urbanscribe

Dude
Give it up
You have NO idea what you're talking about
None
All of us are trying to back what we say with.m facts but you seem unable to.
Where is your basis for any of the wildly inaccurate broad statements?

What a poorly chosen username.

RRDnA

No point commenting further in this thread.

(1) The European drive to EVs is based around energy security - unless they want to be permanently lashed to Russia - its just dressed in a green agenda.
(2) Norways drive to EVs is driven by the large expansion of hydro capacity through its sovereign wealth fund which was derived from north sea oil and gas (basically a very small population base distributed along a mountain range suitable for hydro, funded by oil and gas revenue which has largely dried up)
(3) India is a power constrained country - it has limited coal, oil and gas - it does have a huge nuclear program.
(4) Battery technology - energy density will indeed increase but at a very limited rate - improvement at the 5 to 20% level is very possible, doubling or quadrupling is not possible in the short to medium term. Pushing energy into a battery follows an asymptote.
(5) The higher the energy density the greater amount of stabiliser required - currently this is Co. The LME stockpile has a few hundred tonnes of refined material.
(6) The infrastructure cost to support EVs will be enormous and will take a great deal of time implement - particularly assuming a component of unconstrained embedded generation from home solar in areas where it is practicable.
(7) Network balance beyond 40% renewables is very hard to achieve (unless the 40% renewables is derived from hydro).

There needs to be a serious debate about EVs, it needs to be open and honest and be part of a broader energy strategy. Importantly, the US and China - who account for more than 50% of emissions need to get their respect acts together. This means you have to get your policy settings sorted out.

Try a bolt or a leaf..........small, light-weight is the right direction in the short to medium term

F1CrazyDriver

Old and stubborn, not opened minded. I see.
You can't be helped. No need to continue forward.

dgjks6

Tesla did what it was supposed to. It started the EV craze. But the won't/can't survive against real car companies.

My big concern is that people do t want electric. The cars are there. But people don't want them yet.

Also the energy density thing is a great discussion. But maybe there is no way to get a good/really efficient battery.

Anyway, I'm 48 and all I know is electrics will not be in my life. Probably my kids.

daveo4porsche

the Model S is the best selling Sedan in US and Eurpoean markets - outselling other vendors "combined" - the Model X is selling well and sales of Bolts and 450,000 pre-orders for the Model 3 - but yes there is still some resistance…I agree with you that people don't want crappy cars - and until Tesla all electric cars were crappy - but the new crop of electrics are very desirable in my opinion

but I'm not going to agree with you that "people don't want them yet" - unit sales are successful by any standard common in the auto industry - so people must want them - otherwise Tesla wouldn't be outselling all other manufactures in the segments they are selling in.

I'd love more color on this - what part of batteries are "not efficient" - if you mean volume and weight - then I agree with you - but even with our current low bar we have EV's that can drive 300 miles on a single charge (100 kWh) - how often do you need to go 300 miles in a single day - i.e. range doesn't matter if:

a) it more than covers your daily use (99.9% of miles driven per/year in most cars)
b) you can charge the car at home overnight
c) when you get in the car in the morning it's "full" like your cell phone

this I found interesting:
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-G...akthrough.html - change is coming

so you could do several things with this tech - 1 increase range of your current form factor - or two deliver a lower weight/volume battery with the same range as the previous battery

I believe (my opinion) we are underestimating the improvements in battery tech that could happen over the next X years - it will appear slow on the front end, but 10 years from now we might all be looking back and waiting patently (or not so patently) for the 380 mile range Mission-E +++ who's battery only weighs 320 pounds…make it the first EV to offer the range an performance of a Turbo Panamera and be 600 lbs lighter than it's ICE equivalent.

Battery technology is not going to remain static - any more than ICE technology remained static - other than a few hard core petrol-heads today's ICE motors are unrecognizable monstrosities of complexity and innovation compared to - say - my 1966 289 V8 mustang - by all measures today's engines bear very little resemblance to that 289 and yet are considered the "same" technology wise. EV/Battery technology will progress - at a similar rate and perhaps an accelerated rate vs. ICE tech - the battery issue will be a non-issue in 20 years -I'll take a lunch bet with anyone on that - I'll buy you lunch and we'll have a great conversation in 20 years if I'm wrong ;-)

the really really good news regarding EV is that as battery tech improves it would be completely viable to simply upgrade the battery and keep the rest of the car - so some extent this is already happening - people who bought a 2011 Leaf suffered on the bleeding edge of battery tech and Nissan unwisely choose not to thermally managed their LiON battery chemistry. What was 79 mile EV became a 48 mile EV due to battery degradation - early owners were upgraded to an improved battery tech after a class action lawsuit for free - but all owners can access the new battery rated for 92 miles if they choose to pay for the upgrade - so a 7 year old car can be "refurbished" and wipe away any battery loss and gain more range by simply swapping a battery for a 15% increase in range at a fraction of the cost of a new car - actually for less money than say a new/built transmission which is not an uncommon maintenance issue for ICE cars that are 8 or more years old.

* = 8+ years of Tesla battery real life experience shows no "major" loss of capacity for actual daily use when the LiON batteries are properly thermally managed - Tesla Roadsters and Model S's which are now a fleet of cars over 6 years old in some cases and driven every day show total loss of battery capacity in the single digit % - so concern about battery degradation is overblown - and not dissimilar to the mpg efficiency loss as ICE engines age/wear in terms of actual loss of usability. And if you're really concerned you can always buy a "fresh" battery for the about the same cost as an a major component swap for an ICE car.

have you driven an EV? - the Bolt/Tesla are super fun to drive and really very very nice cars…but it's good we still have choices. And I'm counting hte days until I take delivery of my '18 GT3 - so yeah ICE cars will be with us for sometime.

dgjks6

Sorry - suck at using the quoting system
So, people wants teslas, not EV's. Tesla is a cult. And there is always room for a small cult. Chevy produces the bolt and they are not selling well. They are OK - few thousand a month, but no where near a sales leader or a large segment of the market.
As far as energy - batteries are slightly more efficient than gas (I don't want to rehash the argument about energy production and storage and usage). But overall slightly better. I hope they come out with something that is a lot better.

As far as driving, I have driven teslas and have friends with Tesla X and S's.
And they are all second cars. Current electric tech is good enough for 90% of my driving. But until it is 100%, you need a second car. Or access to uber or a rental.

And the last piece no one seems to remember. The average age of the car on the road is 11 years. And these are guestimates, not accurate figures. So if 100% of cars sold next year are electric then in 11 years we will still have 50% gas vehicles. So not in my lifetime.

daveo4porsche

hmmm - https://seekingalpha.com/news/333723...olt-production

General Motors (GM -0.8%) Mary Barra says demand for the all-electric Chevy Bolt is picking up to warrant an increase in production

really I still don't think that people don't want an EV is an accurate statement - and the Tesla cult thing is a cop-out - 200,000'ish world wide unit sales can't be dismissed

We'll have to disagree that an EV can't meet 100% of your needs - I routinely drive all my EV's beyond their single charge range and find fast charging no big deal - but I also understand that varies by region and personal willingness to put up with mild hassle of a slightly longer refueling stop - personal choice I understand that.

dgjks6

I think Porsche is a cult also, but with the macan becoming more mainstream

The problem with people from California is that they think that what happens in CA is the rest of the world. For you, you can get 100% of your needs from an EV. In Southern CA that is a possibility. In Ohio, no way, not without significant compromises. Don't know anyone who has. And I know a ton of people with electrics. I think I am closer to the average American.

I think electric is the future. But 20 -30 years away.

daveo4porsche

I think we agree on the trend (move EV's) - but I believe/speculate the slope will be more steep than you do - that's a honest and welcome disagreement - seriously - no one really know - I think it will happen faster than people think and so does the CEO of GM

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/07/mary...hevy-bolt.html

but we'll all have to wait and see.

my message to anyone who thinks an EV is not in their near future - things have changed rapidly in the past 3 years and the pace of change is accelerating not declining - it's probably closer than you think - I'm all EV household (other than recreational vehicles - track toy) and after 160,000 miles driven I'm not at all negatively impacted by having an all EV household - including my road trip needs. But it will take awhile to replace everything - and I don't even believe replacing everything is the goal - driving an EV for daily needs and keeping an ICE for road trips is a huge win in efficiency and emissions and a no compromised required approach - you'll drive the ICE less extending it's life greatly - and use the eV for daily activities with lower cost and greater efficiency. We don't need a 100% EV takes over the world approach - a 70/30 split in annual usage between one EV and one ICE would be massively huge increase in overall transportation efficiently - and can happen in a single decade.

I'm looking at the Tesla Supercharger map - and plug share - there seems to be ample fast charging solutions - Ohio is certainly not a wasteland of fast charging options for distance driving - North Dakota - now that's a fast charging waste land - no way you can own an EV in North Dakota given the lack of charging infrastructure. But Ohio seems to be well covered for those 3 times a year you need to drive more than 250 miles in a single day.

https://www.plugshare.com
https://supercharge.info

but then again my tolerance for fact charging is above average - and not entirely sane.

urbanscribe

85% of US drivers drive less than 50 miles a day
90% less than 60 miles a day.

EV ranges at the 25k-35k base price, today, before incentives, is north of 150 miles and easily approaching mean at 275 miles.

This on top of the average car in the US in 2015 had a 4% utilisation rate, should tell you about the potential for quick shifts in how we use transportation, soon.

dgjks6

The closest rapid charging station in 25 minutes from my house, and I never drive near there. Cleveland and Columbus are covered. Akron/Canton - not so much.

And I am looking at used EV's also. For most driving an electric is perfect. For running to the store to get things, great. But again, as a second car. You still need a real car.

And no one has addressed the weather. The one week a year when the temp does not get above 0F I can still drive my 911Cab (though not happily).

And I like Tesla because without them then no one would be going electric.

daveo4porsche

given that you charge an EV at home - rapid charging stations aren't used that much - and not by locals…

once you go Ev - you don't use public charging infrastructure - charging at home overnight while the car sits in the garage - means you get in the car every morning and it's gas tank is "full"...

I for one do not miss going to the gas station - I've not been in 5 years (except at the track for various 911's ;-)

dgjks6

I just figured out my problem. I work at a lower middle class hospital in a small city with a population of 30,000 people. Most of the housing is apartments or old houses with no garage or a one car detached garage full of stuff and the cars don't park there. So I don't see any way EV's can be at all practical. Ever. And this area is more representative of America.

The EV's are an upper middle class/warm climate issue at this point. Unless there is a significant change in technology.

urbanscribe

I have 30k miles on a DD P90D and have never gone once to a supercharging station. Once a month I go to a bar in Fairfield CT where I get 1.20$ back from my taxes on a municipal charge point and feel good about that.

daveo4porsche

so how many barrels of oil does it take to run a Panamera vs. Tesla 100D for 13,500 miles (1 year) - ignoring renewables for the moment where EV's are stronger - let's just burn barrels of oil to power our cars…directly.

so here is the math as concisely as I can put it:

1 barrel of oil = 20 gallons of gasoline produced - each gallon of gas requires 6 kWh to refine.
EV's average 3.3 miles/kwh delivered to the battery - the mission-e/TEsla Model S 100D fit this profile
1 barrel of oil contains 1628 kWh of raw potential energy
Panamera according to Porsche is 24 mpg
oil fired power plants are 45% efficient,
the electrical grid is 93% efficient at distribution,
charging an EV is 95% efficient at getting power into a LiON battery


Panamera @ 24 mpg = 562.5 gallons of gasoline = @ 20 gallons of gas/barrel = 28 barrels of oil/year to run a Panamera 13,500 miles

Tesla Model S 100D @ 3.3 miles/kWh = 4090.90 kWh delivered to the battery required to drive 13,500 miles

13,500 miles / 3.3 miles/kWh = 4090.909 kWh required to drive 13,500 miles
4090.90 kwh / 647.25 kWh-barrel-o-oil = 6.32 barrels of oil to drive an EV 13,500 miles

Panamera @ 24 mpg = 28 barrels of oil a year to drive 13,500 miles + 3,375 kWh to refine each gallon of gas since gas refining uses 6 kWh of electricity during the refining process.
3,375 kwh @ 647.25 kWh-barrel-o-oil = 5.214 additional barrels of oil to run the Panamera for a total of 33.214 barrels/year of oil to run the Panamera

Tesla 100D running from a oil fired power plant = 6.32 barrels of oil a year delivered directly to the power plant and used to make electricity

I can't make the math any simpler - and I encourage you to find fault with the numbers - but the 10 year cost of running:

this is an 80.97% reduction in demand for oil even _IF_ we leave the electrical grid running on fossil fuels - which as everyone knows isn't really the plan…moving to renewables and non fossil fuel is the actual plan...

every EV sold represents an annual loss of 28 barrels of oil @ $60.35 barrel = or $1,689.80 in gross revenue per EV per year
if Tesla ships 400,000 Model 3's that's is lost revenue to the oil industry of 400,000 * $1,689.80 = $675.920 million/year for just Tesla -if the rest of the auto industry starts shipping EV's this is a serious problem.

let me repeat that - driving an EV represents an 80% reduction in demand for barrels of oil even when the grid is still powered by fossil fuels!

and given the power requirements of refining gasoline - EV's can largely live in the "margin" of electricity production by shifting the demand from the refinery to home charging…representing a nearly net-zero change in overall grid demand and the associated costs/emissions of running the grid…tanking the argument that the grid isn't big enough to handle the EV charging load.

same 135,000 miles - one car takes 332 barrels of oil - and the other car takes 63.2 barrels of oil.

direct consumer cost to run the Panamera 13,500 miles @ $3.50 gallon = 562.5 * $3.50 = $1968.75/year
direct consumer cost to run the Tesla Model S 100D 13,500 miles @ $0.1254/kwh = 4090.90 kWh * $0.1254/kwh = $512.99/year
lost revenue to the oil industry $1,689.80 @ $60.35 per/barrel of oil - note this is the core revenue to the core fossil fuel industry - note the lost revenue at the local mom/pop gas/chain gas station - this is BP's revenue stream we're messing with.

combined loss to the gas/fossil fuel industry per-EV = $1,689.80 in reduced barrels of oil demand and lost gross revenues of $1968.75 in fuel sales - or a total loss to the "gasoline" industry of $3,658.55 per/year per EV.

10 year fuel costs for Panamera $19,687.50 - 332 barrels of oil
10 year fuel costs for Tesla 100D $5,129.90 - 63 barrels of oil

environmental cost
Panamera = 332.14 barrels of oil "burnt" to drive 135,000 miles
Tesla Model S 100D - 63.2 barrels of oil "burnt" at the power plant to drive 135,000 miles

please explain to me again how it's NOT more efficient to burn the oil in power plant and drive an EV?

that the LiON battery doesn't have the energy density of fossil fuels?
and the VW Polo is twice as efficient as the EV due to battery weight - I"m having a hard time seeing where any of that matters or is true, but perhaps I'm missing something.

The math is clear and simple, and the conversion rates are correct and documentable.

I welcome correction.