This puts the Virus into the shadows

[D_W]

It's a bit early to dictate battery standardization, as doing such would be picking winners and losers. If we had done such a thing a decade ago, we'd have a design that may not accommodate thermal regulation, and that regulation is what makes Tesla's batteries something that will outlast the car itself.

A little more than a decade ago, the pack included in a model S cost more than the car was sold for. 2010 avg cost for capacity was $1,100 per kw/hr, averaging something like $137 for the same capacity last year and google links an article stating that there have been some sales at less than $100 per kw/hr.

There may not be incentive at some point for fast swapping batteries industrial forklift style. The trouble with the swapping idea is that it will increase the cost at least two fold over having a permanent pack - suddenly, you have infrastructure that wasn't used before, insurance, liability, taxes, regulatory compliance, etc. I don't see it coming to fruition - it made sense only when cars had to be charged overnight.

There will probably be a secondary market for the thermally managed packs, too. If telsa considers a 100kw/hr pack no longer usable at 90kw/hr, wouldn't you like to have it to manage power? Anywhere here in the states where tiered power is sold (california can have sky high top tier costs for heavy users), such a thing would pay for itself quickly. If you were a generation further in the future with cars and had two used packs installed stationary in your house, pulling power only when it was cheap and kicking on when it's expensive, you could end up with some absurd amount of power on hand - 150 or 200 kw/hr, and the duty for the batteries would be gentler than a car.

 

[Rorschach]

If a vehicle on one charge does does say 1/3rd of the mileage and takes 3 times as long to "fill" it follows that to be comparable we would need 9 times as many charge points as we currently have fuel filling pumps.
That would be 9 times the number of filling stations along our roads.
Slightly fewer if home charging taken into account.
We need something like wartime utility standards, rather than simply allowing vehicle manufacturers to keep coming up with elaborate solutions, which has already been a disaster with fossil fuels; massive infrastructure, massive destruction of town and country, massive movement of goods and people who otherwise would have been locally sourced, massive air pollution, unsustainable waste of resources.
Climate change could be a chance to rebuild without making all the same mistakes. Even bigger mistake would be nuclear power IMHO.

That's why I said we need either replaceable batteries (as they are using in China) or batteries that can charge in say 5 minutes.

If you can charge a battery for 300 miles or replace a 300 mile battery in under 5 minutes then the problem is solved.

 

[DBT85]

Battery tech will evolve especially as more are working on it now that they want to offer the best range and charging speeds. New Hybrids won't be around after the mid 35s.

 

[Ozi]

A chinese company is doing it seemingly fairly successfully right now. Personally I think it's probably the only viable solution unless we are able to create a battery that can charge in just a few minutes.

https://www.discoverev.co.uk/ev-news/does-battery-swapping-have-a-future-outside-china

Very interesting article, it doesn't change my mind that it's not a good idea. The big benefit to them is that having very dense urban populations where home charging is almost impossible it is the only way to make EVs practicable, while they are forced into it we are not and have better options. We will see where it goes.

The one point not being made is that for battery swapping to become viable then all batterys need to be the same in both size, charging requirements and connections otherwise there will be chaos. Then it would be a modern version of the horse and carriage where you travel so far, stop at the inn and get fresh horses, in our case batteries. This then causes issues for the manufacturers, it is easier for them to wrap a vehicle round the batteries to maximise space than try to put them in accessable compartments.

I still believe long term the hybrid is the answer, runs mostly on batteries which can be kept charged by a small highly efficient engine, maybe even a small turbine running parifin.

The problem for hybrids is the need to package and carry around both power trains. I am very impressed with MHEV systems, indeed I'm surprised that cars without this are still on sale the gain in efficiency is enormous with the production cost relatively low and the weight difference negligible as they run a smaller IC engine and need a smaller fuel tank. PHEV to me just doesn't make sense and a high proportion of users end up almost never charging the battery after the novelty wears off so run a heavy under powered short range car. It seems a bit like early steam ships still having masts and sails as they couldn't trust the technology.

 

[D_W]

Who is the biggest and most efficient company dealing with batteries and battery tech at this point? If it's not tesla, I don't know who it would be.

In the early 2010s, Tesla mentioned that they were going to offer gigacharging or whatever they call it and battery swapping at same locations. They mentioned lower prices than most residential charging for the electricity and about the same cost as gasoline for battery swapping.

within a year, they abandoned the idea.

If tesla doesn't think battery swapping has much of a future, then it's unlikely that anyone will be able to do it economically in the western world. I'm sure the reason for tesla is that they intend to instead offer faster and faster charge rates.

I don't have an EV, so I don't know what the top rate is right now, but I believe it's about 150kw rate, with something like 1.2mw rate planned for the trucks.

If I could stop and eat for 20 minutes and wee and get another 200 miles of range, that's plenty fine with me.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Back to the nuclear thing:

A “manmade” disaster

: The TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties. They effectively betrayed the nation’s right to be safe from nuclear accidents. Therefore, we conclude that the accident was clearly “manmade.” We believe that the root causes were the organizational and regulatory systems that supported faulty rationales for decisions and actions, rather than issues relating to the competency of any specific individual. (see Recommendation 1)” — from The official report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (pg. 16)

 

[Rorschach]

Who is the biggest and most efficient company dealing with batteries and battery tech at this point? If it's not tesla, I don't know who it would be.

In the early 2010s, Tesla mentioned that they were going to offer gigacharging or whatever they call it and battery swapping at same locations. They mentioned lower prices than most residential charging for the electricity and about the same cost as gasoline for battery swapping.

within a year, they abandoned the idea.

If tesla doesn't think battery swapping has much of a future, then it's unlikely that anyone will be able to do it economically in the western world. I'm sure the reason for tesla is that they intend to instead offer faster and faster charge rates.

I don't have an EV, so I don't know what the top rate is right now, but I believe it's about 150kw rate, with something like 1.2mw rate planned for the trucks.

If I could stop and eat for 20 minutes and wee and get another 200 miles of range, that's plenty fine with me.

Super fast charging is likely to be the way forward rather than swapping batteries, but swapping batteries works with current technology quite well, whereas super fast charging requires a new type of battery than can handle those massive loads without damaging it, current Li-Ion batteries can be charged at high loads but it shortens their life considerably, slow gentle charging is what they really like.

Personally, I think they need to get 300 miles of range in under 5 minutes for it to be practical. Stopping for a wee and something to eat is all well and good when you are doing a long journey but the vast majority of charging is going to be people who drive short distances so they will need it to be just like a petrol station is today, in and out in under 5 minutes.

 

[Jameshow]

Battery tech will evolve especially as more are working on it now that they want to offer the best range and charging speeds. New Hybrids won't be around after the mid 35s.

Like most of us!

I think hybrids are great electric for everyday local driving and petrol / diesel for long distance driving.
I don't get hybrids you don't plug in.

Cheers James

 

[Ozi]

Like most of us!

I think hybrids are great electric for everyday local driving and petrol / diesel for long distance driving.
I don't get hybrids you don't plug in.

Cheers James

The point of MHEV systems is to improve efficiency. Petrol engines are most efficient at higher loads up to a point but you wouldn't want a car where you were regularly cruising at 80% load it wouldn't accelerate just gather momentum if you take my point. With MHEV you get the small engine working hard and efficient while the electric motor provides the extra power when needed, the batteries tend to be small 48V units and relatively light, recharged by "engine braking" to recover energy normally wasted, if you have ever made the mistake of touching a recently used break disk you appreciate how much energy that is. Just as an example VW claim the Golf blue motion gives 67.3mpg where the Golf MHEV gives 176.6 all be it with lower performance. I used to drive the blue motion and on long runs if I avoided supermarket fuel regularly got economy into the 70s but no where near the MHEV.

PHEV work best if you let the vehicle decide the mix of power to use, if you try to drive on just one you are lugging the other around unnecessarily better to have a small electric for every day local and a second larger vehicle for long distance or heavy load use. It can only be a matter of time before someone offers a hire contract where you can swap vehicles to suit your need.

 

[Jacob]

The point of MHEV systems is to improve efficiency. Petrol engines are most efficient at higher loads up to a point but you wouldn't want a car where you were regularly cruising at 80% load it wouldn't accelerate just gather momentum if you take my point. With MHEV you get the small engine working hard and efficient while the electric motor provides the extra power when needed, the batteries tend to be small 48V units and relatively light, recharged by "engine braking" to recover energy normally wasted, if you have ever made the mistake of touching a recently used break disk you appreciate how much energy that is. Just as an example VW claim the Golf blue motion gives 67.3mpg where the Golf MHEV gives 176.6 all be it with lower performance. I used to drive the blue motion and on long runs if I avoided supermarket fuel regularly got economy into the 70s but no where near the MHEV.

PHEV work best if you let the vehicle decide the mix of power to use, if you try to drive on just one you are lugging the other around unnecessarily better to have a small electric for every day local and a second larger vehicle for long distance or heavy load use. It can only be a matter of time before someone offers a hire contract where you can swap vehicles to suit your need.

Aren't these just engineers' toys for boys? Both defeat the object by using fossil fuel but will sell on strength of expensive "clever" engineering and token gesture to zero carbon.
What we need is the EV equivalent of the Trabant or Morris 1000 but well made and cleverly engineered. Times they are a changin!

 

[Ozi]

Aren't these just engineers' toys for boys? Both defeat the object by using fossil fuel but will sell on strength of "clever" engineering and token gesture to zero carbon

Agreed they are still part of the problem but also a step in the wright direction unless we stop using cars tomorrow what do you suggest?

 

[Jacob]

Agreed they are still part of the problem but also a step in the wright direction unless we stop using cars tomorrow what do you suggest?

Stopping using cars should certainly be on the agenda!
Perhaps what we need is the EV equivalent of the Trabant or Morris 1000 but well made and cleverly engineered. Times they are a changin!

 

[DBT85]

Like most of us!

I think hybrids are great electric for everyday local driving and petrol / diesel for long distance driving.
I don't get hybrids you don't plug in.

Cheers James

Hey I'll not even be 50!

Hybrids will be gone because its being legislated against. Nothing with an ICE by 2035, earlier in some countries.

 

[Ozi]

Stopping using cars should certainly be on the agenda!
Perhaps what we need is the EV equivalent of the Trabant or Morris 1000 but well made and cleverly engineered. Times they are a changin!

We do indeed need small efficient transport, ridiculous to have a 1.5 ton vehicle to move one person

The loosers now will later be last
for the times they change - but not very fast.

 

[Rorschach]

We do indeed need small efficient transport, ridiculous to have a 1.5 ton vehicle to move one person

Except our car rarely transports 1 person, it almost always transports at least 2 people along with "stuff" (normally shopping).

 

[Ozi]

Except our car rarely transports 1 person, it almost always transports at least 2 people along with "stuff" (normally shopping).

So you wouldn't want a single seater but a lot of people make most journeys alone, typically to work and back with minimal luggage. For myself and my wife it would be good if we had one small family / shopping vehicle with our second car a single seat high economy vehicle doing as little environmental damage as possible. Short journeys to farm shop etc I either walk or use a push bike but there is a need for something in between, it would also make a good first car, you might see a lot less young lads hurt on the roads if they had to have a probationary drivers car that carried one person at up to 50 mph for the first two years, might make their insurance affordable as well.

 

[Rorschach]

So you wouldn't want a single seater but a lot of people make most journeys alone, typically to work and back with minimal luggage. For myself and my wife it would be good if we had one small family / shopping vehicle with our second car a single seat high economy vehicle doing as little environmental damage as possible. Short journeys to farm shop etc I either walk or use a push bike but there is a need for something in between, it would also make a good first car, you might see a lot less young lads hurt on the roads if they had to have a probationary drivers car that carried one person at up to 50 mph for the first two years, might make their insurance affordable as well.

That's fine, if you are lucky enough to have the space to park 2 vehicles. Some people don't even have space to park 1 vehicle.

 

[thick_mike]

So you wouldn't want a single seater but a lot of people make most journeys alone, typically to work and back with minimal luggage. For myself and my wife it would be good if we had one small family / shopping vehicle with our second car a single seat high economy vehicle doing as little environmental damage as possible. Short journeys to farm shop etc I either walk or use a push bike but there is a need for something in between, it would also make a good first car, you might see a lot less young lads hurt on the roads if they had to have a probationary drivers car that carried one person at up to 50 mph for the first two years, might make their insurance affordable as well.

Like this?

 

[Jelly]

Stopping using cars should certainly be on the agenda!
Perhaps what we need is the EV equivalent of the Trabant or Morris 1000 but well made and cleverly engineered. Times they are a changin!

Renault have a thing like that but slightly more to the Peel P100 end of the "small, simple vehicle" spectrum, it's pretty nifty for what it is, but not a complete replacement for a car.

Something like a Nissan Leaf gutted of extraneous gadgetry, and fitted with better battery technology wouldn't be far off fitting the bill of what you're thinking of.



Personally I feel that hydrogen power will win out in the end, partially because of the filling advantsge, but mostly because the elements which are needed in the battery chemistry of most current and next gen automotive batteries are in critically short supply, and decent closed loop recycling is still a good way away meaning that a good proportion of the material currently in cars (and every other battery powered device) will be lost to us forever.

Living very close to the first UK hydrogen filling station (powered by an onsite wind turbine no less), I seriously explored Leasing a Toyota Mirai when work first offered me a car allowance (no way I could afford it out of pocket), but I have to visit some parts of the country where H2 filling stations are sparse on the ground and even with the 650+ mile range, it was too risky.

I'm hoping that Ineos Automotive's proposed H2 powered Grenadier comes to fruition and that the rumours it's part of a wider plan by Ineos to open up the H2 vehicle fuel market (something which makes sense for one of the world's largest Hydrogen producers to do) are true.

 

[Ozi]

Like this?

That is brilliant. But balls of steal taking it onto Coventry ring road. Give it another 5 mph and with a battery that small have it plug in like a cordless drill so you have one at home on charge and can take it indoors at night to keep it warm / not nicked and I think were there.

When we get to no petrol engines allowed these could take off. Can't see the public fleet idea working, to many *** holes would wreck them as the people who tried it with scooters in Coventry found out.