Electric cars are a pipe dream

[ElectricFetus]

That sounds like a practical and economically feasible* approach, but would require government mandate to get it introduced. Much more of total transform of the transportation system than other approaches which can be phased in.

Not necessarily as a metal paste air flow cell battery could be charged at home like any battery, just run the cell in reverse, power from an outlet just like a solid state battery powered car, although the car will need to be charge some place ventilated or else oxygen gas will build up. Anyways physically refueling it is optional and can be implement at leisure, I'm sure if a large number of electric car operating on metal-air flow cells were in operation there would be market incentive to start installing fueling stations for them to take advantage of their again optional rapid fueling abilities.

* Assuming the capital cost of the material both in the cars and greater volume at the "de-oxidation" stations is not too high. What materials are technically feasible?

Zinc is the cheapest, most developed and most efficient to reduce, but aluminum has several times higher energy content (~2000-3000 wh/kg versed ~500 wh/kg for zinc, not including wait of oxygen in air. Lithium-ion batteries have at best 100-250 wh/kg) Lithium air batteries have potential energy densities equal to diesel fuel, and that is assuming equal energy efficiency which a lithium air battery would far more efficient in discharging then a diesel engine is running. The problem is low recharging efficiency, converting aluminum oxide to aluminum metal is very inefficient, zinc has the best discharging and recharging efficiency of the metal airs, an in total it can be slight more efficient then hydrogen fuel without counting the losses in compressing hydrogen. Zinc paste compared to hydrogen would not be combustible, would be a stable toothpaste like liquid not a gas under extreme pressure or a highly explosive cryogenic liquid.

 

[Billy T]

Again you are chewing on out of date data.

NO. not any data, old or new. Just some understanding, which you totally lack, of the fundamental process that occur in ALL batteries.

Your comments only reflect your extreme ignorance of processes occurring in all batteries.

 

[adoucette]

I read the Wiki entry on Zink Air batteries and the general impression is that it would be great if we could do it, but so far no one has solved the problems.

The article doesn't seem to agree with the practicality of your "recharge at home" scenario, saying:

Rechargeable zinc-air cells are a difficult design problem since zinc precipitation from the water-based electrolyte must be closely controlled. The problems are dendrite formation, non-uniform zinc dissolution and limited solubility in electrolytes. Electrically reversing the reaction at a bi-functional air cathode, to liberate oxygen from discharge reaction products, is difficult; membranes tested to date have low overall efficiency. Charging voltage is much higher than discharge voltage, producing cycle energy efficiency as low as 50%. Providing charge and discharge functions by separate uni-functional cathodes, increases cell size, weight, and complexity.[6] A satisfactory electrically recharged system potentially offers low material cost and high specific energy, but none has yet reached the market.

It also seems to imply that the batteries in an EV would need another battery to deal with high drain requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc–air_battery

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

Not necessarily as a metal paste air flow cell battery could be charged at home like any battery, just run the cell in reverse, power from an outlet just like a solid state battery powered car, although the car will need to be charge some place ventilated or else oxygen gas will build up. Anyways physically refueling it is optional and can be implement at leisure, I'm sure if a large number of electric car operating on metal-air flow cells were in operation there would be market incentive to start installing fueling stations for them to take advantage of their again optional rapid fueling abilities. ...

Good point. I retract my prior statement implying it could not be "phased in."

As it uses atmospheric gas (O2) it will get a lot of other minority components like SO, SO2 NOx, etc. into the cell. Is there a problem with poisoning the electrode surfaces? Is anyone testing this approach?

I would suspect adoucette's comment:
"It also seems to imply that the batteries in an EV would need another battery to deal with high drain requirements."
Has a relatively cheap attractive solution, which will be available before the Zink air is with high enough charge /discharge cycle efficiency to be attractive. - Namely the "super capacitor" placed in parallel with the battery.

“ a mass of zinc particles forms a porous anode, which is saturated with an electrolyte. … Zinc-air batteries have some properties of fuel cells as well as batteries: the zinc is the fuel, the reaction rate can be controlled by varying the air flow, and oxidized zinc/electrolyte paste can be replaced with fresh paste.” From adoucette's Wiki link.

Thus, it would seem to me in my ignorant state that one could facilitate the recharge, (replacing the “fuel”) with a porous Zink “plug in” electrode blade and that may solve both any poisoning and the dendrite growth problem at that electrode.

I don’t know of any fundamental reason why research cannot improve the cycle efficiency. All-in-this looks like it may be part of the solution with much better safety properties than most other high energy density fuels.

 

[universaldistress]

NO. not any data, old or new. Just some understanding, which you totally lack, of the fundamental process that occur in ALL batteries.

Your comments only reflect your extreme ignorance of processes occurring in all batteries.

I think the truth is you are choosing to ignore new advances in battery technology. Fast charging is going to happen. Wait and see . . .

 

[universaldistress]

Adoucette, how is it a red herring. If the industry does have to go down a battery swapping route it will be very hard. But would that stop it from happening? Governmental money is ploughed into these types of technologies. The NASA budget per year during the Moon program if adjusted for todays money would make a hefty dent in setting up EV systems close to main cities. I must admit I do not think USA is going to lead the way; too addicted to cut price oil products. In Europe we pay extortionate prices for fuel. It supplies a hefty carrot for this type of technological development. Going to the Moon was tricky and expensive but it was achieved, I simply state that if batswap is tricky and expensive doesn't mean it can't be done given the need. If you are saying the need will never exist then that seems a bit prescient of you. Billy berates me for my prediction of quick charging, but you are assuming to know that batswap is a definite no-go.

The analogy to the railway system isn't a bad one. At the very beginning it cost a lot of time effort and money to develop the tech, same story with the bat-swap tech. Once enough time would pass for the technology to develop sufficiently, it could be a goer. And not just for taxis. The most viable model will have money ploughed into it. If that means bat-swap then it will happen. I think quick charge is more likely. If the CO2 puzzle isn't tackled effectively then there may be no tomorrow; and this is a significant and growing piece. Do you ignore this pressure?

Do you think that EVs are a deadend technology?

 

[universaldistress]

http://www.wirelesscharging.org.uk/articles/how-does-wireless-charging-work/31/

Billy, wireless charging is becoming more and more efficient. It will possibly become a very real possibility for charging cars on the move. It need only be laid into main roads giving an EV a reasonable range before it needs to get back to a main road.

I know all this is highly conjectural but I must reiterate, EV motoring (unless hydrogen can be produced from water using the sun's energy (very possible)) will be the successor of internal combustion. Burning NG or biofuels is just a combustion engine addicts stance.

 

[universaldistress]

Sorry to post so many in a row but this link has got to be shared:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-road_electric_vehicle_charger

I think you'll find Billy it is already in development.:blbl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_roadway

 

[adoucette]

Adoucette, how is it a red herring. If the industry does have to go down a battery swapping route it will be very hard. But would that stop it from happening? Governmental money is ploughed into these types of technologies. The NASA budget per year during the Moon program if adjusted for todays money would make a hefty dent in setting up EV systems close to main cities.

No it wouldn't $10 in 69 is equal to $60 per person today. So still no biggy.

Doesn't matter though, it's a red herring because you can't point to any major government that is seriously talking about spending that kind of money on EVs.

I must admit I do not think USA is going to lead the way; too addicted to cut price oil products. In Europe we pay extortionate prices for fuel. It supplies a hefty carrot for this type of technological development. Going to the Moon was tricky and expensive but it was achieved, I simply state that if batswap is tricky and expensive doesn't mean it can't be done given the need.

That's an entirely different issue, I'm not saying it couldn't be done, just that there is no indication that any government is going to spend that kind of money for a system that is that expensive and requires such fundamental changes in our infrastructure. The excessive taxes on fuel make Hybrids and cars like the Volt more justifiable to a consumer but don't do much to make EVs practical.

If you are saying the need will never exist then that seems a bit prescient of you. Billy berates me for my prediction of quick charging, but you are assuming to know that batswap is a definite no-go.

No, I said battery swapping isn't a good fit for CONSUMER use. I think it could work fine for Taxis and Fleet cars. (you seem to think this is a negligable use, I can assure you it isn't, for instance the Govt's fleet of cars is 600,000 (maybe 200,000 would be candidates) and NYC alone has 13,000 taxis). As to quick charging, I agree with Billy in that it's not likely, but even if you do so that just changes the nature of the problem.
Try to imagine how you deal with many thousands of cars at rush hour all wanting to recharge their 24kWh battery in a short period of time. How exactly is that going to work?

The analogy to the railway system isn't a bad one. At the very beginning it cost a lot of time effort and money to develop the tech, same story with the bat-swap tech.

No it's not. Rails could be built one line at at time and run between the most heavily traveled corridors for shipping goods and people, with a KNOWN business case going in. A bat swap system makes no sense for CONSUMER use unless you start out with a huge amount of infrastructure and then HOPE that consumers will join your party.

If the CO2 puzzle isn't tackled effectively then there may be no tomorrow; and this is a significant and growing piece. Do you ignore this pressure?

Yes, pretty much consumers don't make their car buying decisions based on CO2 per mile but on cost per mile.

Do you think that EVs are a deadend technology?

No, but for the forseeable future they are a NICHE player.
They will do fine where their qualities match the demand.
To start with it will be mainly urban use vehicles that don't need to go between cities.
For consumers, it will most likely be a second car used for urban/suburban commuting with an IC car for other uses where the EV is not suited.
IC cars will become hybrids or extended range hybrids like the Volt.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Sorry to post so many in a row but this link has got to be shared:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-road_electric_vehicle_charger

I think you'll find Billy it is already in development.:blbl:

:blbl: right back at ya.

It's NOT in development anywhere.
The company has a patent on the method is all.

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=2591

A lot of ideas get patented, but that's not the same as putting it to use.

In this case it requires major changes to the CAR and the ROAD, which makes its adoption for general use VERY impractical.

Can you imagine the HUGE cost of adding this to our National Highway system?
Just to put it in perspective, the US has over 48,000 miles of Limited access high speed Interstate highways (roughly 6+ lanes), and another 112,000 miles of highways that Don't include state roads and those in cites.
Would you buy a EV car that couldn't travel on the Interstates and NHS?
No, of course not because that's what you need to get places the fastest.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

I think the truth is you are choosing to ignore new advances in battery technology. Fast charging is going to happen. Wait and see . . .

Thinking fast recharge is a problem to be solved by technology advances just reflects your ignorance of battery process - fundamental limitation of ALL batteries.

Internal battery current is always equal to the external circuit current and it consist of the movement of ions, not electrons. These ions move because they are in an electric field. If you want that internal current to be larger (as it must be if the charging current is larger) then the internal electric field must be greater.

When there is no current, the battery has terminal voltage equal to Vb and of course no internal E field. To make this internal E field you and charge the battery, you apply charging voltage Vc > Vb so that both the interal and external current is I. The energy applied is I x Vc x T where T is the time of charging, The energy stored, Es, is I x Vb xT. Thus, the energy converted to heat or wasted wasted, Ew is I x (Vc -Vb)x T.

There is NO technology in these relationships. One cannot improve this energy loss relationship with research. It isjust the FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS of ALL batteries, regardless of design.

If for example, you want to recharge in ten minute instead of T = two hours, then the new charge time, t, is smaller by a factor of 12. I.e. t =T/12

Now to fully recharge the battery with stored energy Es the same equation still applies. The new current is I' = 12 I which means that the ions inside the battery are moving 12 times faster towards the electrodes. Thus, their driving electric field is 12 times stronger. To first order this means (V'c -Vb)
is 12 times greater. but actually it must be more than 12 times greater as near the electrodes the ion density is deleted below the equilibrium concentration. I.e. fewer ions much move even faster towards the electrodes to make the current I' =12 times I.

The internal E field must "reach out" farther form the electrode surface to get more electrodes Thus the overvoltage (V'c -Vb) is not enough on this larger internal zone to make the E field the ions are subjected to E' = 12 E the lower charge rates internal field. Thus a larger than 12 times V'c, is required I.e The applied over voltage is (V"c - Vb) not just (Vc' -Vb) but more than 12 times greater than (Vc -Vb) of the slower recharge rate.
So the heat produced is more than 12 times greater and equal to
I' x (V"c - Vb) x t, but I' x t = I x T so the increased heat, H', compared to the slower charge rate heat H, is just: H' / H = (V"c - Vb) / (Vc -Vb) > 12.

The point is that the total heat produced by rapid recharge is inherently greater by a factor MORE than the charge time reduction factor or in this example more than 12 times greater but that is not the real problem – That is just a reduction in efficiency. The real problem is that this > 12 times more heat is released in 1 / 12 the time. Thus the internal power dissipation level in the battery is more than 144 times greater.

Thus far this is only fundamental physics and no technology research can change it any more than it can change the strength of gravity. Now I will mention one problem associated with this greater rate of heating. – The > than 144 times the internal thermal power level in this example. That can b e solved by technology: That is the rapid heating will tend to warp the electrode plates. They could be mad with steel cores etc. to make them more resistant to warping, etc. Instead of that, there could be internal to the electrodes copper plates that go thru the battery case to fins in the air for more rapid removal of the heat being produced. All these technological solutions to the problem of high heating rate damaging the battery do have solutions, but they lower the energy density and add to both the weight and cost of the battery, so are not very interesting.

I know your probably will learn nothing for my brief discussion of some battery fundamentals, probably will not even be able to follow the logic /equations, but there are other readers who can and may now understand that rapid battery recharge will not be possible without considerable drop in cycle efficiency and always has huge increase in internal thermal power levels, which can destroy the battery on the first attempt to fully recharge it in 10 minutes.

I might be tempted to suggest that you try to recharge a fully discharged lead acid car battery in 10 minutes, but there is too much risk it would explode with the internal heat production and spray sulfuric acid on you. You would surely destroy it as a useful battery.

 

[universaldistress]

No it wouldn't $10 in 69 is equal to $60 per person today. So still no biggy.

1964 33,241,000,000
1965 33,514,000,000
1966 32,106,000,000
1967 29,696,000,000
1968 26,139,000,000

Are you saying that an average expenditure of say these 5 figures wouldn't make a dent if payed out year after year in a 20 year frame? Did men even need to go to the moon? Wonder what could be spent given a pressing need?

Doesn't matter though, it's a red herring because you can't point to any major government that is seriously talking about spending that kind of money on EVs.

Maybe this is just a policy/ideology problem.

No, I said battery swapping isn't a good fit for CONSUMER use. I think it could work fine for Taxis and Fleet cars. (you seem to think this is a negligable use, I can assure you it isn't, for instance the Govt's fleet of cars is 600,000 (maybe 200,000 would be candidates) and NYC alone has 13,000 taxis). As to quick charging, I agree with Billy in that it's not likely, but even if you do so that just changes the nature of the problem.

I know what you said, and the consumer view is what we are I am talking about. Your observation about these other subsets of vehicles is a good one. I have already discussed making batteries with moulded airflow channels on this thread, to reduce overheating, though I think Billy has chosen to forget that debate.

Try to imagine how you deal with many thousands of cars at rush hour all wanting to recharge their 24kWh battery in a short period of time. How exactly is that going to work?

Do not see an issue, same as it does at present. It takes around 10 minutes to refuel a car anyway.

No it's not. Rails could be built one line at at time and run between the most heavily traveled corridors for shipping goods and people, with a KNOWN business case going in. A bat swap system makes no sense for CONSUMER use unless you start out with a huge amount of infrastructure and then HOPE that consumers will join your party.

I am not a wealthy man, but I would be prepared to run say a Twizy for everday use and keep a fossil for long trips on pay as you drive insurance tax etc. just until the transition is further in and the EV technology has improved sufficiently. To say it isn't a normal thing for typical working households to be able to afford to run two cars on a pay as you drive system is a bit short sighted. So therefore it would spring up successfully in the cities then spread across country. Why do you assume it needs to be a nothing one second, everything the next scenario? are you saying EV technology cannot spread across the country with the support of a gradual phase-out of fossils?

Yes, pretty much consumers don't make their car buying decisions based on CO2 per mile but on cost per mile.

It's the governments job to force the issue. In UK we have higher car tax for larger vehicles, zero for EV. So now most sensible people are downsizing, and even looking to EV.

No, but for the forseeable future they are a NICHE player.
They will do fine where their qualities match the demand.
To start with it will be mainly urban use vehicles that don't need to go between cities.
For consumers, it will most likely be a second car used for urban/suburban commuting with an IC car for other uses where the EV is not suited.
IC cars will become hybrids or extended range hybrids like the Volt.

Arthur

I agree, we are just at odds over the application of technology. I simply state what will need to be done will need to be done, that's all.

 

[universaldistress]

:blbl: right back at ya.

It's NOT in development anywhere.
The company has a patent on the method is all.

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=2591

A lot of ideas get patented, but that's not the same as putting it to use.

In this case it requires major changes to the CAR and the ROAD, which makes its adoption for general use VERY impractical.

Can you imagine the HUGE cost of adding this to our National Highway system?
Just to put it in perspective, the US has over 48,000 miles of Limited access high speed Interstate highways (roughly 6+ lanes), and another 112,000 miles of highways that Don't include state roads and those in cites.
Would you buy a EV car that couldn't travel on the Interstates and NHS?
No, of course not because that's what you need to get places the fastest.

Arthur

SOO defeatist.

Again you are assuming that this needs to happen overnight, without the support of a phasing out of fossil fuels. With lots of roads with this simple strip layed down (much simpler than building roads from scratch or railroads) done gradually with a reasonable budget from the government, possibly with a use of solar roadways, complemented by batswap stations, spreading out from population centres, we are looking at a more and more doable system for a transistion to EVs.

This company is still developing the technology. All they have done by seeking and acquiring issue a patent is ensure that they can do the developing exclusively. I suppose you imagine that now they have the patent they have put their feet up. Have you ever been involved in the R+D and procurement of a patent? Believe me it doesn't stop any balls from rolling.

 

[universaldistress]

Thinking fast recharge is a problem to be solved by technology advances just reflects your ignorance of battery process - fundamental limitation of ALL batteries.

Internal battery current is always equal to the external circuit current and it consist of the movement of ions, not electrons. These ions move because they are in an electric field. If you want that internal current to be larger (as it must be if the charging current is larger) then the internal electric field must be greater.

When there is no current, the battery has terminal voltage equal to Vb and of course no internal E field. To make this internal E field you and charge the battery, you apply charging voltage Vc > Vb so that both the interal and external current is I. The energy applied is I x Vc x T where T is the time of charging, The energy stored, Es, is I x Vb xT. Thus, the energy converted to heat or wasted wasted, Ew is I x (Vc -Vb)x T.

There is NO technology in these relationships. One cannot improve this energy loss relationship with research. It isjust the FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS of ALL batteries, regardless of design.

If for example, you want to recharge in ten minute instead of T = two hours, then the new charge time, t, is smaller by a factor of 12. I.e. t =T/12

Now to fully recharge the battery with stored energy Es the same equation still applies. The new current is I' = 12 I which means that the ions inside the battery are moving 12 times faster towards the electrodes. Thus, their driving electric field is 12 times stronger. To first order this means (V'c -Vb)
is 12 times greater. but actually it must be more than 12 times greater as near the electrodes the ion density is deleted below the equilibrium concentration. I.e. fewer ions much move even faster towards the electrodes to make the current I' =12 times I.

The internal E field must "reach out" farther form the electrode surface to get more electrodes Thus the overvoltage (V'c -Vb) is not enough on this larger internal zone to make the E field the ions are subjected to E' = 12 E the lower charge rates internal field. Thus a larger than 12 times V'c, is required I.e The applied over voltage is (V"c - Vb) not just (Vc' -Vb) but more than 12 times greater than (Vc -Vb) of the slower recharge rate.
So the heat produced is more than 12 times greater and equal to
I' x (V"c - Vb) x t, but I' x t = I x T so the increased heat, H', compared to the slower charge rate heat H, is just: H' / H = (V"c - Vb) / (Vc -Vb) > 12.

The point is that the total heat produced by rapid recharge is inherently greater by a factor MORE than the charge time reduction factor or in this example more than 12 times greater but that is not the real problem – That is just a reduction in efficiency. The real problem is that this > 12 times more heat is released in 1 / 12 the time. Thus the internal power dissipation level in the battery is more than 144 times greater.

Thus far this is only fundamental physics and no technology research can change it any more than it can change the strength of gravity. Now I will mention one problem associated with this greater rate of heating. – The > than 144 times the internal thermal power level in this example. That can b e solved by technology: That is the rapid heating will tend to warp the electrode plates. They could be mad with steel cores etc. to make them more resistant to warping, etc. Instead of that, there could be internal to the electrodes copper plates that go thru the battery case to fins in the air for more rapid removal of the heat being produced. All these technological solutions to the problem of high heating rate damaging the battery do have solutions, but they lower the energy density and add to both the weight and cost of the battery, so are not very interesting.

I know your probably will learn nothing for my brief discussion of some battery fundamentals, probably will not even be able to follow the logic /equations, but there are other readers who can and may now understand that rapid battery recharge will not be possible without considerable drop in cycle efficiency and always has huge increase in internal thermal power levels, which can destroy the battery on the first attempt to fully recharge it in 10 minutes.

I might be tempted to suggest that you try to recharge a fully discharged lead acid car battery in 10 minutes, but there is too much risk it would explode with the internal heat production and spray sulfuric acid on you. You would surely destroy it as a useful battery.

Nano structure based cathodes. Ever heard of them? . . . No?

http://pricinginsider.carsdirect.com/tag/new-fast-charge-ev-battery/

 

[ElectricFetus]

Good point. I retract my prior statement implying it could not be "phased in."

As it uses atmospheric gas (O2) it will get a lot of other minority components like SO, SO2 NOx, etc. into the cell. Is there a problem with poisoning the electrode surfaces? Is anyone testing this approach?

I don't think any of those poison it. Well most hearing aids operate on zinc-air primary cells. Yes there are groups developing secondary zinc-air cells, they have been in minor development for decades and poisoning is not a problem mentioned.

Thus, it would seem to me in my ignorant state that one could facilitate the recharge, (replacing the “fuel”) with a porous Zink “plug in” electrode blade and that may solve both any poisoning and the dendrite growth problem at that electrode.

I don’t know of any fundamental reason why research cannot improve the cycle efficiency. All-in-this looks like it may be part of the solution with much better safety properties than most other high energy density fuels.

maybe :shrug:

 

[adoucette]

1964 33,241,000,000
1965 33,514,000,000
1966 32,106,000,000
1967 29,696,000,000
1968 26,139,000,000

Are you saying that an average expenditure of say these 5 figures wouldn't make a dent if payed out year after year in a 20 year frame? Did men even need to go to the moon? Wonder what could be spent given a pressing need?

Nope.

The Feds spent $68 billion just maintaining those roads in 2009. The States spent about half that and so $26 Billion is nothing when you have 200+ million cars on the road.

I think you fail to realize the SCOPE of the problem.

We have to spend that much each year just to keep the roads in shape, doesn't allow a lot of spare change to buy everyone friggin batteries.

Maybe this is just a policy/ideology problem.

Well yeah, everyone wants their program to take top priority, but the fact is after you deal with all the things you have to fund there isn't that much discretionary spending left over.

Do not see an issue, same as it does at present. It takes around 10 minutes to refuel a car anyway.

LOL, so YOU don't see this as an issue? Guess we can simply dismiss the problem of this MASSIVE generation of power over a short period of time.
Where do you think all this excess capacity is supposed to come from?

I am not a wealthy man, but I would be prepared to run say a Twizy for everday use and keep a fossil for long trips on pay as you drive insurance tax etc. just until the transition is further in and the EV technology has improved sufficiently. To say it isn't a normal thing for typical working households to be able to afford to run two cars on a pay as you drive system is a bit short sighted. So therefore it would spring up successfully in the cities then spread across country. Why do you assume it needs to be a nothing one second, everything the next scenario? are you saying EV technology cannot spread across the country with the support of a gradual phase-out of fossils?

Except no one wants to buy a car today that is not useful today.
Your slowly spreading across the country approach makes no sense economically.

It's the governments job to force the issue. In UK we have higher car tax for larger vehicles, zero for EV. So now most sensible people are downsizing, and even looking to EV.

Well that might be what YOU want.
Not everyone agrees with you however.
Like higher taxes on gasoline.
No thanks.
Of course in your relatively small country gas taxes aren't as big a deal, you don't drive as much as we do.
Take a look at that map again, the UK isn't as big as just one of our medium size states, and we have 50 of them.

(The UK is the size of Oregon, that's the second state down in the NW)

I do wish that you would just take a second to realize how BIG the US is in comparison to your country and realize that our problems are not the same.

Arthur

 

[universaldistress]

Arthur, you still seem determined to insist that it couldn't be done if the need was great enough. Well I will leave you to it.

And it looks like quick charging is going to be the winner anyway. Check out nano structure based cathodes.

I think you and Billy are too defeatist to be involved in any debate seeking to solve this issue. I would hazard that you are both from the older cross-section of the community. You have got to start reading New Scientist. Infrastructures grow as they need to, it has always been so. If power needs to be delivered to charging stations then it will be. It's called development. Things do not stay the same forever no matter how difficult it is for us to comprehend.

I honestly think a mix of charging methods will be the solution. Wireless charging, fast charges and batswap facility could all be part of a bright future. Why don't you go back to your petrol/diesel addictions and leave the rest of us to see in the future.

 

[universaldistress]

adoucette, I restate. Laying wireless charging strips in roads is inexpensive in comparison to building new ones. The USA is lost I think. Would just be nice if the CO2 you guzzlers produce stayed put over the states.

 

[universaldistress]

Adoucette. The USA's problem is comparable to Europes. Do you think that UK residents do not drive into Europe? Do you think thousands of lorries do not drive across our borders delivering goods thousands of miles in both directions? LOL.

But you watch, USA will lag behind on this, because your fuel is too cheap.

USA is no longer the biggest economy in the world. Europe is. But we still manage to be more productive than you guys with crippling taxes on fuel. High time the Americans stopped dragging their heels I say.

I am with you. I don't think the US is going to be able to tackle this. You'll just have to follow our lead I suppose. Enjoy the back seat.

 

[Billy T]

Nano structure based cathodes. Ever heard of them? . . . No?

Yes, I have some old post about them. In my prior general discussion of battery fundamentals I noted that the "over voltage" (Vc -Vb) increased with charging current I and that is always true.

However, what is really the the operative factor is the current density at the electrode surfaces. For crude example, imagine you had an exact duplicate of the original battery and were putting I/2 into each. That would result in a lower current density and a lower Vc and thus less heat production, just as if you took twice as long to charge the original battery.

What microporous electrodes do for you is increase the effective size of the electrode surface, compared to its gross dimensional surface area. I.e. it is, on a microscopic scale, operating with a lower current density and lower Vc and less heat production.

But there are two costs to this approach: one immediately obvious - the higher cost of electrode production, compared to just a simple solid plate.

The second is perhaps more serious. The stability of a chemically active micro structure. Not only are the normal diffusion processes acting to destroy its structure, but electrode atoms are actively being at least chemically transformed, if not actually removed from the electrode during the discharge and redeposited to the surface during charge (or conversely)

Thus it is not surprizing that your link noted a drop to 85% performance after only 100 charge / discharge cycles. They did not tell the extent or depth of the discharge, but I doubt it was full discharge then full recharge. But even if it was, would you be happy with a battery that lost 15% of its capacity in the first three months with daily near full discharge?

Generally speaking as the micro structure of new battery is degraded, the degredation on each addition cycle increases. I.e. at the end of six months of daily use in a EV with one full recharge each night, about 1/3 of the original capacity would be gone. After about a year of daily use, your driving range on battery only would be less than half what you paid for.

I will be more impress when a porous electrode battery can retain 90% (or more) of the original energy storage capacity after 1000 deep discharge cycles. Losing only 10% of your battery capacity in first three years may be acceptable to many, but AFAIK, no one has come even close to achieving that with porous electrodes that permit cutting the normal recharge time to less than 20 minutes. If you have a link to anyone claiming to have achieved that, please post it. Until them, please stop with your unsupported "wish and dream" posts.