The EV battery discussion thread (bogus breakthroughs)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
25,948
Location
PNW
As always, let me point out all the errors and even give you a link


First, these metrics were made by BUREAUCRATS for POLITICS- not be engineers for technical use so any "testing and correlation" has to be reviewed to see what else is in there ( which you have not done)

They are "doing it right" FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSE (I grant you that but that purpose is NOT a legitimate equal comparison)

Now ( from the link) lets "look into it"
The unit of energy consumed is 33.7 Kilowatt hours without regard to the efficiency of conversion of heat energy into electrical energy, also measured in Kilowatt hours. The equivalence of this unit to energy in a gallon of gasoline is true if and only if the heat engine, generating equipment, and power delivery to the car battery are 100% efficient. Actual heat engines differ vastly from this assumption.

There's the first clue- the basis of comparison itself is fatally flawed. There's more

Fuel economy for CAFE purposes include an incentive adjustment for alternative fuel vehicles and plug-in electric vehicles which results in higher MPGe than those estimated for window stickers

Gee, an incentive adjustment- how "scientific"

The formula also includes a "fuel content factor" of 1/0.15 (about 6.667) to benefit electric vehicles, raising the value from 12,307 to 82,049 Wh/gal. This reward factor is intended provide an incentive for vehicle manufactures to produce and sell electric vehicles, as a higher equivalent fuel economy for EVs improves the carmaker overall fleet fuel economy levels in complying with the CAFE standards, and Congress anticipated that such an incentive would help accelerate the commercialization of electric vehicles.

Gee, a political injection to influence an outcome- That's real good hard "science"

Now let me roll up the long part about how the comparison is built ( long read)

The end computation results in MPG unit and is directly comparable to a standard internal combustion engine vehicles fuel costs for its rated MPG.

The entire "correlation" is built around "fuzzy logic" and tests with numerous uncontrolled variables leading to a COST comparison of the fuel.

When you drill down into the bas metrics, consider the points listed above.

They take a lab formula and break it down to joules ( the atomic level) then skew the data and calculation like this "dual" correlation
For EPA, this considers the tank-to-wheel for liquids and wall-to-wheel energy consumption for electricity

2 different scales and models ( each with a ton of uncontrolled variables)

And its all done in BTU ( where its stated up front its an impossible correlation)

I could go on for another hundred points but I have made my point and done it using the actual metrics.
Yeah ... so? I've said many times it's not a perfect correlation, but it's the only tool people have to compare apples to oranges. I knew you would put the "political injection to influence an outcome" spin on it due to the high level of conspiracy mindset.

And yes, the correlation could be better by not assuming EVs are 100% efficient in converting electrical energy into motion. But it is what it is, and frankly I doubt many people even really care much about the MPGe value on the window sticker and look at charging time, mi/kwh and total range, as well as the total cost of operating an EV vs an equivalently sized and used gasoline powered vehicle.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
44,860
Location
Ontario, Canada
Yeah ... so? I've said many times it's not a perfect correlation, but it's the only tool people have to compare apples to oranges. I knew you would put the "political injection to influence an outcome" spin on it due to the high level of conspiracy mindset.

And yes, the correlation could be better by not assuming EVs are 100% efficient in converting electrical energy into motion. But it is what it is, and frankly I doubt many people even really care much about the MPGe value on the window sticker and look at charging time, mi/kwh and total range, as well as the total cost of operating an EV vs an equivalently sized and used gasoline powered vehicle.

I don't care about MPGe at all. I look at how many kWh's a month I'm going to use, based, roughly, on the range of the vehicle in question, and then figure out what that's going to cost me in hydro since the plan is to charge at home almost 100% of the time. Electricity is much cheaper than gasoline, so getting the "most efficient" (has the best "MPGe") isn't even on my radar, however I appreciate that may not be the case for everyone.
 
Messages
25,948
Location
PNW
I don't care about MPGe at all. I look at how many kWh's a month I'm going to use, based, roughly, on the range of the vehicle in question, and then figure out what that's going to cost me in hydro since the plan is to charge at home almost 100% of the time. Electricity is much cheaper than gasoline, so getting the "most efficient" (has the best "MPGe") isn't even on my radar, however I appreciate that may not be the case for everyone.
I'm waiting for the day when the power companies will require people with EVs to put in a separate meter for EV charging so they can separate the electricity cost between household use and EV charging use, and charge higher rates on the EV juice. But that's a whole other subject.
 
Messages
1,967
Location
USA
Yeah ... so? I've said many times it's not a perfect correlation, but it's the only tool people have to compare apples to oranges. I knew you would put the "political injection to influence an outcome" spin on it due to the high level of conspiracy mindset.

And yes, the correlation could be better by not assuming EVs are 100% efficient in converting electrical energy into motion. But it is what it is, and frankly I doubt many people even really care much about the MPGe value on the window sticker and look at charging time, mi/kwh and total range, as well as the total cost of operating an EV vs an equivalently sized and used gasoline powered vehicle.
So many words to say so little of any value and still didn't refute anything, add anything to the conversation or even make an original point.
 

BeerCan

$50 Site Donor
Messages
1,598
Location
FL
Funny that batteries have been controversial for a long time. Consider the following quotation is from Thomas Edison in The Electrician (London) Feb. 17, 1883, p. 329,

  • "The storage battery is, in my opinion, a catchpenny, a sensation, a mechanism for swindling the public by stock companies. The storage battery is one of those peculiar things which appeals to the imagination, and no more perfect thing could be desired by stock swindlers than that very selfsame thing. ... Just as soon as a man gets working on the secondary battery it brings out his latent capacity for lying."
Seems things have changed little in the past 100+ years. While I understand his sentiment, technology is ripe for deception and many people claim to have solved problem with wild claims that never materialize. People have heard these claims for years and feel less trustful when new ideas are presented.

But I feel science is on our side. New studies in materials are causing many wild claims today but I think that one of these research areas is going to get lucky and stumble upon a working solution. The evolution of batteries has progressed in fits and starts but I maintain that there has never been more effort than we are seeing now in cracking this area. As I said earlier we need to let these companies pursue these technologies, even if some of them may seem wild and beyond the pale as far as claims. Eventually the shysters and duds will shake out, the crazy guy with the wild idea will be proven right and eventually we will end up with a power rich, storage dense solution. I have seen to many wonderful and crazy changes in my life to believe otherwise.

EDIT: let me mark this as opinion OK ;)
 
Messages
651
Location
EU
From quick recharging alone his revolution will be lost. Not within Fisker's minute but probably Toyota's ten minutes.
His revolutionary subject ain't really fueled from electrons or photons or wind, never was. Buggah.
 
Let me point out one very important selective omission those parroting these things deliberately steer clear of. Infrastructure support.

As the "number' of these cars needing charge increases- so will power requirements and peak loads.

This will require significant additions to power generation capability and capacity as well as transmission and retention in the HUNDREDS of billions of dollars nationwide. Energy for these 'charges" aint fee and has to be generated and carried to the car.

That's not in the price of the car but in the price of OWNING the car and somebody has to pay for all that too. ( in addition to the minerals required for all these)

Theres the economic impact of scale that all those "benefits" have to be weighed against to determine the true cost and value.
Some of that is debatable.
The pollution caused by manufacturing batteries and electric motors isn't, obviously, but then the big boogie-man right now is climate change, and electric vehicles address that pretty well. Sure you can argue that a lot of those vehicles are being powered by greenhouse-gas emitting power plants but that is changing and the overall efficiency of electric vehicles is generally better than IC engines (and, hopefully, the emissions control equipment on the power plants is maintained to a higher standard than most people maintain their vehicles).

The argument that everyone getting electric vehicles will overwhelm the grid seems to have been debunked by experts multiple times. Which experts are right remains to be seen I guess. It's not like every electric vehicle will need a full charge every day. There's also a lot of "smart" tech to throw at the problem and ideas like electricity pricing by time of day to encourage people to charge when there's less demand on the grid (aided by apps to set when you want your vehicle to start charging) can go a long way to reduce issues. That said, it's not like we haven't successfully engaged in large-scale new infrastructure projects recently (the internet, mobile phone networks) with relatively little trouble. If there's consumer demand for additional charging infrastructure then there's profit to be made off those consumers and someone will build it and profit.
 
Messages
1,693
Location
Winnipeg MB CA
I'm a bit reluctant to join this spirited discussion, but have a few thoughts I'll throw into the mix.

1. It's hard to rate the "greenness" of electricity objectively. I spent most of my career working for an electric utility. 98% of our generation was hydroelectric. So we were very green and renewable, right? Yes, relatively so, but there were still lots of fossil fuel inputs - we had a fleet of hundreds of gasoline- or diesel-fueled vehicles, which collectively put on many hundreds of thousands of kms annually, not to mention the many hours a lot of the trucks spent idling in the field. Add to that the fuel consumption of our many contractors, plus the fuel burned by thousands of commuting employees, and you're burning a lot of fossil fuel.

How significant is that "non-core" consumption? I don't know, and don't know whether anyone's tried to quantify it. But the point is that there were still a lot of fossil fuel inputs in the production of our green power.

2. Wind and solar certainly have their issues (particularly in that they are costly to store if batteries are required), but they are pretty good when paired with hydroelectric. The stored water behind the dam serves as a hydraulic battery, to be used for hydroelectric generation when wind and solar output is insufficient.

3. I agree it's hard to try to quantify MPGe, and that it can be fudged to suit the political agenda of whoever's got an axe to grind, either for or against electric cars.

So why not let the market sort it out, by setting prices?

Hypothetical calculation method:

- I'm planning to buy a car, and need to choose between gas or electric.

- I drive x number of miles or kilometres annually.

- If I buy an ICE car, it will use x gallons or litres of fuel annually, at a cost of x per gallon or litre, for a fuel cost of x.

- In addition, I'll spend x amount on maintenance that wouldn't be an issue with an electric car.

But

- The electric car will cost x $ more that an equivalent ICE car. That money will cost me either interest (for a loan), or opportunity (if I were to invest it).

- I will spend some on electricity recharging my electric car, and that amount has to deducted from the gas savings.

- I may find that recharging off a 120 VAC outlet takes too long, and have to install a 240 VAC charger. The capital cost of that has to be amortized over the time I plan to keep the electric car (although I suppose there's some recapture of cost if my house is then considered to be worth more as a result of installing the big charger).

- I will have to consider how long I keep the car - what will depreciation of an electric car look like as compared to the ICE car?

- If I have only one vehicle, but do plan to do long trips, is the recharging infrastructure adequate? If not, do I need a 2nd car, this one ICE, for trips?

*****************

My point is that there's not necessarily a universal right or wrong. Everyone has different circumstances. I don't have an electric car, but think that having one as a 2nd vehicle, for city use only, would make a lot of sense. But I'm not ready to take the plunge yet.

And of course none of this takes into account artificially high (or low) gasoline or electricity prices due to subsidies or sin taxes. And of course those are subject to change, based on who's in power.

Thoughts? Thanks for hearing me out.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
44,860
Location
Ontario, Canada
Some of that is debatable.
The pollution caused by manufacturing batteries and electric motors isn't, obviously, but then the big boogie-man right now is climate change, and electric vehicles address that pretty well. Sure you can argue that a lot of those vehicles are being powered by greenhouse-gas emitting power plants but that is changing
I'd like to point out that there really isn't a lot of change going on there all things considered if the goal is ultra-low emissions. The big shift in markets that aren't nuclear and/or hydro is to gas with a bit of VRE sprinkled in with the gas doing most of the work.

Yes, gas is lower emissions (490gCO2/kWh) than coal (820gCO2/kWh) but it is still a major emitter.

Two immediate Canadian examples. It isn't windy right now, either in Ontario, or in Nova Scotia. Ontario has nuclear and a lot of hydro, Nova Scotia doesn't.
Screen Shot 2020-12-11 at 2.03.49 PM.png

Screen Shot 2020-12-11 at 2.04.00 PM.png


Same problem in Europe:
Screen Shot 2020-12-11 at 2.04.34 PM.png

Screen Shot 2020-12-11 at 2.04.48 PM.png

Screen Shot 2020-12-11 at 2.04.41 PM.png


Where you live has a significant impact on the emissions intensity of operating an EV.
 
Last edited:
Messages
651
Location
EU
And of course none of this takes into account artificially high (or low) gasoline or electricity prices due to subsidies or sin taxes. And of course those are subject to change, based on who's in power.

Thoughts? Thanks for hearing me out.

To let an invisible hand of market sort it all out requires the invisible hand to be interested in exhaust detoxication, CO2 pricing and more of course. A page in the latest issue of just STLE: http://digitaleditions.walsworthprintgroup.com/publication/?m=5716&i=682929&p=20
may help illustrate that one would be far from pricing mobility (not to mention automobilism) without starting over on a really clean sheet and taking this to hospitals first where not all states seem to even mandate GPF in today's gasoline-DI for example. Particle number concentrations and more in the street have long become readable in epidemiology – occasionally in emergency hospitalizations to the naked eye.
Alternatively distances of school and kindergarten from nearest lanes of heavier traffic with resolutions down to much less then a quarter mile... We're generating maps and papers, the invisible hand just needs to be toughened up to really read through the lot and then really price. Such and more.

On the other hand so much is clear in principle and from the beginning, less and less vehicles e.g. will need to breathe their last on a test stand of ExxonMobil to get new flavours of engine oil rolled out ;-) More compact and less automotive STLE ahead. Etc. pp.
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,072
Location
Ca.
It would be fun to be able to discuss the car and the tech devoid of any talk of "green" or not.

I really dont care much about that and can find data to support either side of the debate.
 
Messages
651
Location
EU
Gasoline BTEs are not exactly rushing towards 100% – probably hard to make up puff pieces for.

Battery breakthroughs were an opener but became essentially untouchables (albeit a dozen links could get interspersed of course) for pages and pages of nearly pure play MPGe-"debate".
Which remained at about the level of 33.7 kWh – awaiting deductions. Outlook and reentry probably preferred over any more breakthroughs:


"Comment 6: Assigning one fuel content factor (1/0.15) to all alternative fuel vehicles is inappropriate since ‘‘the fuel efficiency benefits of electric vehicles far exceed those of other alternative fuel vehicles.’’ DOE should use a fuel content factor that more accurately represents electric vehicle benefits in comparison to other alternative fuels. (CARB)
Response: The efficiency of EVs varies widely as a function of motor and drivetrain efficiency, driving cycle, and the round-trip efficiency of the battery. The energy source which offers the greatest benefits depends on many factors, and the energy source that offers the greatest benefit to one set of users may not be the most beneficial for a different set of users or the general public. These benefits may vary by geography, fuel and generating method.
As noted in the NOPR, DOE invested considerable time and effort in attempting to develop a method that could rigorously account for the advantages to the Nation offered by electric vehicles compared to conventional vehicles, but was unable to identify a method that was sufficiently objective, robust, and consistent with established policy directions.
Thus, DOE stands by its proposal to provide electric vehicles the same reported-fuel-efficiency incentive (the 1/ 0.15 factor) that other alternative fuel vehicles currently enjoy.
Although electric vehicles and other alternative fuel vehicles will have its energy-equivalent fuel economy adjusted by the same incentive factor, electric vehicles will still enjoy favorable regulatory treatment under DOE’s proposal. This is because EVs are specifically exempt from caps on the amount that alternative fuel vehicles are allowed to contribute to raising a manufacturer’s overall CAFE (49 U.S.C. 32906(a))."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top