Infrastructure for electric cars: a good or bad idea?

Aidan1

Any decent diesel car is more efficient than them.

Of course, you mean it is cheaper to buy, rather than being mechanically more efficient.

How much do you drive a day btw? As others have said, the vast majority of people drive less than 45km per day, making EVs entirely practical for them, and there is no 'down time' associated with driving them (and its 15-20 mins for an 80% charge). For others (like me, for example) any time they do drive, they need far longer range and so EVs are not really a runner (for now at any rate). In simple terms, it may be 10-15 years before EVs can replace a 1.6-2.0 litre diesel 'family' car, but as a placement for a 1-1.2 litre urban run-about they are there or thereabouts already. Just too expensive, but that'll change.

Are there any figures out there on the total expenditure to date on EVs (infrastructure and grants) thus far in Ireland?

Sesshoumaru

MYOB wrote: »

I don't know many people who consider their time to be practically valueless. Do you?

The statistics are very clear, most people won't exceed the range of an EV like a Nissan Leaf on a daily basis for the vast majority of the time.

If you're nearly empty and want to get back to half full, it takes 12 minutes. My use of FCP's is usually like this these days, just a quick top up for maybe 10 minutes, on those rare days when I need a bit more range.

Time isn't the only concern or necessarily the most important concern for every person on the planet. The vast majority of the time, it takes me a few seconds to plugin my car. Pop open charging port, plugin charging cable and after that I wake up in the morning and it's charged. Our car starts every morning with a full tank and a toasty warm preheated cabin

Do you think petrol and diesel are priceless? That our reliance on one source of fuel for transport is without cost? is not a single point of failure?

L1011

Aidan1 wrote: »

Of course, you mean it is cheaper to buy, rather than being mechanically more efficient.

In the case of a petrol plug-in hybrid, that's actually deeply in question too.

Aidan1 wrote: »

How much do you drive a day btw

80-90,000km a year over two vehicles - bulk on a diesel, last 10k on a petrol.

I couldn't even replace the petrol with a current or likely future EV as I need to be able to get to Donegal and Gorey in one go without a pissing-around stop.

The bulk of people I know that drive less than 45km a day shouldn't actually be driving daily anyway - its not like I live in a public transport wilderness. Its people dropping kids to a school that's walkable from everywhere in the town, driving to work on extremely frequent bus/train routes, or pootling to the shops. EVs if heavily promoted as being good for short distance driving have the potential to cause serious congestion problems.

Sesshoumaru

MYOB wrote: »

In the case of a petrol plug-in hybrid, that's actually deeply in question too.



80-90,000km a year over two vehicles - bulk on a diesel, last 10k on a petrol.

I couldn't even replace the petrol with a current or likely future EV as I need to be able to get to Donegal and Gorey in one go without a pissing-around stop.

The bulk of people I know that drive less than 45km a day shouldn't actually be driving daily anyway - its not like I live in a public transport wilderness. Its people dropping kids to a school that's walkable from everywhere in the town, driving to work on extremely frequent bus/train routes, or pootling to the shops. EVs if heavily promoted as being good for short distance driving have the potential to cause serious congestion problems.

I once heard that if EV's ever take off...

L1011

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Do you think petrol and diesel are priceless? That our reliance on one source of fuel for transport is without cost? is not a single point of failure?

Funny that, I could have sworn that we got the vast majority of our electricity from fossil fuels and imports...

Back of my current ESB bill has a fuel mix down as 9.9% renewable, 0.5% "other" - burning waste and imported nuclear - and the entire rest is fossil fuels.


12 minutes for half "a tank" is still the same is still 3x time waste over filling my car, then you have to consider that my tank can bring me further than you can even imagine.

Your posts all show me one thing - EVs appear to be perfect for people who probably don't actually need a car to begin with.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I once heard that if EV's ever take off...

I have no idea what on earth you are trying to say here.

Sesshoumaru

MYOB wrote: »

Funny that, I could have sworn that we got the vast majority of our electricity from fossil fuels and imports...

Guess what! You can't put coal in your car or nuclear or wind or solar or hydro power or most other things that it's possible to generate electricity with. Our electricity supply does not have one single point of failure e.g. OIL in your cars case.

L1011

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Guess what! You can't put coal in your car or nuclear or wind or solar or hydro power or most other things that it's possible to generate electricity with. Our electricity supply does not have one single point of failure e.g. OIL in your cars case.

The bulk of our power is made from CNG. ICE engines can run on CNG. Entire existing car stock, except the handful of EVs, could be converted without the absolutely insane environmental cost of making EVs.

Sesshoumaru

MYOB wrote: »

The bulk of our power is made from CNG. ICE engines can run on CNG. Entire existing car stock, except the handful of EVs, could be converted without the absolutely insane environmental cost of making EVs.

So we should all switch over to another finite, single point of failure fuel source for transportation? The promotion of EV's goes beyond our little shores, I would say most Western governments are promoting it, even in the US the Obama administration has allocated billions of US dollar towards research and development of EV's.

I would ask you, how much gas do we have left? how long will it last at current consumption rates? how long would it last if all cars started using it for transportation? how long would it last when you add all that together and then allow for normal yearly increases in consumption? as consumption of a resource like that rarely stays flat. What will that do to the price of CNG?

L1011

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

So we should all switch over to another finite, single point of failure fuel source for transportation?

You're the one constantly promoting that people should switch fuel sources - not me.

You're also doing a damn good impression of Chicken Licken yourself now. Oh the irony of posting that rather contextually random image, eh.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

The promotion of EV's goes beyond our little shores, I would say most Western governments are promoting it, even in the US the Obama administration has allocated billions of US dollar towards research and development of EV's.

So let them. They've delivered nothing to date, and if they do we'll have spent money pushing what will then be outdated technology.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I would ask you, how much gas do we have left? how long will it last at current consumption rates? how long would it last if all cars started using it for transportation? how long would it last when you add all that together and then allow for normal yearly increases in consumption? as consumption of a resource like that rarely stays flat. What will that do to the price of CNG?

If hydraulic fracturing can be cleaned up, probably enough that we don't need to worry about it for a number of lifetimes. If not, still sufficient for now. Artificially increasing the consumption of electricity isn't going to help, though.

Can also tell you that if we get CNG supply problems or significant price rises, one of the first things the ESB will be killing to save supply will be EV charging points - public and home.

Sesshoumaru

MYOB wrote: »

You're the one constantly promoting that people should switch fuel sources - not me.

You're also doing a damn good impression of Chicken Licken yourself now. Oh the irony of posting that rather contextually random image, eh.



So let them. They've delivered nothing to date, and if they do we'll have spent money pushing what will then be outdated technology.



If hydraulic fracturing can be cleaned up, probably enough that we don't need to worry about it for a number of lifetimes. If not, still sufficient for now. Artificially increasing the consumption of electricity isn't going to help, though.

Can also tell you that if we get CNG supply problems or significant price rises, one of the first things the ESB will be killing to save supply will be EV charging points - public and home.

This thread is about investing in an EV infrastructure (did you forget?). EV's can run off anything that can be used to produce electricity, including gas (without requiring a conversion to the EV to do so). The SEAI already have produced a report showing we could support around 200,000 EV's without any additional electricity generation, as statistics show most people don't exceed the range of an EV in their daily driving and therefore are quite happy to let them charge at night. At night time we produce more electricity than we use, so EV owners charging at night time is using energy we've paid for, that would normally go completely to waste.

You scaremongering at this stage has gone into completely insanely hilarious territory. I see you've taken in nothing that was said in older threads either e.g. lithium safety. I don't really have any desire to have to copy and paste my old rebuttals to your unsubstantiated scaremongering. Please continue to enjoy your ICE car for as long as you like. I enjoy my Ducati, which is petrol powered, so I've no desire to force EV's on anyone, which no one I know has suggested we do.

EV's are a choice and a damn good one for most people!

L1011

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

This thread is about investing in an EV infrastructure (did you forget?).

If the EV owners and EV owners alone are willing to entirely foot the costs, sure, invest away.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

The SEAI already have produced a report showing we could support around 200,000 EV's without any additional electricity generation, as statistics show most people don't exceed the range of an EV in their daily driving and therefore are quite happy to let them charge at night.

So we can have 200,000 vehicles for people who don't actually need to own a vehicle full time then. Wonderful.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

You scaremongering at this stage has gone into completely insanely hilarious territory.

I'm not the one claiming we can run out of the most plentiful fuel on the planet.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I see you've taken in nothing that was said in older threads either e.g. lithium safety.

A few references to EV websites claiming safety that a battery tech that I know from my day job to be unsafe isn't going to convince me of anything. There's nothing to take in.

Lithium batteries being inherently unstable is why the 787 is currently grounded, is why personal consumer devices are often brought to ridiculously short lifespans and so on. They're simply not safe or reliable, and the massive improvements in both safety and quality we've been told are coming for years simply haven't

That Nissan are "improving safety" by shoving more steel in just shows it all - they're clearly aware of the issues.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I don't really have any desire to have to copy and paste my old rebuttals to your unsubstantiated scaremongering.

And I don't have any desire to continue reading the same greenwashed claims

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

so I've no desire to force EV's on anyone, which no one I know has suggested we do.

Certainly comes as news to me - and many others on here. You appear to do little other than push EVs.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

EV's are a choice and a damn good one for most people!

So is a Leap card. One is a hell of a lot cheaper / better for the environment.

Merch

MYOB wrote: »

80-90,000km a year over two vehicles - bulk on a diesel, last 10k on a petrol.

I couldn't even replace the petrol with a current or likely future EV as I need to be able to get to Donegal and Gorey in one go without a pissing-around stop.

The bulk of people I know that drive less than 45km a day shouldn't actually be driving daily anyway - its not like I live in a public transport wilderness. Its people dropping kids to a school that's walkable from everywhere in the town, driving to work on extremely frequent bus/train routes, or pootling to the shops. EVs if heavily promoted as being good for short distance driving have the potential to cause serious congestion problems.

I agree with some of what you are saying, but even in Dublin, its awkward to get around as the transport network isn't integrated properly and runs on a radial kind of system, you cant, say, hop on a bus at leixlip, scoot around the periphery on a tram/metro (or in thats actual absence, even a bus service running up and down the M50) and get off where you need or hop onto another radial service. You need to go into town,on the bus, maybe with kids? come back out, the transport system needs to be overhauled, will it, probably not.
In its absence, I wouldnt have a problem with non ICE vehicles as a mode of transport for people that do low miles, I preferred the idea of the earlier mentioned compressed liquid nitrogen (no battery mass to carry around, maybe? its possible the compressed storage of nitrogen could be done between peak demand periods?, no extra environmental damage from mining another resource and the Co2 emmisions from producing batteries, plus whats the cost of lithium and how accessible/how much is there).

There isnt a silver bullet to peoples needs for transportation on a small scale where it can be less planned for,
For some EV's may suit, LPG is definitely a good alternative, and existing fuels too.
I think a number of options should be considered for different types of users/usages.

L1011

Far easier and cheaper to integrate the public transport system than subsidise new cars and charging infrastructure for everyone, thankfully.

Merch

MYOB wrote: »

Far easier and cheaper to integrate the public transport system than subsidise new cars and charging infrastructure for everyone, thankfully.

It should, though in some other country maybe,
There needs to be some will to do that, i dont think it exists
Too many people seem to not want that
people within unions want to undermine it, staff dont want to participate.
What does exist seems to be mismanaged and inefficient and in some cases unsafe.

Im sure thats a gross oversimplification
But I can see why people dont want to rely on public transportation

Personally, I think it shouldnt be all EV or nothing, LPG and some other form of non ICE powered vehicle hold possibilities, while Im not against EV's, Im not sure why some people think it is THE answer/the only solution.

Hotblack Desiato

I would be more supportive of EVs if we had a dependable zero-carbon electricity source to power them.
Nuclear.

Hotblack Desiato

maninasia wrote: »

Yeah except for the initial outlay, the fuel is practically free.

Yeah and your initial outlay is subsidised by a VRT rebate and your fuel is excise exempt and on reduced VAT rate.

If you can make EVs economically sound with VRT equivalent to fossil, motor tax equivalent to fossil, excise and VAT on charging energy equivalent to fossil, then grand - you've got off the back of the taxpayer - demonstrating that you're saving the planet is a little harder but for a first step, at least get off the back of the taxpayer.

Merch

ninja900 wrote: »

I would be more supportive of EVs if we had a dependable zero-carbon electricity source to power them.
Nuclear.

Except Nuclear is not zero carbon
Far from it, its probably worse than most of the other options when the whole picture is looked at.

Right from the day the idea is put on paper until the day it starts operating its generating nothing other than CO2 and waste and continues to do so.
In the hope that the waste products that have to be stored and secured indefinitley can be used by some as of yet uninvented technology.

Nothing has NO impact, there is no silver bullet

maninasia

Although this is off-topic, personally I think investment in LPG infrastructure and engines would have more impact on CO2 reduction and be a lot cheaper initially and avoid current range issues. It's a pity that this hasn't got as much attention as it is a practical and economic method to reduce emissions.

However it seems things are pushing towards electric cars and probably within 10 years electric cars will have a significant cost advantage against all types of ICE cars. ICE cars are hitting close to maximum efficiency and the engines cannot be made cheaper without reducing efficiency but battery cars have a huge amount of cost that can be reduced once battery production ramps up aswell as plenty of room for fast charging and high capacity upgraded technology.

bk

MYOB wrote: »

80-90,000km a year over two vehicles - bulk on a diesel, last 10k on a petrol.

At that distance you would save about €7,000 per year, first year you would have to make up the €5,000 for an EV, so just a €2,000 saving, but after that you would have €7,000 extra per year in your pocket!!

Just stop and think what you could do with an extra €7,000 per year.

I'm sure many people would be very happy to stop for 30 minutes from time to time to save €7,000 per year.

MYOB wrote: »

I couldn't even replace the petrol with a current or likely future EV as I need to be able to get to Donegal and Gorey in one go without a pissing-around stop.

Again, not true, a plug-in hybrid can do that today easily.

Now, I readily admit that a PHEV may or may not work out financially better for you, it depends on what percentage of the journeys you make are short commute types and what percentage are long distance.

However you have to realise you are far from the norm. 90,000 km puts you well into the extreme 1 or 2% territory where EV's maybe not suitable.

But try and remember that most people aren't like you, try and put yourself in other peoples shoes. The average yearly distance driven in Ireland is just 17,000 km or less then 50km per day. You are driving almost 250km per day!!

For the majority of people who are just driving 50km per day, EV's are a definitely viable today.

For very long milage people like yourself and for trucks and lorries, natural gas is probably the best solution.

BTW yes at the moment EV's and their infrastructure are subsidised. Just like petrol/diesel infrastructure was in the past. It makes sense for countries to subside EV's to help wean people off a single form of energy, which is running out and can only be gotten mostly from an extremely unstable part of the world.

The subsidies EV's have gotten is a fraction of the massive subsidies that the ICE manufacturing companies and the oil companies have gotten.

In time even these EV subsidies will decrease, as the price of EV batteries also decrease and end up matching the price of a normal ICE vehicle.

Merch

maninasia wrote: »

Although this is off-topic, personally I think investment in LPG infrastructure and engines would have more impact on CO2 reduction and be a lot cheaper initially and avoid current range issues. It's a pity that this hasn't got as much attention as it is a practical and economic method to reduce emissions.

However it seems things are pushing towards electric cars and probably within 10 years electric cars will have a significant cost advantage against all types of ICE cars. ICE cars are hitting close to maximum efficiency and the engines cannot be made cheaper without reducing efficiency but battery cars have a huge amount of cost that can be reduced once battery production ramps up aswell as plenty of room for fast charging and high capacity upgraded technology.

http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/news/volkswagen-xl1-fuel-efficient-electric-car-in-production--163345219.html

Ok, its a hybrid but, seems theres a means to extract more mileage, but it uses an small ICE.

Aidan1

That car is a technology showcase - but the powertrain will appear in an Up! next year, and a variant will appear in the Golf and A3 also (with a 1.4T 148bhp petrol engine). Again, all of these are Plug in Hybrids, so for a lot of short journeys, the engine will never need to come on at all. The figures for the A3 E-Tron are of the order of 188mpg. There may well be full BEV versions of these cars later in the life cycle of the platform too.

L1011

bk wrote: »

At that distance you would save about €7,000 per year, first year you would have to make up the €5,000 for an EV, so just a €2,000 saving, but after that you would have €7,000 extra per year in your pocket!!

Just stop and think what you could do with an extra €7,000 per year.

I'm sure many people would be very happy to stop for 30 minutes from time to time to save €7,000 per year.

To save €7,000 a year I would need to stop for anywhere from 30-90 minutes a day, 5 days a week. That's not "from time to time"

I could earn the 7k in that time. People who are only stopping from "time to time" are not saving 7k a year, they are likely losing money on the EV cost.

bk wrote: »

Again, not true, a plug-in hybrid can do that today easily.

Far more expensively than a diesel.

bk wrote: »

However you have to realise you are far from the norm. 90,000 km puts you well into the extreme 1 or 2% territory where EV's maybe not suitable.

There is a difference between what you consider as suitable and what I consider as suitable. I'd say its more like 1 or 2% of people where an EV actually makes financial sense.

bk wrote: »

BTW yes at the moment EV's and their infrastructure are subsidised. Just like petrol/diesel infrastructure was in the past.

Was it? By who, exactly?

bk wrote: »

The subsidies EV's have gotten is a fraction of the massive subsidies that the ICE manufacturing companies and the oil companies have gotten.

And again. Who exactly subsidised this and when?

bk wrote: »

In time even these EV subsidies will decrease, as the price of EV batteries also decrease and end up matching the price of a normal ICE vehicle.

So says everyone since 1990.

bk

MYOB wrote: »

To save €7,000 a year I would need to stop for anywhere from 30-90 minutes a day, 5 days a week. That's not "from time to time"

I could earn the 7k in that time. People who are only stopping from "time to time" are not saving 7k a year, they are likely losing money on the EV cost.

You keep saying this, but this isn't true for the vast majority of people.

You could only earn extra money if you are some sort of contractor on an hourly rate and can opt to actually take on more hours.

Most people are on a fixed salary/wage and get paid for a fixed number of hours. Even if they work extra hours they don't get paid more. So most people would be delighted to stop for 30 minutes and save so much money.

And it isn't like the time is totally wasted, they could use the time to have a lunch that they were going to have anyway. Or read a paper they were going to do anyway or reply to emails at work on their smartphone, etc.

Again you are thinking only through your own narrow view of the world and not realising that you are an extreme case where EV's might not be suitable for, but are for the vast majority of people.

MYOB wrote: »

There is a difference between what you consider as suitable and what I consider as suitable. I'd say its more like 1 or 2% of people where an EV actually makes financial sense.

Again the average daily driving distance is less then 50km, the average single journey is 10km, with EV's having range of well over 100km, then they are perfectly suited to the average driver and thus the majority of people.

MYOB wrote: »

Was it? By who, exactly?
And again. Who exactly subsidised this and when?

Ok, now you have to be taking the piss if you don't think the oil industry is heavily subsidised.

In the US alone, the oil industry receives $54 Billion worth of direct local, state and federal subsidies per year!! This figure doesn't include the environmental cost of oil, it doesn't include the cost of cleaning up oil spills, it doesn't include the 80 billion bailout of the US auto industry, it doesn't include the 1 trillion cost of war in Iraq (which lets be honest we all know is about oil).

The oil industry is one of the most heavily subsidised industries in the world.

And to be honest, I don't have any objection to that, it is important for governments to subsidise vital infrastructure for their countries. Either oil industry, electric infrastructure, internet, etc.

But now it is the turn of the EV industry to be subsidised, in order to get governments away to expensive, environmentally damaging, single source of energy in oil.

L1011

bk wrote: »

You keep saying this, but this isn't true for the vast majority of people.

You could only earn extra money if you are some sort of contractor on an hourly rate and can opt to actually take on more hours.

Or take up another job - since, clearly, your personal time is of zero value in all your calculations.

bk wrote: »

Again the average daily driving distance is less then 50km, the average single journey is 10km, with EV's having range of well over 100km, then they are perfectly suited to the average driver and thus the majority of people.

And once again, the average driver is actually the person we should be targeting with getting to mode-shift, not just buy another new car.

bk wrote: »

Ok, now you have to be taking the piss if you don't think the oil industry is heavily subsidised.

In the US alone, the oil industry receives $54 Billion worth of direct local, state and federal subsidies per year!!

Firstly, I somehow doubt that figure is correct - if you can provide a citation that'd be useful. Additionally, any subsidy in the US is because the US has ideologically decided to move away from imported oil. Your claim was that it received subsidies to start up, though - which it clearly didn't. Nor does it receive subsidies in other countries to anywhere on that scale. Particularly as for many countries it is their main source of income

Seeing as its one of the highest taxed industries in the entire world, I doubt there is anything close to the same amount put in as taken out.

bk wrote: »

But now it is the turn of the EV industry to be subsidised, in order to get governments away to expensive, environmentally damaging, single source of energy in oil.

Subsidies that seem to be doing absolutely nothing other than letting a few zealots buy cars artificially cheaply.

Where are the advances in battery technology we keep being promised? What makes people so determined to believe that the car industry can make advances that the entire electronics industry has been trying, and failing, to do for a decade?

OssianSmyth

reduction in unit wholesale price of Li Ion batteries since 1995 in yen

source: METI http://www.meti.go.jp/english/statistics/index.html

L1011

OssianSmyth wrote: »

reduction in unit wholesale price of Li Ion batteries since 1995 in yen

source: METI http://www.meti.go.jp/english/statistics/index.html

Reducing in price != advancing in capacity and size to a sufficient level. And that has distinctly tailed off.

Hotblack Desiato

You could post the same graph for many relatively recently developed technologies. Stuff hand-built in labs costs a fortune. If/when you figure out how to mass-produce it, it gets a lot cheaper and the more you produce the cheaper it gets.

Li-ion has got a lot cheaper but there's a limit to how cheap it can get. Just because Moore's Law has produced incredible cost/speed gains for integrated circuits doesn't mean that other technologies can or will advance at the same pace. A well known poster on boards who clearly has no idea of the physics of operation of a PV cell once told me that Moore's Law would make PV cells exponentially more efficient over time :rolleyes:

Li-ion also has issues in relation to 'bricking' (Tesla) and safety (Dell, Apple, Boeing...). We keep hearing that future batteries will have higher energy density, but it's never mentioned that the higher the energy density gets, the greater the risks.

maninasia

ninja900 wrote: »

You could post the same graph for many relatively recently developed technologies. Stuff hand-built in labs costs a fortune. If/when you figure out how to mass-produce it, it gets a lot cheaper and the more you produce the cheaper it gets.

Li-ion has got a lot cheaper but there's a limit to how cheap it can get. Just because Moore's Law has produced incredible cost/speed gains for integrated circuits doesn't mean that other technologies can or will advance at the same pace. A well known poster on boards who clearly has no idea of the physics of operation of a PV cell once told me that Moore's Law would make PV cells exponentially more efficient over time :rolleyes:

Li-ion also has issues in relation to 'bricking' (Tesla) and safety (Dell, Apple, Boeing...). We keep hearing that future batteries will have higher energy density, but it's never mentioned that the higher the energy density gets, the greater the risks.

Ah the auld safety canard, petrol cars crash and explode all the time, read about a rapper's recent death in Las Vegas as an example!

That's not an issue. What is an issue is range and price. Both are related issues that will be solved primarily by industrial scale up. A single car uses 100s of times the amount of batteries of a notebook. The demand is now there to drive investments for scale , primarily through hybrids and plugin hybrids at first moving towards full EVs as costs plummet.

For anybody who doubts this look at costs of PV in the solar industry over the last 5 years in particular. The breakthrough investments needed to justify scale up were brought about by feed in tarriff subsidies, yes sometimes subsidies work!

nokia69

ninja900 wrote: »

You could post the same graph for many relatively recently developed technologies. Stuff hand-built in labs costs a fortune. If/when you figure out how to mass-produce it, it gets a lot cheaper and the more you produce the cheaper it gets.

Li-ion has got a lot cheaper but there's a limit to how cheap it can get. Just because Moore's Law has produced incredible cost/speed gains for integrated circuits doesn't mean that other technologies can or will advance at the same pace. A well known poster on boards who clearly has no idea of the physics of operation of a PV cell once told me that Moore's Law would make PV cells exponentially more efficient over time :rolleyes:

Li-ion also has issues in relation to 'bricking' (Tesla) and safety (Dell, Apple, Boeing...). We keep hearing that future batteries will have higher energy density, but it's never mentioned that the higher the energy density gets, the greater the risks.

there is a mild moores law for batteries, its about 8% a year, a small number, but in ten years it will make a big difference

as far as I know only one tesla roadster has been bricked and it looks like the owner wanted to brick the battery just to make EVs look bad, there was also a german roadster owener who put well over 100K miles on his roadster and had some problems with range, Tesla offered to take a look at the pack but I'm not sure what the end result was

so far there have been no problems with the model S, TBF its a new car so its far too soon to see any problems, but since the model S uses a better cell than the roadster and the pack will be a better design, my guess is that we will see very few problems

Boeing had problems because they built a bad battery pack, the problem is their design, not Li-ion batteries, Tesla are now working with boeing to help them fix the problem, If Musk can use Li-ion batteries in his dragon capsule which he sends to the ISS, then they should have no problem building a pack for the dream liner

there are batteries being worked on in the lab now which will result in 1000mile per charge electric cars in about ten years, but no doubt we will still get people doing reviews claiming they ran out of power miles before they got home

Aidan1

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Drives/Search-Results/First-drives/BMW-i3-2013-electric-car-test-ride/?content-block=0

First drive (that I've seen) of the new i3 BMW. 170bhp, rear engine, rear wheel drive. Mr Kacher likes it.

While batteries are getting better all the time, there are going to be real difficulties getting to the point where the power density is as good as (say) a 60 liter tank of petrol (let alone diesel) - even if EVs are far more efficient at converting that to motion. Moore's law fails to apply when you get to the point that physics (and chemistry) stand in the way, and you can't miniturise your way out of the situation. But for common battery sizes/types cost is actually a much more important factor. The tech in a 24kw/h battery in a Leaf is 6-7 years old - the next generation car will have something of the order of 32kw/h (not the 2013 car - the one after) and be cheaper. That's real progress. Couple of more iterations of that and you'll have something that can compete with mass market ICE vehicles (which have 125 + years of constant R&D activity behind them).

maninasia

Aidan1 wrote: »

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Drives/Search-Results/First-drives/BMW-i3-2013-electric-car-test-ride/?content-block=0

First drive (that I've seen) of the new i3 BMW. 170bhp, rear engine, rear wheel drive. Mr Kacher likes it.

While batteries are getting better all the time, there are going to be real difficulties getting to the point where the power density is as good as (say) a 60 liter tank of petrol (let alone diesel) - even if EVs are far more efficient at converting that to motion. Moore's law fails to apply when you get to the point that physics (and chemistry) stand in the way, and you can't miniturise your way out of the situation. But for common battery sizes/types cost is actually a much more important factor. The tech in a 24kw/h battery in a Leaf is 6-7 years old - the next generation car will have something of the order of 32kw/h (not the 2013 car - the one after) and be cheaper. That's real progress. Couple of more iterations of that and you'll have something that can compete with mass market ICE vehicles (which have 125 + years of constant R&D activity behind them).

Electric batteries are predicted to reduce at 11% CAGR cost KWH per year up to 2025, with industrial scale up and technological upgrades its very feasible and not a pipe dream in the slightest. The virtuous circle has started with sales of hybrids shooting up over the last few months!

Also the new must have 'cool' gadget will not be a phone but a car. I know it sound corny but you can see that happening already, especially if people can sex them up for the too cool for school we love global warming crowd!

All doubters google history of PV industry cost, it's all about cost and that is the easiest thing to deal with regarding a relatively mature tech like Li-ion batteries. This is not a fusion generator we are talking about!

serfboard

Irish air pollutant breaches EU target

The Irish Times wrote:

Air pollution linked to road traffic in Ireland breached the specified EU emission ceiling in 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said today.

The latest EPA emissions data showed levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx) in the air exceeded the target level of 65 kilotonnes by 2.6 kilotonnes in 2011.

High nitrogen oxide emissions can pose a threat to human health as a respiratory irritant, particularly in people with asthma.

The road transport sector represents the largest source of NOx emissions, accounting for 55 per cent of total NOx emissions in 2011.

Aidan1

I know it sound corny but you can see that happening already, especially if people can sex them up for the too cool for school we love global warming crowd!

If I can get a relatively light rear engined, rear wheel drive car with 170bhp thats cheap to run - at a reasonable cost - there will be no need to 'sex it up'. Who wouldn't want a car that drives like a safer version of a late 60s 911, with zero tailpipe emissions?

L1011

maninasia wrote: »

especially if people can sex them up for the too cool for school we love global warming crowd!

Oh dear, it appears that my CSPE teacher has entered the discussion.

Most people who are against the throwing of cash to subsidise electric cars are not against them on aesthetic/image reasons - and there isn't anyone over the age of 6 who matches your description there - they're against them on practicality reasons; and the fact that we've been lied to about battery technology for decades.

Aidan1

MYOB - have you ever driven an EV?

L1011

Aidan1 wrote: »

MYOB - have you ever driven an EV?

No. Hence I've not made any statements based on performance/appearance/power/"coolness" of them, which is what the other poster seems to assume are the only reasons people dislike EVs. Tesla seem to have addressed these issues, but they haven't dealt with the impracticability or the cost.

There isn't a single EV on the market that is practical for my main car, and a plugin would be significantly more expensive to run.

Aidan1

Given the amount you drive, it'll be a long time before there is an BEV that'll work for you (assuming nothing mental happens to oil prices). You might find yourself with a PHEV sooner than you expect though.

If you like driving, it's worth having a go in one. Even leaving aside the performance, which is very different to ICE vehicles, the NVH improvements from EVs are incredible.

antoobrien

Aidan1 wrote: »

Given the amount you drive, it'll be a long time before there is an BEV that'll work for you (assuming nothing mental happens to oil prices). You might find yourself with a PHEV sooner than you expect though.

If you like driving, it's worth having a go in one. Even leaving aside the performance, which is very different to ICE vehicles, the NVH improvements from EVs are incredible.

Something they're planning on doing away with to save pedestrians from themselves.

My brother works for a company that has a EV van they use for going in/around Galway. They've been lucky not to kill 3/4 pedestrians a month on some of the one-way streets because of the habits pedestrians have picked up over the years. I can't hear a vehicle I won't look up - it's an easy enough trap to fall into. I fear it's only a matter of time before a blind person steps out in front of one of these and ends up under the front wheel.

Aidan1

Something they're planning on doing away with to save pedestrians from themselves.

Only at low speeds (less than 30km/h iirc). My present top three suggestions noises that should be used for EVs are;

3. 1972 Porsche 917 Can Am Flat 12
2. Leopard 2A6
1. TIE Fighter

In reality, this could apply to a lot of modern cars with low rolling resistance tyres (as any cyclist in Dublin will tell you). It's particularly bad with 'eco' variants because the road noise is so much less, but even the F10 520D BMW is bloody quiet.

markpb

antoobrien wrote: »

I fear it's only a matter of time before a blind person steps out in front of one of these and ends up under the front wheel.

I'm no expert but I suspect most blind people cross at pedestrian lights or rely on guide dogs rather than blindly (no pun intended) walking out because they don't think the car is coming. Anyway there's an EC directive in the works which will force manufacturers to make EVs make noise.

maninasia

markpb wrote: »

I'm no expert but I suspect most blind people cross at pedestrian lights or rely on guide dogs rather than blindly (no pun intended) walking out because they don't think the car is coming. Anyway there's an EC directive in the works which will force manufacturers to make EVs make noise.

In the US there is a lot antipathy among the Motor media towards electric cars (also UK look what Top Gear did) especially against the Prius. Image is very important for many consumers and until electric cars can get into the pick-up SUV performance field it will struggle with many segments. There is also a lot of liberal/conservative divisions there that breaks down to the supposed lifeatyle people lead and their belief in global warming and what cars the drive etc.

Tesla obviously are trying to change that impression with both the Model S and their next vehicle the Model X which is a crossover vehicle.

I don't get that excited about cars personally (which are after all mass market consumer items) but I like to see something like electric cars breaking through and it does offer a good investment opportunity.

Stonewolf

I find the concept of forcing electric cars to make noise obnoxious. If I'm driving along in my car and someone fails to take appropriate notice and steps out in front of me it's not my fault or my cars fault, it's theirs.

An engineer is satisfied not when there is nothing left to add but when there is nothing left to take away.

Merch

antoobrien wrote: »

Something they're planning on doing away with to save pedestrians from themselves.

My brother works for a company that has a EV van they use for going in/around Galway. They've been lucky not to kill 3/4 pedestrians a month on some of the one-way streets because of the habits pedestrians have picked up over the years. I can't hear a vehicle I won't look up - it's an easy enough trap to fall into. I fear it's only a matter of time before a blind person steps out in front of one of these and ends up under the front wheel.

People walk out in front of cars all the time and pay no heed to them, its not like ICE powered cars are noisy, petrols in particular.
If they're not paying attention to whats going on around them, they are as likely if not more to be hit by something other than an EV, maybe even a bicycle.
Plus Im sure EV's will have a horn to alert people? Im also sure blind people are more acutely aware of the dangers of just stepping off the path onto a road, I dont really think many will just do that.
Either way, it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they can stop in time.

maninasia

A little noise would be a sensible thing to implement.

Here's another article mentioning the ingrained resistance among the auto community re Electric cars.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/12/3969260/going-the-distance-driving-tesla-model-s-in-the-real-world

antoobrien

Merch wrote: »

People walk out in front of cars all the time and pay no heed to them, its not like ICE powered cars are noisy, petrols in particular.
If they're not paying attention to whats going on around them, they are as likely if not more to be hit by something other than an EV, maybe even a bicycle.

I've yet to come across an ice/hybrid (yes I can hear the prius) that I can't hear in an urban environment, so "paying attention" includes listening. The simple fact of the matter is that on certain streets in Galway, the habit has become not to look around because vehicles can clearly be heard approaching.

Merch wrote: »

Either way, it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they can stop in time.

Within reason, if somebody steps out onto the road inside the reaction time breaking distance then it's not the drivers responsibility, it's the twit unwittingly looking for the darwin award. The idea that motorists have to be held responsible for things outside of their control is as idiotic as holding a driver responsible for the manslaughter of somebody that jumps in front of a bus/truck to commit suicide.

Sesshoumaru

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_warning_sounds#Nissan

Nissan's Vehicle Sound for Pedestrians is a sine-wave sound system that sweeps from 2.5 kHz at the high end to a low of 600 Hz, a range that is easily audible across age groups. Depending on the speed and whether the Leaf is accelerating or decelerating, the sound system will make sweeping, high-low sounds. For example, when the Leaf is started the sound will be louder, and when the car is in reverse, the system will generate an intermittent sound. The sound system ceases operation when the Nissan Leaf reaches 30 kilometres per hour (19 mph) and engages again as the car slows to under 25 kilometres per hour (16 mph).

I've been beside a Nissan Leaf going below 30kph, they are easily heard.

I don't know if this was posted already, but Estonia have invested in a countrywide DC fast charging network. Given the proven advances in battery technology and the already lower cost, coupled with the widely predicted further lowering in cost of battery technology, I would say we should be following their example.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/justingerdes/2013/02/26/estonia-launches-nationwide-electric-vehicle-fast-charging-network/

In towns, stations are installed at shopping centers, gas stations, post offices, banks, and parking lots. Every city of more than 5,000 inhabitants hosts at least one station; the capital, Tallinn, population 423,000, hosts 27 stations. The quick-charging stations can deliver a 90% charge to the battery in less than 30 minutes, according to KredEx, the national foundation that operates the EV network.

Sesshoumaru

ninja900 wrote: »

Li-ion also has issues in relation to 'bricking' (Tesla) and safety (Dell, Apple, Boeing...). We keep hearing that future batteries will have higher energy density, but it's never mentioned that the higher the energy density gets, the greater the risks.

There is a poster on Boards who has built his own EV, batteries are his profession and seems quite knowledgeable on the subject.

http://www.evbmw.com/
http://www.e39ev.com/



I remembered a previous post of his, I thought it was relevant to your point. Before I quote him, I just wanted to say myself that the battery in a Nissan Leaf is not the same as the battery found in a mobile phone or laptop or Boeing Dreamliner.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/business/boeing-aware-of-battery-ills-before-the-fires.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In a little-noticed test in 2010, the F.A.A. found that the kind of lithium-ion chemistry that Boeing planned to use — lithium cobalt — was the most flammable of several possible types. The test found that batteries of that type provided the most power, but could also overheat more quickly.

jackbauer wrote: »

I have been following this thread and the cannonball run leaf with some interest. While I would agree that it may not be seen by some to be appropriate to have an ev in the run , I reckon that it did some good to demonstrate the car and garner some public interest. Let me start out by saying that I am not here to evangalise people on the merits of electric cars. Its not my place to do so and I would not want someone doing it to me if the shoe was on the other foot. What I would like to do however is clarify a few points raised by previous posters. I apologise if this gets a bit techy as this is a motors forum not a battery forum but I don't think people would be upset if I was describing rebuilding an SU carb on here:) And batteries are now "car parts" in some places so here goes.

The Nissan Leaf uses a Lithium Manganeese Spinal cell. Now while this is an oxide chemistry it is not nearly as touchy as the cobalt oxide or polymer cells used in laptops and other consumer devices where having the most energy in the least amount of space is paramount. Each cell is monitored by a battery managment system. If even one cell thinks about having a bad hair day then the traction system is shut down. Ignoring all of that lets look at what causes a lithium chemistry cell to flame or explode. In my experience (and I do mean experience. Not just reading some hearsay on the web) there are two main culprits. Extreme overcharge and piercing by a conductive object. Overcharge is easy to prevent. Conductive object piercing is a bit more difficult but can be avoided by careful pack design which I'm sure Nissan and others have taken into account. Cell level mechanical safety devices such as rupture discs etc are the last and most effective safety element as can be seen from the pictures linked below. I have sledgehammered , driven over , overcharged , overdischarged , microwaved , oven baked , frozen , shot with a nail gun , short circuited ,hacksawed , immersed in acid and probablly a dozen other things i can't think of to every available lithium cell that I could get my hands on to date. I learnt a lot in the process. In the end I choose Lithium Iron Phosphate cells for my car. While not as energy dense as manganese or cobalt , they more than make up for it with a benign nature and cyclic life in excess of 5000 cycles to 70% depty of discharge before reaching 80% capacity. My traction battery is comprised of 192 of these little guys and yes I have slept in the car while it was on charge:eek: Here is a little summary of test results and just what happens when your really mean to them : http://www.evbmw.com/headway.htm

Some oems are now looking seriously at phosphate cathode cells as opposed to manganese for these very reasons. A modern ev traction battery is at least as safe as , if not more so , than a regular car's fuel tank.

Finally , and i have mentioned this before , it is not a fair comparisson to quote tailpipe emissions of an ice car against an ev fueled by a coal buring (or other) power plant. In the US it is estimated to require something in the region of 7.5kWh of electricity to refine one gallon of automotive petrol fuel. So that gallon of petrol is already pre loaded with CO2 before it even enters a cylinder! Here is an interesting statistic. The best efficeincy I ever achieved in my car was on a run out of dublin city center to my home in greystones. I averaged 227wh/mile. That 7.5kwh would have moved the car over 33 miles. I don't know the mpg of a '96 E36 but I doubt its much over 30!

I added the emphasis in both quotes above.

Hotblack Desiato

Of course it's not the same battery :rolleyes: but the point is that ever higher energy density is the holy grail of EVs, but this brings potential risks.
Yeah, petrol has risks, diesel has risks, but these are well known and understood by most people and the technology and risks are not rapidly changing.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I've been beside a Nissan Leaf going below 30kph, they are easily heard.

With earphones on?

I ride a motorcycle. A loud one. With a quiet one, there are just too many dippy blondes stepping off the kerb without looking. I don't want that, because it'll do thousands of euro of damage to my bike and quite possibly serious damage to me, and good luck claiming off them even when they're blatantly at fault.

maninasia

I would posit that ever cheaper batteries would be the holy grail of EV development, but of course higher energy density would play it's part too.
All new technology has risks, although this is again is a misnomer as Li-ion battery technology in general is not new.
And new versions of petrol and diesel cars routinely have recalls due to safety issues. Don't get your point really. There are experts in battery technology that are quoted on here that are saying something different than you.

Sesshoumaru

ninja900 wrote: »

Of course it's not the same battery :rolleyes: but the point is that ever higher energy density is the holy grail of EVs, but this brings potential risks.
Yeah, petrol has risks, diesel has risks, but these are well known and understood by most people and the technology and risks are not rapidly changing.



With earphones on?

I ride a motorcycle. A loud one. With a quiet one, there are just too many dippy blondes stepping off the kerb without looking. I don't want that, because it'll do thousands of euro of damage to my bike and quite possibly serious damage to me, and good luck claiming off them even when they're blatantly at fault.

Risks that EV manufacturers are clearly aware of. The Dragon capsule uses lithium battery packs and it has been cleared to dock with the ISS.

http://www.space.com/20018-spacex-dragon-spacecraft-launching-today.html

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — The private spaceflight company SpaceX is counting down to launch an unmanned Dragon space capsule today (March 1) to deliver vital supplies for astronauts

SpaceX officials said they are eager to see the Dragon space capsule make its second cargo run to the International Space Station.

Elon Musk has even weighed in with unsolicited advise for Boeing on the matter!

http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/02/26/elon-musks-solution-to-boeings-battery-problem/

“The 787 batteries have very large cells, the battery cells are very big and they’re quite close together and there’s not enough insulation between the cells. So if one cell goes into thermal runaway and catches on fire, it’s going to cascade into the other cells.

The approach we take at Tesla and SpaceX is we have smaller battery cells with gaps between them, and we make sure that if there’s a thermal runaway event which creates quite a bit of fire and smoke that it directs that fire away from other cells, so you don’t have this domino effect….

The long term solution for having a battery pack that’s reliable and safe and lasts a long time is to reduce the size of the cells, and have more cells that are smaller and have bigger gaps and better thermal insulation between the cells.”

If someone is wearing earphones, they would have trouble hearing more than just EV's. Lots of modern petrol cars would be quiet enough not to be heard by someone wearing headphones.

I also ride a loud motorcycle, here is my beauty



V-Twin & carbon fibre exhausts = LOUD It's also an old carbed model, 1995 to be exact, so it's definitely louder than newer Ducati's I've owned in the past. But that doesn't mean I can assume people won't walk out in front of me or that cars won't try to turn into my path. Even with loud exhausts I have to keep my wits about me!

In any case there is definitely a general desire within society to make vehicles quieter, much quieter. This translates into legislation making new vehicles quieter and quieter.