Skip to main content

View Diary: Going EV #2: The Kingdom and the Ion (40 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Serious errors that all battery enthusiasts fail (0+ / 0-)

    to understand.

    This is such a horrific failure that many simply do not understand, or even begin to appreciate.

    In their zeal to find a better solution, they all mess up on the last mile.  That is the critical link, the final connection between the source (in this case, power) and the recipient.

    Your average vehicle needs roughly 25 horsepower to maintain 55mph (90 kmh).  Some gains in aerodynamics can be made to reduce that to 20, or even less but you would reduce safety by reducing crumple zones and safety cages around the passengers.  That amounts to roughly 15,000 watts.

    If you want to drive for two hours, you need to deliver 2 hours (plus lost efficiency- for argument's sake lets simply throw away all losses!) of power to that battery, two hours at 15,000 watts.

    Your average house isn't wired to deliver more than 20,000 watts at any given moment.  And to be frank, I'm being generous.  Most homes can deliver about 50 amps of 240 service, for about 12,000 watts total.  So you'd need to totally shut off ALL electric appliances for the roughly 2.5 hours you'd need to charge your electric vehicle.

    And that is for a 110 mile range.  The diarist has claimed that electrics can now "outrange" a comparable gas vehicle- that is totally preposterous!  You've got diesels that can easily surpass 800 miles and seat five in comfort.  Once again, I need to stress this isn't about ENERGY DENSITY, but energy transmission.

    The diarist claims a range of 1600 miles; let's break this down.  That would be roughly 30 hours of driving at highway speeds, each hour needing roughly one hour of charging time (15 Kw ~ 60 amps at 240 two-phase power).

    For each hour of driving a luxury diesel, I need to spend perhaps 1 minute to refuel.  Isn't one minute significantly better than one hour!!!

    Now we haven't touched upon the other problems: We are currently at close to capacity for our electrical grid.  The average household in the US uses slightly less than 1000 watts (1KW) at any given moment.  If you were to charge your electric car for 1/2 hour every day, you'd go from 1KWH to 8KWH!!!

    In essence, household demand would go up 8-fold to drive 25 miles per day (average vehicle goes roughly 30 miles per day) and MOST HOUSEHOLDS HAVE MORE THAN ONE VEHICLE!

    And throughout this reply, I've used very beneficial estimates.  I haven't mentioned copper loss, core loss, connectors (which will be massive) charging stations, AC-DC converter losses, magnetic losses (if they use inductive charging circuits) and batter self-discharge.  All of this would add at the very least, an additional 10%.

    Until you find a way to deliver roughly 10-20 times more electricity into the grid than currently in use, electric vehicles will remain a dream.

    •  An outstanding analysis.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dcoronata

      of the consequences at the homeowner level. The upgrades required for the grid to replace the amount of energy currently being distributed as liquid fuel would be enormous, likely requiring hundreds of new power plants to provide the generation capacity. Powered by what? We would hope that solar, wind, and other clean tech would be prominent, but it is likely that some transition period of fossil fueled local generation (a neighborhood charging station fired by a Diesel generator, perhaps) would precede the "three hour charge at home" stage of development. The infrastructure is not ready yet, but the possibility of increased energy density batteries like these will help drive the realization of it. I also am hopeful that it will start to change the architecture of automobiles as well; when we finally move from the mechanical drivetrain to an all-electrical one where the on-board power generation module drives a generator to charge the batteries to drive electric motors (like train locomotives, but with batteries), this will allow similar performance levels at 25-30% less energy cost (at least for power transmission - this does not factor in battery weight and other possible counterbalancing factors). BTW, another hat tip to Rei for a very impressive diary - I hunger for more, and for excellent commentary like Dcoronata's.

      •  Not according to the DOE (0+ / 0-)

        Once again, I'll have to refer you to an already linked page, where all of the questions raised on this thread have already been answered.   Here's a study commissioned by the DOE to answer your question about how our power infrastructure would need to change.  Short answer: our existing infrastructure alone has enough for 84% of the average Americans' daily driving to be switched over to electricity without any new power plants needing to be built. Not as though it's somehow easier to develop new oilfields than build electricity infrastructure (quite the contrary, really)

        Thanks for your comment!  Let me know if you have any other concerns.

      •  Well what we really need (0+ / 0-)

        is decentralized electrical power generation.  Pretty much, every home in 15-20 years will have to have a solar energy collector on the roof.  Part of the problem is once you get north of 30°N the efficiency goes down, and you can only draw power during clear daylight hours.  But the ROI costs are now in the 10-15 year range, and they might go down by half in the next few years (especially if oil keep accelerating.)

        I think the easiest answer will be cogeneration of electrical power and chemical.  We can create hydrogen from water using electricity, or we can create hydrocarbons from CO2.  Either way, it permits much faster transfer from the source to the vehicle!

        And one critical problem (which I mentioned below this) is the very high percentage of Americans that do not have garages, or park on the street!  In the vast majority of neighborhoods I know the streets are free for all, it is first-come, first served.  How do you charge your vehicle if it is parked a block away from your home?  

        •  The same way you charge your gasoline vehicle (0+ / 0-)

          :)

          •  Massive infrastructure! (0+ / 0-)

            So like you're going to have a POS credit card system for every parking space?  Can you imagine how much copper you'll need to create enough charging systems, to replenish ~10% of all the cars on the street at any given time?

            Right now I can go to the pump, and deliver about 8  non-stop hours of driving on my vehicle in less than three minutes.  If it takes more than 10 minutes, you will need several times more refueling stations as currently available.

            People haven't worked out the fine details.  That's what keeps people like me employed.

    •  Please check the "350Wh/kg" link (0+ / 0-)

      This is all covered here.

      "Your average vehicle needs roughly 25 horsepower to maintain 55mph (90 kmh).  Some gains in aerodynamics can be made to reduce that to 20, or even less but you would reduce safety by reducing crumple zones and safety cages around the passengers.  That amounts to roughly 15,000 watts."

      One must not trade off safety or weight for aerodynamics.  Aerodynamics is more about styling than anything else.  You don't have to have a hummer's blunt sides for an SUV, for example; that's purely style.  For weight reduction, you can trade safety or cost -- for example, using aluminum instead of steel in non-load-bearing components, using composite structures, and so forth.  These often ultimately lead to lifecycle cost reductions due to reduced energy consumption, so it's not really a tradeoff at all.

      "Your average house isn't wired to deliver more than 20,000 watts at any given moment.  And to be frank, I'm being generous.  Most homes can deliver about 50 amps of 240 service, for about 12,000 watts total.  So you'd need to totally shut off ALL electric appliances for the roughly 2.5 hours you'd need to charge your electric vehicle."

      Read the post a couple above yours.  Fast charging isn't generally wanted in homes (people only really need it when on the road), but if you did want it, it can easily be accomplished by a battery pack that stays in your garage which slowly charges from the grid and rapidly discharges into your vehicle when you need it.

      Do you have any issues that aren't covered by the above link?  I'd be glad to add them.

      •  You are not correct. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm an electronic engineer, working in the field of energy management.  I know this stuff backwards and forwards!

        You can't, you simply CAN'T use an external battery pack to act as a subsidiary fast-charger.  You don't have the slightest chance of it working, and here are many reasons why.

        First, do you think people will want to spend so much money on a secondary energy storage system?  The battery in the vehicle will no doubt cost a significant portion of the vehicle's total cost.  People trying to escape from $4/gal gas will not be willing to pay an additional $5000 or more for a standby battery, that will never see the insides of the vehicle.

        Then you have the same charging problems.  You'd need to deliver roughly 12,000 watt/hours for each hour of driving at highway speeds.  You can't use DC-DC direct conversion because the first instant of charge into the battery would have an inrush current so great that you'd cause a significant risk of explosion.  So you need to buffer it with a thyristor- a heavy-duty SCR system.  The best currently available would cause your efficiency to go down by at least 5%, and you'd still need massive cables to go from the battery to the vehicle.  Now how many people currently have the capacity to charge their vehicles from a garage or a port close enough to their homes to attach a 2 or 0 AWG wire from source to their car?  The charging station will require a short distance, or else the cost of copper will be astronomical, as will the lost efficiency.  Bear in mind that the I2R ("I squared R, or current squared times the resistance) for a nearly 100 amp wire will generate a lot of heat.  And then you get something called the "skin effect" which makes it harder to transfer electricity at high current.  So you are forced to deal with some energy transmission issues.

        Let us say for argument's sake, that you've decided to turn that secondary battery voltage into an AC-inverter, ramping the voltage up to 500 VAC.  Then you'd be able to reduce amperage sufficiently enough for you to deliver it without requiring cables as thick as a quarter.  But the safety issue becomes huge.  You pretty much can't use regular connectors because this will be a connector that will be exposed to the elements.  Copper will oxidize, and in short time the heat generated by the poor connection will risk catastrophic failure.  So you've got to go to gold-plated connectors, and that will cost major bucks.  You can try to go inductive, but that isn't very efficient.  And you are limited by the current in the core, which will never permit you to charge at anywhere near the rate you need.

        I've done extensive work with relays, connectors, contactors, and semiconductor switches, and there pretty much isn't anything available today that I'd trust the end user to connect the hundreds of thousands of watt-hours of energy that you'd need to deliver in order to make your system work.  And that is the problem!  You can't do it, you simply can't do it without a major change in philosophy! The physics and the economics will not permit it.

        Unless you can actually REPLACE the battery pack with a freshly charged battery each and every time you need a full recharge (imagine your average home-owner removing a several hundred pound battery!) you can NOT appreciably change the amount of time that the vehicle will require between charges.  Even if you fix the grid, even if you use a secondary battery, you can't supply that much energy that rapidly from the source to the vehicle without using chemical means.  Even if you used high-temperature superconductors, you'd still have to have some sort of device to switch the power- either a metal contact or a semiconductor, and they are neither cheap or last very long.  I've got 200 amp contactors that sound like an explosion every time we turn them on, and they're as big as a desktop computer.

        •  I (and others) respectfully disagree (0+ / 0-)

          You can't, you simply CAN'T use an external battery pack to act as a subsidiary fast-charger.

          You can, simply can, use an external battery pack to act as a subsidiary fast-charger for fast charging another battery pack.  Battery powered battery chargers on the smaller scale have existed for a long, long time.  On the larger scale, here EEStor suggests it with their upcoming ultracapacitor banks:

          http://www.economist.com/...

          I've run into a number of fast-charge battery manufacturers suggesting the same at various times; I can dig up more articles for you if you'd like (I just happened to know where this on was).

          First, do you think people will want to spend so much money on a secondary energy storage system?

          They don't have to.  As stated, it's purely optional.  Let's compare the situation with no fast charger at home versus a gasoline vehicle:

          Gasoline home charge time: infinite
          Electric home charge time w/o fast charger: hours
          Gasoline station charge time: ~5 minutes
          Electric station charge time: ~5 minutes

          And the problem is...?  Fast chargers at home are just an additional option available if people need them.

          You'd need to deliver roughly 12,000 watt/hours for each hour of driving at highway speeds.

          That depends entirely on the vehicle.  At 55mph, the Aptera Typ-1e, for example consumes about 80Wh/mi, i.e., 4.4 kWh.  Now, the Aptera is certainly an exceptional design, but blanket statements aren't universally applicable.

          The best currently available would cause your efficiency to go down by at least 5%

          And the problem is...?  If you feel 5% loss on the rare occasions where you're draining your entire battery bank multiple times per day is problematic, I don't know where you're coming from.

          and you'd still need massive cables to go from the battery to the vehicle.

          As referenced in the linked article, for the Aptera Typ-1e to charge in 10 minutes is pretty trivial to deliver.  Certainly, when you're looking at less efficient cars and longer ranges, that's not true -- but (also as mentioned in the article), this all assumes passive cooling of the wires.  Active cooling and higher voltages together can give you orders of magnitude more power.  And, absolute worse case, rather than a "plug", you use the equivalent of a vehicle docking station.

          Now how many people currently have the capacity to charge their vehicles from a garage or a port close enough to their homes to attach a 2 or 0 AWG wire from source to their car?

          Now, how many people currently have the capacity to charge their gasoline vehicles from a garage at all?  You realize you're comparing a potential advanced form of a capability for EVs with ones that gasoline vehicles don't have at all, right?

          Let us say for argument's sake, that you've decided to turn that secondary battery voltage into an AC-inverter, ramping the voltage up to 500 VAC.

          Seems an obvious call.

          But the safety issue becomes huge.  You pretty much can't use regular connectors because this will be a connector that will be exposed to the elements.  Copper will oxidize, and in short time the heat generated by the poor connection will risk catastrophic failure.

          Bad connections can (and should be) be sensed.  Safety systems are essential when dealing with any large amount of energy.  That's why gas pumps, for example, sense when your tank is full and don't overfill it.  Anyways, even if you did use gold connectors, $100 of gold isn't going to break the bank in comparison to the cost of the charger itself.

          •  There are so many huge errors here (0+ / 0-)

            I see you do not understand the physics.

            For you to provide (as you earlier stated) enough power to drive for 1600 miles  (12000 watt-hours for an small vehicle to travel at 55PMH, multiplied by roughly 30 hours), to deliver the more than 1/3 million watt-hours of energy needed as fast as 5 minutes you'd have to inject about as much current as an entire CITY uses.  That is 4 million watts!!!  Even if you push the voltage to 1000, that would require 4000 amps.

            Do any of you guys ever crack a physics book?  The fast charger guys can deliver that much power to a small battery- do to it for one that will deliver a third of a million watt-hours.

            It isn't simply the cost of the gold, it is the cost of a connector, contactor, switching devices...

            You couldn't just use sensing equipment, you'd have to use a variable-charge system that would start off slowly, and then build up.  The major problem would be initial inrush.  Even if you went Hexfet a thyristor with that capacity would cost hundreds, and could blow very easily.  Let me just quickly see how much a 1000A, FET (if that is even available!) would cost... They don't make them that big- you can get 500A for 10 volts...

            If you use a conventional semiconductor, you usually get about a 1V MT1-MT2 voltage.  So if you are pushing 1000A you'd have 1000 watts of heat JUST FOR THE SEMICONDUCTIVE SWITCH.

            Let me remind you once again, the average house in America uses that much currently for ALL appliances.  That would be just for the semiconductor switch.

        •  I should add.. (0+ / 0-)

          ... that the overwhelming majority of your post had nothing to do with battery powered battery chargers, just fast charging in general.  Do you accept that there is no problem with the batteries themselves?  If not, check out the stats on A123's, AltairNano's, Toshiba's SCiB, and so on.

          Fast chargers won't be cheap, which is why it's doubtful most people would have one in their home, especially older homes.  But they're certainly cheaper than setting up a gas station.  Compared to gasoline infrastructure, with an electric infrastructure, you only gain.  You gain slow charging at home at no extra cost, you get fast charging stations that are cheaper to make than gas stations, and you have the potential, if you're willing to pay for the luxury, to have the same at home.

          •  The batteries are not the problem (0+ / 0-)

            The problem is getting that amazingly huge amount of energy into the batteries.

            I've seen the Toshibas (need to remind you that energy management is my industry, and switching in particular is my specialty) and they are great for a few tens of amp hours of capacity.

            For a car, you'll need a few tens of thousands of amp hours.

            Okay, you were complaining about the 5% inverter "tax".  When you distribute hundreds of thousands of amp-hours of electricity, if you have a 5% energy loss that amounts to tens of thousands of watts of heat.  WHERE WILL IT GO?

            The problem as I stated earlier is not in the batteries, but in delivery.  That kills all of this- until they can find a better solution, either a way to physically disconnect and reconnect the batteries at a fill station, or a way to physically recharge the battery by removing and refilling the electrolyte (not very safe...) then the dream of a "fast recharge" system will always stay a dream.

            •  Into heat (0+ / 0-)

              "Where will it go?"

              Into heat.  Electrics are far more efficient than gasoline engines.  An additional 5% loss on the perhaps 5% of chargings that would need to be done quickly is insignificant.  Even if the 5% loss was on every charging, it still wouldn't make gasoline or diesel engines compare with electrics in terms of full thermodynamic cycle efficiency.  Power plants are more efficient than diesels and far more efficient than gasoline engines, as well as in general having tigher pollution controls that are easier to strengthen.  Transmission is almost 93% efficient in the US.  Electric motors are 85-90% efficient.  Li-ion batteries are almost lossless.  All in all, EVs are an extremely efficient way to use energy for transportation.

              "either a way to physically disconnect and reconnect the batteries at a fill station"

              Google "Project Better Place".  You're looking at Israel in 5 to 10 years.  200m$ of seed funding and a partnership with Nissan-Renault will do that for you.

              "physically recharge the battery by removing and refilling the electrolyte (not very safe...)"

              Google "vanadium redox battery", and it's perfectly safe.

              Fast charging EVs are no dream; they're reality, and many major and minor car manufacturers are working on fast-charging EVs as we speak.  Including some with batteries that are getting closer to "next gen", such as Subaru's fast charging G4e with a lithium vanadium oxide anode to give it double the energy density of traditional li-ion.  They're making the cars and they're making the chargers.

              Let's break it down.  Do you dispute:

              1. Several EV fast chargers that don't use batteries already exist.  So nothing is inherently untenable about delivering large amounts of power to EVs in short notice.
              1. Many types of fast charge batteries exist which can receive and deliver this sort of power.
              1. Several battery and ultracapacitor manufacturers are talking about making ones that use their products.  China  has an ultracapacitor bus system under development which is to completely charge their electric busses at each bus stop.

              If you don't dispute these, then it seems that you accept the fact that these indeed are not "a dream".  Yes, chargers will be expensive, tens of thousands of dollars or more, but they are certainly real and functional.  Continuing on, do you dispute:

              1. Gasoline vehicles can't slow "charge" at home at all.  EVs can, at no extra cost.
              1. Gasoline vehicles can't quick "charge" at home unless you spend several hundreds of thousands of dollars to effectively turn your house into a gas station.  EVs can't either, unless you spend only tens of thousands, perhaps a hundred thousand dollars for a fast charger.
              1. Making a commercial rapid charging station is far simplier than making a gas station which can easily cost a good chunk of a million dollars or more to build.
              1. Significant safety measures are needed on gas stations to prevent fuel-air mixtures in-tank (major explosion), gasoline spills from fuelling vehicles, sparks which could ignite spilled gas or vapors (fires, conflagrations, etc), environmentally destructive leaks of gasoline, etc.  Significant safety measures would be needed on EV fast charging stations to deal with the required high voltages, make sure connections are good, to shut off in the event of a short, etc.
              1. The DOE says we already have the generation and transmission infrastructure needed for 84% of vehicles to be EVs/PHEVs.  Already.

              If you agree with these, then the problem is...?  I'm trying to figure out what objections you still have.

              •  I was talking 5% just for the switch!!! (0+ / 0-)

                Now let us get to specifics: you'll lose about 8-10% converting the AC power into DC.  Again, and I feel as if I'm talking to a wall, when you deliver a third of a million watts into a vehicle, that 8-10 percent will heat up like nobodies' business!  

                Have you ever held a laptop in your lap?  Did your balls enjoy the glow?  Did you wonder if lobsters feel the same way just before they reach the dinner table?  Now multiply that heat by a thousand!!!

                I can see by the rest, this isn't going to change your mind.  You do not seem to understand the physics involved.  Sorry I have to be so blunt about it...

                1. Not true.  How long does it take to charge up a Tesla, the most advanced EV ever to be sold commercially (well sold yes, delivered not yet.) They say OVERNIGHT, at home.

                http://www.teslamotors.com/...

                1. Once again, multiply that power by 100 for a car.  If you've got a laptop, instead of holding the laptop hold the charger.  Is it warm?  Multiply that by 100...
                1. I've been using supercaps (ultracap is a fancy name for supercaps...) literally from the day they came out.  Almost all of our commercial designs now use them.  Most have a 2.6 volt cell- for a car you'll need about 100 in series.  If ONE dies, the entire stack is toast.  And you'll need several of them in a massive serial-parallel array.  They have a very bright future for hybrids, not for stand alone power.  At most, they'll deliver a few SECONDS of acceleration.
                1. Gas vehicles don't need to be charged at home, there is plenty of existing infrastructure.
                1. Why waste money building redundancy into a system that already has plenty?  Do you raise your own cows or farm your own wheat?  This is a very bad argument for you.
                1. BULLSHIT.  I remember that GM's EV systems cost about $2500 each, and they were not fast chargers.  Just for rule of thumb, you need at least a dime for each watt.  For a third of a million watt system, you are talking more than $30K.
                1. It is very easy to turn off a pump.  If anything, it takes power to keep it running so it is in its own way self-extinguishing.  But once you hook up an electrical circuit, it stays connected unless you act to disrupt it.  That means pulling apart contacts, or quenching a semiconductor.  And I hate to tell you this, but quite often semiconductor switched fail as a short!  (Especially diodes and SCRs)
                1. The DOE is out of its mind if it thinks you can essentially increase the amount of electrical transmission by a factor of five without massive infrastructure!  And just as an aside, it'll generate more ghg's than you'd think.

                Once again, right now in the US the average house uses a hair less than 1KW, about 8100KW Hour/year.  For argument's sake, the average house has about 2 cars, each traveling about 10,000 miles a year.  Each mile will require about 20 watt-hours (very conservative estimate) so that will mean an increase of about 2*20,000 or 40,000 KWH/year, a five-fold increase.  Now much of that power will be delivered at night, which will actually change the current demand profile.  My company builds devices that permit customers to run their water heaters at night, when they can save money.  I guess they can kiss those energy cost savings goodbye.

                You need to do the math.

                •  Heat (0+ / 0-)

                  "Now let us get to specifics: you'll lose about 8-10% converting the AC power into DC.  Again, and I feel as if I'm talking to a wall, when you deliver a third of a million watts into a vehicle, that 8-10 percent will heat up like nobodies' business!"

                  In a battery powered fast charger, that AC/DC conversion occurs before storage in batteries -- i.e., slowly, so is trivially dissipated.  If you actually have 300 kW flowing to the point of charging -- say, some big three-phase charger -- then yes, you'll need to dissipate 30 kW of heat given 10% losses.  If you're talking about a ten minute charge, then that's 5kWh of heat energy -- the energy of a little more than a third of a gallon of gas being burned over a ten minute period.  I.e., the heat energy of a gallon of gas being burned over a half hour period.  I.e., less than the amount of heat your average car's radiator dissipates.  And this is supposed to be a problem how?

                  "Have you ever held a laptop in your lap?  Did your balls enjoy the glow?"

                  Here's a tip: don't assume that everyone who knows anything about electronics or automotive tech is male.

                  "1.  Not true.  How long does it take to charge up a Tesla, the most advanced EV ever to be sold commercially (well sold yes, delivered not yet.) They say OVERNIGHT, at home."

                  Tesla already has a rather large battery pack -- over 50kWh.  The Aptera, by comparison, is 10kWh.  I believe the MiEV is 18kWh.  Tesla needs its pack to be that big because A) it's a high performance car and so burns through the power faster, and B) it already has a reasonably competitive range of over 200 miles.  Nonetheless, it's time for a full charge is only 3 1/2 hours.

                  Furthermore, I Did Not Say Tesla.  Tesla is Not one of the types of cars designed to fast charge.  In fact, it couldn't if they wanted to; they use laptop batteries, which are not capable of fast charging.  Tesla the exception, not the rule, in that laptop batteries are not popular for EVs due to the combination of poor safety and short lifespan.  A much better example would be, for example, the Subaru G4e or the Phoenix SUT.

                  "Once again, multiply that power by 100 for a car.  If you've got a laptop, instead of holding the laptop hold the charger.  Is it warm?  Multiply that by 100..."

                  Ten minutes of a laptop is hardly hot.  I usually don't feel mine until almost half an hour.  It's dissipating about 50 watts and is not designed to properly dissipate large amounts of heat.  It doesn't even have a case fan running most of the time.

                  "I've been using supercaps (ultracap is a fancy name for supercaps...) literally from the day they came out.  Almost all of our commercial designs now use them.  Most have a 2.6 volt cell- for a car you'll need about 100 in series."

                  The EESU, the ultracap I was referring to in particular, is designed to operate at 3500V.  Now, that's a pretty extreme case, but with even the more standard nanotube supercaps, if one dies, you only lose that "blade" (to borrow Tesla's term; Tesla divides their cells into blades, where the cells in each blade are in series to get the desired voltage, and the blades are in parallel for amperage).

                  By the way: I find it disturbing by how you keep being completely unaware of a lot of fundamental apsects of the discussion here.  You criticize ultracaps without being familiar with that what we're referring to here are not "a few seconds of acceleration" but more energy than in existing li-ion batteries, you refer to the Tesla in a discussion of a "fast charge" car, you never had even heard of the vanadium redox battery, or Project Better Place's battery exchange system, and dozens of other things.  As a friendly suggestion, you would do well to read up on a subject before you debate about it.

                  "Gas vehicles don't need to be charged at home, there is plenty of existing infrastructure."

                  You were just complaining that fast charging isn't reasonably for at home, but neglecting the fact that gasoline vehicles can't charge at all at home.  Fast charging is really only ever needed when on the road.

                  "BULLSHIT.  I remember that GM's EV systems cost about $2500 each, and they were not fast chargers.  Just for rule of thumb, you need at least a dime for each watt.  For a third of a million watt system, you are talking more than $30K."

                  Thank you for making my point for me.  An eight-car gas station will cost something like $800k.  Let's say that $600k of that is the cost of the gasoline infrastructure and the rest is stuff like land, pavement, utilities, a convenience store, and so forth that the EV charging station would need anyways.  $600k would buy you twenty $30k chargers.

                  But wait, it gets even better.  GM's systems weren't mass produced items.  Nor should we assume that systems put in place a decade and a half or more after GM's would cost as much per watt.

                  "It is very easy to turn off a pump.  If anything, it takes power to keep it running so it is in its own way self-extinguishing.  But once you hook up an electrical circuit, it stays connected unless you act to disrupt it.  That means pulling apart contacts, or quenching a semiconductor.  And I hate to tell you this, but quite often semiconductor switched fail as a short!  (Especially diodes and SCRs)"

                  Apparently where you come from, breaking a circuit is somehow more difficult than turning off a pump based on readings from a gasoline sensor (which, might I add, involves breaking a circuit to the pump).  Seems a crazy notion to me.  

                  "The DOE is out of its mind if it thinks you can essentially increase the amount of electrical transmission by a factor of five without massive infrastructure!  And just as an aside, it'll generate more ghg's than you'd think."

                  That pretty bold to call the DOE a liar.  And, by the way, had you actually read the study that I took the time to fetch for you, you'd find that they studied GHGs as well, and found them lower.  Here's another study, same conclusion.

                  "Once again, right now in the US the average house uses a hair less than 1KW, about 8100KW Hour/year."

                  The US generates about 4 TWh.  That's ~13,300 kWh per capita annually, ~36.5 kWh daily.  Average capacity factor is around 50%.  You do know what capacity factor is, right?  If not, take the time to look it up if you plan to continue this conversation.

                  "Each mile will require about 20 watt-hours (very conservative estimate)"

                  Holy heck, please learn about what you're talking about before you post. EVs typically get around 200 Wh/mi.  The lowest streetlegal general-purpose car is the Aptera Typ-1e, at around 80Wh/mi, and that hasn't hit mass production yet.

                  "so that will mean an increase of about 2*20,000 or 40,000 KWH/year"

                  Nice math error -- you just replaced watt hours to kilowatt hours.  First you call the DOE liars, then you're off by an order of magnitude in favor of EVs in terms of power consumption, and then you go off by three orders of magnitude against EVs by mistakenly converting Wh to kWh.  Look, stop while you're behind, won't you?

                  Here's the real math.  Let's go with 200Wh/mi, a realistic number. The average car drives 12,000 miles a year, and there are about 250 million cars in the US.  That's 600GWh.  Let's call it 700GWh after various losses.  Compare that to the 4 TWh we generate annually and our capacity factor.  Why, then, do we need any new infrastructure?

                  Once again, we'll turn to the DOE study, as evidence that thorough studies are far better than off the cuff calculations.  The capacity factor nationally may be low, but in the Pacific Northwest, where most power is from hydro, it is very high.  They would need new power stations up there, even though in most places, there would still be ample spare capacity.

                  I'll reiterate my earlier point: you're obviously very passionate, and you know a lot about electronics in general, but you are also clearly very uneducated on the subject of EVs and what the status of current technology, EV business, and research on the subject.  I will highly recommend that you educate yourself on the subject before you take such adimant stances in the future.

      •  Safety (0+ / 0-)

        Is more than the passengers in the vehicle.

        EU safety concerns now include pedestrians struck by vehicles.  They require a smooth flowing front of the vehicle, to prevent the pedestrian from being ripped apart by mirrors or windshield wipers, or being thrown over the vehicle.  That will improve the aerodynamics a bit, but that will force vehicles to be longer.

        As for using aluminum vs. steel- aluminum isn't as easy to machine, and it is far more costly and energy intensive.  It will become more and more common, but it will significantly increase the cost of vehicles, and currently I do not think there are any vehicles made by US manufacturers that have significant aluminum content!  IIRC MB used it way back in the 1950's on the first 300SL coupes, and is is currently used heavily by Audi and Jaguar, along with MB and BMW.  I know Lotus has been doing some serious work on its new Eagle vehicle with bolt-on Al frames, but many manufacturers are not ready yet.  In fact Subaru has gone the opposite direction; they've stopped using Al due to heavy costs.

        It seems the market doesn't agree with you.

        •  Lost my post (0+ / 0-)

          So I'll have to retype quickly.

          EU safety concerns now include pedestrians struck by vehicles.  They require a smooth flowing front of the vehicle, to prevent the pedestrian from being ripped apart by mirrors or windshield wipers, or being thrown over the vehicle.  That will improve the aerodynamics a bit, but that will force vehicles to be longer.

          Exactly my point: safety and aerodynamics go hand in hand.  I'd much rather get hit by a Prius than a Hummer.

          As for using aluminum vs. steel- aluminum isn't as easy to machine

          I've seen aluminum machined a number of times, and it looked pretty darned easy.  I've never welded aluminum or steel, so I can't say how that compares, but I've cut both and aluminum cuts a lot easier.  It also casts easier.

          and it is far more costly and energy intensive.

          Which is more than made up for by the weight savings reducing the energy required to accelerate the vehicle tens of thousands of times over the course of its life, and how trivial aluminum is to recycle into new products (1/20th the amount of energy as to manufacture it from scratch).

          It seems the market doesn't agree with you.

          You'd be incorrect:

          http://www.aluminum.org/...

          Turning Point
          Aluminum Passes Iron Among Automotive Materials In Use Worldwide; What Lies Ahead?

          The Jaguar XK uses castings and extrusions that reduce the need for many of the joints that would have been used to hold stamped pieces together—resulting in a stiff, strong body.A mere five years after surpassing plastic’s usage among cars and light trucks worldwide, aluminum this year moved past iron for second place among automotive materials. According to Ducker Worldwide in its report released earlier this year—Aluminum Content for Light Non Commercial Vehicles to Be Assembled in North America, Japan and the European Union in 2006—the average aluminum content worldwide reached almost 280 lbs. for the 2006 model year. The report brought even better news of aluminum’s gains in the North American auto market, where average content reached 319 lbs.—an increase of almost 24 percent over the past five years.

          •  Cars aren't cast, they are stamped (0+ / 0-)

            Al requires much higher temps, and welding it is much harder.  Drilling it ain't as easy either.  Much harder to tap, and the finish is much less forgiving.  You've never seen Al in your life (neither have I...) but you've seen aluminum oxide- it oxidizes instantaneously when it contacts the air.  That's pretty much why they use it in solid rocket engines.  (And it burns very hot.)

            Much of the Al content in cars is trim, wheels, electrical and non-structural.  As I'd stated earlier, Scoobies will no longer have Al body panels.  It is too expensive!  Not everyone can afford an XK- how many people do you know drive $80K cats?

            Now what you said about recycling makes absolute sense, but here in the US we are a generation behind our European cousins.  Then essentially force the vehicle to be recycled, and the owner/maker pay for it.  Here in the US, you can just junk your car.  Unless we start to institute a policy where people pay in advance a sort of "bottle return" for their cars, I can't see that happening for a while.  And one other note, Al bodied cars have had longevity problems in the past.  We are better at welding it today, but in the past there were problems.  

            •  I don't care where the Al goes (0+ / 0-)

              As I stated, I've never welded Al or steel, but

              "Drilling it ain't as easy either"

              I've drilled both, and I found the Al much easier to get through.  It's known as a soft metal for a reason.

              "As I'd stated earlier, Scoobies will no longer have Al body panels"

              But given the increasing percentage of cars that are made up of Al, its usage is increasing.  It's now the second largest component of cars and light trucks.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site