No Politics: This Is Why Electric Vehicles Won't Work In The Long Run

[Martinjmpr]

Slightly off topic sorta..... but not..... The bigger expedition rigs in here are perfect for Locomotive EV..... as in a oil derivative fueled gen set (diesel or even sterling) charging probably a combination of a few battery banks and a bunch of capacitors that power high torque electric motors at the wheels. The torque of electric motors matches great with heavy vehicles.... that's why Trains use them. So...... no charging stations needed? Besides charging stations in the outback, desert or deep forest willll probabbbly be the last one's ever installed... right before armagedon

.
I would imagine the cars and trucks of the future will be much like this. Think about the benefits of a system where you have a powerful electric motor on each wheel. Wheels can articulate separately - no more discussion about IFS vs SFA. Power can be applied as needed, controlled by a computer. Need all 4 wheels turning? Got it. need just two? Or hell, on the highway maybe only one wheel is powered! Since the power connection to the wheels will be via wire there's no need to figure out things like CV axles or differentials.
.
Another advantage is that the power source can be anything - diesel engine, gasoline engine, fuel cell, etc. All it has to do is provide enough power to turn the generator. Batteries are still a problem but as I've said in other threads, I'm confident someone will work that out for the simple reason that there's major money to be made in doing so. :ylsmoke:
.
I also think that some kind of hybrid electric system is more viable in the long run than any battery-only system. It's just a lot more efficient to store energy in the form of diesel fuel, gasoline or some other energy-dense fuel than it is to try and store it in a battery.

 

[doug720]

No need to run separate wires from a project - it just feeds into the local grid connection and then accounting takes care of the credits/costs/profits being applied where they should be.

We have to stop thinking of the utility distribution and transmission systems as being owned by the utilities - they were allowed to develop it but it was paid for by the rate payers - they were allowed to operate as with a "guaranteed profitable monopoly" status in order to develop the power system and made plenty of profit doing it. The future may (or will) require a different utility model.

Any changes to how the "Grid System" operates will be fought tooth and nail to the bitter end by the ones who currently control the system. These groups are well connected, in place and operating, and have a lot of money to fight any changes that would affect their bottom lines.

I like the idea of solar and wind, but costs will only go higher, and in 10, 20, 50 or likely a 100 years, our power/energy will come from the same companies we pay now.

 

[Coachgeo]

Any changes to how the "Grid System" operates will be fought tooth and nail to the bitter end by the ones who currently control the system. These groups are well connected, in place and operating, and have a lot of money to fight any changes that would affect their bottom lines.... in 10, 20, 50 or likely a 100 years, our power/energy will come from the same companies we pay now.

Small biz is GREAT. Big Biz is Great. Both have their advantages. Anything too large for it's britches (Big Evil Corp) tends to happen........ it getting slapped back into reality everyonce in a while tends to happen too though. So over all in the grand scheme and cycle of things...... it's not really a horrific thing..... may not even be a bad thing, if same companies own the power production 100 years from now. As long as the power production is from more renwable less polluting sources.... we're all good.


hmmm...... but this is dancing on the edge of politics and the Original Poster requested we not go there so....... back to science of why it might/might not happen.

 

[rayra]

Most electric cars use 250 to 350 watthours per mile - and most people drive their cars less than 50 miles per day - so that works out to be about 12.5 kWh per day - which is typically able to be met by a solar array of about 3kW even here in the rainy pacific NW. The time required for recharging is not significant - for most people its just plugging in the car at the end of the day and the effort is small compared to going to a gas station and filling the gas tank even once a week.

There is a real challenge in replacing all of the vehicles with EVs - it is all heavy duty trucks / semi's - but those can still be powered by fossil fuels. Since they get such low gas mileage they are a surprisingly large portion of the national energy consumption. Also, many people drive around empty 4x4 pick-ups as cars to work each day though and that won't probably change easily...

You gloss over / totally ignore that 'low gas mileage' is while transporting 80,000 pounds of goods. Short of rail it is still about the cheapest cost per mile of transporting goods. Which is why we as a civilization still use it.
And most solar advocates totally ignore the sunk costs and efficiencies / opportunity costs. Just wave a magic wand and 'go solar'. $25-30k for a full up residential solar setup on the American scale of energy consumption. Whose panels have a lifespan of ~20yrs and which don't produce enough power to cover all the household usage, not even including an electric car. There's got to be a significant decrease in solar cost, or a significant increase in collector efficiency AND battery efficiency for it to be truly economically viable.
They just shut down (and had a convenient destructive fire) the major solar plant in the CA desert near the Nevada border because they couldn't make any money off it. A HUGE plant in the textbook collector / focused array, collecting all that 'free' sunshine, and they couldn't turn a profit on it. Ivanpah.
Correction - the CA government is throwing an undisclosed amount of cash at it thru this July, to see if the govt-funded operator can increase generating capacity enough to meet viability goals.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/18/c...plant-wont-say-how-much-itll-cost-ratepayers/

On top of it all CA just announced they'd be shuttering the last nuclear plant in the state, upon demands and legal filings of environmental groups. The El Diablo plant produces - produced - 9% of CA's electricity - that's 9% of the 6th largest economy in the world - and did so with some airy handwaving about replacing it with wind and solar. We'll have brownouts here in CA before that can happen.

And this topic belongs in the Fireside Chat section, not in General Mods. I get why the OP put it in here, though.

And there's no way at all to talk about EVs that DOESN'T include discussions of the politically/ideologically-driven uneconomic / 'environmental' decision making regarding them. No matter how you try to dance around it.

 

[Haf-E]

The idea that the power utility structure can't be changed is incorrect - it can be changed and will be changed. Look at what happened to the telephone companies during the 1980s - would we have the internet / cell phones / streaming / skype etc. if "Ma Bell" was still in charge? Technology advancement requires change.

Also - not all utilities are for profit, huge corporations - there are a lot of municipal and coop utilities which will and are doing things very differently - they can have different arrangements with the customer/owners. It is resulting in some very innovative arrangements.

Right now, Australia is going through what much of the US will be going through in 10 years or so - the price of electricity there is very high (typically around $0.30 USD per kWh) and solar works very well there. Solar is on about one out of five houses and is increasing since it is cost effective with their utility prices. As more people go with solar power, the utility sells less power and has to raise its prices - resulting in more people putting in solar - resulting in what is described as a "utility death spiral". Some of the smarter utilities are seeing this as an opportunity to change their business structure and not look at solar as "competition" but as an opportunity - similar to what phone companies had to do with cell phones. Change will be inevitable.

Once we have EVs with 200+ mile range at reasonable prices we will see many people switch to them - they will do it for a variety of reasons - lower operating costs, less maintenance, no trips to gas stations, etc. - not just environmental. Many of the people buying $80,000+ Teslas are not doing it to be green - they truly feel it is a better option compared to an expensive BMW or Mercedes sedan which would be a comparable vehicle.

 

[IdaSHO]

The tech is here.

The infrastructure wouldnt take much to make it a reality.



Cost on the other hand, is a completely different subject.

As is the political fall-out trying to ween the masses off of fossil fuels.


Well too many in power continue to have their pockets lined by oil sales.


My personal option is we will have some serious economic stability issues with regards to oil dependence and supply, well before EV is 100% embraced.

 

[Coachgeo]

....

My personal option is we will have some serious economic stability issues with regards to oil dependence and supply, well before EV is 100% embraced.

Amen, Necessity is the Father of Invention Yet we must all remember that STRESS/CONFLICT is the father of Necessity

 

[OCD Overland]

These days, it seems like people just bury their heads deeper in the sand.

 

[BrianV]

Why should 100% of anything ever be a goal? That is rarely the right idea.
Who has the inside scope on the electric spot market, I want to make some money. Sounds like we forgot about Enron already or did we plug that hole?

 

[doug720]

The break up of Ma Bell was mentioned.

Yes she was broken up, but now the Baby Bells are nearly consolidated as before and no competition...

The phone companies did not invent cell phones, internet or Twitter. The bought the originators - LA Cellular, etc, and the first wide distribution of internet service was provided by cable tv.

I hope changes can be made that really provide improvements in costs, service, emissions, But so much of what is being done, is "Feel Good", not "real Good!"

 

[OSV]

They just shut down (and had a convenient destructive fire) the major solar plant in the CA desert near the Nevada border because they couldn't make any money off it. A HUGE plant in the textbook collector / focused array, collecting all that 'free' sunshine, and they couldn't turn a profit on it. Ivanpah.

"In 2015, PG&E customers received about 97% of Ivanpah’s contracted electrons, which is a massive improvement over its first year." http://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/27/ivanpah-raised-performance-second-year/

Correction - the CA government is throwing an undisclosed amount of cash at it thru this July, to see if the govt-funded operator can increase generating capacity enough to meet viability goals.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/18/c...plant-wont-say-how-much-itll-cost-ratepayers/

that's a website that references false information from the wsj: "The Wall Street Journal, now owned by Rupert Murdoch, is widely quoted with its factually wrong statements about Ivanpah’s generation requirement for PG&E, making it appear that the first direct steam solar tower has failed spectacularly to meet the target... When I asked the journalist responsible why she ignored the facts in the SEC filing, she said because BrightSource wouldn’t also “go on the record.” http://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/27/ivanpah-raised-performance-second-year/

more on the dailycaller, which is just another fox news type of operation: http://www.cjr.org/feature/the_great_right_hype.php

pursuing factual information, using reliable sources, is never political.

 

[Lucky j]

Well, I not in California, I live in Quebec canada where hydro electricity is almost all our supply, even if wind is catching up.

But in my case, the only thing preventing me from getting an EV is autonomy. I am not able to drive the normal distance I want to drive w/o having to stop and recharge. So a trip that should take 2 1/2 hours would not take 5 hours. (Hills and cold winter reduce autonomy on top of that)

I could get an other car for in town driving, but getting a third vehicule is probably not that green.

But things should get better.

 

[Haf-E]

Would a real world range of 200 miles eliminate the need to stop and recharge? My GF's 2016 Leaf with a 30 kWh battery goes 100 miles reliably even in the winter and recharges for another 80 miles in 1/2 hour at a quick charge station - but it's still not a road trip machine unfortunately. Would be much better if the range was doubled.

 

[sargeek]

EV & More

I jump in on this one a bit:
IMO - In two generations, most people will not have the need for a drivers license. The self driving vehicle will be the predominant source of transportation. My guess you will pay a monthly fee a for a vehicle service. If you need a ride, you will use an app and a self driving vehicle will arrive to take you to your destination. My guess is that you will be able to request the type of vehicle you need for the trip, and get a small vehicle for your trip to IKEA, and a self driving truck for your trip home from the store.

I also believe that in most urban centers, human driven vehicle are going to be banned or use restricted during peak traffic times. Automatic vehicles can be packed tighter on the highways with less traffic problems.

This is going to significantly change the vehicle designs and the needs. Instead of gas and diesel vs. electric; its going to be natural gas or propane hybrid vs electric due to the cleaner emissions. Since multiple will be riding these vehicles through out the day, my guess is that they will use some sort of hybrid technology.

Expo Members will be relegated to a very niche market of "auto enthusiasts" who will have the ability to self drive a vehicle.

The military has been looking at Hybrids for years. Since most of their equipment requires such large amounts of electricity to operate hybrids make sense. The on board generator can power the air conditioning, and electronics when parked, and use the same electricity to power the drive when their is a need to be mobile. Just think of the redundancy in 4 separate motors powering the vehicle.

 

[MOguy]

As batteries, solar and wind power tech gets better it could really change things. Now am going to go political but not a you vs me but an us against them.

When we can make our own power in a practical and affordable manner we can "go off the grid" and the man looses all sorts of tax dollars and we will be less dependant on our government. These are two things the government won't want to to happen. The major car manufacturer will also lose out. If Tesla can make a car with a 200 + range so can ford, chevy toyota etc. The major manufactures wants to spread out their advances slowly over years and years to maximize their profits.

Tulsa has the batteries and the vehicles to make it happen. If solar and wind energy company make similar advance there is no reason electric cars couldn't become more mainstream.

I think too many feal we have to have one or the other. We can have been other electric and combustion motors even in the same garage.

The government and big business are the ones holding things up.