electric car

[Sam]

I do think that a market will quickly develop for rebuilding / repairing batteries ...

I hope you're right.

The classic lead-acid battery has been around for so long, yet no technology exists for repairing it economically. The best claimed technology is the "battery desulfator charger". I have tried it on a dead battery and an almost dead battery. The results were disappointing.

 

[travelover]

I hope you're right.

The classic lead-acid battery has been around for so long, yet no technology exists for repairing it economically. The best claimed technology is the "battery desulfator charger". I have tried it on a dead battery and an almost dead battery. The results were disappointing.

Aren't these new batteries made up of a bunch of individual cells that are soldered together? I'm thinking that the Escape battery, for example, is like 275 D size NiMh cells joined together.

 

[Sam]

I think so. But when one fails due to age and use, most other would as well, or will soon.

 

[Nords]

The classic lead-acid battery has been around for so long, yet no technology exists for repairing it economically. The best claimed technology is the "battery desulfator charger". I have tried it on a dead battery and an almost dead battery. The results were disappointing.

The U.S. Navy's submarine force has been using lead-acid batteries for a century. The latest technology consists of incremental improvements-- over a hundred four-foot-tall foot-square cells filled with the thinnest-possible spongiest lead plates, the lowest-resistance connectors, and an electronic monitoring system. Each individual cell even has an air-fed bubbler tube to keep the electrolyte thoroughly mixed.

These batteries are regularly beaten (operations & training) to the point where the electrolyte practically simmers. Electricians individually sample each cell's electrolyte specific gravities by hand (crawling around on top of the battery with only a couple feet of clearance below the deck), add water to the cells by hand, and clean the tops of the cells (exterior) by hand. Cells dying prematurely are jumpered out until the battery reaches minimum capacity, at which point probably after all of Electrical Division's personnel have been trained, accused of incompetence, correctively trained, persecuted, and then executed. Battery replacements are no fun but happen every 10-12 years.

When I arrived on my first submarine, its current generation of battery had been in use for at least 10 years and possibly longer. When I retired 20 years later there had been one upgrade in battery models. It probably took that long to be worth making yet another incremental improvement fleet-wide. AFAIK it's the same battery today, nearly eight years after I retired.

I bet DARPA and the Navy are spending millions on battery research. If there was a cheaper, higher-capacity, more reliable, longer-lasting battery then the submarine force would've switched over years ago. Today I don't have a lot of hope for the next three technologies-- NiMh, Li-ion, and metal phosphates. But give it another 20 years...

 

[Sam]

If there was a cheaper, higher-capacity, more reliable, longer-lasting battery then the submarine force would've switched over years ago. Today I don't have a lot of hope for the next three technologies-- NiMh, Li-ion, and metal phosphates. But give it another 20 years...

That does not sound right to me. What am I missing?

Both NiMh and Li-ion are head and shoulder above the lead-acid battery. The power density of the Cobalt Li-ion is at least 4 times. NiMh is at least 2 times. Given the constrained space in submarines plus unlimited tax payers money, I would have guessed that not a single lead-acid battery could be found in today's submarines.

So is it an issue of reliability or lifespan? Or do Navy engineers use lead-acid batteries both as an energy store as well as ballast? Or maybe they just want to keep those poor battery technicians busy?

 

[Walt34]

I just finished reading a book in which the author tries to forecast what will happen with gasoline at $20/gallon. And while he makes a few stretches, I think eventually that price will happen. The only question is when.

So the electric car equations work differently with gasoline at $6, $10, $16, $20/gallon. At those prices the electric car starts to look a lot more attractive.

 

[ERD50]

So the electric car equations work differently with gasoline at $6, $10, $16, $20/gallon. At those prices the electric car starts to look a lot more attractive.

Europe has been in the $6-$8/gallon range for some time. Clearly, we should be seeing wide adoption of electric cars in Europe before we see any significant number of them here.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/gas1.jpg

-ERD50

 

[Nords]

That does not sound right to me. What am I missing?

Beats the heck out of me, too, but I've learned not to bet against Naval Reactors' design engineers.

So is it an issue of reliability or lifespan? Or do Navy engineers use lead-acid batteries both as an energy store as well as ballast?

I think it's a combination of reliability & lifespan, coupled with issues over max capacity and potential deep discharge. Heat discharge might be a challenge, although it seems easier to boost battery cooling if everything else gets 2x-4x better. Or perhaps it's just that the newer technologies are "too new" to have reliable longevity data.

One side issue was the Li-ion fire on an ASDS that essentially put the program out of business:
A six-hour blaze damaged a special-warfare minisub Sunday - Hawaii News - Starbulletin.com
Problems Persist for SEAL Mini-Subs

A nuclear submarine's battery stores quite a bit of energy. For reliability/longevity it's usually on trickle discharge when it's not supporting casualties, drills, and routine charges, and then recharged when it gets below a certain (fairly high) state of charge. Occasionally it's discharged a little more to keep it from developing a memory, but usually that requirement is met by "operating requirements". A casualty or a drill (like a reactor scram) can result in the battery discharging several thousand amp-hours at a rate of over a thousand amps, although watchstanders hope to succeed with a number of strategies to minimize both the discharge rate and the time.

Or do Navy engineers use lead-acid batteries both as an energy store as well as ballast?

Plenty of other things the Navy prefers to use for ballast-- like weapons. The crew might also appreciate more food or berthing or exercise/entertainment equipment, too.

Or maybe they just want to keep those poor battery technicians busy?

Nuclear-trained electricians are unbelievably expensive, and if a better battery could let the personnel branch cut a couple of billets per crew then they'd be all over it...

 

[ERD50]

Another view one often hears, is that by offering the subsidy the government increases demand, and that increases volume, and that accelerates the development of more cost effective vehicles. Sounds kinda reasonable, but look at the numbers:

Remember that the $7,500 credit goes to the buyer. The only thing the manufacturer gets out of that $7,500 is one more incremental sale. Do you really think that producing one more vehicle at marginal profits provides anywhere near the equivalent of $7,500 of development investment? If the govt was to spur development, why not just give the company some small fraction of that $7,500? It really seems like a waste of our tax dollars. It lets my neighbor buy some technology that he finds interesting, but isn't cost effective, on my dime. I (we) don't need that.

Look at some examples:

- I remember that VCRs were $1800 when they first came out. People who had to have the latest thing bought them at that price. No govt subsidy to the buyer.

- I remember when mobile phones were $4,000 (and high per minute rates). People who could afford them or felt they had a need for them bought them. No govt subsidy to the buyer.

- Computers, Laptops, iPods, GPS, and on and on and on. No govt subsidy to the buyer.

Yes, volume helped bring the prices down, but probably far more importantly, the supporting technology improved, and that allowed the prices to come down, and that spurred more volume. For example, laptops need faster, more efficient CPUs before they become small and cheap enough for more people to want to buy them (better CPUs mean smaller batteries, smaller fans, etc). But CPU technology could only progress so fast. Selling more of them wouldn't have had that much effect. Some things just take time. But the combined demand for faster processors, and all the push for improved semi-conductors of all types leads to improvements. It's a natural progressions, and I don't think the govt can alter that very much with buyer credits. At a minimum, there would be much more efficient ways for them to use those $.

And the main thing holding back EVs is battery cost/performance. But the battery requirements are very close to the requirements for laptops, cell phones, and other equipment. So selling a few more EVs isn't even a drop in the bucket to the entire industry-wide push for better batteries. It's such an indirect way to attack the problem that it is ridiculous.

In fact, I think I could make the opposing argument. If a company can sell these cars for $32,780, what incentive do they have to make them cheaper and actually compete with ICE cars? Maybe govt subsidies inhibit innovation? We've had govt subsidies for solar here since the 70's, and it still isn't cost effective for most cases.

-ERD50

 

[mb]

That does not sound right to me. What am I missing?

Both NiMh and Li-ion are head and shoulder above the lead-acid battery. The power density of the Cobalt Li-ion is at least 4 times. NiMh is at least 2 times. Given the constrained space in submarines plus unlimited tax payers money, I would have guessed that not a single lead-acid battery could be found in today's submarines.

So is it an issue of reliability or lifespan? Or do Navy engineers use lead-acid batteries both as an energy store as well as ballast? Or maybe they just want to keep those poor battery technicians busy?

The Navy is now using Li-ion for the Seal delivery vehicle for example. In fact, there was a recent problem with one that Nords may be aware of.

I doubt that any of the subs are using Li-ion on NiMH. I think they are still Pb-acid.

 

[mb]

FYI, see correction.

That does not sound right to me. What am I missing?

Both NiMh and Li-ion are head and shoulder above the lead-acid battery. The energy [-]power[/-] density of the Cobalt Li-ion is at least 4 times. NiMh is at least 2 times. Given the constrained space in submarines plus unlimited tax payers money, I would have guessed that not a single lead-acid battery could be found in today's submarines.

 

[mb]

That does not sound right to me. What am I missing?

Both NiMh and Li-ion are head and shoulder above the lead-acid battery. The power density of the Cobalt Li-ion is at least 4 times. NiMh is at least 2 times. Given the constrained space in submarines plus unlimited tax payers money, I would have guessed that not a single lead-acid battery could be found in today's submarines.

So is it an issue of reliability or lifespan? Or do Navy engineers use lead-acid batteries both as an energy store as well as ballast? Or maybe they just want to keep those poor battery technicians busy?

What you are missing is that the Navy is a conservative organization and and there are still safety concerns with Li-ion. If you over charge them or short circuit them they can turn into a bomb and that is a particularly bad thing on a submarine. Despite all the best technology and practices "bad things" still happen sometimes. I think that the space shuttle is evidence of that. But having said that an ex-submariner told me that they considered the (lead-acid) battery (because it can evolve hydrogen gas) and the electrolyzer the most dangerous equipment on the sub.

 

[Nords]

But having said that an ex-submariner told me that they considered the (lead-acid) battery (because it can evolve hydrogen gas) and the electrolyzer the most dangerous equipment on the sub.

Yep. Torpedo room full of explosives, liquid fuel, and solid-fueled missiles, engineering spaces full of machinery separating hydrogen & oxygen from seawater, nuclear fuel and reactor coolant at high temperatures & pressures, 4500 psi air piping and 3000 psi hydraulic piping everywhere, a galley deep-fat fryer full of boiling oil...

... and the battery is still the most dangerous equipment on board.

The newer oxygen generator equipment seems to have dramatically improved in the last 10 years, but I think that was mostly a function of the old model's operations & maintenance costs. The operators got a lot better when the training commands shifted to computer simulators instead of the actual generators.

 

[Lazarus]

Lead - acid batteries are still used in the telcom industry for power backup also.

Quite a bit of energy in one battery. I had a car battery explode when I started my truck. Acid everywhere! Don't know what happened. Wouldn't have wanted to be next to it when it went off.

But one gallon of gas has more energy than a few hundred pounds of batteries. Hard to beat.

If gas prices go up to the $20 a gallon level some day the fuel costs to produce electricity will go up with it.

 

[ERD50]

If gas prices go up to the $20 a gallon level some day the fuel costs to produce electricity will go up with it.

Yes, good point. Even Solar panels will go up in price, as it takes energy to make those. I have yet to hear of a solar-powered solar panel factory.

And, as they become more competitive, maybe govts will drop their 'cost shifting' subsidies, which will raise the 'price' to the buyer.

-ERD50

 

[TromboneAl]

Look at some examples:

- I remember that VCRs were $1800 when they first came out. People who had to have the latest thing bought them at that price. No govt subsidy to the buyer.

- I remember when mobile phones were $4,000 (and high per minute rates). People who could afford them or felt they had a need for them bought them. No govt subsidy to the buyer.

- Computers, Laptops, iPods, GPS, and on and on and on. No govt subsidy to the buyer.

These analogies don't make sense to me.

• When VCRs were $1,800, there was no cheaper alternative way to record TV. So the early adopters didn't buy them just because they were neat. We currently have viable and cheap alternatives to electric cars.
• Early cell phone adopters didn't have any alternative to a $4,000 mobile phone. In addition to possible snob appeal, they felt the real advantage of being able to call from anywhere was worth the added expense.
• Ditto for Computers, Laptops, iPods, GPS, and on.

Even most early adopters are unlikely to spend an extra $8,000 for a car that currently has few advantages (to them personally) over a Prius. Some early adopters will buy an electric, rightly or wrongly, to save money on gas. That will only make sense if the car isn't more expensive. No one bought an early VCR, cell phone, or iPod to save money.

Also, there was no advantage to the country as a whole if people bought more VCRs, cell phones, or iPods.

In other words, if we were all currently riding horses, then your analogies would be spot on.

 

[TromboneAl]

Remember that the $7,500 credit goes to the buyer. The only thing the manufacturer gets out of that $7,500 is one more incremental sale. Do you really think that producing one more vehicle at marginal profits provides anywhere near the equivalent of $7,500 of development investment? If the govt was to spur development, why not just give the company some small fraction of that $7,500? It really seems like a waste of our tax dollars. It lets my neighbor buy some technology that he finds interesting, but isn't cost effective, on my dime. I (we) don't need that.

That's a very good point. However, I can think of some advantages to giving the credit to the buyers. One advantage is that the market will be deciding who benefits from this infusion of cash, not the government. Would you really rather have the government decide who gets the R&D money? Can you imagine the forms and procedures? Or would you like the cash spread out among all the car makers and car maker wannabes? This way the manufacturers are competing for the money.

Saying "one more incremental sale" spins it as inconsequential, but a credit that makes an electric car cheaper than an alternative gas car could easily double sales.

 

[samclem]

Also, there was no advantage to the country as a whole if people bought more VCRs, cell phones, or iPods.

US productivity (and therefore the country as a whole) benefited tremendously from cheap computers, ubiquitous cell phones, cheap and reliable GPS, etc. I'd bet any one of these technologies contributed more to GDP, or even to other less objective measures of happiness or contentment, than will electric cars.
The thing that's different about all these other things vs the electric car is that these other things had enough benefit to the individual user to prompt their eventual widespread adoption. The user could see that paying the price for them was better than the alternative (or doing without, if there was no alternative). The electric car has no particular advantage over the very viable alternatives for the average user. It's more expensive to buy compared to cars of similar utility (and more expensive over its lifetime, unless a tremendous amount of miles are driven), has shorter range, takes longer to refuel, has less payload capability, and will be less safe than a similarly priced ICE car. It has advantages to such a small population of consumers that it cannot be economically developed and produced without forcing others to sweeten the pot.
What's the best marginal utility for those government dollars? Is this really it? For the subsidy offered for each car we could put a kid through Head Start for a year. Or, maybe we could let taxpayers hang onto their money and decide for themselves how to spend it.

 

[ERD50]

In addition to the excellent points that samclem has made....

These analogies don't make sense to me.


Even most early adopters are unlikely to spend an extra $8,000 for a car that currently has few advantages...

Then they shouldn't. And I don't want to chip in for them to get the $8,000 to feed their personal desire to own something that has fewer advantages than they are willing to pay for. If it isn't good to enough for them to spend their own money on, why should it be OK to spend MY money on it? That makes no sense to me.

There was a point in time when PV panels costs thousands of dollars per watt, so they were only used for very niche markets (satellites, isolated off-grid areas). Subsidizing the difference between that and a more reasonable $1/Watt would be a very poor use of taxpayers money. If something isn't competitive, it isn't competitive. It does not make sense to invest dollars in it. Shifting the cost to someone else does not modify that equation.

Even before there were $1,800 VCRs, there were (I'm guessing) $50,000 VCRs used in commercial studios. It is all a progression, based on technological advancement. That might be pushed (or hindered) by govt subsidies, but it sure seems like a poor ROI to me. Far too indirect.

However, I can think of some advantages to giving the credit to the buyers. One advantage is that the market will be deciding who benefits from this infusion of cash, not the government. Would you really rather have the government decide who gets the R&D money?

But this is exactly part of my opposition. The govt *is* deciding. How come hybrids and/or EVs get a subsidy, or use of special lanes or parking spaces when a higher mpg non-hybrid does not? A van with 6 people in it is using energy far more efficiently per person than a hybrid or an EV with one person in it.

You need to ask yourself - what problem are we trying to solve here (if any)? Then, if we think there is a need, try to solve that problem. I know we've been around the loop on this one before - if you think we should be using less fossil fuel, then tax it and let the market figure the solutions. There is a difference in an EV powered by coal versus one powered by hydro or nukes - so let that be reflected in the market choice, rather than some overly-simplistic - 'it's electric - it doesn't use gasoline!' (but it does use coal).

Let the market compete for the most optimum solution per passenger mile after those taxes are in place - then any solution can compete, it doesn't need the 'blessing' of Congress. And that solution is different for different people ( the soccer mom routinely driving 6 kids around, the construction supervisor who occasionally needs extra capacity, the city commuter, etc, etc,) which is tough to accommodate with one-size-fits-all legislation.

Saying "one more incremental sale" spins it as inconsequential, but a credit that makes an electric car cheaper than an alternative gas car could easily double sales.

OK, double sales. No change from my intent. If that means 100,000 extra vehicles, then we are talking about 100,000 x $7,500 - and that is a lot. And we still don't have a clear idea of how much of anything was saved after going 3/4B dollars deeper in debt. . How many are bought by Hollywood stars to be seen driving to some PR event, and sit in the garage for weeks or months unused? No way to measure the savings, but it's OK to throw around $7,500 per vehicle? I just don't think that makes sense.

I do appreciate the challenge to my viewpoint, but I must say that in this case, you have only strengthened my resolve. These subsidies are stupid, and I resent the govt using my money this way. And yes, I've written my congress people and have received stupid answers in return.

OK, I just took a deep breath - life is good! But the subsidies are still stupid!

-ERD50

 

[Zathras]

A little off topic: Nissan LEAF operating cost versus Conventional Corolla.

For me, gas price has to be $5/gal or higher to justify the purchase of the Nissan Leaf. What's your take?

By the same reasoning, there is no reason to buy a car with power windows, a sunroof, or CD/DVD player. As these options will NEVER pay for themselves.

In addition, your assumptions MAY be correct, but also may be very wrong.
You also did not take into account:
A. Lower costs due to no oil changes or other ICE related maintainance which an EV will be free of.
B. Lower costs to society based on us becoming more energy independant.

 

[Zathras]

Anyone plan on buying one of the new electric cars?

Yes, I plan to buy one. Either a Leaf or a conversion if I can get one soon AND I am satisfied with the company's handling of warantee issues for the electric engine.
When our plug-in Prius dies, it may be replaced with a Volt or a Tesla Model S (max range option which is currently projected at 320 miles I think?).

 

[Zathras]

I agree with EDR50 about subsidizing people's purchase of a $30+K vehicle. It's just nut!

I agree with you as long as you feel the same way when the government subsidizes people purchase of $40+K "work" SUVs.

 

[Zathras]

I still recall thinking when CARB rules came out: Eventually, the gummint (Federal or in this case Calif.) will come up with a mandate that the car companies will just say "forget you!". GM played the game and lost with the EV-1. All the others said "forget you!" It was kind of funny to watch - in a perverted sort of way. I think everyone thought that Honda or Toyota would come up with the mandated 0% pollution car and eat GM's lunch. Turns out GM ate it's own lunch while Honda and Toyota just sat and watched.

All the mandates in the world don't change physics and economics. You can't fool mother nature.

Incorrect, Honda and Toyota both had EVs at the time for the CAFE rules.
Toyota had the RAVev. These vehicles are very sought after and still carry a nice price.
There was also high demand for the EV1, up until last year I would have bought one if it had a 100 mile range.

 

[ERD50]

By the same reasoning, there is no reason to buy a car with power windows, a sunroof, or CD/DVD player. As these options will NEVER pay for themselves.

OK, but don't ask me to subsidize your purchase of power windows, a sunroof, or CD/DVD player either! You want 'em, you pay for 'em. You want an EV, you pay for it!

B. Lower costs to society based on us becoming more energy independent.

My point to T-Al on this is - if this is the goal, then find a far more direct and measurable way to achieve it. What do taxpayers get for their $7,500 per vehicle? What if the guy that buys it lives in Hawaii - 76% of their electricity comes from diesel? He still gets a $7,500 subsidy to 'become more energy independent'? Not making sense to me at all, I'd love to see some numbers that demonstrate that this is a reasonable way to use our tax dollars to achieve energy independence (and I won't even ask you to justify the benefits of energy independence - it is arguable, but we can leave that to a different thread).

I agree with you as long as you feel the same way when the government subsidizes people purchase of $40+K "work" SUVs.

I do. But do you really agree? You seem to be trying to justify the subsidy for EVs?

Incorrect, Honda and Toyota both had EVs at the time for the CAFE rules.
Toyota had the RAVev. These vehicles are very sought after and still carry a nice price.
There was also high demand for the EV1...

Yes, Honda and Toyota had CARB EV entries. How are their sales with all this 'demand'? If they are so sought after, why don't they sell them for high prices un-subsidized, which is what a high demand will fetch?

I keep hearing these claims of 'high demand' from the pro-EV crowd. Again, just not making sense to me. Clearly, 'high demand' in the US would translate to a much higher demand in Europe with higher fuel prices and drives that better match the EV capabilities. So why aren't Toyota, Honda, and GM selling EVs like hotcakes in Europe. I understand that GM could use sales, hard to believe they would turn this away.

There are some greenies that would buy EVs at just about any price. Fine, sell them to them. But that demand is different from the demand required to support an industry with more competitive alternatives.

-ERD50

 

[Sam]

By the same reasoning, there is no reason to buy a car with power windows, a sunroof, or CD/DVD player. As these options will NEVER pay for themselves.

Completely out of context. See T-Al excellent argument above about VCRs and Mobile phone.

In addition, your assumptions MAY be correct, but also may be very wrong.
You also did not take into account:
A. Lower costs due to no oil changes or other ICE related maintainance which an EV will be free of.
B. Lower costs to society based on us becoming more energy independant.

No I did not. But that was in FAVOR for the Leaf EV.

A. Electric motors fail a lot sooner than the ICE. Alternators, starters, power window regulators, power antennas...

B. The required energy needed to make those batteries would most likely exceed the energy saved for the life of the batteries.