An interesting take on the new technology of Electric Cars as seen by a Canadian.

[M80]

You can say that again.

 

[LostKiwi]

As is already happening, the battery technology / capacity will improve.
It's not difficult to imagine the yufes of tomorrow wondering why us duffers ever bothered with ICE.
"The silly sods used to run gas through already complicated and inefficient engines to try and make them go fast, and they just blew up. It's no wonder they screwed up our planet."

Totally agree Martin.

You just have to look at mobile phone batteries to see the strides being made.
Back when we had Nokia 5510 phones the battery took hours and hours to charge (and had a fairly small capacity)
Now look at the Google Pixel2 - a much larger capacity battery that charges in 15 minutes. Even my own Mate 10 Pro (which has a 4000mAh battery - around 8 times the capacity of a Nokia 5110) charges inside an hour.

Carbon nanotubes and graphene are promising to improve matters still further - increased capacity, reduced charging times and higher energy density. Ultracapacitors with nanotube technology have the potential to provide near instant charge times (limited by the source supply and connectivity) whilst dramatically increasing density compared to older technology - up to 100x the energy density).
https://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/12/new-graphene-carbon-nanotube-supercapacitor/

 

[Craiglxviii]

There is a lot of research going on with capacitors which if proved viable should bring costs down substantially.

Yup. The main problem with them is the erm... EXPLOSION hazard. Aside from that they do make an attractive powersink.

Battery tech is improving in cycles.

The issue here is one of energy density in storage. Unfortunately (for the ecos) petroleum based fuels are very energy- dense and easy to handle in terms of getting them to the prime mover to be converted into kinetic energy.

So, to be truly revolutionary battery tech needs to approach the energy density of petrofuels while at the same time the EV needs to approach the total vehicle lifetime cost of a petrofuel vehicle.

That’s what people are working on.

The Hammerhead off Top Gear was an IFEP vehicle, integrated fully electric propulsion. See diesel- electric trains, ditto submarines from the T class/ Balao class onwards, or the RN’s Type 45 DDG for how this works in practice (or “not very well in practice” for the Type 45!) This layout combines drive efficiencies of electric motors (efficiency is similar at 1% power setting as at 100%) with the energy density of petrofuels.

 

[LostKiwi]

See diesel- electric trains, ditto submarines from the T class/ Balao class onwards, or the RN’s Type 45 DDG for how this works in practice

See also a real life vehicle application in the Fisker Karma.
A car which uses electric motors to drive the vehicle and has a petrol engine to generate electricity .
The electric motors are 2 x 201hp and the petrol engine is 260hp. there are batteries mounted in the transmission tunnel. The car can be plugged in to make use of external electricity and then when additional charge required the petrol motor will take over the electrical needs.
In practice this means the car cannot be driven making use of all 400hp all of the time as there is insufficient electrical energy production available to maintain it but the whole concept hinges on the idea that on the road you cannot use all the power all the time and the petrol engine is able to supply the needs of charging the batteries when power requirements drop below 260hp (such as when cruising or going down hill).
There is no direct connection between the petrol engine and the wheels (unlike the BMW i8 for example).

 

[Craiglxviii]

See also a real life vehicle application in the Fisker Karma.
A car which uses electric motors to drive the vehicle and has a petrol engine to generate electricity .
The electric motors are 2 x 201hp and the petrol engine is 260hp. there are batteries mounted in the transmission tunnel. The car can be plugged in to make use of external electricity and then when additional charge required the petrol motor will take over the electrical needs.
In practice this means the car cannot be driven making use of all 400hp all of the time as there is insufficient electrical energy production available to maintain it but the whole concept hinges on the idea that on the road you cannot use all the power all the time and the petrol engine is able to supply the needs of charging the batteries when power requirements drop below 260hp (such as when cruising or going down hill).
There is no direct connection between the petrol engine and the wheels (unlike the BMW i8 for example).

Yup, that’s it. Probably the best way forwards.

 

[M80]

The main concept of EV's, in my view, is to reduce the consumption of crude oil based products. Use of EV's will reduce the regular engine oil changes we need now as an added advantage.

So a car with 400Hp at the motors, and a 260Hp petrol engine contradicts this and seems pointless.
That amount of power will leave added traction material on the tarmac for the following motorists but it 'aint efficient.

My simple view here is that if the car can't run energy efficient with it's electric drive(s) then it might as well have a V8 or V12 monster under the bonnet.
Having enough electric propulsion to get you moving and cruising at speed limit levels, with headroom for hills and such, sounds intelligent.
Having a wet fuel burning engine to charge if needed sounds sort of reasonable.

The contradiction again is that the ICE will be taking the space needed for batteries, so it will need the ICE more than if it wasn't there.

This 'ere Fiska super car must only have space for a few Duracells. Hoof it away from the lights to show the boy racer alongside what it can do and you must be resorting to the mere 260Hp pretty soon.

 

[LostKiwi]

This 'ere Fiska super car must only have space for a few Duracells.

50 miles electric only so not too shabby.
Per your own argument it does assist with reducing consumption as for the 50 miles its on electric only (its a plug in so doesn't need the petrol engine except as a range extender) its not using any oil.
As with anything new technology its targeted at the wealthy (due to high development costs) so has to have something a bit special or different to help justify the cost. In that respect its very much a precursor and test bed for others to follow where electric range is increased, petrol power output is reduced and range is maintained (its actually pretty poor at only 230 miles all in but at least gets around the argument of waiting around for 30 minutes for a top up argument so often leveled at electric cars).
As a compromise to allow for current technology (no pun intended) its not too bad. Its also a 7 year old design so things have moved on a bit now.
The current car is the Fisker Revero which is essentially a redevelopment of the Karma with the same power train and electric range but increased total range to 300 miles and is quicker accelerating.

Interestingly Fisker Inc are working on a new car which does away with the petrol engine. Called the eMotion its an all electric sedan that Fisker claim will have a 400 mile range and (using solid state batteries) will have a one minute (yes - you read that correctly) charge time.
The solid state batteries are expected to be available in 2023 and the car itself will initially be released with Li-Ion batteries.
If the claims are true then that will be a game changer in terms of usability.

 

[Craiglxviii]

M80. No, EVs are not intended to reduce petroleum consumption (that in itself isn’t a problem). They are- so we’re told- meant to reduce the pollution created by combustion byproducts.

 

[M80]

Interesting without doubt.
Aye, I can see the rich boys enjoying their toys argument for testing and development.
I am always wary of manufacturers claims, as they are often based on ideal situations, don't allow for deterioration (here that might be moving components and cells) and are often exaggerated, consumption figures being a reasonable comparison.
50 miles is actually pretty shabby, but 7 years ago when the additional power output would have been the fashion it becomes more acceptable.

Now charging in 1 minute. Being fed from a 230V source, or even a 415V if industrial would be a helluva current draw.

 

[M80]

M80. No, EVs are not intended to reduce petroleum consumption (that in itself isn’t a problem). They are- so we’re told- meant to reduce the pollution created by combustion byproducts.

I'm sure there is a subtle difference in there somewhere.

 

[Craiglxviii]

I'm sure there is a subtle difference in there somewhere.

Health vs resource use.

 

[LostKiwi]

Now charging in 1 minute. Being fed from a 230V source, or even a 415V if industrial would be a helluva current draw.

I'm interested to see how that works though I guess part of the equation will be a voltage higher than 230 or 415v. As P=VI volts or amps can be high but in practise its easier to transfer large amounts of power at high voltage rather than high current.

 

[LostKiwi]

Health vs resource use.

Also you can make electricity out of other things than carbon. Wind, tide, solar, nuclear etc.. Whereas an ICE is pretty much restricted to carbon based products (at least at present).

 

[M80]

I'm interested to see how that works though I guess part of the equation will be a voltage higher than 230 or 415v. As P=VI volts or amps can be high but in practise its easier to transfer large amounts of power at high voltage rather than high current.

To find the higher voltage an owner would be required to drive, if he still can, to a special charging location.
Seeing that that isn't practical then even if the original source is transformed to a higher voltage the original source must still carry the load of power V x I.

The voltage at source is constant, within a guaranteed 2.5%. Transformers are very efficient so for simplicity power out equals power in, so the current will be very high at the 230V source to provide the power required for such a short time of charging, otherwise the car would only be capable of limited distance.

 

[LostKiwi]

To find the higher voltage an owner would be required to drive, if he still can, to a special charging location.
Seeing that that isn't practical then even if the original source is transformed to a higher voltage the original source must still carry the load of power V x I. The voltage at source is constant, within a guaranteed 2.5%. Transformers are very efficient so for simplicity power out equals power in, so the current will be very high at the 230V source to provide the power required for such a short time of charging, otherwise the car would only be capable of limited distance.

Unless of course there are two or more charging regimes - just as in the Tesla. The Tesla can charge from a dedicated supercharger or from a domestic socket dependent on whats available.
If you're travelling then you want a very fast charge so a 'supercharger' equipped 'filling station' is required otherwise for domestic purposes a slower charge at reduced rates.
Even this can be done at home is a supercharger which contains a large bank of permanently connected batteries to provide the current for home super charging - i.e the supercharger is permanently mains connected so on trickle but has the ability to dump all its power quickly into the vehicle when required. Not hard to do and needn't be overly expensive. Irrespective its no less inconvenient to go to a supercharger equipped filling station than it is to go to a petrol station (and without any nasty diesel oil all over the filler).

 

[M80]

Unless of course there are two or more charging regimes - just as in the Tesla. The Tesla can charge from a dedicated supercharger or from a domestic socket dependent on whats available.
If you're travelling then you want a very fast charge so a 'supercharger' equipped 'filling station' is required otherwise for domestic purposes a slower charge at reduced rates.
Even this can be done at home is a supercharger which contains a large bank of permanently connected batteries to provide the current for home super charging - i.e the supercharger is permanently mains connected so on trickle but has the ability to dump all its power quickly into the vehicle when required. Not hard to do and needn't be overly expensive. Irrespective its no less inconvenient to go to a supercharger equipped filling station than it is to go to a petrol station (and without any nasty diesel oil all over the filler).

All sounds feasible.
Until the life cost of battery banks becomes far more reasonable I don't see the 2nd bank at home being popular.
Then for those that can't get close to their 2nb bank, many cities are my thoughts, that isn't workable.
Fast charging stations en route, or even top up like we do now, well yep I can see that. But for the hi speed charging thought about here I don't see the grid serving a busy top up station very well.
It is already questionable as to if and when the grid will be able to cope with the increased demand just as there are serious questions of that being attained without the additional demand of EV's.

To digress though.
The truthful answer to so much of the 'human' problem is to reduce population over time. The rest is just a diversion as it doesn't attempt to deal with the root cause. There are too many of us.

 

[LostKiwi]

There are too many of us.

Agreed.

 

[Craiglxviii]

Agreed.

Too many... in too few places. One of the problems that cities bring is, population density increases exponentially while infrastructure development capability decreases exponentially. So, it's easy to build a purpose-designed modern city for its time, but very difficult to maintain/ repair/ modernize the infrastructure of that city once it's inhabited.

The reality of course is that there is plenty of space on the planet for people to live and work; the trouble is that most of them want to be where people are, and there's no incentive to develop new places for where people aren't.

Our problem though here is UK grid sustainability and the possibility of it being expanded to cope with massively-increased EV usage. That's a tricky one; I know a couple of people who work in that sector so I shall pose the problem to them. I strongly suspect that the real problems won't be the obvious ones.

 

[M80]

The reality of course is that there is plenty of space on the planet for people to live and work; the trouble is that most of them want to be where people are, and there's no incentive to develop new places for where people aren't.

To be extreme, exaggerating to make apoint.
Developing for new communities in the Sahara, the Tibetan Plateau or the Outback wouldn't serve the designed purpose due to other factors, the extreme ones.

Parts of Africa will be requiring help continually as their environment doesn't allow for the continued life of those that attempt to live there.

The more friendly or easier supported areas can and will fill as we breed up our numbers, Las Vegas perhaps fits that one.

If there are less of us we become more manageable. The Govts of course want more to increase revenues and along with it taxes, because the peoples money of tomorrow is already spent.

 

[Craiglxviii]

To be extreme, exaggerating to make apoint.
Developing for new communities in the Sahara, the Tibetan Plateau or the Outback wouldn't serve the designed purpose due to other factors, the extreme ones.

Parts of Africa will be requiring help continually as their environment doesn't allow for the continued life of those that attempt to live there.

The more friendly or easier supported areas can and will fill as we breed up our numbers, Las Vegas perhaps fits that one.

If there are less of us we become more manageable. The Govts of course want more to increase revenues and along with it taxes, because the peoples money of tomorrow is already spent.

You make a good point. Africa has been projected to grow by 1.3bn by 2050... now, I don't see that actually happening, Africa is pretty good at population regulation through mass genocides and horrendously ****** civil wars, but those are the official numbers... so, where in Africa will they live? <Africa problem>

Asia has been projected to grow by 0.9bn in the same timeframe... and the rest of the world by 0.2bn.

So, it's not really our population that is set to grow, not by much anyway. London's population is projected to stay stable for instance.