When an engineer cuts thru the EV cultists crap

[island911]

Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6

... But that's the whole foundation of the green movement, do what you can to use less.

No. The Green movement is for virtue signaling.

Engineers have forever doing more with less. - or doing more with the same amount. - In a word, Efficiency. For example, anyone can build a bridge by rolling more and more stones into a ravine, but an engineer can do it with minimal energy and materials.

This EV craze is about More Power.

And engineers say "Ok, but More Money" And the consumers say, "Ludicrous Mode? - Take my Money!!"

[CurtEgerer]

How do EV owners pay road taxes in the US? Or do they just use the roads that are built, repaired and maintained by 'others'?

Today's EVs are backwards shallow-thinking technology. Primitive really. Take a few thousand flashlight batteries, solder them together, connect to a large slot-car motor and - voila! - a vehicle to one up every virtue-seeking neighbor on the block (the primary reason for owning one) Of course the car manufacturers love it because the government is demanding that the governed buy a brand new different product from them. Toyota seems to be the only one willing to whisper the truth about the EV boondoggle and show some resistance. EVs are thwarting the development of a true alternative to the ICE. That alternative will be one that requires fueling every year or 2 at most and uses very little in natural resources (unlike the extensive open-pit mining required for batteries that makes oil drilling look like a girl scout picnic and makes for a fragile politically-driven supply chain.) It will be something people will be willfully stampeding dealerships to buy - not being frog-marched at government gunpoint to buy. The true successor may be 25 years away, but we have the time and more than enough oil. Storing energy is batteries will be horse & buggy stuff in the near future.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by masraum

Just FYI, if David says something about generating power, I would listen. He's in the position to know.

Oh, absolutely agreed. I have a lot of respect for David and the knowledge he brings to our forum. And I'm not arguing, I have no solid information, nor the background, necessary to take a strong enough position to do so.

Just as an aside (because I'm bored...), I find it humorous how we assign "expertise" to one another here on this forum. David works (worked?) in the power generation industry. I worked in the aircraft industry. Before I go further, let me say that anyone paying attention at work will absorb, through osmosis if nothing else, a great deal of "industry knowledge" above and beyond their specific tasks.

So, you guys know I worked in a unit known as "AOG" - Aircraft on Ground. My task was to design the tooling and equipment necessary to get them flying again, either after crash damage, some ground handling incident, or just conducting heavy maintenance. As a result, I feel qualified to help you, say, replace the main landing gear pivot bushings on your tired old 777. Or I can help you cut the charbroiled bottom off of your 787 after the tug pushing it back from the gate has a carb fire and its driver runs away in a panic, and replace it with new structure. I can do those things.

But can I dive into the high level economics of the airline industry, the government subsidies, sales and leasing arrangements, deployment considerations, and all of that? Maybe at the very, very highest level, like way back when, during our hub vs. point to point conversation. So, yeah, we pick up stuff like that at a high level. But the real "brass tacks" of the financing, money, all of that? Prolly not...

So, yeah, David can tell us all about coal fired plants and how to run them, and probably a whole lot more about the energy industry. But, I rather suspect he gets his information regarding what we are discussing in this thread from the same sources the rest of us are stuck with. He reads it all with more insight, no doubt, but he's still getting the same overly politicized delivery the rest of us are getting.

And, again, I'm simply decrying that situation. I wish we could get honest, unbiased information that is not both politically motivated and profit driven.

[Deschodt]

The real worry for me is the damage this pivot to electric does to the western auto industry. In our great wisdom pretty much the entire western world agreed on the end of ICE for 2035 (+/-). Meantime we are super short on chargers infrastructure, electrical generation overall, let alone clean generation, you know the drill... (leaving alone electrical car costs being >50% more than ICE for low income folks - it could change)

We "rule" ICE engines and this pivot is killing any further development on it, meaning China and others with no such 2035 mandate will completely take the lead over time on ICE tech, and by the time we realize we can''t get to full electrical 2035 and we need to use green gasoline or what have you, we'll have destroyed our auto industry 's know how and lost any advantage we had, likely have retrained/laid off a serious# of workers specialized in ICE related techs. It's asinine to put all our eggs in one basket like this... Push for electric, push for better batteries, incentivize for electric all you want, but allow ICE to live with ever more restrictive emissions targets until things are looking good for electric.
Hell of a leap of faith from stupid politicos with big economic consequences when we miss the target.

[Sooner or later]

His calculation on annual time to charge is seriously flawed.

For many, home charging will allow a full "gas tank" at the start of every day. The only real need for level 3 charging will be for long distance travel. There will be far less need for C stores and their filling stations since that will take place the majority of the time at home.

Also, that fast charging, high dollar Porsche will be the standard rate of charge for all EV, high or lower cost vehicles, in the near future.

[Evans, Marv]

If I were fairly new in any of the portions of the automotive industry, I'd rethink my path. I assume there will be a huge reduction in maintenance (brakes, tune ups, etc.), parts & manufacture, repairs, etc. when EVs become much more prevelant. Lots of jobs lost and career paths eliminated.

[creaturecat]

i'm gonna get a Bolt. hopefully sooner than later.
sell the SC? maybe, maybe not.
our city block? 11 houses - 7 EV type cars.
everyone seemingly happy, able to run in the HOV lanes. and - not paying 6-7 bucks (CDN)/gallon.

[island911]

Originally Posted by David

..

I do think EV’s and hybrids will become the standard vehicle power plant especially in cities. Why? Because too much energy is wasted to converting kinetic energy to heat through braking in city stop and go driving vs recovering a good portion of it. Electric drivetrains also move emissions to well regulated power plants or better yet solar and wind power generation which are now the cheapest way to build new power plants. ...

Hybrids, yes.

EV's, no.

Well, unless we take EV's (as Curt hint to above) to be "slot-cars" without huge heavy expensive batteries.

Battery tech is simply not there. Nor is it on the horizon. -I'm talking energy density and cost.

The best efficiency gain around batteries has been with battery management. Eking more cycle life out of batteries is a good thing, but that does not make these last decades upon decades. These are half-ton electron "fuel tanks" that are slow to build, use expensive materials, are slow to fill and need to be replaced with age/use. An internal combustion car has a very inexpensive fuel tank (some functional a century later) and engine thermal efficiencies have gone over 50%.

Existing battery EV's will not "be the future." They will continue as a niche, but never compete with current ICE production, efficiencies and flexibility.

Outlaw ICE cars and only the super rich will drive. .. to their private jets. .. where they will fly around the world explaining that you need to pay a carbon tax for exhaling CO2.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by island911

Hybrids, yes.

EV's, no.

Well, unless we take EV's (as Curt hint to above) to be "slot-cars" without huge heavy expensive batteries.

Battery tech is simply not there. Nor is it on the horizon. -I'm talking energy density and cost.

The best efficiency gain around batteries has been with battery management. Eking more cycle life out of batteries is a good thing, but that does not make these last decades upon decades. These are half-ton electron "fuel tanks" that are slow to build, use expensive materials, are slow to fill and need to be replaced with age/use. An internal combustion car has a very inexpensive fuel tank (some functional a century later) and engine thermal efficiencies have gone over 50%.

Existing battery EV's will not "be the future." They will continue as a niche, but never compete with current ICE production, efficiencies and flexibility.

Outlaw ICE cars and only the super rich will drive. .. to their private jets. .. where they will fly around the world explaining that you need to pay a carbon tax for exhaling CO2.

Right, the current EV thing is an impressive innovation. We've come a long way, I think, since the GM EV1


But we are not currently ready for EV to replace ICE. We have a long way to go. Keep the development and innovation coming, but the whole "everything's gotta be EV in a few years" thing is not going to happen without lots of caveats and exceptions and major changes.

[mgatepi]

Originally Posted by David

Wind and solar have 20+ year useful life and easily pay for themselves. If you think wind and solar have high maintenance costs, you’ve never worked in a coal plant (I have).

Acreage required? An area the size of Connecticut could provide enough solar power for the entire United States. That’s only generating power for 8 hours a day to make 24 hours of power.

David, I have looked for the actual cost to construct a large commercial windmill. Do you happen to know what the actual cost is? What is the maintenance cost? And or course the output in Kwh. I would like to calculate an ROI.
Strangely I have never been able to find those figures.
Here recently our electric has gone from a .042 / Kwh to .1089 / Kwh. My thinking is of course, devious in that one way to make sure your investment has an ROI is to raise the sales price of the item it produces. And with no real reason why for years I bought electric competitively at .042 to the new age or more than double the cost. Part of the Green new deal?

[Mahler9th]

Ducats:

https://electrek.co/2018/07/17/tesla-model-s-holds-up-400000-miles-3-years/

4+ more years of data and development since that article.

Money printing?

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by island911

No. The Green movement is for virtue signaling.

Engineers have forever doing more with less. - or doing more with the same amount. - In a word, Efficiency. For example, anyone can build a bridge by rolling more and more stones into a ravine, but an engineer can do it with minimal energy and materials.

This EV craze is about More Power.

And engineers say "Ok, but More Money" And the consumers say, "Ludicrous Mode? - Take my Money!!"

doing more with less, thats why EVs are being made. thats the whole point.

telsa made EV's cool because the hypermiling market is very small and full of cheap people. tesla knew they would have to make EVs cool, and fast is always cool.

so if your wondering where to blame the fast, cool, EVs on, its not green, its capitalism. not green.

i grow tired of the mindless, pointless, anti-EV sentiment. no one is coming for your ICE car. you will buy an EV probably, eventually, because it will be better than your ICE car, and until it is, you can keep driving your ICE car. you arnt under attack. your SUV isnt going to be taken away at gun point, calm down.

[expatriot98]

Battery cars sure are trendy right now. Right now.

Hybrids are the ultimate. Car makers are missing the mark with their 100% AAA cars.

[expatriot98]

And libsters love to practice onanism at the alter of the battery car. At least until their batteries go flat....

[David]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

So, yeah, David can tell us all about coal fired plants and how to run them, and probably a whole lot more about the energy industry. But, I rather suspect he gets his information regarding what we are discussing in this thread from the same sources the rest of us are stuck with. He reads it all with more insight, no doubt, but he's still getting the same overly politicized delivery the rest of us are getting.

And, again, I'm simply decrying that situation. I wish we could get honest, unbiased information that is not both politically motivated and profit driven.

Since I'm in the industry, I geek out on power production and look for data to analyze. For the most part, I base my electricity predictions on readily available information from www.eia.gov. I've been annually updating a spreadsheet for years with the most current information from this site same as anyone else could do. From this I've been watching the fall of coal plant power production and rise of wind and solar power production. I think my predictions are as good as any I've seen. I usually don't rely on information I find online without confirming it through industry data.

Here's a spreadsheet I put together a couple years ago to calculate how many solar panels would be required to power the US (not saying it's feasible, just checking how many) and then how many cars it would take to store a days worth of power in case the sun forgot to shine.

Also a chart of how I predict electric energy source to go over the next 28 years.

As far as plant operations itself, I try to make sure I don't write anything that's not publicly available information for obvious reasons, but I have been an engineer on the maintenance side of coal and gas plants for 28 years so I have a little insight.

[David]

Originally Posted by island911

Hybrids, yes.

EV's, no.

Well, unless we take EV's (as Curt hint to above) to be "slot-cars" without huge heavy expensive batteries.

Battery tech is simply not there. Nor is it on the horizon. -I'm talking energy density and cost.

The best efficiency gain around batteries has been with battery management. Eking more cycle life out of batteries is a good thing, but that does not make these last decades upon decades. These are half-ton electron "fuel tanks" that are slow to build, use expensive materials, are slow to fill and need to be replaced with age/use. An internal combustion car has a very inexpensive fuel tank (some functional a century later) and engine thermal efficiencies have gone over 50%.

Existing battery EV's will not "be the future." They will continue as a niche, but never compete with current ICE production, efficiencies and flexibility.

Outlaw ICE cars and only the super rich will drive. .. to their private jets. .. where they will fly around the world explaining that you need to pay a carbon tax for exhaling CO2.

With current battery technology, I agree. An electric car with more than about 100 mile range is carrying a lot of battery it doesn't need 90% or more of the time which makes it need bigger motors and bigger batteries.

I doubt I drive more than 100 miles in a day more than 2-3 times a month.

[David]

Here's a good link to current plant costs. Gas turbine is still the winner but when you factor in the fuel cost, wind and solar is right there if not cheaper. When I get a chance I'll play with this data to try to get a feel for the actual cost over the plant lifetime with fuel costs and capacity factors.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

[Jeff Higgins]

Outstanding, David! Very interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing with us. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with once you have a chance to go over the data.

And, again, I'm not arguing that is, or should be, our future. I just think, like many, that this is much further over the horizon than our ill informed political and media cheerleaders would have us believe.

And let's not forget - someone stands to make A LOT of money off of all of this, and the sooner we all get busy, the sooner they start making it. I'm afraid the movers and shakers here understand just how far off this really is, and by extension understand that they will be long since gone before any of this becomes viable. Their only chance is to hoodwink the vast unwashed masses into thinking we can do this much sooner than the technology and its future development will allow.

That's my only rub. We are getting pushed into something on a timeline we cannot achieve. Someone is going to get very, very rich, and an awful lot of people are going to suffer tremendously. They won't realize they've been lied to and fooled until there is too much momentum to alter course.

[Deschodt]

Just read that Switzerland is likely to forbid EV charging this winter due to potential power shortages. Yeah, that's the ticket, let's all go to EV ! (and I say that as an EV fan who owned 2 in the recent past)

[IROC]

In accordance with Jeff's model above of naturally absorbing stuff from the industry you're in even if it isn't in your area of expertise... We are doing a lot of research here into the very things discussed in this thread. I am part of a team that does assessments throughout the Lab, so I get introduced to a lot of crazy stuff we do here and I have toured (as part of an assessment) our battery research center. While we are heavy into basic science as a rule, the strides in battery technology are more in the applied realm and have been pretty impressive. In fact, I just read this yesterday (on the discovery of a way to make cathode materials without the need for cobalt) :

https://www.ornl.gov/news/manufacturing-process-produces-better-cheaper-cathodes-lithium-ion-batteries

Don't know if the link above is public or not. But...in the end it is amazing the research that is currently going on. Battery technology has advanced greatly even in the last 10 years.