Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 06 Jan 2017, 06:10:16

AdamB wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
hvacman wrote:Almost 25,000 EVs Sold As December 2016 Crushes Sales Records In The US




Image

Yes of course but I had to point out to those crowing about "huge increases" in the sales of EVs that 180 percent of almost nothing is still almost nothing. Not that I'm against EVs as I think their future is bright especially after oil truly declines in availability and gas rises past $5.00 a gallon and rises towards $10.00
I just don't appreciate the presenting of figures in a way intended to persuade the careless reader that they mean much more then the facts support.
As to thinking of the possibilities let's have someone design and build a plug in 50 HP tractor that can work twelve hours a day during planting and harvesting seasons. The machine should weigh five to seven thousand pounds and probably would have to swap out battery banks two or three times a day to do that. Perhaps the battery packs would be towed or carried behind for quick attachment with the tillage tools mounted in front for operator visibility.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6883
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby hvacman » Fri 06 Jan 2017, 13:40:24

KaiserJeep wrote:Time to remind everyone: a hybrid is a fuel burning car which gets about 25% better gas mileage than an standard ICE car because of the electric powertrain. Hybrids have to carry the extra weight of batteries, electric motor, and controller electronics, and thus suffer from lower acceleration, poorer braking, and reduced life for tires, brakes, and suspension components.

PHEVs are hybrids that carry a few hundred more pounds of batteries, and much smaller fuel tanks as the gas motor is only a range extender. Many PHEVs never get regularly plugged in for recharge, and thus are simply used as reduced benefit hybrids.

Real EVs have benefits that Hybrids and PHEVs do not. I think we should count Hybrids and PHEVs with the ICE vehicles, and pure EVs as a separate class of vehicle.


KJ - can you provide a chart showing the relative acceleration performance, actual gallons of gas burned/1000 miles driven, actual tire/brake/suspension service data for a current-generation conventional ICE vehicle and its PHEV counterpart? Do you have ANY service data on PHEV's out on the road? Define "many". What are the actual statistics for percent PHEV's that never get regularly plugged in? What is the actual fleet average % of miles driven in EV mode for the various PHEV's on the market?
hvacman
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun 01 Dec 2013, 12:19:53

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 06 Jan 2017, 17:47:27

vtsnowedin wrote:
AdamB wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
hvacman wrote:Almost 25,000 EVs Sold As December 2016 Crushes Sales Records In The US




Image

Yes of course but I had to point out to those crowing about "huge increases" in the sales of EVs that 180 percent of almost nothing is still almost nothing. Not that I'm against EVs as I think their future is bright especially after oil truly declines in availability and gas rises past $5.00 a gallon and rises towards $10.00
I just don't appreciate the presenting of figures in a way intended to persuade the careless reader that they mean much more then the facts support.


Perhaps you do not appreciate the exponential function, as Albert Bartlett and peak oilers do?

https://charlesvanderhaegen.wordpress.c ... unction-t/
AdamB
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1410
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 06 Jan 2017, 18:03:31

AdamB wrote:
Perhaps you do not appreciate the exponential function, as Albert Bartlett and peak oilers do?

The exponential function includes a time factor as in the time to double, and it also assumes adequate resources for the doubling to occur. Calculate the time factor wrong or run out of resources and the progression grinds to a halt. When the bacteria grow to the edge of the petre dish they run out of food and drown in there own waste.
Evs have a time factor that varies with the price of oil derived gas and resource limits in the amount of rare earth elements available for batteries.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6883
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Fri 06 Jan 2017, 18:58:20

vtsnowedin wrote:
AdamB wrote:
Perhaps you do not appreciate the exponential function, as Albert Bartlett and peak oilers do?

The exponential function includes a time factor as in the time to double, and it also assumes adequate resources for the doubling to occur. Calculate the time factor wrong or run out of resources and the progression grinds to a halt. When the bacteria grow to the edge of the petre dish they run out of food and drown in there own waste.
Evs have a time factor that varies with the price of oil derived gas and resource limits in the amount of rare earth elements available for batteries.

First, substitutes for REM's are being found, and more research is being done on this. Stupid as humanity is, we're NOT bacteria. We can and do adapt and change, even if not as quickly and efficiently as we'd often wish. This doesn't say REM's are no issue, but this plus recycling, etc. does say lack of REM's isn't some hard line we can't cross as EV's increase market share. Example:

http://www.hybridcars.com/honda-and-met ... th-metals/

Second, all the objective evidence says there's LOTS of oil. The main issue is, at what cost. Every EV and PHEV that dramatically reduces the oil consumed in the life cycle of a car makes more oil available for other things. Acting like oil is some limiting factor for the production of EV's in the short to medium term makes little sense. (Money is another issue, but all signs point to the cost of EV's dropping meaningfully relative to ICE's, especially when life cycle fuel costs are considered).
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby eclipse » Fri 06 Jan 2017, 19:20:00

ralfy wrote:
Subjectivist wrote:This has been pointed out dozens of times. The world economy today is based on small level consumers. Eliminate jobs for small level consumers and you shrink the world economy no matter what your numbers on paper look like to the accountants this quarter.


I think it has to be mentioned several more times. Some forum members don't seem to get it.


Worried about all taxi-cab drivers and truck drivers and couriers losing their jobs? That another 3 million working class jobs are about to go? I think it's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that burn nuclear 'waste', giving America 1000 years of clean electricity without mining more uranium. Then America can charge about 86% of their cars on the existing grid, only building more reactors for the last 14%.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 07 Jan 2017, 02:22:51

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote: Evs have a time factor that varies with the price of oil derived gas and resource limits in the amount of rare earth elements available for batteries.


Acting like oil is some limiting factor for the production of EV's in the short to medium term makes little sense.

I said the time factor varies. Meaning that if oil is cheap the time to double the number of EVs purchased ( because of decreased demand from the public) will be longer than if oil becomes expensive. That is true whether it makes sense to you or not.
There is a limit of how much REMs are available today. That creates a limit on the growth of EVs at present. If they do find substitutes that work that limit will move out but it hasn't happened yet.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6883
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby eclipse » Sat 07 Jan 2017, 02:34:47

There is a limit of how much REMs are available today. That creates a limit on the growth of EVs at present. If they do find substitutes that work that limit will move out but it hasn't happened yet.

Yet the supply chains have scaled up to meet the 50% demand increase last year. One can only assume the rare earth mines are scaling up to meet the expected demand for next year, and will watch the marketplace to scale up the year after that!

Interestingly, thorium is an expensive waste product from many rare earth mines. Even if the world were entirely powered by molten salt reactors, one decent rare earth mine could supply all the world's thorium requirements... and there are simply dozens and dozens of rare earth mines around the world!
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that burn nuclear 'waste', giving America 1000 years of clean electricity without mining more uranium. Then America can charge about 86% of their cars on the existing grid, only building more reactors for the last 14%.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 07 Jan 2017, 02:59:41

eclipse wrote:[... and there are simply dozens and dozens of rare earth mines around the world!

Why then do they call it "Rare earth"?
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6883
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby eclipse » Sat 07 Jan 2017, 06:26:29

Because they're only in ppm or whatever, not like huge old copper ingots.

Image
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that burn nuclear 'waste', giving America 1000 years of clean electricity without mining more uranium. Then America can charge about 86% of their cars on the existing grid, only building more reactors for the last 14%.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 07 Jan 2017, 07:44:03

eclipse wrote:Because they're only in ppm or whatever, not like huge old copper ingots.

Image

Also because the world production is currently just 35,000 tonnes per year.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6883
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 07 Jan 2017, 10:20:10

vtsnowedin wrote:
eclipse wrote:[... and there are simply dozens and dozens of rare earth mines around the world!

Why then do they call it "Rare earth"?


The name goes back to when they were discovered. At the time they were rare metals found in very small quantities mixed into other ores. They turn out not to be so rare after all, but they are also only used for specialty applications so they are not mass produced like Copper or Aluminum.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13239
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby hvacman » Mon 09 Jan 2017, 13:13:47

Re: Rare earth.

The major EV manufacturers are finding various ways to minimize or eliminate rare earth magnets from their motors. Concerns above access from China, along with costs and long-term availability. With the Gen 2 Volt, GM uses two PM motors connected to a single transaxle. One motor uses ferrite permanent magnets (which can be manufactured from iron and isn't a rare-earth) and acts as the high speed/low-torque motor. The low-speed/high torque motor uses just a few ounces of rare-earth - cutting rare-earth use to about 1/4 that used for the Gen 1 Volt.

Several manufacturers, including Tesla, use induction motors which require no permanent magnets at all.
hvacman
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun 01 Dec 2013, 12:19:53

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby eclipse » Thu 12 Jan 2017, 04:39:42

Hmm, electric cars for family driving are just great, but what about the sheer energy density required for running huge, heavy trucks? Batteries cannot do it (yet). Nikola Motor has a hydrogen truck with a range of 1280km to 1920km — but by then I guarantee you’ll be busting for a toilet break! That range is incredible! It means you can get from Sydney to Melbourne on one tank. https://nikolamotor.com/one

I used to be very suspicious of hydrogen because it is not really an energy source and is more like a 'liquid battery'. It does not store well, takes a lot of energy to produce, compress and freeze into your truck, all just to run through a fuel cell to get electricity back again. So what is the point? But now I'm changing my mind. Let's have EV's for family cars, yes! But hydrogen not only gives you the energy density to drive a truck, but now an incredible range as well. The range is exciting because it means that if you're a trucking company, you do not have to wait for a so called 'hydrogen highway'. You could just build your fuelling tanks at your own depots!

Think about it. All it takes is electricity + water + equipment + tanks, and you're good to go. With a range like that, they can forget highway fuelling ever again! The company becomes the energy supplier. Who cares if it doesn't store well if you're making it on cheap overnight electricity for burning in your fleet of trucks the next day? Next stop, the Adelaide or Sydney depot, and refuel there please. Add in the fact that many trucks will soon be automated robot trucks, and the costs of freight could be going down, not up! The future could be amazing.
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that burn nuclear 'waste', giving America 1000 years of clean electricity without mining more uranium. Then America can charge about 86% of their cars on the existing grid, only building more reactors for the last 14%.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 12 Jan 2017, 07:42:19

eclipse wrote:Hmm, electric cars for family driving are just great, but what about the sheer energy density required for running huge, heavy trucks? Batteries cannot do it (yet). Nikola Motor has a hydrogen truck with a range of 1280km to 1920km — but by then I guarantee you’ll be busting for a toilet break! That range is incredible! It means you can get from Sydney to Melbourne on one tank. https://nikolamotor.com/one

I used to be very suspicious of hydrogen because it is not really an energy source and is more like a 'liquid battery'. It does not store well, takes a lot of energy to produce, compress and freeze into your truck, all just to run through a fuel cell to get electricity back again. So what is the point? But now I'm changing my mind. Let's have EV's for family cars, yes! But hydrogen not only gives you the energy density to drive a truck, but now an incredible range as well. The range is exciting because it means that if you're a trucking company, you do not have to wait for a so called 'hydrogen highway'. You could just build your fuelling tanks at your own depots!

Think about it. All it takes is electricity + water + equipment + tanks, and you're good to go. With a range like that, they can forget highway fuelling ever again! The company becomes the energy supplier. Who cares if it doesn't store well if you're making it on cheap overnight electricity for burning in your fleet of trucks the next day? Next stop, the Adelaide or Sydney depot, and refuel there please. Add in the fact that many trucks will soon be automated robot trucks, and the costs of freight could be going down, not up! The future could be amazing.



If you want a fuel cell electric vehicle that's fine, but I still say liquid ammonia is a far superior choice over cryogenic hydrogen. It is cheap and simple to make with 1890 level of technology, stores virtually forever without leaking and liquefies at room temperature under very modest pressurization. It also carries about 40 percent the energy density of gasoline or a third the energy density of diesel fuel so fitting tanks to a vehicle to get a good range is not unreasonably bulky. Used through a fuel cell instead of an ICE motor you get so much better efficiency that the energy density by volume is much closer to the comparison fuels than most realize.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13239
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 12 Jan 2017, 10:35:47

Tanada wrote:If you want a fuel cell electric vehicle that's fine, but I still say liquid ammonia is a far superior choice over cryogenic hydrogen. It is cheap and simple to make with 1890 level of technology, stores virtually forever without leaking and liquefies at room temperature under very modest pressurization. It also carries about 40 percent the energy density of gasoline or a third the energy density of diesel fuel so fitting tanks to a vehicle to get a good range is not unreasonably bulky. Used through a fuel cell instead of an ICE motor you get so much better efficiency that the energy density by volume is much closer to the comparison fuels than most realize.

I think not based on this.
Then there are the economics. Ammonia itself isn’t exactly cheap, if you adjust for its energy content. The price of bulk ammonia for agricultural use appears to be around $550-$600/ton, which equates to $1.55-1.70/gal. But when you factor in its lower energy density, that raises it to at least $3.85/gal. of gasoline equivalent, without any fuel taxes. And while a distribution system exists to supply farms with ammonia, this is a long way from what would be required to fuel anything beyond farm vehicles. Because ammonia boils well below ambient temperature, it must either be refrigerated or stored under pressure, and dispensed through special equipment. And if all that weren’t daunting enough for any service station owner considering adding an ammonia pump on the forecourt, the safety aspects of ammonia handling look even worse.
A glance at a typical material safety data sheet (MSDS) for anhydrous ammonia reveals that the recommended exposure limits are very low, under 50 parts per million in air, and the consequences of exposure include caustic burns and much more serious outcomes. Gasoline has its own issues, but spilling some on your hand won’t send you to the hospital,

http://www.theenergycollective.com/geof ... ative-fuel
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6883
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 12 Jan 2017, 11:00:59

Those figures are based on using it as a 1:1 replacement for gasoline in ICE vehicles, using it in a fuel cell combined with an electric drive motor is at least twice as efficient, possibly more.

If you want to use it for ICE vehicles the obvious first step is to convert over the portion of the farm equipment currently running on Gasoline. For stationary engines its easy peasy, just an adjustment here and a tweak there plus fuel regulator and tank. Most tractors and combines today are Diesel but there are still a large number of gasoline units still out there being used.

If you are talented enough to spill ammonia on yourself when it comes in a sealed pressurized container you have much bigger worries, like walking and chewing gum at the same time without hurting yourself. Just about every farm in America uses a lot of ammonia every year, and yet farmers are still alive and healthy for the most part. The pesticides and herbicides are a much bigger threat because they are purposely aerosolized.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13239
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 12 Jan 2017, 12:12:15

eclipse wrote:Think about it. All it takes is electricity + water + equipment + tanks, and you're good to go. With a range like that, they can forget highway fuelling ever again! The company becomes the energy supplier. Who cares if it doesn't store well if you're making it on cheap overnight electricity for burning in your fleet of trucks the next day? Next stop, the Adelaide or Sydney depot, and refuel there please. Add in the fact that many trucks will soon be automated robot trucks, and the costs of freight could be going down, not up! The future could be amazing.


Based on the advances in transportation technology since peak oil happened a decade ago, EVs for the masses, pluggable hybrids, more efficient ICE engines, autonomous driving technology turning mobility into an ap rather than some hunk of steel that sits in our garages unused 95% of the time, I would venture that you tense usage is a bit off.

Looking at this from the bad old peak oil days, the future WAS amazing, and there is no reason to think it has even stopped to take a breath or break yet, so absolutely, it will continue to be amazing. If memory serves, there were some who claimed that peak oil itself would stop all this amazing from happening, but instead it seemed to accelerate it!

So if the amazing present we live in today is the result of the amazing future given to us by peak oil only a decade ago, I can think of only one response to continued claims of the same, or even other resource scarcity claims...

Image
AdamB
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1410
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby eclipse » Fri 13 Jan 2017, 23:43:13

Sorry all, I might have jumped the gun a little. The Nikola 1200km-range hydrogen trucks don't exist yet, and there is some ambiguity over their plans and the whole thing could be an investment scam. But, as I say on a summary page on my blog, I have accumulated enough evidence that:-
We can easily replace oil by recharging on electric vehicles instead. City wide electric vehicles can easily replace oil, including city garbage trucks, buses, and delivery trucks. Long-haul interstate trucking can be replaced by fast-rail where there is a busy enough route, but for less frequent trips trucks can burn recyclable boron pellets instead of diesel!
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that burn nuclear 'waste', giving America 1000 years of clean electricity without mining more uranium. Then America can charge about 86% of their cars on the existing grid, only building more reactors for the last 14%.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 5

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 07:11:39

eclipse wrote:Sorry all, I might have jumped the gun a little. The Nikola 1200km-range hydrogen trucks don't exist yet, and there is some ambiguity over their plans and the whole thing could be an investment scam. But, as I say on a summary page on my blog, I have accumulated enough evidence that:-
We can easily replace oil by recharging on electric vehicles instead. City wide electric vehicles can easily replace oil, including city garbage trucks, buses, and delivery trucks. Long-haul interstate trucking can be replaced by fast-rail where there is a busy enough route, but for less frequent trips trucks can burn recyclable boron pellets instead of diesel!

What bothers me about that post is the repeated use of the word easily. I doubt there is going to be anything easy about it. And how much dose a hundred miles worth of "recyclable boron pellets" go for down at the hardware store and how do they run through my tractors diesel injector pump? I'd want to see a working model of that tilling a corn field in Missouri before I could place much of any faith in it as a solution.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6883
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Outcast_Searcher and 11 guests