Random EV thoughts.....

liamog

Jizique wrote: »

Perhaps, but the move to solid state, if what quantumscape say works, is not small or incremental and all cars will use solid state thereafter.
Makes one wonder about all the money being poured into the current technologies, VW with their 240GW factories.

We're already seeing incremental improvements from the research into solid state. https://www.theengineer.co.uk/semi-solid-electrolyte-lithium-sulphur-batteries/
The saying shoot for the moon, if you miss you will still hit the stars

Jizique

liamog wrote: »

We're already seeing incremental improvements from the research into solid state. https://www.theengineer.co.uk/semi-solid-electrolyte-lithium-sulphur-batteries/
The saying shoot for the moon, if you miss you will still hit the stars

That was 13 months ago - we would need to be a bit further along if they are to be in passenger cars by 2025

McGiver

liamog wrote:

There has been a huge drive to reduce the amount of cobalt in batteries, a few years ago NMC 622 was a common chemistry this is approximately a 6:2:2 ratio of Nickel Manganese Cobalt. Cobalt is more than double the price of Nickel, therefore if you reduce the cobalt ratio you can reduce the price.

NMCA is the current gold standard for performance automotive, EVs.
Btw some older cars such as the BMW i3 had NMC111, so NMC811 which is common now was an 3.3 fold reduction in cobalt content...

liamog wrote:

A good example is the new made in China Tesla vehicles, instead of using an NCA (Nickel Cobalt Aluminium Oxides) chemistry they use LiFEPO4 which contains zero cobalt, they are lower energy density so require more weight, but the raw materials for the batteries are substantially cheaper.

LiFePO4 is bulkier, cheaper, safer, lasts forever, but is sluggish, the discharge curve is suboptimal, and doesn't like cold (more then NMC-A). It's suitable for lower performance demands.
Primary targets are Asian cheaper EVs, and especially trucks, buses and cargo vehicles.

McGiver

liamog wrote:

We're already seeing incremental improvements from the research into solid state.

Li-S is FAR away... Battery storage OK but automotive not really.

liamog

McGiver wrote: »

LiFePO4 is bulkier, cheaper, safer, lasts forever, but is sluggish, the discharge curve is suboptimal, and doesn't like cold (more then NMC-A). It's suitable for lower performance demands.

Suitable enough for a family sedan like the Tesla Model 3.
Not every vehicle needs to be sports car than can do 0-100km/h in 5s.

liamog

McGiver wrote: »

Li-S is FAR away... Battery storage OK but automotive not really.

Jizique wrote: »

That was 13 months ago - we would need to be a bit further along if they are to be in passenger cars by 2025

Should I point you both again to the point I made, big research turns into incremental improvements over time. Progress is not one big bang, it's lots of little bangs that add up.

The question should be, why do you think 2021 is the year that batteries stop getting cheaper, and energy storage stops increasing in density? I've been asking this question of posters since 2018. So far prices keep going down and storage going up.

McGiver

McGiver wrote:

NMCA is the current gold standard for performance automotive, EVs. Btw some older cars such as the BMW i3 had NMC111, so NMC811 which is common now was an 8 fold reduction in cobalt content...

Jaysus bad maths there - that's 3.3 fold reduction of cobalt content... It's NMC811 (10% cobalt) vs NMC111 (33% cobalt)

McGiver

liamog wrote: »

Should I point you both again to the point I made, big research turns into incremental improvements over time. Progress is not one big bang, it's lots of little bangs that add up.

The Li-S example proves the exact opposite.

Li-S is not an easy incremental improvement to the current tech but a change of paradigm, completely different chemistry and not only that also different physical properties (solid state).

All the changes in Li-ion over the last say 20 years were incremental improvements to the very same cell concept and based around C-NC
-NMC cathode. The only exception to this is the LiFePo4 cathode.

AndyBoBandy

I still believe the future (or part of the future) will be wireless charging (as you are driving) along motorway routes... meaning cars will only need small sub 50kWh batteries for when they leave the motorway networks..

When driving on the motorway, most or all of the power consumed will come from the road charging, and any excess goes into the battery, so when you leave the motorway, you leave with a full battery.

Someone will be able to do it cost effectively.. mind you it will be the standard in other countries for at least 20-30 years before anyone attempts it in Ireland.

AndyBoBandy

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

I still believe the future (or part of the future) will be wireless charging (as you are driving) along motorway routes... meaning cars will only need small sub 50kWh batteries for when they leave the motorway networks..

When driving on the motorway, most or all of the power consumed will come from the road charging, and any excess goes into the battery, so when you leave the motorway, you leave with a full battery.

Someone will be able to do it cost effectively.. mind you it will be the standard in other countries for at least 20-30 years before anyone attempts it in Ireland.

The currents required would be too great for any installation to be cost effective.
I would be surprised if it progresses any further than these.


Overhead cables to provide a boost when climbing hills, on ramps etc

Oafley Jones

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

I still believe the future (or part of the future) will be wireless charging (as you are driving) along motorway routes... meaning cars will only need small sub 50kWh batteries for when they leave the motorway networks..

When driving on the motorway, most or all of the power consumed will come from the road charging, and any excess goes into the battery, so when you leave the motorway, you leave with a full battery.

Someone will be able to do it cost effectively.. mind you it will be the standard in other countries for at least 20-30 years before anyone attempts it in Ireland.

Wireless charging will have to have massive gains in efficiency before that would be practical. Mobile phones are bad enough. Even if you were to get up to high 90% efficiency imagine how much wasted energy there would be with an entirely electric fleet.

AndyBoBandy

Deleted User wrote: »

The currents required would be too great for any installation to be cost effective.

I think the technology will catch up though, and it will eventually be cost effective....

now I could be taking 30-50 years down the line.......

AndyBoBandy

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

I think the technology will catch up though, and it will eventually be cost effective....

now I could be taking 30-50 years down the line.......

By then all freight could be back on rails :P

ELM327

unkel wrote: »

It's a much better product. Because of all the arguments I stated above. The only drawback is that it is heavier. Which is a non-issue. What difference does it make if the car is 2200 or 2300kg? It will cost 1.3c / km instead of 1.2c / km? Still many times cheaper than petrol or diesel and of course zero emissions. Still much faster, in fact the difference won't even be perceptible during fast acceleration

It's not zero emissions though.
The etron for instance is the same as driving a fossil fuel car at 70mpg. Teslas are 90-110mpge. Its not zero, it's zero tailpipe.

liamog

McGiver wrote: »

The Li-S example proves the exact opposite.

Li-S is not an easy incremental improvement to the current tech but a change of paradigm, completely different chemistry and not only that also different physical properties (solid state).

All the changes in Li-ion over the last say 20 years were incremental improvements to the very same cell concept and based around C-NC
-NMC cathode. The only exception to this is the LiFePo4 cathode.

I linked an example of researchers adapting the research in solid state batteries to design hybrid batteries with a combination porous electrolyte and more conventional liquid electrolyte, which leads exactly to incremental ongoing enhancements.

Oafley Jones

I still think there’s a massive disconnect with a lot people as regards the end goal here. It’s all boils down to energy usage, regardless of how cleanly that energy is produced. We’ll have more mindful as to how that’s spent. I can also see this as being the eventual replacement for emissions based tax systems ie cars judged on energy consumption.

the_amazing_raisin

Oafley Jones wrote: »

I still think there’s a massive disconnect with a lot people as regards the end goal here. It’s all boils down to energy usage, regardless of how cleanly that energy is produced. We’ll have more mindful as to how that’s spent. I can also see this as being the eventual replacement for emissions based tax systems ie cars judged on energy consumption.

I think the Netherlands or Denmark is already doing that, scaling the EV incentives based on efficiency to encourage more efficient cars

liamog

ELM327 wrote: »

It's not zero emissions though.

That's pedantic, zero emission vehicles generally refers to zero tailpipe emissions.
We don't use well to wheel figures for combustion vehicles so we shouldn't use generator to wheel figures for EVs. There are too many local variables to come up with a decent comparable figure.

liamog

liamog wrote: »

That's pedantic, zero emission vehicles generally refers to zero tailpipe emissions.

That's what he said?

liamog

It's unnecessary to point out that a zero emission vehicle isn't really zero emission because of energy production.
It's like when people describe a home charge point as a home charger, they are technically wrong, but we all understand the intended message.

ELM327

liamog wrote: »

That's pedantic, zero emission vehicles generally refers to zero tailpipe emissions.
We don't use well to wheel figures for combustion vehicles so we shouldn't use generator to wheel figures for EVs. There are too many local variables to come up with a decent comparable figure.

That's what I said though.
It was relevant as he was saying consumption is irrelevant as it's zero emissions.


If I drive 800km and recharge 3 times at a supercharger during the day, the likelihood is that was predominantly coal powered. So it's not zero emissions. It's zero tailpipe emissions which is equivalent to "re positioned emissions"


It's the same argument why hydrogen is not zero emissions.

liamog

ELM327 wrote: »

I drive 800km and recharge 3 times at a supercharger during the day, the likelihood is that was predominantly coal powered. So it's not zero emissions. It's zero tailpipe emissions which is equivalent to "re positioned emissions"

Was there a massive increase in coal power on the Irish grid, or are you planning a trip to Poland
The Irish grid is predominately natural gas powered.

If your going to compare the energy used in two vehicles, either do source to wheel approach or do a pump to wheel approach, don't mix the two in an effort to make one look bad.

ELM327

Ok, so predominantly "not renewable" so :P

If you put an arbitrary line as the connector to the car (either fuel nozzle or plug) then you cant say because the burning happens before that line in an EV but after in a fossil car, that somehow makes it "zero emissions".

I'm not anti-ev but this is a real bugbear of mine. People who don't have EVs read the zero emissions tag, appreciate it as incorrect, and therefore disregard the other positives of EV ownership.

slave1

ELM327 wrote: »

It's not zero emissions though.
The etron for instance is the same as driving a fossil fuel car at 70mpg. Teslas are 90-110mpge. Its not zero, it's zero tailpipe.

Couple of us with zero emissions with PV installs.
I've charged the Leaf off the grid once since end of February for all the town trips, granted it's not a daily 100km commute but I could easily be putting 30kWh into an EV in today's weather.
If I put up more panels (which is on the cards) I would be looking at maxing a home charge point on good days March - October.

the_amazing_raisin

ELM327 wrote: »

Ok, so predominantly "not renewable" so :P

If you put an arbitrary line as the connector to the car (either fuel nozzle or plug) then you cant say because the burning happens before that line in an EV but after in a fossil car, that somehow makes it "zero emissions".

I'm not anti-ev but this is a real bugbear of mine. People who don't have EVs read the zero emissions tag, appreciate it as incorrect, and therefore disregard the other positives of EV ownership.

It's a bit of a tricky one, it's like those energy providers that say they're 100% green energy and they only buy power from wind farms


The simplest explanation that I can find is that the money you pay for electricity and how the electricity you use was generated aren't very closely coupled


Essentially a renewable provider will pay renewable sources to put out the same number of kWhs that you use, but this may not be at the time you're using them


Also, electricity moves to the point of closest demand, so if you're using a charger in the cark park of Moneypoint power station, then you're probably powering your car from 100% coal. Use a charger near a wind turbine, then it's probably mostly wind power


I found a pretty good explanation of it here (UK grid, but I'm presuming it's basically the same in Ireland)

https://www.ovoenergy.com/blog/technology-and-innovation/how-does-the-national-grid-work.html

ELM327

the_amazing_raisin wrote: »

It's a bit of a tricky one, it's like those energy providers that say they're 100% green energy and they only buy power from wind farms


The simplest explanation that I can find is that the money you pay for electricity and how the electricity you use was generated aren't very closely coupled


Essentially a renewable provider will pay renewable sources to put out the same number of kWhs that you use, but this may not be at the time you're using them


Also, electricity moves to the point of closest demand, so if you're using a charger in the cark park of Moneypoint power station, then you're probably powering your car from 100% coal. Use a charger near a wind turbine, then it's probably mostly wind power


I found a pretty good explanation of it here (UK grid, but I'm presuming it's basically the same in Ireland)

https://www.ovoenergy.com/blog/technology-and-innovation/how-does-the-national-grid-work.html

I worked in energy pricing, more than familiar :P

slave1 wrote: »

Couple of us with zero emissions with PV installs.
I've charged the Leaf off the grid once since end of February for all the town trips, granted it's not a daily 100km commute but I could easily be putting 30kWh into an EV in today's weather.
If I put up more panels (which is on the cards) I would be looking at maxing a home charge point on good days March - October.

Good for you, great setup, hardly typical

liamog

ELM327 wrote: »

I'm not anti-ev but this is a real bugbear of mine. People who don't have EVs read the zero emissions tag, appreciate it as incorrect, and therefore disregard the other positives of EV ownership.

The people who are interpreting it that way are just looking for an excuse, you are just feeding their ignorance by accepting it.

My bugbear is those people who believe that source is only important for their non chosen motive power source. It's using numbers to drive an agenda.

We account for emissions in energy generation separately, just as we do for the oil refining and manufacture. Therefore we should hold them both to the same standard.

Technically, anything that involves combustion somewhere in its process chain, cannot be classed as zero emission, now that's being pedantic. :P

liamog

Deleted User wrote: »

Technically, anything that involves combustion somewhere in its process chain, cannot be classed as zero emission, now that's being pedantic. :P

Doesn't even need to be combustions, a hydrogen fuel cell generates water vapour, technically that's an emission

the_amazing_raisin

liamog wrote: »

Doesn't even need to be combustions, a hydrogen fuel cell generates water vapour, technically that's an emission

Depending on what the driver of the delivery truck ate for lunch there could be a very serious emissions problem :eek: