CSSHEGEWISCHSomehow, I find it hard to envision the average Joe pulling into a battery station in his EV to change out the battery in a reasonable amount of time while on a road trip.
Note that Tesla very quickly abandoned this model. Most modern designs integrate the traction battery in a way difficult, if not impossible to make 'works-in-a-drawer' accessible, the voltages involved can be promptly lethal as well as spectacularly spark-generating; the integrity of connectors becomes important; the mandatory cooling arrangements greatly complicate things ... and then there is the risk of theft in a world where battery-saw theft of catalytic converters is becoming common.
Tesla and others rightly concentrated instead on ways of obtaining a quick charge, both in the modern-cell-chemistry equivalent of 80-20 and in trickle and top-up for plugins and BEVs. At present most of the time restrictions are imposed by the current design of charging plug and the cost-effectiveness and safety of the charger -- see if the early discussions of Megacharger architecture are still available on Teslarati or other sources.
Swap packs still remain a 'thing' but I think you can gauge from manufacturer and market preference that the current options are usually 'much better' for road-vehicle options. Switching costs and union issues alone probably preclude making and breaking consists on the road to incorporate 'battery boost' or swap a spent battery or locomotive for a charged one.
Note that there have been cell and battery architectures that involve pumped electrolyte: changing the fluid in the cells with a pump to 'recharge' them electrochemically. At locomotive scale this might prove an interesting option even if energy density or cell efficiency are comparatively low.
I find that scenario more likely than the average Joe on a trip pulling into a charging station for a two or three hour stop after going 100/150 miles if towing his RV or 200/300 miles if just operating vehicle light.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD CSSHEGEWISCH Somehow, I find it hard to envision the average Joe pulling into a battery station in his EV to change out the battery in a reasonable amount of time while on a road trip. I find that scenario more likely than the average Joe on a trip pulling into a charging station for a two or three hour stop after going 100/150 miles if towing his RV or 200/300 miles if just operating vehicle light.
CSSHEGEWISCH Somehow, I find it hard to envision the average Joe pulling into a battery station in his EV to change out the battery in a reasonable amount of time while on a road trip.
I agree with you on this. I don't see the average Joe interrupting their trip for that long for that often when towing an RV or a boat that they have saved up for for their family recreation.
Somehow, someway, the average Joe just voted for all of this in the form of cancellation of a major oil pipeline, fracking and oil and gas exploration bans, Green New Deal, highway spending on recharging stations, EV mandates.
I guess average Joe decided that a change in Washington was worth the inconvenience of being forced to drive an electric vehicle in the next 10 years? The political sphere is never about getting everything you want but it is about forming coalitions.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/new-mercedes/3021121
And the hydrogen tank idea is not a better solution?
Overmod BaltACD CSSHEGEWISCH Somehow, I find it hard to envision the average Joe pulling into a battery station in his EV to change out the battery in a reasonable amount of time while on a road trip. I find that scenario more likely than the average Joe on a trip pulling into a charging station for a two or three hour stop after going 100/150 miles if towing his RV or 200/300 miles if just operating vehicle light. Mercedes had the answer for you a decade ago. https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/new-mercedes/3021121
Mercedes had the answer for you a decade ago.
Since most of my trips are towing the race car, I would feature I would need something with more battery life than the Mercedes AA; maybe the Mercedes D or the Mercedes Lantern.
How much does night time driving decrease the range? How much does the A/C or heater decrease range?
The problems with using gaseous hydrogen are that the tanks are much much heavier than the gas and that significant energy is involved with compressing the hydrogen gas. There has been a lot of R&D spent on some form of hydride storage that would get around the high pressures involved with tanks, but the decision by Toyota to go the tank route implies that there are still a lot of problems with using hydrides.
A group on Australia annouced the development of an aluminum graphite battery, with the claim that the technology was good for aspecific energy of ~160 w-hr/kg (less than Li-ion) and a specific power of ~5kw/kg with very low internal heating for both charge and discharge. The latter would imply recharge times on the order of 5 minutes. One fly in the ointment is recharging a 16 MW-hr battery in 5 minutes will require 180 MW of power - at 1000Vdc, that's 180,000 amps. One other caveat is that the article touting this new battery made no mention of cycle life.
Erik_Mag The problems with using gaseous hydrogen are that the tanks are much much heavier than the gas and that significant energy is involved with compressing the hydrogen gas. There has been a lot of R&D spent on some form of hydride storage that would get around the high pressures involved with tanks, but the decision by Toyota to go the tank route implies that there are still a lot of problems with using hydrides. A group on Australia annouced the development of an aluminum graphite battery, with the claim that the technology was good for aspecific energy of ~160 w-hr/kg (less than Li-ion) and a specific power of ~5kw/kg with very low internal heating for both charge and discharge. The latter would imply recharge times on the order of 5 minutes. One fly in the ointment is recharging a 16 MW-hr battery in 5 minutes will require 180 MW of power - at 1000Vdc, that's 180,000 amps. One other caveat is that the article touting this new battery made no mention of cycle life.
Former Car Maintainer The hydrogen tanks would be heavier than the gas itself is true. Also true is the hydrogen tank/gas would weigh less than the diesel tank/fuel...
The hydrogen tanks would be heavier than the gas itself is true. Also true is the hydrogen tank/gas would weigh less than the diesel tank/fuel...
I'm not so sure about that. The weight advantage for hydrogen gas (tanks not considered) vs diesel fuel is a factor 2.5. There's some advantage with a bit better efficiency with using hydrogen in fuel cells, but some diesel engines are capable of 50% thermal efficiency. Cryogenic storage of hydrogen would lead to higher BTU per pound of fuel+tank than diesel, but cryogenic storage has some hazards. For example, hydrogen boils at a temperature lower than the freezing point of nitrogen or oxygen, which could lead to frozen air plugging the H2 vents.
Erik_Mag Former Car Maintainer The hydrogen tanks would be heavier than the gas itself is true. Also true is the hydrogen tank/gas would weigh less than the diesel tank/fuel... I'm not so sure about that. The weight advantage for hydrogen gas (tanks not considered) vs diesel fuel is a factor 2.5. There's some advantage with a bit better efficiency with using hydrogen in fuel cells, but some diesel engines are capable of 50% thermal efficiency. Cryogenic storage of hydrogen would lead to higher BTU per pound of fuel+tank than diesel, but cryogenic storage has some hazards. For example, hydrogen boils at a temperature lower than the freezing point of nitrogen or oxygen, which could lead to frozen air plugging the H2 vents.
Former Car Maintainer Erik_Mag The problems with using gaseous hydrogen are that the tanks are much much heavier than the gas and that significant energy is involved with compressing the hydrogen gas. There has been a lot of R&D spent on some form of hydride storage that would get around the high pressures involved with tanks, but the decision by Toyota to go the tank route implies that there are still a lot of problems with using hydrides. A group on Australia annouced the development of an aluminum graphite battery, with the claim that the technology was good for aspecific energy of ~160 w-hr/kg (less than Li-ion) and a specific power of ~5kw/kg with very low internal heating for both charge and discharge. The latter would imply recharge times on the order of 5 minutes. One fly in the ointment is recharging a 16 MW-hr battery in 5 minutes will require 180 MW of power - at 1000Vdc, that's 180,000 amps. One other caveat is that the article touting this new battery made no mention of cycle life. The hydrogen tanks would be heavier than the gas itself is true. Also true is the hydrogen tank/gas would weigh less than the diesel tank/fuel...
Technical Assessment of Compressed Hydrogen Storage Tank Systems for Automotive Applications (energy.gov)
According to that study, current compressed hydrogen tanks weigh abou 20 times as much as the hydrogen they store (H2 mass fraction of 5%), with a goal of reducing that factor to 15 times (H2 mass fraction o 7%).
Hydrogen | H2energy Now
This link is claiming "Hydrogen gas = 61,493 BTU per pound versus 20,900 BTU’s per pound of gasoline about four times more than gasoline."
Huh? I thought 61.5/20.9 = 2.94 or a little bit less than 3:1? Per pound, the energy in #2 diesel is about the same as gasoline -- diesel fuel has more btu/gallon because it is denser than gasoline.
That said, compressed H2 storage will require at least 5 times the mass as #2 diesel? I am assuming that the mass of the tank for diesel fuel is a small fraction of the weight of this fuel, if the tare-weight-to-payload of railroad tank cars is representative.
At EMD, we historically used a figure of 10lbs. per gallon for the weight of a full fuel tank of diesel or about 3lbs./gal for just the tank.
Dave
bogie_engineer At EMD, we historically used a figure of 10lbs. per gallon for the weight of a full fuel tank of diesel or about 3lbs./gal for just the tank. Dave
Indeed, the tank weight is a bit less than half the weight of the diesel fuel it carries.
My source was for "automotive applications", so maybe the hydrogen tank weighs less per pound of H2 stored in a larger size?
The other factor is the volume of compressed H2, which is mentioned in the government study.
Compressed H2 tender, anyone?
Paul Milenkovic Hydrogen | H2energy Now This link is claiming "Hydrogen gas = 61,493 BTU per pound versus 20,900 BTU’s per pound of gasoline about four times more than gasoline."
61,493 BTU per pound is te High Heating Value (HHV), i.e. where the heat from condensing the water vapor is recovered. Low Heating Value (LHV), where the water vapor remains a gas, is somewhere around 51,000 BTU/LB. LHV for Diesel fuel is, IIRC, on the order of 19,000 BTU/LB.
Even with a factor of three difference in energy content of the fuel itself, H2 + tank is still several times heavier than diesel fuel + tank for a given amount of energy. A fuel cell powered car can get some advantage from a "peaking" battery with regenerative braking and from efficiency of a fuel cell not dropping with a light load.
BaltACD Former Car Maintainer If any references to EVs can be inferred to this post...20% of EV buyers returned them.....reason: inconvenient to charge...gbye green new deal... Recharging using 110v and 220v feeds are slow and inefficient. EV users that used their vehicles nominally full distance during the day were not able to get them fully recharged overnight.
Former Car Maintainer If any references to EVs can be inferred to this post...20% of EV buyers returned them.....reason: inconvenient to charge...gbye green new deal...
Recharging using 110v and 220v feeds are slow and inefficient. EV users that used their vehicles nominally full distance during the day were not able to get them fully recharged overnight.
I have a Tesla Model X which charges on a 220V 30A circuit in my garage, and it easily recharges overnight.
Psychot BaltACD Former Car Maintainer If any references to EVs can be inferred to this post...20% of EV buyers returned them.....reason: inconvenient to charge...gbye green new deal... Recharging using 110v and 220v feeds are slow and inefficient. EV users that used their vehicles nominally full distance during the day were not able to get them fully recharged overnight. I have a Tesla Model X which charges on a 220V 30A circuit in my garage, and it easily recharges overnight.
Former Car Maintainer Psychot BaltACD Former Car Maintainer If any references to EVs can be inferred to this post...20% of EV buyers returned them.....reason: inconvenient to charge...gbye green new deal... Recharging using 110v and 220v feeds are slow and inefficient. EV users that used their vehicles nominally full distance during the day were not able to get them fully recharged overnight. I have a Tesla Model X which charges on a 220V 30A circuit in my garage, and it easily recharges overnight. It takes 3 minutes to gas up at pump
It takes 3 minutes to gas up at pump
The battery-electric car and in turn the battery-electric locomotive is like the dancing elephant. We are amazed that it can dance at all that we aren't too critical of the finer points of style in its dance performance.
The lithium battery is a major advance. Instead of an underpowered electric car with a 50-100 mile range with the lead-acid battery, there are now zippy electric cars with 200-400 mile range. The lithium battery can be charged at higher rates, too.
The purchase price of an electric car is some significant percentage increase over a gas, but it its not multiples of the price.
So why not mandate all new car sales to be electric, what is the harm in that? That could cost the car-buying public more money than letting individual motorists deciding what kind of car to get. This would not inconvenience someone who has purchased an electric car and adapted to the care and feeding of one, but it would inconvenience people for whom the various known limitations are a problem.
Most importantly, by on average costing more money, money is spent on electrifying transportation that could have been made available to address some other way of mitigating the impact of our industrial civilization on the environment.
Paul MilenkovicSo why not mandate all new car sales to be electric, what is the harm in that?
Any politically motivated government mandate to switch to EV's, for whatever the reasoning, will be far from cost neutral....the truth is, unless new battery technology is developed, today's lithium ion takes too long to charge, and 6-8yr battery lifespan obsoletes a vehicle rendering it unsellable in a secondary market...
It takes me 2 seconds to plug the car in at my house, and I don't ever have to stop at a gas station. I've found that an EV is the perfect commuting vehicle in that respect.
On a long road trip, of course, it's a different story because even the Tesla superchargers take 45 minutes or so to charge the car from 20%. That doesn't bother me because I've found I enjoy getting out of the car for a while, and the superchargers are usually located at shopping areas where one can hang out for a bit. However, if you're one of those people that's always in a pants-on-fire rush to get somewhere on a road trip, then an EV is not for you. I'm just not in that much of a hurry anymore.
Psychot Former Car Maintainer Psychot BaltACD Former Car Maintainer If any references to EVs can be inferred to this post...20% of EV buyers returned them.....reason: inconvenient to charge...gbye green new deal... Recharging using 110v and 220v feeds are slow and inefficient. EV users that used their vehicles nominally full distance during the day were not able to get them fully recharged overnight. I have a Tesla Model X which charges on a 220V 30A circuit in my garage, and it easily recharges overnight. It takes 3 minutes to gas up at pump It takes me 2 seconds to plug the car in at my house, and I don't ever have to stop at a gas station. I've found that an EV is the perfect commuting vehicle in that respect. On a long road trip, of course, it's a different story because even the Tesla superchargers take 45 minutes or so to charge the car from 20%. That doesn't bother me because I've found I enjoy getting out of the car for a while, and the superchargers are usually located at shopping areas where one can hang out for a bit. However, if you're one of those people that's always in a pants-on-fire rush to get somewhere on a road trip, then an EV is not for you. I'm just not in that much of a hurry anymore.
I am pleased that you are happy with your Tesla Model X, although with a starting price around 90K, it may be "out-of-reach" of many fellow Forum participants.
Let there be a free market in automobiles, where a person with the financial means to purchase such a vehicle can decide on the tradeoffs -- the convenience of charging it at home for people where home has a parking spot where the 220 V charger can be installed, in exchange for a somewhat less rushed pace on road trips.
The thing is that EVs in different places are being mandated. Someone, somewhere is making a judgement that people who cannot spare a 45-minute break on a trip longer than the nominal range are "always in a pants-on-fire rush to get somewhere", and that "there ought to be a law" getting them to hang out at a shopping area.
My biggest gripe with mandating electric cars is that with the current tradeoffs, it is a misallocation of resources. Maybe the price differential of the Model X over a comparable gas-engine car could have purchased a geothermal heat-pump system that, over the long haul, would have sparred our shared Earth's atmosphere more CO2 emission than the Model X? Maybe a person is well enough off to afford both the heat pump and the Model X? OK, maybe such a civic-minded person could have donated this money to a fund for weatherization of homes of the less well off, and maybe that would be a bigger contribution to protecting the environment?
Then again, in the absence of mandates, one person can enjoy an absence of oil changes, lower overall energy costs, and yes, making a public statement about the benefits of transportation electrification. Another person, dunno, could purchase a honkin' pickup truck to tow their race-car trailer to races and car meets, in their pants-on-fire rush to get there without spending 45 minutes at each fueling break?
Another aspect to my mercenary attitude that some environmentally beneficial technology needs to be cost effective is LEED certification of building construction.
LEED is a "points" system where different features are awarded different numbers of points. For example, you get points for using wood, because that is a potentially renewable, sustainable resource, but you get points deducted for using tropical wood, that results from chopping down rainforests?
I guess some construction practice that required more labor is favored by LEED over some practice based on resource extraction? But hiring workers has an environmental impact all its own. The worker take their pay and consume resources -- they too own homes that need heat and electricity and they operate cars to get to your construction site. Maybe that resource-using worker's labor is better directed, say, to weatherization of poor people's houses than building that over-engineered LEED-certified corporate showcase?
I got it! How about we use cost as a criterion for whether something is green? If something, over time, costs less money, that money in the end accounts for the supporting tail of resource consumption spread throughout the economy? No complicated LEED formula needed -- if it costs less money, go with it.
I guess this got regulated and mandated, but the cost of an LED lightbulb is small in relation to the electricity cost of the incandescent bulb it replaces, so go all out and replace your incandescent bulbs. You might crunch the numbers and find that EnergyStar appliances save money.
What I am looking to see before purchasing an electric car is whether the lifetime cost of the battery plus the electricity plus the electric gear -- motors, inverters, charging stations -- is below the cost of gasoline plus maintenance plus the cost of a gasoline engine.
If, in the absence of a market-distorting mandate or maybe a limited deployment by corporations wanting to establish green bona fides, I see battery electric over-the-road (OTR) trucks and mainline railroad locomotives, I will know that an electric car is a cost-saving proposition and a certain environmental benefit.
I think you somehow have the idea that I'm in favor of mandating EVs. I'm not. I like mine, but we also have a good old-fashioned Jeep Commander with a V8 which we plan on keeping.
BTW, I didn't buy a Model X to make some sort of green statement. I bought it because it accelerates like a rocket and rides like a Cadillac.
One issue that seems to be getting missed here. How much extra capacity will have to be added to the power grid to support the re-charging of thousands of EV's?
Another question: How green is an EV? As of now, it primarily seems to change the source of pollution from a tailpipe to a power plant smokestack.
Provided that we have a reliable source of base load electricity, assuming that the average driver puts ~40 miles a day on his/her car, and that charging is almost entirely done well off peak, the present grid could handle EV's for commuting. Start adding long trips with recharging done mid-day and trucks, and I seriously doubt if the grid could handle the extra load.
Will note that using CCGT running on natural gas for charging EV's will very likely result in lower emissions of the various pollutants and CO2 than an ICE powered vehicle. I'd also wager that using CCGT/natural gas for producing power would make less of an environmental impact than wind turbines per kilowatt hour.
Electrification of airlines or cargo ships?....Hmmmm. Aside from a prototype EV railroad switcher, the jury is out on long haul EV trains...And as discussed before, a farmer in the Midwest has little incentive to trade his farm truck for a model X while losing income from ethanol sales...just sayin..
Erik_Mag Provided that we have a reliable source of base load electricity, assuming that the average driver puts ~40 miles a day on his/her car, and that charging is almost entirely done well off peak, the present grid could handle EV's for commuting. Start adding long trips with recharging done mid-day and trucks, and I seriously doubt if the grid could handle the extra load.
I see the government has resumed funding for the California Bullet train to nowhere. The reasoning...If the public does not see something built and up running after 10 years of investment, they will have no faith in it. Question is...will any one ride it even if it is up and running?
Former Car Maintainer I see the government has resumed funding for the California Bullet train to nowhere. The reasoning...If the public does not see something built and up running after 10 years of investment, they will have no faith in it. Question is...will any one ride it even if it is up and running?
If a high-speed train is built anywhere in the U.S., it appears that California has the most serious committment to such a thing.
California also has a serious committment to NIMBYism -- would this give an edge to Texas where an HSR is being batted around as a plan.
If California eventually builds their HSR, we shall see how this works out. If it works out, great, you know, the 50 states being the laboratories for Democracy kind of thing. If it doesn't work out, it will not be for lack of trying. I will no longer want to read a comment on trains.com about "lacking the political will."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.