Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I assume there are always benefit trade-offs; employing battery chemistry geared towards faster charging must result in some other aspect that isn't as desirable compared to what I'd call traditional chemistry. If that's true, perhaps a dual battery architecture might be interesting: a battery engineered to provide the fastest charging by throwing all feasible technologies at it (at considerable extra cost) coupled with a more mainstream battery that is charged only once the first is rapidly charged, and would mostly likely get topped off not at roadside charging but rather at overnight charging at home.
Or something like that.
There are some trade-offs with specific chemistry types and there are some hybrid packs with different cells that are at least announced for production. I think one interesting one is a pack with sodium-ion and lithium-ion portions of the pack. If you're doing hybrid storage, another thing to consider especially in regards to perhaps performance boosts in terms of power delivery to motors or for regenerative braking are capacitors rather than batteries as capacitors have very high power density (extremely fast charge and discharge) and very high duty cycles. The tradeoff is that they generally have far less energy density by weight or volume and they generally cost a hell of a lot more for kWh / hour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin
I've noticed that you tend to think of people as behaving rationally.
In a sense you are correct 300 mile range should be sufficient. So someone on a long trip (I have easily driven 700 miles per day on a cross country trip) might have to stop twice to recharge and once they reach their destination may have to pay to recharge if they are sleeping in a hotel or beach house where they can't plug in.
In the big scheme of things that is a little time for snacks, toilet, and just plain old stretching. So what if it is a few minutes longer than a gasoline refill. What is that compared to the damage done by hundreds of millions of internal combustion engines.
I don't think people are rational. I think they ornery and opinionated and choose to die instead of getting a simple free vaccine shot. They will whine and complain about that trip even if they only do a trip like that every couple of months.
Why are you assuming that I think people are all that rational? Even in just this thread there are many points where I'm saying other people are saying things that are irrational and illogical including posts that you have made. I think I've stated on more than just one occasion in this thread where I found what you've said to be pretty irrational.
300 miles isn't the base line for actually sufficient. Something less than 200 miles is as that's the vast majority of usage (and for some, complete usage) for the vast majority of people and if under 200 miles range vehicles were perfectly acceptable for the mass market as would seem like it given actual known usage patterns for most people, then we'd probably already be at 50% electric vehicles since the battery packs people would need wouldn't cost all that much or weigh all that much and thus would be cheaper and if people were willing to buy such then automakers can go for larger volume, lower margin cheaper cars. However, people here don't think that rationally. Range anxiety is pretty far overblown and people who have a pathway to charge at home by and large will have no issues with this. In the end though, that bit doesn't matter. People are going to keep harping on it and automakers will keep pouring resources into greater and greater range up until it becomes not just irrational, but absurd for most to complain about range anymore. Ultimately, it's not going to be about rationality or people giving one iota of a damn about the environment that'll lead to mass market adoption in the US, but overwhelmingly better performance, convenience and value.
In the big scheme of things, the majority of people did get vaccinated and it's looking like the majority of people hit with pretty harsh repercussions such as serious health issues or death since the vaccine rolled out were unvaccinated. That's a rather harsh analogy you want to draw there, but I guess it works well enough.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-12-2022 at 07:33 AM..
Not at all. It's completely rational. It's just that you're assuming buyers priorities when they obviously don't have them.
Someone predominantly concerned with environment considerations would be aghast at a 300 mile range EV. A 20 kWh battery is way more than anyone concerned with the environment needs as they only drive 3,000 miles a year with thei 12-year-old Leaf anyway. A 70 or 80 or 150 kWH battery abdominably wasteful and destructive to the environment for the type of person that actually makes sacrifices to their quality of life to save the polar bears.
But yeah, that's just about nobody.
Around here, sadly, that describes a lot of people. Sadly, they vote.
EV's aren't going to stop damaging the environment.
According to Lawrence Livermore for the US in 2020 79% of the energy that goes into transportation ends up as "rejected energy", so transportation is considered 21% efficient. Toyota claims their new internal combustion engines are 40% thermally efficient.
In comparison in the US in 2020 65% of the energy that goes into electrical generation ends up as "rejected energy". Electrical energy is mostly generated by natural gas, with nuclear, coal, and renewables very similar amounts.
But because electrical generation involves more energy than transportation the absolute amount of "rejected energy" is 21% higher in electrical genertion compared to transportation.
Coal is a very dirty source of energy for electrical generation. The amount of electricity generated from coal peaked in 2007 and by 2020 had returned to the level generated in 1972. But coal (or oil in Hawaii) is still the number #1 primary source in 19 states.
California has a state law that say by 2045 no electricity generated in state or imported from other states can be generated by natural gas, oil or coal.
According to Lawrence Livermore for the US in 2020 79% of the energy that goes into transportation ends up as "rejected energy", so transportation is considered 21% efficient. Toyota claims their new internal combustion engines are 40% thermally efficient.
In comparison in the US in 2020 65% of the energy that goes into electrical generation ends up as "rejected energy". Electrical energy is mostly generated by natural gas, with nuclear, coal, and renewables very similar amounts.
But because electrical generation involves more energy than transportation the absolute amount of "rejected energy" is 21% higher in electrical genertion compared to transportation.
Coal is a very dirty source of energy for electrical generation. The amount of electricity generated from coal peaked in 2007 and by 2020 had returned to the level generated in 1972. But coal (or oil in Hawaii) is still the number #1 primary source in 19 states.
California has a state law that say by 2045 no electricity generated in state or imported from other states can be generated by natural gas, oil or coal.
In reality, an internal combustion engine of today can provide a lot of comfort to the driver or occupants of the vehicle, for longer periods of time without having to refuel. Electric power can't approach the density of most fuels. There is nothing wrong with electric power for vehicles, but to me it makes no economic sense to switch from abundant and expensive products, "fuels," to other expensive products, "EV batteries." It is a similar approach of a drug addict switching from heroin to methadone.
I am old enough not to care, and can clearly see that the EV versus ICE is just a "market follow the money show" performed with smoke and mirrors, but not noticed by the new generations of Americans who spend their lives on the Internet being fed... only what the powers to be want them to "eat".
The ones who whine the most about the environment are the ones who pollute the most in the East and West US coasts. They aren't going to stop traveling around the world in aircraft and ships that burn fuel, nor are they going to live in tents without heat, warm water, toilets, washer, dryers, clothing, and food.
The ones who whine the most about the environment are the ones who pollute the most in the East and West US coasts. They aren't going to stop traveling around the world in aircraft and ships that burn fuel, nor are they going to live in tents without heat, warm water, toilets, washer, dryers, clothing, and food.
Not really. If the states that pollute the most per capita really got as efficient as our most efficient states it would be a great thing. States like Wyoming, North Dakota, West Virginia, Alaska and Louisiana are the worst offenders while DC, New York, California, Vermont, Massachusetts and Oregon fair much better.
Not really. If the states that pollute the most per capita really got as efficient as our most efficient states it would be a great thing. States like Wyoming, North Dakota, West Virginia, Alaska and Louisiana are the worst offenders while DC, New York, California, Vermont, Massachusetts and Oregon fair much better.
I'm not sure why you're so misinformed but like you said, you feel you're old enough to be careless.
Yes, reading articles as those is like watching the smoke and mirror show I was referring to above. Environmental (earth) pollution is not only from carbon dioxide. Common sense should tell you that the greatest amount of pollution in the US is generated where the most people live, because there is where you have: More automobiles, aircraft, trains, buses, trucks, cars, houses, boilers, air conditioners, offices, buildings, more electrical outlets, toilets, and...more hair sprays, more household cleaners, more hot breaths and farts, and, and and...to the infinite. Search the following:
a. The most active airports and bus/train terminals in the US.
b. Which cities have the most inhabitants?
If that doesn't work for you, then stand on the hills between Nevada and CA, and look at the air color over the Sacramento Valley. Also look at and smell the air over NYC. Not only that, but figure where the sewage waste is dumped after being processed at the numerous NY plants. Lastly, visit Alaska and look at and smell the air, or just look at the stars on the sky on a September night. On cloudless nights, more than likely you will see nice and clear skies full of starts, and sometimes Northern Lights.
Do you see the light pollution above the trees at the right of the photo? That is the City of North Pole where just a little over 2,000 people live. Just imagine NYC where millions of people live
Yes, reading articles as those is like watching the smoke and mirror show I was referring to above. Environmental (earth) pollution is not only from carbon dioxide. Common sense should tell you that the greatest amount of pollution in the US is generated are where the most people live, because there is where you have: More automobiles, aircraft, trains, buses, trucks, cars, houses, boilers, air conditioners, offices, buildings, more electrical outlets, toilets, and...more hair sprays, more household cleaners, more hot breaths and farts, and, and and...to the infinite. Search the following:
a. The most active airports and bus/train terminals in the US.
b. Which cities have the most inhabitants?
What you call watching smoke and mirrors is your carelessness in wanting to learn that you mentioned earlier (although you indicated it as a function of your age; perhaps it is).
The most polluted states are not the ones that are most populated. In fact, they're not even the ones that create the most carbon dioxide per capita. For example the most polluted state is Ohio. Which is by no means the most populated or the state that produces the most Co2 per capita.
I think it's obvious that people contribute to pollution and population plays a large part. But when you look at the numbers it's not as simple as you make it seem.
If we're going to look at what causes the most pollution, it's agriculture (mostly meat production), cargo ships, trucks, and certain power plants. The be most impactful, states like Louisiana, West Virginia, Alaska, and Ohio need to get their act together.
What you call watching smoke and mirrors is your carelessness in wanting to learn that you mentioned earlier (although you indicated it as a function of your age; perhaps it is).
The most polluted states are not the ones that are most populated. In fact, they're not even the ones that create the most carbon dioxide per capita. For example the most polluted state is Ohio. Which is by no means the most populated or the state that produces the most Co2 per capita.
I think it's obvious that people contribute to pollution and population plays a large part. But when you look at the numbers it's not as simple as you make it seem.
If we're going to look at what causes the most pollution, it's agriculture (mostly meat production), cargo ships, trucks, and certain power plants. The be most impactful, states like Louisiana, West Virginia, Alaska, and Ohio need to get their act together.
Mr. Old Gorilla, the numbers you have cited are emissions by State and "per-capita." That's why I said to do the following in real life: spend some time in Alaska to smell and get used to the air: and look at the stars at night, and also the sky during the day. Then spend some time by the border of Nevada and CA, and look toward the sky Sacramento Valley. Tell me then which sky looks clearer with brighter starts (at night). Spend some time in Nevada, and then fly to NY: if you land in NY and don't notice how different from Alaska the air you breath is, that is an indication that you have become sensitized to the air pollutants in NYC. You can also reside for a few moths in Northern NY and Vermont, right by the Canadian border. A few months later return to NYC (or the Bronx, or Broocklin) and smell the air. Do you notice any difference?
Air pollution is just one of one of several environmental pollutions. We have air, land, and water. This pollution can be natural, or human caused. But human caused pollution is its greater where the largest human concentrations exist. You can see a lot of air pollution in the larger Asian nations where industry takes place.
Natural environmental pollution could be caused by lighting (wildfires), by volcanic activity (search for Mount Tambora and the year without summer), or even a large flood that carries human waste and chemicals across the land (a couple of examples).
If agriculture causes most fo the pollution, then why switching from ICE to EV? Also, if you do a little research, you will realize that there is very little agriculture taking place in Alaska (I will let you figure why)
There is nothing wrong with electric power for vehicles, but to me it makes no economic sense to switch from abundant and expensive products, "fuels," to other expensive products, "EV batteries." It is a similar approach of a drug addict switching from heroin to methadone.
I'm not sure I follow the logic here. What would you recommend?
I'm not sure I follow the logic here. What would you recommend?
A $25,000 EV that would be as much fun to drive as a 2022 Honda Civic Si, one that provides a little over 400 road-mile range on a 10-minute charge.
Just kidding with you, since that technology does not exist today. My point is that there isn't any product other than gasoline, jet, and other fuels that is cheaper. As with every product in the market, the cost of the minerals and plastics, plus labor for the extraction/mining and construction of batteries can only become higher in future years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
