The EV battery discussion thread (bogus breakthroughs)

[BeerCan]

I had a long post but deleted it.
I think some people took what I said and understood its intent. It's discussion not a technical paper that will be presented for review.
Lay people may discuss things and use wrong terms and false analogies. We appreciate when people correct mistakes and present new and exciting ideas, processes or terms. But this badgering and belaboring the points gets tedious, it causes focus to be lost and devolves into discussing minutiae.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

I had a long post but deleted it.
I think some people took what I said and understood its intent. It's discussion not a technical paper that will be presented for review.
Lay people may discuss things and use wrong terms and false analogies. We appreciate when people correct mistakes and present new and exciting ideas, processes or terms. But this badgering and belaboring the points gets tedious, it causes focus to be lost and devolves into discussing minutiae.

OK, I agree with your sentiment 100% and normally am in the generic discussion mode ( unless someone sharp shoots me). I use them also so don't think I am trying to prove some point or impress. I'm not.

That being said, in this particular thread and on this particular subject- one of the core tenets is the inaccuracy and misuse of "terms" and how that misleads and influences decisions especially on non linear comparisons. ( read upthread and see numerous examples)

So, in context with all of that, the "precision of the words" has more weight in this specific discussion than in most others.

 

[PandaBear]

The way I see it:

Battery cost is really manufacturing scale and efficiency cost. If you get the design and manufacturing improvement you can make it cost less without much physics break through. This is where Tesla is heading. It is evolutionary but not revolutionary.

The science side of the break through won't come cheap or easy. I think we all agree that.

Will EV batteries become cheap enough? I think as long as we can improve durability we will be able to do that. We won't mind replacing battery once if the battery cost drop by half, at around 100k miles. We also won't mind replacing it twice if the price drop by 75%. We won't mind the size if we can standardize battery to 20lb cube that driver can swap out at gas station like a propane tank every 160 miles, and pay near gasoline price for the same distance, if the car comes without battery can sell for 75% of what a gasoline car cost.

Will it work for every car? probably not, but it will for a lot of places trying to ban diesel or have to rely on oil import for fuel.

 

[PandaBear]

There was a a guy I used to read years ago, he was an industry insider. Very smart but always talking about how the fabs were at their limit and there was no way the next shrink was going to work. Very technical, outside of my realm but I enjoyed reading the commentary. Anyway eventually I stopped reading it, I'm sure its still out there telling everyone how it won't work next time.

Slightly off topic. I'm sure you guys know these limits are not from physics but from finance.

Even Intel don't want to spend money buying ASML's EUV lithography tools now. That means everyone will be in foundry and only upgrade when the cost make sense.

Maybe batteries will be the same thing, just like every airline just lease planes from sales and lease back. You will be swapping batteries in the future and the batteries will be owned by the gas station you swap from, and you just pay for its use and depreciation. The batteries will be packaged into investment and trade on wall street like mortgages and solar panel lease or purchase agreements.

Then we don't need to worry about aging or range anxiety or battery technologies, the investment will be right sized and physics will be pushed just enough to be viable.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Go read the rest of the thread for context and all the points you raise were specifically addressed in detail

I made that position clear too with justification and all your circular rhetoric has neither addressed them, strengthened a counter position or rebuked them. Everyone can see that plainly for themselves just by reading.

Actually I laid the groundwork for that up thread- go back and reread it. Others have also pointed out similar issues as well.

The fact is that they are made up metrics that are vague and ambiguous by design that deliberately impede direct measurement and equal comparisons. They are not the only ones.

Any quick scan on reported numbers on virtually everything the USG has a hand in is full of questions, hidden data, manipulation and outright deception. The EPA is no different.

You don't address anything in detail (your typical MO). If you think you did, then point to the post numbers you claim you have.

MPG and MPGe aren't as "made up and vague" as you conspiratorially believe. And nobody here has claimed they are completely perfect or 100% accurate. They are a standardized tool for people to compare vehicles in terms of fuel efficiency and the cost - but you believe there's some nefarious goal behind it all.

If you would have actually read some of the information presented you'd see that the testing is a simulation in the lab, which has to be that way to ensure apples-to-apples comparisons. And as I said before, all 4 of the last vehicles I've owned have all hit the rated MPG figures on the window stickers. I keep meticulous gas mileage records, and over a 10 year period had the same 50 mile mixed city/highway commute. Also did many 300 mile 98-99% all highway driving trips with fill-ups right before and after the drive. Guess what, I always saw +/- 1 MPG of the rated highway MPG.

As far as MPGe, I think you believe it's just some "calculation" with no verification testing, but if you actually dig into the subject you'd see it's also verified through similar vehicle testing to ensure the conversion factor is relatively accurate. So what's wrong with that besides it being some cockamamie misconception that it's all some kind of grand conspiracy in your mind?

If you think it's so useless then tell us all what is a better way to rate fuel or equivalent fuel consumption.

 

[JeffKeryk]

No Jeff, that's not anywhere near the context of the items discussed in this thread. ( referencing the post in question)

That's been pointed out clearly and concisely.

The example as it was used was incorrectly applied

I never said it was.
In post #200, he specifically referred to processors, not batteries. I believe post #200 is the post in question.
You asked which branch of physics was involved. That's what I replied to.

I hope this clarifies my point. All good my friend.

 

[JeffKeryk]

If you think it's so useless then tell us all what is a better way to rate fuel or equivalent fuel consumption.

If I understand him correctly, ABT is stating that there is no perfect way to compare ICE versus EV efficiency.
Of course this is true, they are different technologies used as fuel for vehicles.
They are both consumables but their consumption is, forgive my simplicity, by motors vs. engines.

It is, however, as you pointed out, the best (only?) tool we have.

I look at it differently. If a certain product fits your needs, or you simply want it, go for it.
But that's just me.

 

[UncleDave]

No one has laid out another computation we can all get behind for any comparison.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

As usual Zee, you are fundamentally and fatally flawed in every part of your rant- by the numbers

You don't address anything in detail (your typical MO). If you think you did, then point to the post numbers you claim you have.

Yes I do, that's your first flaw. I go into exact detail with my points. They are posted for all to see (even you) you just bait with your legendary ad hom while saying nothing

MPG and MPGe aren't as "made up and vague" as you conspiratorially believe. And nobody here has claimed they are completely perfect or 100% accurate. They are a standardized tool for people to compare vehicles in terms of fuel efficiency and the cost - but you believe there's some nefarious goal behind it all.

They are in fact made up because they are INDIRECT metrics with no linear standards and they are not standardized across all vehicles horizontally and vertically. That makes them useless for any comparison between ICE and EV. As far as goals, you want to see "nefarious' and "conspiracy" go look at Agenda 21, 30 the GND.

If you would have actually read some of the information presented you'd see that the testing is a simulation in the lab, which has to be that way to ensure apples-to-apples comparisons.

I have and its non sequitur to the question. A recount of fraudulent votes still gives the same end tally. If you understodd anything about the science- you wouldn't make such blindly incorrect arguments in the first place.

And as I said before, all 4 of the last vehicles I've owned have all hit the rated MPG figures on the window stickers. I keep meticulous gas mileage records, and over a 10 year period had the same 50 mile mixed city/highway commute. Also did many 300 mile 98-99% all highway driving trips with fill-ups right before and after the drive. Guess what, I always saw +/- 1 MPG of the rated highway MPG.

I believe you 100% but none of it is relevant or germane to the context of this thread.

As far as MPGe, I think you believe it's just some "calculation" with no verification testing, but if you actually dig into the subject you'd see it's also verified through similar vehicle testing to ensure the conversion factor is relatively accurate. So what's wrong with that besides it being some cockamamie misconception that it's all some kind of grand conspiracy in your mind?

I know exactly what it is and its not "verified' to any meaningful degree by anyone for use as a basis of comparison for anything.

If you think it's so useless then tell us all what is a better way to rate fuel or equivalent fuel consumption.

I did earlier- go and read instead of going off half cocked- here's a recap

In order to compare an ICE to an EV in terms of equal consumption, there will have to be a test standard of uniform usage of energy ( balanced scales) then the usage has to be even ( same conditions, loads, velocities etc) and the comparison standards ( time, distance, cost etc) have to be uniform so each weighs the same.

Hand me a PO and I'll build a complete metrics package that will pass any scrutiny.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

If I understand him correctly, ABT is stating that there is no perfect way to compare ICE versus EV efficiency.
Of course this is true, they are different technologies used as fuel for vehicles.

No accurate way- that changes the connotation of accepting something 'good enough" to avoid "perfect".

That also puts the comparison in proper context.

It is, however, as you pointed out, the best (only?) tool we have.

I pointed out that it is totally inadequate. Its not the "only" because as I stated earlier anyone in my and a few other fields can do this.

I look at it differently. If a certain product fits your needs, or you simply want it, go for it.
But that's just me.

I agree with you 100% without reservation but surely you agree that's not the subject of this thread nor is a personal decision a valid basis for a globally used criteria for comparison between 2 radically unlike subjects?

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

No one has laid out another computation we can all get behind for any comparison.

That's because there is no one comparison that's fully adequate. There would have to be a managed list of categories ( such as price per unit of energy, range per unit of energy etc.) then the LCD for comparison would have to be selected and correlation factors built.

Then conditions and controls for the various tests ( incline, payload, geometry, resistive factors etc) have to be made

This could be expanded to infrastructure support

The whole point is that there is not a single unit or method that is valid for a sincle legitimate accurate comparison without some significant thought and work

 

[BeerCan]

Ninja Edit
N/M I'm not playing. Sorry for that.

 

[ZeeOSix]

If I understand him correctly, ABT is stating that there is no perfect way to compare ICE versus EV efficiency.
Of course this is true, they are different technologies used as fuel for vehicles.
They are both consumables but their consumption is, forgive my simplicity, by motors vs. engines.

It is, however, as you pointed out, the best (only?) tool we have.

I look at it differently. If a certain product fits your needs, or you simply want it, go for it.
But that's just me.

And I've said multiple times that it's not perfect (yet he filters that out), and he can show us all a better way if he thinks he's so "smart" about the subject. Yet he just keeps trying to argue anything anyone says even if he basically agrees with someone (his typical MO). He's won't even research it to see that there is more thought behind it than his conspiracy thinking makes him believe.

 

[UncleDave]

Until someone does said work and sells it to me as a better construct I'll just reference what exists knowing it isnt perfect.

Better to have some estimate than no estimate for discussion.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Yes and using it as justification for another point- that's where the appeal to authority came in. I made that clear earlier.

I was answering your question from your post #203, which was your response to post #200, which specified processors.

From #203: "What "physics" did those unqualified to speak use to push their points?"
My answer: Quantum effects. I am not sure who the unqualified people are. This is my answer.

Nothing more, nothing less. I do not believe anyone said to relate processors and batteries.

 

[JeffKeryk]

And I've said multiple times that it's not perfect (yet he filters that out), and he can show us all a better way if he thinks he's so "smart" about the subject. Yet he just keeps trying to argue anything anyone says even if he basically agrees with someone (his typical narcissistic MO). He's won't even research it to see that there is more thought behind it than his conspiracy thinking makes him believe.

ABT is just trying to help. The written word can come off in different ways.
Are his comments the most supportive? Well, perhaps, perhaps not. Neither are mine, if I am honest about it.
And we all tend to hear whar we think we hear.

All good!

 

[ZeeOSix]

ZeeOSix said: If you think it's so useless then tell us all what is a better way to rate fuel or equivalent fuel consumption.


I did earlier- go and read instead of going off half cocked- here's a recap

In order to compare an ICE to an EV in terms of equal consumption, there will have to be a test standard of uniform usage of energy ( balanced scales) then the usage has to be even ( same conditions, loads, velocities etc) and the comparison standards ( time, distance, cost etc) have to be uniform so each weighs the same.

You still think it's just a calculation on paper? Said a couple times now that the model is verified with testing and correlation. What else are you going to do? You think the engineers doing this work are not doing it right for it's intended purpose (you ignore context), yet you can't even go look into it to show us exactly where they are off in their correlations and prove it. Instead, you just discount it all to some kind of EPA conspiracy to "fool" people, lol.

 

[ZeeOSix]

ABT is just trying to help. The written word can come off in different ways.

LOL ... See post #228.

 

[gathermewool]

Who is ABT?

Sorry, @ABN_CBT_ENGR but I’ve read this entire thread and you’ve provided only contrary opinions without anything resembling a solution. We Nukes hate having to deal with know-it-all engineers like you. We just need some guidance on what we CAN do, not a million-pages of what we CAN’T do and why. People like that usually get ignored and bypassed for their superfluous, overly contextualized responses. You also remind me of those who, when asked for comment on simple technical documents, will point out why semi-colons are better than commas and ****ting all over HOW we request things, as well as other grammatical errors while providing no substantive technical errors to report, while others of us find the valve-by-valve and sequencing issues.

RE: your comportment: to quote one of the smartest trainers I ever knew during qualification check-outs: “if you can’t explain something in terms that someone like me, a dumb Idaho farm boy can understand it, then you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[gathermewool]

I’m all for learning something new, but this thread ain‘t for that!