Honda and JPL create a new type of battery that could be the future of EVs

[Brooksie359]

6 hours ago, emosun said:

no it hinges on them being the same price , you dont just ignore fuel cost

honestly just dont respond if you cant read

Are you crazy? Fuel cost isn't an initial cost. If 2 cars cost 30,000 dollars and one is gas and one is electric the electric car will be cheaper because it's "fuel" is electricity which is much cheaper than gas based on national averages of electricity cost. If you wanted to make them truly equal in price based on taking fuel into account you would need to do so for both cars. Anyways the bottom line is electric cars are cheaper to run than gas based cars. If they both have the same initial cost them the electric car is going to be cheaper in the long run by a good amount. 

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, corrado33 said:

Wrong and wrong again.

 

Power plants are, at max... 35% efficient. (This includes coal fired plants, nuclear plants, natural gas plants, etc) And the only reason they don't produce more chemicals is because they're FORCED not to, same as new car manufacturers.

 

Internal combustion engines in cars are anywhere from 25%-50% efficient. 

 

Do you really think that there is less than a 10% loss when going from the plant to your house, to your charger, into the batteries. That's.... laughable. 

 

Source: I got my PhD in this stuff. 

Yeah you are wrong about that. Your information is likely outdated at this point as most natural gas power plants are combined cycles which have closer to 50% efficiency. And again natural gas is generally cleaner not because they are forced to but by the byproducts of its combustion. 

[corrado33]

16 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yeah you are wrong about that. Your information is likely outdated at this point as most natural gas power plants are combined cycles which have closer to 50% efficiency. And again natural gas is generally cleaner not because they are forced to but by the byproducts of its combustion. 

Hahahhaha... no. Maybe absolutely brand new plants but those are far... far from the norm.

 

Site your sources.

 

Here's mine. Directly from the US government themselves. In case you don't know, to convert a heat rate into an efficiency, you divide the equivalent Btu content of a kWh of electricity (3,412 Btu) by the heat rate. The heat rate for natural gas in 2015 was  ~8000 Btu. That gives it an efficiency of ~42%. A bit higher than I said, sure, but not all of your electricity is coming from natural gas, so you can't take that figure as your start point. Coal is only ~31% efficient. A good "average" efficiency of all power sources in the US is ~35%, hence why I stated that number.  

 

Then you have electrical losses in the power lines.... then electrical losses in the charger (it gets warm right?) then electrical losses in the car itself (THEORETICALLY DC motors are ~80% efficient... and that's at OPTIMAL conditions, do YOU drive your electric car at optimal conditions?) Add all those inefficiencies up and in the end, electric cars use as much or more energy to get where they're going than gas powered cars do. This will remain true UNTIL electric cars can be charged fully by renewable energy. 

 

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32572

[justpoet]

33 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

This will remain true UNTIL electric cars can be charged fully by renewable energy.

No.  That will remain true until electric cars can be charged partially by renewable energy, which the grid already has in it.  Certainly not enough of it if everybody bought an electric car, but it is there.  

 

While we're at it though…do you really mean renewable energy, or do you mean no carbon production energy?  Wood burning is carbon neutral and renewable and sustainable, but the neutrality is due to how much it takes in while growing offsetting how much it produces while burning.

[mr moose]

I still can't get over how opposed some people are to electric cars.   Do you people also oppose SSD's and developing them because storage density on the old spinning rust is far superior? 

 

Honestly this thread is as bad as the ARM "good as 0x86" thread,  The technology will improve to the point where it will just be stupid to consider an ICE vehicle just because the path is slow doesn't mean it won't happen and isn't better for the environment.

 

Incidentally I don't have a problem with burning coal now so long as we are going forward with fusion/solar/battery tech etc as fast as we can.  And that means adopting it at a consumer level as soon as is practical.

[Curufinwe_wins]

44 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I still can't get over how opposed some people are to electric cars.   Do you people also oppose SSD's and developing them because storage density on the old spinning rust is far superior? 

 

Honestly this thread is as bad as the ARM "good as 0x86" thread,  The technology will improve to the point where it will just be stupid to consider an ICE vehicle just because the path is slow doesn't mean it won't happen and isn't better for the environment.

 

Incidentally I don't have a problem with burning coal now so long as we are going forward with fusion/solar/battery tech etc as fast as we can.  And that means adopting it at a consumer level as soon as is practical.

I mean, personally... I like electric cars. I like them for non-green reasons. They are a blast to drive, exhibit high responsiveness and generally correspond to dramatically better technology implementations within the vehicles themselves.

 

I don't like people dramatically over selling the benefits of them, or pretending that they are just 'better'.

 

Personally, I do believe that the billions of smartphones out there gives a bigger (and plenty big enough) financial incentive for battery technology to improve than a few hundred K cars, and until our electricity grid is dramatically cleaner, it doesn't even give much of a environmental benefit. I mean think about it... we don't have any serious large scale energy storage capabilities in place (and electrochemical storage on the industrial scale would be a distaster for the environment). Which means our power grids are load-following, and the time of day when the vehicles are being charged.

 

 Most people will charge their vehicles during the night. During the night, obviously solar power is generating near no power. Between the hours of 10pm-5am, wind power (from US studies anyways) drops over 3 fold in power generation on average. So unless you have a strong nuclear (or hydro I suppose) presence, even beyond the averaged levelized pollution from use, the specific charging pollution of an electric car is going to be much higher.

 

The problem is... we are not moving forward with technologies as fast as we can. Not with fusion. Everyone wants to push solar panels, but photovoltaics are huge sources of pollution waste before and after production. At least wind-turbines and concentrated solar power installations can be mostly broken up into their constituents after their usable lifespan if we so desired. And this is ignoring the fact that technologically speaking, there is literally nothing standing in the way of being effectively only fission powered two decades from now if the world actually cared. We have around 400,000 years of known accessible fissile material at 100% world generation rates, and even with previous incidents, fission is still safer than solar and wind and everything else.

 

Of course, assuming we make it that far... eventually we will be doing hyper majority nuclear +wind/solar, and using combined thermal, electrochemical, and direct chemical storage techniques. Thermal would be used on large scale storage with better energy retention on large scales than anything else (also with dramatic convenience for nuclear and concentrated solar installations). Electrochemical cells might still be used for small devices, and for transportation particularly in standardized routes. Direct chemical storage means making our own fuels from our energy (be that hydrogen or hydrocarbons). This is technologically already good enough to do on industrial scales from nuclear and concentrated solar plants, though with the very limited demand at the moment, pyrolysis of natural gas is the most common method.

 

The big issue with large scale energy storage though is efficiency (as mentioned in many other posts right now). large scale storage only makes economic sense if one power source is MUCH cheaper than all other alternatives (I've done simulations with nuclear plants that basically require either a large carbon tax, or 3x lower nuclear cost to fossil fuels).

 

 

1 hour ago, justpoet said:

No.  That will remain true until electric cars can be charged partially by renewable energy, which the grid already has in it.  Certainly not enough of it if everybody bought an electric car, but it is there.  

 

While we're at it though…do you really mean renewable energy, or do you mean no carbon production energy?  Wood burning is carbon neutral and renewable and sustainable, but the neutrality is due to how much it takes in while growing offsetting how much it produces while burning.

Biofuel is potentially carbon neutral. It is not inherently, and at any reasonable rate of production, it is very bad for the environment. Wood burning is quite arguably worse for the environment than burning fossil fuels because the specific heat output is lower, the specific heavy metal and other toxin outputs are higher, and needing more of it to produce the same energy obviously means greater overall emissions. 

 

It also is very bad in terms of land use, even compared to other renewables, which also do poorly.

[emosun]

9 hours ago, RejZoR said:

They aren't the same price. Most mainstream EV's like Leaf and Kona EV are 30k €. And they are literally ordinary hatchbacks on electricity. Same models with petrol engine are at least half the initial price of EV.

not talking about those so idk why you're mentioning them

[emosun]

6 hours ago, Mihle said:

Most cars live more than 100k km, so electric would produce less than 50% of the pollution in total.

you would have to drive then 100k before the battery stops working , so you'll be quite the busy bee over the next 3 years

[emosun]

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Are you crazy? Fuel cost isn't an initial cost. If 2 cars cost 30,000 dollars and one is gas and one is electric the electric car will be cheaper because it's "fuel" is electricity which is much cheaper than gas based on national averages of electricity cost. If you wanted to make them truly equal in price based on taking fuel into account you would need to do so for both cars. Anyways the bottom line is electric cars are cheaper to run than gas based cars. If they both have the same initial cost them the electric car is going to be cheaper in the long run by a good amount. 

literally still didnt read , i dont entirely thing you're responding to the correct person at this point

[Mihle]

Just now, emosun said:

you would have to drive then 100k before the battery stops working , so you'll be quite the busy bee over the next 3 years

Most electric cars battery warranty is 160k km  or 8 years for the capacity to be 70%+, whatever comes first. Some have less years or less km tho.

[corrado33]

13 minutes ago, Mihle said:

Most electric cars battery warranty is 160k km  or 8 years for the capacity to be 70%+, whatever comes first. Some have less years or less km tho.

160k km? That's... it? My car has 250,000 MILES on it. How does it stack up when you consider you'd need to replace the battery twice to equal the longevity of one well maintained car? 

 

Do you know how carbon UNFRIENDLY mining for lithium is? Also you realize that this isn't considered for the carbon considerations right? 

[corrado33]

2 hours ago, justpoet said:

No.  That will remain true until electric cars can be charged partially by renewable energy, which the grid already has in it.  Certainly not enough of it if everybody bought an electric car, but it is there.  

 

While we're at it though…do you really mean renewable energy, or do you mean no carbon production energy?  Wood burning is carbon neutral and renewable and sustainable, but the neutrality is due to how much it takes in while growing offsetting how much it produces while burning.

Answer me this.

 

When do people charge their electric cars? During the day when the sun is high?

 

No, it's at night when the sun as gone down. Wanna take a guess at how much solar is contributing then? 

[emosun]

Just now, corrado33 said:

Do you know how carbon UNFRIENDLY mining for lithium is? 

you're fighting a loosing battle , i'm giving up on this thread lol. just opt out before it's too late

[corrado33]

Just now, emosun said:

you're fighting a loosing battle , i'm giving up on this thread lol. just opt out before it's too late

No, I'm not. I have read the papers, this is literally part of my PhD. Electric cars aren't good enough yet. The media hypes them up but in reality they're just shittier versions of normal cars that pollute just as much. It's just that the pollution is "further" from the consumer so that they perceive that it's less. 

[emosun]

1 minute ago, corrado33 said:

No, I'm not. I have read the papers, this is literally part of my PhD. Electric cars aren't good enough yet. The media hypes them up but in reality they're just shittier versions of normal cars that pollute just as much. It's just that the pollution is "further" from the consumer so that they perceive that it's less. 

no the loosing battle being trying to convince these forum randoms , lol.

I too already know that an ev's initial cost and enviromental impact is just not good enough

[Mihle]

31 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

160k km? That's... it? My car has 250,000 MILES on it. How does it stack up when you consider you'd need to replace the battery twice to equal the longevity of one well maintained car? 

 

Do you know how carbon UNFRIENDLY mining for lithium is? Also you realize that this isn't considered for the carbon considerations right? 

Its what the warranty is, so in majority of cases it will last quite a bit longer....

[asus killer]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Incidentally I don't have a problem with burning coal now so long as we are going forward with fusion/solar/battery tech etc as fast as we can.  And that means adopting it at a consumer level as soon as is practical.

you should, and coal is not just co2, just like petrol doesn't only release co2, but coal if far worst. The problem is that people are sold clean teslas and that doesn't exist unless you are in norway. At that point you can just save money and buy a cheaper petrol car, worst if you only use the car sparsely 

 

 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

snip

which is why there is an "so long as" in my post,  if we do move forward with the better technologies then the current use of coal becomes a stop gap measure rather than a mainstay.

 

 

3 minutes ago, asus killer said:

you should, and coal is not just co2, just like petrol doesn't only release co2, but coal if far worst. The problem is that people are sold clean teslas and that doesn't exist unless you are in norway. At that point you can just save money and buy a cheaper petrol car, worst if you only use the car sparsely 

 

 

I think you miss my point,  technology needs to advance to a stage where it can continue advancing without the current support of coal,  if you take away power sources before you have a viable working alternative to coal then you are shooting yourself in the foot.  Also, if we don't buy into the whole electric car/alternative power thing then it will take longer to develop because governments are not funding it enough and private enterprise can only fund so much (they expect a return on investments). 

 

I realise that last sentence runs on a bit, but the long and short of it is that if consumer doesn't make the change then nothing will happen, and if it does, it will happen very slowly.

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, emosun said:

not talking about those so idk why you're mentioning them

No one cares if you're not talking about them. Cars for 120k are not something masses buy and is not what matters as a number in the end  if this is what you're somehow talking about (top of the line Teslas). And same applies even for cars at 30k. They are just too expensive. It's why you don't all of a sudden see every second or even third car to be an EV. Because they are just too expensive no matter what. Just because we notice "a lot of Teslas" that doesn't mean they actually sell a lot of them. Their numbers are absolutely and totally insignificant compared to pretty much every single other auto maker out there selling petrol cars. And it's not much different with EV's from these same makers. Leaf may be the longest going and most sold mainstream EV, but their numbers are still insignificant to anything else. Except maybe Juke coz it's just so weird and ugly and Leaf is actually surprisingly good looking...

[emosun]

Just now, RejZoR said:

No one cares if you're not talking about them.

i literally dont care then who are you replying to then even? lol

[Donut417]

So..... No more exploding phones? Thats nice. LOL

 

On a more serious note, if they can build them small enough then laptops, phones and other small electronics can benefit as well. The only real question is going to be cost. 

[RejZoR]

24 minutes ago, emosun said:

i literally dont care then who are you replying to then even? lol

Gee, I quoted you. I guess I'm talking to you if you haven't noticed yet. Just because you don't seem to care that doesn't make things disappear and be non existent.

[emosun]

17 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Gee, I quoted you. I guess I'm talking to you if you haven't noticed yet. Just because you don't seem to care that doesn't make things disappear and be non existent.

i dont even know what you're on about lol

what is any of this in reference to?

[ATFink]

23 hours ago, corrado33 said:

Question: Where does the energy come from? How efficient is that plant?

 

How efficient is your charger? Oh you want fast charging? That'll be less efficient charging. How far is the charger from the power plant?

 

More than likely EVs produce more greenhouse gases than standard gas cars. 

 

Until renewable energy is dominant, EVs are a bad idea. 

Don't forget it takes ~6kWh of electricity to refine one gallon of gas. Type of hydrocabon being processed, efficiency of plant, and transportortaion distance will obviously vary, so 6kWh is just an average.

 

As for the greenhouse gases comparison, that depends on the local grid. In most regions in the US (except West Virginia) the amount of CO2 production from driving a gasoline car is MUCH greater than driving an EV. Of course this doesn't take into account CO2 production from producing the batteries of EVS.

 

This video from Engineering Explained may help explain the current state of EVs carbon footprint with respect gasoline vehicles throughout each vehicle's lifetime taking local grid efficiency into account:

 

[justpoet]

3 hours ago, emosun said:

i literally dont care then who are you replying to then even? lol

But then who are you sometimes maybe almost not commenting towards, never?