Electric vehicles to pay for detroit bailout?

[WhoWee]

I'd say this indeed significant, if it is real (which I doubt given EESTORs history todate). The other problems for electric energy storage include charge time and life cycle. Capacitor based energy storage has neither of those limitations; their problem has been energy density - the http://maxwell.com/ultracapacitors/products/large-cell/bcap3000.asp" . So this claim of 1.5MJ/kg, 75x, represents enough improvement to make caps a player.

Any current battery storage technology at vehicle scale needs ~ hours to charge and thus forever wipes out the possibility of convenient cross country travel. A capacitor could charge in seconds (if one could supply the power - megawatts - a problem on the charger side). And, as the article indicated, the charge cycle life is basically unlimited regardless of discharge depth. Currently Li based PHEV makers plan for more on-board kWh of batteries than is actually ever used so that they never dip below ~30% of charge. In this way they obtain the needed life cycle (5000 charges/ 10 years). A capacitor based system doesn't need any low charge margin, so that it has an immediate cost & weight advantage in that regard. Li batteries also require a fairly significant temperature control system to obtain life cycle; that also largely goes away with capacitors - again less weight, less cost.

As described throughout this discussion, battery capacity/range/recharging time are all major problems.

I remember the first time my uncle told me a story about a Tucker automobile...that if it broke down, the entire engine could be swapped out at the nearest service station. http://www.hfmgv.org/exhibits/showroom/1948/photos.html

I remember thinking WOW!...what an idea! I don't know how feasible it was back them, but the idea might be worthy of discussion now...while the industry is still on the drawing boards.

There are a lot of gas stations in the US (180,000 according to this link) http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/plugs/plprimer.html that would need to re-think their business strategies in an electric vehicle world. Closing over 100,000 businesses wouldn't be a welcome note on the jobs report.

Why not strive to design a standard battery size/shape that would be interchangeable between all electric car designs that could either be recharged at a designated location (home/office/parking garage/shopping mall(?)) OR be removed and replaced at a service station (current gas station location) where they could be recharged overnight...similar to the way we exchange propane tanks for gas grills.

If the basic design yielded 30 miles to begin...and hopefully improve over time...given the number of gas stations, the potential range of travel would be greatly increased even without significant technology breakthroughs.

As for system capacity/logistics...if only 10,000 stations came on-line and stored 100 batteries each, up to 1,000,000 cars could be serviced once daily.

Obviously, equipment to handle the batteries would be required as well as an investment in charging apparatus for the stations...lot's of workers could be retrained and jobs upgraded.

 

[mgb_phys]

i wonder how much diesel/gasoline costs in china?

It gets most of it's oil from the middle east and pays in $ so it can't cost much less than in the US (taxes aside).
It doesn't want to be held hostage by a bunch of US client states so it has a strategic interest to reduce it's usage as much as possible, giving all it's new middle class car buyers an alternative to SUVs is probably a good move.

 

[mheslep]

...

As for system capacity/logistics...if only 10,000 stations came on-line and stored 100 batteries each, up to 1,000,000 cars could be serviced once daily.

Obviously, equipment to handle the batteries would be required as well as an investment in charging apparatus for the stations...lot's of workers could be retrained and jobs upgraded.

Google is your friend.
http://www.betterplace.com/our-bold-plan/how-it-works/battery-exchange-stations
Has some possibilities, but it smells a little too much 'our bold plan' is mostly about the founder, Agassi.

 

[mheslep]

It gets most of it's oil from the middle east and pays in $ so it can't cost much less than in the US (taxes aside).
It doesn't want to be held hostage by a bunch of US client states so it has a strategic interest to reduce it's usage as much as possible, giving all it's new middle class car buyers an alternative to SUVs is probably a good move.

The Chinese price fix, gas stayed well below the over $4/gal prices found elsewhere when oil spiked last year, and now that oil is cheap they have radically bumped up the gas tax (as of Jan 1), holding the price relatively constant. I favor a mild gas tax, the only tax I favor.

 

[mgb_phys]

The point is that even if a $/day is a regular wage in China for people assembling Walmart stuff - there isn't a huge amount the government can do to make imported oil cheaper, other than just pay for it themselves.
Since there is a much bigger discrepancy between internal costs and imported oil costs compared to the west there is a larger incentive to reduce consumption, at least by domestic customers.

 

[WhoWee]

Google is your friend.
http://www.betterplace.com/our-bold-plan/how-it-works/battery-exchange-stations
Has some possibilities, but it smells a little too much 'our bold plan' is mostly about the founder, Agassi.

I didn't know anyone was trying to do something similar...not sure he's worried about the 180,000 gas station owners/operators/employees.

Again, the biggest challenge would be to create a Battery Standard that everyone would agree to use...VHS/BETA comes to mind.

 

[mheslep]

I didn't know anyone was trying to do something similar...not sure he's worried about the 180,000 gas station owners/operators/employees. ..

No need to be worried about them. 1. Even if the perfect EV was invented today it would take a decade to completely turn over the auto fleet, and then there's still the trucks. 2. Gas station operators don't make money be selling gas. The suppliers take all that profit. The retailers make money by getting one to pull over and buy something else - car repair, food, car wash, etc.

 

[mheslep]

...
There are millions of laptop computers out there and currently a manageable growth rate, yet the market has yet to make the batteries inexpensive. I don't know why you would think a vast increase in demand would cause the prices to drop.

I heard a claim that the price per kWh of Li-ion batteries was dropping by 2x every five years, a kind of Moore's law for Li-Ion, so I did some research to run it down. The attached figure from an EPRI brief shows Japanese METI data that backs this up - since 1999 the price has been dropping by at least half every five years in real terms. Also, instead of energy capacity cost, the more practical metric should be lifetime cost per transportation mile delivered, and that's already down to 2¢ per mile by my calculations.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There was a clear path to miniturazation and cost reduction for integrated circuits. Is there any similar path for battery technology, or are we only assuming that the graph will continue on its current trend?

Just by looking at the graph, one might also think that we are reaching a limit.

 

[mheslep]

There was a clear path to miniturazation and cost reduction for integrated circuits. Is there any similar path for battery technology, or are we only assuming that the graph will continue on its current trend?

I agree with those reservations. A big part of the IC problem was managing technical complexity (more and more gates, etc), and that is something very tractable to engineering approaches - add more and more sophistication in VLSI tools and manufacturing process. Doubling IC capability every 18 months mostly did not require fundamental breakthroughs. So I agree drawing parallels to Moore's law for battery improvements is misleading regards the mechanics, however, it is none the less a correct analogy just in terms of results for the last decade.

Just by looking at the graph, one might also think that we are reaching a limit.

Yes could be, though if so it would not be limited by the fundamental cost of raw materials, since improvements can be made by continuing to find ways to jam more energy into the same material, or simply to make them last longer. As I observe the scale and diversity of financing going into Li-Ion now, and some recent research announcements, leads me to believe the cost will continue dropping per the exponential model for a while yet. If there's a physical reason that batteries can not eventually approach the same energy density as chemical fuels it escapes me.

 

[mheslep]

A few months back but I am interested in the battery history, and this post by Russ exactly points out the limitations of the current state of the art for product available.

The energy density and charging time (and don't forget cost) problems are fundamental, so I think the hope for a pure electric is overly optomistic. There are other relevant numbers that you aren't looking at, though: such as the cost, weight, and energy density of batteries. For example, the energy density of gas is 46 MJ/kG. The energy density of a lithium battery is .75. Assuming that only 1/3 of the gas's energy makes it to the wheels of the car (and this includes the inefficiency of sitting in traffic), we need to do about 20x better than lithium batteries to power our cars. That's a lot - it's not something that should be expected to be technologically possible.

Looks like Lithium Air has the potential:
"[URL
Battery Digest[/URL]

Theoretical and Practical?
The determination of the theoretical maximum capacity of a Lithium-air battery is complex, and there isn’t a flat statement of fact in the Handbook of Batteries , Third Edition as are many more well developed chemistries. To provide the most accurate value for the maximum capacity, BD asked Dr. Arthur Dobley to provide an expert opinion, which we quote as follows:
“Specific capacity:
n For lithium metal alone 13 kWh/kg. [46.8MJ/kg]
n For the lithium and air, theoretical, 11,100 Wh/kg [40MJ/kg], not including the weight of oxygen, and 5,200 Wh/kg including the weight of oxygen. This was checked by calculation and agrees with K.M. Abrahams publication ,JECS 1996.
n For the Lithium air cell, practical, 3,700 Wh/kg [13MJ/kg], not including the weight of oxygen, and 1,700 Wh/kg with the weight of oxygen. These numbers are predictions and are made with the presumption that 33% of the theoretical energy will be obtained. The battery industry typically obtains 25% to 50% of the theoretical energy (Handbook of Batteries). Metal air batteries are higher in the range. Zinc-air is about 44% (Handbook of Batteries, 3rd Ed. pg 1.12 and 1.16 table and fig).

Lithium Air has been demonstrated at these high capacities, but it currently has some severe practical problems: capacity falls off sharply with temperature, and the introduction of any water into the cell destroys it - a problem since the cell needs ventilation for air (oxygen). Meanwhile, at least there is a known chemistry capable of containing that much energy.

Edit: Another issue w/ Li Air is that the traditional design is a primary battery (non-rechargeable), though a rechargeable alternative w/ the same theoretical charge capacities is feasible and also a topic of study.

 

[mheslep]

An appropriately named title IvanS. The WSJ had another piece on BYD today so I'm starting to believe this is real.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123172034731572313.html#"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122392773358329717.html"
Interesting video tour of the plant, interview with Wang
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123172034731572313.html#

History of BYD and founder Wang as I can gather from various sources:
-1980s Wang studies metallurgical physics and chemistry in college, 1980s. MS Degree. Research position in nonferrous Metals in Beijing. Gets bored, quits just as government opens up the Chinese markets.
-1995 Wang borrows $300k from cousin, starts cellphone battery company BYD.
-1998 Wang tells 20 engineers to 'quietly scale up' cellphone batteries for cars. They develop a dinky all EV car.
-2005 BYD develops an all gas/ICE ripoff of the Toyota Corolla to get experience in car manufacture. Since then BYD has become one of China's best (not the best) home grown car makers.
-2008 BYD revenue $3.1B, 10,000 engineers and techs, 130k total people. 2nd largest battery maker in the world. HQ in Shenzhen, China close to Hong Kong.
-2008 September. Warren Buffet acquires 10% of BYD, $230 million investment.
-2008 Nov-Dec. BYD begins selling the 'F3DM' in China: a plugin electric-gasoline hybrid 5-seat sedan, 50-60mi battery range, $22k
Plans:
-2009 Release pure EV with 180mi per charge range.
-2010 Release of the F3DM plugin hybrid in the US/Europe.
-2011 Release of extended range pure EV in US.
...
An amazing display from a guy who bummed cash from his cousin. GM? Hello?

Since this last post, BYD founder/owner Wang has won billing as China's richest man:

The owner of a Shenzhen car and battery maker has emerged from the growing pack of Chinese millionaires to be named the richest person on the mainland after a boost to his wealth driven by an investment by Warren Buffett.

Wang Chuanfu, the founder and chairman of BYD , jumped from 103rd to first place with a net worth of $5.1bn, according to the annual Chinese rich list compiled by Hurun , a Shanghai-based consultancy...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ea5eb1c0-ac8f-11dea754-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

 

[Jasongreat]

It seems to me that we are getting ahead of ourselves, even if we do develop a cheaper electric car we are still getting our power from "dirty" sources, until we have clean energy to power the electric cars it doesn't seem to me that we will be any better off. We are just trading gas emisions for coal emissions. Why not convert our power plants to cleaner electric generating sources before we worry about building the product that will benifit us by using it? By the time we get the power plant problem solved there will be more advanced technology available to us in order to build a cheap, safe and affordable electric car.

 

[Topher925]

If there's a physical reason that batteries can not eventually approach the same energy density as chemical fuels it escapes me.

There is a physical reason, the second law of thermodynamics. Batteries will never come close to the capacity of fossil fuels, its just not thermodynamically possible. I'm pretty sure you can ball park the energy density of a battery if you know the gibbs free energy and enthalpies of formation of its reactants along with their atomic mass.

I think the best batteries can ever do is hydrogen/scandium based chemistry's in terms of energy density but then I think the volumes get pretty big.

Therefore, the maximum theoretical potential of advanced lithium-ion batteries that haven't been demonstrated to work yet is still only about 6 percent of crude oil!

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edit...house/the-limits-of-energy-storage-technology

I don't think chemical based storage devices (batteries, chemical type capacitors) will ever have an energy density greater than 10% of gasoline. In order to do that you need some type of electrochemical engine (aka. fuel cell).

 

[mheslep]

There is a physical reason, the second law of thermodynamics. Batteries will never come close to the capacity of fossil fuels, its just not thermodynamically possible.

See below.

I'm pretty sure you can ball park the energy density of a battery if you know the gibbs free energy and enthalpies of formation of its reactants along with their atomic mass.

Edit: Yes apparently so, thanks for the pointer/reminder.

I think the best batteries can ever do is hydrogen/scandium based chemistry's in terms of energy density but then I think the volumes get pretty big. http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edit...house/the-limits-of-energy-storage-technology

I don't think chemical based storage devices (batteries, chemical type capacitors) will ever have an energy density greater than 10% of gasoline. In order to do that you need some type of electrochemical engine (aka. fuel cell).

Ten percent would be more than enough to be practically competitive with gasoline, given a 3x efficiency advantage of electric motors over heat engines.

This BatteryDigest source states Lithium Air, not counting the weight of the O2 it pulls from the atmosphere, has a theoretical limit of 11 kilowatt-hours per kilogram, or ~40 mega-joules per kilogram, 80% of gasoline. Granted practical limits must be lower.
http://www.batteriesdigest.com/lithium_air.htm , middle of the page.

I see House touches of this where he says:

To get really ambitious, we imagine storing energy as elemental aluminum or elemental lithium. Those two highly electro-positive elements yield a theoretical energy density--when oxidized in air--of 32 and 43 mega-joules per kilogram. At least now the theoretical limit is between 60 percent and 80 percent to that of hydrocarbons; we just have to figure out how to extract a large fraction of the energy from that oxidation.

and he drops it and moves on? I'm fairly sure the Li Air battery has been demonstrated http://www.almaden.ibm.com/institut...tations/StevenVisco-AlmadenInstitute2009.pdf" in the lab, w/ some major practical problems, but then this conversation is about theoretical limits for the moment.

Edit: Yes IBM thinks its worth a go:

IBM Invests in Battery Research

The company hopes to develop powerful, lightweight lithium-air batteries.

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22780/

Edit:
Another paper from one of the Li Air researchers:
45MJ/kg theoretical, Table 1
http://www.yardney.com/Lithion/Documents/PaprAD-JD-KMA.pdf

On reflection, House's article might have been better named "Current Problems with Energy Storage ..."; I think he overstepped with the name theoretical "Limits..". At least he seems to have not reviewed the literature adequately for that task from what I briefly see.

 

[mheslep]

It seems to me that we are getting ahead of ourselves, even if we do develop a cheaper electric car we are still getting our power from "dirty" sources, until we have clean energy to power the electric cars it doesn't seem to me that we will be any better off. We are just trading gas emisions for coal emissions. Why not convert our power plants to cleaner electric generating sources before we worry about building the product that will benifit us by using it? By the time we get the power plant problem solved there will be more advanced technology available to us in order to build a cheap, safe and affordable electric car.

Three reasons:
1. US electric generation is only half coal and falling; the state w/ the most cars (Ca) uses almost http://www.statemaster.com/graph/ene_coa_con-energy-coal-consumption",
2. Even when coal emissions from electric generation for EVs go head to head with gasoline car emissions, https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2309271&postcount=75",
3. EVs could get the US off imported oil, keeping money onshore, and out of the hands of rogue states. Then there's more time and resources to deal with coal.

 

[Jasongreat]

Three reasons:

1. US electric generation is only half coal and falling; the state w/ the most cars (Ca) uses almost http://www.statemaster.com/graph/ene_coa_con-energy-coal-consumption",

That link is a little misleading, IMO, since I live fifteen miles from a coal fired powerplant whose lines leaves utah and go to southern california(there are atleast 4 other plants in utah that do the same). Ca might not use a lot of coal in state but they use plenty out of state(i would bet a lot of nevada and new mexico's coal use is used to power ca also).

2. Even when coal emissions from electric generation for EVs go head to head with gasoline car emissions, https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2309271&postcount=75",

If emissions is the only criteria, your point makes sense. But efficiency would also come into play I would think. Even if the energy is initially a little cleaner by the time it actually works there is less of it, so it would take more energy to achieve the same work and thereby negating your emission reductions, imo. I have heard that as of now gasoline and diesel are the most efficient sources of energy to power a vehicle and that is why we use them and I personally think that the car makers have been doing a wondeful job balancing horsepower and emissions.

3. EVs could get the US off imported oil, keeping money onshore, and out of the hands of rogue states. Then there's more time and resources to deal with coal.

So could drilling more domestic wells, using more domestic natural gas, using more coal, using hydrogen, using more oil shell, building more nuclear plants, building more windturbines, etc; etc;. Until we change how we make electricity it is of very little use to make a car that runs on it,imo. There is going to have to be huge leaps in technology to develop a EV that can haul a load of freight over the road, to take the place of trains or to power a plane in flight if we have to rely on batteries for energy storage. I would think it would be far more effective to concentrate on power generation instead of the power consumption side of the equation.

 

[mgb_phys]

,

Even if coal emitted more per mile it might be better to have that vented in a remote tall stack with flue scrubbers than have a lot of small sources of NOx, particulates, O3 and SO2 at street level in an area with a lot of smog potential.

 

[Topher925]

There is going to have to be huge leaps in technology to develop a EV that can haul a load of freight over the road, to take the place of trains or to power a plane in flight if we have to rely on batteries for energy storage. I would think it would be far more effective to concentrate on power generation instead of the power consumption side of the equation.

Its better to have your pollution made in a single stationary place rather than in many moving places. Pollution from power plants can be captured and/or scrubbed much more easily than it can on cars.

Also, if you look at the entire chemical cycle (more of a process I guess) from power generation to power at the wheel of cars, battery technology has the capability of reducing the overall amount of pollution due to increases in efficiency when compared to gasoline.

 

[mheslep]

So could drilling more domestic wells, using more domestic natural gas, using more coal, using hydrogen, using more oil shell, building more nuclear plants, building more windturbines, etc; etc;.

This doesn't follow. The majority of oil, about 2/3 imported for the US, goes into transportation. These others don't help the oil problem unless transportation becomes electrified.

Until we change how we make electricity it is of very little use to make a car that runs on it,imo.

That flies in the face of the comments I made above. Either EV's or biofueled vehicles (if made economic) would make a major difference in emissions and kill imported oil.

There is going to have to be huge leaps in technology to develop a EV that can haul a load of freight over the road,

Google Port of LA electric trucks, 18 wheelers

to take the place of trains or to power a plane in flight if we have to rely on batteries for energy storage. I would think it would be far more effective to concentrate on power generation instead of the power consumption side of the equation.

Obviously electric trains exist, even electric planes are feasible, but replacing just the cars overtime is sufficient to kill imported oil.

 

[mheslep]

Even if coal emitted more per mile it might be better to have that vented in a remote tall stack with flue scrubbers than have a lot of small sources of NOx, particulates, O3 and SO2 at street level in an area with a lot of smog potential.

Yes agreed. I was over generalizing using 'emissions' when I meant CO2. For the other emission types as you say EVs powered by even coal plants are a big win over gasoline cars. Caveat: I have not looked at radioactive emissions from coal, which I believe are absent from gasoline.

 

[mheslep]

That link is a little misleading, IMO, since I live fifteen miles from a coal fired powerplant whose lines leaves utah and go to southern california(there are atleast 4 other plants in utah that do the same). Ca might not use a lot of coal in state but they use plenty out of state(i would bet a lot of nevada and new mexico's coal use is used to power ca also).

Ca is indeed the largest electricity importer of all the states, but 1) the imports are still only about 1/4 of peak demand (i.e. daytime power), and 2) out of state coal is only a fraction of that. The rest is NW hydroelectric and even nuclear from Palo Verde outside of Phoenix.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CA"

If emissions is the only criteria, your point makes sense. But efficiency would also come into play I would think. Even if the energy is initially a little cleaner by the time it actually works there is less of it, so it would take more energy to achieve the same work and thereby negating your emission reductions, imo. I have heard that as of now gasoline and diesel are the most efficient sources of energy to power a vehicle and that is why we use them and I personally think that the car makers have been doing a wondeful job balancing horsepower and emissions.

That point, #2, was about emissions. You might want to read through some of the other energy threads. EV's are much more efficient in tank to wheel efficiency than any heat engine can possibly be.

 

[russ_watters]

Three reasons:
1. US electric generation is only half coal and falling.

That really needs to pick up some steam to mean much, as the generation of coal is still rising and the fraction isn't falling by much:

Average share of electricity generated from coal in the US has dropped slightly, from 52.8% in 1997 to 49.0% in 2006. However, due to growth of the total demand for electricity, the net production of coal-generated electricity increased over the same period from 1.845 to 1.991 trillion kilowatt-hours per year in absolute terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_United_States

...and is predicted to rise again:

The average share of electricity generated from coal power was projected to increase again with a coal plant building boom. As of 2007, 154 new coal-fired plants are on the drawing board in 42 states.[8] The Energy Department forecasted that coal's share will rise to 57 percent by 2030, fueled in part by rising natural gas prices[citation needed], but in 2008 it has said that the conversion from coal to biomass power is a growing trend in the United States [9] .

Either way, it is still a significant problem and not getting better fast enough for my taste.

 

[mheslep]

That really needs to pick up some steam to mean much, as the generation of coal is still rising and the fraction isn't falling by much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_United_States

...and is predicted to rise again: Either way, it is still a significant problem and not getting better fast enough for my taste.

Yes I'd read the Wiki some time ago and I think its fairly out of date at the moment. I'd have to check again, but I believe a large share of those planned coal plants mentioned there were put on hold (Edit: yes see mention in next Wiki paragraph). Meanwhile gas turbine plants and wind have been undergoing a boom - gas especially w/ the low NG prices and big recent US discoveries.
Yes,this in the Wiki:

..fueled in part by rising natural gas prices

is out of date. The opposite is now true.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalc...demand-spells-bearish-future-for-natural-gas/

The picture is pretty clear: Gas supplies keep growing while demand keeps shrinking. That’s kept gas a lot cheaper than it was last year—and makes the medium-term outlook for gas pretty bearish. (Natural gas futures were inching up about 1% in early trading today to about $4.93 per million BTUs.)

Credit Suisse just slashed its price forecasts: For 2009, to $4.09 per million BTUs to $4.37; and for 2010, to $5.75 from $6.50. For the investment bank, that’s mostly due to over-supply, especially in the U.S. Despite plunging prices this year, gas producers kept producing: Credit Suisse notes U.S. output has fallen just 1.6% from its peak in February.

That said, there's a limit to this. I believe gas and wind can meet the slow ~1%/yr increase in demand, but they can not also replace ageing coal plants at the same time. For the time being, coal operators can extend the life of some of these very big (~1GW) (and old) plants. Thus I'd say absent some nuclear construction starts in 2-3 years, we will indeed see a forced build of new coal in a few years.

 

[Jasongreat]

This doesn't follow. The majority of oil, about 2/3 imported for the US, goes into transportation. These others don't help the oil problem unless transportation becomes electrified.

You stated that EV's are the only way to lower our dependence on foreign oil, everyone of my suggested alternatives will decrease our reliance on imported oil, some would require EV's but I was making the point that EV's are not the only way, but one of many ways to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

That flies in the face of the comments I made above. Either EV's or biofueled vehicles (if made economic) would make a major difference in emissions and kill imported oil.

I agree, EV's and biofuel vehicles will make a major difference in emissions, as it will switch the pollution emissions from the cities using the power to the country where the power is made.

Google Port of LA electric trucks, 18 wheelers

I did and my staterment stands, it will take huge advances in technology to make an over the road electric truck. The story you linked to states that they have a range of 40 miles and a recharge time of 3 to 4 hours, and doesn't even mention a top speed, IMO electric vehicles will work in a small range but are not capable of long range use. EV's would work in a city atmosphere but in a rural setting they are useless.

Obviously electric trains exist, even electric planes are feasible, but replacing just the cars overtime is sufficient to kill imported oil.[/

QUOTE]

Can you show me a link to an electric train that is not a light rail passenger train, but a very heavy cross country freight train? I have yet to see a union pacific electric train, however they are hybrids with a diesel over electric system. A feasible electric airplane? I guess anything is feasible but IMO it is very unlikely anytime soon since we can't even get an automobile that goes further than 60 miles on a charge, can you imagine flying if you have to stop every 60 miles and wait 3-4 hrs for a recharge?

I personally don't have a thing against electric vehicles, however IMO they are not the savior they are being made out to be. For the most part they only transfer a problem to a different place than where it is now, instead of a bandaid let's find a cure.

 

[Jasongreat]

Its better to have your pollution made in a single stationary place rather than in many moving places. Pollution from power plants can be captured and/or scrubbed much more easily than it can on cars.

While I agree, I was replying to a post that said that Ca uses almost no coal at all, which is misleading, they just don't use much in Ca. I was trying to make the point that EV's still pollute, just not in the city they are used. I wonder if that one remote smoke stack was near the city, would they be able to convince citizens that EV's are clean, when you could easily look at the smokestack and see the emissions?

Also, if you look at the entire chemical cycle (more of a process I guess) from power generation to power at the wheel of cars, battery technology has the capability of reducing the overall amount of pollution due to increases in efficiency when compared to gasoline.[/

QUOTE]

I agree that battery technology has the capability to become more efficient than gasoline, atleast in theory since battery efficiency is still so low(lots of room for improvement) while gasoline efficiency has been improved to the point that it probably can't be increased much more, but as it is now gas is more efficient than electricity or biofuel for powering our cars, and diesel is even more efficient. I have noticed lately that in order to get gasoline or diesel motors cleaner it usually takes a reduction in efficiency to increase cleanliness. The new "clean" cummins gets 14 mpg while my not as clean cummins gets 22 mpg, and these "upgrades" have also added large amounts of maintenance to the vehicle costs.

 

[Topher925]

I personally don't have a thing against electric vehicles, however IMO they are not the savior they are being made out to be. For the most part they only transfer a problem to a different place than where it is now, instead of a bandaid let's find a cure.

You are not alone in this. The worlds two largest auto manufacturers (and a few more) don't believe pure EVs are the solution either and have no plans to develop them. On a global scale, EVs are just not practical and provide few if any advantages to other alternatives. I just wish Stephen Chu would realize what the largest automakers and other scientists already have instead of cutting all the funding.

That said, there's a limit to this. I believe gas and wind can meet the slow ~1%/yr increase in demand, but they can not also replace ageing coal plants at the same time. For the time being, coal operators can extend the life of some of these very big (~1GW) (and old) plants.

You can extend the limit of what wind and other alternative power can provide to the grid if a storage or "buffer" mechanism is used. For example, the flywheel stations that are being built in New York. This adds cost of course but it can be done. I think those resources would be much better invested in micro generation, that is recharging your vehicle at the same place you generate power for it.

 

[Jasongreat]

Ca is indeed the largest electricity importer of all the states, but 1) the imports are still only about 1/4 of peak demand (i.e. daytime power), and 2) out of state coal is only a fraction of that. The rest is NW hydroelectric and even nuclear from Palo Verde outside of Phoenix.

Does the peak demand you speak of include replacing fuel with electric power? Where is all this extra power going to come from? With Ca already suffering from blackouts and brownouts at times of the year can they spare to use more electricity to power their cars? Are we going to keep building powerplants outside of Ca so they can claim how clean their state is, while they pollute other states?

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CA"

That point, #2, was about emissions. You might want to read through some of the other energy threads. EV's are much more efficient in tank to wheel efficiency than any heat engine can possibly be.

IMO, you still need to take into account the efficiency of producing the power and transmitting the power. As I understand it coal to heat to steam to spin a turbine is nowhere near 100% efficient and is even reduced further by transmitting the power over 900 mile powerlines, and that will reduce the total efficiency of the EV's substantially.

 

[mheslep]

You stated that EV's are the only way to lower our dependence on foreign oil,

No, I said one way. Biofuels are another alternative.

I did and my staterment stands, it will take huge advances in technology to make an over the road electric truck. The story you linked to states that they have a range of 40 miles and a recharge time of 3 to 4 hours, and doesn't even mention a top speed, IMO electric vehicles will work in a small range but are not capable of long range use. EV's would work in a city atmosphere but in a rural setting they are useless.

Because you did not see a 600 mile range electric truck going down the highway yesterday does not mean that huge advances in technology are required to make it happen.

Can you show me a link to an electric train that is not a light rail passenger train, but a very heavy cross country freight train? I have yet to see a union pacific electric train, however they are hybrids with a diesel over electric system. A feasible electric airplane? I guess anything is feasible but IMO it is very unlikely anytime soon since we can't even get an automobile that goes further than 60 miles on a charge, can you imagine flying if you have to stop every 60 miles and wait 3-4 hrs for a recharge?

[...] For the most part they only transfer a problem to a different place than where it is now, instead of a bandaid let's find a cure.

Jason you are circling back around to some original position, even though you now admit that some of those assertions to be invalid. So I don't find this discussion useful.

 

[mheslep]

While I agree, I was replying to a post that said that Ca uses almost no coal at all, which is misleading, they just don't use much in Ca. I was trying to make the point that EV's still pollute, just not in the city they are used. I wonder if that one remote smoke stack was near the city, would they be able to convince citizens that EV's are clean, when you could easily look at the smokestack and see the emissions?

No it was not misleading. Saying that you know of coal plant somewhere in Nevada so therefore Ca must use a lot of coal - that is misleading. Coal is certainly less than 20% of Ca power including out of state power, and probably less than 5%.

 

[mheslep]

You are not alone in this. The worlds two largest auto manufacturers (and a few more) don't believe pure EVs are the solution either and have no plans to develop them.

Even if this was remotely true, and it is not, why should we take the plans of bankrupt General Motors as the basis for energy policy in the US?

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Toyota Motor Corp. President Akio Toyoda said Thursday the Japanese auto maker will launch an electric vehicle in the U.S. by 2012, with the auto market there expected to fully recover soon, reports said.

Yes they mean _pure_ electric.

On a global scale, EVs are just not practical

The it's 'just not' argument? And $160/bbl oil 'just is' practical?

and provide few if any advantages to other alternatives. ...

Sorry if I've missed it, but I don't recall any posts citing your basis for these statements.

 

[mgb_phys]

Can you show me a link to an electric train that is not a light rail passenger train, but a very heavy cross country freight train?

Most trains in europe are electric - these freight units used in the channel tunnel are 5MW (7000hp), can do 200mph and are the most powerful locos in the world.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/9702_Coquelles_02.04.04.jpg/180px-9702_Coquelles_02.04.04.jpg

 

[Topher925]

Even if this was remotely true, and it is not, why should we take the plans of bankrupt General Motors as the basis for energy policy in the US?
Yes they mean _pure_ electric.

Could you post where you got this from? I know Toyota stated something to this effect back in early August but then state later in September that they would hold off on EVs and focus more on fuel cell technology.

"Electric vehicles of today are less costly than in 1990s, but if you compare them with the other vehicles out there they are still too expensive," Executive Vice President Takeshi Uchiyamada said at a news conference at the Frankfurt show. "Unless there is a very big breakthrough in battery costs I don't think electric vehicles can take a large market share."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/15/tech/cnettechnews/main5312545.shtml

I don't have a source for GM saying they don't plan to make a EV to the US as it is something a couple of their R&D engineers told me, not something I read online.

The it's 'just not' argument? And $160/bbl oil 'just is' practical?
Sorry if I've missed it, but I don't recall any posts citing your basis for these statements.

I never said oil was practical. There's other alternatives besides batteries. Both Toyota and GM (along with Honda) are planing to bring hydrogen fuel cell powered cars to the US market sometime well before 2020. If you want sources for this I'll post them but there's info for it all over the web.

 

[mheslep]

Could you post where you got this from? I know Toyota stated something to this effect back in early August but then state later in September that they would hold off on EVs and focus more on fuel cell technology.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/toyota-plans-us-electric-car-by-2010-2009-08-05 or google

The Sept. story was that they were not going to replace the NiMH batteries in the Prius w/ Li Ion.

 

[Topher925]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/toyota-plans-us-electric-car-by-2010-2009-08-05 or google

The Sept. story was that they were not going to replace the NiMH batteries in the Prius w/ Li Ion.

It does mention that, but the article is more about how battery technology is and will continue to be to expensive. Hence the title of the article, "Toyota: Price Tag Will Slow Electric Cars:
Leader in Hybrid Cars Thinks Expense of Batteries will Keep Electric Cars from Penetrating Mass Market for Another Decade".