EV batteries

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
381
Reaction score
549
Um...no. Where do you get your information? That is factually inaccurate. Let me know so I can avoid that source because they're obviously full of crap. There were zero rolling blackouts between 2001 and 2020 -- 19 years without a single stage 3 emergency. https://www.npr.org/2020/08/15/9027...ckouts-since-2001-as-heat-wave-bakes-western-
Let's see - the entire internet, maybe? Newsome has even opened investigations into the rolling blackouts that took place in 2020. Apparently, you're the only person around who didn't know about this. But if you want to avoid the internet, I guess that's up to you. You'll need to avoid TV and newspapers too, by the way, because TV stations and newspapers are also publishing this "lie."
Not an hour, 15-20 minutes to get to 50-60% SoC from close to 0%. And if I ever buy food, I eat it OUTSIDE of the car. I don't know about you, but I like the interior of my car WITHOUT food crumbs all over it. Now the issue is that if I stop at a refueling station and pump gas, that takes about 5 minutes. THEN I need to make another stop to get fast food, which takes about 5 minutes to get the food, and another 10 minutes to eat it before getting back on the road again. Which is 20 minutes. So if I had a car that could get 300 miles of range in 20 minutes, it wouldn't cost me any additional time. We're more than halfway there already. As it is, I can get about 180-200 miles of range in 20 minutes.
I don't buy messy food, and I don't spill it Plus, I clean the car regularly. Face it, you're just trying to find a way to claim that stopping for 1 hour to recharge isn't a problem but stopping for 5 minutes to refuel is. You may be fine with it, and that's OK, but if you want to see widespread EV adoption, then you need to address the slow recharge times because that WILL keep this from going mainstream. Don't think the government will be able to force it either, because when it comes down to "Starting next week, ICE vehicles are banned" those same politicians will be quickly recalled and replaced by the voters if it means they're not going to be able to drive because EVs aren't going to work well for them.
 

Deacon

TXCTG
VIP
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
14,794
Reaction score
21,165
Location
Hill Country, TX
Let's see - the entire internet, maybe? Newsome has even opened investigations into the rolling blackouts that took place in 2020. Apparently, you're the only person around who didn't know about this. But if you want to avoid the internet, I guess that's up to you. You'll need to avoid TV and newspapers too, by the way, because TV stations and newspapers are also publishing this "lie."
You can be an ass and lash out when proven wrong if you want, but you claimed that “California has regular rolling blackouts every year.” He pointed out that’s ridiculously wrong and that before 2020 there hadn’t been any at all since 2001. There’s a big difference between regular occurrences every year and going a couple decades between them.

Face it, you're just trying to find a way to claim that stopping for 1 hour to recharge
Do you read what you quote? Literally the first line: “Not an hour, 15-20 minutes to get to 50-60% SoC from close to 0%.” And literally the last line: “I can get about 180-200 miles of range in 20 minutes.”

Don't think the government will be able to force it either, because when it comes down to "Starting next week, ICE vehicles are banned" those same politicians will be quickly recalled and replaced by the voters if it means they're not going to be able to drive because EVs aren't going to work well for them.
Who are these imaginary politicians??
 
Last edited:

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
381
Reaction score
549
Sometimes that’s all the economic input you need.



Assuming ideal conditions, I guess I can see a trip inside to the bathroom taking only 5 minutes. They’re not always ideal conditions, and it’s not always limited to number one. But what is this about 2 minutes to locate, decide on, prepare, and purchase a meal? You just grabbing a bag of chips from a roadside vending machine? Fast food isn’t that fast. Even had station burritos take time to nuke. I think to make a point you’re veering off into exaggeration or otherwise getting a little overzealous to defend your point for its own sake.
Ehh, I tend to not eat much on the road. Bag of potato chips, pretzels or something like that is what I'll normally eat on the road. So far as the wife goes, she heads in as soon as we stop, so she has the extra time she needs while I'm taking care of everything else.

Sure, occasionally you make the longer stop to stretch your legs, but that shouldn't be every single stop with every stop being around 200 miles. Not everyone needs to take long breaks every hour.
Post automatically merged:

You can be an ass and lash out when proven wrong if you want, but you claimed that “California has regular rolling blackouts every year.” He pointed out that’s ridiculously wrong and that before 2020 there hadn’t been any at all since 2001. There’s a big difference between regular occurrences every year and going a couple decades between them.
You know, you're right - I can be a bit of an ass. But that changes nothing about the facts here. Back to the subject at hand.

Rolling blackouts in 2020? Doesn't bode well for going all electric on everything. But then, neither did the rolling blackouts for 2019 that apparently never happend. Or 2018. Or 2017. I have no intention of pulling this all the way to 2001, nor will it matter if California had a year or two when they didn't have any blackouts. Fact is, California is trying to push everyone in their state to electric cars, but they can't provide enough power for what they have, and they have had very regular, almost third world nation like blackouts. It's not just generation, transmission also matters because you can't use it if you can't get it. And he can claim what he likes when he doesn't have to show his work like I do.
Do you read what you quote? Literally the first line: “Not an hour, 15-20 minutes to get to 50-60% SoC from close to 0%.” And literally the last line: “I can get about 180-200 miles of range in 20 minutes.”
Heresay. Since I have to show my work, perhaps he can show his car going from 0 to 60 percent? Or he can show his car getting 200 miles of range in 20 minutes? Let's see a video showing his car's clock and power rating at both levels. I won't be such an ass as to demand a video showing him driving that far, just a few screen shots will do. No, I don't really expect to see this but if I do I will admit to being wrong.
Who are these imaginary politicians??
No idea who the politicians will be in 2035. But Newsome has already signed the line, no new ICE cars after 2035.
Post automatically merged:

Ehh, I tend to not eat much on the road. Bag of potato chips, pretzels or something like that is what I'll normally eat on the road. So far as the wife goes, she heads in as soon as we stop, so she has the extra time she needs while I'm taking care of everything else.

Sure, occasionally you make the longer stop to stretch your legs, but that shouldn't be every single stop with every stop being around 200 miles. Not everyone needs to take long breaks every hour.
Post automatically merged:


You know, you're right - I can be a bit of an ass. But that changes nothing about the facts here. Back to the subject at hand.

Rolling blackouts in 2020? Doesn't bode well for going all electric on everything. But then, neither did the rolling blackouts for 2019 that apparently never happend. Or 2018. Or 2017. I have no intention of pulling this all the way to 2001, nor will it matter if California had a year or two when they didn't have any blackouts. Fact is, California is trying to push everyone in their state to electric cars, but they can't provide enough power for what they have, and they have had very regular, almost third world nation like blackouts. It's not just generation, transmission also matters because you can't use it if you can't get it. And he can claim what he likes when he doesn't have to show his work like I do.

Heresay. Since I have to show my work, perhaps he can show his car going from 0 to 60 percent? Or he can show his car getting 200 miles of range in 20 minutes? Let's see a video showing his car's clock and power rating at both levels. I won't be such an ass as to demand a video showing him driving that far, just a few screen shots will do. No, I don't really expect to see this but if I do I will admit to being wrong.

No idea who the politicians will be in 2035. But Newsome has already signed the line, no new ICE cars after 2035.
Whoops, meant to type hearsay, not heresay.
Post automatically merged:

This has been a nice, productive discussion for the most part. Some folks seem to live here, but the best I can do is a hit and run once a day.
 
Last edited:

STS-134

Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,153
Reaction score
13,650
Location
Saratoga, CA
Let's see - the entire internet, maybe? Newsome has even opened investigations into the rolling blackouts that took place in 2020.
What you said:
Sure it is, when you consider that California has regular rolling blackouts every year.
What I objected to: the stuff in bold. I even bolded it in the first response to let you know exactly what in your post was a bunch of bullshit.
Apparently, you're the only person around who didn't know about this.
I live in California. If there were rolling blackouts "every year", I'd know.
But if you want to avoid the internet, I guess that's up to you. You'll need to avoid TV and newspapers too, by the way, because TV stations and newspapers are also publishing this "lie."
Well, about the internet: do you even read what's in the links you post before you post them? Here's what the search link you posted shows. I've underlined some key phrases in red.

DuckDuckGo.jpg


You know that doubling down when you are caught bullshitting just makes you look foolish, right? Whether it was an exaggeration or you just found false information somewhere and regurgitated it, I'm not sure, but trying to insist that it actually IS true after getting called out on it and then posting a search link that literally calls out your own lie just makes you look ignorant.

I don't buy messy food, and I don't spill it Plus, I clean the car regularly. Face it, you're just trying to find a way to claim that stopping for 1 hour to recharge isn't a problem but stopping for 5 minutes to refuel is.
Do you even read the Tesla forums? V3 superchargers have a common complaint: they're too fast. People aren't having enough time to do what they want to do without running back to the car to avoid paying idle fees.


I pulled into a V3 supercharger at 6% SoC. I unplugged 10 minutes later...with 44% SoC. 14-15 minutes on a V3 supercharger basically gets you from 0% to about 60%, which is what you want to depart with. That's barely enough to use the restroom, buy a quick bite to eat and drink at a fast food restaurant, and get back in the car. ~150 miles of range gained in 10 minutes. The only real problem that they need to solve (for people who want to minimize stopping time) is increasing the number of miles you get on 60% SoC by about a 40-50%. Currently, I can get around 160-200 miles with 60% SoC; I'd really prefer to be able to go around 250-300 miles. Guess what? The Model S Plaid+ can go over 500 miles with 100% SoC which means that with 60%, it should be able to go 300 miles. Now that car supposedly has a battery that's 60% larger than that in the Model 3, so this would probably require a V4 supercharger that peaks at 400 kW, but this now seems do-able once Tesla gets that car out the door. The challenge is making sure that the liquid-cooled cable does not overheat. Even on the V3 supercharger at 250 kW, that sucker gets hot. And this is what is possible with today's battery technology. If we get batteries that can charge faster relative to their capacity (i.e. solid state batteries), then it just gets better from there.
You may be fine with it, and that's OK, but if you want to see widespread EV adoption, then you need to address the slow recharge times
Disagree. The slow recharge time issue has already been solved. Since today's batteries can only charge fast in the lower SoC range however, the issue that needs to be solved now is making bigger batteries, so that you can go 300 miles on just 60% of the battery. At that point, there's pretty much zero reason to drive an ICE car if your roadtrip is under 700-800 miles in a day (500 mile initial run from 100% after leaving home, and one 10 minute stop that gains you another 300 miles of range). Two 10-minute stops that get you 1100 miles of range basically covers more miles than I've ever driven in a single day. Then you charge overnight and can start the whole process over the next day if you wish to.

The other issue that needs to be solved is that there need to be DC fast chargers everywhere. Every parking lot near a major route should have a DC fast charger. Although at places with sit-down restaurants and malls, the DC fast charging should probably be slowed down so people don't complain about having to run back to their cars in the middle of their meals. Slightly slower DC fast chargers are also cheaper to build.
because that WILL keep this from going mainstream.
How many EVs have you driven? Even if just for a test drive? And how many Teslas have you taken on a road trip to try out the supercharger network?
 
Last edited:

Deacon

TXCTG
VIP
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
14,794
Reaction score
21,165
Location
Hill Country, TX
that shouldn't be every single stop with every stop being around 200 miles. Not everyone needs to take long breaks every hour.
If you find a way to cover 200 miles in an hour on a road trip, please let us know. Though I don’t consider 15 or 20 minutes a long stop.

Literally not. You can call him a liar if you think that’ll help you, but you don’t get to claim hearsay when it’s his own first peruse experience.

Newsome has already signed the line, no new ICE cars after 2035.
I guess “starting next week” and “in 15 years” is the same to you? Either way, let me know how the recall goes.
 

STS-134

Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,153
Reaction score
13,650
Location
Saratoga, CA
Heresay. Since I have to show my work, perhaps he can show his car going from 0 to 60 percent? Or he can show his car getting 200 miles of range in 20 minutes? Let's see a video showing his car's clock and power rating at both levels. I won't be such an ass as to demand a video showing him driving that far, just a few screen shots will do. No, I don't really expect to see this but if I do I will admit to being wrong.
Challenge accepted...well, sort of. I can't show my car getting 200 miles in 20 minutes because I unplugged after 10 minutes. But I would have been at 200 miles range in about 15 minutes. 20 minutes would have gotten me to around 250 miles of range. I did get to around 150 miles of range -- 44% SoC -- in 10 minutes, 20 seconds, from 25 miles. That's a gain of around 125 miles of range in 10 minutes, 20 seconds.

Here's my photos from that V3 supercharger session I previously mentioned. I didn't even rename the images. Times in the image names are UTC. The first and last images were taken 10 minutes, 20 seconds apart. Charge limit was set at 60%. Initial estimate was 20 minutes, but it was wrong, and by 10 minutes in, the estimated remaining time was 6 minutes.

Start of session:

PXL_20210414_032312956.MP.jpg


80 seconds into session, now charging at 243 kW:

PXL_20210414_032402241.jpg


10 minutes, 20 seconds into session:

PXL_20210414_033332390.MP.jpg


Note how the charge rate starts to taper. By around 60-65% SoC, it falls under 100 kW and unless you're doing something else, it's not worth sitting there any longer and you should just leave and go to the next charging station. But even if you're getting fast food and taking a piss, it'll probably be at around 70% by the time you get out of the restaurant.

Here's a guy who took a video of his supercharging session. He plugs in at around 0:15. 60% SoC was achieved at around 14 minutes, 20 seconds into the charging session (that's when most people would leave if they weren't shopping or eating). 20 minutes in, he had 73% SoC which is over 250 miles of range.

 

kort677

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
68
Reaction score
141
Face it, you're just trying to find a way to claim that stopping for 1 hour to recharge isn't a problem but stopping for 5 minutes to refuel is. You may be fine with it, and that's OK, but if you want to see widespread EV adoption, then you need to address the slow recharge times because that WILL keep this from going mainstream.
if your charging takes 1 hour you are not utilizing the fast chargers properly.
when properly executed charging on a long road trip should be a 15-20 minute stop. It's called driving the bottom of the battery.
at my point in life a break every 2-3 hours to use the facilities is welcome.

I'm curious, do you drive an EV?
 

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
381
Reaction score
549
If you find a way to cover 200 miles in an hour on a road trip, please let us know. Though I don’t consider 15 or 20 minutes a long stop.
Ugh, typo, meant to say hour break every 200 miles. My bad.
Literally not. You can call him a liar if you think that’ll help you, but you don’t get to claim hearsay when it’s his own first peruse experience.
Nah, just about the need for me to post proof that others don't seem to.
I guess “starting next week” and “in 15 years” is the same to you? Either way, let me know how the recall goes.
Not sure where you got this from.
Post automatically merged:

Challenge accepted...well, sort of. I can't show my car getting 200 miles in 20 minutes because I unplugged after 10 minutes. But I would have been at 200 miles range in about 15 minutes. 20 minutes would have gotten me to around 250 miles of range. I did get to around 150 miles of range -- 44% SoC -- in 10 minutes, 20 seconds, from 25 miles. That's a gain of around 125 miles of range in 10 minutes, 20 seconds.

Here's my photos from that V3 supercharger session I previously mentioned. I didn't even rename the images. Times in the image names are UTC. The first and last images were taken 10 minutes, 20 seconds apart. Charge limit was set at 60%. Initial estimate was 20 minutes, but it was wrong, and by 10 minutes in, the estimated remaining time was 6 minutes.

Start of session:

View attachment 180817

80 seconds into session, now charging at 243 kW:

View attachment 180819

10 minutes, 20 seconds into session:

View attachment 180818

Note how the charge rate starts to taper. By around 60-65% SoC, it falls under 100 kW and unless you're doing something else, it's not worth sitting there any longer and you should just leave and go to the next charging station. But even if you're getting fast food and taking a piss, it'll probably be at around 70% by the time you get out of the restaurant.

Here's a guy who took a video of his supercharging session. He plugs in at around 0:15. 60% SoC was achieved at around 14 minutes, 20 seconds into the charging session (that's when most people would leave if they weren't shopping or eating). 20 minutes in, he had 73% SoC which is over 250 miles of range.

And this was at a supercharger? In that case, I was wrong, and stand corrected.
 

kort677

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
68
Reaction score
141
Ugh, typo, meant to say hour break every 200 miles. My bad.
If you are spending an hour every two to charge the car then you just do not know how the works.

here's a primer.
on long road trips the key to limiting time spent charging is to drive the bottom of the battery.
you try to arrive at the next charge stop with a low SOC and the car will charge faster, then you charge the car enough to make it to the next stop with the goal of arriving with a low SOC. repeat as needed.

my taycan can charge from say 10% soc to almost 80% soc in around 20 minutes or so giving me around 200+/- miles of driving dependent on speed, terrain and climatic conditions.
if you know you will be going on long upgrades or driving in sub freezing weather you adjust according.
most chargers on the main travel routes are spaced around 100-150 miles apart.
 

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
381
Reaction score
549
What you said:

What I objected to: the stuff in bold. I even bolded it in the first response to let you know exactly what in your post was a bunch of bullshit.

I live in California. If there were rolling blackouts "every year", I'd know.

Well, about the internet: do you even read what's in the links you post before you post them? Here's what the search link you posted shows. I've underlined some key phrases in red.

View attachment 180815

You know that doubling down...
OK, OK, I admit it, I was in a hurry and glazed the report. But, did find this that shows quite a few power issues out there.
From my perspective, that's a LOT of outages.
The other issue that needs to be solved is that there need to be DC fast chargers everywhere. Every parking lot near a major route should have a DC fast charger. Although at places with sit-down restaurants and malls, the DC fast charging should probably be slowed down so people don't complain about having to run back to their cars in the middle of their meals. Slightly slower DC fast chargers are also cheaper to build.
I can agree with this. More charging stations are needed in more areas. And I'm pretty sure I've said as much before. But I also still want to see the under 10 minute full range recharge time, like the aluminum batteries that I posted when I started this thread promise to deliver.
How many EVs have you driven? Even if just for a test drive? And how many Teslas have you taken on a road trip to try out the supercharger network?
None, and I don't intend to. I'm going to wait until chargers are as common as gas stations today before I convert. Where I am the nearest one is about 60 miles away, and at my most common long distance destination there is only one within 50 miles. California may have a hundred of them, but there's only a couple in my area.
 

STS-134

Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,153
Reaction score
13,650
Location
Saratoga, CA
OK, OK, I admit it, I was in a hurry and glazed the report. But, did find this that shows quite a few power issues out there.
From my perspective, that's a LOT of outages.
Well yeah, I never claimed that CA isn't having issues with the power grid. It clearly is, as rolling blackouts should never happen. Not even once in 20 years. This is what happens when the people who make the policies aren't actual engineers in the field that they're making policy for. The immediate cause of the rolling blackouts last year however, was that some idiots were selling about 4000 megawatts of power out of the state while there was a shortage. And of course the underlying root cause was using the wide area synchronous grid as a crutch to import power and somehow assuming that there couldn't be high demand across the entire western interconnection. Energy imports and exports should be used to make the grid cleaner if you can get base load from other areas with lower demand and avoid using your peakers, but aren't a substitute for having enough plants to cover all of your demand locally. None of this would have happened if the people making the policies were power grid engineers, but at least the people who are in charge of this now know there's a problem and are making adjustments, and hopefully building new peaker plants.

But what's this got to do with EVs? Not much, if you think about it. For the most part, EV charging will be done at night, and during the day (when solar power peaks). Definitely not during that 4-9pm peak period when electricity is the most expensive, because, well, people don't want to pay more than they have to in order to charge their cars.
I can agree with this. More charging stations are needed in more areas. And I'm pretty sure I've said as much before. But I also still want to see the under 10 minute full range recharge time, like the aluminum batteries that I posted when I started this thread promise to deliver.
I think that's sufficient to get widespread EV adoption, but it's not actually necessary. We could do it with current battery technology if you just oversize the battery by about 50-70%. The number of > 500 mile drives in a single day I've ever done I can count on one hand. The number of > 400 mile drives I've ever done in a single day is too many to count. So actually, a 50-70% oversized battery basically means I can get to my destination without stopping at all.
None, and I don't intend to. I'm going to wait until chargers are as common as gas stations today before I convert. Where I am the nearest one is about 60 miles away, and at my most common long distance destination there is only one within 50 miles. California may have a hundred of them, but there's only a couple in my area.
Where's your area? That's just a generic list of all Tesla superchargers in the US.
 
Last edited:

Deacon

TXCTG
VIP
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
14,794
Reaction score
21,165
Location
Hill Country, TX
Not sure where you got this from.
It’s not something I got. It’s something you said. See below.

when it comes down to "Starting next week, ICE vehicles are banned" those same politicians will be quickly recalled
Newsome has already signed the line, no new ICE cars after 2035.


But what's this got to do with EVs? Not much, if you think about it.
It’s part of the whole thing where people say the grid can’t handle it and are scared that electricity won’t be available to charge their cars.
 

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
381
Reaction score
549
It’s not something I got. It’s something you said. See below.
I see. Let's look at the entire tree instead of the cherry you picked. What I actually said was,

Don't think the government will be able to force it either, because when it comes down to "Starting next week, ICE vehicles are banned" those same politicians will be quickly recalled and replaced by the voters if it means they're not going to be able to drive because EVs aren't going to work well for them.

Notice the parenthesis around that statement. Now notice the words in front of it. "Because when it comes down to" does not mean today, it means an event that will happen in the future, in this case 2035 when that law is supposed to go into effect. When that law goes into effect in 2035, and millions of Californians are told that their cars are banned from the public highways, the politicians in office at that time will be forced to change it or find themselves out of a job. I realize that right now the law says no new ICE cars may be sold in California starting in 2035, but the way they've been moving the goalposts, I expect that will next be changed to new OR used cars, then shortly after no petroleum fuels may be sold after 2035.
Post automatically merged:

Where's your area? That's just a generic list of all Tesla superchargers in the US.
Oklahoma.

By the way, the thing about time to charge being too fast was bugging me and I realized why - slower recharge times means the car is there longer, which means fewer people can charge. That should be an issue for you, since you might be the one waiting the extra time for the guy that got there just in front of you to finish eating while his car charges. A sub-10 minute recharge time should be your goal as well, because it means more cars served per charging station. Those aluminum batteries, if they work, would go a long way towards both making sure a charging station is available when needed and that 500+ mile range you want.
 
Last edited:

Deacon

TXCTG
VIP
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
14,794
Reaction score
21,165
Location
Hill Country, TX
When that law goes into effect in 2035, and millions of Californians are told that their cars are banned from the public highways, the politicians in office at that time will be forced to change it or find themselves out of a job. I realize that right now the law says no new ICE cars may be sold in California starting in 2035, but the way they've been moving the goalposts, I expect that will next be changed to new OR used cars, then shortly after no petroleum fuels may be sold after 2035.
That was a wild ride. I didn’t realize you were chainsmoking hyperbole. It’s interesting the things you’re inventing to be angry about are combined with and admission that they’re made up and that they have a habit of moving the goal posts—except you think they’re going to move in the opposite direction, from the goal of no new ICE cars to a sudden and total ban of all ICE cars and in fact outlawing the very act of selling fuel.

How far out into your stream of consciousness are we supposed to follow?

A sub-10 minute recharge time should be your goal as well, because it means more cars served per charging station.
Either way, more infrastructure is more important. People leave their car in front of gas pumps all the time and then disappear for 20 minutes. That kind of selfish obliviousness is even more fun when the infrastructure they’re tying up with their gas car is the only diesel pump.
 
Last edited:

STS-134

Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,153
Reaction score
13,650
Location
Saratoga, CA
Notice the parenthesis around that statement. Now notice the words in front of it. "Because when it comes down to" does not mean today, it means an event that will happen in the future, in this case 2035 when that law is supposed to go into effect. When that law goes into effect in 2035, and millions of Californians are told that their cars are banned from the public highways, the politicians in office at that time will be forced to change it or find themselves out of a job.
Wrong. First of all, that's 14 years in the future. Do you remember where we were 14 years ago? That would be 2007. There were basically no EVs at all. We've basically gone from zero to what we have today in about 10-12 years or so. This represents more time in the future than has passed since EVs even came onto the market. Second, it's not a ban, it's a phase out. No new ICE cars sold, but existing ones aren't going to be banned. Come on, don't tell me I need to call BS on you again.
I realize that right now the law says no new ICE cars may be sold in California starting in 2035, but the way they've been moving the goalposts, I expect that will next be changed to new OR used cars, then shortly after no petroleum fuels may be sold after 2035.
Even if that does happen that doesn't mean ICE cars won't be able to get fuel. Let's just assume you are right, and they ban petroleum-based fuels. Even if that happens, you will likely still be able to buy carbon neutral synthetic ICE car fuel. Jason Fenske just did a video on carbon neutral synthetic fuels:


Here's the issue: a good ICE can only run at around 25-45% efficiency, with the vast majority being in the 30-40% range. The most efficient possible heat engine on the other hand is the Carnot engine, which operates using a hot reservoir, a cold reservoir, and four possible modes, all repeating in sequence: isothermal expansion, adiabatic expansion, isothermal compression, and adiabatic compression. In order to extract all energy out of the expanding gases, the general rule is that the exhaust temperature must be exactly equal to the temperature of the cold reservoir, i.e. the outside environment. If you've ever touched a tailpipe of a car, you know that the exhaust gases aren't even close to the temperature of the outside air. The problem is that the two isothermal phases, which are what allow the exhaust gases to leave the engine at the temperature of the cold reservoir and thus leave the engine without having any more energy that could possibly be extracted from them, take a very long time. If your car used a Carnot engine, your power to weight ratio would absolutely suck. It would take probably much longer than a minute just to do one revolution as it waited to allow temperatures to be steady in the cylinder during the isothermal phases. Car engines, therefore, use only the adiabatic processes (since there is insufficient time for much thermal transfer to occur during the fraction of a second that each charge of hot gases stays in the cylinder) and this incurs a large cost in efficiency.

Power plants can do a lot better. They don't care about power to weight ratio because their heat engines are not lugging their own weight around, so they can use high temperature turbines, medium temperature turbines, low temperature turbines, etc., to extract more and more energy from the expanding gases as they cool. In practice, combined cycle power plants use combustion gases to directly drive a high temperature turbine, and the cooler but still hot gases leaving this first turbine are then used to boil water and the steam is used to drive a second turbine to generate more electricity. These power plants can operate at almost 65% efficiency, which is within 20% of the ideal Carnot efficiency and about 30% better than (and about twice as efficient as) an ICE. Therefore, even with transmission losses in the power grid (about 5%), it's way better to burn the fuel in a power plant and then transmit it to an EV over the power grid, than it is to burn it in a vehicle directly.

But I suspect all of this will be irrelevant by 2035, since the gap in operating cost between comparable performing ICE vehicles and EVs will be so great that hardly anyone will want to buy a non EV in the first place. As I mentioned upthread, buying a good performing ICE vehicle means paying a very large penalty in efficiency. ICE muscle cars routinely get only around 10-20 mpg because they have very large engines with a lot of internal resistance that drags down the efficiency of the car even when you're not actively using that extra power. Note that this is on top of using an engine technology that wasn't very efficient in the first place. The same is not true in the EV world, where a large motor that can get the car from 0-60 in 3 seconds isn't that much less efficient than a smaller motor that can only do 0-60 in say 8 seconds. So you basically can get Porsche 911 type performance with Honda Civic type fuel costs.

And then there's the further benefit that not all of the energy being produced in the power grid is produced from burning fossil fuels. Most of it will be from renewable sources and the grid will continue to get cleaner as time goes on. So an EV purchased in one year will have less and less of a carbon footprint as time goes on. The same will likely be true of ICE cars, given that more synthetic carbon-neutral fuels are going to be in the mix, but they'll be prohibitively expensive to operate because they use the energy so inefficiently.
By the way, the thing about time to charge being too fast was bugging me and I realized why - slower recharge times means the car is there longer, which means fewer people can charge. That should be an issue for you, since you might be the one waiting the extra time for the guy that got there just in front of you to finish eating while his car charges. A sub-10 minute recharge time should be your goal as well, because it means more cars served per charging station. Those aluminum batteries, if they work, would go a long way towards both making sure a charging station is available when needed and that 500+ mile range you want.
You are neglecting one more very important factor. Consider a 400 kVA transformer: let's say it can power two very high power DC fast charging stations. But what happens if we reduce the maximum power of each DC fast charging by 50%? Well, that means you can build twice the number of stations and charge more cars simultaneously (but each individual one will take longer to charge). Lower power DC fast chargers are not only cheaper to build because more of them can share the same transformer, and the high voltage lines running to the site won't have to be as big for every station built, but also because they don't require liquid cooled cables and all sorts of other things you have to do to make sure stuff doesn't melt. So there is a tradeoff here: you can build a few of the really expensive DC fast charging stations, or for the same amount of money, you can build more DC fast charging stations that charge at lower speeds.

The goal shouldn't be to put all DC fast charging stations that can do sub-10 minute charges. The goal should be to put one or two of those, plus a lot of lower powered DC fast charging stations in as many parking spaces in as many locations as you can. This is why Tesla is not only building 250 kW superchargers, but they're also building 72 kW superchargers for areas where people probably don't need to charge as fast. Those things are a lot cheaper to build than 250 kW superchargers for the reasons I already mentioned, and actually in some areas, I believe people can choose which type of supercharger they want to use, since they have both types there. At a place where people tend to stop longer, they'll prefer to build a greater number of 72 kW superchargers at the same cost that would have only built far fewer 250 kW superchargers.
 
Last edited:

Deacon

TXCTG
VIP
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
14,794
Reaction score
21,165
Location
Hill Country, TX
plus a lot of lower powered DC fast charging stations in as many parking spaces as you can.
I think that’s the problem with people who are looking to poke as many holes in EVs as they can: they’re still locked into a gas station mindset. Instead of having some chargers at every grocery store parking lot, they think only of the idea that you need to go to a dedicated energy dispensing station. They also seem to think they need to “top off” their battery every time. I think there’s a mindset shift (or at least a broadening of horizons) that simply hasn’t happened, no matter how many times each specific thing is mentioned.
 

STS-134

Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,153
Reaction score
13,650
Location
Saratoga, CA
I think that’s the problem with people who are looking to poke as many holes in EVs as they can: they’re still locked into a gas station mindset. Instead of having some chargers at every grocery store parking lot, they think only of the idea that you need to go to a dedicated energy dispensing station. They also seem to think they need to “top off” their battery every time. I think there’s a mindset shift (or at least a broadening of horizons) that simply hasn’t happened, no matter how many times each specific thing is mentioned.
People who have only driven gas cars don't even think about these things. The only thing they've ever known is a refueling station where you stay with the vehicle as it refuels, so the concept of doing something else while your car is refueling is alien enough, although easy to explain to people. But the tradeoff of having, say, 3.5 72kW superchargers instead of just one 250 kW supercharger for less cost (no need for liquid cooled cables, etc.) is not as obvious until it gets mentioned.

I was stuck in a gas car mindset even after I started driving my EV. Then I realized that I could leave the climate controls on to keep chocolate in the cabin from melting or park in the shade and run the AC at 85F and keep the thermoelectric cooler on for 45F chilled drinks when I get back from a hike, and I won't have to waste gas doing it.

Just use the proper tool for the task. You wouldn't go off roading or tow a trailer in a sports car and you wouldn't bring a 4x4 SUV to a racetrack. EVs are way better to use around town. If you're going on a roadtrip where you absolutely don't want to stop longer than 10-15 minutes and you're driving 1000 miles a day, then make sure you own an ICE vehicle until the remaining issues with BEVs are resolved and use it for that trip.
 

Deacon

TXCTG
VIP
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
14,794
Reaction score
21,165
Location
Hill Country, TX
refueling station where you stay with the vehicle as it refuels
While that’s often the case, I sometimes will get the pump going and then leave it to run while I go inside or whatever. I noticed in Hawaii that none of gas pumps seemed to have the mechanism to lock the handle open on low or high flow like I’m used to.
 

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
381
Reaction score
549
Wow, I guess no matter what I post, the two of you are on the opposite side of it. So I guess the two of you are against an aluminum graphene battery that holds 3 times the charge of a lithium battery while allowing a 10 minute recharge, without being affected by temperature extremes? Because if you remember, my post that started this thread was showing this as a positive, which I stated was a game changer for making the EV attractive to the masses. Must be, since both of you are making the argument that charging too fast is a problem. I guess everyone's supposed to be satisfied with the tech as it exists this minute, since the two of you are happy with it. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. So far as California banning all gasoline, they may not have done it, but I can see them doing it. It's only hyperbole if it's unlikely and for California, it's very possible.
 
Last edited:

Discord Server

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Threads
96,578
Messages
1,469,642
Members
24,773
Latest member
downhiller2010
Top