether its full EVs or hybrids. There is a substantial amount of high power, high stress, electronics built to minimum cost in all of them, but you hardly ever hear serious complaints about the reliability of this part of the system.
Maybe that is because most of the EVs are positioned in a higher segment. At some point there will be quality cuts by some brands to compete on price.
Also I do recall quite a few Teslas have issues with their electronics which affect the useability of the car.
-
I think the reliability of the Prius drivetrain should be evidence that EVs will have no significant reliability issues. Priuses can easily do a quarter-million miles with just regular maintenance, and this is with their original hybrid battery pack. A battery pack that is cycled every couple of miles and sustains charge/discharge of >30kW (for a 1.5kWh capacity that's pretty aggressive.)
Obviously some brands will be worse than others, and quality control issues will still exist. Tesla is an interesting case because they had a lot of early reliability issues with the Model S but now have a smaller warranty claim rate than almost any other US manufacturer (https://www.warrantyweek.com/archive/ww20190718.html (https://www.warrantyweek.com/archive/ww20190718.html)) even though they seem to prepare for the worst by setting aside more per car.
I wouldn't, however, buy an older Model S out of warranty: it is a huge collection of new and experimental technology with only Tesla able to repair it. I'd wait until more independent garages are competent enough to repair EV drivetrains. As others have stated, the drivetrains may be reliable, but the cost of a failure is large. It is probably as expensive to repair an inverter (to manufacturer standards) as it is to rebuild an engine. But as EVs become more mainstream this will be less of an issue.
-
Yes, sure. Then there is depreciation and service cost. My point was that hydrogen generation & fuel cell is way more inefficient than battery charge/discharge, that's it. @nctnico proudly tried to convince that what I say is lame, it was debunked long ago, yet as we see he struggle to debunk it even using cherrypicking of data.
Well, like so many you are not looking at the big picture cost-wise; unfortunately that is where the EV dream falls apart. The prices I listed are the reality for the people not being able to charge from their own socket. And in the end nobody cares about efficiency. It is all about costs.
Look at this map of hydrogen filling stations in the mid-west part of Europe:
[attachimg=1 width=1000]
The green ones are operational; the blue ones are under construction. It is a clear proof that quite a few people see no future for EVs and you shouldn't be surprised if one of the European car manufacturers is going to announce a hydrogen car this year.
I'll admit though that there is one thing I didn't think about before. There are still vast amounts of fossil fuels. Besides turning solar and wind into hydrogen the fossil fuels can also be converted into hydrogen. If the resulting CO2 is stored underground (I'm not a fan of such a solution to put it mildly) then this would allow to continue using fossil fuels as a fuel source instead of abandoning them. This also means hydrogen cars won't burden electricity generation like EVs do.
-
Just catching up with reading this thread. Seems to me that there are two, possibly more, groups of users arguing past each other.
There are three possibly uses for cars:
- shopping trolley, 50 miles maximum
- commute, there and back of 120 miles
- serious travel, you are driving 100 to 400 miles to and from a meeting etc, possibly carrying a load up to 250kg
The shopping trolley is trivial. one motor, simple control, simple heating, no aircon (for 20 minutes or so open the windows), powered by end of life lithium or even lead acid batteries. Flat out at 70mph.
Commute is more complex, larger, able to sustain speed limit speeds, 70mph or so, decent heating, more power.
Long distance is the real problem, multiple charges needed in realistic times.
Seems silly to make the same car fit all three. Any EV is serious money, so will be a second, or third, car. Lets face it, people like me with £2k to spend on a 15 year old car are not going, ever, to buy an EV. And, I am probably 2/3 of the market in the poorer, ie outside London, parts of the country.
As I said earlier, retrofit all the perfectly usable 15 year old Fiestas, 2 people, Mondeos, 4 people, cars with a battery and motor, all the brakes etc can stay. An engine and transmission weigh about 400kg which gives a reasonable weight to use lead acid batteries, 170kJ/kg, not lithium. Lead acid have been recycled for decades, and the infrastructure exists. Lithium seems to be somewhat harder, it explodes to easily. None of these cars need to be able to spin the wheels.
Tesla has gone for the Aston Martin end of the market, fair enough, it just only comprises 0.001% of the market.
-
Long distance is the real problem, multiple charges needed in realistic times.
Seems silly to make the same car fit all three.
Well, if you are taxed for ownership and have limited parking space then it makes more sense to buy one car which fits all usage scenarios.
-
Look at this map of hydrogen filling stations in the mid-west part of Europe:
The green ones are operational; the blue ones are under construction. It is a clear proof that quite a few people see no future for EVs
Nonsense - just because people are exploring alternatives doesn't mean EVs have no future.
There doesn't have to be just one solution.
EVs are an excellent solution for a significant number of use cases. Maybe Hydrogen and/or other tech will offer benefits for other cases.
-
It was about charging @home, in US.
Unless we start using our natural gas distribution system for hydrogen that's not a fair comparison.
I suspect that with a large push for a hydrogen economy, high pressure electrolysis directly at the pumping stations will drag costs down. Distribution (likely with cryogenic liquefaction) adds a huge overhead to the basic production cost of hydrogen.
-
ISTR reading something recently from National Grid in the UK that consumption has been falling in the last few years due to energy saving lamps etc. Their TL;DR was that there is no significant problem nationally, though there may be some local distribution that needs beefing up.
If & when V2G becomes a serious thing, EVs can help manage the grid more effectively.
Despite what the National Grid says Ofcom seems to have more to say: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/rewiring-britain-net-zero-future-ofgem-publishes-decarbonisation-action-plan
My biggest worry is now they want to take out Gas for heating. I know it has pollution but that + EV's will require substantial increases in network capacity.
Not only that - Gas prices have an annual increase of roughly 1-3% p.a. in price - where Electricity have shown 5-8% average annual increase in price.
So the Joe UK Average (middle consumption) household today uses 12500 kWh gas and 3100 kWh electricity - today costs roughly GBP 303.75 for gas and GBP 397.42 for electricity. In 2050 if trends continues like it has - Joe Average will pay GBP 550.20 for Gas and GBP 1,717.63 for electricity.
Now if Joe Average changed to heat pump in 2025 - with an average COP of roughly 4 (and gas was 100% efficient) - his 12500 kWh gas would turn into 3250 kWh electricity consumption added to his normal.
That is equal to about a doubling of Joe Averages Electricity consumption (Without an EV) - so that means his total in 2050 will be GBP 3449.10 vs GBP 2267.83 if he had continued with gas.
So is the public ready for a 50% increase in price over the next 30 years - just because of switching Gas off?
And will the network ready for a 100% increase in electricity consumption + EV's?
I'm not 100% certain about the above figures - but let me know if you disagree or where I have made my mistakes.
Prices are based on my today rate averaged out for standing rates incl. VAT.
-
Joe Average is going to have to pay the cost one way or another. The problem is we have gorged for too long on cheap fossil fuels without considering the environmental consequences. Hopefully Joe Average will be able to get grants and subsidies to pay for proper insulation. The state of insulation in most UK housing stock is dreadful. If a house is constructed with Passivehaus type insulation, it can be heated with a 1kW electric air heater for the entire home, which typically only operates on days <3'C or less. Heat produced by humans and domestic appliances, lighting, etc is otherwise sufficient to keep the house at 20'C, as well as keep the heat out in summer. An air-source heat pump would be even more efficient, and could offer air conditioning facilities too.
Re hydrogen, I think the biggest area hydrogen makes sense in is long distance trucks. A Tesla Semi looks likely to have a 1MWh battery pack - weighing 5 tonnes on board - if that were a fuel cell and tanks, then the weight penalty would be much smaller. Also, semi trucks tend to make trips that start at one depot (which could have an on-site filling station) and travel on motorway routes, so the infrastructure is easier and cheaper to build out.
The vast majority of people won't travel more than 200 miles in one day. If the rate of charge speed acceleration keeps up, with the Taycan capable of 170 miles in 5 minutes charging, we'll have EVs that can match the convenience and range of a fuel-powered car.
-
Joe Average is going to have to pay the cost one way or another. The problem is we have gorged for too long on cheap fossil fuels without considering the environmental consequences. Hopefully Joe Average will be able to get grants and subsidies to pay for proper insulation. The state of insulation in most UK housing stock is dreadful. If a house is constructed with Passivehaus type insulation, it can be heated with a 1kW electric air heater for the entire home, which typically only operates on days <3'C or less. Heat produced by humans and domestic appliances, lighting, etc is otherwise sufficient to keep the house at 20'C, as well as keep the heat out in summer. An air-source heat pump would be even more efficient, and could offer air conditioning facilities too.
The UK building standards are not very high in general - I do agree with that. Tiles on wooden floors.... :-DD in most bathrooms I have seen....
Anyway - with the NetZero campaign - we need to double the electricity network capacity + have space for EV's.
How much Co2 will that cost?
Then add production costs of all the insulation and refurb of properties. Again it will cost on the CO2 scale.
I think it is important to be pragmatic. Some things we can't change in 30 years.
I calculated on my Honda Jazz (2009) - I drive maybe 2000 miles a year. If I got a Tesla - I would loose 0.5-1% battery a day from phantom drain. (unless I fizzle around with 3rd party apps to extend and disable features) So that is 2-4 miles per day roughly. So equivalent to 1460-2920 miles driven a year. Does that make any sense? That is power right out the window.
I really really want an electric car - but the more I calculate the more I would look like a mega-polluter vs. keeping my 2009 Honda Jazz. Yes I would look great in an electric car - and people would pad be on my back for being so climate/environment friendly - but on the inside I know my driving habits would make me a giga CO2 polluter. By purchasing it I just threw out 70.000-100.000 km's worth of CO2 and there is no way in my lifetime I would be able to recoup the CO2 spent on making my electric car. But I would look good driving it.
So this is what I mean - the pragmatism needs to be included in the policies.
-
Joe Average is going to have to pay the cost one way or another. The problem is we have gorged for too long on cheap fossil fuels without considering the environmental consequences. Hopefully Joe Average will be able to get grants and subsidies to pay for proper insulation. The state of insulation in most UK housing stock is dreadful.
An expert on insulation I know has run the numbers. Older homes (over here before the 90's) will need to stick to gas heating because insulating them is just not financially viable. It is not just a matter of putting insulation on the outside of older homes but there will also need to be a ventilation system to manage the humidity. It basically means remodelling an entire house.
Re hydrogen, I think the biggest area hydrogen makes sense in is long distance trucks.
And busses. But now think a bit further... if you need to put a hydrogen infrastructure in place anyway then why not use it for cars too? There is no use for having two very expensive pieces of infrastructure in parallel which serve the same goal. In the end hydrogen is way more universal. You can also use it to heat the homes. In the Netherlands the country wide natural network of natural gas pipes is also suitable for hydrogen. Some Dutch manufacturers of gas heaters have already developed hydrogen models which are currently being field tested.
-
The prices I listed are the reality for the people not being able to charge from their own socket.
So you say that people who are not able to get their own socket next to car parking can afford Toyota Mirai for 78.600,00 € (.de price including VAT).
And in the end nobody cares about efficiency. It is all about costs.
Yes. Those two are related, didn't you know? :palm:
p.s. Seems, you gave-up debunking my claim that hydrogen + fuel cells are less efficient storage of energy compared to batteries? Lame shifting of goalposts instead? LOL
-
The prices I listed are the reality for the people not being able to charge from their own socket.
So you say that people who are not able to get their own socket next to car parking can afford Toyota Mirai for 78.600,00 € (.de price including VAT).
That price will go down for sure and you can also buy these second hand at some point. And in the Netherlands you can spend well over a million euro on a home without having your own driveway or garage.
And in the end nobody cares about efficiency. It is all about costs.
Yes. Those two are related, didn't you know? :palm:
p.s. Seems, you gave-up debunking my claim that fuel cells are less efficient storage of energy compared to batteries? Lame shifting of goalposts instead? LOL
Because there is nothing to argue about. Efficiency doesn't matter at all. Electricity made by a solar panel in Africa, the middle-East or even Australia cannot be transported to Europe. Turn it into hydrogen and you can. What counts is economic viability. Keep in mind that battery storage of electricity can easely cost a multiple of what it costs to generate it. So converting it to hydrogen with some loss is very likely cheaper compared to battery storage. And from there hydrogen is much more universal to use as well.
-
This is one of the things I find quite impressive about electric power in vehicles to date, whether its full EVs or hybrids. There is a substantial amount of high power, high stress, electronics built to minimum cost in all of them, but you hardly ever hear serious complaints about the reliability of this part of the system.
Indeed. When the Prius was first developed I confidently predicted we would be seeing massive numbers of battery and inverter failures, that salvage yards would be filled with a sea of hybrid cars written off simply because the expensive batteries or electronics had failed.
I was dead wrong. To this day I have not seen a single failure, some worn out batteries in 15+ year old hybrids but refurbished battery packs are available at reasonable prices now. I know several EV owners and dozens of hybrid owners and not a single one of them has written off a car due to equipment failure. The reliability has astounded me. I dread having to try to fix one if it does fail but so far I have not had to.
On the other hand I know a handful of people who have written off gasoline cars by running them out of oil, breaking the timing belt (because they balk at paying $1200 to have the belt replaced on a car worth $2500) or overheating them due to coolant loss and still more who have had transmission failures, engine problems and other issues due to either lax maintenance or design defects.
-
The prices I listed are the reality for the people not being able to charge from their own socket.
So you say that people who are not able to get their own socket next to car parking can afford Toyota Mirai for 78.600,00 € (.de price including VAT).
And in the end nobody cares about efficiency. It is all about costs.
Yes. Those two are related, didn't you know? :palm:
p.s. Seems, you gave-up debunking my claim that fuel cells are less efficient storage of energy compared to batteries? Lame shifting of goalposts instead? LOL
There is no sense in arguing with the resident EV-hater. You will never win a religious argument, facts and data are useless. You just have to recognize that you are arguing against their religion and step away.
-
Because there is nothing to argue about. Efficiency doesn't matter at all. Electricity made by a solar panel in Africa, the middle-East or even Australia cannot be transported to Europe. Turn it into hydrogen and you can. What counts is economic viability.
If economic viability what matters, I take hybrid any day. Compare Toyota Mirai to Lexus UX 250h.
Price: 79580 vs 36850, Cost per 100km: 10EUR*0.8=8EUR vs 1.378EUR*4.1=5.65EUR
Car prices from mobile.de, gasoline price from globalpetrolprices.com, H2 price from your data, 10EUR/kg. Your turn.
-
Because there is nothing to argue about. Efficiency doesn't matter at all. Electricity made by a solar panel in Africa, the middle-East or even Australia cannot be transported to Europe. Turn it into hydrogen and you can. What counts is economic viability.
If economic viability what matters, I take hybrid any day. Compare Toyota Mirai to Lexus UX 250h.
Price: 79580 vs 36850, Cost per 100km: 10EUR*0.8=8EUR vs 1.378EUR*4.1=5.65EUR
Car prices from mobile.de, gasoline price from globalpetrolprices.com, H2 price from your data, 10EUR/kg. Your turn.
You are very well aware you are comparing very new technology with existing technology so any price comparison at this point is rather moot. I already stated that at this moment the best choice is a hybrid.
-
facts and data are useless.
All the facts point to EVs never becoming a mainstream mode of transport! Toyota isn't even planning on building EVs. Are you calling the people running one of the biggest and highest valued car manufacturers stupid? Toyota got it right when they introduced the hybrid (even though they where the laughing stock of the motoring world when they did) and chances are high they got it right again.
-
You are very well aware you are comparing very new technology with existing technology so any price comparison at this point is rather moot.
I at least compared *existing* technologies. Your argument was hydrogen fuel cell EV economic viability which don't even exist (yet).
-
All the facts point to EVs never becoming a mainstream mode of transport! Toyota isn't even planning on building EVs. Are you calling the people running one of the biggest and highest valued car manufacturers stupid? Toyota got it right when they introduced the hybrid (even though they where the laughing stock of the motoring world when they did) and chances are high they got it right again.
Toyota plans on riding out the ICE for as long as possible. They are heavily invested in hybrid tech. You cannot buy a better hybrid than a Toyota/Lexus hybrid. The Prius is class-leading in efficiency, for hybrid-powered vehicles; I think only the Hyundai Ioniq hybrid comes close.
The problem for car manufacturers is making an EV is an entirely different ball game. A hydrogen car is their way to say "look, we're green and clean, now let us keep making ICE cars". Building EVs requires mass battery factories, and the component count is lower than an ICE, so the possibility to stay competitive is lower. If you look at the Bill of Materials for a modern car, you'll find very little outside of the engine, interior parts and chassis is actually made by the manufacturers. Car manufacturers are essentially coachbuilders. EVs take away their engine know how and they lose their advantage to the Chinese and Silicon Valley startups like Tesla.
If they were truly interested in making hydrogen cars viable, they would be shipping them in Model 3/Model S volumes by now, as well as investing in a fuelling network to make them practical. Toyota sold under 2k Mirai per year in the USA, Tesla sold more Roadsters! [1]
[1] http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/toyota/toyota-mirai/ (http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/toyota/toyota-mirai/)
-
Joe Average is going to have to pay the cost one way or another. The problem is we have gorged for too long on cheap fossil fuels without considering the environmental consequences.
Even without externalities such as environmental "costs" the price of some non-renewable energy sources has been historically undervalued. The example of natural gas (misleadingly extrapolated) above is a good one, it has been burnt off at wells as a pure waste product as the price was so low it was uneconomic to deliver. Industry and consumers became accustomed to cheap heat from gas, but with worldwide demand increasing (driven in large part by increasing use for generating electricity) the price is levelling out to the underlying $/Mj value of delivered energy. Enjoy the good times while they last because change is inevitable.
-
facts and data are useless.
All the facts point to EVs never becoming a mainstream mode of transport! Toyota isn't even planning on building EVs. Are you calling the people running one of the biggest and highest valued car manufacturers stupid? Toyota got it right when they introduced the hybrid (even though they where the laughing stock of the motoring world when they did) and chances are high they got it right again.
That is your belief/view, we get it. Other people think that the world of mass private transport is inherently unsustainable and the future is not some car replacement in every shape/form/function/capability match but instead a diversification of transport options. So how about back to the issue asked by this thread of where would the energy come from?
-
All the facts point to EVs never becoming a mainstream mode of transport! Toyota isn't even planning on building EVs. Are you calling the people running one of the biggest and highest valued car manufacturers stupid? Toyota got it right when they introduced the hybrid (even though they where the laughing stock of the motoring world when they did) and chances are high they got it right again.
They already are, you're stating as a fact something will never happen which already happened some time ago. There are at least 5 on my street, I have several friends and family members who have them and have been driving them for several years, I see dozens of them on the roads every day. EVs are as mainstream as any sort of semi-niche vehicle. It has already happened, it's a done deal, it's old news.
ICE cars are not going away in the foreseeable future and hybrids will likely be with us even longer but to argue that EVs will never be mainstream requires sticking your head in the sand and pretending that the millions of them on the roads today do not exist. It is perhaps an inconvenient fact that they do but they are out there, they are mainstream and they will keep getting more common until we are perhaps around 40% pure EV, 50% hybrid and 10% conventional ICE. Toyota is not dumb, they simply have developed a very good hybrid system that is doing very well for them, there is little they would gain by competing in the EV market right now, that is dominated by other players. It would be tremendously expensive for them to change direction now and as long as hybrids continue to sell well, why would they?
-
The prices I listed are the reality for the people not being able to charge from their own socket.
So you say that people who are not able to get their own socket next to car parking can afford Toyota Mirai for 78.600,00 € (.de price including VAT).
Just ignore it, there are people in many cities around the world who receive free/cheap parking on the road (a massive subsidy) and cannot imagine/believe this will ever change and the cost of parking is something they should consider. You can choose to include or exclude all sorts of externalities to justify a point.
-
facts and data are useless.
All the facts point to EVs never becoming a mainstream mode of transport! Toyota isn't even planning on building EVs. Are you calling the people running one of the biggest and highest valued car manufacturers stupid? Toyota got it right when they introduced the hybrid (even though they where the laughing stock of the motoring world when they did) and chances are high they got it right again.
Lexus (owned by Toyota) is planning to deliver the EX300e full EV in the UK around April-July. I looked at a prototype last week. But I would have less space than my Honda Jazz in a car that takes up 20% more road. So that was a no-go.
I am signed up for the new Honda Jazz Hybrid - but then the UK Government said "No hybrids" and then I dropped those plans as well. If the government is serious about that the resale value on hybrids will plummet.
-
All the facts point to EVs never becoming a mainstream mode of transport! Toyota isn't even planning on building EVs. Are you calling the people running one of the biggest and highest valued car manufacturers stupid? Toyota got it right when they introduced the hybrid (even though they where the laughing stock of the motoring world when they did) and chances are high they got it right again.
They already are, you're stating as a fact something will never happen which already happened some time ago. There are at least 5 on my street, I have several friends and family members who have them and have been driving them for several years, I see dozens of them on the roads every day. EVs are as mainstream as any sort of semi-niche vehicle. It has already happened, it's a done deal, it's old news.
ICE cars are not going away in the foreseeable future and hybrids will likely be with us even longer but to argue that EVs will never be mainstream requires sticking your head in the sand and pretending that the millions of them on the roads today do not exist. It is perhaps an inconvenient fact that they do but they are out there, they are mainstream and they will keep getting more common until we are perhaps around 40% pure EV, 50% hybrid and 10% conventional ICE. Toyota is not dumb, they simply have developed a very good hybrid system that is doing very well for them, there is little they would gain by competing in the EV market right now, that is dominated by other players. It would be tremendously expensive for them to change direction now and as long as hybrids continue to sell well, why would they?
I think BEVs represent something in excess of 10% of new car sales here, certainly not niche.
As for redonkulous claim: "Toyota isn't even planning on building EVs.",
Toyota Details Six New EV Models Launching for 2020–2025 https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27887943/toyota-ev-rollout-plans/ (https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27887943/toyota-ev-rollout-plans/)
try and remember you you're arguing with, a poster who in another thread tried to argue that the forces of drag act differently on an EV increasing it's energy consumption rate at a greater rate than it would on a gasoline powered car. He's not stating fact, he's stating what he would like to be true.
-
I am signed up for the new Honda Jazz Hybrid - but then the UK Government said "No hybrids" and then I dropped those plans as well. If the government is serious about that the resale value on hybrids will plummet.
What do you mean by "No hybrids". All I have heard is they will ban the sale of new hybrids in 2035, by which time one bought today will be worthless anyway. I think the new Honda Jazz Hybrid looks interesting as wifey's next car, but it looks like they are setting the price way above the existing model.
-
I am signed up for the new Honda Jazz Hybrid - but then the UK Government said "No hybrids" and then I dropped those plans as well. If the government is serious about that the resale value on hybrids will plummet.
What do you mean by "No hybrids". All I have heard is they will ban the sale of new hybrids in 2035, by which time one bought today will be worthless anyway. I think the new Honda Jazz Hybrid looks interesting as wifey's next car, but it looks like they are setting the price way above the existing model.
They started saying 2035 - but latest is they are talking about moving it to 2030 or earlier.
-
I am signed up for the new Honda Jazz Hybrid - but then the UK Government said "No hybrids" and then I dropped those plans as well. If the government is serious about that the resale value on hybrids will plummet.
What do you mean by "No hybrids". All I have heard is they will ban the sale of new hybrids in 2035, by which time one bought today will be worthless anyway. I think the new Honda Jazz Hybrid looks interesting as wifey's next car, but it looks like they are setting the price way above the existing model.
They started saying 2035 - but latest is they are talking about moving it to 2030 or earlier.
They are only stopping sales of new cars. Not banning old ones. The stated reason for changing from the original date in 2040 is because they realised a lot of cars only 10 years old would need to be scrapped in 2050 if they are to keep to their zero emissions by 2050 goal. They woke up to that being unreasonable. Setting an even earlier date, like 2030, for the ban of new registrations will depend on the availability of wide range of suitable affordable non-ICE cars, which is not a given right now.
-
I am signed up for the new Honda Jazz Hybrid - but then the UK Government said "No hybrids" and then I dropped those plans as well. If the government is serious about that the resale value on hybrids will plummet.
What do you mean by "No hybrids". All I have heard is they will ban the sale of new hybrids in 2035, by which time one bought today will be worthless anyway. I think the new Honda Jazz Hybrid looks interesting as wifey's next car, but it looks like they are setting the price way above the existing model.
They started saying 2035 - but latest is they are talking about moving it to 2030 or earlier.
They are only stopping sales of new cars. Not banning old ones. The stated reason for changing from the original date in 2040 is because they realised a lot of cars only 10 years old would need to be scrapped in 2050 if they are to keep to their zero emissions by 2050 goal. They woke up to that being unreasonable. Setting an even earlier date, like 2030, for the ban of new registrations will depend on the availability of wide range of suitable affordable non-ICE cars, which is not a given right now.
No but 2030 is only 10 years away. So if you buy a hybrid now you will see increased depreciation rates if they go through with the sales ban in 2030. In peoples mind it will have less value. And not long after banning sales - they will quickly start closing petrol stations to flush out what ever is remaining of vehicles using fossil fuels. So just wait and see.
Then only people with friends on farms and boats will be able get fossil fuels. (I don't think we will have serious farming equipment within the next 10 years. You need tractors with 12-18 hour battery life and < 6 hour charge time - and fishing boats with multiple week capacity for trawling.)
-
For applications where we can't replaced combustible fuels, that's where we need to use biofuels. Agricultural machinery and aircraft are the main ones -- I'd like to see this government invest in biofuel production, but just to make the less common applications cleaner. EVs would still be the main technology behind private and light goods vehicle, at the very least because of air pollution issues caused by the ICE.