I believe ethanol is a complex plot by the Illuminati so the world’s farmers grow excess food to provide insurance against famine without bankrupting said farmers.
I’m kidding about the Illuminati part, but it is one hell of a scheme that ensures there is always excess agricultural production.
This is actually a good idea (IMO), but the huge problem is that most states have mandated ethanol content required for gasoline, and there's no "circuit breaker" in place when food prices rise dramatically. When corn prices quickly doubled during the Great Recession (2007-2008) we could've stabilized the price by cutting the amount being used for ethanol in gasoline.
This isn't a conspiracy. It's one of the responsibilities of the Secretary of Agriculture. Here's Earl Butz in 1972:
> “One of my responsibilities is to see that we have a continuing adequate food supply, and the best way to assure that is to let farmers make a little money in the process.”
Is this the guy that said "go big or get out" ? or was that later.. (family-sized farms of all kinds across the United States died an ugly death under these policies in the 1970s and 1980s).
its an interesting scheme, only issue is that "human corn" and "ethanol corn" and "feed-lot corn" are very different strains. Human corn is tasty, while the other two taste terrible.
Much of the corn is being grown in a way that erodes the soil and depletes the water reserves being used, compromising our ability to grow crops in those areas in the future.
I'm talking about slow chargers - the kind that are 60 amps or so AC. The kind that require no expensive electronics in the charger. The kind that'll take 12 hours for a full charge.
Fast DC chargers will always cost more due to the need for expensive power electronics.
Even just +7 kVA per house means a complete rebuild of the grid.
1 MW would be enough for just ~150 chargers. And where would you get that megawatt at night? More base load, which means nuclear or fossil which means less niche for solar because no one would shut down such amount of base load generation each day.
Besides 60 amps isn't exactly cheap in electronics. It might not require active cooling for the cable and the battery, that's true.
> "Even just +7 kVA per house means a complete rebuild of the grid."
Only if every car in your neighbourhood is plugged in and pulling 7 kW at the same time.
Smart charging solves this, by reducing charging during demand peaks (ie: 6pm when everyone is arriving home from work and plugging in at the same time), and increasing it later in the night when more capacity is available.
However you slice it, you have to deliver say 40KWh to that many cars overnight, or they fail to charge and thus are useless. So the grid has to handle that and even if you can get rid of extreme peaks with "smartness", you can't lower the cables and switches ratings much.
First of all, the average car does not need 40 kWh every day. The average driver in the USA drives 13,500 miles per year (far more than the average driver in the UK/Europe!)
That's about 37 miles per day, so about 12.5 kWh per night on average at ~3 miles per kWh. And remember, those who are driving long distance are probably going to be using fast chargers on-route, so their domestic charging demand will be lower.
Secondly, even if they did need 40 kWh every night, that only equates to 4 kW over a 10 hour charging cycle. Easily manageable by avoiding the typical late afternoon / early evening peaks. Most grids have a lot of spare capacity between, say, 9PM and 7AM.
You fail to take into account inefficiencies in transmission and charging. That would multiply required input by a factor of two or three, depending where you measure it.
So no. Switch most commute to electric - then at first grid goes down, then power plants struggle.
"Most grids have a lot of spare capacity between, say, 9PM and 7AM" - that's not the grids we're talking about. HV circuits might not feel it, but something laid down for a suburb was scrupulously designed to carry only just enough, because it's basically burying refined metal, be it copper or aluminium.
There is no spare even 4KW for every house and never has been because that would have cost more in about everything - meters, cables, multiple stages of step-down transformers, transmission lines, generation.
Electicity is not free, never has been, and distibution costs are surprisingly a very important consideration.
> "There is no spare even 4KW for every house and never has been"
Yes, there is. It's just the timing that matters. Domestic electricity demand during off-peak overnight hours is as little as 1/3 as it is at peak time. If all those houses can run 4 kW of air conditioning, or heating, or electric ovens at 6PM, then there is 4 kW to spare at 2AM.
This issue has actually been studied in some detail by the UK's National Grid. The conclusion was that additional demand from millions of electric vehicles would cause issues if they all were charged at peak times. But, provided demand can be managed, existing grid infrastructure can cope with an entirely electric vehicle fleet with modest investments in the coming years/decades.
Fun fact: UK grid demand used to be significantly higher than it is today. It peaked at 62 GW in 2002, but it now rarely gets above 45 GW, despite significant population growth! Much of this reduction in demand is due to improved energy efficiency.
If we could handle 62 GW in 2002, then there's no reason that we can't handle 62 GW again in, say, 2042.
> If we could handle 62 GW in 2002, then there's no reason that we can't handle 62 GW again in, say, 2042.
There is - supply and grid maintenance was scaled down with demand.
The grid certainly can be rebuilt to 2002 state in UK, but this will not be cheap.
The other point that I was making is that any deviation from current patterns, like night demand significantly growing will require significant changes in generation.
> "The grid certainly can be rebuilt to 2002 state in UK, but this will not be cheap."
It doesn't need "rebuilding". The grid, broadly speaking, hasn't changed since 2002. Generation has changed dramatically, but generally the transmission lines that served old power plants do not get removed when the plants close. They're still there, still active, and are often reused (for example, off-shore wind farm built off the coast from closed coal plant).
> "The other point that I was making is that any deviation from current patterns, like night demand significantly growing will require significant changes in generation."
First you were talking about lines, now you are talking about generation. But it's the same story. Power plants get turned off and curtailed at night because there is less demand. If demand increases at night? Plenty of spare capacity available, they just need to run for longer.
> "You fail to take into account inefficiencies in transmission and charging. That would multiply required input by a factor of two or three, depending where you measure it."
I do not account for transmission inefficiencies, as this is highly variable depending on your location and grid infrastructure. But it would be extremely unusual for transmission losses to be as high as 66% like you suggest!
As for charging losses, that's something like 10%. About 90% of the energy as measured at your domestic electricity meter will make it into the battery. I did account for this, by giving a deliberately low miles per kWh figure. In reality, most EVs will get significantly better efficiency than the 3 miles per kWh that I quoted.
The issue is not power electronics, but power supply. You might have a 60 Amps grid supply, or even a 100Amps split phase 120/240V as is typical for newer US homes, which allows drawing 24KW from the grid at full power. Your neighbor might have the same.
But that doesn't mean everybody in your neighborhood can draw 24KW all night long. Those are maximal currents for intermittent loads like heaters, clothes driers etc. You might have a single 100KVA polemount transformer suppling a whole street and a single 15KV / 300Amp line servicing a whole neighborhood.
When everybody attempts to draw even 5-10KW in the air-conditioning season, you get circuit breaks because the main feed is incapable of supplying sufficient power. The upgrading will be done but it will take a decade or more, especially considering the push from local municipalities towards buried power feeds which are very expensive.
Electric cars consume about 20kWh/100km. If your whole neighborhood needs to draw double digit kilowatts for 10h a night, you live in a neighborhood of long distance truck drivers.
If everyone wants to fill up their tank at once, the gas stations run out of gas. This doesn't happen with any regularity, which I take as an indicator that the scenario you're describing is very rare.
The gas system has buffering and slack at many levels. Cars store more mileage. Gas stations have a buffer. Gas stations can request more trucks come refill much easier than a grid can be upgraded. I don't think you proved anything.
Precisely, even with that significant slack, it still happens. How frequent will be the overloads in a system with no energy storage capacity, which is sized to handle the existing load peaks and already has infrequent overloads?
The average commute in the US is 50 Km per day and if that is the average it is reasonable to assume some communities will be highly correlated above average, for example if they are 40-50 Km away from a large economic hub, a large proportion of residents will drive the 100Km roundtrip per working day. The lower price of electric comute will prompt many residences to have two electric cars driving the average every working day, for a total, again, of 100Km = 20KWh. So double digit is not exceptional, it will be the average, an extra 3KW of power for each household for the entire night, assuming an outstandingly smart grid that can perfectly level off demand.
Combine that with rare events like hot nights and large movements, psychological reactions like panic, and you have an unreliable local supply that might trip every few months without expensive upgrades.
Generally speaking, you don't need massive upgrades of local grid infrastructure to support electric vehicles.
There is plenty of capacity available, provided charging is spread out over the night and not concentrated at peak demand periods. You just need chargers that are smart enough to ensure this happens.
Not good enough for many of my friends, I'm afraid. It would definitely not be an option for me, I drive 1200km in roughly 12h - 14h each night, for 2w long tours:
- Heviz to Saint Tropez 1200km
- Empuriabrava to Malaga 1100km
- Porto to Andorra 1100km
- Krakow to Bucharest 1200km
- other shorter trips (700km-800km)
-----
- business trip Bucharest to Leipzig 1600km (I go much farther without passengers)
- Leizig to London 1200km (slow ferry)
- etc
I drive a diesel and it's just excellent for my family's holidaying, we would be wasting considerable time charging, reducing the overall time to enjoy the tour's destinations.
I mean, impressive mileage - but you must definitely be an outlier with those numbers in single trips I'd imagine. Also, if you're only do those kinds of numbers a few weeks a year, you could have an electric car for 50 weeks of the year and then hire a diesel one for the longer stints?
That being said, it'll only be a couple more generations of tech before we're getting fast charge in the 15-20 minute ranges. By the time you've done a full-tank fill, used the toilets, picked up a few Rom bars in the shop and paid - you probably wont lose much time.
(I'm still a car lover, but change is coming, and it'd be hard to argue with it in a few more years).
The fixed costs of owning two cars means that it rarely works out. Rental cars can work, but again the math rarely works out because it is so expensive to rent a large car.
I also worry that in the hypothetical world where most people just own a small electric for local daily use, and rent a large diesel (or whatever) for the family holiday, demand for those larger, longer-range vehicles will be extremely seasonal.
It may not be viable to maintain a large fleet of family-vacation-type vehicles just to satisfy the demand for summer holidays in August and ski trips in February.
I did mention rental, 100% agree owning two would be absurd. For rentals, it might end up being more expensive now, but that's not really my point, the daily practicality (both in fuel savings lugging around a huge car for 50 extra weeks a year) and in ease of having a smaller, easier to manoeuvre, potentially cheaper to maintain electric car are not only on a cost basis.
This is merely an interstitial time until you can run from Bucharest to Leipzig with fast charge stations in every town and village along the route.
I’m curious, what do you do during the day when you’re driving for 12-14 hours each night on these 2-week tours? Sleep, I would assume! Why not sleep at night and drive during the day (traffic?)
Aren’t you “wasting considerable time” by having to sleep as soon as you arrive at your tour destinations?
Indeed, I sleep before and after long drives, but not for 8 full hours, I catch up, eventually. However, my family gets to go shopping, buys groceries etc while I rest for a few. For some reason, I seem to be functioning just fine making up for lost sleep by sleeping in every other day.
Perhaps "each night" isn't the right choice of words, "every 3 nights or so" would be more accurate.
Your example is an extreme outlier (even if you have friends with similar usage), and is irrelevant to the general practicality of electric cars. And yet, it's still doable.
The vast majority of car users do not refuel a full tank daily, which is a good indicator of their driving habits being perfectly compatible with overnight slow-charging with plenty of capacity to spare. (If the user normally refueled a full tank daily, and got an electric car with a small battery, work-place slow-charging might be needed.)
The vast majority, should they go on a long car trip (note that this universally popular), will not be doing completely uninterrupted driving for 12 hours. They will need at least a few sizable breaks for food, toilet and leg stretching. If breaks are taken around a fast charger, a 20 minute break can give you 50% charge, 40 minutes giving 80% charge. If the drive is for vacationing, the stops will likely all be long enough for full charges as people see the sights.
Even with your driving, it seems reasonable to pull off with fast charging, assuming you have human physiological needs and assuming you drive safely and responsibly (i.e. break with rest every N hours to not lose attention and fall asleep, where N is usually ~4). Maybe your average speed would drop a bit, but that's not that important.
I think battery swap can be made to work and solve all these problems with the right economic structure that does not yet exist.
You have a battery pack that you own and maintain carefully, and you absolutely do not want to rent it out to anyone. So you use it day to day transport and charge slowly overnight, perfect to prolong life.
When time comes to make a long, cross country trip, you visit a swap center and deposit your battery, and switch to rented batteries for the duration of the trip, while paying a charge+rent fee. When you come back from the trip, your own battery is waiting for you at the same station, charged and stored in good conditions. Or, you can make the first leg of the journey on your own battery, then have it shipped back to a station near your home before you return; by necessity the network will have to perform rebalancing anyway for the rental stock.
I know Tesla demoed battery swap, but they were only interested in the associated subsidy and not keen on it because it requires a large stock of batteries that they had no capacity to produce in large quantities at the time. When safe and cheap batteries are available in quantity, they will pretty much be forced to revisit this model or face tough competition from charge networks that can handle swap.
Battery swapping isn't practical with modern electric car design. In most EVs today, the battery is part of the structural frame of the car and can't be removed easily.
DC fast charging seems like a much more practical solution for the occasional cross country trip
That seems more like a practical engineering decision since battery swap is not yet widespread. There doesn't seem to be anything fundamental that prevents it and in fact Tesla retrofitted the idea for vehicles that were not initially designed with swap in mind.
It's either that fast charging attains exceptional safe speeds (i.e less than 5 minutes), or that competitive pressures will force electrics to embrace swap. The current status quo of waiting an hour for a full charge cannot stand on the long term; the lost productivity is so large that it completely dwarfs the costs of implementing the swap networks, so somebody is bound to package it in a consumer friendly product and pocket the profits.
engineering tradeoffs are important. By making the battery part of the car you can put more battery in, and you need less framework around the battery. This means integrated batteries have a larger capacity, and the car is more aerodynamic. (there is also less weight in not having to have a separate frame around the battery, but this is more than outweighed by the fact that you have more heavy batteries which means a heavier frame)
A vehicle without battery that is just standing there on the swap platform waiting to get a fresh pack does not need a structurally sound frame. So while the battery is structurally important, it does not follow that non-swappable batteries are by default of a higher capacity; the same structural elements can be integrated in the swappable battery.
The only real margin is the swap hardware and any structural binding parts designed to pass loads towards the battery frame as if it was built in part of the fixed frame. True, it makes no sense to design and include those parts when swap is not on the market, so it's a tradeoff. But is it a salient tradeoff, does it make the car with the built-in battery significantly better? Only very marginally I would say.
The same for aerodynamics, there is really only one place to put a large battery pack, it's not like you can gain lots of design liberty by putting an unconventional shape battery in the bumper or in the roof. Swappability of the underside of the car has no impact on aerodynamics.
The structural needs of each car are different. If the battery can handle them all, then it is overbuilt and you can save enough by not being swapable to make your car cheaper (or give it longer range or some other trade off) so you won't do it. If you have a different battery for each car you can follow your plan, but then the logistics of handling all the different batteries means nobody has the right one for your car in stock.
There is only one place to put a large battery pack. However there are lots of places to put a smaller battery back. Or you can have a non-rectangular battery pack in that one place to better fit the room you have. Cars are about compromises, so a standard swapable battery pack will be smaller than the customized for the car one you can make. A tiny economy car doesn't have as much space as a large family car so plan is harmful to families that want to go on vacation as they have to stop more often.
The average car spends 23h a day parked somewhere. You just need to equip a largeish fraction of the parking spots with a charger. You don't need high currents, because most people drive less than 30kWh (~150km) a day, so a normal 220V 16A plug is more than sufficient. The only issue are long roadtrips, where high current chargers are needed, but they already exist. In 20 minutes you can recharge more than you can drive in two hours. You're supposed to take breaks anyway.
That makes things worse. Right now there are many fast fill gas pumps in my little city. If everyone is charging at home there is less demand and so those pumps go away - even for the rare long distance trip where the slow recharge isn't an option.
95% of the time you are correct, it would be just fine to charge in my garage and who cares if it takes 12 hours as the car isn't moving anyway. However a couple times a year I - like most people - take a longer trip and depends on the infrastructure that allows me to refill my car in a few minutes and get on my way.
I recently drove a long way (24 driving hours) through multiple states in the southwestern US (deserts, scrubland, etc).
There was a Tesla charging station within walking distance of most of the places we stopped for gas, food or lodging. I don’t think the trip would have taken any additional planning with an EV.
When I'm in some unknown location I'm not going to hire an electrician to put in a charging station where I happen to need one. I depend on one being there. However as I already said charge at home means refueling places become uneconomical and they out out of business meaning that even though it isn't hard to put a charging station anywhere that doesn't mean they will exist.
Of course what I'm lacking is knowing how much this will affect things long term. Right no charging stations are being installed on hope they are worth it, if this turns out to be false owners will start to tear them out.
Business owners, land owners, and property managers are working with EV charging station partners to install chargers because EV owners spend money while charging. For example, Tesla colocates Superchargers at Meijer in the Midwest (a grocery store chain) and Wawa in Florida and on the East Coast (which isn't just a convenience store with bathrooms, but also makes sandwiches and such). There is a Wawa location in Vienna, VA that only has EV chargers [1], no petrol pumps. I'll agree that chargers aren't ubiquitous, yet, but they are being deployed rapidly. Tesla continues to own their Supercharger stations (and all associated equipment), and I've heard mostly positive reviews from business owners who provide Tesla destination (high power wall chargers) and J1772 Clipper Creek chargers to patrons.
It's a net positive if we push petroleum refueling stations out of business. They sell a harmful product that we're working to phase out rapidly through electrification of transportation, and there will be a cost to remove and remediate petroleum storage tanks that were used at these stations.
In short, the EV charging infra will be built, but if there's someplace you want to go that doesn't have chargers, make it known to those folks you're looking for that amenity (now, or in the future).
As a person living in Canada, whenever I hear about advances in the auto sector, I say to myself, "Great! My grandchildren will be so lucky when the technology makes it here in 50 years or so".
Electric vehicles? The range is an issue even in warm climates. Canada is so spread out that more range is needed and so cold that the range you get is lower.
Self-driving vehicles? The gap between driving in Arizona and driving in a snowy Edmonton road is night and day.
The majority of the Canadian population lives in a small number of urban areas. The fact that the distance between towns in Alberta is massive is not relevant to the "average" driving behaviour of Canadians because the modal drive is a commute between Guelph and Toronto or something of that sort.
It doesn't matter if the 5% of the population keeps driving non-EV vehicles for many decades to come for performance reasons. Let them! Cumulative emissions are all that matter.
I am not sure if average is a good number to judge things by. I don't think many Calgarians could be convinced to buy a vehicle which makes a one-day distance to Vancouver into a two-day distance. I know this is counter to what any logistics expert would suggest, but people rarely buy based on average, they buy based on peak. So sure, if an average person in an average year makes 250 short trips (daily commute), 30 medium trips (weekends), and 10 long trips (visiting family in another province for Christmas and Thanksgiving, going on a vacation, long weekend trip, etc.), they will probably buy the vehicle that they can use for all of the above, not just the 250 short commutes. Case in point: sale of small cars and sedans in North America has been in decline compared with trucks and SUVs. People want an everything car, not a most-things car.
Also, wile a large percentage of the population of Canada lives in Toronto and Montreal regions, where cities are closer together, this does not mean that is 95% of the population. Calgary alone has a population of more than 1.3 million people. It is very common to need to make a short trip to Edmonton [0], which is considered close by Canadian standards. But even then, it is a 600 km round-trip in a road that tends to be snowy quite often. Population distribution in Western Canada is much more spread out than the East. And the cumulative population is way more than 5%.
[0] For example for concerts. Calgary and Edmonton are big enough to get good musical acts. But they are not big or far away enough for touring musicians to visit both cities. If You live in Calgary and your favourite musician is having their concert in Edmonton, that's a day trip you will most likely take.
Many people around here in France, Belgium and the Netherlands also want about the same range (1000 km) to be able to go in to their yearly summer holidays in southern France in just one go. Even if their daily commute is less than 100 km.
Obviously the charger + vehicle ecosystem has to be able to handle the peak journey of the modal car buyer rather than the modal journey. That's the point of rapid charging though, you won't use it often but it ensures that for the rare long distance journey you are provided for. European drivers also tend to make several long driving trips a year for holidays in the summer and for skiing but I would expect that rapid charging (and some of the imminently coming generation are 350kW) will be required for that to work.
We drove from Ottawa to Saskatoon and back in an electric car this summer. I estimate that it added about 20 minutes to the 30 hour drive. All other charging times were combined with bathroom or food or sleep breaks we had to do anyways.
It should be, Tesla had about 3X as many charging stations as we needed for our LR Model Y. The thing that really kills the range in the winter is if your car sits outside unplugged for long enough to cool down completely. Which shouldn't happen on a long trip, as long as you book hotels with chargers or block heater outlets.
The main reason I'd not want to do it in winter is the possibility of getting hit by a blizzard while crossing Northern Ontario which is basically unpopulated, and there are stretches without cell coverage. But that's a risk whether you have a gas or an electric car.
One rule for winter driving is to never let your tank go below 50% so you have enough for heat if you get disabled. Heating the cabin in an electric car is really tough on batteries, but you should be able to survive just on seat heating in an emergency, so half a battery should last a long time. Tesla has enough chargers to let you stay above 50% on a cross-Canada trip, but you're going to be spending a lot of time charging. You'll be charging more often, and that last 20% is really slow.
The normal advice is to take I95 instead of the Trans-Canada in the winter, but with borders closed because of Covid, that's not currently an option.
In Norway 48,4% of new passenger cars sales are either electric or rechargeable hybrids (2020-10-31 source: https://elbil.no/elbilstatistikk/)
Canada and Norway share at least a cold climate and a petroleum fuelled economy, although distances often are far greater between towns in Canada. So if one really wants to go the electric route, it should be possible even though the transition rate might not be as fast as in Norway.
If it's plugged in before your trip, cold has little impact on your range. You use electricity from the plug to pre-heat your battery and your interior.
Both Tesla & Petro-Canada now have coast-to-coast coverage for fast charging on the Trans-Canada now. That doesn't cover all of Canada, but for us we do have our potential trips covered now.
It's amazing how any time this comes up someone has to pile in "but I drive 1000km a day so it will never work". Buddy, there are allowed to outliers. It just has to work for most people most of the time.
1. One do-everything car (short and long trips without pre-planning)
2. Living in an apartment so no overnight charging.
Even with 200mi range, you have to ensure there are chargers en route because they are still sparse and it still takes a long time to charge the car. Gas vehicles still win because in most places, you can expect a gas station within 50 miles and the time penalty is 5 mins vs hours.
Sparse city charging infrastructure also mean makes charging much harder.
We're getting better but imo electric cars in the US at least are still limited to wealthier folks with houses that have charging stations and some city dwellers in nice apartment complexes. I hope we see a good sub 30k electric car soon to shake things up.
The way fixed costs work few people drive enough to make owning two cars for different purposes worth it. The big SUV might be only needed a few times a year, but it is cheaper to pay for it all year long than to also pay for a small car. Rental cars are expensive enough that they are out.
For a while I did make a tiny car and a SUV work, but I had to drive ~100 miles a day for work and even then it just barely worked out.
Only cars as big/heavy as golf carts should really be allowed inside cities. That would drastically reduce pollution (both air and noise) and also all but eliminate fatalities and injuries.
This sounds wildly impractical as it would be 100% useless outside the city and due to cost many commute from outside the city. Are you expecting people to drive an hour to the outskirts then commute by bus once in or own 2 cars per commuter?
They should commute 15 minutes to the next rail station and take the train to the city. This model already works for a lot of people and public transport can be improved so that it works for most people.
The problem is you can't get there from here. The costs to build a rail system where it doesn't exist are very high, and until you have most of the system in place it is useless to most people.
Of course we built a road system - without paved roads cars are mostly useless. We have build rail systems in the past as well. The problem isn't unsolvable by the nature of the problem. It is unsolvable because you can't get the right people to make long term investments in it (don't look to government - anyone who tries will be voted out eventually at best the system changes course from one okay system to a different incompatible system, though more likely they just stop investing).
Anyone who proposed this idea can enjoy their retirement when voters fire them. People own actual cars now. They have arranged their lives around currently available modes of transportation including distance between work and homes.
They don't live a good distance from work because they want to they do because they can't afford to do otherwise. If you told one of the multitude of people who commute via car they have to spend 5000 on a clown car and an an hour to their commute which amounts to 500 hours annually or 20 days spent commuting they would be in your front yard with torches.
Instead what you need is enough housing to bring its price low enough for more people to live closer to work and enough transit that people want to use it not a clown car mandate.
When you have successfully convinced most people to commute differently you can start to limit cars not before.
Cities can change and people adapt. It takes multiple decades , but is has happened before, and it probably will happen again. Cars use too much space and don't scale. That's a simple fact.
In US public policy we are the kings of the Grandfather Clause. Every model of ICE vehicle known for drivetrain longevity will suddenly become coveted by the road warrior class, and that 0.1% of the population will compete over them for the next 20 years while peak mileage and recharge speed of all-electrics goes up.
My sedan has better handling than the roadster I had as a young man. When I tried to relive that in my 30's, it didn't pan out. In the sedan, I won't die instantly in a t-bone or any accident with a truck. Antilock brakes are life.
Things change and antique vehicles become quainter by the year, and at some point you'll have a brief period of mourning and switch without another fuss. But you have time for it to happen organically.
Or, hybrid vehicles will stay legal for a long time, and you will just own one of those and leave the rest of us alone.
Electric motors are better and it has been the case for more than a century.
The real problem is powering them. Batteries have a terrible energy density compared to hydrocarbon fuels and charge slowly, fuel cells don't seem to take off, and using an internal combustion engine to power an electric engine doesn't really solve anything. In fact, the simple fact that powering an electric engine with an ICE may be a good idea speak volume about both the superiority of electric engines and the difficulty of powering them.
So yes, the electric motor's dominance is inevitable, but we are not there yet. Battery technology is just starting to become viable, but electric cars are still heavy and expensive, have limited range and we don't really have a good, universal charging infrastructure yet. It is not because of "the best efforts of politicians", it is because it is technology that is just starting to become viable.
No, the real problem is that that the externalities of Internal Combustion Engines - noise and air pollution - are fully absorbed by society and not adequately captured with fuel taxes.
Increase fuel taxes to the level necessary for carbon neutrality and ICE vehicles look immediately unappealing.
That doesn't make batteries better, it just makes ICE worse. Battery research is improving, but at the end of the day we are just trading fossil fuels for massive mines- especially cobalt and nickel (with today's tech, who knows tomorrow).
Lithium is evaporated from brine ponds, and cobalt is actively being phased out in battery chemistries because of its role as a conflict mineral. Battery storage for all use cases is objectively better than burning a fossil fuels.
> At least CO2 can be scrubbed from the atmosphere.
There is no evidence we can scale this up besides planting trees and hoping for the best.
A $1 per gallon tax on gasoline is enough to make it carbon negative:
1 gallon burnt emits 20lbs of CO2, and a ton is 2000 lbs, so 100 gallons of gasoline emits a ton of CO2.
With current technology takes $15-75 to pull a ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere, or $0.15-0.75 to remediate a gallon of gasoline.
I argue a $1/gallon tax is the minimum viable, since we’ll need a carbon negative economy for the foreseeable future.
It’s not clear to me that $1 more per gallon of gas would kill ICE cars. If I ran a big auto maker, I’d actually lobby for such a tax, since it’s easier than retooling all the lines, and it pushes the cleanup costs onto legacy customers.
I personally think the tax should be paid upfront when you buy a new ICE car (assume it’ll last 100,000-200,000 miles), and not at the pump.
Here in Sweden we pay about $4.5 per gallon in taxes.
ICE is still the norm in Sweden, with EC standing for 3% of all personal cars. EC have however taken a significant chunk of new sales, with last month being 35%. It also help that all government workplaces over a certain size has free EC charging, and even some shopping centers.
Does anyone have data on if we could build a small ICE that is strictly a generator? I know one issue is variable power needs but if there are say two banks of batteries and the one is running constantly at a fixed rate as more of a slow charge and the other is currently handling demand, would that work? Assuming that the banks could switch as one gets depleted and it begins charging.
Why have the ICE be strictly a generator? If you have one, it’s far more efficient to use it to drive the wheels. Toyota’s Prius effectively does this using batteries during periods when using the ICE would be inefficient. (Generally, it isn’t perfect.)
> If you have one, it’s far more efficient to use it to drive the wheels.
I don't think this is as cut and dried as you think. Generators are ~90% efficient. Gearboxes and differentials aren't 100% efficient either. If you are already carrying enough motor to propel you without an engine then you can size the ICE closer to average load than peak load potentially getting back a bit of efficiency.
Sounds like a series hybrid card to me. Off the top of my head I can only think of two cars with this design, the Chevy Volt and BMW i3 with range extender.
> Does anyone have data on if we could build a small ICE that is strictly a generator?
Obviously, ICEs that are strictly used to crank generators are common.
If you mean “is there data on whether that works in what is otherwise a battery-electric car”, that's called a series hybrid, and there are several production examples, including the Chevy Volt.
Long answer: Before WWII, there were luxury cars built this way. Manual transmissions were much harder to drive, so some luxury cars used a generator/motor pair as an automatic transmission.
WWII needs for copper drove them out of the market; and they never came back because it was simpler to just mate an oversized engine with a horrible automatic.
There's a Moore's Law for batteries that doubles their utility every 12-15 years. We've been arguing about batteries since the mid 90's. We have 3-4 times as much power to work with now. It'll happen in my lifetime, but I don't know if my parents will see it.
If we can build batteries that don't source new cobalt from the DRC, (by using none or recycling) that would remove one ugly skeleton from the closet.
In summary: Battery-electric cars will be "worth it" in 2022, and cost the same as a gas car in 2024.
Also: Tesla is very close to making its batteries cost the same as a gas car. What they are going to do is turn the bulk and weight of the battery into a structural member of the frame. (Recently announced on Battery Day.)
GP made 5 fairly reasonable claims about EVs today. You counter by asserting that his arguments are "very outdated" citing as evidence an article that predicts sometime in the future 2 of the 5 claims will be around parity and a Tesla claim that a third may achieve parity sometime unspecified in the future.
Sometime in the future, some of those arguments might be outdated, but they don't strike me that way now.
We still will have EVs with limited range and a lack of universal charging infrastructure. (I say this as the overall happy owner of a LEAF, but it's a bit of a toy rather than a car that I can rely on for all of my travel needs, relying on my wife's car and aircraft for distance travel and using the LEAF only around town.)
You're not gonna see people climbing trees with electric chainsaws for a long time. With current battery tech power to weight is still a decent way off from ICE, especially in applications where weight is optimized for. Sure, most stuff will be electric but ICE will stick around for a long time. Niches with a high cost of labor tend to amplify viability differences. Electric is just easier and once it's viable people switch to it but don't expect it to completely dominate overnight.
If you need more than a 16” bar, then, yeah, you’ll end up with a gas chainsaw, but the weight of battery + electric motor is less than ICE + gasoline at this size.
Also, electric is much, quieter, less smelly, less maintenance, avoids trips to the gas station, etc.
Yes, but for environmental policies to gain traction, they need to appeal to people outside of cities. Ethanol is a way to get certain rural areas onboard, even if in a modest way.
Good policy? Probably not. Essential politics? Yes.
They are big consumers of energy, whether it be natural gas for heating or drying or diesel for machinery, so a carbon tax would hit them hard. They would be vocal opponents of such a thing.
By this logic everybody will be a vocal opponent of carbon tax. It's universal after all and hits everyone equally. But that's the whole point of a carbon tax - to move away from carbon.
As long as the price farmers get goes up to cover their increased expenses, farmers should be fine with a carbon tax. Not sure consumers would be happy with food prices going up. That's why carbon taxes should be accompanied by an appropriate rebate.
If the price of domestic food goes up countries will just start importing more food from countries without a carbon tax. That would really annoy farmers. So any carbon tax needs to be accompanied by carbon tariffs.
It hits everyone equally by use of carbon. It doesn't hit everyone equally overall. $100 a year is an annoyance, especially if rebated. $10,000 a year substantially changes farming economics.
Farmers have ALWAYS been in the energy business. While you do need some nutrients to build the body, the vast majority of the food you eat is used for energy.
For land travel all electric vehicles make a TON of sense. However, for airline and oceanic travel, the energy density of a battery simply isn't high enough.
Biofuels may be the only carbon neutral way to accommodate such forms of transport.
Counter-counterpoint: Photosynthesis is only 2-4% efficient (measuring solar input to biomatter). Solar panels are ~20% efficient. Making fuel directly from electricity and CO2 is probably (I didn't do the math) more efficient per acre than making fuel from plants. You can of course supplement this with Ethanol made from waste that you get as a byproduct of food production.
It's not an energy efficiency problem, it's an energy density problem.
Burning hydrocarbons peeks out at something like 40% efficiency. Yet we are only now getting to the point where EVs have the same range as ICE vehicles, even though the battery->motor conversion is something like 90% efficient.
Why is that? Because the amount of energy that can be stored in batteries is MUCH lower than the amount of energy released from burning fuel.
Transport needs to carry all of it's energy with it (or, have something like a 3rd rail to provide energy).
That's the argument for biofuels in the future. Not that you can't replace 99% of transport with electricity, but rather some forms of transport require a lot of energy.
We are JUST getting to the point where batteries have enough density to power a prop plane for ~ 1hour worth of flight.
We are no where near the energy density where a cargo ship could sail from china to the US or for international flights.
One alternative to biofuels is hydrogen from something like electrolysis.
One thing I think we'll both agree on. Ethanol for cars/trucks is a terrible idea. EVs are the future there.
The parent post meant making hydrocarbon fuels from electricity, water, and carbon dioxide. You make electrolytic hydrogen from electricity and water and then use it to hydrogenate CO2 to methane. Liquid methane has excellent energy density and would be suitable for fueling rockets, aircraft, and large ocean going ships. Or you could create synthetic kerosene by a different choice of chemical processes, if it's acceptable to trade lower efficiency for a fuel that is conveniently liquid at room temperature and compatible with legacy systems.
The advantage of synthetic fuels over biofuels is that you can get a lot more fuel out of 100 hectares of solar panels than 100 hectares of crops, because plants are very inefficient at capturing solar energy as useful chemical energy. The advantage of biofuels over synthetic fuels would be lower capital costs. Biofuels have an advantage while non-fossil fuel demand is low, but they can't scale as well.
Since artificially capturing CO2 from the air is expensive and inefficient so far, an attractive hybrid path combines biomass and electrolytic hydrogen to make methane or heavier hydrocarbons. The main role of the plants is to concentrate carbon from the air. A kilogram of dry cellulose has an enthalpy of combustion of 17.5 MJ [1]. It contains enough carbon to make 0.76 kg (47.6 moles) of methane, once fully hydrogenated. That methane has an enthalpy of combustion of 41.9 MJ [2]. The biomass would supply all of the carbon and a minority of the chemical energy while electrolysis would supply the majority of the hydrogen and the final energy content of the methane.
John Deere has made prototype electric tractors. The battery operated one was a ~100 (150?) horse power tractor packed full of batteries that was able to do everything the equivalent diesel tractor could do - for about 1 hour then the battery was dead. Note that the above tractor is considered mid size, the big tractors that sell the best have far more horse power. The other is a tractor with a 1km (or longer?) cable to it can plug into the grid at all times. Neither is practical for real farmers, though they do work.
I'm a Deere Employee. I cannot talk about projects other than the above, but I wouldn't hope for practical electric tractors in the near future.
As far as I'm aware, nearly all tractors much larger than a lawn mower now use diesel, not gasoline/ethanol. This wasn't always the case, but I understand it to be true particularly since the later half of the 20th century. So for the most part biodiesel, not ethanol, is the relevant biofuel for powering large farm equipment. Their larger trucks burn diesel too, though their pickup trucks and other small road vehicles are often gas/ethanol burners.
Pay the farmers to put up solar panels instead. You get a lot more energy that way. For example, replace all land used for "energy crops" in Germany with solar panels and you get about as much energy as Germany consumes in total.
It must be reasonably close, since both solar fields and traditional crops exist in Germany.
Of course both get subsidised to various extents, and the prices of energy, crops and labour all fluctuate - but you can guess they're equal within a factor of two.
It's not a good environmental policy on balance. It results in only about a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions. It does substantially reduce air pollution compared to gasoline. But we have to devote large amounts of land usage to it, destroying natural habitats, and we pollute water with runoff.
On balance, I would rather emit the CO2, until we can convert transportation fleets to electricity.
Ethanol is not inherently bad, but in the US, it is largely produced from corn (maize). By increasing the mandate for blending ethanol in fuel, it will increase the demand for corn. Growing corn comes with its own environmental problems.
Making biofuels from waste is fine, but you can't power but a small fraction of transportation demand with it. So it can't be your sole strategy of reducing transportation emissions.
Most likely what will happens is that those uses that can be electrified will be (cars, city buses, light trucks etc.). Biobased fuels, synthetic fuels, hydrogen and so on will have a role for transportation sectors where electricity is not an option (long range planes, ships, trucks).
It's terrible for your engine/fuel system. Attracts water, increases rust, breaks down faster. It's also less efficient than gas, it takes 1.5 gallons of ethanol to equal the amount of energy in 1 gallon of gasoline.
It is also a solvent that can dissolve parts used in vehicles not designed for ethanol. Automakers complained because it'd cost them something like an extra $100 per vehicle under the hood.
I recall watching an uncle rebuild grandma's carburetor, because her car kept flooding. He shows me part of the original fuel jet and the replacement. The new one has a little synthetic grommet on it, the old one has an empty notch in the same spot. They blamed it on the ethanol.
In Saranac Lake, NY, there are several gas stations that sell unethanolated gasoline. It costs as much as super, despite having lower octane rating. I use it for boats. Some planes can also use it; though most planes using gasoline still use 100 octane (ethanol free) leaded gas.
We have a couple stations in town that sell 'Rec fuel', which has no ethanol. It's popular for use in things like ATV's, dirtbikes, small engines like lawn mowers and snowblower.
Is there anything new here ? I remember reading about the negative EROEI of ethanol back in school (~ 15y back) in 'Organic Chemistry by Morrison & Boyd'.
Early on, I remember there being concerns about forcing ethanol in gasoline used in maritime applications on the theory that the water soluble ethanol would draw water in at a higher rate osmotically and cause corrosion in fuel pumps. I don't know if there have been any long term studies on it, though.
Ask anyone who deals with outboard boat engines (particularly 2-stroke ones). Basically all the concerns were confirmed. The manufacturers try and mitigate it with fancy coatings and whatnot but there's only so much you can do.
It is terrible in small engines too and kills a lot of them (chainsaws, lawnmowers, etc.). Watch any small engine repair videos on youtube and about half of them (or more) were killed because of ethanol in the gas.
Yeah. 2 stroke stuff seems to get hit the hardest regardless of environment. On the plus side carburetors are cheaper than ever. The price is being driven down by sheer volume.
This BS practice will continue for decades to come because corn farmers will only vote for Congresspeople that continue to give them that fat government teat to suckle from.
Try owning 1000+ acres of farm land, battling the elements, working daily to produce something, and then tell us all how these terrible farmers are getting a handout.
Listen up country bumpkin! If you were a sophisticated tech bro urbanite like me, you'd know that food comes from grocery stores, not farms. The only thing farmers grow is inedible corn (probably just to spite the environment); they're leeches on the teat of society who don't deserve an ounce of protection! If they weren't so dumb they'd learn to code and do something productive, like code mobile apps and ad networks. In the future we'll all be eating computer chips anyway. Stick around HN and maybe you'll learn a few of these things.
I think we just need to view ethanol as a carbon-neutralish mechanism for stabilizing the grain markets so that we don't have to do more drastic measures like dumping.
If ethanol is carbon-neutral. There are many who believe it not to be, that it takes more carbon output to grow/refine ethanol than it saves. The real question is, if we ran every tractor, processing and fertilizer plant on pure ethanol, would there be any ethanol left to sell?
That's kind of my point – that it doesn't even need to fully balance the scales to be better than the alternative. In order to guard against food shortages in bad years we incentivize over-production in all years. If this over-production has to happen regardless (meaning the energy inputs are a sunk cost regardless), then why not recoup as much of it as a fuel as possible instead of dumping it in a hole somewhere?
A lot of the points in this article are misleading or only look for gaps in one direction.
For starters, as far as lost sequestration goes, even with the grain removed from the equation, a dense field of corn produces a similar amount or more biomass than the same field would laying fallow.
Another point that is constantly brought up is the methane emissions of cows. Cows do not produce methane in a vacuum, they produce it by digesting grain, so the comparison must be made relative to that same amount of grain being digested elsewhere or decomposing on its own.
Their point about the need to adopt things like silvopasture, no-till, or crop rotation sound great, they but fail to acknowledge that in vast portions of the US they are already the norm, not the exception.
It all started from oil shortages, as oil's sun sets, so should ethanol for simple combustion decline, by all means keep that production as a replacement for oil feedstock for industrial uses.
153 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 226 ms ] threadI’m kidding about the Illuminati part, but it is one hell of a scheme that ensures there is always excess agricultural production.
I do not envy the people who have to research, analyze, plan, and execute these policies in complex economies in hard times like that.
> “One of my responsibilities is to see that we have a continuing adequate food supply, and the best way to assure that is to let farmers make a little money in the process.”
https://www.nytimes.com/1972/04/16/archives/up-up-up-butz-ma...
That was him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz
Someone should probably tell the Illuminati.
In the same way street lights are pretty much everywhere today.
You could imagine a special type of paving stone that has a magsafe socket in, and you just pull a wire from your parked car to the kerb.
People can't get lousy fiber pulled to their houses and you're talking about multimegawatt electricity supply.
Fast DC chargers will always cost more due to the need for expensive power electronics.
1 MW would be enough for just ~150 chargers. And where would you get that megawatt at night? More base load, which means nuclear or fossil which means less niche for solar because no one would shut down such amount of base load generation each day.
Besides 60 amps isn't exactly cheap in electronics. It might not require active cooling for the cable and the battery, that's true.
Only if every car in your neighbourhood is plugged in and pulling 7 kW at the same time.
Smart charging solves this, by reducing charging during demand peaks (ie: 6pm when everyone is arriving home from work and plugging in at the same time), and increasing it later in the night when more capacity is available.
That's about 37 miles per day, so about 12.5 kWh per night on average at ~3 miles per kWh. And remember, those who are driving long distance are probably going to be using fast chargers on-route, so their domestic charging demand will be lower.
Secondly, even if they did need 40 kWh every night, that only equates to 4 kW over a 10 hour charging cycle. Easily manageable by avoiding the typical late afternoon / early evening peaks. Most grids have a lot of spare capacity between, say, 9PM and 7AM.
So no. Switch most commute to electric - then at first grid goes down, then power plants struggle.
"Most grids have a lot of spare capacity between, say, 9PM and 7AM" - that's not the grids we're talking about. HV circuits might not feel it, but something laid down for a suburb was scrupulously designed to carry only just enough, because it's basically burying refined metal, be it copper or aluminium.
There is no spare even 4KW for every house and never has been because that would have cost more in about everything - meters, cables, multiple stages of step-down transformers, transmission lines, generation.
Electicity is not free, never has been, and distibution costs are surprisingly a very important consideration.
Yes, there is. It's just the timing that matters. Domestic electricity demand during off-peak overnight hours is as little as 1/3 as it is at peak time. If all those houses can run 4 kW of air conditioning, or heating, or electric ovens at 6PM, then there is 4 kW to spare at 2AM.
This issue has actually been studied in some detail by the UK's National Grid. The conclusion was that additional demand from millions of electric vehicles would cause issues if they all were charged at peak times. But, provided demand can be managed, existing grid infrastructure can cope with an entirely electric vehicle fleet with modest investments in the coming years/decades.
Fun fact: UK grid demand used to be significantly higher than it is today. It peaked at 62 GW in 2002, but it now rarely gets above 45 GW, despite significant population growth! Much of this reduction in demand is due to improved energy efficiency.
If we could handle 62 GW in 2002, then there's no reason that we can't handle 62 GW again in, say, 2042.
There is - supply and grid maintenance was scaled down with demand.
The grid certainly can be rebuilt to 2002 state in UK, but this will not be cheap.
The other point that I was making is that any deviation from current patterns, like night demand significantly growing will require significant changes in generation.
It doesn't need "rebuilding". The grid, broadly speaking, hasn't changed since 2002. Generation has changed dramatically, but generally the transmission lines that served old power plants do not get removed when the plants close. They're still there, still active, and are often reused (for example, off-shore wind farm built off the coast from closed coal plant).
> "The other point that I was making is that any deviation from current patterns, like night demand significantly growing will require significant changes in generation."
First you were talking about lines, now you are talking about generation. But it's the same story. Power plants get turned off and curtailed at night because there is less demand. If demand increases at night? Plenty of spare capacity available, they just need to run for longer.
I do not account for transmission inefficiencies, as this is highly variable depending on your location and grid infrastructure. But it would be extremely unusual for transmission losses to be as high as 66% like you suggest!
As for charging losses, that's something like 10%. About 90% of the energy as measured at your domestic electricity meter will make it into the battery. I did account for this, by giving a deliberately low miles per kWh figure. In reality, most EVs will get significantly better efficiency than the 3 miles per kWh that I quoted.
But that doesn't mean everybody in your neighborhood can draw 24KW all night long. Those are maximal currents for intermittent loads like heaters, clothes driers etc. You might have a single 100KVA polemount transformer suppling a whole street and a single 15KV / 300Amp line servicing a whole neighborhood.
When everybody attempts to draw even 5-10KW in the air-conditioning season, you get circuit breaks because the main feed is incapable of supplying sufficient power. The upgrading will be done but it will take a decade or more, especially considering the push from local municipalities towards buried power feeds which are very expensive.
The average commute in the US is 50 Km per day and if that is the average it is reasonable to assume some communities will be highly correlated above average, for example if they are 40-50 Km away from a large economic hub, a large proportion of residents will drive the 100Km roundtrip per working day. The lower price of electric comute will prompt many residences to have two electric cars driving the average every working day, for a total, again, of 100Km = 20KWh. So double digit is not exceptional, it will be the average, an extra 3KW of power for each household for the entire night, assuming an outstandingly smart grid that can perfectly level off demand.
Combine that with rare events like hot nights and large movements, psychological reactions like panic, and you have an unreliable local supply that might trip every few months without expensive upgrades.
There is plenty of capacity available, provided charging is spread out over the night and not concentrated at peak demand periods. You just need chargers that are smart enough to ensure this happens.
https://www.ubitricity.co.uk/
These are quite widely deployed in a few London boroughs.
(I totally agree about fewer cars, but remaining ones must be electric. And electric cars need charging infrastructure.)
- Heviz to Saint Tropez 1200km
- Empuriabrava to Malaga 1100km
- Porto to Andorra 1100km
- Krakow to Bucharest 1200km
- other shorter trips (700km-800km)
-----
- business trip Bucharest to Leipzig 1600km (I go much farther without passengers)
- Leizig to London 1200km (slow ferry)
- etc
I drive a diesel and it's just excellent for my family's holidaying, we would be wasting considerable time charging, reducing the overall time to enjoy the tour's destinations.
That being said, it'll only be a couple more generations of tech before we're getting fast charge in the 15-20 minute ranges. By the time you've done a full-tank fill, used the toilets, picked up a few Rom bars in the shop and paid - you probably wont lose much time.
(I'm still a car lover, but change is coming, and it'd be hard to argue with it in a few more years).
It may not be viable to maintain a large fleet of family-vacation-type vehicles just to satisfy the demand for summer holidays in August and ski trips in February.
This is merely an interstitial time until you can run from Bucharest to Leipzig with fast charge stations in every town and village along the route.
Aren’t you “wasting considerable time” by having to sleep as soon as you arrive at your tour destinations?
Perhaps "each night" isn't the right choice of words, "every 3 nights or so" would be more accurate.
The vast majority of car users do not refuel a full tank daily, which is a good indicator of their driving habits being perfectly compatible with overnight slow-charging with plenty of capacity to spare. (If the user normally refueled a full tank daily, and got an electric car with a small battery, work-place slow-charging might be needed.)
The vast majority, should they go on a long car trip (note that this universally popular), will not be doing completely uninterrupted driving for 12 hours. They will need at least a few sizable breaks for food, toilet and leg stretching. If breaks are taken around a fast charger, a 20 minute break can give you 50% charge, 40 minutes giving 80% charge. If the drive is for vacationing, the stops will likely all be long enough for full charges as people see the sights.
Even with your driving, it seems reasonable to pull off with fast charging, assuming you have human physiological needs and assuming you drive safely and responsibly (i.e. break with rest every N hours to not lose attention and fall asleep, where N is usually ~4). Maybe your average speed would drop a bit, but that's not that important.
You have a battery pack that you own and maintain carefully, and you absolutely do not want to rent it out to anyone. So you use it day to day transport and charge slowly overnight, perfect to prolong life.
When time comes to make a long, cross country trip, you visit a swap center and deposit your battery, and switch to rented batteries for the duration of the trip, while paying a charge+rent fee. When you come back from the trip, your own battery is waiting for you at the same station, charged and stored in good conditions. Or, you can make the first leg of the journey on your own battery, then have it shipped back to a station near your home before you return; by necessity the network will have to perform rebalancing anyway for the rental stock.
I know Tesla demoed battery swap, but they were only interested in the associated subsidy and not keen on it because it requires a large stock of batteries that they had no capacity to produce in large quantities at the time. When safe and cheap batteries are available in quantity, they will pretty much be forced to revisit this model or face tough competition from charge networks that can handle swap.
DC fast charging seems like a much more practical solution for the occasional cross country trip
It's either that fast charging attains exceptional safe speeds (i.e less than 5 minutes), or that competitive pressures will force electrics to embrace swap. The current status quo of waiting an hour for a full charge cannot stand on the long term; the lost productivity is so large that it completely dwarfs the costs of implementing the swap networks, so somebody is bound to package it in a consumer friendly product and pocket the profits.
The only real margin is the swap hardware and any structural binding parts designed to pass loads towards the battery frame as if it was built in part of the fixed frame. True, it makes no sense to design and include those parts when swap is not on the market, so it's a tradeoff. But is it a salient tradeoff, does it make the car with the built-in battery significantly better? Only very marginally I would say.
The same for aerodynamics, there is really only one place to put a large battery pack, it's not like you can gain lots of design liberty by putting an unconventional shape battery in the bumper or in the roof. Swappability of the underside of the car has no impact on aerodynamics.
There is only one place to put a large battery pack. However there are lots of places to put a smaller battery back. Or you can have a non-rectangular battery pack in that one place to better fit the room you have. Cars are about compromises, so a standard swapable battery pack will be smaller than the customized for the car one you can make. A tiny economy car doesn't have as much space as a large family car so plan is harmful to families that want to go on vacation as they have to stop more often.
95% of the time you are correct, it would be just fine to charge in my garage and who cares if it takes 12 hours as the car isn't moving anyway. However a couple times a year I - like most people - take a longer trip and depends on the infrastructure that allows me to refill my car in a few minutes and get on my way.
There was a Tesla charging station within walking distance of most of the places we stopped for gas, food or lodging. I don’t think the trip would have taken any additional planning with an EV.
With that said, electrical infrastructure is ubiquitous. You can install EV chargers anywhere there is power.
Of course what I'm lacking is knowing how much this will affect things long term. Right no charging stations are being installed on hope they are worth it, if this turns out to be false owners will start to tear them out.
It's a net positive if we push petroleum refueling stations out of business. They sell a harmful product that we're working to phase out rapidly through electrification of transportation, and there will be a cost to remove and remediate petroleum storage tanks that were used at these stations.
In short, the EV charging infra will be built, but if there's someplace you want to go that doesn't have chargers, make it known to those folks you're looking for that amenity (now, or in the future).
[1] https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/09/29/210091...
Electric vehicles? The range is an issue even in warm climates. Canada is so spread out that more range is needed and so cold that the range you get is lower.
Self-driving vehicles? The gap between driving in Arizona and driving in a snowy Edmonton road is night and day.
It doesn't matter if the 5% of the population keeps driving non-EV vehicles for many decades to come for performance reasons. Let them! Cumulative emissions are all that matter.
Also, wile a large percentage of the population of Canada lives in Toronto and Montreal regions, where cities are closer together, this does not mean that is 95% of the population. Calgary alone has a population of more than 1.3 million people. It is very common to need to make a short trip to Edmonton [0], which is considered close by Canadian standards. But even then, it is a 600 km round-trip in a road that tends to be snowy quite often. Population distribution in Western Canada is much more spread out than the East. And the cumulative population is way more than 5%.
[0] For example for concerts. Calgary and Edmonton are big enough to get good musical acts. But they are not big or far away enough for touring musicians to visit both cities. If You live in Calgary and your favourite musician is having their concert in Edmonton, that's a day trip you will most likely take.
The main reason I'd not want to do it in winter is the possibility of getting hit by a blizzard while crossing Northern Ontario which is basically unpopulated, and there are stretches without cell coverage. But that's a risk whether you have a gas or an electric car.
One rule for winter driving is to never let your tank go below 50% so you have enough for heat if you get disabled. Heating the cabin in an electric car is really tough on batteries, but you should be able to survive just on seat heating in an emergency, so half a battery should last a long time. Tesla has enough chargers to let you stay above 50% on a cross-Canada trip, but you're going to be spending a lot of time charging. You'll be charging more often, and that last 20% is really slow.
The normal advice is to take I95 instead of the Trans-Canada in the winter, but with borders closed because of Covid, that's not currently an option.
Canada and Norway share at least a cold climate and a petroleum fuelled economy, although distances often are far greater between towns in Canada. So if one really wants to go the electric route, it should be possible even though the transition rate might not be as fast as in Norway.
https://www.weatherbase.com/compare.php3?first=77817&second=...
Both Tesla & Petro-Canada now have coast-to-coast coverage for fast charging on the Trans-Canada now. That doesn't cover all of Canada, but for us we do have our potential trips covered now.
Anyway, some actual data. Most cars spend the vast majority of their time going exactly nowhere: https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/mobility#a5
The average trip is 8 miles (same source, both in the UK. You can find data for your country. Might also look at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019126151...)
Plenty of time to charge from a domestic charger, and no range issue with current electric cars (which have >200 mile range).
1. One do-everything car (short and long trips without pre-planning)
2. Living in an apartment so no overnight charging.
Even with 200mi range, you have to ensure there are chargers en route because they are still sparse and it still takes a long time to charge the car. Gas vehicles still win because in most places, you can expect a gas station within 50 miles and the time penalty is 5 mins vs hours.
Sparse city charging infrastructure also mean makes charging much harder.
We're getting better but imo electric cars in the US at least are still limited to wealthier folks with houses that have charging stations and some city dwellers in nice apartment complexes. I hope we see a good sub 30k electric car soon to shake things up.
For a while I did make a tiny car and a SUV work, but I had to drive ~100 miles a day for work and even then it just barely worked out.
Of course we built a road system - without paved roads cars are mostly useless. We have build rail systems in the past as well. The problem isn't unsolvable by the nature of the problem. It is unsolvable because you can't get the right people to make long term investments in it (don't look to government - anyone who tries will be voted out eventually at best the system changes course from one okay system to a different incompatible system, though more likely they just stop investing).
They don't live a good distance from work because they want to they do because they can't afford to do otherwise. If you told one of the multitude of people who commute via car they have to spend 5000 on a clown car and an an hour to their commute which amounts to 500 hours annually or 20 days spent commuting they would be in your front yard with torches.
Instead what you need is enough housing to bring its price low enough for more people to live closer to work and enough transit that people want to use it not a clown car mandate.
When you have successfully convinced most people to commute differently you can start to limit cars not before.
In US public policy we are the kings of the Grandfather Clause. Every model of ICE vehicle known for drivetrain longevity will suddenly become coveted by the road warrior class, and that 0.1% of the population will compete over them for the next 20 years while peak mileage and recharge speed of all-electrics goes up.
My sedan has better handling than the roadster I had as a young man. When I tried to relive that in my 30's, it didn't pan out. In the sedan, I won't die instantly in a t-bone or any accident with a truck. Antilock brakes are life.
Things change and antique vehicles become quainter by the year, and at some point you'll have a brief period of mourning and switch without another fuss. But you have time for it to happen organically.
Or, hybrid vehicles will stay legal for a long time, and you will just own one of those and leave the rest of us alone.
The real problem is powering them. Batteries have a terrible energy density compared to hydrocarbon fuels and charge slowly, fuel cells don't seem to take off, and using an internal combustion engine to power an electric engine doesn't really solve anything. In fact, the simple fact that powering an electric engine with an ICE may be a good idea speak volume about both the superiority of electric engines and the difficulty of powering them.
So yes, the electric motor's dominance is inevitable, but we are not there yet. Battery technology is just starting to become viable, but electric cars are still heavy and expensive, have limited range and we don't really have a good, universal charging infrastructure yet. It is not because of "the best efforts of politicians", it is because it is technology that is just starting to become viable.
Increase fuel taxes to the level necessary for carbon neutrality and ICE vehicles look immediately unappealing.
At least CO2 can be scrubbed from the atmosphere.
This doesn't mean anything. Better is always relative.
> At least CO2 can be scrubbed from the atmosphere.
There is no evidence we can scale this up besides planting trees and hoping for the best.
1 gallon burnt emits 20lbs of CO2, and a ton is 2000 lbs, so 100 gallons of gasoline emits a ton of CO2.
With current technology takes $15-75 to pull a ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere, or $0.15-0.75 to remediate a gallon of gasoline.
I argue a $1/gallon tax is the minimum viable, since we’ll need a carbon negative economy for the foreseeable future.
It’s not clear to me that $1 more per gallon of gas would kill ICE cars. If I ran a big auto maker, I’d actually lobby for such a tax, since it’s easier than retooling all the lines, and it pushes the cleanup costs onto legacy customers.
I personally think the tax should be paid upfront when you buy a new ICE car (assume it’ll last 100,000-200,000 miles), and not at the pump.
ICE is still the norm in Sweden, with EC standing for 3% of all personal cars. EC have however taken a significant chunk of new sales, with last month being 35%. It also help that all government workplaces over a certain size has free EC charging, and even some shopping centers.
I don't think this is as cut and dried as you think. Generators are ~90% efficient. Gearboxes and differentials aren't 100% efficient either. If you are already carrying enough motor to propel you without an engine then you can size the ICE closer to average load than peak load potentially getting back a bit of efficiency.
Obviously, ICEs that are strictly used to crank generators are common.
If you mean “is there data on whether that works in what is otherwise a battery-electric car”, that's called a series hybrid, and there are several production examples, including the Chevy Volt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_locomotive#Diesel–elect...
Long answer: Before WWII, there were luxury cars built this way. Manual transmissions were much harder to drive, so some luxury cars used a generator/motor pair as an automatic transmission.
WWII needs for copper drove them out of the market; and they never came back because it was simpler to just mate an oversized engine with a horrible automatic.
If we can build batteries that don't source new cobalt from the DRC, (by using none or recycling) that would remove one ugly skeleton from the closet.
UBS Predicts EV Price Parity In 2024: https://cleantechnica.com/2020/10/22/ubs-predicts-ev-price-p...
In summary: Battery-electric cars will be "worth it" in 2022, and cost the same as a gas car in 2024.
Also: Tesla is very close to making its batteries cost the same as a gas car. What they are going to do is turn the bulk and weight of the battery into a structural member of the frame. (Recently announced on Battery Day.)
Sometime in the future, some of those arguments might be outdated, but they don't strike me that way now.
We still will have EVs with limited range and a lack of universal charging infrastructure. (I say this as the overall happy owner of a LEAF, but it's a bit of a toy rather than a car that I can rely on for all of my travel needs, relying on my wife's car and aircraft for distance travel and using the LEAF only around town.)
https://egopowerplus.com/16-inch-chain-saw/
If you need more than a 16” bar, then, yeah, you’ll end up with a gas chainsaw, but the weight of battery + electric motor is less than ICE + gasoline at this size.
Also, electric is much, quieter, less smelly, less maintenance, avoids trips to the gas station, etc.
Good policy? Probably not. Essential politics? Yes.
If the price of domestic food goes up countries will just start importing more food from countries without a carbon tax. That would really annoy farmers. So any carbon tax needs to be accompanied by carbon tariffs.
John Deere already manufactures electric tractors and farmers can simply utilise replaceable battery packs, charged on-site using solar power.
For land travel all electric vehicles make a TON of sense. However, for airline and oceanic travel, the energy density of a battery simply isn't high enough.
Biofuels may be the only carbon neutral way to accommodate such forms of transport.
Burning hydrocarbons peeks out at something like 40% efficiency. Yet we are only now getting to the point where EVs have the same range as ICE vehicles, even though the battery->motor conversion is something like 90% efficient.
Why is that? Because the amount of energy that can be stored in batteries is MUCH lower than the amount of energy released from burning fuel.
Transport needs to carry all of it's energy with it (or, have something like a 3rd rail to provide energy).
That's the argument for biofuels in the future. Not that you can't replace 99% of transport with electricity, but rather some forms of transport require a lot of energy.
We are JUST getting to the point where batteries have enough density to power a prop plane for ~ 1hour worth of flight.
We are no where near the energy density where a cargo ship could sail from china to the US or for international flights.
One alternative to biofuels is hydrogen from something like electrolysis.
One thing I think we'll both agree on. Ethanol for cars/trucks is a terrible idea. EVs are the future there.
https://www.power-eng.com/2020/07/08/power-to-gas-examining-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_proces...
The advantage of synthetic fuels over biofuels is that you can get a lot more fuel out of 100 hectares of solar panels than 100 hectares of crops, because plants are very inefficient at capturing solar energy as useful chemical energy. The advantage of biofuels over synthetic fuels would be lower capital costs. Biofuels have an advantage while non-fossil fuel demand is low, but they can't scale as well.
Since artificially capturing CO2 from the air is expensive and inefficient so far, an attractive hybrid path combines biomass and electrolytic hydrogen to make methane or heavier hydrocarbons. The main role of the plants is to concentrate carbon from the air. A kilogram of dry cellulose has an enthalpy of combustion of 17.5 MJ [1]. It contains enough carbon to make 0.76 kg (47.6 moles) of methane, once fully hydrogenated. That methane has an enthalpy of combustion of 41.9 MJ [2]. The biomass would supply all of the carbon and a minority of the chemical energy while electrolysis would supply the majority of the hydrogen and the final energy content of the methane.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_(data_page)
I'm a Deere Employee. I cannot talk about projects other than the above, but I wouldn't hope for practical electric tractors in the near future.
Of course both get subsidised to various extents, and the prices of energy, crops and labour all fluctuate - but you can guess they're equal within a factor of two.
It's basically a subsidy to a couple of large agribusiness companies. Nothing to do directly with people-first politics.
On balance, I would rather emit the CO2, until we can convert transportation fleets to electricity.
Most likely what will happens is that those uses that can be electrified will be (cars, city buses, light trucks etc.). Biobased fuels, synthetic fuels, hydrogen and so on will have a role for transportation sectors where electricity is not an option (long range planes, ships, trucks).
I recall watching an uncle rebuild grandma's carburetor, because her car kept flooding. He shows me part of the original fuel jet and the replacement. The new one has a little synthetic grommet on it, the old one has an empty notch in the same spot. They blamed it on the ethanol.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/12/02/5-reason...
For starters, as far as lost sequestration goes, even with the grain removed from the equation, a dense field of corn produces a similar amount or more biomass than the same field would laying fallow.
Another point that is constantly brought up is the methane emissions of cows. Cows do not produce methane in a vacuum, they produce it by digesting grain, so the comparison must be made relative to that same amount of grain being digested elsewhere or decomposing on its own.
Their point about the need to adopt things like silvopasture, no-till, or crop rotation sound great, they but fail to acknowledge that in vast portions of the US they are already the norm, not the exception.
Biofuel with crops irrigated with fossil water is very unsustainable.
Ethanol makes no sense when EVs are quickly going to be cost competitive.