Full disclosure: I own an electric car, and I think they are useful for city transportation. However, having owned one for a decade, I can say that it hasn’t been practical or cost-effective. John Hardy believes they are the future, I’ll let you, the reader, decide. – Anthony Watts
The demise of the Western auto industry: Part 1 – the basics
By John Hardy
Preamble
In the West, almost all climate change activists consider Electric Vehicles (EVs) important because they are believed to emit less CO2 per mile. In contrast, many (but not all) climate sceptics consider them a waste of space because they regard them as a solution to a non-problem: they believe that all that EVs are good for is virtue signalling.
Actually, and quite regardless of “the environment”, EVs are poised to inflict the mother of all disruptions on the automotive industry. This can’t be explained (or dismissed) in a soundbite, so this is the first of three posts setting out why this might be so. This first post is mostly background. The second addresses the problem for the established automakers. The third addresses some misapprehensions about EVs.
The LA times reported in 2009 that the outgoing CEO of GM said that the biggest mistake he made was to kill the electric EV1 and throw away the technology lead that GM had acquired[1] , [2]. It isn’t just GM. The turgid response of all the big Western automakers leaves them at risk of being overtaken by agile Eastern competitors in the same way that the Swiss (mechanical) watch industry was overtaken in the 1980s by agile Eastern competitors making cheap accurate quartz watches[3]
What is so great about electric motors?
The internal combustion engine (ICE) is a complex beast which needs lots of air, lots of cooling and which generates large volumes of smelly exhaust. It has a high parts count, is a high maintenance device, and is plagued by noise and vibration. Worst of all it has an absurdly narrow torque band and won’t run at all below (typically) 500 r.p.m. or so. A lot of the complexity and expense in a modern ICE car is focused on minimizing these deficiencies.
By contrast, an electric motor is a model of flexibility and simplicity. Figure 1 shows the floor pan of the Tesla Model S.
The entire drive train consists of two metal cans, sandwiching a fixed-ratio final drive. The motor revs to about 15,000 r.pm. It produces good torque at zero r.p.m. and (in some models) peaks at over 400HP. No clutch, torque converter or variable-ratio gearbox is needed. The motor is an ordinary AC induction motor. It has no brushes and (apart from the bearings) one moving part. It contains no rare earth magnets. The inverter is solid state. No exhaust system, turbocharger, oil pump, coil, distributer, intake air filter, complex vibration damping or heat shields; no pistons, valves, pushrods, camshafts, lifters, catalytic converters……….
The end result is smooth, seamless but ruthless acceleration and whisper-quiet cruising. Some models have a smaller drive train between the front wheels. The two together can accelerate a 4,000lb car at around 1G from standstill to 60 m.p.h. in under 3 seconds.
There is more. The inverter can adjust the motor torque in milliseconds so traction control is far more accurate than for a piston engine. (Elon Musk once Tweeted “Tesla dual motor cars are also all-wheel drive. Main goal of dual motor was actually insane traction on snow. Insane speed was a side effect” [4] ).
The motor can also act as a brake, which recovers energy (much of the energy used to climb a hill is put back into the battery rolling down the other side). The same characteristic makes it possible to drive on just one pedal; press to go, release to stop. It also saves on brake wear (one example was an electric taxi that did over 100,000 miles on the original brake pads).
Why now?
Electric drive dominated the early years of the automobile, and the electric motor has never ceased to be vastly better than a piston engine for driving a vehicle. There were however two big snags and one lesser one with electric drive. All three have been solved in recent years.
The first problem was energy storage. Piston engines may be inefficient, but motor fuel packs a huge amount of energy into a small volume. Once a distribution infrastructure is in place, the fuel is easily and quickly replenished which allowed essentially unconstrained travel. By contrast the lead acid batteries that dominated electric traction until recently were totally outclassed on both counts; too little energy and too much time to replenish.
Enter the lithium ion battery. Compared with lead-acid, this stores maybe three times the energy per unit of weight or volume (some a bit more, some a bit less). It has a far longer life than a lead-acid battery, is tolerant of partial charging, has no significant memory effect problems and (critically) can be charged very fast. 20 minutes for 80% charge is easily achievable with little effect on cycle life using modern batteries if you can suck power out of the wall fast enough [5]
The second big change has been the development of power electronics. Until the 1970s, electric motors were hard to control [6]. At worst they were either on or off. At best, control was lethargic. That all changed with so-called Vector Control. Inside a modern motor controller (sometimes called an “inverter” if the motor is AC) there are a number of huge transistors, capable of switching hundreds of amps. With cunning and some capacitors these can produce virtually infinitely variable output. A modern EV can be inched along at a creeping pace with far more precision than an ICE car equipped with a clutch, and with less effort: no clutch slipping needed.
The third, lesser, but still important change has been the growing capability of digital processors to do complex calculations in real time. Until quite recently, electric motoring has depended upon series (brushed) direct current (DC) motors. These work well at low speeds but they tend to run out of torque at high r.p.m. and are more difficult to cool. The advent of modern microprocessors has made it possible to synthesise three phase alternating current (AC) at the necessary power levels from a battery. This in turn allows the use of simple induction motors – no brushes to wear out and better cooling. An induction motor is essentially a hunk of iron on a stick inside a tube containing some electrical windings. Machines don’t come much simpler. [Some manufacturers prefer permanent magnet motors. They are smaller and lighter yet, but rely on rare earth magnets which creates supply issues. These motors can also terminate themselves in a sudden melt-down if they get too hot. I am not a fan.]
What remains to be done?
Several things need to happen before EVs become acceptable as a complete replacement for piston engine cars: broadly price, range and fast-charge
Firstly price. This is partly an issue of scale. If you make a million of the same model car, cost per car is a lot less than if you make 10,000. The financial services company UBS recently tore down and analysed a Chevy Bolt. Their conclusion? “total cost of consumer ownership can reach parity with combustion engines from 2018” [7]
Secondly range and thirdly fast charge. The average private car in the UK does about 21 miles a day. In the US, it is about 30. Most people do most of their driving either commuting or local driving. The problem is the half-dozen trips a year to visit granny or go on holiday. There is also a small percentage of users who do a high daily mileage as part of their work.
My personal opinion is that a 300 mile range should work fine for almost everyone, so long as fast charge to 80% capacity takes no more than about 20 minutes. This is just based on the idea that I wouldn’t want to drive more than 300 miles without a coffee and a potty stop.
Tesla’s high-end cars are well past 300 mile range. Even the (relatively) humble Renault Zoe which initially had a 130 mile range has (or soon will have) a 250 mile range option. Fast charge has some distance to go yet in practice, but there is no intrinsic problem in reaching a 20 minute charge.
Price, range and fast charge. EVs are a “whole system” problem that goes far beyond just making a better box for the punter to sit in.
Conclusion
This has been a quick run-through of the theory of EVs. If you are not convinced, go and drive one. Trickle along at three miles an hour listening to the birds sing then floor it. By the time you reach 30 you will be convinced.
Part 2 of this series looks at the problems this creates for the established Western automakers, and part 3 considers common misconceptions which lead some people to conclude that EVs will not be viable in the near future.
References
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F#Response_from_General_Motors
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz_crisis
[4] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/560900676453433344
[5] Tests run by the author using a 3C charge rate and lithium iron phosphate cells showed a rate of capacity loss only slightly steeper than similar cells at a 0.5C charge rate [1C is a charge rate numerically equal to the Amp-hr capacity of the battery e.g. 40 Amps for a 40 Amp-hr battery]. A 3C is nominally a full charge in 20 minutes (1/3rd of an hour)
[6] http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1325757
[7] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/05/19/electric-vehicles-cost-conventional-cars-2018/
The power density of batteries is still inadequate, and the recharge time stated is highly questionable. The lifetime cost, having to replace the battery pack at some large percentage of the cost of the vehicle, and the pro-rata cost of electrical upgrades needed are still high.
Also the author completely ignores the fact that the free market has provided gasoline and diesel fueling facilities over a large area covering even rural roads. He ignores how long it will take to duplicate that and who is going to pay for it. Probably expects the taxpayer namely the poor guy that can’t afford the overpriced expensive EV to eat the cost.
In the UK the government is going to expect the Service Station Owners to Finance the Charging stations.
I think it was 3 for each station.
Yet another subsidy for the EVs.
,\AC Osborn – 3… pounds? Seems pretty cheap.
The recharging infrastructure already exists anywhere an electrical outlet exists.
No, 3 stations for each garage forecourt.
When there are enough electric cars on the road, I’m considering opening a refueling station for them – in the desert between LA and Vegas. At 250 miles, either high heat or cold, at least one steep mountain pass, they’ll have to stop. (That 300 mile per charge is as accurate as the EPA estimated mileage is, except people bitch about the latter ‘estimate’.) Can’t do it in the city, as the cost of that much acreage for all the parked cars would be prohibitive. Definitely have a restaurant – high priced menu, low cost food, as I’ll have all those bored, captive customers that have to come in out of the heat (or cold in winter). Cost a dollar to get into the bathrooms – like much of Europe charges. The gift shop will be similarly priced. Nice mark up on the electricity, too.
I’ll start counting my money as soon as the cars are on the road.
fIEtser November 5, 2017 at 11:44 am
“The recharging infrastructure already exists anywhere an electrical outlet exists.”
Energy density has no meaning for you non-technical types, does it? Maybe you think an electron is so small that any conductor can carry an infinite number of them?
The 80% charge ins about 20 minutes is what the Tesla can do now. People have driven them from coast to coast border to border in the US just using the supper charger network tesla has built. You basically drove three hours, Stop for 20 minutes to charge the car and get a bite to eat and then get back on the road for another 3 hours of driving.
1) I don’t usually eat every three hours.
2) Fast charging dramatically lowers the life expectancy of your battery pack.
Recently I saw a Tesla charging in Winnemucca. It was part of a 1000 mile trip from Wallula Gap to Henderson that including a 60 mile side trip to a mountain state park.
Steven seems to think like most city folks. If you want your to be restricted to driving to I-5 and I-80, just stay home and save the energy.
“2) Fast charging dramatically lowers the life expectancy of your battery pack.”
False. After 50K miles of testing of Nissan Leafs, one group that utilized FC, one that did not, the capacity difference declined by only 2.6%. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63700.pdf
“sceptics consider them a waste of space because they regard them as a solution to a non-problem”
That is just not what skeptics think but it is the cold hard truth. However I do agree with Mr Watts, that they could be helpful as urban commuter cars in polluted urban environments.
Nonetheless, I suspect the purpose of the anti-ICE vehicle movement is to get most people, sans elites, out of personally owned vehicles and onto socialized public transport-urban or rural.
Very little of the pollution in urban environments is coming from cars.
Exactly. Another canard ‘shot and down’.
Oh, okay. I was not aware of that, although I know that modern ICE vehicles are very clean compared to decades ago. So there is no good reason to replace ICE with EVs at all, for most of us.
“Very little of the pollution in urban environments is coming from cars.”
False. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, motor vehicles produce roughly one-half of pollutants like VOCs, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. Seventy-five percent of carbon monoxide emissions come from automobiles
The advantages of electric automobiles are significant. The rapid charging issue still needs work. Perhaps a bigger issue with gaining economies of scale is the poor business performance of Tesla, which is bleeding cash at an unsustainable rate.
The only advantage I can think of is not having to change the oil once every three months.
Wow, MarkW. You change oil every three months? My vehicle mandates oil changes every 10,000 miles. Assuming your engine has the same requirement, that would mean you drive about 40k miles/year! No wonder you’re not up for an EV.
Actually, my diesel requires an oil change every 7.5k miles. Still 30k miles per year. I love the range (>600 miles per tank) because I can drive from Reno to Southern Orange Co, Kalifornia, and pick where I buy fuel. Needless to say – all in Nevada. We don’t have to pay for the Bullet Train between WhoCares and WheresThat.
I’ve got an older vehicle, it says on the sticker every 5K miles or 3 months.
I like to change oil when the weather changes since I don’t have a garage. Thicker oil in the summer, thinner oil in the winter.
dpy6629
You forgot the energy supply issue. By 2040, all the energy currently obtained from petrol would need to come from electrons which still need to be generated and transported to point of sale. So, at a guess, that will require thousands more power stations and millions of tons more copper.
Transmission and distribution lanes are aluminum, not copper. The change in metals is done in the breaker panel at your house. I get your argument though, just different metals.
I go on a skiing trip every year from Cleveland, Ohio to Holiday Valley in New York, a trip of about 160 miles. I’d be very reluctant to make that trip in an EV in the dead of winter on very snow roads since cold reduces the efficiency and life of a battery and the trip can take any where from 3 hours to 6 hours depending on the road conditions. A few years ago they installed an EV charging station and based on its usage I would say that everyone else who goes there agrees with me; I have never seen it in use.
Probably because up until this year, there haven’t really been any EVs that could viably make that trip that weren’t a Tesla. I suspect that this year will be a little different now that the Chevy Bolt is around.
All of that is right except that it does not explain the ingenuity of an ICE.
The ICE is power plant & power converter in one box. It generates mechanical power out of chemical power.
The Electric Multi-Phase Motor is only the power converter. It converts electrical power from a battery to mechanical power. It does not contain the first step, the power plant.
So ultimately we deal with two different approaches. The ICE is about decentralization and mobilisation of an autonomous system, while the Electric Drive is trying to take advantage of an high efficiency power grid.
Sadly the latter option requires an intermediary power storage: The Battery. As such the Electric Drive Solution has a lower efficiency than the ICE at the moment.
We also have to compare this:
ICE & Gearbox: Expensive
Electric Motor with ECU & Inverter: Cheaper
Tank with Fuel: Cheap
Battery Pack with Cooling: Expensive
Of course, there is one advantage that every car racing enthusiast likes: E-Drive Torque Curve!
These arguments have been around for decades, yet the market has not responded, why?
Tesla has responded. Battery life data from operating model S cars shows that they will last 10 to 15 years. Some have passed 100,000 miles on the original battery in only a few years thanks to the rapid charging network tesla has built for the owners.
I won’t by a car that cannot get at least 200,000 miles in it life time I don’t like to switch cars anymore than once in ten years. I drive a golf car in my 550 and old community for short trips one thing I have learned is that batteries are expensive and what you spend on them would buy a lot of gasoline and get you a whole lot further and faster. O course I am in Arizona and 100+ daily temperature for four months a year are death to batteries no matter what kind.
Tesla is not the market. The market has remained unimpressed, we are still making 95 million cars a year so the “transition” will be a long one. That assumes of course that EVs are actually the answer to post ICE transport.
Care to show us the actual data that confirms Tesla car batteries last 10-15 years? Even Musk won’t say this. Methinks you are projecting existing data results out to this timespan to support this statement.
The market (EV sales) and roll out of charging stations has certainly increased and is gaining momentum.
All subsidized by taxpayers and ICE drivers, Griffie.
I drive 30-50K miles a year in addition to the 75-100K miles I fly. When I do manage to get into the office, my one way commute is 44 miles (the airport is only 18 miles). EV’s will not work for me, not with current technology anyway.
Tesla cars can do 200 miles in one day which will get you to and from the airport and or work no problem. For longer trips you can use the tesla supper charger network and do 900 miles in one day. All using current technology.
Steven, the Tesla super charger network is here http://www.hybridcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Tesla-Supercharger-Map_locations-for-2016_2015-01.jpg , That is a little sparse although better than it was. Journeys have to be planned not on where you need to go but on where Tesla has put a supercharger system (subsidized by ICE drivers of course). Note that a gas station distribution map all unsubsidized would not be readable at all at that scale due to the number of stations.
The other point that you do not seem to understand is if you run out of power in the middle of nowhere – you have to be recovered, nobody can lend/sell you a couple of gallons of gas – you are sitting in an expensive brick. I would expect during emergency evacuations such expensive bricks would be littering the interstates. Remember during a hurricane or other emergency entire regions may be without power for several days. I would say for that reason alone never have an electric car as a primary vehicle.
Sounds like a great market for trunk sized gasoline generators is coming. Just for emergency use. Probably take a couple or 3 hours for a reasonable, partial charge. I’ll want one when I buy a used EV at big discount. I’ll be putting in a small field of solar panels on my remote, off grid property to charge the car too. Panel prices have never been lower. Can’t wait!
I am surprised that the Plug In Hybrid (with a tiny ICE generator for partial recharging and thermal heat in winter) isn’t an option on many of the current EV’s on the market. This solves 90%+ of the actual EV issue.
Mazda is working on this, using a small rotary engine running only at optimum speed.
Thirty percent transmission loss through the grid. This penalty “currently” offsets the mechanical advantages of electric motors. The “local” electric generation in the Chevy Volt is the first step beyond ordinary hybrids, as it gets the mechanical advantages of nearly 100% electric drive.
Actually it is 8 to 15%.
Source?
The following is from the U.S. Energy Information Administration: Average of annual losses in 2011 through 2015. Estimated losses in 2015 for the entire United States were about 4.7%.
Last updated: February 16, 2017
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3
Actually it’s closer to 50%.
Transmission losses are a result of distance and primary voltage and Amps. Distribution losses are more based on wire sizing on the HV transformer to the secondary. Transformer losses are a function of utilization to name plate. T losses can be as high as 15%-20% but usually under 10%, and D losses can be nearly unlimited, but practically they are also within 10-15%. Anything more than that on Distribution, and you get voltage drops that begin brown-outs, and ultimately black outs when grid stability cannot be maintained. Overall, between both, 20%-25% is the point where Utilities do upgrades because they jut start losing money after that.
The EV growth on T&D will definitely put a strain on both grids. A big financial challenge, but not one that we can’t easily engineer a solution for. It’s not like we have to invent something new or haven’t already built a grid before. The world is moving to electrics for the long term future, so the Utility upgrade will be needed sooner or later anyway. And put Distribution underground, and start parallel HVDC grids in Transmission existing right of ways and plan to convert that over to HVDC too over the long term, just to reduce these losses. The current losses, no pun intended, will pay for the upgrades over the 50-75 year life cycle of the upgraded grid by reducing losses.
Earthling2, I can tell you never tried to site and build a High Voltage transmission line, existing ROW or not.
“Actually it’s closer to 50%.”
As usual, another MarkW claim with zero supporting evidence provided.
The electrical engineering professionals came up with a figure of 22.5% total losses between the generator and the user outlet. (http://electrical-engineering-portal.com). That part of the PE exam.
In this case I’d go with the pros, not government figures. The one set of gov. figures I looked at back calculated using receipts for electricity generated and figures for electrical energy sales. Piss poor way to do it.
Thirty per cent was the “standard of care” number. Like everything we think we might know, there are error bars. I have no reason to doubt your assessment. I will use 22.5% henceforth. Thanks.
Transmission loss in the UK is 1.5% according to Nationalgird. http://www2.nationalgrid.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8589942988
I imagine that that does not include loss in the local distribution system.
Wow, I’m not expert in electrical transmission losses. The 30% is a US government number. Philohippous suggests a better figure is 22.5%. It would take near superconductivity to get this down to 1.5%. UK is physically much smaller with no need to transmit hundreds, even thousands of miles. Lower line losses for direct current?
Not even close
Transmission losses are ~5%
EV motors are 3 times as efficient as ICE (90-95% vs 28-30%) not counting the more efficient direct drive versus traditional transmission.
In the UK, transmission loss is less than 2%, but much lower distances than in the US:
http://www2.nationalgrid.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8589942988
Vehicle emissions arguments are meaningless as current vehicles from 1990 on have such low emissions that they are often cleaner than ambient air. PM emissions are exceptionally low in current vehicles and are lower than the dust level in many areas.
If one wants to argue emissions you also have to account for bird kills and fired insects from wind and solar power plants when looking at EV’s. Nothing has zero emissions despite the hype California has put on electric vehicles.
Although EV’s are mechanically simpler, they are still much more costly than IC engines. And that will not change soon if ever. IC engines are also improving in efficiency with current advances such as GDI and more recent diesel cycle gasoline engines (Mazda) moving forward and improving thermal efficiency of gasoline engines to the 30-35% range.
Electric power from NG is 60% efficient at best at the source, but transmission losses and inverter losses for charging cut into that efficiency.
Then there is battery efficiency which decreases with age. Batteries also change efficiency depending on discharge rate and amount. Most batteries are efficient between 60 and 80% charge by drop significantly if charged to 100% or used to 10% charge. I suspect that none of these issues are accounted for by Greens hyping EV’s.
When I discussed Prius mileage calculations with CARB, they never considered that a used Prius with a less than fresh battery has higher fuel consumption than a Prius with a new battery. Range of a Prius on battery power alone can drop to <1/2 mile when the battery is a few years old (per a Prius owner's personal experience).
With both mass and volumetric energy density in the 40 to 80 times range for hydrocarbon fuels over batteries, I don't see the demise of ICE's soon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
Just read this article and realized that it was fat on Grand Statements, but slim on reality. Case in point, a 300 mile range is great in town, but when you have to evacuate from a city about to be hit with a hurricane, 300 mi in traffic is far less than that, and the 8 hours to recharge will still put you in the storm path. That 300 mile range is without heater/ac, significant payload, and highway driving without traffic. Not very realistic. An ambulance out of service while charging is useless to anyone. The systems must be easily re-energized to be effective, or they are just a niche toy.
The next issue with the availability of materials for the batteries, motors, and generators when used in hybrid form. Almost all of these materials are sourced from overseas, and I can tell you that the cost to the enviroment in China especially is huge. These are not zero emission viehicles, the emissions are displaced across the big pond. Fly in Shanghai and sample the air there it tastes like metal.
Electric viehicles have a place in various niches that are quite effective. Factories with electric forklifts are a good example. Virtually unlimited power, adequate storage for interchangeable batteries, and a controlled enviroment allowing for optimal performance. None of this exists in the real world.
I realize the author believes many things, however what is believed and what is reality are two different things. For electric viehicles to become wide spread many things must be overcome.
1. A recharging/swapping solution must be available at time scales and costs comparable to filling a gasoline fuel tank.
2. The energy density of the batteries must improve to be able to lighten the batteries allowing for the viehicle frame to be more protective, and improve efficiency.
3. Costs of the systems must reduce to the point that an average person may purchace one for the primary viehicle.
4. Materials needed to fabricate the car must have reliable sourcing to allow for ease of fabrication, reducing costs.
5. Stable power systems capable of handling the charging of millions of batteries must be defined and planned for.
These are just a few of the long list of issues to be resolved. This is not insurmountable, but given current tech available, unrealistic at this time or the near future. As an energy source, electricity is one of the most expensive, and inefficient forms to store and use on a portable basis. This is physics plain and simple, no belief will make it otherwise.
I looked at the tesla owner forum. OF those Tesla owners that decided to evacuate all made it out of the state in 24 hours. With the supper charger network in Florida you go 900 miles in a day with about 3 stops for charging each about 20 minutes.
In contrast many ICE owners never made it out of the state due to gas stations running out of gas and had to use the public shelter until power rand gas had been restored.
works great when there arent many Teslas on the road, scale it up and that 20 minutes rapidly turns it to excrement
Yeah. If all those ICE owners had EVs some would still be waiting for a charge.
How long can one sit in a traffic jam before their batteries run out?
@ur momisugly Tom in florida
The car consumes almost zero joules when it is still. — it doesn’t idle
“Yeah. If all those ICE owners had EVs some would still be waiting for a charge.”
If the demand goes up, so will the supply of charging stations.
“1. A recharging/swapping solution must be available at time scales and costs comparable to filling a gasoline fuel tank.”
Tesla has built a supper charging network that will recharge a tesla battery back to 80% in about they time it takes to eat a fast food meal. https://www.tesla.com/findus#/bounds/49.38,-66.94,25.82,-124.39?search=supercharger,destination%20charger,&name=us
“2. The energy density of the batteries must improve to be able to lighten the batteries allowing for the viehicle frame to be more protective, and improve efficiency.”
Earlier this year a tesla was rear ended on the freeway. The trunk was obliterated. but there was no damage to the passenger compartment. The truck was stuck on top of the Tesla battery. and the vehicles had to be towed apart The tesla didn’t catch fire. The big rig truck lost its radiator, front bumper, both front wheels and the steering mechanism and the engine didn’t work. Yes further battery improvements will help but what we have right now is very good.
“3. Costs of the systems must reduce to the point that an average person may purchace one for the primary vehicle.”
The base model tesla model 3 costs $35,000 which is the average purchase price for most cars today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/05/04/new-car-transaction-price-3-kbb-kelley-blue-book/26690191/4. Materials needed to fabricate the car must have reliable sourcing to allow for ease of fabrication, reducing costs.
5. Stable power systems capable of handling the charging of millions of batteries must be defined and planned for.”
The grid today can handle 150million electric cars today fi all were plugged into a 120V outlets. The 120V outlet can supply enough power overnight to provide the daily average driving distance people need. However if people decide to install high power chargers additional home wiring is needed and maybe a new transformer on the utility side of the connection. For larger high speed public chargers (for example a tesla supper charger site) the installer needs to work with the utility to insure enough power is delivered to the site to handle the load.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/518066/could-electric-cars-threaten-the-grid/
“The next issue with the availability of materials for the batteries, motors, and generators when used in hybrid form. ”
Tesla doesn’t use rare earth magnet in its electric motor. IT just uses capper and steel. Current batteries used in EVs use Cobalt which is a concern for some people based on currently published proven reserves. However much the worlds cobalt is just sitting on the bottom of the ocean in the form of Manganese nodules or other seafloor deposits.
https://www.isa.org.jm/files/documents/EN/Brochures/ENG9.pdf
Awesome! Then subsidies aren’t required! Next year, everyone is going to be buying a Tesla. It’s so obvious. ICE engines will disappear without governments dictating it by 2019. Problem solved.
You wouldn’t want to swap your new battery for one of unknown lifespan. If you have to travel on a busy weekend, the number of people wanting to charge and have a meal, would be much greater. The queue would be longer than the changing time.
Do you do marketing for Tesla, Steven?
Fast charging is murder on battery life. What if you don’t want to eat a fast food meal every 3 hours?
‘I own an electric car, and I think they are useful for city transportation.’
There are niche applications such as yours for which PEVs are quite well suited. Government is pushing them as a universal replacement for ICE vehicles. Showing the short comings of . . . government.
I also am a fan of electric cars but it has little to do with any claimed environmental benefits .
The EV machines differs from a gas powered vehicle not all that much – modern gas powered cars use electricity to perform most every task (except wheel propulsion), including power steering.
I am no big fan of the complexity of a gas powered car. I plan on conveting my 57 Thunderbird to electric, when and if kits become available. Exhaust systems, cooling systems, radiators, transmissions, torque converters, a million engine sensors to monitor how the gas is being consumed – it is a very complex machine, with lots of things that can go wrong or need maintenance. An electric car is intrinsically simpler, cheaper to fuel, easier to repair, etc. Or, at least, it should be – here Tsla Motors has destroyed the best characterisitics of the electric car – he has stuffed so much junk (worse – electronic junk) in his vehicles to justify their high price, he has produced cars I have absolutely no desire to get involved with, especially considering Tesla’s bad reputation with its customers, serivice, etc. If Mr Musk really believed what he says – that he wants to electrify the transportation system, he could have produced a vehicle of enormous benefit for those who need mobility he most – the lowest economic class member, not the people he
targets his vehicles for – mostly millionaires and high mid level types. All he had to do would be
to partner with Elio Motors and electrify the car they have already designed and prototyped.
For less than $13,000 they could have produced a two passenger, three wheeled vehicle which would get such good fuel mileage that a small, cheap battery would provide a driving range of 200 miles and the ability to recharge really fast (electricity cost : a little more than a penny per mile) – a 22kWhr battery pack should suffice and cost about $3500. Such a car would justify a govt subsidy of a few thousand. That would be doing something good – as opposed to selling a high income type a second (or third) car , collecting $7500 from the Feds (and more from the states). Musk can’t feel very satisfied at what he has actually accomplished.
Right. How many production vehicles have Elio actually delivered?? ZERO! How many times have they broken promises to start producing cars? MANY TIMES! I wouldn’t give them a nickel for their thoughts. Bad investment.
From the article (Oct 13, 2017) :
The move was further indication that Elio Motors — the financially troubled company that has promised but failed to build three-wheeled vehicles for years — could be a no-go after four years of promises to building vehicles here.
https://www.ktbs.com/3investigates/elio-motors-blames-shreveport-media-politicians-for-company-s-failure/article_16b51fb2-b05f-11e7-870d-9b8eae66fe48.html
arthur4563
New technology usually starts at the high end of the market. The motor car itself is a case in point, mobile phones, watches, aeroplanes etc. They were all objects of desire until demand rose and production costs went down.
Personally I love the idea of electric cars. What I vehemently object to is totalitarian governments masquerading as democratic political parties telling us “ve vill all be driving ze EV vehicle by 2040” (in the UK) giving consumers no choice and allowing manufacturers to cash in on a government sponsored bonanza.
Price fixing, cartels, sharp practises etc. will all be blamed on the unethical capitalist car giants, when in reality, it’s socialist ideology interfering with the free market that’s the real problem.
By all means, put pressure on ICE manufacturers to reduce emissions (although other than old vehicles, I believe new car emissions are extremely good) and at some point in the natural evolution of the market, EV’s will begin to make sense.
I can’t think of another technological change, or any other type of change for that matter, on this scale, that a British government has backed. Natural political caution invariably promotes evolution rather than revolution.
I can see the UK’s efforts to be in the vanguard of transportation electrification ending in tears.
All this from govt deploying diesel generators around the country to plug holes in it wind powered fantasy
HotScot. I agree with your first two paras. I don’t agree with one lot of people (government) telling another lot (us) what we can and can’t buy without very good reason
The price of cars went down when mass production went into effect.
Mass production is already available for EVs.
MarkW
Not yet at the scale needed to compete with ICE vehicles.
If the car is so great, why the govt. subsidy? More importantly, why should taxpayers subsidize it to begin with?
arthur4563
Electric power steering? News to me, I’ve never seen one. Mine has an oil pump.
And that three-wheeled passenger vehicle? They’re notoriously safe at highway speeds aren’t they, like between here and the nearest shops, especially when dodging B-doubles and petrol tankers.
No thanks!
As someone who used to do tinkering with cars, my understanding is that one cannot do chassis tuning on a three wheel vehicle. If it has under or oversteer, there is nothing that can be done about it. Handling all of a sudden matters if you find yourself in a low-traction situation, like ice or rain.
Slacko…electric power steering is pretty common these days, mostly on higher end cars. Belt drive hydraulics have downsides at low idle turning, and a parasitic load directly off the engine belt drive. The battery provides some buffer using an electric motor to run the hydraulic pump, and only when needed. https://www.carthrottle.com/post/electronic-power-assisted-steering-how-does-it-work/
My 2014 Ford Escape has electric power steering. It’s getting to be quite common.
I actually agree that the advances in control systems and electronic processing have improved the options for electric drives.
Your claim for improved storage capacity is however problematic.
lithium ion batteries are not there yet.
They so far do not last long in actual use(Usually due to internal failure), are utterly powerless at temperatures below -25C and an arsonists dream when punctured.
Being smaller and lighter they are an improvement in hand-tools.
You deride the air usage/pollution of the internal combustion engine yet glide right by the pollution brought about by the production of these batteries.
Got any cost estimates for the responsible disposal of these devices?
In certain circumstances battery powered equipment are indispensable but they are not pollution free in any shape or form, as the battery graveyards can attest.
Now driving an electric vehicle is fun, but until a battery equal to a gallon of diesel is invented, the electric vehicle will retain its place in history, competitive with the steam engine, loser to the internal combustion engine.
And that battery will face sever compliance and regulatory hurdles, because currently you show me a high capacity battery,I will see a lovely bomb.
John Robertson
No matter what artificial means of motive power mankind employs, it all comes at a cost.
Chuck money at holographic technology so people can virtually sit in the same room and the root cause of much transportation is eliminated.
“Chuck money at holographic technology so people can virtually sit in the same room and the root cause of much transportation is eliminated.”
Bingo. VR is going to kill the ICE car by making most transport needs obsolete. EVs are irrelevant, and governments are, as usual, making long-term decisions on technologies they don’t understand that completely lack any attempt at forethought.
EVs are for urban affluent virtue signalers. How is the range on a 50 mile drive in Green Bay, Wisc in the dead of winter to see a ball game while your ride is parked in the snow in 9 degree weather?
PS What about re-sale value?
Should be no problem in anything getting more then 100 miles per charge, especially with charging at the ball park.
Charging at the ballpark? Many charging stations would be needed (thousands?) or all would be lengthily backed up.
Then put a station at each parking spot. It doesn’t have to be a fast charger or even Level 2 since in many cases, people spend awhile at the facility. A simple wall plug would be adequate for many, with some supplementary L2 and DCFC stations also available to those who choose to use them.
fIEtser
WHO “puts a station at teach parking lot”?
WHO pays for the installation, the cables, the liability and theft insurance,
WHO pays for the electricity itself?
WHO pays for the repairs on the plugs, wires, chargers, and the calibration and maintenance of the electronics?
How many tens of thousands for “each parking lot” do YOU insist “somebody else” pays?
Depends on how fancy they want to be. Obviously, it is way cheaper to include it as part of the initial construction, but installing it after the fact isn’t impossible. It’s up to the stadium owner to decide if they want to charge for the electricity. Stadium parking lots tend to be private anyway, so they should be able to patrol them as part of regular parking lot patrols.
fletser has a glib anser for any scenario, just wave your hands and imagine a solution its as simple as that. Until you re entrer the real world
RACook, that’s just one of those engineering details that will be trivial to solve once we through enough OPM at the prloblem.
I love the discussion here “um Kaisersbart” .
The electric drive had had its chance from the beginning of the automotive revolution, but just like a wood gasifier, he had no chance against the combustion engine. This is due to the limited range of both drive methods. Just as you can not stack wood in the car indefinitely, just as little progress has been made so far in battery technology to compensate for the range advantage of the ICE. Even lithium-ion batteries have limited charge capacity and lose more energy storage capabilities before the end of their lifetime. This means that, e.g. Tesla X only at the beginning of a range of at most 300 kilometers can expect. With each charge cycle, it becomes less, if not much, but the mass of charge cycles makes it. Thus, e.g. a lithium-ion battery lost after 1.000 charge cycles 30 percent of its capacity. In addition, this type of battery is not equally safe for every climate. Both, very cold and very warm climates increase the risk of fire and is this car, for example, 1 year in the garage and then you wants to drive it again, this also increases the risk of fire. As an added miss-benefit, the more you increase the capacity of these batteries and the faster you charge them, the faster the battery will age. A new Tesla battery costs a little more than the previously accepted 5.500, – Euro. Tesla makes a secret of what such battery changes really cost. I guess at least $ 15,000. I can not call it economical to get an eight-year-old car up and running again with $ 15,000. The next few years will bring a revolution in the engine technology of internal combustion engines. They will become smoother and consume much less. I know this from engine developers at Mercedes and BMW. The era of the combustion engine is far from over, the era of EVs will not begin in the near future. Even our “climate chancellor” Merkel has already recognized this. At the moment she only gives the hybrid with electric subsystem a chance to assert itself among the buyers. That wants to be called something else compared to other unrealistic views of Merkel
Mommy Merkel, the scourge of common sense, strikes again.
The bottom line is, if electric cars are economically competitive with ICEs on a level playiing field, and are suitable for purpose, then they need no defense.
EVs are poised to inflict the mother of all disruptions on the automotive industry.
“poised” — good word choice. Like a baby bird at the edge of the nest, ready to fall to the ground and become cat food.
EVs have been “poised” to take over the auto world for over a century. The big breakthrough is always around the corner. Maybe. But I’ll drive our ’96 Tahoe until it or I die. (Probably me first.)
Straight from the renewables vocabulary generator. They are always poised/coming/imminent/developing/just around the corner/improving/getting cheaper/(insert your word here. But never, ever fully functional, available now and able to compete without subsidy.
I still can’t find anybody that will commit to putting a series of curb-side charging spots on an urban street. All those valuable metals. And such beautiful targets.
Yarpos,
So true, I did a lot of work for the alternative liquid fuel industry, you description of the promise never fulfilled is right on Message. Anybody who believes all those promises has never worked in the real world of engineering or technology development
Forgot the most important point, it is currently -20C outside.
My 7.3l Ford Diesel is built to ensure my comfort and security when I head out this morning, heat will be generated, reliable certain heat, to clear the windshield and warm my self.
As a normal byproduct of this internal combustion air pump.
The Lithion Ion batteries in my cordless power tools however will not be useful unless warmed up and recharged.
Interestingly when the cordless battery is at -30C it will not take a charge.
You have to supply heat directly to the battery.
One correction…. EVs do have transmissions. Simple step down one speed but with all the available torque they are a weak spot. I’m a fan of EVs for the city as they have all the right characteristics for the urban environment. Quiet, peppy, no local emissions, no warm up for short trips, and should be mechanically less expensive to maintain (except tires) and required less service visits. As long as the EV has a dedicated available overnight charge port they are good to go otherwise they are a burden. Charging on the road may seem simple today with less than 1% of the cars all electric but do the math and range coupled with charge time won’t work with EVs in high volume. For an EV range is paid for up front whether you need it or not and that pushes the affordability envelope. Increasing the infrastructure to handle EV charging is rarely talked about and deemed “not a problem” but any engineer knows doubling of infrastructure at a minimum would be required to service all EV personal transportation. I believe the goal (undesirable to me) is public transportation, not EVs.
That’s already done in a big way. More than 90 percent of all railway lines in Germany are electrified. However, the trains do not drive with battery, but with overhead line. At the moment, there are also attempts to drive lorries through overhead lines on a special lane of highways. It all makes sense. However, it reaches its limits when it comes to individualized traffic and a movement using a battery as an energy source.
Markl – I did say “variable ratio”
As others have pointed out, if you charge an EV from the grid, you are burning coal and natural gas. So much for virtue signalling. However, the points about DC motors are good ones. I say use an internal combustion engine for the power source and DC motors for the drive. Just like trains.
There is still a huge increase in overall efficiency jim2, by operating a coal plant at its high efficiency, and sending those electrons to a city to charge batteries in EV’s. Plus more side benefits like less noise, less air quality concerns, and not consuming as much oil or gas which over a century, has a higher and better use for the petrochemical industry. This article isn’t solely about CO2 and climate change why we should drive EV’s or PHEV, so burning coal in a clean coal fired plant makes more sense than burning oil or gas. Most of us here are not arguing the merits of the EV on CO2, since most of us here don’t think CO2 has a lot to with much warming, and the 1 degree of warming we have had the last 150 years, is very good, because it was really, really cold in the Little Ice Age and a return to that would be very, very bad for humanity.
OK, I’ll bite – what’s the increase in efficiency of some EV of your choice compared to an equivalent horse power ICE??
Be sure to include transmission line losses.
I agree that most city folks could easily use EVs for their daily needs……..but they are expensive, lack infrastructural support and we will need to at least double electricity production and upgrade the transmission infrastructure (grid) if we are to replace gasoline for personal vehicles. The problem becomes even worse if you include commercial vehicles (trucks)! None of this is remotely feasible in the next 20 years despite the mindless promises of Merkel, Macron and other European politicians, the wild virtue-signalling commitments made by car manufacturers and the outrageous claims made by EV enthusiasts! EVs will undoubtedly increase from their current 1% market penetration but they will not overtake conventional ICE-powered vehicles for a long, long time, as pointed out by other recent posts on this site. Hybrids make much more sense than battery-electric vehicles offering many of the advantages of EVs but all the flexibility of conventional ICE-vehicles with improved fuel consumption. It makes much more sense to use cheap, widely-available, energy-dense gasoline to run an ICE onboard a vehicle than it does to jump through all the hoops to generate power remotely, distribute it through a massively-expanded grid and incur the losses implicit in transmission and battery storage. And, of course, how is your electricity generated in the first place? Don’t tell me……by wind and solar! Yeah….right! /sarc
Phil Rae
I’ll take issue with your condemnation of EV’s in commercial vehicles. In fact I suspect that may be a very good place to start for the technology.
Commercial vehicles are run by expert businesses who understand precisely each trip and drop off point. So, for example, a lorry delivering to a supermarket will probably have a single load before returning to it’s depot for resupply before another trip the same day.
On arrival at the superstore destination it might take, say 30 minutes to unload it, whilst it can be plugged in and charging. On arrival at the depot for re supply, it would also be plugged in.
I have no idea how many trips these guys make per day but even if it was only 3 or 4, the object of the exercise would be to have the vehicle return for overnight (perhaps) driver rest and vehicle maintenance, and ideally, the battery would be flat.
The point being that everything is accounted for by these distribution organisations, almost to the Nth degree, including traffic delays etc. And of course, whilst an EV truck is stuck in traffic, it doesn’t idle away fuel, the worst it does is keep the cabin occupant warm/cool and entertained.
The displacement of the pollution is, however, another subject entirely. I can’t think of a major power station in London, they are all sited in, and polluting the countryside, whilst the upstanding London citizens bitch about pollution affecting them.
“On arrival at the superstore destination it might take, say 30 minutes to unload it, whilst it can be plugged in and charging.”
This might work for a warehouse delivering to its own chain stores, like Walmart. But otherwise every customer’s destination unloading dock would need a charging station. Costly. Cramped.
EV fantasies fall victim to NIMBY, just like other technologies.
HotScot
My condemnation was not aimed at commercial vehicles per se. Obviously, fleet vehicles like buses and local delivery services are good candidates for electrification and that change is already taking place. HGVs (trucks/lorries/semi trailers) however are much more challenging. In the U.K., electrification of the current HGV fleet would require a 25% increase in electricity generation & some proportionate increase in grid capacity. I base this on government statistics for diesel fuel consumed by HGVs alone and U.K. annual electricity consumption. The numbers come out at 75 TWh (equivalent) & 300 TWh respectively. Given the laden weight of an HGV, they have average mpg of only ~6mpg and usually have a large fuel tank (>50 gals). So, logically, they need a very large battery and that presumably takes longer to charge, too, although there are no doubt ways to optimise that. I still maintain that hybrid vehicles are the best compromise and the most logical way to improve fuel efficiency regardless of whether the vehicle is a car or an HGV. More flexibility and better mpg – what’s not to like about that?
It’s difficult to know where to start with a reply since there’s so much material for rebuttal. How about here:
“…Western automakers leaves them at risk of being overtaken by agile Eastern competitors in the same way that the Swiss (mechanical) watch industry was overtaken in the 1980s by agile Eastern competitors making cheap accurate quartz watches[3]”
The Swiss watchmakers are still very much alive. The storied brands such as; Patek Philipe, Ulysses Nardin, LeCoultre, IWC, and Rolex were never even dented by Eastern competitors or quartz watches. A high end Eastern quartz watch, selling for a couple hundred dollars is a garage sale item in 5 years. A Rolex, purchased for $2,000 in 1990 will sell today for $4,500. And, the mid and lower priced Swiss watchmakers survived by consolidating the manufacture of mechanical movements (for various brands) under a single company.
I originally “poo pooed” electric vehicles as ‘stupid’. Expensive, low-range, impractical toys. But over time I’m come to think they could have their place. It’s true they mostly only ‘move’ the pollution from one place to another, but this can still useful. When I go for a walk there are many vehicles that go by where I briefly hold my breath because they haven’t warmed up yet and you get that disgusting cold catalytic-converter smell, or because they are an old piece of junk burning oil and spewing smoke, or because they are diesel. And I think, “wouldn’t it be neat if someday the cities air was as clean as country air?”
My major concern was the extra load on the grid from if everyone went electric, but I looked up some data and did some calculations and was shocked how little the extra load electric cars would place on the grid (around 5-10%). Doing this also made me see how we use electricity like water. We waste it like it’s free. The amount of electricity industry uses is insane.
So if electric cars were cheap enough, they totally make sense for a daily commute situation. The problem is they are not cheap enough. Perhaps it is a matter of ‘scale’, perhaps not. There are major barriers to making the world run on electric cars such as limited resources. Any serious move to electric car adoption would quickly deplete all known supplies of cobalt. Then next is lithium. These are major issues that the electric car enthusiasts don’t even acknowledge. Perhaps given new interest, new sources will be found and this problem will solve itself (or rather the ‘market’ will solve it). But for now it’s a real barrier.
Kassandra….
I’d be interested in how you came up with that extra 5-10% increase in electricity. If you take a country like France (since Macron promised to ban ICE vehicles in ~20 years), they consume about 500 million bbls of oil per year. Let’s assume 70 percent of that goes for motor fuel (gasoline & diesel). So that’s about 350 million bbls which is 14.7 billion gallons of fuel. With an approx equivalence of 33.4 kWh per gallon of fuel (actually higher for diesel but let’s keep it simple) that equates to 491 billion kWh of electricy needed to directly replace motor fuel. The annual electricity consumption of France is ~450 billion kWh so, in simple numbers, that means France would need to double its electricity consumption to replace conventional liquid fuels with electricity. This simple calculation disregards the improved efficiency of electric motors vs ICEs but it also assumes the liquid fuel is all gasoline which it’s not. In fact France burns ~4 times more diesel than gasoline and diesel has 12% more energy content and I would say my numbers are very conservative. Perhaps I’m missing something somewhere but I can’t for the life of me see how we can have such a big discrepancy between your 5-10% increase and my still conservative 100% increase. Can you explain please? Thanks!
I did it a while ago, but I’ll see if I can recreate my calculations.
From here we get total miles driven [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M12MTVUSM227NFWA]
I’ll use a figure of 3.8 10^12 miles in a year.
Average fuel efficiency is around 26 miles/gallon (wikipedia)
So that’s 1.5 10^11 gallons or 4.7*10^9 barrel of oil. That’s pretty close to your number for total usage for France so seems ‘in the ballpark’. Since US population is larger and people drive farther, this seems reasonable for usage for vehicle miles only.
The energy in 1 barrel of oil is around 6.1 GJ (wolfram alpha)
Total energy usage of vehicle travel for 1 year is then 2.8×10^10 GJ
Total electricity usage in the US is 1.4×10^10 GJ (conversion from wikipedia kw-hr to Joules)
Oh ….. Whoops.
Either I made a mistake just now, or I made a mistake back when I first did this calculation. This says electricity usage would have to increase 300%! Which was my original intuition.
I’m not feeling confident in my numbers since there are so many areas to make a mistake. Like in FED numbers, is that miles per month, or miles per year? I assumed miles per month averaged over 12 months, but it’s slightly confusing.
Actually this would make a great article for WWUT. If someone would do this meticulously quadruple checking the numbers and definitions.
So now … I don’t know. I read an article for estimates for the UK that said 10% increase. Sigh … I guess I should try it again, this time being very very careful at each and every step.
Okay I tried again, this time going for a simpler approach just to get a ballpark.
World electricity usage: 20 x 10^15 W.h [wolfram alpha]
1 w.h = 3600 Joules [wolfram alpha]
Total oil consumption: 90×10^6 barrels per day [wolfram alpha]
1 barrel = 6.1 GJ [wolfram alpha]
Total electricity energy: 7.2 10^19 Joules.
Total oil usage: 2.0 10^20 Joules
Ratio of oil energy to electricity energy: 2.77
So to replace all oil energy with electricity energy we would need to increase electricity generation by close to 3 times.
I know this approach is pretty ‘raw’ since it doesn’t distinguish how oil energy is used in anyway, but it gives a feeling for the ratio e.g. a kind of
I remember seeing figures from different sources that petroleum was roughly 30% of our energy supply. Surely your figures are in error “Big Time”.
Steve. Feel free to post the correct numbers then, or point out which one of my numbers was incorrect.
Kassandra
Thanks for your acknowledgement. So, I’m gonna stick with my number of ~100% increase which is conservative but closer to the truth. Please note that (typically) 70-75% of crude oil is converted into fuel – not all of that is used for road transport but the vast majority is.
@ur momisugly Phil
Simple — based on kWh per mile EV are much more efficient.
A car that gets 20 miles to the gallon — is using 1.68 kWh per mile
The average EV gets 3-4 MILES per kWh so .33-.25 versus 1.68
That is 5 to 6 TIMES less energy needed
@Karl Horrex That’s a good point. Electricity energy is more ‘pure’. Most of the conversion loses have already taken place at the coal/nuclear/natural-gas plant.
Using my very raw numbers of roughly 3 times more energy in oil produced than in electricity, (requiring 3+1 = 4 times larger grid than today, and then using your numbers of energy conversion loss of 80% (gas to motion) compared to electricity, then the grid would have to expand roughly 80%. This is pretty close to other estimates I have seen (around 40%, and 50%).
Using wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent
A volkswagon e-gulf gets 116 MPG-equivalent (EPA combined). A regular volkswagon gets 30 MPG (EPA combined).
That’s a ratio of 4 or so (rounding up). Not quite 5/6, but may be different for different vehicles.
A ratio of 4 would be a 100% increase in electric-grid capacity would be required. It seems likely given ‘unforeseen’ energy costs (shorter car lifespan due to shorter battery life-span for example) that 100% increase is a good ballpark number and likely conservative.
Phil;Kassandra is right. This is addressed in part 3
Kassandra
“wouldn’t it be neat if someday the cities air was as clean as country air?”
I have a big problem with that statement, at least from a London perspective.
There is not one single power station sited in greater London generally considered the local within the M25, a circular motorway going right round the city around 18 miles out.
The power stations are all located in rural areas who suffer the pollution, whilst the Londoners bitch about the pollution in their city.
And frankly, if someone choses to live in Greater London, which I do, they know the risks and are, by and large, there for the higher earnings and job availability. Most certainly why I moved here from rural Scotland.
I have no sympathy for the city whiners. Make your bed, lie in it.
Well I guess it depends on your moral measuring stick. If you are utilitarian than putting sources of pollution in places that effect the fewest people makes sense. If you are an moral absolutest of some kind (libertarian, etc) than similarly farms should not be able to pollute waterways with pesticides and fertilizers to be “someone else’s” problem. But ‘real-world’ society requires compromises. Farmers benefit from cities and cities benefit from farmers and the negative externalities must ‘shared’ as well as the benefits.
Kassandra
Now you come to mention it, it’s also immoral not to have inner city farms to service the community that demands the most food.
And how on earth does putting pollution in a place where it affects fewer people make any sense? People aren’t the only thing on earth affected by pollution.
And yes, I am a libertarian, although I suspect our respective perception of such bears different connotations. I believe people should be free to do what they want with minimal national government intervention, largely restricted to civil and national defence.
And whilst I entirely agree the world needs compromises, perhaps the citizens of London should be made aware of that when they bitch about pollution affecting them, when a large portion of the pollution they emit is foisted on others.
City air will never be as clean as country air, unless you take all of the people out of the city.
It’s not the cars that are producing the pollution. It’s all those homes and businesses that are producing the pollution.
So explain MarkW, how a home produces more pollution in the city than a car? Especially given that many houses are running on electric, or at worse, use natural gas which is much cleaner than gasoline or diesel. The stupid runs strong in this one.
That’s fine. Still would be nice to go for a walk without breathing car exhaust even if ‘mountain fresh’ air is not achievable. Sometimes (fertilizer season) the country doesn’t smell that great either.
Why aren’t there any electric trucks?
There are. Google it.
Example:
https://www.smmt.co.uk/2017/07/uks-first-electric-truck-plant-open-banbury/
also an increasing presence of electric buses and electric vans. (My electrician just bought one!)
Griff,
the only sensible thing I have seen you post.
There are 5 chinese manufacturers of electric buses that have each produced over 5000 electric buses
I want one and would pay a good price for one. Have a friend who did do a conversion of an older Toyota 4×4 to an electric EV battery which was lead acid batteries, for a farm truck. Had a flat deck on the back of the truck and had his 8 Kw welder/genset on the back. He only ever had a 10-12 mile commute for this vehicle, so batteries could almost always handle any shorter trip and had the back up 240 VAC generator anyway. The really neat thing about this farm truck was that he mainly used the batteries for welding, and also as a remote power supply for working on all the farm equipment in the field using a couple of large inverters. Not running a genet all the time for a welder or for just a 120 VAC is a dream come true, as anyone who works without station service available.
I am waiting to hear about a EV 1/2 ton truck and will get one as soon as they are available. I have ‘free’ electricity from my own net metering generation, and live rural part time so makes sense for me. My condo in town has 120 VAC 15 Amp circuit in underground parking, so ample time to slow charge for the amount I now drive when I go to town. But I will be putting my mini welder/generator that I already have in the back bed of the truck, just so I am never stranded and can then work anywhere off grid fairly inexpensive.
We ought to mention something about the socialized transport claim since it is the intention of the green lobby to force the deplorable masses out of affording the means to have independent transport and drive them into reliance on public provision.
Here in the U.K. Train travel barely exists at weekends or holiday times as the tracks are invariably being repaired or endlessly relaid because of weekday commuter wear and tear. This Christmas we are already being warned of huge close downs as people want to travel to get home or stay with families.
It is actually cheaper to fly from London to Edinburgh than buy a train ticket, even if flying means via some European city. Only if you are old and can book weeks ahead and are not limited to peak demand times is rail travel truly affordable – heaven help you though if you miss any link because of delays.
We used to have fabulous bus services in many cities but these too are now expensive. Outside of cities it is down to pot luck. Different bus companies compete on some rural routes, other routes have a bus service once or twice a day.
I would guess these issues would pale by comparison to what would happen in the USA if EVs are forced on the people.
But since the results of the constant increasingly price of electricity in the U.K. Will soon be killing lots more poor, old and deplorable citizens so the media and green elite can have the roads to themselves perhaps it won’t really matter.
“Here in the U.K. Train travel barely exists at weekends or holiday times as the tracks are invariably being repaired or endlessly relaid because of weekday commuter wear and tear. ”
That’s an enormous exaggeration.
I frequently go into London to art gallery or museum at a weekend (given my commuter season ticket effectively makes it free)
Moderately Cross of East Anglia
“Only if you are old and can book weeks ahead”
I would splutter indignantly but I can’t express that well in text!