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

[Haf-E]

Storing energy in a battery is wastefull, batteries are bad... at this point batteries aren't the best way to store power...

What is so bad and wasteful about storing energy in batteries? The newer technology batteries (lithium-ion) rock in my opinion - high efficiency (over 90% roundtrip) and have pretty impressive cycle capability - and they are getting better every year. While lithium mining causes severe damage - extraction from the salt brines in South America is fairly simple and low impact. There will be ways to use EV battery packs after they have finished their use in cars and there will be good options for lithium recycling also.

Using EVs will improve the functioning of the utility grid by allowing a place to put excess generation and will be a load that can be controlled by the utilities to drop it when the grid needs more power. This will help intermittent sources such as wind and solar achieve higher percentages of supplying the utility grid's loads.

 

[MOguy]

What is so bad and wasteful about storing energy in batteries? The newer technology batteries (lithium-ion) rock in my opinion - high efficiency (over 90% roundtrip) and have pretty impressive cycle capability - and they are getting better every year. While lithium mining causes severe damage - extraction from the salt brines in South America is fairly simple and low impact. There will be ways to use EV battery packs after they have finished their use in cars and there will be good options for lithium recycling also.

Using EVs will improve the functioning of the utility grid by allowing a place to put excess generation and will be a load that can be controlled by the utilities to drop it when the grid needs more power. This will help intermittent sources such as wind and solar achieve higher percentages of supplying the utility grid's loads.

Like I have said as tech develops things will get better. BUT right now I can go buy 5 gallons of gas 3 minutes from my house, store it in my garage for a year and loose very little if any of it usefulness. The 5 gallons of gasoline I have stored in my garage a year later will still take my car at least 150 miles down the road. I can not go 3 minutes down the road and get a battery charged up and then store it for a year and count on it doing the same thing.


What will help us is generating more power at home and consuming less. But that is still a ways off before that is practical on a large scale. In the meantime we are best of by just keeping what we have on the road until it is no longer serviceable. Drive less, combine your trips go easy with your right foot keep the tires aired up... There just is not enough of a reason for us to to dump the vehicles we currently have for an electric one.

There should be more electric cars coming to market, Tesla is doing great things esp compared to the "leaders" in the automotive industry.

 

[OCD Overland]

What is so bad and wasteful about storing energy in batteries? The newer technology batteries (lithium-ion) rock in my opinion - high efficiency (over 90% roundtrip) and have pretty impressive cycle capability - and they are getting better every year. While lithium mining causes severe damage - extraction from the salt brines in South America is fairly simple and low impact. There will be ways to use EV battery packs after they have finished their use in cars and there will be good options for lithium recycling also.

Not only is brine production greener, but it's also the cheapest. The new 'mines' set for construction here in the US are even better. One in CA, of which Tesla is an investor, will get their lithium by reusing water from existing power plants. The Wyoming deposit, which is one of the largest on earth, is going to be extracted using CO2, meaning that it will serve dual purpose as a lithium mine and CO2 sequestration facility. It's unlikely that the US will remain a net importer of lithium for long.

 

[OCD Overland]

Like I have said as tech develops things will get better. BUT right now I can go buy 5 gallons of gas 3 minutes from my house, store it in my garage for a year and loose very little if any of it usefulness. The 5 gallons of gasoline I have stored in my garage a year later will still take my car at least 150 miles down the road. I can not go 3 minutes down the road and get a battery charged up and then store it for a year and count on it doing the same thing.

Why would you leave your house to charge a battery? And, if you want to keep it charged for a year, maybe just leave it plugged in?

 

[Haf-E]

I agree with your statements here - Gasoline is very energy dense and useful. For most people they don't need to store fuel for a year in their garage though... and, if you have a solar array on your house you can generate power to offset what your car uses. Even here in the PNW my 3.5 kW (DC) solar array produces over 7 kWh of AC power per day (even with 100 foot trees in the yard that shade it during much of the year) which is enough to drive 30 miles each day / 11,000 miles a year and to not pay any fuel costs. In sunnier areas and without shading from trees, the performance would be much better, allowing more driving or a smaller solar array.

Tesla's vehicles are nice - but there are many others that are impressive as well. My girlfriend's Nissan 2016 Leaf goes 100 miles on a charge in the real world (although we don't use the AC much here in Western WA state) and it only has a 30 kWh battery compared to Tesla's 70 to 90 kWh batteries that allow them to have 200+ mile range. Right now - the range issue is one of cost - more range means a more expensive vehicle.

 

[Dalko43]

Tesla's vehicles are nice - but there are many others that are impressive as well. My girlfriend's Nissan 2016 Leaf goes 100 miles on a charge in the real world (although we don't use the AC much here in Western WA state) and it only has a 30 kWh battery compared to Tesla's 70 to 90 kWh batteries that allow them to have 200+ mile range. Right now - the range issue is one of cost - more range means a more expensive vehicle.

Tesla's are nice, but they are also expensive, complicated, and sensitive machines. Batteries need to be replaced throughout the life of the car, which not only drives up the cost of ownership but also the pollution associated with the EV industry. Also battery life will absolutely suck in extreme cold weather or under load (towing, carrying extra weight), as is the case for most electronic devices.

Once the technology gets refined and optimized for realistic, practical everyday use, I'm sure most will be on board (i know I will). But right now, the limited range, high cost, fickle battery life and replacements makes EV a no-go for me, and many others I suspect. Honestly, I think hybrids and/or Hydrogen-fuel cells are the immediate way ahead for a more eco-friendly auto industry; I think Tesla's gamble on pure EV is just that: a gamble.

I get so tired of deniers pulling out that one study and then declaring that everything about EV cars is BS. The only BS is using that study as an argument.

First, it applied only to hybrids, not EV's. Second, it only showed a net increase when 100% of the power was derived from coal plants. Third, it assumed that all the electricity consumed corresponded to additional power generation. Fourth, it assumed no improvements in coal emissions over time. Fifth, even ignoring all of that, it only applies to ⅓ of EV's, assuming uniform distribution, and only today.

In real life, the situation is vastly different. First, the study doesn't even apply to EV's. Second, charging happens mostly at night, when utility companies with coal plants are generating excess power (i.e., coal plants take hours to adjust and no one shovels a load of coal onto the fire every time you plug in your car). Third, electricity is bought and sold, and rarely is local power 100% coal, so it's very rare that anyone charging from 100% coal energy anyway (For example, our electricity comes primarily from two plants - one coal and one NG - but we also get electricity from a nuclear plant and a hydro plant that are hundreds of miles away. We also have two 5MW solar farms within 50 miles and two 20MW farms further away.) Fourth, most coal plants are planned to be phased out over the next decade anyway (Our coal plant is being replaced next year.)

And even if you want to ignore all of that - and we know that you do - it doesn't matter because ⅔ of all EV's would still have net lower emissions, which obviously outweigh the ⅓ that wouldn't.

And so the real question is why people get their panties in a wad about this in the first place. I mean, how scared of change does someone have to be to get worked up over what kind of car I choose to buy? What harm does Tesla's existence cause you? What exactly is it that you guys are against?

Scared? Who is scared? Some people prefer gas/diesel engines, others prefer EV. I do think some of the people who buy into EV are being overly optimistic on how practical and eco-friendly EV's will be in the long term, given our power grid, which is barely adequate to cover the power needs that currently exist. The problem is not with several thousand, or even hundreds of thousands, EV owners charging their vehicles at night...the problem is how do we cover down on the power requirements when several hundred million EV owners are charging at night, in addition to all the other electronic devices/equipment that are quickly becoming commonplace in the US household?

Fossil fuels sources still provide the majority of the world's power. Solar, Hydro and Wind are growing, but in many areas that is purely because of encouragement from government subsides, and in other areas such sources may never truly dominate the energy supply market due to environmental issues. Nuclear, which IMHO is humanity's best hope for perpetual energy, doesn't seem to be growing nearly as quickly and only makes up a fraction of energy supply due to political baggage.

When the US converts from internal combustion to EV, which I think is still a long ways off, how much pollution are we really curtailing when we have power needs that are astronomically higher than what we have now? I'm not saying EV isn't the way ahead, but I do think some honest questions need to be asked about what the EV transition will actually accomplish. If our power grid setup stays the same, we're still going to be producing a lot of pollution to run all these eco-friendly EV's.

 

[OCD Overland]

You can't have it both ways. If you want to talk about the number of EV's in the future, you have to talk about electricity production in the future. How many coal plants will still be around when EV's reach the numbers you're talking about? What percentage of total production will they be? What will the capacity of the grid be then?

You guys are arguing that if everyone in the US went out and bought an EV tomorrow, that ⅓ of them wouldn't be as clean, or that they would tax the grid too much.

Well, no ********.


Also, astronomically?

And saying that the cars are "expensive, complicated, and sensitive" is just wrong. The Model 3 will be a relative bargain for what you get. The cars are far simpler and require less maintenance. Sensitive? How so? And how is extreme cold and towing "realistic, practical everyday use"? It's like the Tesla thread, where the discussion got to the point where someone said EV's weren't practical because you couldn't drive across the Mohave desert yet. The criticisms are getting fairly thin at this point. And hydrogen fuel cells? Really, you think that's a better bet?

 

[MOguy]

Why would you leave your house to charge a battery? And, if you want to keep it charged for a year, maybe just leave it plugged in?

If am not needing for an extended period of time why would I want to continually charge it. When I do need it I want it now, I don't want to wait for it to charge.

I love the idea of an electric car. They are faster and quieter. A gradual transition is fine. They still have issues. It is not more "green" to dump you current vehicle just to get an electric car. If you are in the market and they meet your needs an electric may be a good solution.

Here is an interesting article on what a green car is. The article is a decade old and tech has changed things but it is still an interesting read:
Jeep Wrangler: Is this the greenest car on sale?

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-is-this-the-greenest-car-on-sale-423233.html

 

[Dalko43]

You can't have it both ways. If you want to talk about the number of EV's in the future, you have to talk about electricity production in the future. How many coal plants will still be around when EV's reach the numbers you're talking about? What will the capacity of the grid be then?

You guys are arguing that if everyone in the US went out and bought an EV tomorrow, that ⅓ of them wouldn't be as clean, or that they would tax the grid too much.

Well, no ********.

Dude, you can get as angry as you want, but no one here or elsehwere is going out their way to stop EV and green energy research. Between govt. sponsored research and the free-market, which has a strong incentive to develop such products, there is a demand for this stuff.

There are also practical limitations that we have to work around or come to terms with:
- A big one is cost. This newer technology costs money and puts a greater burden on the tax-payer (where do you think the govt. funding and subsides come from) and the individual consumer (EV's will cost more to build and maintain and electric bills will go up as our society becomes more dependent on the power grid).
- Power sources. I have no freaking clue how many fossil fuel plants will be around in 20-30 years, but given how slowly green energy has expanded in some areas and how it is nearly non-permissible in other areas, I do not believe, for one second, that we will be off fossil fuel anytime soon. The biggest challenge with green energy, even in areas where it is readily available, is storing it and/or having a backup when the weather isn't cooperating. And nuclear energy seems much more promising for developing a greener power-grid, due to the advancements made with fusion, but again not many Eco-minded people are willing to discuss that since it doesn't fit their narrative.

My point is even if solar, wind and hydro make great advancements during the next 20-30 years, fossil fuel power sources will still likely be around, and more EV's will increase the pollution they put out.

If you want a power grid that is self-contained, and capable of supporting high power draws for EV's and other devices, you should keep your fingers crossed that we figure out how to create perpetual energy with nuclear fusion.

 

[OCD Overland]

If you want a power grid that is self-contained, and capable of supporting high power draws for EV's and other devices, you should keep your fingers crossed that we figure out how to create perpetual energy with nuclear fusion.

Good thing you aren't exaggerating any. You might undermine your credibility.

 

[Dalko43]

Also, astronomically?

And saying that the cars are "expensive, complicated, and sensitive" is just wrong. The Model 3 will be a relative bargain for what you get. The cars are far simpler and require less maintenance. Sensitive? How so? And how is extreme cold and towing "realistic, practical everyday use"? It's like the Tesla thread, where the discussion got to the point where someone said EV's weren't practical because you couldn't drive across the Mohave desert yet. The criticisms are getting fairly thin at this point. And hydrogen fuel cells? Really, you think that's a better bet?

Dude, I get that you like EV's, but you probably owe it to yourself to read up on how they work.

Cold weather and additional load both drain the batteries much faster:

https://transportevolved.com/2014/06/24/can-tow-tesla-model-s-one-owner-answers-emphatic-yes/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2014/03/24/the-cold-truth-icy-temps-can-slash-an-electric-cars-range-by-more-than-half/#5ed0253d26d7

The EV's that Tesla has put out so far are expensive and complicated, especially compared to internal combustion cars, where at least there are some mechanical maintenance/repair items that a DIY'er can tackle on his/her own.

The Model 3 isn't even out yet, and already you're going to declare its a "bargain?" Maybe give the free-market a chance to decide the merits of that.

And no, EV's absolutely do not compare to ICE cars in terms of practicality: range and recharge time put a huge burden on anyone who is doing more than 10-15 mile daily commute. I also think the electronic-everything that Tesla makes commonplace on their cars will have long term reliability issues, but I guess time will tell.

Hydrogen fuel cells are a viable option, especially given how abundant Hydrogen is. A lot of people discount it, but I think that has more to do with brand loyalty and favoritism than with any specific, science-based reasoning.

You can rant all you want how EV's are the way ahead, and your views will likely be validated in the long term; but there is a reason why the market as a whole has been slow to adopt them in the short term.

 

[Dalko43]

Good thing you aren't exaggerating any. You might undermine your credibility.

I've got to say, the more you rant and resort to personal attacks, the more you come across as a bitter, insecure fanboy.

I even said in my first post that I think EV's are the way ahead, but apparently I lose all credibility because my views are slightly different from your own on specific issues. Could you perhaps pass the cool aid for me to take a sip...apparently, I'm hopelessly lost without it.

 

[MOguy]

I agree with your statements here - Gasoline is very energy dense and useful. For most people they don't need to store fuel for a year in their garage though... and, if you have a solar array on your house you can generate power to offset what your car uses. Even here in the PNW my 3.5 kW (DC) solar array produces over 7 kWh of AC power per day (even with 100 foot trees in the yard that shade it during much of the year) which is enough to drive 30 miles each day / 11,000 miles a year and to not pay any fuel costs. In sunnier areas and without shading from trees, the performance would be much better, allowing more driving or a smaller solar array.

Tesla's vehicles are nice - but there are many others that are impressive as well. My girlfriend's Nissan 2016 Leaf goes 100 miles on a charge in the real world (although we don't use the AC much here in Western WA state) and it only has a 30 kWh battery compared to Tesla's 70 to 90 kWh batteries that allow them to have 200+ mile range. Right now - the range issue is one of cost - more range means a more expensive vehicle.

I have a tractor, a go kart, lawn tractor, mower... I always have fuel sitting. My 2strock fuel may sit for more than a year before it is gets used up the regular fuel will sit through the winter.

What I do love about an electric motor is it can sit and sit and sit and be ready to go. I do have a battery tender than can keep 4 batteries at a time. This has helped they batteries I don't need on a regular basis last long.

Can you post some details about you solar setup. I have looked into but it seems very expensive.

 

[MOguy]

Why would you leave your house to charge a battery? And, if you want to keep it charged for a year, maybe just leave it plugged in?

Here is a thought, why not have you car charge you home. Your car has an alternator that charges its battery. The alternator is always going while the vehicle is running.

How may batteries could you charge while running your vehicle on day to day? Could you charge enough batteries to help run your home?

 

[OCD Overland]

I think we've clearly moved into lala land here. I'm out.