Internal Combustion Engine has a future?

[samclem]

... The motivation is that junk yards are selling battery packs out of wrecked cars, and DIY'ers are buying them to salvage the internal packs to use for home solar projects. Repurposing these car battery packs is more economical than buying new ones that are ready to go.

Do these used high-tech battery packs cost less per AH than a new Pb-acid/AGM deep cycle battery? For a fixed solar installation where weight isn't critical, I'd think AH/$$ would be the main criteria.

 

[NW-Bound]

It's definitely cost effective. Used battery packs from EVs run $100 to $200/kWh. Good lead-acid batteries of the AGM type will run more than $250/kWh.

And then, the bigger factor is longevity. EV batteries can easily stand 2,000 deep discharge cycles of 100% down to 5% or less, while the best lead-acid will last only 500 cycles of 100% to 50% discharge. So, that makes the AGM even more expensive per kWh.

When EV batteries are put through shallower cycles, they can last more than 10,000 cycles easily. Most cars get driven daily, hence EV batteries have to last longer than batteries in RV's or boats that often get used rarely.

So, when one considers usable kWh plus service life, EV batteries win hands down. They are very expensive, hence the motivation for repurposing the packs from wrecked cars. The problem is that the condition of a used battery is really unknown. People jump on packs from wrecked cars with low mileage and of recent years.

EV batteries are finicky in some aspects. Some will be ruined if you charge them at or below freezing temperature for example, yet discharging them is OK at low temperatures. And they all get ruined if overcharged. So, people have to implement all sort of battery management systems (BMS). And the cells in a series have to be balanced, etc...

The above BMS functions are all incorporated in the OEM battery, but when people chop it apart to get the internal cells to rebuild into their own custom configuration, all that custom electronics is junked. Home system builders have to add their own BMS, which nowadays is made somewhat easier with aftermarket parts or subsystems.

It is easier to used recycled batteries in an off-grid solar system than in a car. The cells can be spread out so there's no danger of heat build up. You also do not charge or discharge them with horrendous currents, as what happens when a driver pulls stunts with the "stupendous" acceleration mode, or regen hard by braking. So, there's no need for the OEM coolant ducts and coils built into the original battery assembly.

 

[Rustic23]

With Toyota and Honda coming to market, well kinda, with a fuel cell auto, how would this change the picture, if it can be produced anywhere near a cheaper price. Seems to me fuel cell is the answer.

 

[ERD50]

... Seems to me fuel cell is the answer.

You've got the answer! Great! I love playing "Jeopardy"!

Here's the question: "What is possibly the worst way to power our cars?"

Alex Trebek: "Correct ERD50. You have control of the board, pick a category!"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell_vehicle#Criticism

The Economist magazine, in 2008, quoted Robert Zubrin, the author of Energy Victory, as saying: "Hydrogen is 'just about the worst possible vehicle fuel'".[127] The magazine noted that most hydrogen is produced through steam reformation, which creates at least as much emission of carbon per mile as some of today's gasoline cars. On the other hand, if the hydrogen could be produced using renewable energy, "it would surely be easier simply to use this energy to charge the batteries of all-electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles."[127] The Los Angeles Times wrote in 2009, "Any way you look at it, hydrogen is a lousy way to move cars."[128] The Washington Post asked in November 2009, "[W]hy would you want to store energy in the form of hydrogen and then use that hydrogen to produce electricity for a motor, when electrical energy is already waiting to be sucked out of sockets all over America and stored in auto batteries...?"[129]

-ERD50

 

[Rustic23]

I believe both auto companies fuel cells use natural gas. Don't know how this plays into article written almost 10 years ago. I wonder if we were talking about ICE's 10 years before they were fully developed if we would have heard similar arguments.

This is not a subject I have researched and welcome intelligent and informative discussion! For me, quoting 10 year old articles, that really say nothing more than 'it's stupid', does not, in my opinion fill the square.

LA Times Article

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-fuel-cell-cars-20170413-story.html Hydrogen fuel cell cars creep up — slowly — on electric vehicles

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_benefits.shtml Pros and Cons

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...s-higher-than-electrics-even-hybrids-analysis This article supports the argument that the laws of physics act against the Fuel Cell

 

[ERD50]

I believe both auto companies fuel cells use natural gas. Don't know how this plays into article written almost 10 years ago. I wonder if we were talking about ICE's 10 years before they were fully developed if we would have heard similar arguments.

This is not a subject I have researched and welcome intelligent and informative discussion! For me, quoting 10 year old articles, that really say nothing more than 'it's stupid', does not, in my opinion fill the square.

LA Times Article

Hydrogen fuel cell cars creep up — slowly — on electric vehicles - LA Times Hydrogen fuel cell cars creep up — slowly — on electric vehicles

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_benefits.shtml Pros and Cons

Energy use for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles: higher than electrics, even hybrids (analysis) This article supports the argument that the laws of physics act against the Fuel Cell

That article being 10 years old has little to do with it. Fuel cells for cars are at ~ 50% efficiency when fed with hydrogen (with all the problems stated above). I'll need to look into it some more, but I'm pretty sure NG fed fuel cells require more 'stuff' and are only planed for stationary power.

Bloom Energy had fuel cells that could run from NG, or better, waste bio-gas. But I never heard them talk about putting one in a car. I'll see what I can find.

-ERD50

 

[Chuckanut]

The whole discussion of how the 'fuel' is produced reminds me of the "Paper or Plastic" discussions I had years ago with friends who are concerned about the environment. In their view since paper bags were bio-degradable, they were better for the environment. However, paper bags consume far more resources to produce, transport and store, something their proponents did NOT take into account. According to one study, when these factors were considered one would have to use a paper bag 4 to 5 times before it broke even with a plastic bag that was used once and tossed in the trash. We need to look at the entire process start to finish - not just the finished product.

Me? I bring my own bags to the store, and I drive a hybrid. So far that seems like the best overall package at this time.

 

[Music Lover]

The whole discussion of how the 'fuel' is produced reminds me of the "Paper or Plastic" discussions I had years ago with friends who are concerned about the environment. In their view since paper bags were bio-degradable, they were better for the environment. However, paper bags consume far more resources to produce, transport and store, something their proponents did NOT take into account. According to one study, when these factors were considered one would have to use a paper bag 4 to 5 times before it broke even with a plastic bag that was used once and tossed in the trash. We need to look at the entire process start to finish - not just the finished product.

Me? I bring my own bags to the store, and I drive a hybrid. So far that seems like the best overall package at this time.

Some studies tend to assume that people use a plastic bag once and then throw it out. Yet, virtually everyone I know reuses plastic bags dozens of times...basically until they fall apart.

 

[Texas Proud]

Some studies tend to assume that people use a plastic bag once and then throw it out. Yet, virtually everyone I know reuses plastic bags dozens of times...basically until they fall apart.

Not us.... we use it at most a couple of times... and a vast majority only once or twice... the first bring the stuff home and the second for the cat poo...


Edit to add after reading NW Bound.... the plastic bags around here are really crappy.... there have been many times where they rip or break when carrying something from the car to the house... another reason they are not reused much... also, DD has to check for hole to get a good one for the cat litter.... many have holes...

 

[NW-Bound]

...Me? I bring my own bags to the store, and I drive a hybrid. So far that seems like the best overall package at this time.

Reusable bag is good. That's what we do.

Hybrid car is good. Better is walking to the store. We can't do that because of the heat, and because of our location, but I highly encourage others to walk as much as possible.

Some studies tend to assume that people use a plastic bag once and then throw it out. Yet, virtually everyone I know reuses plastic bags dozens of times...basically until they fall apart.

Not in many places in the US. Where I am, grocery stores use bags with abandon. Oil is cheap now, and so is plastic. Party on.

 

[Music Lover]

Not in many places in the US. Where I am, grocery stores use bags with abandon. Oil is cheap now, and so is plastic. Party on.

Interesting. Most grocery stores around here charge 5 cents for bag, which encourages people to re-use bags.

 

[ncbill]

That article being 10 years old has little to do with it. Fuel cells for cars are at ~ 50% efficiency when fed with hydrogen (with all the problems stated above). I'll need to look into it some more, but I'm pretty sure NG fed fuel cells require more 'stuff' and are only planed for stationary power.

Bloom Energy had fuel cells that could run from NG, or better, waste bio-gas. But I never heard them talk about putting one in a car. I'll see what I can find.

-ERD50

Solid-oxide fuel cells that can directly burn natural gas generate too much waste heat to be used in a vehicle, but that heat can be used to meet domestic/hot water (DHW) needs for a household/business.

PEM fuel cells which require hydrogen are currently the only practical fuel cell for vehicle use. But fuel cell stacks with enough capacity to move vehicles remain breathtakingly expensive, and are nearly as complex as an ICE.

 

[uofmbish]

Picture a subset of the grid that consumes an average of 100 MW-hrs each day. And let's say this is a relatively 'clean' grid, with 30% coming from wind/solar ( I intentionally leave out hydro, as we really can't add much/any hydro in the US, and what we use is already accounted for, and some grids have little hydro anyhow). A kind of simple/stupid question to illustrate the point - Why isn't that grid @ 40% solar/wind? Obviously, because they just don't have anymore solar/wind available. If they did, they would use it, and that % would be higher. So we have:

100 MW-hrs produced/consumed per day
30 MW-hrs of that is from wind/solar​

So now imagine this area gets a lot of EVs, and demand goes up to 105 MW-hrs per day. Well, the 30 MW-hrs of solar/wind are already being consumed, they can't just 'crank up' the sun or the wind. So what do they do? They crank up the fossil fuel plants, that's all they can do, right? Following? So therefore, nearly ALL the electricity generated for the EVS was from fossil fuel. I fail to see how it could be otherwise.

Small caveat - you hear that there is occasionally an excess of wind on some grids at night. So that could be used to charge EVs. However, I think if you look at the numbers, that's a small and uncommon occurrence (it wouldn't make the news if it happened 3-4 times a week!). And if they added enough wind to make that routine, they'd have such extreme excesses on average, that it just doesn't seem cost effective (without that elusive/expensive storage that just doesn't exist).

And one pre-emptive comment - someone will say that the grid will have 5% more solar/wind when those EVs arrive. Great, but it doesn't change anything. The EVs are still an incremental increase - take the EVS away, and solar/wind would be even higher %. You still are burning fossil fuel to power the EV. Up until we have regular, routine excesses of solar/wind - IOW, over 100% renewables. Don't count on that.

-ERD50

I see that you have tried to head off the logical criticism of your example, but I'll take a shot at it anyway

I agree with your assessment if the actor deciding whether to buy an EV is the only actor in this scenario. In that case, yes, that incremental increase in electrical consumption must come from somewhere immediately, and that demand would have to be met with other sources that can be ramped up immediately i.e. fossil fuels.

I just disagree that the person deciding whether to buy the EV is the only economic actor in this scenario. If we assume the other extreme, that the electricity producer has perfect insight into this person's car buying choice and timing, then the car purchase choice drives the electricity producers decision to add permanent capacity at their preferred fossil fuel to renewable mix. Under these assumptions, it makes perfect sense to use the new construction fossil fuel ratio when determining the marginal impact of EV's.

Going back to your preemptive dismissal of this notion, I'd say no, that 5 additional MWH of capacity would not have been added without the car purchase, and therefore the grid would have become no cleaner without the EV purchase.

It seems obvious to me that the truth is unknowable and lies somewhere between the two extremes, as no electricity producer has perfect insight into future electrical demand, but they certainly do try to estimate it.

 

[ERD50]

I see that you have tried to head off the logical criticism of your example, but I'll take a shot at it anyway ...

OK, I appreciate a thoughtful, serious challenge.

Going back to your preemptive dismissal of this notion, I'd say no, that 5 additional MWH of capacity would not have been added without the car purchase, and therefore the grid would have become no cleaner without the EV purchase. ...

mmmm, not sure I'm following you, or maybe you are not following me.

It's really not so much about a grid operator adding fossil capacity. Much of the fossil capacity is at a low average capacity factor.

For those unfamiliar with "capacity factor" - it is the average power delivered over time, compared to the peak power the plant could deliver if it ran flat out for that time.

Some (most?) coal plants are throttled down at night, gas turbines are spun up/down to meet demand. As I understand it, some of those gas turbines rarely run, they are there for those peak summer A/C days, and sit idle most of the time. No one wants brown outs on a hot summer day.

So if we were to see a 5% increased demand from EVs, it will be made up with more fossil fuel being fed to those existing fossil fuel plants. Or maybe it will also slow down the de-commissioning of old fossil power plants, to keep them in reserve for that extra 5%, plus the normal variations they need to meet.

Is the grid 'cleaner' w/o the EVs? I'm not really looking at it that way (but you could). I'm looking at choices - is the EV cleaner than a modern hybrid? And as the EV creates marginal KW-hr demand, that demand must be met. With a given amount of solar/wind, it has to come from fossil. And in a comparison with a modern hybrid, we need to use the marginal electrical production source for the EV, not the grid average.

But I guess I can say the grid is cleaner w/o EVs. If we have my earlier example of 30/100 MW-hrs from renewable, that's 30% renewables. Add 5% for EVs, and now the math is 30/105 and it is 28.6% renewables. And 30% renewable is cleaner than 28.6% renewable, right?

Make sense?

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

And to add to ERDs comments.... I had a friend who worked at a power plant.... I knew him for 10 years while working and he said they never produced a KWH of electricity.... the only reason the plant was running was to regulate the price they had to pay to others... they did produce steam which they sold to other companies around them.... and could have been producing electricity if asked to do so...

 

[BigNick]

Is the grid 'cleaner' w/o the EVs? I'm not really looking at it that way (but you could). I'm looking at choices - is the EV cleaner than a modern hybrid? And as the EV creates marginal KW-hr demand, that demand must be met. With a given amount of solar/wind, it has to come from fossil. And in a comparison with a modern hybrid, we need to use the marginal electrical production source for the EV, not the grid average.

But I guess I can say the grid is cleaner w/o EVs. If we have my earlier example of 30/100 MW-hrs from renewable, that's 30% renewables. Add 5% for EVs, and now the math is 30/105 and it is 28.6% renewables. And 30% renewable is cleaner than 28.6% renewable, right?

I saw a chart somewhere comparing the CO2 output of driving 100km in an electric versus ICE car, by country. In France (where 70% of electricity generation is nuclear) it was a huge win for EVs. In China, the EV resulted in *more* CO2 being emitted than a modern ICE car.

At the moment the best compromise seems to be a plug-in hybrid, charging at night from your own solar panels and having a small ICE gasoline engine in reserve. But not many people can afford such a vehicle, and not everybody has a yard or their own 500 square feet of south-facing roof.

 

[ERD50]

I saw a chart somewhere comparing the CO2 output of driving 100km in an electric versus ICE car, by country. In France (where 70% of electricity generation is nuclear) it was a huge win for EVs. In China, the EV resulted in *more* CO2 being emitted than a modern ICE car. ...

EVs may make good environmental sense in France with their 70-80% nukes, but it still would depend on the concept I am talking about here. How would France provide an additional 5% (or whatever) for a fleet of EVs? I'm not sure what their capacity factor is for their nukes. In most countries the nuke capacity factor is quite high, they run them pretty much flat out to recoup their fixed costs, and take up the grid demand variation with other sources. But most other countries don't have such a high % from nukes, so maybe France could 'turn them up' by ~ 5% at night?

This is why I say to be technology agnostic, and avoid "one size fits all" answers. If EVs are a good environmental solution for France, then they should be used there, where ever they make a good fit.

But try to get the 'greens' behind you in building more nukes. They still fight it in most places.

And a lot of those charts that show EVs to be 'better' on xyz grids, use the 'average' US car as their benchmark, rather than a good, or even 'best in class' modern hybrid. OK in some ways, but if you are trying to make an environmental decision, I think we should be using the best (practical) environmental options for the comparison.

At the moment the best compromise seems to be a plug-in hybrid, charging at night from your own solar panels and having a small ICE gasoline engine in reserve. But not many people can afford such a vehicle, and not everybody has a yard or their own 500 square feet of south-facing roof.

I've also addressed this "But I'm running my car from my solar panels, so I'm green" viewpoint before. You need to consider that in general, those solar panels could be feeding the grid, and offsetting fossil fuel consumption on the grid. Then adding an EV, just offsets that savings, and is therefore still 'running on fossil fuel'.

The 'green solar/EV' logic only works if for some odd reason, the solar panel couldn't exist without the EV. And that's not the case, though some will say they only bought solar panels because of their EV. Well, someone else would have bought those panels, and that scenario won't apply in general to the large numbers that it takes to make a difference anyhow.

-ERD50

 

[meierlde]

Interesting. Most grocery stores around here charge 5 cents for bag, which encourages people to re-use bags.

It very much depends on the local and state governments attitudes. Some want to save on oil usage others do not. So some have mandated the charge.

 

[Texas Proud]

I saw a chart somewhere comparing the CO2 output of driving 100km in an electric versus ICE car, by country. In France (where 70% of electricity generation is nuclear) it was a huge win for EVs. In China, the EV resulted in *more* CO2 being emitted than a modern ICE car.

At the moment the best compromise seems to be a plug-in hybrid, charging at night from your own solar panels and having a small ICE gasoline engine in reserve. But not many people can afford such a vehicle, and not everybody has a yard or their own 500 square feet of south-facing roof.

My bold..... how in the heck can someone charge at night from their own solar panels.... and if you say they are putting into the system during the day and taking it out at night.... then refer to ERDs comment....

 

[Chuckanut]

My bold..... how in the heck can someone charge at night from their own solar panels....

Remember only 1/2 the globe is dark at night, the other 1/2 is fully in sunlight at night. So move the panels to the other side.

Do I have to think of everything?



I suspect the author was thinking of having batteries which charged during the day and could be used to charge the vehicle at night.

 

[GrayHare]

Gasoline's high energy density makes it very appealing as a fuel. Before battery tech improves someone may invent a sun-powered microorganism that sucks CO2 from the air and excretes gasoline.

 

[Texas Proud]

Remember only 1/2 the globe is dark at night, the other 1/2 is fully in sunlight at night. So move the panels to the other side.

Do I have to think of everything?



I suspect the author was thinking of having batteries which charged during the day and could be used to charge the vehicle at night.

That wire run will cost a bit, no?


As to your second stmt..... that seems to be a bad decision.... charge a battery so you can charge a different battery later Sounds like a lot of wasted energy in this process....

 

[NW-Bound]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am serious about designing a DYI solar set up at home. I will not pump power into the grid as that requires some red tapes. It will be strictly a hobby project for me, although I do expect to reap some "free" energy to off-load my electric bill.

Solar panels are dirt cheap now ($0.30/watt), but by the time one adds installation and equipment cost (but no labor cost), it will take 5 years to pay for itself, assuming that I can use ALL the power that the system will generate.

Now, how do I use up all that power during the day when the sun is shining? Here, in the SW, I will install a supplemental mini-split AC and run it flat out. I will need some battery storage as a buffer for power fluctuation, but right now the storage cost is a major issue, particularly as the battery life even at a few years is so short compared to that of the solar panels and the electronics. I do not mind the capital cost, but these batteries still wear out and are more like consumables.

Here in the SW, as the sun goes down in the late afternoon solar production drops off quickly after 5 PM. Yet, the temperature stays above 100F well into the late evening like 10PM, sometimes 11PM, and the electric demand stays high for many hours after solar power production is gone.

Some day in the future, we will have batteries cheap enough that the excess power can be stored during the day and used at night. Right now, it's expensive and I think that may be a factor to keep more solar plants from getting installed. They do not reduce the number of thermal plants that are needed.

If we force the EVs to be charged only during the day to coincide with solar power production, then build more solar plants with that in mind, can we then say that these EV's are green?

 

[ERD50]

.... Some day in the future, we will have batteries cheap enough that the excess power can be stored during the day and used at night. Right now, it's expensive and I think that may be a factor to keep more solar plants from getting installed. They do not reduce the number of thermal plants that are needed. ...

Yes, but I think we are very long ways from having an excess routinely, so that makes payback a problem. For areas away from the equator, significantly longer days in summer, but then you also have A/C eating up the solar production. So if the excess is only occasionally, and only in one season, the capital cost for batteries is prohibitive.

And you still lose maybe 15% round trip.

I know that sounds so negative, but I've been following threads in various sites on the subject for years, and the latest news, and storage is hard and expensive, with no semi-clear option on the horizon.

.... If we force the EVs to be charged only during the day to coincide with solar power production, then build more solar plants with that in mind, can we then say that these EV's are green?

But tied in with the above, it would take a LOT of solar to regularly have an excess for EVs during the day. And that would put more load on grids that get stressed during the peak solar and A/C periods. Some of that solar would be 'local', going from big rooftops on big building to cars charging nearby - so I guess it depends on where the grid overloads would be.

And then, on a non-excess day, most of those EVs will need to be charged anyhow (some might prioritize charging for excess days, if they have sufficient range). So we are back to firing up fossil plants for a considerable amount of the time.

I think it would be interesting to start a thread on this following subject, I've got some ideas that might apply...

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am serious about designing a DYI solar set up at home. I will not pump power into the grid as that requires some red tapes. It will be strictly a hobby project for me, although I do expect to reap some "free" energy to off-load my electric bill.

Solar panels are dirt cheap now ($0.30/watt), but by the time one adds installation and equipment cost (but no labor cost), it will take 5 years to pay for itself, assuming that I can use ALL the power that the system will generate.

Now, how do I use up all that power during the day when the sun is shining? Here, in the SW, I will install a supplemental mini-split AC and run it flat out. I will need some battery storage as a buffer for power fluctuation, but right now the storage cost is a major issue, particularly as the battery life even at a few years is so short compared to that of the solar panels and the electronics. I do not mind the capital cost, but these batteries still wear out and are more like consumables. ...

-ERD50