Nissan could beat Tesla at their own game (engines, towing, replacement)

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by Ziggy100

I do not nor would it matter for the purpose of this discussion.

You're driving around 90% of the time with hundreds of miles of more battery than you need but paid extra for, carrying around hundreds of pounds of more weight than you're using, and you still need special infrastructure to take that occasion long range trip that requires more stops and longer refuel times than what is already out there. All this to reduce just the 10% of carbon emissions you would have created on your occasional long trip. The additional battery capacity that you're not using did not come without an environmental cost of it's own Politically charged: do you know where your batteries come from?
That's why charging stations are obsolete.

Not that good long term environmental strategy has anything to do with market cap (BP's market cap is $835B btw) and Tesla's market cap has shrunk by $24B in the past 10 months, but nice try.

There are at least two other reasons for charging stations aside from for long distance trips you haven't mentioned so far:

- Not everyone who owns or uses a car lives in a home with a dedicated garage / charging station, so fast charging stations and the ability to charge a large capacity are more important for such users.

- Charging stations are infrastructure that become more useful as energy density increases. As energy density increases, the physical weight and volume of batteries for the same amount of power capacity decreases (and range per energy unit actually gets better even faster, because the vehicle with the same total power capacity has to do less work due to a lighter weight), the criticism of lugging that potentially excessive capacity becomes less and less relevant.

For example, a doubling of energy density from the current Model 3's battery pack at 247 Wh/kg to something in the environs of 500 Wh/kg, means that instead of simply doubling the range of the vehicle by using a denser energy pack but with the same weight, you can instead opt to halve the total weight of the battery for the same energy capacity. Shedding those several hundreds of pounds by halving the total weight of the battery for the same energy capacity means that the car actually gets more range for the same energy capacity which thus makes your time spent at the pump more efficient in terms of miles gained per second at the pump making existing fast charging stations more useful with each new improvement in energy density.

The criticisms of mining and electricity production are real and it always seem silly when people talk about the zero emissions aspect of electric vehicles to mean anything more than zero emissions at the tailpipe. While zero emissions at the tailpipe is good since vehicles are more likely to operate in urban areas and there are many health benefits from not sucking in tailpipe emissions in an urban area, this is not the same as zero emissions overall. However, fossil fuel cars and the large distribution network for extracting, processing, and distributing such, there's also a large amount of loss and emissions and you cannot get much of a useful second life out of recycling that exhaust as you can with both the EV car batteries or with recycling the materials of that battery. Electric vehicles are not a panacea for environmental issues--they have their own environmental issues in their use and production and the shift to them is only better in comparison to ICE vehicles. For criticisms of the electrical production, the fact is that the world in general is quickly adding other supplies of electricity and electricity is far more versatile in how it can be produced and in how it can be used.

[Ziggy100]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

There are at least two other reasons for charging stations aside from for long distance trips you haven't mentioned so far:

- Not everyone who owns or uses a car lives in a home with a dedicated garage / charging station, so fast charging stations and the ability to charge a large capacity are more important for such users.

- Charging stations are infrastructure that become more useful as energy density increases. As energy density increases, the physical weight and volume of batteries for the same amount of power capacity decreases (and range per energy unit actually gets better even faster, because the vehicle with the same total power capacity has to do less work due to a lighter weight), the criticism of lugging that potentially excessive capacity becomes less and less relevant.

For example, a doubling of energy density from the current Model 3's battery pack at 247 Wh/kg to something in the environs of 500 Wh/kg, means that instead of simply doubling the range of the vehicle by using a denser energy pack but with the same weight, you can instead opt to halve the total weight of the battery for the same energy capacity. Shedding those several hundreds of pounds by halving the total weight of the battery for the same energy capacity means that the car actually gets more range for the same energy capacity which thus makes your time spent at the pump more efficient in terms of miles gained per second at the pump making existing fast charging stations more useful with each new improvement in energy density.

The criticisms of mining and electricity production are real and it always seem silly when people talk about the zero emissions aspect of electric vehicles to mean anything more than zero emissions at the tailpipe. While zero emissions at the tailpipe is good since vehicles are more likely to operate in urban areas and there are many health benefits from not sucking in tailpipe emissions in an urban area, this is not the same as zero emissions overall. However, fossil fuel cars and the large distribution network for extracting, processing, and distributing such, there's also a large amount of loss and emissions and you cannot get much of a useful second life out of recycling that exhaust as you can with both the EV car batteries or with recycling the materials of that battery. Electric vehicles are not a panacea for environmental issues--they have their own environmental issues in their use and production and the shift to them is only better in comparison to ICE vehicles. For criticisms of the electrical production, the fact is that the world in general is quickly adding other supplies of electricity and electricity is far more versatile in how it can be produced and in how it can be used.

You have a point for apartment dwellers, unless of course the apartment supplies a destination charger at every parking spot. Its an issue, but it's more of an issue between ICE's and EVs in general, vs PHEVs and BEVs.

Counting on energy density to continue to halve itself overtime simply because it's gotten better recently is nothing to count on anymore than assuming cold fusion will be our inevitable source of power in the near future. To catch up to the energy density of gasoline will take a huge breakthrough, Energy density has gotten slightly better, but it is still constrained by the nature of the current chemistry.

Economically charging stations will have to compete with home charging stations so it's not practical to assume they'll ever be as ubiquitous as gas stations. The charging station around the corner from your house has competition with your own garage at a fraction of the price.

Regarding useful second life of batteries:
1) It is economically more expensive to recycle EV batteries than it is to simply create new ones from raw material.
2) Recycling is not really an option when the idea is to require every car on earth (currently 1.5 Billion) use a 300 mile range battery pack, resulting in "Peak lithium". According to this article, if taken at full tilt the entire world's supply of lithium would be drained in 17 years if "100 Gigafactories were built". https://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...ry-M#gs.kdbfm9
Recycling is only an option to replacing old EV cars not creating 1.5 Billion new ones.

Then of course there's the additional electrical drain that EVs would require. Currently the cheapest renewable energy sources are solar and wind. However the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow which of course means you need to store it. Store it how? More batteries! Further competing with the world wide battery production. After all, charging your car at night uses anything but solar energy. We'll have to get more comfortable with nuclear and natural gas to meet increase demands.
Tesla's semi truck's "megacharger" would require the energy consumption of 4000 homes just to recharge https://www.ft.com/content/f5593480-...a-d9c0a5c8d5c9

As far as energy dependency, we'd switch from the Middle East to South America and the Congo. It would be great if the USA held the entire world's supply of lithium and cobalt but it doesn't.

Remember the goal is to reduce carbon emissions, not trade one evil for another. You can either hold your breath and hope ICE SUV and truck drivers eventually see the light, while the 5% of EV owners take one for the team for the next few decades waiting for that miracle break through in battery density that appeals to everyone else just in time to increase lithium prices....or you can just promote the use of a "dual fuel" system of PHEVs which both requires no new technology breakthrough, no new infrastructure changes, no lifestyle compromises, and allows the flexibility of using whatever fuel makes the most economic sense, reduces foreign dependency and reduces 80% of vehicle born carbon emissions immediately. Or you can of course promote like actually walking and biking to work and all that jazz.

Long range BEVs represent a very shortsighted simplistically optimistic approach to technology that ignores the realities of the world we actually live in and it's consequences.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by Ziggy100

You have a point for apartment dwellers, unless of course the apartment supplies a destination charger at every parking spot. Its an issue, but it's more of an issue between ICE's and EVs in general, vs PHEVs and BEVs.

Counting on energy density to continue to halve itself overtime simply because it's gotten better recently is nothing to count on anymore than assuming cold fusion will be our inevitable source of power in the near future. To catch up to the energy density of gasoline will take a huge breakthrough, Energy density has gotten slightly better, but it is still constrained by the nature of the current chemistry.

Economically charging stations will have to compete with home charging stations so it's not practical to assume they'll ever be as ubiquitous as gas stations. The charging station around the corner from your house has competition with your own garage at a fraction of the price.

Regarding useful second life of batteries:
1) It is economically more expensive to recycle EV batteries than it is to simply create new ones from raw material.
2) Recycling is not really an option when the idea is to require every car on earth (currently 1.5 Billion) use a 300 mile range battery pack, resulting in "Peak lithium". According to this article, if taken at full tilt the entire world's supply of lithium would be drained in 17 years if "100 Gigafactories were built". https://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...ry-M#gs.kdbfm9
Recycling is only an option to replacing old EV cars not creating 1.5 Billion new ones.

Then of course there's the additional electrical drain that EVs would require. Currently the cheapest renewable energy sources are solar and wind. However the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow which of course means you need to store it. Store it how? More batteries! Further competing with the world wide battery production. After all, charging your car at night uses anything but solar energy. We'll have to get more comfortable with nuclear and natural gas to meet increase demands.
Tesla's semi truck's "megacharger" would require the energy consumption of 4000 homes just to recharge https://www.ft.com/content/f5593480-...a-d9c0a5c8d5c9

As far as energy dependency, we'd switch from the Middle East to South America and the Congo. It would be great if the USA held the entire world's supply of lithium and cobalt but it doesn't.

Remember the goal is to reduce carbon emissions, not trade one evil for another. You can either hold your breath and hope ICE SUV and truck drivers eventually see the light, while the 5% of EV owners take one for the team for the next few decades waiting for that miracle break through in battery density that appeals to everyone else just in time to increase lithium prices....or you can just promote the use of a "dual fuel" system of PHEVs which both requires no new technology breakthrough, no new infrastructure changes, no lifestyle compromises, and allows the flexibility of using whatever fuel makes the most economic sense, reduces foreign dependency and reduces 80% of vehicle born carbon emissions immediately. Or you can of course promote like actually walking and biking to work and all that jazz.

Long range BEVs represent a very shortsighted simplistically optimistic approach to technology that ignores the realities of the world we actually live in and it's consequences.

It is inaccurate to make an analogy to cold fusion, because cold fusion has no substantiated track record of making marked improvements while energy density by weight and volume (and cost) have a track record at production levels going by many, many decades. Rechargeable batteries have existed long before the current spate of electric vehicles. Energy density hasn't only gotten slightly better--it has essentially been doubling at production level (i.e. not just theoretical research) about every 9 to 14 years so far for decades. That energy density has only been recently at a threshold that is usable for automobile usage. Will there be a brick wall or at least an asymptote it hits? Probably, but it's not within the near future, though the question will need to be revisited once we're at 1000 Wh/kg (which without any other efficiencies and placed directly into a top of the line BEV now would already yield an unnecessarily large amount of range for most people). Regardless, where is the track record of production level cold fusion plants to complete your analogy?

Think of this also in regards to two way communication over wire. Was it popularly believed a few decades back that you would be able to do real-time video chat en masse? Certainly there was already wired two way telecom systems and they were greatly used at those times, but they were insufficient for that. Continued incremental improvement though made that possible and now no one is ****ting their pants when someone uses Facetime or Skype and start burning people down for witchcraft.

The second life for batteries is in stationary energy storage for evening out the larger electrical grid so electrical vehicles complement the use of more renewables that have varied output. This is a reuse before recycling. Stationary storage has lower necessary standards than that for a mobile power pack for a vehicle so that's part of what makes former electric vehicle batteries an attractive option. Of course, it'd be better if vehicles that were parked in the daytime were actually charging off the grid as well, but that's also an infrastructure issue. BUILD MORE FAST CHARGERS can be a good part of solving that especially with a variable rate that favors daytime charging / peak production hours. Meanwhile, lithium-ion is likely not the only option in the future. Cobalt usage is at a minimum in the new Model 3 batteries being replaced mostly with nickel. Lithium deposits and nickel deposits are decently widespread including among many pretty stalwart allies of the US and are also within the US. That's not to say that there aren't other battery chemistries or supercapacitors that are currently in labs that won't go into production in the next decade or two.

Energy density for batteries now, today, is already good enough for the vast majority of private vehicle usage patterns. The chargers are helpful in making that transition smoothly. Keep in mind, I'm not of the belief that there are no environmental consequences to mass BEV production, and I think the term zero emissions vehicle misleads some as it is definitely zero emissions at the tailpipe and not completely zero emissions. BEVs are not a panacea for environmental issues--they are simply less harmful than ICE vehicles, and that's it. Better cities that make walking and bicycling a better and more attractive option and improved mass transit (including battery electric buses) are far better in terms of their environmental footprint.

I don't know much about Tesla Semis or if they are ever going to be launched, but a basic understanding of power consumption makes that fairly misleading because it does not include a time element to what that 4,000 powered homes is. The estimated battery pack of the Semi was supposed to be 1,000 kWh and the average daily consumption of a US household is 30 kWh a day. That does not work out to 4,000 homes--it works out to a little over 30 homes. You could say that in that 30 minute timeframe the charger is taking about as much electricity as 4,000 homes are taking in within the same 30 minute timeframe and that's a somewhat clearer picture because then you can put that in the context that the truck is doing so in that timeframe and not charging for a continuous 24 hours. It also doesn't put in a comparison of what a diesel truck would need to pull in terms of gas used and the emissions cost or any of that for a comparison. Guess what? Hauling heavy **** takes a lot of energy whether it's diesel for an ICE semi or electricity drawn from the grid to power motors.

[Ziggy100]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

It is inaccurate to make an analogy to cold fusion, because cold fusion has no substantiated track record of making marked improvements while energy density by weight and volume (and cost) have a track record at production levels going by many, many decades. Rechargeable batteries have existed long before the current spate of electric vehicles. Energy density hasn't only gotten slightly better--it has essentially been doubling at production level (i.e. not just theoretical research) about every 9 to 14 years so far for decades. That energy density has only been recently at a threshold that is usable for automobile usage. Will there be a brick wall or at least an asymptote it hits? Probably, but it's not within the near future, though the question will need to be revisited once we're at 1000 Wh/kg (which without any other efficiencies and placed directly into a top of the line BEV now would already yield an unnecessarily large amount of range for most people). Regardless, where is the track record of production level cold fusion plants to complete your analogy?

Think of this also in regards to two way communication over wire. Was it popularly believed a few decades back that you would be able to do real-time video chat en masse? Certainly there was already wired two way telecom systems and they were greatly used at those times, but they were insufficient for that. Continued incremental improvement though made that possible and now no one is ****ting their pants when someone uses Facetime or Skype and start burning people down for witchcraft.

The second life for batteries is in stationary energy storage for evening out the larger electrical grid so electrical vehicles complement the use of more renewables that have varied output. This is a reuse before recycling. Stationary storage has lower necessary standards than that for a mobile power pack for a vehicle so that's part of what makes former electric vehicle batteries an attractive option. Of course, it'd be better if vehicles that were parked in the daytime were actually charging off the grid as well, but that's also an infrastructure issue. BUILD MORE FAST CHARGERS can be a good part of solving that especially with a variable rate that favors daytime charging / peak production hours. Meanwhile, lithium-ion is likely not the only option in the future. Cobalt usage is at a minimum in the new Model 3 batteries being replaced mostly with nickel. Lithium deposits and nickel deposits are decently widespread including among many pretty stalwart allies of the US and are also within the US. That's not to say that there aren't other battery chemistries or supercapacitors that are currently in labs that won't go into production in the next decade or two.

Energy density for batteries now, today, is already good enough for the vast majority of private vehicle usage patterns. The chargers are helpful in making that transition smoothly. Keep in mind, I'm not of the belief that there are no environmental consequences to mass BEV production, and I think the term zero emissions vehicle misleads some as it is definitely zero emissions at the tailpipe and not completely zero emissions. BEVs are not a panacea for environmental issues--they are simply less harmful than ICE vehicles, and that's it. Better cities that make walking and bicycling a better and more attractive option and improved mass transit (including battery electric buses) are far better in terms of their environmental footprint.

I don't know much about Tesla Semis or if they are ever going to be launched, but a basic understanding of power consumption makes that fairly misleading because it does not include a time element to what that 4,000 powered homes is. The estimated battery pack of the Semi was supposed to be 1,000 kWh and the average daily consumption of a US household is 30 kWh a day. That does not work out to 4,000 homes--it works out to a little over 30 homes. You could say that in that 30 minute timeframe the charger is taking about as much electricity as 4,000 homes are taking in within the same 30 minute timeframe and that's a somewhat clearer picture because then you can put that in the context that the truck is doing so in that timeframe and not charging for a continuous 24 hours. It also doesn't put in a comparison of what a diesel truck would need to pull in terms of gas used and the emissions cost or any of that for a comparison. Guess what? Hauling heavy **** takes a lot of energy whether it's diesel for an ICE semi or electricity drawn from the grid to power motors.

The problem with banking on energy density of the future is that it’s in the future. Technology doesn’t continue to double simply because enough time has passed. You have no certainty if it will happen, timeframe that it will happen, nor how practical it would be if did happen. That’s like making railroads before the steam engine is invented. It’s definitely not a strategy if you plan on cutting emissions now.

Second life for batteries regardless of you use them as storage or recycle them still doesn’t answer the question of how you plan on creating billions of large battery packs tomorrow when you only have a few hundred thousand battery packs today? Either way you’re counting on creating more industry and consuming more resources to solve a pollution problem created by industry and the consumption of resources.

What most people have a hard time conceiving, is that efficiency for one or a few people does not translate efficiency on a global scale. You can use free used vegetable oil today to power your diesel F-350. The problem is sustaining that free energy source for the rest of the world.

Currently the short term strategy should be encouraging plug in hybrids or conventional hybrids. There’s a lot of low hanging fruit that hasn’t been touched yet. Conventional hybrids and plugin hybrids require fewer compromises and dramatically increase efficiency without banking on energy density improvements nor global charging infrastructure investment. The fact the tax incentive is $0 for a hybrid and $7500 for an EV that uses more resources makes no sense when gas continues to be the cheapest in decades. There is no incentive to drive an EV when the operating cost of an ICE is at record lows.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by Ziggy100

The problem with banking on energy density of the future is that it’s in the future. Technology doesn’t continue to double simply because enough time has passed. You have no certainty if it will happen, timeframe that it will happen, nor how practical it would be if did happen. That’s like making railroads before the steam engine is invented. It’s definitely not a strategy if you plan on cutting emissions now.

Second life for batteries regardless of you use them as storage or recycle them still doesn’t answer the question of how you plan on creating billions of large battery packs tomorrow when you only have a few hundred thousand battery packs today? Either way you’re counting on creating more industry and consuming more resources to solve a pollution problem created by industry and the consumption of resources.

What most people have a hard time conceiving, is that efficiency for one or a few people does not translate efficiency on a global scale. You can use free used vegetable oil today to power your diesel F-350. The problem is sustaining that free energy source for the rest of the world.

Currently the short term strategy should be encouraging plug in hybrids or conventional hybrids. There’s a lot of low hanging fruit that hasn’t been touched yet. Conventional hybrids and plugin hybrids require fewer compromises and dramatically increase efficiency without banking on energy density improvements nor global charging infrastructure investment. The fact the tax incentive is $0 for a hybrid and $7500 for an EV that uses more resources makes no sense when gas continues to be the cheapest in decades. There is no incentive to drive an EV when the operating cost of an ICE is at record lows.

You have no certainty on just about anything--you don't even have certainty on oil prices. However, you can do basic planning based on what's probable. The road to at least 500 Wh/kg is pretty well laid out now because there are a multitude of improvements on different parts of the battery that have done small scale production which means the probability field of that ramping up is very likely and 1000 Wh/kg is being tested on small scale now. This part is very probable and I did state after that it's unknown. Does it hit a brick wall or does it accelerate? I don't know and won't venture a guess on that. Now given how well 250 Wh/kg covers the bases for most people today, then 500 Wh/kg covers a whole lot more bases and this independent of any other advancements such as motor efficiency or better power management systems or much faster safe charge rates.

Meanwhile, the probability of fielding a cold fusion production plant in any decent amount of time is extremely unlikely, because there's not even successful small scale tests of this and there is no general historical trend lines to follow. That was a dead end argument, and it's hard to understand how you even arrived at that analogy. Though, you know, that'd be great, as cold fusion plants are generally with the idea to produce electricity since electricity is essentially the most versatile power source we have and this would be still another way to generate it.

The run out for those battery packs by your own posted link is 17 years with 100 gigafactories running at max capacity under current reserves (50 years with "known" resources) with no significant chemistry changes nor anywhere recycling nor any further discovery of lithium resources. That same article states a more dire prognosis for fossil fuels (which again, is the point of comparison, and yes, neither of these are great and walking, biking and mass transit are much more effective means of curbing environmental impact because, again, BEVs are only better in comparison to the use of fossil fuels) which includes hybrids as they also use conventional fossil fuels. Quote from the article that you yourself posted:

Well, the world definitely can’t handle that transformation under today’s fossil-fuel system, and it very likely can’t handle it under an EV-focused alternative system either, due to the resource constraints discussed above. We need to think hard about alternatives to passenger cars even while we recognize that EVs are far better than petroleum internal-combustion engine vehicles.

Also, vegetable oil creation as fuel is a huge resource suck as well. Again, BEVs are only better compared to other things it's directly being compared to such as ICE vehicles including hybrids (though hybrids are better than pure ICE vehicles)--it is not by itself a panacea.

[Ziggy100]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

You have no certainty on just about anything--you don't even have certainty on oil prices. However, you can do basic planning based on what's probable. The road to at least 500 Wh/kg is pretty well laid out now because there are a multitude of improvements on different parts of the battery that have done small scale production which means the probability field of that ramping up is very likely and 1000 Wh/kg is being tested on small scale now. This part is very probable and I did state after that it's unknown. Does it hit a brick wall or does it accelerate? I don't know and won't venture a guess on that. Now given how well 250 Wh/kg covers the bases for most people today, then 500 Wh/kg covers a whole lot more bases and this independent of any other advancements such as motor efficiency or better power management systems or much faster safe charge rates.

Meanwhile, the probability of fielding a cold fusion production plant in any decent amount of time is extremely unlikely, because there's not even successful small scale tests of this and there is no general historical trend lines to follow. That was a dead end argument, and it's hard to understand how you even arrived at that analogy. Though, you know, that'd be great, as cold fusion plants are generally with the idea to produce electricity since electricity is essentially the most versatile power source we have and this would be still another way to generate it.

The run out for those battery packs by your own posted link is 17 years with 100 gigafactories running at max capacity under current reserves (50 years with "known" resources) with no significant chemistry changes nor anywhere recycling nor any further discovery of lithium resources. That same article states a more dire prognosis for fossil fuels (which again, is the point of comparison, and yes, neither of these are great and walking, biking and mass transit are much more effective means of curbing environmental impact because, again, BEVs are only better in comparison to the use of fossil fuels) which includes hybrids as they also use conventional fossil fuels. Quote from the article that you yourself posted:



Also, vegetable oil creation as fuel is a huge resource suck as well. Again, BEVs are only better compared to other things it's directly being compared to such as ICE vehicles including hybrids (though hybrids are better than pure ICE vehicles)--it is not by itself a panacea.

That is the entire point. Given the unknowns it only makes sense to switch to a dual fuel system like a plug in hybrid. Or a tri-fuel system like a plug in hybrid with a biodiesel flex fuel powered generator. No need to tie yourself to any particular fuel. The all or nothing approach to BEV’s slows down adoption. Throwing the entire world’s industrial capacity from one extreme to the other only promotes instability and even more vast consumption of resources.

What the article is getting at is our wasteful habits are the problem, not the fuel source. After all, the primary reason people buy Tesla’s is not because of the environment, but because of “Ludacris Mode”, autopilot, and giant touchscreens.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by Ziggy100

That is the entire point. Given the unknowns it only makes sense to switch to a dual fuel system like a plug in hybrid. Or a tri-fuel system like a plug in hybrid with a biodiesel flex fuel powered generator. No need to tie yourself to any particular fuel. The all or nothing approach to BEV’s slows down adoption. Throwing the entire world’s industrial capacity from one extreme to the other only promotes instability and even more vast consumption of resources.

What the article is getting at is our wasteful habits are the problem, not the fuel source. After all, the primary reason people buy Tesla’s is not because of the environment, but because of “Ludacris Mode”, autopilot, and giant touchscreens.

Which part is the entire point? The unknown as in how the trend lines will go after 1000 Wh/kg--does it stay with the pattern, does it accelerate or does it slow down considerably? I don't know that, and neither do you, but 250 Wh/kg right now covers most private automobile usage patterns right now and 500 Wh/kg will cover an even larger majority.

In regards to unknowns about materials, then yes, those estimates within the parameters that were set by the writer are reasonable. Those parameters still yield a massive amount of output that we are nowhere near hitting the constraints of (recall it is max production of 100 gigafactories for 17 years; we're at partial for 1 gigafactory). However, the writer also caveat'd a few things. One was that there was no substantial changes to batteries. So what happens when you have far greater energy density at just the 500 Wh/kg mark without a wholly different battery chemistry? Well, you need far less material for the same energy capacity output. Then 1000 Wh/kg without a wholly different battery chemistry? Then the known reserves figure the author has for 100 gigafactories for 50 years? The prospect of recycling? These are all pretty safe assumptions, but greater unknowns for this scenario such as entirely new battery or supercapacitor chemistry or much higher energy densities than 1000 Wh/kg or discovery of larger reserves of the raw materials, etc. all serve to extend the timeline and at the very least, the 500 Wh/kg is virtually certain and 1000 Wh/kg is very likely.

A dual fuel system comes at a cost with mechanical complexity and needing to lug both systems. Tri-fuel will have that problem as well. On a larger infrastructural level, electricity's points of generation, ability to be distributed and convertibility to work is very favorable. There is no all or nothing approach, because there are multiple routes being explored at once. It's just that one approach is in many ways probably the better one. No one is throwing the entire world's industrial capacity to one extreme and ICE vehicles are not being completely replaced nor has fuel cell research stopped among any number of other avenues.

Wasteful habits are the problem--which is essentially what I'm saying as well. The better solution is to make cities better for walking, biking, and mass transit and obviating the necessity of a personal vehicle for most people completely. I've emphasized this multiple times--BEVs are not a panacea, they are only better than their fossil fuel counterparts for the majority of private automobile usage. If you agree with that, great!

Sure, you don't like Tesla. Also, great! They are not the only BEV game in town nor are they the only fast charging providers.

[ddeemo]

Originally Posted by Ziggy100

That is the entire point. Given the unknowns it only makes sense to switch to a dual fuel system like a plug in hybrid. Or a tri-fuel system like a plug in hybrid with a biodiesel flex fuel powered generator. No need to tie yourself to any particular fuel. The all or nothing approach to BEV’s slows down adoption. Throwing the entire world’s industrial capacity from one extreme to the other only promotes instability and even more vast consumption of resources.

What the article is getting at is our wasteful habits are the problem, not the fuel source. After all, the primary reason people buy Tesla’s is not because of the environment, but because of “Ludacris Mode”, autopilot, and giant touchscreens.

I guess I don't get the point, BEVs are more efficient AND much less complicated than Hybrids. The article is way off base from serious studies by experts - Lithium availability is a non-issue.

From Yale study Global Lithium Availability, A Constraint for Electric Vehicles?

The global lithium resource is estimated to be about 39 Mt (million tonnes), whereas the highest demand scenario does not exceed 20 Mt for the period 2010 to 2100. We conclude that even with a rapid and widespread adoption of electric vehicles powered by lithium-ion batteries, lithium resources are sufficient to support demand until at least the end of this century.

From Tesla, Lithium is minor content of the batteries;

Alexis Georgeson, senior public relations representative at Tesla, lithium only plays a minor role in that company's batteries. “The cells in Tesla batteries are primarily metal oxides composed of nickel and aluminum, and to a lesser extent cobalt. Carbon and steel are also featured. The lithium content is actually a small amount by weight, and contributes a correspondingly minor part of the cost of Li-ion batteries. Our batteries really should be called nickel batteries. "

Batteries are being recycled but not for Lithium;

“You won’t be able to recycle more than 3 to 5 percent of a lithium battery because by weight that’s about all the lithium that’s in the battery,” AquaMetals CEO Clarke says. “Actually lithium batteries are being recycled, but they’re being recycled for other things in them, not the lithium.”

[Ziggy100]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Which part is the entire point? The unknown as in how the trend lines will go after 1000 Wh/kg--does it stay with the pattern, does it accelerate or does it slow down considerably? I don't know that, and neither do you, but 250 Wh/kg right now covers most private automobile usage patterns right now and 500 Wh/kg will cover an even larger majority.

In regards to unknowns about materials, then yes, those estimates within the parameters that were set by the writer are reasonable. Those parameters still yield a massive amount of output that we are nowhere near hitting the constraints of (recall it is max production of 100 gigafactories for 17 years; we're at partial for 1 gigafactory). However, the writer also caveat'd a few things. One was that there was no substantial changes to batteries. So what happens when you have far greater energy density at just the 500 Wh/kg mark without a wholly different battery chemistry? Well, you need far less material for the same energy capacity output. Then 1000 Wh/kg without a wholly different battery chemistry? Then the known reserves figure the author has for 100 gigafactories for 50 years? The prospect of recycling? These are all pretty safe assumptions, but greater unknowns for this scenario such as entirely new battery or supercapacitor chemistry or much higher energy densities than 1000 Wh/kg or discovery of larger reserves of the raw materials, etc. all serve to extend the timeline and at the very least, the 500 Wh/kg is virtually certain and 1000 Wh/kg is very likely.

A dual fuel system comes at a cost with mechanical complexity and needing to lug both systems. Tri-fuel will have that problem as well. On a larger infrastructural level, electricity's points of generation, ability to be distributed and convertibility to work is very favorable. There is no all or nothing approach, because there are multiple routes being explored at once. It's just that one approach is in many ways probably the better one. No one is throwing the entire world's industrial capacity to one extreme and ICE vehicles are not being completely replaced nor has fuel cell research stopped among any number of other avenues.

Wasteful habits are the problem--which is essentially what I'm saying as well. The better solution is to make cities better for walking, biking, and mass transit and obviating the necessity of a personal vehicle for most people completely. I've emphasized this multiple times--BEVs are not a panacea, they are only better than their fossil fuel counterparts for the majority of private automobile usage. If you agree with that, great!

Sure, you don't like Tesla. Also, great! They are not the only BEV game in town nor are they the only fast charging providers.

In general we are in agreement as far as it’s our habits that are the problem. However predicting future habits is completely unpredictable, so we’ll stick with people keeping the same habits but giving them new and more efficient technology to make their habits more efficient. Currently only the most dedicated EV owner is willing to change their lifestyle to accommodate an EV. The other 95% of the population wants to keep doing what they’re doing now and they have the technology available with a PHEV to do so. There is no hoping for more energy density and faster recharging times and more fast charging stations. You can start cutting emissions immediately. Politically, that’s what should be encouraged.

From the long term solution, the article illustrates it may not be possible to make as many batteries as we would theoretically need to be all EV anyway.

From an engineering standpoint, EVs are better at efficiency while ICE’s are better at energy density. PHEV’s combine both to use the best technology for each job they’re requested to do. Anytime you ask one to do the job of the other, it leads to overall inefficiency.

You could make the same argument about ICE vehicles. ICE efficiency does get better every year. We could hold our breath because I’m sure eventually we’ll get to 100mpg averages, or we can get started right now.

[Ziggy100]

Originally Posted by ddeemo

I guess I don't get the point, BEVs are more efficient AND much less complicated than Hybrids. The article is way off base from serious studies by experts - Lithium availability is a non-issue.

From Yale study Global Lithium Availability, A Constraint for Electric Vehicles?




From Tesla, Lithium is minor content of the batteries;



Batteries are being recycled but not for Lithium;

What’s so complicated about them? The Prius Prime has a 25 mile EV range, and gets 53 mpg and cost less than $28k and ranks among the most reliable vehicles. A Model 3 ranks among the lowest reliable vehicles and cost over $40k.

There’s about 40 states where driving a hybrid is actually better in terms of lifecycle emissions than EV’s. Granted this article is 5 years old, but still fairly relevant https://www.climatecentral.org/news/...ars-2013-16318
Not only would you have to massively increase battery production, resource consumption, fast charging stations, while hoping for faster charging technology and energy density, but you also have to change the entire nations electrical production at the same time to meet long range EV targets (that mostly just serves to cure range anxiety).