Bishop Hill points us to this video of the Tesla Supercharging station at the Harris Ranch exit of Interstate 5 in California. He writes: “How can one resist posting a video of Tesla electric cars being recharged (so it is claimed) using a diesel generator? These people love the environment you see.”
The video shows a portable diesel generator next to the charging station and some Tesla automobiles. Watch this short video:
The video is captioned: Teslas charging off a diesel generator behind the Harris Ranch battery swap station. Filmed by Edward Niedermeyer on 5/22/2015 at Harris Ranch, CA as part of Daily Kanban’s investigation into Tesla’s battery swap program.
At first I thought maybe this was simply a backup generator for power outages, then I dug deeper. It seems the charging station is a converted car wash at the Shell gas station there. It turns out that it is not just a charging station, but also a battery swap station, part of Tesla’s much touted battery swap program. What I learned was that there were pictures showing how the station works, taken during construction, here are a couple:
![Tesla-Battery-Swap-Harris-Ranch-1[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/tesla-battery-swap-harris-ranch-11.jpg)
![Tesla-Battery-Swap-Harris-Ranch-6[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/tesla-battery-swap-harris-ranch-61.jpg)
Source:http://www.teslarati.com/peek-teslas-battery-swap-station-harris-ranch/Tesla has approximated each battery swap to take on average of 3 minutes through the use of robots and pneumatics.
So much for “emissions free” driving.Tesla Battery Swap Unused Over Busy Holiday Weekend
Timelapse footage of Tesla’s battery swap station not being used during the busiest driving holiday of the year. Also visible: two backup Superchargers hooked up to a Doosan diesel generator. Filmed by Edward Niedermeyer at Harris Ranch, CA on Saturday, May 23 2015 as part of Daily Kanban’s investigation of Tesla’s battery swap program.
Mark W, you are generally correct regarding the antiquity of electric automobiles (and steam). But, in fact, the first two successful “horseless carriages” are usually considered those of Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz, independently, in Germany in 1884. Both were powered by internal combustion engines.
The electric version came along a bit later, reaching its first peak of popularity around, or just after, 1902. Fun fact- the first automobile pictured on a US postage stamp was on the 4cent denomination of the 1901 Pan-American Expo commemorative issue and the design was an electric car in front of the Capitol building.
Fun fact No. 2, in 1906, at a time IC vehicles had barely reached a speed of 60mph, a purpose-built Stanley Steamer reached an estimated 191mph at Daytona Beach. Not a record, because the contraption crashed before completing the measured mile, although the driver survived.
Change in “lighting” between the two photos…. Funny that… why did no one pick up the fact there is an f’ing great sign in one that doesn’t appear in the other…?
Viking asked, knowing full well the answer, what is a comparable car? answer one with four wheels, five seats, does 400 miles on a tank of petrol, cruises at 120 kph and gets 0-60 in about 8 seconds. it also has lights, heater and aircon that all work.
Grey, then why would you consider a Tesla? Is someone trying to sell you a Tesla, and you’ve come here to complain about it? I have no idea what you think I’m trying to say, but you must be projecting something onto me which I don’t understand.
So, any EV’s powertrain (battery, motors, charger, controllers) work other than “fuel costs” needs to be added to the cost of operating the EV for the life of the car. Most drivers require 12,000 – 15,000 per year; thus any EV costs need to be determined over at least a 6-8 year life of the car powertrain. 8-10 might be optimistic – but many, many millions of gas-powered cars operate 10+ years with no engine or transmission work required but fluid changes and spark plug/filter changes.
I agree about batteries, and I explicitly include them in operating cost calculations. If EVs turn out to need more work on motors, and/or their chargers and controllers crap out before the 100,000-mile mark, those costs would need to be included. I have seen no reports of EVs having those needs.
But we do know that EVs need to oil changes and we know that they need no exhaust system work, so those costs should be deducted — which is what I do when make a guesstimate of net battery replacement cost. Net of avoided costs of oil changes and exhaust work.
Grey Lensman (replying to Viking, anwering part of JakeJ as well)
OK. SO, like to like.
what is a comparable car? answer one with four wheels, five seats, does 400 miles on a tank of petrol, cruises at 120 kph and gets 0-60 in about 8 seconds. it also has lights, heater and aircon that all work in all seasons on that 400 mile range.
0 – 150,000 miles lifetime (0 – 200,000 kilometers). Tires, brakes, and routine maintenance assumed. If the EVangelists want to declare their reduced 3000 mile oil filter and oil changes and 50,000 miles transmission fluid as “savings” for a EV car; then they have to add their 15,000 mile 10,000.00 dollar battery swap as lifetime charges over the 150,000 mile lifetime. Most cars, today, require no engine work before 120,000 – 150,000 miles, so the lifetime is adequate for comparisons. (Warranties routinely exceed 100,000 miles for example.)
Nissan’s 100,000 mile battery warranty is for defects in workmanship. It does not cover degradation.
JakeJ
Understood. But the “standard” walk-out-of-the-dealer’s-lot gas engine-transmission-powertrain warranty from “everybody” is 100,000 miles (often more) for fossil-fuel cars and trucks. So, any EV’s powertrain (battery, motors, charger, controllers) work other than “fuel costs” needs to be added to the cost of operating the EV for the life of the car. Most drivers require 12,000 – 15,000 per year; thus any EV costs need to be determined over at least a 6-8 year life of the car powertrain. 8-10 might be optimistic – but many, many millions of gas-powered cars operate 10+ years with no engine or transmission work required but fluid changes and spark plug/filter changes..
RACook says “– but many, many millions of gas-powered cars operate 10+ years with no engine or transmission work required but fluid changes and spark plug/filter changes..”
Any good pickup maintenance program includes replacement of old grills and headlights too.
http://www.topgearautosport.com/img/350/21310326ZB.jpg
My point exactly. The degradation warranty is only 60,000 miles. I had written that, when I estimate EV battery replacement costs, I use a 100,000 mile battery life assumption. I wrote that this is generous, given Nissan’s shorter warranty and the experiences reported by many owners.
A comparable car would be one of the same weight and size. My EV is a Think City. The comparable gas car is a ScioniQ, which is almost exactly the same size and weight. For a Nissan LEAF, the comp is the Nissan Versa, on whose car “platform” the first LEAF prototypes were based. For a Chevy Volt, the comp is a Chevy Cruze, built on the same GM “Delta II” platform. I’m not sure what the comp to the Tesla Model S would be. Never had any reason to figure it out.
For example, us grid power is about half ng and nuclear.
That’s not even close to the truth. You really need to quit pulling non-facts from your posterior and presenting them as true.
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf
Jake J,
What the hades are you talking about? Have you apologized for calling me a liar claiming that it was actually 17 cents per gallon, instead of 13.5 when it was actually 8 cents per gallon?
From my source:
Natural gas = 27%, Nuclear = 19%, Combined = 46. Any reasonable person would call that “about half”.
Let’s see, let’s take the 2 month total from 2015 from your source: 192,343 + 137,732 = 330,075 / 695,714 = 47.4 %. Any reasonable person who was thinking before they spoke would also call that “about half”.
I’ll concede this point, and apologize. It was late at night, and I was tired and in no condition to attempt arithmetic. Mea culpa. I am sorry.
Apology accepted. Thank you.
There is a Tesla charging station on the side of the humble Inyokern Market, near the junction of I-395 and 14.. I believe it’s been operational for a month or so. i drive by it twice a day and I have yet to see a car in one of the parking spaces.
I am typing these posts from an expensive hotel in Cannon Beach, a town on the Oregon Coast located 200 miles from Seattle and 85 miles from Portland, and popular with affluent travelers from those cities. There are three Tesla “superchargers” at the hotel, and three “high power” Clipper Creek DC chargers. This is the third night here, and I’ve yet to see a single car at any of the chargers.
Followup: There was an 85 kWh Tesla there today. I just talked to the owner.
– The Tesla chargers here are 240v, 80A. He told me they take about 4 hours to refill 80% of the battery.
– The “superchargers” take 40 minutes to refill 80% of the battery. This is a refill rate of 4.75 to 5.5 miles a minute. A car similar to a Tesla Model S — say, a Volvo S80 or a Mercedes E550 — would get about 25 mpg on the highway, and would refill at a rate of about 125 miles a minute at a gas pump.
– The range on 80% of the battery is a maximum of 220 miles. “If you drive it like you want to drive it,” the range is 190 miles. (Tesla’s stated range numbers assume driving on flat ground at 55 mph, which no one does in real life.) From either of the two figures, Pacific NW winter range is 20% less, i.e. 150 to 175 miles.
– The Tesla owner drove from Seattle to Cannon Beach, a distance of 205 miles measured from downtown. He stopped in Centralia, Washington to refuel at a “supercharger.” We drove here in my pickup truck without having to stop. I refueled the pickup at a gas station. It took the attendant less than 5 minutes to put 19 gallons in. The Tesla driver needed about 4 hours to add the same amount of range.
– Everything he told me pretty much matched my expectations.
http://i.imgur.com/cTz327R.jpg
I just realized something. When I stopped for that 19 gallons of diesel, we’d driven not just from Seattle to Cannon Beach, but another 130 or so miles in the vicinity, i.e., to Astoria and back one night, to Manzanita and back, and up to Ft. Stevens state park and back.
In a Tesla, it’d have taken more than an hour at a “supercharger” — two stops, by the way — to download the same 340 miles of range, and almost 5 hours at the hotel’s less powerful Tesla chargers. Again, my pickup spent less than 5 minutes connected to the gas pump to download 340 miles worth of range.
The 2,000 plus MPG scam. What they are doing is just short trips on the battery alone. Over time the engine kicks in and they use some fuel. They measure the fuel and the miles done, if over 2,000 they claim 2,000 mpg.
Stupid and deceptive.
If you live in a 1kwhr house and you start charging a 85 KWHR car, you will go thought the price tier roof and clock up standing charges like wild fire.
Grey, you must be putting a lot of words into my mouth. It’s certainly NOT a scam, nor is it deceptive. You seem to feel like there is some huge philosophical argument going on regarding plug in hybrids. This is ALL in your head, and you’re projecting it onto me.
A 1 kWh house? Your crazy tier system doesn’t even sound like somewhere in the US. Last month, my family used 1270 kWh. If I got the Ford, it would be 37 kWh every 4 or 5 days, which would cost me a whole $3.70. That will add a whopping 3.70 * 6 = $22.20 to my electric bill.
I can’t for the life of me imagine why people are philosophically against a technology. Are you also against Penn State on philosophical grounds? It’s plain irrationality.
Of course it’s deceptive. The metric of MPG is not appropriate if you are also getting energy from sources other than gasoline. How about MPPD? (miles per pixie dust)
William, it’s a simple calculation, which was clearly explained. The apparent deception comes from what you read into that statement.
It would be deceptive to say that someone who has a short commute is going to get 100 mpg. In reality, they are going to do a lot better than that. The best and most realistic picture I could paint was to list the approximate cost per mile for the EV portion and the IC portion. I did that and was close. The corrected numbers are 2-4 cents/mile for the EV and 7 – 25 cents per mile for an IC. That should give everyone an unbiased view of the driving costs of both technologies.
If that’s not good enough for you, then that’s your anti-technology agenda talking. I’m sorry that reality doesn’t support your apparent anti EV world view. One would think that the fact that someone who is completely anti -AGW and anti environmentalism and yet is NOT anti EV would indicate that the two are not linked.
However, if you are incapable of making a true criticism of AGW, maybe all you have left is a feeble and irrational bias against the things that AGW people advocate.
Nope, you said it yourself. In California over a few kwhrs you start paying 30 cents or so plus plus. Its a scam because you keep getting told electric cars cost 1 or 2 cents per mile but petrol costs a lot more. all bluff, bluster, lies and deception. An average annual mileage is about 10,000 or 195 per week. Assuming you can get near that, that’s a Tesla charge every week. Thus a weeks average electricity is 24 times 7 which is 168 kwhrs plus 85 kwhrs to charge your Tesla. Now look up the scale rates in California. But I bet you would need closer to two charges per week.
Why lie, why make deceptive claims? Because they are crap, useless. No new or cutting edge technology, just failed crap.
VikingExplorer
You say
I have “a true criticism of AGW”.
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has no discernible existence.
No evidence for AGW – none, zilch, nada – has been discovered by 3 decades of research conducted world-wide at a cost of more than $5billion each year.
I have no “bias” so I deplore and oppose the irrational, expensive, environmentally damaging and lethal things that AGW people advocate.
Richard
Grey, oh my goodness. This is a fact: 2-4 cents/mile for the EV and 7 – 25 cents per mile for an IC
If you think that’s a lie, you are beyond reason. I don’t live in CA.
I deceived no one. People read into what I said and deceived themselves. You may as well say that I deceived everyone in India, because their electricity costs are only 8 cents/kWh.
Richard, I agree 110%.
Talk about irony. I hate to tell you this, but you just revealed a tremendous irrational bias. I already gave the Penn State example. Hmmm, what else?
It’s like saying that because Charles Manson was associated with Dennis Wilson, therefore the Beach Boys are racist murderers.
VikingExplorer
Logic seems to evade you.
You agree that AGW has no discernible existence but respond to my having said
by saying
No, dear boy, when you get old enough you will understand that advocating “irrational, expensive, environmentally damaging and lethal things” for no discernible reason is dangerously insane.
There is no “irony”. There is only your dangerous insanity.
I was rational and I have no “bias”. Also, Penn State, Charles Manson, Dennis Wilson, and the beach boys are not relevant.
Richard
So, the question is: Is EV technology more like Penn State (which means that it’s just something that AGW people like), or is it “irrational, expensive, environmentally damaging and lethal”?
EV technology has been used in Diesel Electric locomotives since the 60s and 70s. Did my father, GE and EMD engage in promoting technology which is “irrational, expensive, environmentally damaging and lethal”?
EV technology is certainly not Irrational. The driving costs are 2-4 cents/mile, while ICE is 7 – 25 cents/mile.
EV technology is somewhat more expensive, but everyone is free to decide whether the lower driving costs are worth it. The two extremes are commuting a couple miles a day versus a truck driver crossing the country. Your mileage may vary.
EV technology is certainly not “environmentally damaging or lethal”.
Therefore, your bias against EV technology is irrational.
VikingExplorer
In classic global warming troll fashion, when shown to be ridiculously wrong you change the subject and pretend you said other than you did.
You said
I showed that was daft.
So, you now say
NO, dear boy, the question you asked and I answered was about “the things that AGW people advocate” and NOT about the singular thing of “EV technology”.
The “things that AGW people advocate” are irrational because – as you admit – they have no valid purpose, and they include increased energy costs (renwables), higher electricity prices (renewable subsidies), higher food costs and prices (biofuel mandates), environmental destruction (windfarms, palm oil plantations, etc). Several of these effects have already killed many people so they are lethal.
You were wrong. You were shown to be wrong, When you become a man you will be able to admit when you are wrong.
Richard
>> global warming troll fashion
Since I’ve advocated nothing here except for EV technology, and yet you call me a global warming troll, I can only conclude that you believe it’s impossible to be completely anti AGW and pro electrical technology.
And yet I am. I’ve explained why I am, and why it’s got nothing to do with AGW theory. However, you are unreachable and unteachable.
It would be deceptive to say that someone who has a short commute is going to get 100 mpg. In reality, they are going to do a lot better than that.
Among EVs sold in the United States, the best fuel economy is 124 mpg-e. Any hybrid will get less than that by virtue of burning gasoline.
VikingExplorer
Go sit on the naughty step! Now!
I accurately wrote saying to you
and I concluded saying
But you have not admitted you were wrong although you obviously know you were..
Instead you continue to change the subject and you whine that you are not a troll.
Dear boy, that is not acceptable behaviour when you are among adults.
Go sit on the naughty step!
Richard
I would guess that they don’t care about that. Your new battery is yours to keep. However, one criticism of Tesla is that all the cars are connected to their network, so they know where they all are, and where they have been. It’s perhaps equivalent to OnStar. A bit creepy if you ask me.
I have a friend who uses an electric car and who I could see vehemently denouncing the above pictures and video as all staged. For those who have drunk the kool-Aid no evidence of lunacy will suffice.
Funny how, even with the over $1billion subsidies since 2010, which don’t even include the gas taxes avoided, EVs in the US only represent some 1.8% of total vehicles on the road.
It sure puts the ‘boon’ in government boondoggle.
I agree that all subsidies should end. However, that would include the tremendous subsidies (3.6B?) that foreign automakers received from southern states, and the massive bailouts that the big 2 received. I was recently in SC, and saw a massive BMW plant. This is another government boondoggle.
Japan is alleged to be manipulating their currency in order to give their automakers an $8000/car export subsidy. US big 3 subsidies amount to about $3000 per vehicle.
Your implication that only EV gets a subsidy is incorrect. Everyone does this. This is how the game is played. It’s not right, but as long as States (and Nations) are acting like companies and competing with each other for business, it’s inevitable.
Mr. Viking,
Just a word: without supporting evidence for your assertions, you are not at all convincing. To persuade us that the tax and regulatory support electric car manufacturers get is comparable to that given to internal combustion engine vehicle manufacturers you will need to provide some evidence (as in cites to reliable sources).
Not going to bother? Fine! #(:)) Have fun yelling.
Janice
P.S. To point out the weaknesses of a given technology is not to be “against” it. You raise an interesting question by your vehemence…. why are you so tirelessly trying to convince us that electric vehicles are a something people should buy?
You claim that US “big 3 subsidies amount to about $3000 per vehicle”. I highly doubt that, but in any case, it’s a red herring since we are talking about the bogus industry of EV’s, not car companies. To the extent they have gotten into the climate game due to government incentives, then, yes, they are being subsidized.
Janice, wait, this is the first time I brought up subsidies. How can you say “Not going to bother”. Did you expect me to respond before you had even finished your posting your comment?
My source for the $3k is this.
>> why are you so tirelessly trying to convince us that electric vehicles are a something people should buy?
Where did you get that idea? You’re reading into what I’m saying. My first comment was that the video in the head post meant nothing in the grand scheme of things. People were attaching the whole AGW theory onto a company, and then claiming they were hypocrites.
The rest was me simply countering anti EV propaganda. I never made any attempt to convince anyone to buy EVs. In fact, while I save money using a PIH, it would be really nice if the rest of you would buy big honking trucks, Shelby’s and Corvettes, or whatever gets the least gas mileage. That way, the plants will stay fed.
Bruce, the Japanese subsidy is greater than the EV subsidy. The car companies are almost all ICEs, with EVs being a tiny fraction. Therefore, the massive auto industry bailout helped ICEs a tremendous amount. If those companies had been allowed to fail, like they were supposed to in a free market, then the new companies that arose from the ashes would almost certainly have been completely new and fresh. It’s very likely that these start ups would have included a lot more innovation, without so much technical debt.
My point is that people with an anti EV bias clamoring for the free market by demanding an end to subsidies are disingenuous, because they advocate that only EVs be denied a subsidy. I’m a total free market advocate, so I want a complete separation of government and economics.
If those companies had been allowed to fail, like they were supposed to in a free market, then the new companies that arose from the ashes would almost certainly have been completely new and fresh. It’s very likely that these start ups would have included a lot more innovation, without so much technical debt.
Other way around. More than 80% of battery electric cars have been made by the major car companies. Why? Because, thus far, every EV has lost money. The cars are made for strategic reasons, mainly access to big U.S. markets.
Gas taxes avoided amount to roughly 1/2-cent/mile. The average EV is driven 9,000 miles a year, so we’re talking $45. Tell me: Do you think a $45 a year matters to an EV buyer? I don’t.
Here’s a suggestion. All the Tesla employees should have bicycle generators instead of chairs at their desks so they can generate electricity while working. That electricity could be used for recharging swapped-out Tesla batteries at all of their Battery Swap facilities.
Tesla has about 10,600 employees. Subtract out the production employees who are not behind desks and I still believe the remaining employees could generate sufficient electricity to support all of the Tesla’s existing battery swap facilities.
That should get rid of the negative publicity brought on by those embarrassing diesel generators, eh?
(Hey… at WUWT, we’re always here to help.)
Search term Elon Musk rent seeker
What is that lovely paint color? Is that Fleet White?
Increasing demand on the grid with electric cars and decreasing supply through renewables is going to destabilize everything.
Then politicians will want to sell you the new smart grid and smart cities, after the current grid is broken.
EVs won’t place much extra demand on the grid, because there won’t be many of them pending a) a battery breakthrough, b) the manufacturing cost curve of that battery (typically 10 to 15 years to hit bottom), and c) the vehicle replacement cycle (typically about 20 years to get ’em all). If the whole fleet was electric, generation would need to expand 20-25%. Some neughborhood transformers would need replacement. But there’d be plenty of warning, plus much of the increased generation would take place at night.
There are 254 million registered highway-capable vehicles in the United States. The data are a bit complicated because of definition changes, but near as I can tell there are 135 million cars, 50 million light-duty pickups and small vans, and 8 million motorcycles. There are another 61 million vehicles, including heavy-duty pickups, big delivery trucks, buses, and semi-trucks.
http://tinyurl.com/usrdvhcls
The cars are driven an average of 13,500 miles a year, or 1.8 trillion miles a year for the car fleet.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm
A typical EV gets 3 miles to the kWh. Actually, a little better than that, but today’s EVs are (with only a few exceptions) small vehicles owned mostly by people in mild climates. More on this in a bit.
http://tinyurl.com/eveconmy
Combine that, and you get about 600 billion additional kWh needed to power the whole U.S. car fleet. That’s roughly 15% of U.S. electricity generation of 4 trillion kWh per year. But that’s only a subtotal, and needs to be adjusted upward to between 16% and 17%, for reasons I will show presently.
If the whole fleet was electrified, I think fuel economy would drop to more like 2.75 miles/kWh. There already have been gains in EV fuel economy since the first generation appeared only a few years ago. We’d certainly have further gains from better motors, so-called “hub” motors in each wheel of a car, and better interconnections between components. But I think those gains would be more than counterbalanced by larger cars becoming electrified; mainstream drivers not being as range-conscious or as fuel economy conscious as the current EV ownership group; and a lot more EVs in places where terrain and weather are less friendly. At 2.75 miles per kWh, electrifying the passenger car fleet would add 16%-17% to electricity generation needs.
Then there are the 50 million light-duty pickups and small vans. (Note: A “light-duty” pickup includes half-ton full-size pickups, i.e., the F-150, along with mid-sized pickups like the Toyota Tacoma and the Chevy Colorado.) Those vehicles aren’t generally driven as far, because many of them are commercial and are more likely to be used only within cities. However, they are heavier, less aerodynamic, carry cargo loads, and are often driven harder.
This is a wild-a** guess, but I’m going to say an average of 9,000 miles a year at 2 miles to the kWh. If that’s true, that would add 225 billion kWh of new electricity demand, or another 5% to 6%. Combine this with the passenger car fleet, and we’re up to 20% to 25% more electricity demand. We’re still not including the 61 million heavy vehicles, most of which I’d not expect to be electrified for the foreseeable future.
How do you know you are exchanging a new shiny battery for your new shiny battery.
[rather ” for your old shiny battery”? .mod]
I think the exchange issue would be a show-stopper. Even if it were possible to exchange batteries, I’d never do it for the reason already given, i.e., will the battery I take in exchange have the same capacity as the one I dropped off? Another show-stopper would be the expense (discussed below). A third would be battery compatibility and simple mechanical engineering. Today’s EV batteries are custom-designed for each vehicle. And each EV has its own battery management software. None of this stuff is interchangeable among manufacturers, and there are no signs that it will change.
On the cost front: Today’s public chargers have been a bust. In fact, the federally-funded “Blink” network went bankrupt. More than 90% of EV charging is done at home. Why? Well, if you charge at a so-called “public charger,” you will typically pay triple the retail rate for the juice, unless you have the top-end Tesla, in which case the “free” charging is captured in the price of the car. And you will re-charge at excruciatingly slow rates, which I detailed elsewhere. Tesla does not release its charging numbers, but I’d be quite surprised if their “supercharger” network does more than 10% of the charging of Tesla EVs.
I don’t expect any of this to change for the foreseeable future. Therefore, I think the only practical solution will be a quantum leap in battery energy density, along with a quantum decline in battery cost per kWh of storage capacity. If we get the first without the second, EVs will remain so expensive that they are niche vehicles. If we get the second without the first, then EVs will be popular as city commuter cars but not as full-service cars.
It’s impossible for me to predict battery technology. I can say that there has been a steady stream of press release claims that are breathlessly passed along by the various EVangelists, none of which have proven out. There have been incremental improvements in lithium chemistry, to the point that I expect a doubling of energy density in the next few years, along with a halving of cost/kWh from the current $300 or so/kWh.
This means that today’s Nissan LEAF, which will average about 60 miles on a charge using the recommended 80% of the battery, is going to double to 120 miles on a charge. But this is a year-’round average, and in a mild climate. In a Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis, or New York winter, that double-range LEAF will be lucky to get 70 miles on a charge using 80% of the battery. I firmly believe that this will not be sufficient to lift that car, or others we’ve heard are on the drawing board (Chevy Bolt, Tesla Model 3) out of the enthusiast niche category.
And I haven’t gotten to the matter of the price of these cars, which even with the federal and state tax credits is much higher than their gasoline equivalents. Therefore, I’m finding it hard to believe that EVs will find true mainstream acceptance in the next 10 to 15 years — unless there is a battery breakthrough that comes out of left field and surprises us all.
Nice write-up, I think you are spot on for most of it. One question I have is where you come up with battery energy density doubling within a few years? My understanding is all of the low hanging fruit has been picked, and that barring a breakthrough in physics or chemistry gains are limited to only a few more percent before it hits some theoretical limits. Some people seem to think that it will follow a “Moore’s Law” type of increase where energy density will double every few years, but I don’t see it that way. I think it will be more like Carnot cycle efficiency where there is a theoretical limit that will not be crossed, and that for lithium battery technology we are not far from that limit now. I completely agree that the two main limiting factors in EV technology is battery energy density and cost per kWh, but without a fundamental breakthrough in battery physics (which I don’t see happening anytime soon, if ever) neither of these will progress much from here. Until I see that breakthrough I am skeptical of EV ever being anything more than a niche.
One question I have is where you come up with battery energy density doubling within a few years? My understanding is all of the low hanging fruit has been picked, and that barring a breakthrough in physics or chemistry gains are limited to only a few more percent before it hits some theoretical limits.
This is what I’ve been reading about the EVs due in ’17-’18. Apparently, there are different versions of lithium chemistry, some more energy dense than others. I sucked at chemistry, so that’s all I can say. Or maybe it’s just a matter of manufacturing cost efficiencies. If I had more energy and WUWT had a search function, I’d find the post from about six months ago where Anthony Watts discussed the newer lithium technology.
Some people seem to think that it will follow a “Moore’s Law” type of increase where energy density will double every few years, but I don’t see it that way.
Nor do I. The whole Moore’s Law thing has spoiled a lot of people, who wrongly assume that everything will follow that path.
without a fundamental breakthrough in battery physics (which I don’t see happening anytime soon, if ever) neither of these will progress much from here. Until I see that breakthrough I am skeptical of EV ever being anything more than a niche
We’re in heated agreement about that much.
I thought that when I wrote “This is a fact: 2-4 cents/mile for the EV and 7 – 25 cents per mile for an IC”, that it would be easy for people to plug in their own electricity rates. However, based on the fact that the first time, I made an arithmetic error, and the numbers came out really high, and no one seemed to notice, I guess people have less attention to detail than they should. So, I decided to calculate EV driving costs at 3 different electricity rates.
2015 Ford C-Max Energi Plug-in Hybrid: 34/42 kWh / 100 miles, @ur momisugly .10/kWh, OC = .034 – .042 $/mile
2015 Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid: 26/33 kWh / 100 miles, @ur momisugly .10/kWh, OC = .026 – .033 $/mile
2015 Chevy Volt Plug-in Hybrid: 33/36 kWh / 100 miles, @ur momisugly .10/kWh, OC = .033 – .036 $/mile
EV Average $/mile range:
.07 / kWh => .020 $/mile (Toyota), .024 $/mile (Chevy), .027 $/mile (Ford)
.10 / kWh => .029 $/mile (Toyota), .034 $/mile (Chevy), .038 $/mile (Ford)
.20 / kWh => .058 $/mile (Toyota), .068 $/mile (Chevy), .076 $/mile (Ford)
Of course, the IC driving cost range is dependent on gasoline costs (ref)
IC Average $/mile range:
$2.00 / gallon => .04 $/mile (VW Passat TDI @ur momisugly 51 mpg), .17 $/mile (GMC Savana @ur momisugly 12 mpg)
$3.00 / gallon => .06 $/mile (VW Passat TDI @ur momisugly 51 mpg), .25 $/mile (GMC Savana @ur momisugly 12 mpg)
$4.00 / gallon => .08 $/mile (VW Passat TDI @ur momisugly 51 mpg), .33 $/mile (GMC Savana @ur momisugly 12 mpg)
Summary: Based on the above, the EV range is from 2 cents/mile to 7 cents/mile. If you’re electricity costs more than 20 cents per kWh, then you’ve got bigger problems than what car to drive. You need to move or protest, because at that rate, everything is more expensive, and businesses are fleeing your area. I just read that big manufacturing is attracted to the South because the TVA electricity rates are so low (heavily subsidized). I know, it’s not fair.
Based on the above, the IC range is from 4 cents/mile to 33 cents/mile. You can look here to see the range of gas prices. Again, California is just plain stupid. At least Alaska and Hawaii have the excuse that they are kind of out of the way.
Conclusion: In my area, the gas price is around $2.60, so the VW Passat would be 5 cents/mile. My kWh price is currently 10 cents, but it could go up a bit. At slightly above current rates, the Chevy would be 4 cents/mile (as Jake guessed).
This is a bit vague about investments in new generation capacity. With this administration waging industrial warfare against the coal industry in particular, and the energy sector in general, it will probably get worse before it gets better. Some experts indicate that they think gasoline will go up to $5/gallon in 2016. No one knows for sure. This would make the PIH a smarter choice.
My guess would be that it’s more likely that gas prices will double than it is for electricity rates to double. If they both double, the PIH is still the better choice. To make the Passat a good choice, gas prices would have to come down while kWh goes up.
People who buy cars don’t think like that, nor should they. If they did a cost calculation, they’d be including a lot more on the EV side of the ledger, especially battery degradation, plus the price difference after the tax credit. (Which, by the way. a lot of people who buy the cheaper EVs only partially qualify for.) Or they simply would look at the LEAF’s record as dead worst in depreciation.
Alternatively, they might look at a lease. Last I heard, a LEAF lease goes for $250/month. The comp is a well equipped Versa hatchback, which leases for $150/month — or less. They’ll save at most 7 cents a mile (as a lessee, not having to worry about depreciation), which amounts to at most $70/month. They’ll gloss over the cost of installing a Level 2 charger, and tell themselves that the other $30/month is lost in the noise.
So they get the LEAF, and realize that it will go 60 miles between charges. Sometimes more, sometimes less. At some point they say to themselves: Why did I do this, again? To save the earth? Because I was curious? Alternatively, they get a Tesla, aka a Rolex on wheels. They couldn’t give a rat’s a** about how much anything costs. It’s a fast car, and the like that iPad in the middle because they’re techies. It’s bling for nerds, and that’s enough.
In no case is an EV a genuine economy purchase. Unless there’s a special situation, an EV is for an experimenter of one kind or another, with the emphasis on nerd. I say this as an Ev-owning nerd myself, but a realistic nerd without illusions.
This sis complete fiction. Harris Ranch has a large number of superchargers, so why would anybody use a diesel generator to charge at a fraction of the speed or even know that there would be one at the battery swap station? Why would Tesla set up a relatively small portable diesel generator if they wanted a permanent power station? Tesla owners would sue if they had to use that in anything but an emergency situation.
It wasn’t hard to find a Tesla owner who was there that day to confirm that Tesla used that as an emergency backup. You would think that if it were a legitimate video, the person would have walked up to somebody and asked what was going on.
If you think it’s legitimate, send somebody there how to take a video. Do you really think that the most popular supercharger in the state of California could be replaced by a small diesel generator and nobody would notice, aside from a single video? This would be so incredibly easy to corroborate if it were legitimate that it’s absurd anybody could be so gullible.
I see no evidence that it’s “complete fiction.” And, by the way, neither you nor anyone else here knows what the electrical output of that generator is, so your comment about “charg(ing) at a fraction of the speed” has no factual basis, at least from the evidence presented thus far.
Haggy, Jake is right. As other people have pointed out, the supercharger station is across the street. This is an overflow area. It’s just there as a backup. Your comment “charge at a fraction of the speed” is perplexing. What would make you think that it would be a fraction of the speed?
Even my home generator could handle the slow charge speed of around 6-7 kW. The Tesla supercharger provides 120 kW. This diesel looks to be of similar size to the one in the video, and it’s 174 kW.
I forwarded this page to a Compliance Manager at the local air district as a possible invalid use of PERP (portable equipment registration program). Use of PERP-registered equipment as part of a stationary source operation invalidates the registration, making the engine subject to the requirement to obtain a stationary permit. Of course, a stationary permit for such a prime-use (non-emergency) engine would end up requiring a lean-burn natural gas-fired engine with a selective catalytic reduction system rather than the cheap diesel engine.
The idea of a battery swapping station is ridiculous IMHO. The Tesla Model S battery ways 1200 lbs and has plumbing for cooling system. It’d be like pulling into a shop and having robots ripe the engine out of ICE car and putting a new one in every 300 miles. You can keep undoing and redoing fasteners like that over and over without breaking a bolt or striping out the threads. Not to mention the uncertainty of the quality of the replacement battery you are getting. The whole thing is a non-starter.
Not “ripping out the engine,” but more like swapping out the gas tank. In any case, I agree that battery swapping is a non-starter. It never occurred to me until this thread that there might be real fraud involved. I figured it was merely promotional hype, not a scheme to squeeze more tax credits out of the State of California. If the latter is the case, then Tesla needs to be prosecuted for it.
Regardless of what Tesla is doing or thinking about battery swapping, the underlying idea seems really good to me. The car would have to be designed for this, but read this. It basically removes several major stumbling blocks, with ten times the energy density, and half the manufacturing cost of conventional lithium-ion batteries.
The infrastructure change would be easier, since instead of bringing high power chargers to current gas stations, it would be just another liquid fuel. It would probably be just a matter of going from 3 levels of gasoline to 2, and replacing it with this battery fuel.
Sometimes in life you have to decide to
http://www.chevymall.com/images/ccl9345_dt.jpg
In the past few days I’ve been running diesel through an electric spray-gun to create a flame thrower device that I’ve been using to clear brambles.
It’s certainly fun, but is this environmentally friendly?
Or should I just be spraying them with roundup.
I still have a large area of bramble to clear.
All advice appreciated.