ford-teases-a-new-cable-capable-of-charging-evs-in-5-minutes

Where are the EV batteries that can do low to full charge in 5 min?
where is the infrastructure?
small car has 50kwh battery. charging in 5 minutes require at least 600kw system, (losses not included).
100kw dc charging is today partially possible. certainly not entire capacity 0-100%
wire thickness, hotspots, insane requirements on semiconductors....
 
More like where are the all the raw materials to build these batteries if batteries become our main fuel source?
95% of existing can be recycled, including power tool, cell phone, and other batteries. A lot better than oil burning and it’s got to be harvested new all the time. If a million car batteries are made , 950,000 of those eventually go back into making new batteries.
 
95% of existing can be recycled, including power tool, cell phone, and other batteries. A lot better than oil burning and it’s got to be harvested new all the time. If a million car batteries are made , 950,000 of those eventually go back into making new batteries.
Eventually, maybe.

There are 1.4 billion vehicles in the world.

That number will only increase. EV’s are a bandaid over a sucking chest wound.
 
Eventually, maybe.

There are 1.4 billion vehicles in the world.

That number will only increase. EV’s are a bandaid over a sucking chest wound.
It’s numbers, 950,000 out of 1,000,000 , if recycling is implemented and stays, means 950,000 new batteries don’t have to use new material. Thats a lot. Compare that to oil,where 100% needs to be replaced as far as combustion goes. We have motor oil recycling, why is that? It doesn’t mean there will be no more oil drilling but that much less. 95% lithium ion battery recycling is fantastic.
 
Many cities are already making changes to emphasize other forms of transit. In some cases you can start by re-striping roadways. Simple and cheap.

Throwing money into a black hole of incredibly expensive and ever expanding roadways that will never meet induced demand is a major reason why EV’s will not succeed. There are simply too many car trips being made. And every year means more and more are added.

There is neither the will power, nor money to continue to expand roadway infrastructure AND improve the electrical grid to support infinite EV growth. It’s a zero sum game. Something has to give.
I'll tell you what a black hole is: using truck and ship to haul liquid fuel from deep ocean drilling platform, to a terminal, with a pipeline to a refinery, to a truck and haul it all the way to the top of Rocky Mountain, to a dedicated plot of land that people drive their cars to and then all to burn at 20-30% efficiency (typical gasoline engine). Yet we are doing it because it is more popular than the alternatives (horses or public transit).

What you are suggesting is urbanization, it is a trend all over the world for sure, yet this is a very different subject than whether gasoline engine is better or battery EV is better. People will not jump from gasoline engine to urban living because gasoline has high infrastructure cost. People has picked suburb living when they have the money and choices due to higher quality of life and reasonable commute distance. If anything the work from home trend is going to increase that move. Yes, they will reduce their commute frequency and live further away, but that is not because of EV vs gasoline vehicles.

Will we run out of electrical generation capacity to power everything? It is unlikely if the EV popularity gradually increase. We didn't handicap our power plant when the internet started, or when people migrate to heat pump heating from natural gas, or when people migrate from gas stove to induction stove. Eventually the generation capacity will match (with the addition of natural gas plants).

The problem of transmission or scheduling though, we would likely need time of use and battery charging off-vehicle (battery swap) to really address that (because commute time may land on low-demand hours). Also with off-vehicle charging you can reduce demand for urban charging infrastructure, you can carry spare batteries for road trips, you can lease them for long trips only, you can sell low range used batteries to 3rd world for local use (say solar panel in rural off grid homes only to power the fridge and light at night), and you can have cheap batteries sent to non-auto use when they are retired without expensive custom infrastructure specific to vehicles.

I don't think the infrastructure strain is big if you design EVs correctly, it will be sorted out eventually and I think Europe and China would have the incentive to make it happen.
 
I'll tell you what a black hole is: using truck and ship to haul liquid fuel from deep ocean drilling platform, to a terminal, with a pipeline to a refinery, to a truck and haul it all the way to the top of Rocky Mountain, to a dedicated plot of land that people drive their cars to and then all to burn at 20-30% efficiency (typical gasoline engine). Yet we are doing it because it is more popular than the alternatives (horses or public transit).

What you are suggesting is urbanization, it is a trend all over the world for sure, yet this is a very different subject than whether gasoline engine is better or battery EV is better. People will not jump from gasoline engine to urban living because gasoline has high infrastructure cost. People has picked suburb living when they have the money and choices due to higher quality of life and reasonable commute distance. If anything the work from home trend is going to increase that move. Yes, they will reduce their commute frequency and live further away, but that is not because of EV vs gasoline vehicles.

Will we run out of electrical generation capacity to power everything? It is unlikely if the EV popularity gradually increase. We didn't handicap our power plant when the internet started, or when people migrate to heat pump heating from natural gas, or when people migrate from gas stove to induction stove. Eventually the generation capacity will match (with the addition of natural gas plants).

The problem of transmission or scheduling though, we would likely need time of use and battery charging off-vehicle (battery swap) to really address that (because commute time may land on low-demand hours). Also with off-vehicle charging you can reduce demand for urban charging infrastructure, you can carry spare batteries for road trips, you can lease them for long trips only, you can sell low range used batteries to 3rd world for local use (say solar panel in rural off grid homes only to power the fridge and light at night), and you can have cheap batteries sent to non-auto use when they are retired without expensive custom infrastructure specific to vehicles.

I don't think the infrastructure strain is big if you design EVs correctly, it will be sorted out eventually and I think Europe and China would have the incentive to make it happen.
Urbanization is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about Incentivizing alternate forms of transport to reduce overall number of car trips. Dedicated bus lanes, sidewalks where people actually want to be, safe bikelanes, etc. all very cheap compared to our ever growing expenditures on roadways that will never meet induced demand.

Build a natural gas plant in California right now. Do it. I dare you. It took a declaration of emergency to even authorize construction of “temporary” gas plants this year. (Hint: They will never turn those off.) Gas plants are going offline, not the other way around. They are being replaced by renewables that remove off peak demand so gas plants can’t make money, and then can’t meet peak demand when needed. Enter battery storage demands - it won’t be enough.

Also, EV popularity isn’t “gradually increasing” it’s being mandated wholesale. Let’s not pretend this is some organic or incentivized adoption process. California is mandating EV’s after 2035. 13 years to build out everything needed to never sell another new ICE or hybrid in California.

There were several ways to deal with emissions. The government decided draconian mandates were the easiest way to do so, and ended up kicking the can (transportation and electrical infrastructure) down the road. Meanwhile, affluent early adopters get to look down their noses at the plebes who can afford neither the cost nor inflexibility of EV’s.

“The performance!” “Just buy solar” “I have 4 other cars to cover my needs, why can’t you get by on just one EV you poor person.”

But hey, EV’s are the answer. Good luck with that.
 
95% of existing can be recycled, including power tool, cell phone, and other batteries. A lot better than oil burning and it’s got to be harvested new all the time. If a million car batteries are made , 950,000 of those eventually go back into making new batteries.
The question was not if it can be recycled but where will the "initial" raw materials come from? Will California allow mining?
 
Urbanization is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about Incentivizing alternate forms of transport to reduce overall number of car trips. Dedicated bus lanes, sidewalks where people actually want to be, safe bikelanes, etc. all very cheap compared to our ever growing expenditures on roadways that will never meet induced demand.

But hey, EV’s are the answer. Good luck with that.
If you believe people are gonna start riding busses, riding bikes and walking, well good luck with that.
 
If you believe people are gonna start riding busses, riding bikes and walking, well good luck with that.
Build more roads then. That seems to be handling our traffic needs, right? EV’s don’t solve the fundamental problem with cars. Emissions are a bi-product. We are trying to cure a symptom, not the disease, and we are killing our electrical grid in the meantime.

Productive.
 
Urbanization is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about Incentivizing alternate forms of transport to reduce overall number of car trips. Dedicated bus lanes, sidewalks where people actually want to be, safe bikelanes, etc. all very cheap compared to our ever growing expenditures on roadways that will never meet induced demand.

Build a natural gas plant in California right now. Do it. I dare you. It took a declaration of emergency to even authorize construction of “temporary” gas plants this year. (Hint: They will never turn those off.) Gas plants are going offline, not the other way around. They are being replaced by renewables that remove off peak demand so gas plants can’t make money, and then can’t meet peak demand when needed. Enter battery storage demands - it won’t be enough.

Also, EV popularity isn’t “gradually increasing” it’s being mandated wholesale. Let’s not pretend this is some organic or incentivized adoption process. California is mandating EV’s after 2035. 13 years to build out everything needed to never sell another new ICE or hybrid in California.

There were several ways to deal with emissions. The government decided draconian mandates were the easiest way to do so, and ended up kicking the can (transportation and electrical infrastructure) down the road. Meanwhile, affluent early adopters get to look down their noses at the plebes who can afford neither the cost nor inflexibility of EV’s.

“The performance!” “Just buy solar” “I have 4 other cars to cover my needs, why can’t you get by on just one EV you poor person.”

But hey, EV’s are the answer. Good luck with that.

So, if you are not talking about urbanization, why the heck do you encourage bike lane and side walk? Do you think people who can bike or walk to work would actually care about a few minutes of EV vs gasoline?

I'm not sure if I understand why are you so focus on California, it has a grid that is nationally tied. Someone will make the money off California's ban (most likely it is a NIMBY ballot that nobody wants a power plant in their backyard). 2035? I remember EV1 was like 27 years ago and somehow lobbying got the EV bill cancelled, people keep selling gas cars. When people have enough they will vote to overturn the past ballot, it happens all the time. I think you need to chill about something so far away. IMO someone will figure out the tech or someone will vote to overturn what cannot be done. People used to say the same thing about hybrid being a waste of money and it was rich eco-nut people looking down on poor gas-burner people, now it is just a tool commercial delivery uses, taxi driver uses, long distance commuter uses, and cheap skate uses. Nothing sexy and nothing cool, just plain old money savings.

If you have seen my posts all along you know I am not a fan on residential solar for all (in fact I said it was not a good idea unless you need a new roof). I do say it is a good idea if you have "free" land that's good for nothing, or if you need to shade a parking lot, or if you build just enough to power air conditioners in building nearby. I also am not a big fan of today's EV and I probably won't buy one until there's a standard for DIY battery swap that I can charge at home at rock bottom electric rate and then plug into my car, and taking a few extra on a road trip (but never to invert back to AC to feed my house's usage). I also am never a proponent for every vehicle in the world being converted to EV either.

Maybe you need to chill a bit. 2035 is 3 1/2 presidential election terms away, it can go back and forth a few times and it will hit a depression or recession at least once, you have bigger things to worry about before then.
 
Build more roads then. That seems to be handling our traffic needs, right? EV’s don’t solve the fundamental problem with cars. Emissions are a bi-product. We are trying to cure a symptom, not the disease, and we are killing our electrical grid in the meantime.

Productive.
FYI, people want higher quality of life voted for more roads, pay for suburb development, gated community, driving everywhere, parking lot everywhere, etc. I can't even believe people want a crew cab when a more comfortable minivan or sedan is the obvious better choice, but hey, that's what they want and they are paying for it.

Killing our electrical grid? Don't be silly. New homes are build and new powerlines are laid all the time and they didn't "kill" the grid, they just pay to expand it when they can make a buck off of it, and they just pay more for power plant somewhere, one way or another.

If you really care about the grid try to lobby for crypto mining ban, or aluminum smelting ban, or resistance heater ban.
 
how about h2 ?
because these ev typical metals are getting expensive,

Are you going to use hydrogen fuel cell? Where are you going to get all those platinum to make these fuel cell? Where is the energy to crack H20 into H2 and O2 or from methane to H2?
 
Killing our electrical grid? Don't be silly. New homes are build and new powerlines are laid all the time and they didn't "kill" the grid, they just pay to expand it when they can make a buck off of it, and they just pay more for power plant somewhere, one way or another.
Bingo. The electrical grid has grown every single day since the early 1900s and will continue to grow as needed.

For some perspective, from 1960 to 2000 the US increased electrical production by around 400%. (.76 Trillion kWh to 3.8 Trillion kWH). The math suggests charging an all-EV passenger car country would require about a 30% increase in production. Not even close to an impossible task.

Source:
 
People used to say the same thing about hybrid being a waste of money and it was rich eco-nut people looking down on poor gas-burner people, now it is just a tool commercial delivery uses, taxi driver uses, long distance commuter uses, and cheap skate uses. Nothing sexy and nothing cool, just plain old money savings.
Except for the initial cost of a new EV. Even with some of the buyer credits/incentives they are still going to cost more than an ICE in the same basic sized vehicle. Then if you don't want a partial charge with 12 hrs of charging on 120V/15A house power, a bunch of money will have to be spent to get 240V charging at home.

Electricity cost at some point may become way more expensive for EV specific charging, so that part of owning an EV may also diminish as time goes on. The early adopters are the ones who made out with big buying incentives and cheap power for charging. As time goes on some of those "perks" will diminish. The only way EVs will be bought by lower/middle class people is when they can buy one for for $25 to $30K that's decent enough to have good range and last 10+ years.

Go to near the end of the video (28:00 mark) where she talks about the price of these two EVs. I wouldn't call these EVs "high end" in today's EV market. Talking about base prices of $42K+ and the price goes up quickly from there.

 
So it went from Ford working with Purdue on a high power commercial station charging cable to who likes to ride the bus? I like riding the bus, when I had to go pick up my car, people said I’ll take you. Nope I said I will take the bus. I like to be independent. There are lots of interesting people riding the bus, and it isn’t too hard to find someone to start talking to. On a bus we see the reality of people’s lives outside the bubble of having it all. So now the topic went even further off the rails. 😃
 
Except for the initial cost of a new EV. Even with some of the buyer credits/incentives they are still going to cost more than an ICE in the same basic sized vehicle. Then if you don't want a partial charge with 12 hrs of charging on 120V/15A house power, a bunch of money will have to be spent to get 240V charging at home.

Electricity cost at some point may become way more expensive for EV specific charging, so that part of owning an EV may also diminish as time goes on. The early adopters are the ones who made out with big buying incentives and cheap power for charging. As time goes on some of those "perks" will diminish. The only way EVs will be bought by lower/middle class people is when they can buy one for for $25 to $30K that's decent enough to have good range and last 10+ years.

Go to near the end of the video (28:00 mark) where she talks about the price of these two EVs. I wouldn't call these EVs "high end" in today's EV market. Talking about base prices of $42K+ and the price goes up quickly from there.



So the thing about the EV math, is you need to pay upfront for a lot of battery capacity. If you have an EV, at today's utility rate, the cost per mile on EV is going to be more depreciation than the ICE car, yet the energy cost is going to be lower for the ICE car. Also once the battery wears down to a very low range there is not much incentive to keep the car and replace the battery.

So the easiest solution is really to lease and swap the battery. Without a corporate-owned battery it is very hard to use the battery to its full potential and it is very hard not to feel attached to your own $15k investment. Nobody wants an old battery when they swap their own out, but if it is a corporate-owned battery you can swap it with no emotional attachment. You can also have a spare at home charging if you wish, while you drive your car, or go to a "gas station" for a quick swap. Imagine if you can plug in a 50lb battery and let it charge when you go to work, actually let you charge 3 50lb batteries all over your house as soon as price is low (say 7am to 10am, because everyone will charge their EV at night and nobody wants to charge the during morning commute). You don't need 240V charging if you can get all your 120V used across your house (say you have 3 separate 15A circuit breakers), 24 hours a day. You also don't need 240V if you can have a few spare in the house or in the trunk. You also don't need them to last 10 years if you can easily swap them in and out, just upgrade your battery and keep the car.

See, all the problem we think we have is just because we are not thinking outside the box, as soon as we have user swappable battery we don't need them to last 300 miles or 240V charging (actually the higher current is just as important as 240V, since P=IV, and what helps in the US is 240V are designed for high current appliance and most of them are at least 30A instead of 15A), and as soon as we have battery leasing we don't need them to last 10 years.
 
Back
Top Bottom