Electric cars are a pipe dream

Well far be it for me to project the future out 20 years as my Crystal Ball is in the shop for repairs....'

BUT

I think this is probably further out since this requirement is pretty formidable when you consider current technology and cost and infrastructure.

One issue is that no one would drive a car on open highway till that near battery exhaustion, so for a car which you can reliably go 2 hours at highway speeds (about 150 miles in the US) then one is looking for a range of about 200 miles at 75 mph.

That's over twice the capability of any currently planned models.

Secondly, there is the issue of the 10 minute turn around.

That's impossible today, and not likely anytime soon.

A battery powered car pulling into a rest stop after driving non-stop for two hours at 75 mph is going to have a very hot battery, and unless technology changes drastically, it's going to have to cool down for quite a while before one can give it a FULL charge. But by their very nature, batteries are pretty dense and aren't really in a position to be cooled that well while sitting, so the 10 minute requirement is asking a lot. Worse, things like nanotech which are good candidates to increase battery power density make this problem worse, not better.

Third, the infrastructure will grow from the city/suburbs out and so the last area where one will find charging stations will be on these long haul routes because it will be a long time before there is any demand on them at all. I suspect that for a very long time people will probably have to hit towns along the way to find a place to recharge, again not a huge problem, but not something that is going to happen in 10 minutes either.

So while I think that we will indeed convert a lot of our transportation system to electrical power, I think this challenge will be the most difficult to solve with technology.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Arthur

20 years is absolutely doable.
In fact, most of what we need is already available. As I pointed out, the basic technological break-throughs for greater range and rapid recharge have already been achieved in the laboratory. It is now required that this be transferred in an economic way to large scale, real world production.

As far as 250 miles range is concerned, the Tesla already has that. Cooling batteries? If that is required, I am willing to bet that it can be achieved on the run. After all, we cool ICE's, which is a much harder task.

As I pointed out before, recharge infrastructure is a much simpler and cheaper proposition than liquid fuels. For country cafes and the like to put in a few recharge points will be easy. Sure, it will begin in the cities. However, given 20 years to work in, the rest will follow.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Only review I have seen was in Forbe's about 2 years ago and it was mostly rehash of the BYD claims.

I would like to read one from independent automotive source. Do you have a links to at least one of the reviews you state says the BYD "sucks." Thanks.

On rare earths, yes there are other sources and yes China did for years sell cheap to force them to close, both mines and perhaps more importantly the separation plants / technology now lost? It is not easy to refine /separate these element as their chemistry is essentially identical. (All have same outer electron shell configurations).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I read one over a year ago, and it was pretty harsh as to quality and drivability (it was on the conventional model, not the EV)

On the EV I've not seen much but this wasn't encouraging either:

http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/today-in-china/2010_07_22/The_BYD_bubble_finally_pops.html

Despite hugely generous subsidies to electric car buyers from the Chinese government, worth as much as 50,000 yuan ($7,320) to anyone considering BYD's F3DM model, the cars aren't selling.

Until March, the only buyer was the Shenzhen local government. When the cars went on public sale, BYD allegedly sold just 14 in April, 2 in May and 12 in June.

What's the problem? Well, there's no infrastructure to charge them and the batteries cost a lot and have been reported to be unreliable.

Arthur

 

I think that is very optimistic. Currently how much gasoline would be burned to do that? Then compare the specific energy density (Joules /K gram) of gasoline with that of the best battery, which is no doubt the Li-ion. (Li is lightest solid and has very good electrical energy difference per atom going to ion. There is no better choice.)

I am too lazy to do this but think you will find that the battery will weigh more than 5 times the weight of the gasoline needed and you will be hauling that weight around even when battery is discharged and the gasoline generator is running.

 

Maybe, but you are obviously more optimistic than I am.
Technology only moves but so fast from the lab to the production floor.

You can't use the Telsa as your yardstick, yeah the Roadster claims 245 miles range, but it doesn't mention if that is at 75 mph. I SERIOUSLY doubt that it is.

And it's a two seater auto that costs over $100,000, so there will never be enough of that type of technology deployed to ever get you your recharging infrastructure, and finally, it takes over 3 hours to recharge it once the battey has cooled down.

Sure we can keep it reasonably cool while driving and we have sufficient air movement, but in the summer, driving over hot asphalt at 95 degrees out you are not going to be able to put a full charge back into a battery for a while after you stop.

Oh and we do cool ICEs, but we pay a price in energy to do so. If we use battery energy to cool the batteries we just shorten the range. You might think this is a minor problem but it's not. The batteries are quite dense and not at all easy to cool.

While I agree that the actual charging stations are easier to install than gas stations, they are not without their infrastructure problems either. A car with a range of 250 miles that can be quick charged in 10 minutes is going to be drawing about 60 kilowatts, that's like consuming 360 kWh. If you need to charge just 4 cars at a time at your cafe you are pushing 1,440 kWh. That's almost as much as two average houses use in a month, but in just 15 or 20 minutes. Now put a bunch of charging stations around and the electrical load can quickly become unmanageable. The current electrical infrastructure isn't designed to handle this yet and will take a lot of work to make it do so. The way I understand it for some time slow charging will have to be the rule, which for the Telsa takes 1 hour of charging at 240V/70 amps for every 56 miles of driving at full power.

Arthur

 

Thanks for the link. It is mainly the fact that BYD's EV is not selling (and I knew that).

That is why I think the Volt, at twice the price and less range, with slight less subsidy that phases out, will not either.

The ICE has had 100 years of development, trillions of miles road testing and uses one of the highest specific energy density fuels possible.
Without government mandates it is going to be very hard to displace the ICE.

 

That is true, but more important is the reduced range cooling by air flow will cause.

To reduce wind drag, increase efficiency, car shapes have drastically changed and all have become quite similar. Hell, it is likely that the outside rear-view mirrors will be the next to go (replaced by tiny digital camera and display) to lower the drag coefficient still more.

Cooling by air flow would be a great step backwards in efficiency at highway speed and will not work in city traffic.

I read an article a few years ago that stated it was more efficient on the high-way to keep the cars, windows closed and run the air conditionar, which noticably cuts your mpg. - That show how important low drag coefficient is to keeping good range.

 

I live in Canada and have never heard anyone mention 2 hours and, if 'they' did, nobody cares. People drive much longer than 2 hours and will continue to drive much longer than 2 hours. We drive places that are much further than 2 hours apart witn minimal or no towns in between.

In other countries folks might no mind the governmnet telling them they can only drive 2 hours....but won't happpen in Canada, Australia, the USa or most of the democratic world.

 

Time for you to 'get real' and stop living in a polyanish

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

world that doesn't exist.

Your sense of 'all knowing'

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

for the time frame for mass use of electrical cars is pulled from thin air and is a farce.

 

I am one of those people that likes to get where I'm going. I've done the stupid; including 32 hours nonstop behind the wheel.

I agree, I don't think the government can enforce that and some rinky dink electro-mobile forcing me would only make me wanna buy a gas guzzler to spite them.

But the Rest Break IS Standard. That is why a LOT of money is spent on highway rest areas all across the United States. Map 'em out- then tend to be at least two hours drive apart.

 

Raptor

In my work, I frequently drive for many hours in a day - up to 9 hours actual driving. I very rarely go continuously more than 2 hours. Not particularly for safety reasons, but because there are other reasons to stop.

Four reasons to stop. Full bladder. Need for more fuel. Need to eat. Need to stop for business.

However, we should be stopping every 2 hours anyway.

Personally, based on the data I have read on the potential performance of Lithium batteries, I think the actual range in 20 years is likely to be 3 hours plus. After all, the Tesla has done 311 miles on one charge.

An electric SUV today could not do that, especially towing a caravan. However, researchers are talking about increasing capacity many fold. Assuming this is achieved, and it should be, then 3 hours for an electric SUV towing a caravan becomes a real possibility.

My suggestion that 20 years will do it, is of course, an estimate. I could well be wrong, with reality being either more or less. It is based on recent history and the current speed of technological growth. For other technologies based on electricity, 20 years is normally sufficient for major drastic improvements. It is on this basis that I suggest that battery electric vehicles will also show major drastic improvement in 20 years.

 

I absolutely agree, to displace ALL the ICEs would be impossible.

To displace most of the ICEs is highly unlikely.

To put 20 or 30 million on the road by the end of 20 years in the USA though is not only pretty likely but a fairly reasonable thing to expect.

One has to think about how things will change over time.

Upward pressure on the price of gasoline will not go away anytime soon but the price and performance of the EVs and Extended range EVs will continue to improve.

For a lot of commuters, they will be just the ticket.

Arthur

 

I doubt more and a million EVs on average can be sold annually during next 20 years in the US, even though I would not be surprised to see the inflation corrected price of gasoline double in that time.

Yes, things do change over time. For example in the last decade, the gasoline engine car is now rarely sold in Brazil. - It is the "flex fuel" car that has more than 90% of domestic made cars sales now. It uses an ICE, but the fuel is alcohol, which is already significantly cheaper per mile driven than gasoline and growing cheaper every year as improved sugar cane genetics and manual harvesting of the cane give way to mechanical harvesting.

The support system for the EV (charging stations) is entirely new and untested in mass use, but alcohol is in wide use for alcohol in Brazil. - Very little, if any, difference in the storage tanks, the pumps, safety standards, etc. Realistically it is the proven ETOH ICE that the EV must compete against, not the gasoline ICE you assume. Note:

(1)The sugar cane ETOH ICE system makes a slight net reduction in CO2 pollution absolutely, not just by displacement of gasoline, as large amounts of carbon, that was in the air are stored in cane roots and the ocean tankers and on land storages systems and pipelines. Only when ALL electricity is nuclear in origin will the EV be able to even cease INCREASING CO2 pollution. The EV reduces that only if compared to gasoline, not absolutely by its self.

(2) The cane based ETOH ICE system can use existing "gas" stations with trivial changes, not an entirely new energy distribution system.

(3) The cane based ETOH ICE is already cheaper than the gasoline system and growing cheaper each year with new technology and volume of production.

(4) China will in about a decade have as many cars needing liquid fuel on the road as the US and also will have the cash to out bid the US for any available oil. (They have already locked up large supplies in 20 to 30 year prepaid contracts also.)

(5) Less than 2% of Brazil farm land is growing cane. Infact there is five times more abandoned pasture land in Brazil than the land growing cane! Brazil can produce ETOH for all of the US fuel needs and it own needs, just by reclaiming this abandoned land. Brazil's farms are only a tiny part (2 or 3%) of the world's land suitable for growing cane. With lighter weight cars the world can run on renewable ETOH - the most profitable solar energy system that exists.

SUMMARY: Rather than dreaming of conversion from gasoline ICE cars to EV cars, the US had better allow importation of tropical sugar cane alcohol and start converting at least one pump at each gas station to be an ETOH pump, while there is still time to make the conversion. I.e. Keep the highly refined ICE, just change the fuel.

 

Ah, the typical fuel is NOT just alcohol.

Since July 1, 2007 the mandatory blend is 25% of anhydrous ethanol and 75% gasoline or E25 blend

I have no doubt that ethanol will play a huge role in our fuel future, but so will EVs and Extended Range EVs like the Volt.

Arthur

 

Billy T,

Lets run the number shalt we? The US requires 1x10^7 Barrels of gasoline per day, That would be nearly 1.3x10^7 barrels of ethanol in equivalent energy per day, or 4.9x10^9 barrels a year. Sugarcane can produce nominally 900 gallons of ethanol per acre per year, or 21 barrels/acre/yr, that would mean to supply just today's USA gasoline demand with ethanol would require 250,000,000 acre of Brazilian cropland, Brazil has 161,000,000 acre of cropland in total today, so it would require 141% increase in cropland for Brazil to managed to supply the USA demand for ethanol in replacement of gasoline!

If the US wanted to supply all of its gasoline needs with cellulosic ethanol, it would require 100-120% increase in cropland growing switchgrass and poplars, or over 400,000,000 acres of cropland!

The shear amount of infrastructure required at the production end to make biofuels take out even a fair chunk of petroleum usage is staggering! Considering that with smart charging off of off-peak power we could replace 80% of cars with EVs without a single new power plant!

 

I was assuming that in the decade or more that the US switched to mainly ETOH fuel they also switch to smaller more efficient cars as have existed for years in Europe (or Brazil) and that public transport would be nearly free and widely used. (The savings when paying for very little imported oil and a volume of cheaper ETOH less than half the current volume of oil/gasoline imported could be applied to improve and subsidize public transport. Including, by the end of the decade high speed rail, which could not displace NYC to LA flights but could be cheaper and quicker, city center to city center, on NYC to Chicago or shorter trips.

SUMMARY: I am not trying to sustain the unsustainable current system or replace it with an entirely new AND UNTESTED system (The EV).
I want to make a smoothly and cheaply -done transition to the well-proven, sustainable, ETOH solar fuel system instead of increasingly-expensive finite gasoline.

My estimate that Brazil alone could supply both itself and USA maybe in error.* It was based on fact that there are ~five acres of abandoned pasture for every acre now growing cane. Plus the fact that US's population is less than two times larger than Brazil's, but one must recognize that there are about five times more cars on US roads than in Brazil. I also noted that there is a huge amount of land in the tropics (and near tropic) that could be cleared and producing cane.
I.e. the world could, AND ULTIMATELY MUST, switch to a sustainable energy system. That will take at least two decades and "peak oil"** may come first, so let’s get started now.

BTW when I first moved to Brazil I bought one of those abandoned farms - its "pasture" had mainly weeds and small shrubs. It was supporting only 5 scrawny cows. 10 years later when I sold it, it had 50 fat steers on it after only about $3,000 spent to restored it to highly desirable pasture.

ETOH is proven and more economical than the current system. I know of no better long term choice but during a few decades Natural Gas may be part of the solution***. I hope cellulosic ETOH may be economical, but doubt it will ever do more than double or triple the ETOH yield / acre of cane. There is the cost in bringing the wood chips, switch grass, etc. to the ETOH plant. The crushed cane is already there at zero cost to the cellulosic ETOH, so I think it will be hard for switch grass etc. to be as cheap as cane sugar ETOH + crushed cane cellulosic ETOH made at same point.
----------------
*More than a year ago, I posted data on the use of land in Brazil published by Brazil. If I can find it, I will check your numbers. In the mean time, please tell me where your numbers came from.

** I will arbitrarily define “peak oil” as when oil is $200/barrel or gasoline is about 3 times more expensive than now, both in inflation corrected dollars. Then Joe American will be driving much less than now in a smaller, more efficient, car so I don’t accept the unrealistic starting point of your calculation of the US’s fuel needs. Even the per capita European fuel needs will be lower a decade from now than currently, but that would be a more realistic starting point for your calculation.

*** A lot depends on what the EPA decides about the safety of injecting thousands of liters of chemicals into the ground water system at each well. The EPA, just this week, sent letters to all the major producers demanding to know what chemicals are being used. Ethylene glycol is toxic and one being used in large quantities.

 

Billy, I think referring to EVs as Untested is a tad unrealistic.
We have a great deal of experience with both batteries and the various forms of battery powered transportation. Technology like the Extended Range EV don't even require any infrastructure change to make a big dent in oil use.

Technology advancements are making the cost of EVs comparable or even cheaper than fossil fuel based systems for a reasonably decent number of car owners.
The trend is for oil costs to go up and cost of EVs to go down, so its a reasonable prediction that a large part of our transportation system will switch from oil to electicity.

But EVs won't replace ICEs entirely (and without significant advancements in battery technology would be hard pressed to ever achieve over 50%) and you are absolutely correct, ethanol will (and has) grown to displace a huge share of our oil use.

But the two ideas compliment one another.

Arthur

 

Oh I'm all for that, lets say that we get the average MPG up to 40, and we get incredibly 20% of the population to use high speed rail instead of cars. Great now the amount of ethanol needed is down by 30%, still needed 280,000,000 acres of cropland, try harder.

What exactly is untested about it? *yawn* pathetic appeal to the unknown fallacy.

Well if you wanted solar fuels why didn't you ask to begin with? We can cheap printable solar panels get 12-18% efficient photovoltaic conversion, we could easily do up to 50% with solarthermal! Transport and store that solar electricity in batteries with 20% lose, us it in an electric car with 90% efficiency, total efficiency is 9-36%. Or we could grow crops with sunlight to biomass efficiencies 0.5% (we could do up to 6-7% with algae in enclosed field bags pumped with CO2) convert it to a biomass derived fuel with significant energy lose of up to 60%, then run that in the ICE engine with at most 30% energy utilization, total efficiency 0.06-0.84%. So with solarvoltaic economy we get 10-600 times great efficiency. It does not need to be a one or the other though, there are nearly 1 billion tons of biomass waste produced a year (forestry saw dust, corn and wheat stems, sewage, etc) that could supply a third of our petroleum and natural gas needs, but it would be best to put that into making plastics and fueling jets, economies electrics can't touch.

Oh yes lets cut down the rainforest! it you want to sequester carbon dioxide cutting down rainforests and replacing it with sugarcane will do the opposite.

to late: http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/worldoilreservesevol.html

All depends on the feedstock, you could grow cane to make fuel, or you could take cardboard, waste plant stems, waste wood chips, I wonder which is cheaper?

OHHH GOD!
US gasoline consumption: 8,989,000 barrels/day http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2
Energy content ratio of ethanol to gasoline: 65.5% http://zfacts.com/p/436.html
Gallons of ethanol per acre per year: 727 http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/Brazil_SR_e3.pdf
Brazil cropland: "Brazil has now used 2.7 million ha of land area for this production (4.5% of the cropland area), mainly sugar cane." acres http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/food-crisis/page/3566.aspx
80% of car could be electric without a single new powerplant: "84 percent of the additional electricity demand created by PHEVs could be met by idle generation capacity" http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=204
... forcing me to find numbers that I remember roughly from studies and teaching bioprocessing classes, so very cruel!

 

The US no more wants to buy Brazilian alcohol then it wants to buy Arab Oil.
It's not just what we use to power our transportation system, but where we get that energy from. The advantage of Electricity is the US has plenty of ways of generating that within our boarders, but we would be very hard pressed to produce all our fuel from Alcohol.
Arthur