Aluminum-air battery

[euniqe]

All of this innovation with batteries and everyone always thinks of how it can improve EV's. Pure battery operated vehicles are pointless for various reasons, such as the fact that they are not green, as the batteries do damage to the environment before they're even put in the car or assembled, and hydrogen power (explain in a bit). Electric cars are always going to be far heavier than their petrol-powered counterparts, for they need to compensate for the batteries, which personally I find perturbing.

 

A fossil-fuel powered car carries fuel, and mixes it with air that it picks up from the atmosphere, at roughly, a 14:1 air:fuel ratio. That is a massive difference. An EV, on the other hand, has to carry ALL of its fuel at all times. Therefore, the onboard fuel, which in the case of an EV is the batteries, is remarkably heavier than the portion of onboard fuel (petrol/diesel tank) of a fossil-fuel powered car. 

 

Tesla EV's have an efficiency rating (energy stored in fuel to energy consumed in propulsion) of 88%, as opposed to approximately 30% for diesel and about 15% for petrol. Sure, that is remarkable, but 88% doesn't leave a whole lot of room for improvement. So regardless of battery improvement, they will always be far bigger and heavier than fossil-fuel tanks. 

 

As top-gear showed when they demonstrated the Tesla Roadster, as it was considerably heavier than the Lotus Elise (car which it is based upon) it does not handle anywhere near as well. The model S weighs 2.1 tonnes. For a sedan of that size, it seems to not be that much, if comparable to fossil-fuel engined competitors. Except when you consider that It is of an all-aluminium construction and an 8-year old Mercedes S-class of the same size with a full-steel chassis weighs about the same - the Tesla weighs the same despite lighter materials because of the batteries.

 

This is just one point - that EV's weigh more than their fossil-fuled counterparts, because of the batteries. There are so many more that condemn the EV - charging times, the fact that charging times will NEVER be fast enough to compare to the 5 minutes (or less) it takes to fill a petrol or diesel-tank.

 

The proper answer to a good EV has been demonstrated a few times (GM Hi-Wire, Honda Clarity etc. to name a couple) and it is Hydrogen. It is endlessly renewable, a hydrogen car requires a tiny battery in comparison to a full-EV, it is no harder to manufacture than fossil-fuels will allow complete range re-fills within minutes, just like a fossil-fueled car, and runs off electricity to indulge in the huge ~90% efficiency factor. IT IS the way of the future. 

 

The notoriety of the oil-companies is not a secret. They are clearly doing everything they possibly can to make sure that petrol and diesel sticks around until the last drop of oil is consumed until they will even allow hydrogen production cars and allow the public mass to witness its potential. The only reason they are allowing full-EV's is because they know that they will never realise the potential that we now indulge in with fossil-fuelled vehicles. 

[euniqe]

Never mind the carbon pollution or inefficiency of hydrogen production, nor the lack of a practical storage solution for vehicles, nor the lack of infrastructure.

 

We already have an electrical grid, good batteries that continue to improve, and cars that use it. Hydrogen has pretty much lost.

 

Hydrogen fuel cells are merely impractical for the same reason ANY technology is impractical in its infancy - because almost no one uses them, and thus the COST is impractical. Just like SSD's once upon a time, but hey look what's happening now...

 

And sure, hyrdogen production is inefficient - but look at refining oil. That's hardly an efficient process, is it.

[mr moose]

All of this innovation with batteries and everyone always thinks of how it can improve EV's. Pure battery operated vehicles are pointless for reasons stated above: they are not green, as the batteries do a shite-load of damage to the environment before they're even put in the car or assembled, and hydrogen power (explain in a bit). Electric cars are always going to be far heavier than their petrol-powered counterparts, for they need to compensate for the batteries. 

 

A fossil-fuel powered car carries fuel, and mixes it with air that it picks up from the atmosphere, at roughly, a 14:1 air:fuel ratio. That is a massive difference. An EV, on the other hand, has to carry ALL of its fuel at all times. Therefore, the portion of onboard fuel, which in the case of an EV is the batteries, is remarkably heavier than the onboard fuel (petrol/diesel tank) of a fossil-fuel powered car. 

 

Tesla EV's have an efficiency rating (energy stored in fuel to energy consumed in propulsion) of 88%, as opposed to approximately 30% for diesel and about 15% for petrol. Sure, that is remarkable, but 88% doesn't leave a whole lot of room for improvement. So regardless of battery improvement, they will always be far bigger and heavier than fossil-fuel tanks. 

 

As top-gear showed when they demonstrated the Tesla Roadster, as it was considerably heavier than the Lotus Elise (car which it is based upon) it does not handle anywhere near as well. The model S weighs 2.1 tonnes. For a sedan of that size, it seems to not be that much, if comparable to fossil-fuel engined competitors. Except when you consider that It is of an all-aluminium construction and an 8-year old Mercedes S-class of the same size with a full-steel chassis weighs about the same - the Tesla weighs the same despite lighter materials because of the batteries.

 

This is just one point - that EV's weigh more than their fossil-fuled counterparts, because of the batteries. There are so many more that condemn the EV - charging times, the fact that charging times will NEVER be fast enough to compare to the 5 minutes (or less) it takes to fill a petrol or diesel-tank.

 

The proper answer to a good EV has been demonstrated a few times (GM Hi-Wire, Honda Clarity etc. to name a couple) and it is Hydrogen. It is endlessly renewable, a hydrogen car requires a tiny battery in comparison to a full-EV, it is no harder to manufacture than fossil-fuels will allow complete range re-fills within minutes, just like a fossil-fueled car, and runs off electricity to indulge in the huge ~90% efficiency factor. IT IS the way of the future. 

 

The notoriety of the oil-companies is not a secret. They are clearly doing everything they possibly can to make sure that petrol and diesel sticks around until the last drop of oil is consumed until they will even allow hydrogen production cars and allow the public mass to witness its potential. The only reason they are allowing full-EV's is because they know that they will never realise the potential that we now indulge in with fossil-fuelled vehicles. 

 

The issue with weight is not an issue.  the worlds fastest cars are electric and most people down't want a sports car nor require sports car like handling,  charge times are moot if they have swappable battery packs,  88% efficiency is a pro not a con because as they discover more efficient ways to improve the energy density of batteries that 88% can be capitalized on far quicker and with better results than petroleum or diesel.

 

[MetEishYa]

Nuclear is... special.

 

We need to fund a lot more nuclear chemistry, specifically on extracting usable nuclear fuel (either as pure fuel or mixed-oxide fuel) from radioactive waste. Otherwise we'll just have stockpiles of nuclear waste.

Yeah but that requires funding, funding which must come from somewhere and with peoples ignorance like they can use it as a bomb or the radiation from the plant will kill everyone, about nuclear energy funding will be difficult.

 

Lol little do most people know that due to the extremely high standard around the amount of radiation a nuclear plant is allowed to emit, coal power plants actually emit higher radiation due to radioactive material deposits in the coal that get released straight into the air when burnt.

[wpirobotbuilder]

Yeah but that requires funding, funding which must come from somewhere and with peoples ignorance like they can use it as a bomb or the radiation from the plant will kill everyone, about nuclear energy funding will be difficult.

 

Lol little do most people know that due to the extremely high standard around the amount of radiation a nuclear plant is allowed to emit, coal power plants actually emit higher radiation due to radioactive material deposits in the coal that get released straight into the air when burnt.

It's sad that Fukushima had to happen, since so many countries are decommissioning their reactors (especially the EU) and moving to natural gas instead.

[euniqe]

The issue with weight is not an issue.  the worlds fastest cars are electric and most people down't want a sports car nor require sports car like handling,  charge times are moot if they have swappable battery packs,  88% efficiency is a pro not a con because as they discover more efficient ways to improve the energy density of batteries that 88% can be capitalized on far quicker and with better results than petroleum or diesel.

 

 

If people didn't want good handling cars, then they wouldn't be buying them. Saying weight is irrelevant is a null argument, honestly. There's so many more aspects rather than just handling, tyre-wear to name one. And swappable battery packs? I seriously doubt they would ever reach the costs of filling a petrol tank and take 5 minutes...

 

 I was saying that 88% IS great, but improving the storage efficiency of a battery will mean that because the electric motor efficiency is already so high, batteries cannot possibly get much lighter as you can only get so much energy from the batteries through chemical reactions. As stated above, they would have to have nuclear reactors to become significantly lighter. 

[MetEishYa]

The issue with weight is not an issue.  the worlds fastest cars are electric and most people down't want a sports car nor require sports car like handling,  charge times are moot if they have swappable battery packs,  88% efficiency is a pro not a con because as they discover more efficient ways to improve the energy density of batteries that 88% can be capitalized on far quicker and with better results than petroleum or diesel.

 

Worlds fastest cars are petrol and some are hybrids, bugatti veyron SS, Maclaren P1, Konegistegg Agera R etc. Charge times are also moot if u can charge within 4 hours and have 1000+ km range then the car can charge while u sleep (Driving more than 12 hours straight is extremely dangerous). The swappable battery is a good road side assisting thing if you run out of charge for some reason. That 88% efficiency thing has one big problem which can be fixed, the power needs to come from the plug and for most countries that comes from the burning of fossil-fuels, for coal power stations there efficiency is around 40-48% i think gas is 

[IAmSkip]

If people didn't want good handling cars, then they wouldn't be buying them. Saying weight is irrelevant is a null argument, honestly. There's so many more aspects rather than just handling, tyre-wear to name one. And swappable battery packs? I seriously doubt they would ever reach the costs of filling a petrol tank and take 5 minutes...

 

 I was saying that 88% IS great, but improving the storage efficiency of a battery will mean that because the electric motor efficiency is already so high, batteries cannot possibly get much lighter as you can only get so much energy from the batteries through chemical reactions. As stated above, they would have to have nuclear reactors to become significantly lighter. 

Sorry, what? Tesla already has a system working for fast battery swaps.

Also you seem to be dismissing that battery technology cannot become better, yet are saying hydrogen can and will. 

Maybe it will, maybe it won't but hydrogen powered vehicles face a lot more issues that EV cars currently, and in the immediate (and distant)

future electric cars will become more common. Maybe not for pure sports cars (until alternate storage technologies become a commodity - higher density storage currently is far too expensive for the consumer market).

 

[wpirobotbuilder]

Sorry, what? Tesla already has a system working for fast battery swaps.

Also you seem to be dismissing that battery technology cannot become better, yet are saying hydrogen can and will. 

Maybe it will, maybe it won't but hydrogen powered vehicles face a lot more issues that EV cars currently, and in the immediate (and distant)

future electric cars will become more common. Maybe not for pure sports cars (until alternate storage technologies become a commodity - higher density storage currently is far too expensive for the consumer market).

 

Never seen that before. Such robotics. I like.

 

That could be great for ensuring performance consistency, since they could test the battery packs at the service station and prevent bad ones from going back into running cars.

[Mitrailleuse]

impossible.

 

 

I want a car that can drive on air as fuel.

oh rly?

[mr moose]

If people didn't want good handling cars, then they wouldn't be buying them. Saying weight is irrelevant is a null argument, honestly. There's so many more aspects rather than just handling, tyre-wear to name one. And swappable battery packs? I seriously doubt they would ever reach the costs of filling a petrol tank and take 5 minutes...

 

 I was saying that 88% IS great, but improving the storage efficiency of a battery will mean that because the electric motor efficiency is already so high, batteries cannot possibly get much lighter as you can only get so much energy from the batteries through chemical reactions. As stated above, they would have to have nuclear reactors to become significantly lighter. 

 

Why do you think battery energy densities will not improve?  every year they discovery lighter technologies that store more energy.

[ZetZet]

oh rly?

it's running on fucking batteries lol

[juretrn]

How much acid rain, strip mining and carbon pollution these batteries cause to make, though? There is a reason why cars like the Prius are daft and do more harm than good.

 

Electric cars are pointless, we should move to hydrogen.

Yes and no.

 

Lithium mining is WAY more harmful to the environment than oil. We need a different battery tech entirely.

But hydrogen is even worse, since it's inherently dangerous. (Hindenburg, anyone?) It needs to be stored under pressure, in tanks that have to be really over-engineered to survive the stress of driving or crashes. Hydrogen is just not practical. 

[mr moose]

Sorry, what? Tesla already has a system working for fast battery swaps.

Also you seem to be dismissing that battery technology cannot become better, yet are saying hydrogen can and will. 

Maybe it will, maybe it won't but hydrogen powered vehicles face a lot more issues that EV cars currently, and in the immediate (and distant)

future electric cars will become more common. Maybe not for pure sports cars (until alternate storage technologies become a commodity - higher density storage currently is far too expensive for the consumer market).

 

 

Not only that but swappable packs have been done before (over 5 years ago), unfortunately bad management stuffed it up before the tech had a chance to take off. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place

[mr moose]

Worlds fastest cars are petrol and some are hybrids, bugatti veyron SS, Maclaren P1, Konegistegg Agera R etc. Charge times are also moot if u can charge within 4 hours and have 1000+ km range then the car can charge while u sleep (Driving more than 12 hours straight is extremely dangerous). The swappable battery is a good road side assisting thing if you run out of charge for some reason. That 88% efficiency thing has one big problem which can be fixed, the power needs to come from the plug and for most countries that comes from the burning of fossil-fuels, for coal power stations there efficiency is around 40-48% i think gas is 

 

Agree, however the efficiency of burning coal to produce power to drive an electric car at their current state of development is the same as the efficiency of refining oil to petrol to drive a car the same distance. So it can really  only get better from here.

 

In other words the pollution for each vehicle is the same per mile until you account for nuclear/renewable power generation, then the electric car becomes a cleaner option.

[euniqe]

Why do you think battery energy densities will not improve?  every year they discovery lighter technologies that store more energy.

 

I didn't say they wouldn't improve. I'm saying that electric engines do not have much room for improvement in terms of efficiency, so the only way to increase range is to increase battery capacity. They cannot become significantly lighter - smaller, yes - but not overly lighter. You said it yourself, the density will improve and they will become smaller. But the overall mass (weight) cannot physically get much smaller due to the nature of chemical energy. 

 

And wow ok I take back what I said about the battery hot-swapping. But regardless, I seriously doubt getting a new battery that lasts about 300 miles will ever be cheap.

 

Worlds fastest cars are petrol and some are hybrids, bugatti veyron SS, Maclaren P1, Konegistegg Agera R etc. Charge times are also moot if u can charge within 4 hours and have 1000+ km range then the car can charge while u sleep (Driving more than 12 hours straight is extremely dangerous). The swappable battery is a good road side assisting thing if you run out of charge for some reason. That 88% efficiency thing has one big problem which can be fixed, the power needs to come from the plug and for most countries that comes from the burning of fossil-fuels, for coal power stations there efficiency is around 40-48% i think gas is 

 

Charging in 4 hours? That's not as good as 4 minutes!!!! What if you get stuck in the middle of no where? How can a man in a van bring you enough electricity? Ok sure, he could bring you another battery - but as I said before I seriously doubt it would be cheap enough for this to happen

[mr moose]

I didn't say they wouldn't improve. I'm saying that electric engines do not have much room for improvement in terms of efficiency, so the only way to increase range is to increase battery capacity. They cannot become significantly lighter - smaller, yes - but not overly lighter. You said it yourself, the density will improve and they will become smaller. But the overall mass (weight) cannot physically get much smaller due to the nature of chemical energy.

 

And wow ok I take back what I said about the battery hot-swapping. But regardless, I seriously doubt getting a new battery that lasts about 300 miles will ever be cheap.

 

 

Charging in 4 hours? That's not as good as 4 minutes!!!! What if you get stuck in the middle of no where? How can a man in a van bring you more electricity?

 

The electric motors don't need to improve, they can already put out 400+horsepower ,  the only improvements the cars need are in batteries.  Which will be the energy density, which means with development  they will either become lighter, store more energy or both.  And as that happens they can only get better than petrol.  Given that the energy usage of the tesla s is equivalent to 2.6L petrol per 100K that's pretty amazing. 

[MetEishYa]

I didn't say they wouldn't improve. I'm saying that electric engines do not have much room for improvement in terms of efficiency, so the only way to increase range is to increase battery capacity. They cannot become significantly lighter - smaller, yes - but not overly lighter. You said it yourself, the density will improve and they will become smaller. But the overall mass (weight) cannot physically get much smaller due to the nature of chemical energy. 

 

And wow ok I take back what I said about the battery hot-swapping. But regardless, I seriously doubt getting a new battery that lasts about 300 miles will ever be cheap.

 

 

Charging in 4 hours? That's not as good as 4 minutes!!!! What if you get stuck in the middle of no where? How can a man in a van bring you enough electricity? Ok sure, he could bring you another battery - but as I said before I seriously doubt it would be cheap enough for this to happen

I was saying 4 hour and a long range. This means that if you drive 8+ hours after which it starts to become very dangerous to drive (I think its like every extra hour is equivalent to 1 drink of alchole but not sure), the car will still have range and from there since you cant drive without having atleast 4 hours sleep you can charge the car to full in that time while you sleep.

[GamerDad]

impossible.

Quite possible: http://zeropollutionmotors.us/

[GamerDad]

Charging in 4 hours? That's not as good as 4 minutes!!!! What if you get stuck in the middle of no where? How can a man in a van bring you enough electricity? Ok sure, he could bring you another battery - but as I said before I seriously doubt it would be cheap enough for this to happen

The same argument can be made for gas. What if you run out of gas in the middle of nowhere? What if the nearest station is too far to get to?

Answer: you pony up and tow the car. I'm tired of such a weak argument against electric cars.

[cae]

 

 

First is a great, albeit unentertaining video about our current limitations regarding EV batteries - why they don't follow Moore's law, etc.

 

Second is a look into the future of internal combustion. Still a lot to be done with that engine until we get our magical unicorn batteries from Tesla. Hybrid gas/air system at the end is interesting.

[ZetZet]

Quite possible: http://zeropollutionmotors.us/

No. What you need to realise is that vast amounts of energy go into compressing the air in the first place and those processes are not as effiecient as electric motors, because we have nailed electric motors.