Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site