When Will Electric Cars Become Mainstream?

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

According to A video blog post Dave made, there is a 20% loss to heat while charging, and 20% loss while discharging.

I can't find that video, which one is it, please?

[boffin]

mtdoc the  80-95% charge/discharge efficiency is the reality you are claiming is what's bullshit.  Try holding a phone while it's being changed and tell me if you can feel it getting warm.  That ain't no 10% heat loss.  Then talking on the phone for 30 mionutes and tell if your phone isn't getting hot.  That ain't no 10% either.

If you are going to challenge Dave's 20% loss due to charging and 20% loss due to discharging tell him he's full of shit and propvide you own imperical evidence.  I trust Dave's testing methodology and numbers than you just saying they are bullshit.  And it appears at least one person thinks Dave's numbers sound about right. 


mtdoc, instead of calling my posts fact-free and Dave's numbers bullshit, why not post the resuts of your tests.  Or is it you are the troll?

OK, I'll call your posts fact-free then.

I see (real world)
15-16 kWh consumption (as reported by car)
18 kWh from the socket on the wall (as reported by my charger)

for 20% worse case charging loss.

[coppice]

I see (real world)
15-16 kWh consumption (as reported by car)
18 kWh from the socket on the wall (as reported by my charger)

for 20% worse case charging loss.

18kWh from the socket sounds like pretty solid information. 15-16kWh consumption reported by the car is more vague. Is that 15-16kWh at the wheels? Somewhere in the electronics? Out of the battery?

[DougSpindler]

According to A video blog post Dave made, there is a 20% loss to heat while charging, and 20% loss while discharging.

I can't find that video, which one is it, please?

Not sure how Dave organizes his videos.  But it was around the eara where he was talking about the solar panels he had installed on his house.  It was not the solar pannel video, but a related one about batteries and the efficiency of batteries.  Can’t say for sure but he may have used the video to justify why he did not install banks of batteries.  Takeaway message when dealing with batteries expect to loose 20% when charging batteries and another 20% when discharging.  Total loss to heat when working with recharagable batteries Can be 40%.

Interestingly in the video “Truth about Hydrogen” cars they also independently come up with the 40 heat loss in charging and discharging batteries.

 https://youtu.be/f7MzFfuNOtY

[mtdoc]

According to A video blog post Dave made, there is a 20% loss to heat while charging, and 20% loss while discharging.

I can't find that video, which one is it, please?

Yes, please tell us.

I see (real world)
15-16 kWh consumption (as reported by car)
18 kWh from the socket on the wall (as reported by my charger)

for 20% worse case charging loss.

With my Chevy Volt, I've measured efficiencies between 85-92% based on displayed kWh used versus kWh delivered by the EVSE.     Depending on how much of capacity I use and on ambient temperatures. Even when "fully discharged", the Volt's system is designed to only use the middle 80% or so of the total battery capacity - so it is mostly in the most efficient part of the charging curve.

Independent testing by the DOE's Idaho National Laboratory found the  overall efficiency to be 88.8% for a Level 1 EVSE and 90.8% for a level 2.

The Chevrolet Volt OBCM was benchmark tested for AC to DC efficiency. Charging with Level 2 EVSE at 208 VAC input (60 Hz), the Volt onboard charger was calculated to be 91.7% efficient, operating near 3.3 kW with a power factor of 0.997. Charging with Level 1 EVSE at 120 VAC input (60 Hz) the Volt onboard charger was calculated to be90.6% efficient, operating near 1.3 AC kW. Given that most Level 2 EVSE are greater than 99% efficient when operating above 3.0 kW (208 to 240 VAC) and Level 1 EVSE are 98% efficient when operating above 1.25 AC kW (120 VAC), the overall AC to DC charging efficiency for the Chevrolet Volt is 90.8% for Level 2 and 88.8% for Level 1

.

These facts have been presented on this forum before 

[mtdoc]

Not sure how Dave organizes his videos.  But it was around the eara where he was talking about the solar panels he had installed on his house.  It was not the solar pannel video, but a related one about batteries and the efficiency of batteries.  Can’t say for sure but he may have used the video to justify why he did not install banks of batteries.  Takeaway message when dealing with batteries expect to loose 20% when charging batteries and another 20% when discharging.  Total loss to heat when working with recharagable batteries Can be 40%.

Ok, so nothing to back up your claim then?  Why am I not surprised....  Also - charge efficiency for the FLA batteries typically used for home RE applications is much different (lower) than for the Lithium batteries used in EVs. And BTW - Dave is sometimes wrong - so your appeal to authority argument holds no weight - even if he did say that (which you have yet to show).

[DougSpindler]

The Chevrolet Volt OBCM was benchmark tested for AC to DC efficiency.
 
These facts have been presented on this forum before 

Yes these facts have been presented before but dude are you that draft?  The research article is in reference to has to Do with the efficiency of a Chevy Volt OBCM charger?  Ummmm. You do realize we are a talking about batteries   Do know the difference between an battery and a battery charger?

And you call people trolls.

[mtdoc]

And the FFD pattern repeats.

If you don't understand the relationship between a charger's efficiency and battery charging efficiency perhaps you're on the wrong forum. Or at least stick to the beginner's section.

Still waiting for you to provide proof that Dave said charging has 40% losses....

[DougSpindler]

And the FFD pattern repeats.

If you don't understand the relationship between a charger's efficiency and battery charging efficiency perhaps you're on the wrong forum. Or at least stick to the beginner's section.

Still waiting for you to provide proof that Dave said charging has 40% losses....

It’s in the video, 

[mtdoc]

And the FFD pattern repeats.

If you don't understand the relationship between a charger's efficiency and battery charging efficiency perhaps you're on the wrong forum. Or at least stick to the beginner's section.

Still waiting for you to provide proof that Dave said charging has 40% losses....

It’s in the video,

Which video? Dave has hundreds. Please post the link.

[DougSpindler]

And the FFD pattern repeats.

If you don't understand the relationship between a charger's efficiency and battery charging efficiency perhaps you're on the wrong forum. Or at least stick to the beginner's section.

Still waiting for you to provide proof that Dave said charging has 40% losses....

It’s in the video,

Which video? Dave has hundreds. Please post the link.

You”ll have to keep waiting as I never posted in any of my posts Dave said that.  But then aren’t”t you the guy who said Dave is wrong?  And don’t know the difference between a battery charger and a battery?  In looking at the posts, yup that”’s you.

[mtdoc]

And the FFD pattern repeats.

If you don't understand the relationship between a charger's efficiency and battery charging efficiency perhaps you're on the wrong forum. Or at least stick to the beginner's section.

Still waiting for you to provide proof that Dave said charging has 40% losses....

It’s in the video,

Which video? Dave has hundreds. Please post the link.

You”ll have to keep waiting as I never posted in any of my posts Dave said that.

  According to Dave battery packs between loses 40% of there energy to heat.  So for evert 100 kWhr that are used to charge the batteries, you only get 60 back plus a fair amount of heat.

According to A video blog post Dave made, there is a 20% loss to heat while charging, and 20% loss while discharging.

Now blatant lying to go along with the trolling. 

[boffin]

I see (real world)
15-16 kWh consumption (as reported by car)
18 kWh from the socket on the wall (as reported by my charger)

for 20% worse case charging loss.

18kWh from the socket sounds like pretty solid information. 15-16kWh consumption reported by the car is more vague. Is that 15-16kWh at the wheels? Somewhere in the electronics? Out of the battery?

Who cares?  Do you break down your ICE car consumption into how much was burned to turn the wheels vs how much was used to spin the power steering pump?

All you care about is consumption, and mine is around 18kWh/100km, or in this part of the world, about C$1.68/100km or just over the price of 1l of gasoline.

[mtdoc]

All you care about is consumption, and mine is around 18kWh/100km, or in this part of the world, about C$1.68/100km or just over the price of 1l of gasoline.

Exactly.  FWIW, I use about 10kWh/35 miles on average with my Volt.  That 10 kWh only costs me about $0.71 USD for the grid power at my locale.

[nctnico]

Just the charging of a Li-ion type battery can't be 95% efficient. The typical charging efficiency of Li-ion batteries is about 90% on average (for good batteries in decent shape, that is, and can be as low as 80%) and if you add the charger's efficiency itself, which will probably be in the order of 90% at best, you're already down to 81%. Those figures sound like reasonable estimates.

As for discharge, I'm sure it depends a lot on the battery itself and use conditions, but an average of 90% looks like a reasonsable (if even optimistic) estimate.
All combined, you're already down to 73%.

Then you will have losses in the power electronics circuitry and  electric motor(s).

It wouldn't seem like an unreasonable estimate to end up at 50% to 60%, at the very best, of overall efficiency for an electric car, taken from charging power to the power delivered at the wheels.

Charging efficiency of the batteries will greatly depend on how fast they are charged. A 3kW home EV charger charges with 0.05C at most so it should reach very high charging efficiencies. Also the electronics which drive the motor should be able to reach over 95% efficiency. The biggest question is how efficient the wall charger is. This can be anything between 75% to over 90%.

Then again the whole charge efficiency wasn't about charging batteries in a car but a battery pack mounted on the wall which can be charged from a local source (solar panels) or mains. Once it is charged the power can be supplied back into the mains. The biggest losses I see are when mains are involved. Even very good power supplies top out at little over 90% and the rest is stuck at 85% or even less. Inverters (DC to mains) probably show similar losses. If you set the charge/discharge efficiency at 90% then the total mains - battery - mains chain efficiency sits somewhere around 65% (85% efficient AC/DC DC/AC conversion) to 76% (92% efficient AC/DC DC/AC conversion). A cleverly designed system should use the DC bus voltage from the solar panels to charge the batteries. DC-DC conversion at 98% efficiency is not overly expensive to design & built.

[ahbushnell]

Just the charging of a Li-ion type battery can't be 95% efficient. The typical charging efficiency of Li-ion batteries is about 90% on average (for good batteries in decent shape, that is, and can be as low as 80%) and if you add the charger's efficiency itself, which will probably be in the order of 90% at best, you're already down to 81%. Those figures sound like reasonable estimates.

As for discharge, I'm sure it depends a lot on the battery itself and use conditions, but an average of 90% looks like a reasonsable (if even optimistic) estimate.
All combined, you're already down to 73%.

Then you will have losses in the power electronics circuitry and  electric motor(s).

It wouldn't seem like an unreasonable estimate to end up at 50% to 60%, at the very best, of overall efficiency for an electric car, taken from charging power to the power delivered at the wheels.

This is from battery university.
https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/bu_808c_coulombic_and_energy_efficiency_with_the_battery

"Energy Efficiency
While the coulombic efficiency of lithium-ion is normally better than 99 percent, the energy efficiency of the same battery has a lower number and relates to the charge and discharge C-rate. With a 20-hour charge rate of 0.05C, the energy efficiency is a high 99 percent. This drops to about 97 percent at 0.5C and decreases further at 1C. In the real world, the Tesla Roadster is said to have an energy efficiency of 86 percent. Ultra-fast charging on newer EVs will have a negative effect on energy efficiency, as well as the battery life."

These numbers on the Tesla seem reasonable.  I design power electronic equipment and 95% for a power electronics stage is about right.  There are two stages in a EV.  If the battery is 95% for combined charge discharge that gives a total loss of .95*.95*.95=85.7% which matches the Tesla number.  This does depend on the charge rate. 

[DougSpindler]

The thing with battery efficiency has more to do its the old companies tempting to ell you battery storage units and not cr car/EV batteries.

Interesting how everyone thinks Hydrogen powered cars will get their fuel from water.  WRONG!  Hydrogen used to power cars comes from fossil fuel, not water.

https://youtu.be/tp4OUf1bEwM

[nctnico]

The thing with battery efficiency has more to do its the old companies tempting to ell you battery storage units and not cr car/EV batteries.

Interesting how everyone thinks Hydrogen powered cars will get their fuel from water.  WRONG!  Hydrogen used to power cars comes from fossil fuel, not water.

Well... nobody seems to care that the electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels as well (for now). In the end what counts is the TCO including cost & profit of the required infrastructure changes. From that perspective bio-fuels are a step ahead because these need no changes to existing infrastructure. What I see happening in the Netherlands is that reality starts to sink in: EVs won't be cheaper for the next decades and about 1 charger per every 2 cars is needed for EVs to actually work as a replacement for ICE based cars. Suddenly EVs don't look that hot anymore.

[coppice]

Interesting how everyone thinks Hydrogen powered cars will get their fuel from water.  WRONG!  Hydrogen used to power cars comes from fossil fuel, not water.

The low volumes of hydrogen fuel being created for the handful of hydrogen cars around today is being generated from methane, just as most hydrogen for industrial use has been generated for decades. For high volumes of hydrogen cars it doesn't work from the cost point of view, the energy efficiency point of view, the carbon emissions point of view, or the use of a finite resource point of view. However, nobody ever claims this is a practical long term solution. Clearly a more sustainable scheme would be needed, and they do exist. The snag nobody has overcome so far is they are all energy inefficient. However, there are multiple schemes which avoid carbon emissions and allow fully renewable energy to be used. With sufficiently low renewable energy costs the inefficiency might not be a killer.

[Kjelt]

Well... nobody seems to care that the electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels as well (for now).

The question is what is the efficiency difference for both?
If a fossil fuel powered electricity plant generated energy driven car is still 5 times more efficient than an ICE it still is beneficial. I would like to see those calculations.

[nctnico]

Well... nobody seems to care that the electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels as well (for now).

The question is what is the efficiency difference for both?
If a fossil fuel powered electricity plant generated energy driven car is still 5 times more efficient than an ICE it still is beneficial. I would like to see those calculations.

Well such energy efficiency differences are not going to happen. In the current situation the difference isn't that big already when comparing efficient ICE cars to EV / Hydrogen. And the ICE cars will be getting some serious improvements in milage given the fact that the EU laws will become more strict on how much CO2 an ICE car may emit per km. Hydrogen powered cars are in fact EVs but they use a different carrier for the energy. Basically just forget about efficiencies in these kind of discussions. In the end it is going to come down to costs for the user and ease of operation. A well known example is how the inferior VHS system won from technically better video recording systems. The cheapest & easiest to use solution likely isn't going to be the most efficient one.

[boffin]

The thing with battery efficiency has more to do its the old companies tempting to ell you battery storage units and not cr car/EV batteries.

Interesting how everyone thinks Hydrogen powered cars will get their fuel from water.  WRONG!  Hydrogen used to power cars comes from fossil fuel, not water.

Well... nobody seems to care that the electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels as well (for now). In the end what counts is the TCO including cost & profit of the required infrastructure changes. From that perspective bio-fuels are a step ahead because these need no changes to existing infrastructure. What I see happening in the Netherlands is that reality starts to sink in: EVs won't be cheaper for the next decades and about 1 charger per every 2 cars is needed for EVs to actually work as a replacement for ICE based cars. Suddenly EVs don't look that hot anymore.

Wow, you're such a nay-sayer. 
1) There is probably 1 public charger per 100 EVs here in a very dense EV population.  The weird thing that makes that possible?  Most people have electricity at home.
2) Electricity (>90%) comes from hydro electric here
3) EV cars already pay for themselves after 50,000k in this jurisdiction (see previous calculations)

[nctnico]

The thing with battery efficiency has more to do its the old companies tempting to ell you battery storage units and not cr car/EV batteries.

Interesting how everyone thinks Hydrogen powered cars will get their fuel from water.  WRONG!  Hydrogen used to power cars comes from fossil fuel, not water.

Well... nobody seems to care that the electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels as well (for now). In the end what counts is the TCO including cost & profit of the required infrastructure changes. From that perspective bio-fuels are a step ahead because these need no changes to existing infrastructure. What I see happening in the Netherlands is that reality starts to sink in: EVs won't be cheaper for the next decades and about 1 charger per every 2 cars is needed for EVs to actually work as a replacement for ICE based cars. Suddenly EVs don't look that hot anymore.

Wow, you're such a nay-sayer. 
1) There is probably 1 public charger per 100 EVs here in a very dense EV population.  The weird thing that makes that possible?  Most people have electricity at home.
2) Electricity (>90%) comes from hydro electric here
3) EV cars already pay for themselves after 50,000k in this jurisdiction (see previous calculations)

No. Just managing expectations. You are just projecting your very special situation (where electricity is so cheap an EV is extremely cheap to run) to the rest of the world. It just doesn't work that way. For starters most people are not going to buy an expensive car hoping they will break even at some point. Changing energy prices and taxating make that a gamble.

[Nauris]

Well... nobody seems to care that the electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels as well (for now).

The question is what is the efficiency difference for both?
If a fossil fuel powered electricity plant generated energy driven car is still 5 times more efficient than an ICE it still is beneficial. I would like to see those calculations.

Well that one is easy calculation.
EV typical consumption is 18 kWh/100 km, coal plant typical CO2 emission is 950 g/kWh so that makes 171 g/km if you charge your EV from coal plant. Equivalent to approx 7 l/100km gasoline consumption.

Avarage CO2 emission in Germany is 600 g/kWh so that means 110 g/km emission.
Here it is 90 g/kWh so only 16 g/km emission, way better than gasoline car.

[mtdoc]

Well... nobody seems to care that the electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels as well (for now).

Not an accurate statement - a half truth at best.  Only a portion of  it does - and worldwide that portion is shrinking. In Europe, Central and South America less than half comes from fossil fuels and in some locales (eg PNW USA) it is very little (or none).

From 2018 BP statistical report