The EV battery discussion thread (bogus breakthroughs)

[gathermewool]

@ABN_CBT_ENGR Could you please go into more detail. I don’t have any personal experience, but THINK at least a few of my coworkers have achieved sufficient ROI to pay for their setups (maybe not including disposal), but know for sure one ex-coworker has made back a TON of money. Granted, his system was way over-sized (his brother’s family was living with him during the audit and subsequently moved out). This was years ago and he‘s probably one of the most honest, smartest nukes I know. I have no reason to believe he would lie about any of it.

Now that I own my first house house (ie not a condo) I’m reading up on solar more and more. I recently turned down a “NO-BRAINER” PPA (lease of sorts) but am very interested in owning my own solar array. Yes, even here in cloudy New England! My plan is to be ready to make a decision by the time I need a new roof in five or so years. One side of my roof faces directly south.

I’d love to have a PHEV in the garage after this happens, but again there’s more progress to be made and costs to drop and research on my part to be done. I’m not concerned about taking advantage of incentives, either, so that will not be in the negative column of my assessment when the time comes. Buying one also isn‘t an automatic, because it sounds good to say I drive a PHEV either. No one in my small social group drives one and no one cares.

In the end, regardless of some of your objections, I believe an inefficient path forward is better than no path forward at all. Call me an optimist, but I believe battery tech, including chemistries and arrangements we haven’t even though about, are right around the corner. Even if BEVs are more of a fad than need-driven, their advancements may fuel innovation in the rest of the industry.

 

[JeffKeryk]

All or most of those could apply to electric energy as well. As the energy source shifts, military strategy has to shift with it.

I don’t think anyone is twisting anything here, it is just a vastly complicated process on both sides.

Agreed. That's why I listed different possibilities.
The list could go on and on.
The important thing, is perhaps what do we do going forward?
I believe in a multi faceted solution that adapts over time and as we learn.
That's why I was an early adopter of the Tesla, which was expensive and I did not need.
Heck, spending 60 large on a product from a questionable company could be considered foolish; perhaps stupid.
I support exploration.

 

[UncleDave]

Agreed. The problem with facts, statistics, etc. is, you can twist them to support your point of view.
Do we include the cost of wars, pollution, electric grid building and maintenance, forrest fires from aging infrastructure, battery recycling and ultimate disposal?

Unless we fully compute the cost of both sides the only number we have to work with is the - as delivered to the vehicle - per unit cost.

Doing it that way the EV clearly uses less BTU per mile than a car getting 50 MPG unless I'm missing something.

COST per mile however it becomes much closer - no argument there. Its not always cheaper to grab the keys to a bev.

What the Ice vehicle cannot do is give me the fueling/energy flexibility I have with a BEV.

I can charge the bev at home - or on the road.

With the BEV I can charge it when local power is out using my 20KW home natural gas genset- I cannot make gasoline, nor do station here have backup generators. When the power goes out here I better have all the gas I need.

I can offset fuel cost with local solar. I cannot offset or otherwise reduce gasoline costs.

With a /bev my energy can come from a variety of sources, from horrendous and filthy but cheap, to expensive but green,
ICE car can only run on gasoline (well 99% there are some natural gas vehicle out there and some hydrogen vehicles)

I'm willing to pay a bit more for the energy to have the flexibility it brings me.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Apples to apples on operating costs, Tesla recommends servicing the cabin air filter every 2 years and cleaning and lubricating all brake calipers every 12 months or 12,500 mi for cars in cold weather regions.

Are we back to million mile batteries and bogus breakthroughs? Just askin' for a friend.
All good.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Could you please go into more detail. I don’t have any personal experience, but THINK at least a few of my coworkers have achieved sufficient ROI to pay for their setups (maybe not including disposal), but know for sure one ex-coworker has made back a TON of money.

I can go into very general terms to make a more read friendly post but this topic could easily become a "War and Peace" length and level of detail.

There's various iterations of "Numbers don't lie but liars use numbers" ( statistics, facts etc.) and they all come into play on this particular subject.

The first thing when forensically auditing the claim ( or developing the projection in the first place) is to clearly define and qualify the inputs for the basis of comparison. ( you must have a defined yardstick/scale conversion factor to make sure all tings remain equal relatively- otherwise the cost is skewed. If you have to plug in an estimate- it has to be the same across the board)

On solar specifically- the first "gotcha" is the consumer price. Almost all have a degree of govt subsidy so the "sticker price" is a false basis of comparison. That might be what you pay to the vendor but in taxes and other hidden fees you paid for the rest too.

Then the basic model is cost to buy/install + cost to maintain + cost to operate ( for this to be valid it must be calculated both in terms of peak production as well as time. That's important in the basis of comparison because you could have an asset utilized at 40% of efficiency "looking better" than an asset operating at 40% of its capacity) and there should be cost of decommissioning ( but this is often left out to make things look better) ------ Those are plotted against a uniform timeline to get the amortized costs.

First, the data has to be real, it has to be captured ( you cant defer maintenance and pretend you saved money- yet people do until the auditors catch it) it has to be validated and then calculated into the model.

That's a gross simplified model but basically correct on the biggest buckets.

The ROI basically starts when you are now in the cash positive side and the return is when it has totally paid for itself.

You yourself said a coworker saved a "ton" of money- was that a ton of $1 bills, $5 bills, $100 bills? ( all of those tons have a different value)

Without a specific product and circumstance, its almost impossible to present a defensible example and that's the big trap. They do that "Vinnie" thing with the playing card ( from the movie)- they show you the numbers they WANT you to see but not all of them or how they calculated it.

This was years ago and he‘s probably one of the most honest, smartest nukes I know. I have no reason to believe he would lie about any of it.

Not in any way diminishing your friend but at the end of the day, your character testimony carries zero weight regarding the accuracy of the claim.

In the end, regardless of some of your objections, I believe an inefficient path forward is better than no path forward at all. Call me an optimist, but I believe battery tech, including chemistries and arrangements we haven’t even though about, are right around the corner. Even if BEVs are more of a fad than need-driven, their advancements may fuel innovation in the rest of the industry.

First, I am stating verifiable factual information- not an "objection ( personal opinion) to a position. That's a whole different animal unless you believe convincing 74 people that 2+2 doesn't equal 4 carries some weight in some venue.

The bulk of American Industry has been destroyed and put behind many Asian countries because of the false belief that "doing things inadequately for the sake of doing something" somehow trumps or makes up for the Toyota process where they shut the line down, fix the problem and start up back at max efficiency.

That's why the "Big 3" USED TO BE Ford, GM and Chrysler. ( throw more OT at it and get a half way product out the door boys- gotta meet that number. Worked out great didn't it?)

"Optimism" is a positive outlook, not a strategy or a fact. The "fact" is that unless elements are added to the table, the energy density for electrochemical energy to displace fossil/Hydro and nuclear simply doesn't exist and no amount of hope or sincere wishing is going to change that.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Agreed. The problem with facts, statistics, etc. is, you can twist them to support your point of view.
Do we include the cost of wars, pollution, electric grid building and maintenance, forrest fires from aging infrastructure, battery recycling and ultimate disposal?

Yes they can be twisted but they can also be untwisted in an audit

Force Majeure no, pollution maybe ( would apply to both) but in any TCO model at the SKU level you MUST include all direct and INDIRECT costs of that ownership amortized over the number and time so yes the cost of subsidies, manufacturing, grid maintenance/upgrade, required recycling would all go into the cost total.

That's one of the oldest tricks in the book when hiding costs to make things appear better than they actually are.

 

[OVERKILL]

@ABN_CBT_ENGR Could you please go into more detail. I don’t have any personal experience, but THINK at least a few of my coworkers have achieved sufficient ROI to pay for their setups (maybe not including disposal), but know for sure one ex-coworker has made back a TON of money. Granted, his system was way over-sized (his brother’s family was living with him during the audit and subsequently moved out). This was years ago and he‘s probably one of the most honest, smartest nukes I know. I have no reason to believe he would lie about any of it.

I know lots of people that made out big on solar in Ontario too, including the farm I remarked upon earlier. It was very easy to make money, even before the panel costs declined, when FIT was the norm. That's not an honest representation of the technology's value though, propped up with subsidy.

A system that can cover CAPEX within its lifespan on net metering was almost unheard of just a few short years ago. Increased residential rates coupled with a recent decline in panel costs make it more viable now.

The latter is what we are discussing.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

That's not an honest representation of the technology's value though, propped up with subsidy.

Getting people to acknowledge and own up to that is almost an impossibility

Increased residential rates coupled with a recent decline in panel costs make it more viable now.

Viable only because those subsidies are paid by everyone now buried in various other fees that only the CPA with the chart of accounts really knows.

None of this is free

 

[OVERKILL]

Getting people to acknowledge and own up to that is almost an impossibility


Viable only because those subsidies are paid by everyone now buried in various other fees that only the CPA with the chart of accounts really knows.

None of this is free

Indeed!

Residential rates on the increase to pay for legacy subsidy FIT and LRP style contracts and all the complexities of new transmission and fast-ramp gas backup which in turn make net metered new installs more viable is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[UncleDave]

Got two buddies enjoying accelerated ROi due to rate increases.

"The man" also regames the system by increasing the connect fee and changing the " off hour rate " to something like .40 KWH from 4-9 PM.

 

[UncleDave]

Getting people to acknowledge and own up to that is almost an impossibility

Oh yeah....I made both buddies go through their numbers in front of me and caught them on a grip of mistakes and omissions.
The sales guys predictions were laughable.

 

[gathermewool]

Haha, talk about “word salad”

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Haha, talk about “word salad”

OK, fair enough but you asked for detail on a very long and complex subject- this can be accurately or adequately accomplished in 3 words or less.

"Word Salad" is also used in context with obfuscation ( often with an agenda) so allow me to cover that avenue also.

What part of the "salad" did not specifically address a point you raised in enough detail to get the meaning across and I will be glad to rectify it.

 

[Cujet]

As delivered to the vehicle - I'm not sure that is universally true.

A gallon of gas is what 124000 BTU? - lets say this takes you 50 miles @ 70 in an accord hybrid.
a KWH of electricity is 3412 BTU- lets say this takes you 4.25 miles @ 70 MPH in a model 3

Thats 2480 btus per mile in the accord, and 802 btu per mile in the Tesla.

I can make the case the tesla isnt any cheaper, but I'm not sure that i can say it uses more BTU.

What am I missing?

We really must look at fuel consumed at the powerplant, (remember, it must be "delivered" too) and fuel consumed in the vehicle.

Our best combined cycle power plants are over 60% efficient at the generator's terminals. But only 54% efficient at the power plant fence. Losses in the grid, in the charger, going into the battery, going out of the battery, through the controller, and in the motor/drivetrain to the wheel.

Furthermore, Tesla owners are wonderfully good at calculating Watt hours per mile. But they don't actually calculate how much the electric meter spun to go each mile. There is a HUGE difference.

To make matters even worse, the Tesla app that tracks grid usage is inaccurate, on the low side.

Also, EV energy use calculations include regenerative braking, and that's wildly inaccurate. 59% to 61% of grid power goes to driving the wheels on an EV. Numbers like 75% or even 77% include the recapture of energy in the city driving cycle. Something any hybrid can do also.

Bottom line, an EV powered by our best natural gas power plant will achieve a best case of 30% efficiency. Fuel in to miles out. When heat, AC, battery temp management, battery age and other losses are added in, the 35% efficient hybrid looks better and better. When considering fuel BTU consumed, it's not a rosy picture, as many of our plants are lower efficiency units.

TLDR, the meter, it spins.

 

[UncleDave]

We really must look at fuel consumed at the powerplant, (remember, it must be "delivered" too) and fuel consumed in the vehicle.

Our best combined cycle power plants are over 60% efficient at the generator's terminals. But only 54% efficient at the power plant fence. Losses in the grid, in the charger, going into the battery, going out of the battery, through the controller, and in the motor/drivetrain to the wheel.

Furthermore, Tesla owners are wonderfully good at calculating Watt hours per mile. But they don't actually calculate how much the electric meter spun to go each mile. There is a HUGE difference.

To make matters even worse, the Tesla app that tracks grid usage is inaccurate, on the low side.

Also, EV energy use calculations include regenerative braking, and that's wildly inaccurate. 59% to 61% of grid power goes to driving the wheels on an EV. Numbers like 75% or even 77% include the recapture of energy in the city driving cycle. Something any hybrid can do also.

TLDR, the meter, it spins.

We cant simply pick one side to analyze costs/ efficiency and ignore the other.

A comparison that brings in costs other than whats at the pump or meter must include losses on both sides of the chain.

When I buy gas I dont care what it took to explore, lift, ship, refine and deliver, defend and protect - I measure what I buy at the pump.

When I pay a supercharger 30 (or X) cents a KWH I sit until its full then pay the price per KWH.
I dont add in the transmission cost, losses etcetera.

 

[Cujet]

Also of note, cars consume a

We cant simply pick one side to analyze costs and ignore another.

A comparison that brings in costs other than whats at the pump or meter must include losses on both sides of the chain.

When I buy gas I dont care what it took to explore, lift, ship, refine and deliver, defend and protect - I measure what I buy at the pump.

When I pay a supercharger 30 (or X) cents a KWH I sit until its full then pay the price per KWH.
I dont add in the transmission cost, losses etcetera.

I really was not considering cost quite as much as BTU consumed by each type of transportation.

Something folks tend to miss, it takes a certain amount of energy to do a certain amount of work. The energy consumed to drive an EV is at the power plant. And, quite simply, it's a lot.

 

[UncleDave]

Also of note, cars consume a

I really was not considering cost quite as much as BTU consumed by each type of transportation.

Something folks tend to miss, it takes a certain amount of energy to do a certain amount of work. The energy consumed to drive an EV is at the power plant. And, quite simply, it's a lot.

Was my BTU number off when looked at as delivered to the vehicle?

The cost to protect oil is something like 81 billion a year and how much energy?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/21/us-...to-protect-oil-supplies-report-estimates.html

By 2011 something like 8 TRILLION had been spent on protecting oil.
Would we be better off spending that on our own infrastructure?

Whatever that amount is - it never makes its way to a pump.

 

[Cujet]

Consider that roughly 10 pounds of coal has the energy of a gallon of gas, how many miles can a Tesla go (on the highway) on 10 pounds of coal. With 37% being our best coal plant efficiency.

112,000 BTU x .37 = 41440 btu/3412 (btu kwh) = 12.14 kwh. x 0.93 (grid transmission efficiency) = 11.29 KWH at the charger. x .6 (grid to wheel efficiency) = 6700 watt hours at the wheels. Or about 19.1 miles per 10 pounds of coal, highway MPG> (assuming 350 watt hours per mile highway) (some users consume 400 watt hours per mile at 80) (which would lead to 16.75 highway miles per 10 pounds coal)

 

[Cujet]

Was my BTU number off when looked at as delivered to the vehicle?

The cost to protect oil is something like 81 billion a year and how much energy?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/21/us-...to-protect-oil-supplies-report-estimates.html

By 2011 something like 8 TRILLION had been spent on protecting oil.
Would we be better off spending that on our own infrastructure?

Whatever that amount is - it never makes its way to a pump.

Yes, unfortunately you completely discounted the epic losses at the powerplant and grid distribution. And are using the "power delivered" number that does not include the charger/battery in/out/controller/motor losses. Tesla does a great job of hiding just how much fuel they consume.

 

[UncleDave]

Consider that roughly 10 pounds of coal has the energy of a gallon of gas (about , how many miles can a Tesla go (on the highway) on 10 pounds of coal. With 37% being our best coal plant efficiency.

112,000 BTU x .37 = 41440 btu/3412 (btu kwh) = 12.14 kwh. x 0.93 (grid transmission efficiency) = 11.29 KWH at the charger. x .6 (grid to wheel efficiency) = 6700 watt hours at the wheels. Or about 19.1 miles per 10 pounds of coal, highway MPG>

Still only the losses on one side accounted for.

Yes, you completely discounted the epic losses at the powerplant and grid distribution.

I also discounted the epic loss on the oil side of the equation.