The future of EV's

[Bigfalls 110]

The 'funny' part about it is how little service an electric vehicle needs.

The battery isn't really 'serviceable', just 'replaceable.'

The electronics are modular, and also pretty much just 'replaceable parts'. You're not going to find some kid with a soldering iron repairing control circuitry.

Maybe some parts replacement in the environmental systems, stuff like the blower fan and the servos that move the mixing doors for the heat & A/C. Maybe the A/C itself.
 

I recently had to replace the computer in my pickup truck because it was corroded by all the salt they use on the road.  I had another truck several years ago that had the same problem.  I am concerned that electric vehicles will have the same issues here but possibly more expensive.  Well at least I won't have to replace a rusty muffler.

[olofscience 420]

9 hours ago, BIGUN said:

I'm just now studying up on this "Regenerative Braking." I still have a hard time believing that with moving parts EV's can't utilize that energy to increase its mileage. 

With good regen, EV brake pads need changing a lot less often (I see sources saying about 1/10th as often) than normal vehicles.

In other news, Norway actually reached more than 50% of car sales being electric last year: https://www.euronews.com/2021/01/05/norway-becomes-first-country-where-electric-vehicle-sales-exceeded-50-of-car-trade-in-2020

Edited May 25, 2021 by olofscience

[olofscience 420]

2 minutes ago, Bigfalls said:

I recently had to replace the computer in my pickup truck because it was corroded by all the salt they use on the road. 

Car engines need a lot of ventilation due to the large amount of heat they generate. EVs also generate some heat, but I imagine they could be a lot more sealed against road salt than normal cars. EVs don't need any front grille, for example. Having little to no front grille is usually the first giveaway to me that a car is electric. (Some manufacturers still keep a fake grille as a design thing, but I think it's silly)

[olofscience 420]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Brent, I've really had enough. Everyone here likes to talk about the issues - both the pros and the cons. We're fortunate to have some very brilliant minds on here and instead of learning from them; you antagonize them with silliness. You really enjoy being a distractor.  I'm asking you to stop. Please.  

I remember how sad he was when I was ignoring him when Zoe was here (and being far more interesting than he was) 

[gowlerk 1,905]

34 minutes ago, billvon said:

I recommend the "ignore" option as a good alternative to hoping Brent does the right thing.  (You should definitely use it because I can't!)

Brent who?

[billvon 2,396]

5 minutes ago, olofscience said:

I remember how sad he was when I was ignoring him when Zoe was here (and being far more interesting than he was) 

She was sort of fun.

[billvon 2,396]

9 hours ago, BIGUN said:

I'm just now studying up on this "Regenerative Braking." I still have a hard time believing that with moving parts EV's can't utilize that energy to increase its mileage. 

They do - but it only works during braking.  In stop and go driving it can extend range by a max of about 25% (i.e. your range goes up 25% compared to using plain old friction brakes.)  For highway driving it's almost zero.

A friend of mine did some testing with ebikes to see what sort of benefit it gave them, but since they go a lot slower the benefit was only about 2%.  Best he ever saw was 5%.

Still, since it saves brake pads and extends range a little bit - and doesn't take much additional hardware - it's usually a no brainer.

[olofscience 420]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

In stop and go driving it can extend range by a max of about 25% (i.e. your range goes up 25% compared to using plain old friction brakes.)  For highway driving it's almost zero.

Since most driving is city driving it's actually a pretty big saving. Also, no idling engine (so no fuel wasted) while stopped like when you're stuck in traffic. It's going to be massive savings for buses, delivery vans and other short-range vehicles. I noticed recently that my local Amazon delivery van is fully electric.

No oil leaks, less brake dust, 1000+ fewer moving parts that could fail, the benefits go on and on.

Also battery technology is actually continuously improving - a silicon anode has a theoretical maximum energy density of 10x of a normal graphite one, but because the chemical reaction increases volume so much, making an actual battery out of it is still quite difficult, but there's small but steady progress. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/eternally-five-years-away-no-batteries-are-improving-under-your-nose/

Quote

A recent study noted that “the real price of lithium-ion cells, scaled by their energy capacity, has declined by about 97 percent since their commercial introduction in 1991.”

 

[jakee 1,254]

6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

My “attitude” reflects the simple reality laid out by the New York Times.  I think we can all agree the NYT is not some hayseed, red neck, red state rag.  I am not the contrarian here, the “we will all be driving EVs in four years” guys are the ones with their heads in the clouds.

Sure, but since there are probably only four guys saying that anyway (and none of them here) I think you must know you're not making any kind of relevant point.

Truly, your ability to sound like you're taking a stand while not actually committing to anything is unmatched.

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Sure, but since there are probably only four guys saying that anyway (and none of them here) 

None of them?  How about Olof?

     On 5/24/2021 at 7:46 AM,  brenthutch said: 

I don’t see EVs overtaking internal combustion vehicles anytime soon.

Care to put a date on that one? How about 2025? It's only around 4 years away.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

20 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

None of them?  How about Olof?

 

     On 5/24/2021 at 7:46 AM,  brenthutch said: 

I don’t see EVs overtaking internal combustion vehicles anytime soon.

Care to put a date on that one? How about 2025? It's only around 4 years away.

EV overtaking internal combustion in cars on road or cars sold?

[brenthutch 383]

21 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

EV overtaking internal combustion in cars on road or cars sold?

Either 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Either 

The NYT article is quite specifically about cars on the road. Olof is, I am pretty sure, talking about cars sold. Are you cherry picking without understanding......again

[JoeWeber 2,297]

6 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

The NYT article is quite specifically about cars on the road. Olof is, I am pretty sure, talking about cars sold. Are you cherry picking without understanding......again

He totally understands. He is certainly not an idiot and I also don't think it's just non-stop trolling.  Brent fancies himself as a cat and we as mice. Like all cats, they can be deadly serious but they also like to fuck with the mice now and then. The issue is that the whole climate change is BS, oil is good schtick has become a huge part of his identity. He gets to be a stand out player simply by virtue of never giving an inch. What he needs more than explanation after explanation is something else to do with his life other than be the clever contrarian. I'd give him a packer slot but I've already heard enough. What about you? He's got an MBA, I hear.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

What about you? He's got an MBA, I hear.

I doubt he could be persuaded to do anything in socialist canuckistan. We have healthcare.

I am funnily enough just about finishing up a reference for a staff member's MBA application. But that is of no use either if he already has one.

[brenthutch 383]

31 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

The NYT article is quite specifically about cars on the road. Olof is, I am pretty sure, talking about cars sold. Are you cherry picking without understanding......again

From the NYT article:

“Automakers are now shifting to electric vehicles, which could make up one-quarter of new sales by 2035, analysts project. But at that point, only 13 percent of vehicles on the road would be electric. Why? Older cars can stick around for a decade or two.”

Just who is having trouble understanding?  Did you catch that? Only 25% by 2035.  Olof takes the crown from me as the worst predictor on Speakers Corner.

Edited May 25, 2021 by brenthutch

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

None of them?  

Yep, none of them.

Quote

How about Olof?

Including Olof. Because half of something isn't the same as all of something.

[jakee 1,254]

19 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Just who is having trouble understanding?  Did you catch that? Only 25% by 2035.  Olof takes the crown from me as the worst predictor on Speakers Corner.

Err, no. You said Tesla would be bankrupt, they're not just still around but have a lot more money now than before. For Olof to be as bad a predictor as you, EV sales would have to suddenly start dropping from current levels until their numbers are far smaller than they are now.

[wmw999 2,120]

Most everyone else would rather discuss the future of EV — they appear to have one. It’s an evolving world, autos — one that had industry driving the “evolution” for a long time, with an occasional goose from oil shortages or government safety requirements. 
I realize it’s not as much fun to discuss as it is to feel superior by thinking you’re belittling someone, but you might try it sometime. Neither we, nor the world, exist solely for your entertainment 
Wendy P. 

[olofscience 420]

34 minutes ago, jakee said:

Err, no. You said Tesla would be bankrupt, they're not just still around but have a lot more money now than before. For Olof to be as bad a predictor as you, EV sales would have to suddenly start dropping from current levels until their numbers are far smaller than they are now.

That would just get me level with brent, not overtake him. What do I need to do to take the rightful crown from brent? I just can't catch a break these days 

[JoeWeber 2,297]

8 minutes ago, olofscience said:

That would just get me level with brent, not overtake him. What do I need to do to take the rightful crown from brent? I just can't catch a break these days 

"Olof takes the crown from me as the worst predictor on Speakers Corner."

Is that really a bragging rights thing? 

[olofscience 420]

Thing is, brent is already declaring me wrong 4 years early, while his "facts" in 2035 are rather dubious. For example, only 25% of sales will be EV by 2035?

General Motors will ONLY have electric vehicles by then: (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/general-motors-plans-to-exclusively-offer-electric-vehicles-by-2035.html) and the other big manufacturers will probably be similar.

So for the so-called 75% of fossil-fuel burning cars, which company will they be buying it from in 2035?

Edited May 26, 2021 by olofscience

[Phil1111 910]

11 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Electric Vehicles: Setting a course for 2030

https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/future-of-mobility/electric-vehicle-trends-2030.html

Excellent find

[billvon 2,396]

10 hours ago, olofscience said:

Since most driving is city driving it's actually a pretty big saving. Also, no idling engine (so no fuel wasted) while stopped like when you're stuck in traffic.

I agree it's a good thing - just not quite as good as most people think when they first hear about it.  25% is the most you will ever see, and you'd have to drive very wastefully to get that much.  (i.e. you'd have to drive so your range is terrible anyway.)  Practically I get about 8-10% during my normal driving, and that's because I live in a fairly hilly area.

Quote

Also battery technology is actually continuously improving

Yep.  

When I first designed a device with a lithium ion battery (in 1998) the best 18650 sized cell was 1300mah, lasted about 300 cycles, cost $20, and could be charged/discharged at no faster than .5C.  Nowadays the same size cell (almost identical chemistry) is 3600mah, 1.5C charge/2C discharge, lasts 500 cycles and cost $10.   That means in 23 years we have seen:

2.8 times the energy
11 times the power
10 times cheaper in real money ($/wh)
1.6 times the life

And that's without silicon anodes, solid state electrolytes, lithium-sulfur chemistries or any of those other "just around the corner" innovations - just plain old process improvement.  And we already have cars that get 400 miles on a charge.

That means in just 8 years, with just incremental improvements, we will see cells that can give cars 800 mile ranges.  Of course, we won't see such cars very often; very few humans can go 13 hours without a 'recharge' stop, so there won't be much need for that technology even if it's available.  And again, that's with no big new innovations, inventions or discoveries, just plain old process improvements.

 

[billeisele 122]

16 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

No. It's because the 'red states' tend to be more resistant to change. 

Part of being 'conservative' is the idea that stuff is great the way it is and change is unnecessary.

That's why 'red states' are not addressing climate change, incentivizing renewable power, enacting rules that protect the environment, that sort of thing (there's a much longer list, but I won't go there now).

Look at Brent's attitude. Very typical of the 'red state' mentality. 

Given how many people have a similar attitude, it's impossible to take the politics out of it. 
Throw in how many people are invested (financially, emotionally, lots of ways) in the current fossil fuel status quo, and how many politicians those people own.

On a 'level playing field', EVs would be a decent option, with the viability increasing over time.
However, the subsidies given the fossil fuel industry (both direct and indirect) tip the scales a long, long way towards them. 

Joe - not sure that red is less resistant or that being slower to change is bad. I'm in a red state and see plenty of changes. Maybe red states just evaluate things more carefully before changing. I'm certain that "change is unnecessary" isn't true. We are addressing climate change, not at the same rate as other states but not sure that is wrong, or other states are right.

There are incentives for renewable power. Unfortunately some of the policies are poorly written and penalize non-renewable users.

We have plenty of rules protecting the environment, they are strongly enforced and there are organizations that are quite active, and law firms that make sure it's done.

So, from the perspective of the red state of SC, the generalization isn't correct. 

Agree that political influence and subsidies exist in the fossil industry, and those influences make it difficult to accurately evaluate the economics.