Joined: May 21, 2004 Posts: 198 Location: East Coast USA
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:47 pm Post subject:
Thanks for the post. It was a good article.
I drive less than five miles most days (to the train station and back). An EV would be fine for me on those days. However, sometimes I jump in the car and drive 500 miles. The difference between an EV with a 275 mile range and an ICE car with the same range is that you can fill the ICE car's tank in ten minutes and be back on the road. With an EV, you would sit around for hours waiting for your battery to charge.
Electric motors have amny advantages over ICEs as you pointed out. They also require a lot of copper, which is in short supply right now. For that reason, mass production of EVs or even more hybrids might be curtailed by the available supply of copper. _________________ www.searchingforthetruth.com
The truth that is suppressed by friends is the readiest weapon of the enemy.
- Robert Louis Stevenson
The difference between an EV with a 275 mile range and an ICE car with the same range is that you can fill the ICE car's tank in ten minutes and be back on the road. With an EV, you would sit around for hours waiting for your battery to charge.
Depends on what kind of outlet is available. A 110 or 220V outlet as we know them today? Then you are correct.
A quick charge facility that is 480+ volts with over 200 amps of current? Now we're getting somewhere. Prototype quickchargers have been built that can charge a 200 mile range battery pack in 20 minutes. They are feasable in mass production. However, instead of developing this sort of infrastructure, we blew out money in Iraq going after 12.5% of the world's oil, when, if were were to adress the oil consumed in transportation, over the decade it would take for the majority of our cars to turn over, we could cut our own oil use 30% or more, fuel for automobiles alone accunting for 40% of our consumption.
Quote:
Electric motors have amny advantages over ICEs as you pointed out. They also require a lot of copper, which is in short supply right now. For that reason, mass production of EVs or even more hybrids might be curtailed by the available supply of copper.
I've never heard of this copper shortage. when I get time, I will have to look into it? Any numbers on hand? I'm interested in how it could affect the price, if say, 400 million EVs were produced to replace gas cars. I have my doubts about the significance the price of copper would have, but who knows. I'm without numbers on this issue at the moment. _________________ The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
I haven't heard that there is a copper shortage. A Google search on the subject only reveals:
1) Historical documents related to copper shortages, such as during WWII.
2) Isolated shortages in regions, such as in China in 1997, which could just as well have been a temporary production shortfall due to mining infrastructure not being able to meet a sudden increase in demand.
It's also important to note that a great deal of copper is being recycled from the communications industry, where fiberoptics are better than copper for the transmission of data. And... where copper is still used for communications, digital signalling technology is allowing lighter guages of wire to be used.
I think toecutter is doing a great job of arguing in favor of the viability of the EV. If what he is saying is correct, we should be able to buy a 300 mile range EV, that can be fully charged in 15-20 minutes with the right charging gear, for only slightly more initial cost than a gas powered vehicle, with significantly lower maintenance and operational costs over a 20-30 year life of the vehicle.
Prices of copper is going through the roof, but that is different than saying we are running out of copper. We are not running out of copper. We do have supply restraint because the Chinese are buying up so much. The same goes for steel and practically all materials.
And why do you refer to it is as "hybrid crap"? This is some of the most useful and important automotive technology coming out these days.
Yes, they are highly advanced. I like the Prius, but I wish there are ones with plugins. Anyways, the cars that simply use hybrid engines- I am against. It is not that much better than ICE. When I hear a Suburban is going hybrid, I think that is crap.
Quote:
I think any company that is doing something involving transportation efficiency has the opportunity to be hugely successful in the coming years. Many will fail, but several will come to dominate the market. It might not be a startup. It might by Toyota or Honda or even Vectrix (electric scooters) which makes a huge hit. That remains for the market to determine.
I hope you are right, but I just doubt it, but we shall see.
Joined: May 21, 2004 Posts: 198 Location: East Coast USA
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:06 pm Post subject:
We're not "running out" of copper, but supplies are tight and it will get worse if EVs go into mass production. Nickel is an issue as well. _________________ www.searchingforthetruth.com
The truth that is suppressed by friends is the readiest weapon of the enemy.
- Robert Louis Stevenson
A quick charge facility that is 480+ volts with over 200 amps of current?
Come down to earth and extrapolate what you are saying. That is 96 kW (let's call it 100 kW for convenience). So one charge in 10 min is 17 kWh. Assume a battery efficiency of 80%, that gives you 14 kWh output. Now an ordinary mid-sized car has a peak power of, say, 150 kW and usually runs (normal driving) at an average of about 25 kW, so your charge will last just a tad over 30 minutes. If the autonomy is 250 miles, that means your average speed must be 500 mph
Now, let's assume, with a large stretch of the imagination, your pipe-dream became reality and the USA has replaced all its 200 million cars with your idea. Let's just assume that only 10% of the drivers reach home at a given time and plug in their cars. That is 20,000,000 x 100 kW = 2000 MW or the output of 2 large nuke power stations (while wifey is cooking dinner for the homecoming hero and the aircons are on in the house), just so that he can drive for half-an-hour the following day?
As I say, come down to earth. It cannot happen on a large scale, without building hundreds of nuke power stations, a new grid system and a whole BIG infrastructure and without equipping the cars with battery storage output capacity of 200 kWh or more. This is simple arithmetic. _________________ Devil
Whoops, sorry, you're right. I reckon the caffeine level in MY blood was inadequate when I wrote that, confusing W and kW
OK, so it requires 2000 nuke power stations to supply the surge. Is that better? OK, you say stagger the charging over 24 h. In that period there are 144 10-min slots, so we need charge only 1,400,000 highly disciplined cars at any one time to provide 30 min running time (your ration for the day). So that is 1,400,000 x 100 kW = 140 GW = 140 new nuke power stations. (This figure is lower than the generally accepted one of about 200, because half-an-hour's running time is insufficient and it does not take into account the spare night-time capacity of existing power suppliers. Also I assumed 1 GW = 1 power station. In reality, new reactors generally aim for 1.5-1.6 GWe). _________________ Devil
I think that Devil is being unfair in a number of ways.
1. You over-rate the power requirements on a vehicle. 150 kW = 201 HP. That's a bit on the high side, especially for an electric vehicle, which has better torque for acceleration in the low range. Someone could drive quite satisfactorily on half that power in a BEV. The Electrovaya Maya has only 40 kW (53 HP) power, but 200 Nm (146 lb-ft) torque (comparable to a Toyota Camry). Admittedly, I'd like to see at least 90-100 HP, but that'll come.
2. You assume that "at any given time" 10% of all vehicles will be drawing 100 kW of power off the grid. Only the "quick charge" stations would be pulling that 440 V 200 A so that people can make long voyages without too much disruption. Household chargers will probably still be the overnight variety. Also, not every vehicle will need a full charge when it plugs in. A 200 mile ranged BEV might only travel 20 miles in an average day. In which case, a "smart" home charger could conceivably detect the charge level of the battery upon plug-in and wait until 2-3 AM to "top off" that charge. I think that probably 60% of vehicles (the percentage of vehicles that make a short commute during the day on any given day) will be charging during the off-peak hours during the night. Even drivers going long distance tend not to want to drive all night long, so pulling over to a rest stop, which might provide low voltage charging stations free of charge, would be advisable not just to recharge the batteries, but to recharge the driver, too!
3. Last, but not least. I am tired of hearing the argument "It can't replace oil 100% right away, so it's not a good solution!" We need to remember that proposals need to only contribute toward a total solution of filling the gap between oil production and energy demand. If we can fill that gap, then the decline in oil production will be a gentle slope, rather than a precipitous fall. In fact, plug-in multi-fuel hybrids are just the kind of technology that we need to really make this transition smooth. Then people can use any combination of grid recharge, ethanol, gasoline, etc... that is at the time the best value.
OK, so it requires 2000 nuke power stations to supply the surge. Is that better?
Don't be rediculous. That's 1 nuclear power station per 10000 cars. That's just dumb.
It's not I who is being dumb. If you have 100 kW charging stations, as described by those who are really dumb on this thread, it is clear that 10,000 x 100 kW = 1 GW = 1 nuclear power station, give or take an ounce or two. It is the notion of simultaneously charging large numbers of cars in 10 min that is stupid.
In fact, the whole notion of generalising electric cars is stupid when there is no infrastructure to support them. It requires 2-3 times the present generating and grid capacity for this to happen, in practically every country. There is no way round this hard fact.
And there are plenty of mid-sized cars with ratings from 120 to 180 kW, even up to 220 kW for some of the more performing types. _________________ Devil
In fact, the whole notion of generalising electric cars is stupid when there is no infrastructure to support them. It requires 2-3 times the present generating and grid capacity for this to happen, in practically every country. There is no way round this hard fact.
What type of electric cars are you referring to? The PHEV's that I am seeing are in no way so intensive or demanding on the grid.
Of course, ordinary hybrids make no demand on the grid. The plug-ins that you keep plug-ging, which don't really exist in production (tthe extra batteries would be too expensive, too heavy and would need a modified charging circuit), will be somewhat kinder on the grid, but will still grossly overload it if many people try to plug-in at the same time. They will still need infrastructure and, in most countries, will need a separate circuit with its own meter, for taxation purposes (no government will allow people to motor along, tax-free, will they?). _________________ Devil
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
