Electric cars are a pipe dream

[Skeptical]

There was an article about battery electric vehicles in Scientific American a couple years back.

The suggested design was a 'skateboard'. That is, a platform with four wheels. Each wheel contained the electric motor, braking and control hardware. The total weight of this unit was way less than the equivalent ICE driven vehicle platform, since the motors in the EV were so light.

The 'skateboard' then would have a top lowered onto it, including the battery pack. The top would be variable, though the base 'skateboard' would be standard. You could drop a van top, a pick up truck top, a sedan top, wagon top, sports convertable top etc.

This would make manufacture much cheaper. The basic 'skateboard' would cost way less than the equivalent in ICE today. The only really expensive item would be the battery pack, and the Scientific American writers predicted that would drop dramatically.

We are still some time away from an EV able to replace current ICE's completely. However, within 10 years, we will see increasing numbers of more limited EV's on the market. Basically, shopping carts and commuter cars. After about 20 years, though, with new battery developments, we can expect something that will compete very nicely with ICE's.

The thing is that, while there is still likely to be a degree of disadvantage in relation to range, the compensating advantages related mainly to $$$ will more than make up for it. If it costs half or less than half to run, and you pay for this advantage by having to stop and recharge every couple hours, I think most people will happily accept that price.

 

[adoucette]

That is a good point. So the useful energy density advantage is not 245.5 but more like 70 when one considers only the fuel. However the support structure holding the much heavier batteries under the cars floor compared to a few thin metal straps holding a gas tank and the weight difference of the gas tank compared to battery cases, etc. boost that advantage back up to 130 or so, I think. Reducing weight is important in cars for better efficiency.

But you seem to only include the weight of the tank and fuel.
The Leaf's battery pack and control module weighs 660 lbs, they don't give the weight of the motor, but I doubt it's 100 lbs.

A typical ICE engine, transmission, radiator, exhaust system, battery, fuel and fuel tank for a car the size of the Leaf would certainly weigh pretty much the same, if not more.

Oh, they stopped taking reservations for the Leaf in the US as they hit 20,000 ($99 deposit).

Arthur

 

[Emil]

I am convinced this will be the fuel of the future.

Glucose (a simple sugar) is created in the plant by photosynthesis.
6 CO2 + 6 H2O + light → C6H12O6 + 6 O2
During ethanol fermentation, glucose is decomposed into ethanol and carbon dioxide.
C6H12O6 → 2 C2H5OH+ 2 CO2 + heat
During combustion ethanol reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide, water, and heat:
C2H5OH + 3 O2 → 2 CO2 + 3 H2O + heat
After doubling the combustion reaction because two molecules of ethanol are produced for each glucose molecule, and adding all three reactions together, there are equal numbers of each type of molecule on each side of the equation, and the net reaction for the overall production and consumption of ethanol is just:
light → heat
The heat of the combustion of ethanol is used to drive the piston in the engine by expanding heated gases. It can be said that sunlight is used to run the engine.

From Wikipedia:Ethanol fuel-Chemistry

 

[Billy T]

... The Leaf's battery pack and control module weighs 660 lbs, they don't give the weight of the motor, but I doubt it's 100 lbs.

A typical ICE engine, transmission, radiator, exhaust system, battery, fuel and fuel tank for a car the size of the Leaf would certainly weigh pretty much the same, if not more.

Oh, they stopped taking reservations for the Leaf in the US as they hit 20,000 ($99 deposit). Arthur

Interesting. Do you know the price of the Leaf? It is Asian made is it not? I think it (and the BYD hybrid) will sell much better than the Chev Volt even though as I understand it most of its drive system is made in S. Korea. I saw that the Toyota Brushless AC NdFeB PM motor has peak power of 67 HP and weighs 80 lbs here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-weight_ratio
So your guess of 100lbs (or less) for the leaf motor seems correct, but I think an ICE can get up to 1HP/ lb. However, they probably do not count the radiator etc. Note that Toyota motor has excellent magnets and runs on AC, but AC is not good for low speed torque compared to DC. Does the Leaf use AC or DC motors?

I did discuss the ICE's drive shaft and gear box, just not in paragraph you quoted. I pointed out that their weight would be less in a front wheel drive car. Even with them in a front wheel drive and an equal HP ICE motor I think the weight is about the same as the the Leaf's drive system, but don't know. With rear wheel drive, the weight is probably more in the ICE drive system than the EV.

 

[Billy T]

I am convinced this will be the fuel of the future. From Wikipedia:Ethanol fuel-Chemistry

Yes, I agree and have for years been posting that, but I also point out that sugar cane is the cheapest way to get the sugar you start with to get ETOH fuel, the renewable fuel of the future for many other reason reasons also.

Photo is old. Mechanical harvest is replacing manual labor now. That and constantly improving genetics is making the cost of sugar production drop. (Price has not as demand is exceed supply.)

Note also in the photo the huge amount of cellulose per acre with sugar cane and it all is taken to the distillation plant. Thus, if cellulosic ETOH is ever economical the most economical cellulose will be the crushed cane which is already at the distilation plant, not grass (or wood chips) trucked there from distant fields. I also like to occasionally point out that sugar cane ETOH is by far the most economical solar energy system.

 

[Skeptical]

Ethanol is definitely a second rate biofuel. Productivity per acre is too low to make it feasible as a large scale replacement for fossil fuels, and the cultivation of sugar producing crops for ethanol displaces food crops..

The best approach appears to be algae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

"can theoretically yield between 10 and 100 times more energy per unit area than other second-generation biofuel crops.[8] One biofuels company has claimed that algae can produce more oil in an area the size of a two car garage than a football field of soybeans, because almost the entire algal organism can use sunlight to produce lipids, or oil"

Algae can be up to 50% oil by weight, which makes them an ideal source of biodiesel. They are grown in lakes, estuaries, or even sewage ponds, which means they do not displace food crops, unlike ethanol biofuel.
http://www.ecosherpa.com/green-energy/algae-biofuel-from-sewage/

 

[ElectricFetus]

I tend to agree the the coal energy source EV is probably less "polluting" as coal fired electric plant in the US at least scrub out a lot of pollution from the stack gases (not yet CO2 however) and some pre-clean the coal. I think that the high performance ICE makes a lot of NOx compared to the coal fired power plant per unit of shaft energy delivered. I was only doubting the claim that the EV reduces the CO2 release by 17 to 22%.

And I have cited more than one source now that corroborates this reduction in CO2 emissions, are your doubts settled?

That is a good point. So the useful energy density advantage is not 245.5 but more like 70 when one considers only the fuel. However the support structure holding the much heavier batteries under the cars floor compared to a few thin metal straps holding a gas tank and the weight difference of the gas tank compared to battery cases, etc. boost that advantage back up to 130 or so.

minor problem when now your energy source can be shaped and distributed evenly across the car baseframe, lowering the center of gravity and evening stress on all wheels. If you want weight reduction, composite and aluminum frames can do that.

Another good point. In the EV, there is no massive gear box nor a drive shaft, often going from front of the car where motor is to the rear wheels. That can be small if front wheel dive is used. I don't know but think that four in wheel electric motors may weigh about the same as equal HP ICE.

I doubt in-wheel hubs would weigh that much, the stress on the shocks would make it completely impractical, as is much has to be done to reduce their weight to make in-wheel hubs practical and economic. EVs today are just fix single gears with 2 wheel drive, and they will get by fine for now as that. At present we can do 25Kw in-hub motor at 40lbs each thats 160 lbs total, an ICE of 100 kw (125 hp) would weigh ~300 lbs.

EV will weight more if the EV has the un-refueld range of the typical gasoline ICE.

If battery capacity remains as they are today! Just with the next generation of lithium chemistry (Lithium sulfur) we could see 500-600 Wh/kg, take Tesla existing lithium-ion batteries which stores 53 kWh and weighs 450 kg (117.8 Wh/kg) if it was just twice that capacity at 234 Wh/kg it would weigh 225 kg, and 3 times the capacity at 353 Wh/kg it would weigh only 150 kg, at 500 Wh/kg it would weigh 106 kg, that less than a 125 hp engine! So the extra battery weight will clearly become non-problematic within a few years.

I will defer to your judgement about potential battery improvement new chemistry, etc. but think the main improvement to be realistically expected is in charge and discharge rates. Both are important for the EV, but if one could get double the power out for 30 seconds without damage to the battery, the battery could be smaller, weigh less and still let driver have a burst of power for passing etc.

Such improvement have already been made both A123 System (lithium iron phosphate) and Altairnano (lithium titanate oxide) have demonstrated very rapid charge and discharge times with safe operations and thousand of cycles with minimal wear. Altairnano cells have demonstrated charging in 10 minutes and up to 25,000 deep cycles, that would be equivalent to 3 decades of operation in a car. A123 has manage 90% charging in 5 minutes and more then 10,000 deep cycles and up to 5,300 W/kg discharge power, that means to get 125 hp requires just 19 kg of batteries.

Perhaps. But this thread seems to assume that the race is between the EV or PHEV etc. and the gasoline ICE. I do not. I think that the well proven and cheaper ETOH ICE has already demonstrated for more than a decade in Brazil that it is better (amazingly even in peak power from the same cylinders) than the gasoline ICE in every respect, especially pollution avoidance, except range. - for that to be the same you would need a larger fuel tank.

And I have repeatedly told you that biomass resources have limited capacity, I'm all for collecting existing biomass waste and transforming it into products like plastics and fuels, but once we utilize all that wasted capacity, what is next? Chop down the rainforests to grow sugarcane? Brazil might be able to supply its own demand but what about the world? Unless Algae fuel comes to forevision, the limitation of land and water will not allow biofuels to take significant majority share of even the transportation energy market. I've already showed you that to fuel the USA alone Brazil would need to dedicate all it cropland and add ~60% more to sugarcane, are you going to argue against that too?

 

[Emil]

What you say about the engine? Rotary Piston

 

[adoucette]

an ICE of 100 kw (125 hp) would weigh ~300 lbs.

Do you have any figures on the entire drive train weight for an ICE (all the things that get tossed if you are an EV)

Engine & fluids
Fuel Tank/pump/fuel lines & fuel
Transmission & fluids
Radiator, water pump/hoses & fluids
Alternator and Starting battery
Exhaust system including Cat Converter

Also in all of these discussions about energy use/CO2 production, we should remember that ICE engines waste energy while idling.

Because of the amount of stop/go driving we do, approx 17% of your energy (on average) is wasted this way.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

Arthur

 

[ElectricFetus]

Do you have any figures on the entire drive train weight for an ICE (all the things that get tossed if you are an EV)

Engine & fluids
Fuel Tank/pump/fuel lines & fuel
Transmission & fluids
Radiator, water pump/hoses & fluids
Alternator and Starting battery
Exhaust system including Cat Converter

Also in all of these discussions about energy use/CO2 production, we should remember that ICE engines waste energy while idling.

Because of the amount of stop/go driving we do, approx 17% of your energy (on average) is wasted this way.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

Arthur

No I don't know, I just googled 125 hp engine weight found 300lbs roughly (there was also airplane aircooled at 250 lbs). Stop-go driving can be handled with hybrids. This is not an exclusive situation: hybrids and plug-in hybrids could operation on bio-fuels, heck put in a turbine generator and a PHEV could operation off of grid electricity, ethanol, gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, natural gas, DME, methanol all in one car (would need pressurize fuel tanks for natural gas and DME).

 

[Billy T]

Ethanol is definitely a second rate biofuel. Productivity per acre is too low to make it feasible as a large scale replacement for fossil fuels, and the cultivation of sugar producing crops for ethanol displaces food crops..

false about brazilian sugar cane. True about UDS corn based ETOH.

The best approach appears to be algae.

Dozens have tried on small scale or just in the lab, but the algae evolves, goes wild, and scum clogs the system etc. All efforts, I known of are great failures if they try to make even a barrel of fuel / hour !!! But yes in theory it is best. ...[/QUOTE]

 

[Billy T]

And I have cited more than one source now that corroborates this reduction in CO2 emissions, are your doubts settled?

Only source I saw you post said "pollution was reduced" and I posted agreement with that. I only still doubt the claim (by a self admitted EV Enthusiast / promoter) the claim that co2 is reduced 17 to 22%, but if you give me a link to some post, from reliable, neutral, source on the reduction of CO2 I will read it.

I've already showed you that to fuel the USA alone Brazil would need to dedicate all it cropland and add ~60% more to sugarcane, are you going to argue against that too?

Yes. I already have. I.e. pointed out that I am not trying to sustain the current unsustainable system by only a switch to ETOH fuel. You start your calculation by assuming the current energy need can not be changed.

Many aspects of current life must change to achieve sustainable energy system (not just a switch to ETOH for liquid fuel): A move back from the suburbs into urban high rises where most either go to work on a lower floor by elevator or telecommute when not walking their dog in the nearby park. Where cars are smaller, more efficient and used much less. Where public transport is in common use, and high speed rail replaces a large fraction of plane trips, etc.

I agree that this transition will be difficult and take some decades but at least all the technology already is proven - No need to postulate great break thru in battery technology or algae to energy, etc. Mankind faces a choice as to how he develops a sustainable world - If he does not do it with what is known to work, most of humanity may die as he sinks back into the sustainable system of the dark ages. Make no mistake about it, mankind will return to some sustainable system.

 

[Billy T]

What you say about the engine? Rotary Piston

I think it a very clever idea but don't know if it will be as efficient as the 100 years of refinement ICE is.

 

[Billy T]

... Alternator ...

That is very small compared to the EV hybrid's gasoline motor-generator, which when batteries are dead, must have power capacity for safety (quick accelerations)
For example if some idiot runs a red light and is 2 seconds from impacting the drivers door, you want to scoot out of his way. You are not going to that with 35HP motor-generator.

 

[adoucette]

Many aspects of current life must change to achieve sustainable energy system (not just a switch to ETOH for liquid fuel): A move back from the suburbs into urban high rises where most either go to work on a lower floor by elevator or telecommute when not walking their dog in the nearby park. Where cars are smaller, more efficient and used much less. Where public transport is in common use, and high speed rail replaces a large fraction of plane trips, etc.

Billy this is non-sense.
The US is going to add 100 million people in the next ~30 years.
Look where they are building the houses for them NOW.
In the suburbs.
Houses easily last over 100 years.
And look at the many millions of houses are currently in the suburbs, and all the infrastructure to support them (Schools, Small Business, Grocery stores, Malls, Gyms, Starbucks, Dry Cleaners etc etc), are they, and all that infrastructure going to be abandoned anytime soon?

Not likely.

As to your ides of Public Tranport, I used to live in Atlanta with its highly subsidised MARTA system (1c of sales tax) that had high fares and was still going broke, and had done virtually nothing to ease the congestion because the CROSS traffic (going directions besides in and out of the city, not the direction the rail lines ran) had exceeded the typical traffic the mass transit was designed for. Rail and Bus can only do but so much.

Like your idea of Telecommuting as a solution. Sorry, there are so many jobs for which this doesn't work. For those where it does work, it is already being done big time, so you can't expect some big revolution in how people work. Telecommuting isn't new, I've been doing it for over a decade. If peoples jobs allow them to telecommute, there's a decent chance they are doing it already, but you can't repair cars, nurse people, provide police and fire, feed them, entertain them, fix their plumbing, redo their wiring, play soccor, build their houses, paint, tend their lawns, move their furniture, fix the pavement, try on clothes etc, etc by telecommuting.

As far as high speed rail replacing air traffic you are totally dreaming. There are a few dense corridors where rail could displace, but still not replace, air traffic, but for the majority of the 20,000 flights per day this is a non-starter.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

That is very small compared to the EV hybrid's gasoline motor-generator, which when batteries are dead, must have power capacity for safety (quick accelerations)
For example if some idiot runs a red light and is 2 seconds from impacting the drivers door, you want to scoot out of his way. You are not going to that with 35HP motor-generator.

When you compare the weight of an ICE drive train to an EV drive train you toss out the alternator with the ICE.

Of course the EV drive train will have the weight of a much larger generator as part of it's drive train.

As to drivability.
On Hybrids (like the Prius), or Extended Range EVs like the Volt, they don't let the battery run out.

On pure EVs, if the battery is dead you are just like an ICE that has run out of gas. Neither is going anywhere on its own.

Arthur

 

[ElectricFetus]

Only source I saw you post said "pollution was reduced" and I posted agreement with that. I only still doubt the claim (by a self admitted EV Enthusiast / promoter) the claim that co2 is reduced 17 to 22%, but if you give me a link to some post, from reliable, neutral, source on the reduction of CO2 I will read it.

I fucking posted 2! I even posted an image from the latter and you did not see this, was it in your fucking blind spot???

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es062314d
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702178s

Yes. I already have. I.e. pointed out that I am not trying to sustain the current unsustainable system by only a switch to ETOH fuel. You start your calculation by assuming the current energy need can not be changed.

No my assumption is that energy needs will go up, more people are going to want to live with more amenities, we got all of china and india that want to live like a first world country, how the fuck are we going to support that! It would take 4 times the present world consumption of energy to bring every on to USA hedonist standard of living!

Many aspects of current life must change to achieve sustainable energy system (not just a switch to ETOH for liquid fuel): A move back from the suburbs into urban high rises where most either go to work on a lower floor by elevator or telecommute when not walking their dog in the nearby park.

I'm all for that and I hope peak oil forces these improvements in efficiency but still even an ideal EU nations like Germany with half the consumption of say the USA (11.4 kW per person to 6 kw per person) would require doubling world energy consumption, so that everyone could have good food and clean water and high speed rail and a nice apartment in the city and maybe even a smart car or motorcycle or just a fucking bike!

I agree that this transition will be difficult and take some decades but at least all the technology already is proven - No need to postulate great break thru in battery technology or algae to energy, etc. Mankind faces a choice as to how he develops a sustainable world - If he does not do it with what is known to work, most of humanity may die as he sinks back into the sustainable system of the dark ages. Make no mistake about it, mankind will return to some sustainable system.

No no its not proven to supply 9 billion, 12 billion, 20 billion with a high enough standard of living that they will have breeding rates in the negative like some EU states and Japan, how the fuck are we going to get the energy for that?!? No we will need off-shore algae farming to feed them all and we will need the most efficient economy possible out of the most expandable energy sources possible, dirt cheap printable solar panels on every roof, EV storing excess power, biomass to energy and product materials, nuclear power, all of it simultaneously, its no ethanol or electrics, its ethanol AND electrics, AND a more efficient life style AND Nuclear power AND solar, wind, wave power, AND slow phase out of fossil fuels as we deplete them despite their global warming side effect is the best we can hope for (aside for some mind blowing breakthrough in aneutronic fusion, if it happens we will be saved, but don't even waste your time crossing your fingers on that!)

That is very small compared to the EV hybrid's gasoline motor-generator, which when batteries are dead, must have power capacity for safety (quick accelerations)
For example if some idiot runs a red light and is 2 seconds from impacting the drivers door, you want to scoot out of his way. You are not going to that with 35HP motor-generator.

They don't run dead, in fact the car would not even be capable of moving if it let its batteries run dead, they leave some capacity (about 30% charge or some the GM claims with the Chevy Volt) So the batteries run down to 30%, the generator kicks in and runs even while idle, you step on it as the green light comes on and have full acceleration at your disposal.

 

[ElectricFetus]

We are still some time away from an EV able to replace current ICE's completely. However, within 10 years, we will see increasing numbers of more limited EV's on the market. Basically, shopping carts and commuter cars. After about 20 years, though, with new battery developments, we can expect something that will compete very nicely with ICE's.

This is opposite to how its happening today, were we have entry of EV in high price markets competing with equal or greater performance compared to conventional cars of that price class, take Tesla's $100K sportcar which is competing against other 100K sportcars and has even better performance perimeters. Next up by 2012 Tesla will be producing a sedan designed to compete with luxury sedans of the $50-$60K, with again comparable performance and features. So instead of golf carts where seeing EV entering from the opposite end of the car spectrum, as manufacturing of batteries pick up and as batteries increase in their energy density EVs will enter ever cheaper and more utilitarian car class markets.

 

[phlogistician]

Your argument about price fails on several levels.
The Leaf, an EV goes for under £20k, and that's new.

I live in the UK, and at present, the cost of the Leaf is £28,990, and the 'grant' proposed has not been approved. So the Leaf costs nearer £30k than £20k. Get your facts right.

For your teenager it will probably be a used Leaf,

?? FFS, they went on sale THIS MONTH. I know their value is going to drop like a turd off a cliff edge, but used models are still not going to be that affordable.

Can you GET REAL please?

going for maybe £10k and you will save money because gas was < £2.50 a gallon in 2000 and is now over £4.30 per gallon.

FFS, £10k is TEN YEARS of fuel for a car than can average 40mpg. That's 100k miles. That petrol car will still have life left in it, whereas the batteries in your EV will be cycled out, out of warranty, and running at a small fraction of their former original capacity, and the EV will be worth NOTHING.

And of course you want to limit the discussion to just EVs, because that limits the options available to help change over to an EV based infrastructure,

The thread is called 'Electric cars are a pipe dream'. So yes, EVs are the discission here. Not hybrids.

As to charging stations, again its a red herring, because yes they are a cost, but so are the current stations,

You don't understand economics. Current stations are profitable. New charging stations need to be able to project a future profit to get investors. EVs are shit. Nobody is buying them = no profit = no investment = no charging stations = nobody buys EVs , round and round. People aren't going to stop buying petrol cars, even when petrol runs low, the new market will be for a fuel substitute, not EVs.

so they both probably add about the same cost per mile to the cost of driving, though my guess is that electric recharging stations will be a bit more expensive to build initially, but then slightly cheaper to operate and maintain.

Simply no. If an EV costs 10k more than an equivalent petrol car, you'll NEVER get your money back on fuel savings. And that's assuming an EV can drive 100k miles before the batteries give out.

Here's the simple maths:

100K miles/40mpg=2500 galls of fuel @4.30 a gallon = £10,750

If your EV is £10k more than an equivalent petrol car, it isn't going to save you a penny. Got that?

 

[phlogistician]

If you drive on average 50% of the time within the batteries capacity, then your only using petrol 50% of the time, if everyone were to do that then demand for gasoline would but cut in half, more so as the battery gets larger and range increases.

The electric only range of a Prius, for example, is around 15 miles. That's within the majority of UK commutes, but still people aren't buying them. Because they are shit.

Just an option, might be small enough to tow behind the caravan.

Just not a road legal option.

With an automated systems, yes it will be a snap, actually quicker then fueling up on gasoline. In Tesla's Sedan supposedly the batteries will have drop down wheels, you can slide it out, slide in a fresh one manually.

Sounds simple if you say it quick enough, but that simplicity demands a degree of uniformity you just aren't going to achieve, production vehicles vary too much.

Maybe, if say its a Zinc-air flow cell the zinc fuel its self would be relatively environmentally benign, it would probably be even less hazardous then gasoline, and certainly less flammable (unless dried)

Mining and refining Zinc is hardly a 'green' process, but better than slopping electrolytes around I guess.