The Electric Vehicle Thread

[NW-Bound]

I suspect in crowded cities it's also a maneuverability and parking issue.

Certainly!

Back in 2009, I made a thread where I posted the following photo I took in the suburb of Amsterdam in a 2004 trip. FIREd (was FIREDreamer back then) contributed that it was a mini car called Canta made by a Dutch company.

That thread is here: https://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f27/car-to-solve-us-energy-problems-44457.html


This little car had a 160cc engine, had a top speed of 28 mph, and cost between 11,500 and 17,000 euros, as FIREd found out. He also contributed this find:

These minicars, top speed 45 km/h, can be driven without a driver's license. Originally meant for the elderly, handicapped or those who for some reason are unable to pass their driving test, they are increasingly thought to "cool" and driven by 16yr olds.

I saw some of these Cantas even parked on sidewalks. The young driver in my photo was driving his on dedicated bicycle paths, where it was legal.

Now with Chinese mini EVs costing 1/20 the price, and being greener to boot, would they be better than these Cantas? However, as with anything else, when too many people have the same idea, that no longer works as the roads become crowded and congested again with the little vehicles. Witness the street anarchy in the streets of Vietnam with the zillions of scooters in a video I posted earlier.

It's not easy and cheap to solve these problems. What works for a few individuals may not work when the whole crowd is doing it.

 

[JoeWras]

Speaking of Europe, I remember in the height of the 70s crisis, a Vespa scooter dealer opened up down the block from us in Chicago.

Scooter companies now make some enclosed vehicles. Not sure if they are EV though.

 

[explanade]

No matter the reasoning, it's still insufficient power to the customer at a time that is most critical. How will residents be informed of an evacuation if there is a fire? How will they be able to charge their car? I've had mine shut off for PSPS several times and they don't turn it back on again when the danger is over, they turn it back on once they inspect the lines to be sure none were damaged that potentially would have started a fire. That usually takes days because they have to put eyes on every single foot of wire. Most of it under canopy of trees. Some they can verify by helicopter, much they can not though.
I have a lot of technical recommendations on this; both on reducing the need for complete grid power shut offs and the expediency of restoration. But that's not electric car stuff, so I'll save it. The fact is; when PG$E shuts off power for public safety, much of an all EV California will be without means of refueling their cars for a potential evacuation. Home generators meant to keep the food in freezers from going bad for a few days is not gonna do the job.
PG$E's solution is resiliency through micro grid emergency power generators. As we speak, PG$E is installing them near my neighborhood in the Georgetown, CA area.

https://www.gtgazette.com/2020/09/21/pge-microgrid-coming-to-georgetown/

But the state is working on a carbon neutral, renewable energy grid while the utility company is back feeding said grid with carbon based fuel generators. I'm certainly getting confused messages.

Or as they talked about with the Paradise fire, they built up too much in wild fire zones, where homes are surrounded by brush all around.

It's something to discuss, whether there should be homes in many of these areas, and power lines have to be run out there.

 

[NW-Bound]

Speaking of Europe, I remember in the height of the 70s crisis, a Vespa scooter dealer opened up down the block from us in Chicago.

Scooter companies now make some enclosed vehicles. Not sure if they are EV though.

I expect many of them to be electric. They have to be, in order to have a chance of commercial success.


And this is a perfect lead-in for me to introduce what I just discovered, although it has been around for quite a few years: the electric Toyota i-Road, which carries 2 people.

More here:

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Rather ironic that the Govt provides a tax break for buying an EV, then adds a tax surcharge for owning an EV!

Don't just do something, stand there!

-ERD50

Two different governments - Fed vs. state.

Same person paying the tax and getting the credit!

-ERD50

 

[MRG]

Same person paying the tax and getting the credit!

-ERD50

Yeah I get a 4k state tax incentive and a 50 dollar road usage fee.

 

[ERD50]

It is actually all related. The power shutoffs are due to extreme weather conditions. The extreme weather conditions are at least partly due to fossil fuel burning. It is only going to get a lot more complicated.

Yes, but here's the reality (at least as I understand it, please fill in anything I'm missing):

Even in the most aggressive "move to renewables" scenario imaginable, it just isn't realistic to expect to see any change to the weather patterns that are affecting these wildfire conditions. Here's what NASA says:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/

... Once it’s [Carbon dioxide] added to the atmosphere, it hangs around, for a long time: between 300 to 1,000 years. Thus, as humans change the atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide, those changes will endure on the timescale of many human lives.

That's not saying that we shouldn't take steps to reduce carbon emissions, but anyone thinking that's gonna make a dent in the problem, even for our grandchildren, appears to be misinformed.

Which says to me, CA really needs to address the power and brush problems, and not cloud the waters with talks about renewables and EVs. And since EVs aren't going to improve climate change in this time frame, they are only making it worse by adding to the electrical demand. Seems 180 degrees backwards?

And I'll say it again. EVs aren't doing much to reduce carbon emissions anyhow. It matters little how 'green' your grid is. EVs are an added demand, and even if your grid is 60% renewable, the grid is utilizing almost all of that renewable, it always gets prioritized as the 'fuel' is free. So to meet extra marginal demand, almost all the time a fossil/nuke plant needs to throttle up to meet the demand, the renewables will already be (mostly) used.

There are occasional exceptions, an over-production of wind at night, but we are nowhere near those being large/common enough to power an EV fleet most of the time. Look at this chart - relative to straight gas engine, a hybrid provides significant improvement in CO2 emissions. An EV on the 'average' grid or on 100% NG (the lowest CO2 fossil fuel) is hardly better than the hybrid. Of course the EV is significantly better when powered 100% from renewables (WWS - Wind, Water, Solar), but as I said, that is a long, long way off (fleet-wide).

Modern hybrids sure seem to have more bang for the buck for CA, with no obstacles for those w/o convenient charging at home. Why the push for EVs (and I'm not being negative - if you like EVs buy one, I just don't see how they are a solution for anything in CA)?

-ERD50

 

[JoeWras]

^^ Everything ERD50 said.

I'll add that we really need to add Nuke to the equation. Not as they are today, but different. But, yeah, I know that steams people.

 

[gerntz]

^^ Everything ERD50 said.

I'll add that we really need to add Nuke to the equation. Not as they are today, but different. But, yeah, I know that steams people.

but different = NuScale design I discussed a few pages back.

 

[NW-Bound]

Well, 2035 is only 15 years away, for California to be 100% EV.

With some luck, I will live till then to see how things are going to work out.

 

[NW-Bound]

And I'll say it again. EVs aren't doing much to reduce carbon emissions anyhow. It matters little how 'green' your grid is. EVs are an added demand, and even if your grid is 60% renewable, the grid is utilizing almost all of that renewable, it always gets prioritized as the 'fuel' is free. So to meet extra marginal demand, almost all the time a fossil/nuke plant needs to throttle up to meet the demand, the renewables will already be (mostly) used.

There are occasional exceptions, an over-production of wind at night, but we are nowhere near those being large/common enough to power an EV fleet most of the time...

In order for EVs to not put additional demand on the grid and cause fossil fuel consumption, EVs should be allowed to be charged only when there's excess power from solar and wind. This means in the morning before it gets hot and ACs start to crank. See chart below.

And then, for cars that are not being used and just sitting in home garages, their large batteries could be tapped as an energy storage to stabilize the grid in the late afternoon and early evening, when the duck in the above "duck curve" raises its head.

It's not hard to pull power out of idle EVs (it takes just a bit of electronics). Car owners should be given an incentive to do this. EVs makers can be mandated to have this capability put in.

Heck, I think many Californians would love to be able to use the juice from their cars to run their fridge for a while to keep food from spoiling during an episode of PSPS. You may not want to run down an EV battery to power an entire household, but it's no sweat to run a modern fridge off an EV battery.

Each 24-hr period of running a fridge deducts about 6 miles of range from your EV.

 

[pj.mask]

If I can get solar for <9cents/kWh installed at my house, I wonder how cheap it will be to install a solar farm? A 2018 study showed 6 cents per kWh! That technology is improving fast. And battery for two 75kWh days would be maybe 16k per house (and Elon’s roadmap projects a drop in half in 3 years) that’s 2.5 cents per kWh with current prices cut in half?

My utility grid charges are about 4.5cents but if you have spread out storage you probably don’t need such a robust system (lower average rate vs peaks and underutilization).

I believe many people in california would be ecstatic 6+2.5+4.5= 13c kWh flat rate electric with nearby neighborhood battery backup. I don’t see how electric cars will alter that plan.

Also for reversals of climate change - we can pull it out of the air, but that requires non profits or governments to act. Many companies (oil and gas included) want carbon tax so they can make money pulling co2 out of the air and get a price on return for better efficiency/containment.

 

[NW-Bound]

If I can get solar for <9cents/kWh installed at my house, I wonder how cheap it will be to install a solar farm? A 2018 study showed 6 cents per kWh! That technology is improving fast. And battery for two 75kWh days would be maybe 16k per house (and Elon’s roadmap projects a drop in half in 3 years) that’s 2.5 cents per kWh with current prices cut in half?

I believe the 1/2 cost that Musk projects is for the cost of the battery pack as installed in his car. It includes the cost savings due to better packaging, and the redesign of the car structural chassis.

In other words, the cost of the Li-ion cell gets improved, but not by 1/2.


Regarding current cost of batteries, I have not seen anyone selling Li-ion raw cells at the price point of $100/kWh. The current price is about $400/kWh at retail level. I don't know about wholesale prices.


PS. Recently I have seen used and worn out industrial cells selling at $100/kWh. They may look tempting, but as the capacity of these worn out cells is only 1/2 of the rating when new, these old cells weigh 2x and are 2x larger than new cells for the same storage capacity. Actually, the weight and size factors are even worse than 2x, because they are of early types back when the battery technology was not as good as now. I passed.

 

[aja8888]

Well, 2035 is only 15 years away, for California to be 100% EV.

With some luck, I will live till then to see how things are going to work out.

I'm pretty sure the gov said the state won't be selling NEW ICE cars in 2035. Lots of people will still have existing ICE cars and could drive and sell them, I would imagine. Remember, this was a political order and still has many hoops to go through before it becomes reality.

Then there are construction equipment/vehicles, aircraft, large trucks, home generators, lawn equipment, and other devices that require natural gas/diesel/gasoline that have not been addressed.

 

[Sunset]

....

And then, for cars that are not being used and just sitting in home garages, their large batteries could be tapped as an energy storage to stabilize the grid in the late afternoon and early evening, when the duck in the above "duck curve" raises its head.

....

Heck, I think many Californians would love to be able to use the juice from their cars to run their fridge for a while to keep food from spoiling during an episode of PSPS. ....
Each 24-hr period of running a fridge deducts about 6 miles of range from your EV.

While I would consider it a great benefit to be able to run my fridge during power outs.

I would be not happy to supply power to the grid via my car as perhaps I need to go on a long trip that evening, or perhaps this extra discharging - and needed charging later cycles would reduce the life of the battery, making the car worthless (or $10K battery replacement).

 

[NW-Bound]

I'm pretty sure the gov said the state won't be selling NEW ICE cars in 2035. Lots of people will still have existing ICE cars and could drive and sell them, I would imagine. Remember, this was a political order and still has many hoops to go through before it becomes reality.

Then there are construction equipment/vehicles, aircraft, large trucks, home generators, lawn equipment, and other devices that require natural gas/diesel/gasoline that have not been addressed.

Yes, according to the mandate existing cars will still be allowed. But in order to prepare for not being able to sell ICE cars after 2035, car makers would ramp up their EV offerings long before that cut-off date.

ICE cars will still be on the road, but will we see a lot more charging stations, and fewer gas pumps in 2035?

And of course, if that date approaches and things don't work out as well as they plan, I am sure there will be pressure to postpone that mandate.

And that is what I meant when I said I wanted to see how things work out. It's always hard to predict the future.

 

[NW-Bound]

While I would consider it a great benefit to be able to run my fridge during power outs.

I would be not happy to supply power to the grid via my car as perhaps I need to go on a long trip that evening, or perhaps this extra discharging - and needed charging later cycles would reduce the life of the battery, making the car worthless (or $10K battery replacement).

Enter the "million-mile" battery!

Musk said nothing about the longevity of Tesla's new cell. The "million-mile" term was coined by the CEO of the Chinese cell maker CATL anyway.

You are not going to drive your EV for 1 million mile anyway. So, let's use 800,000 miles of that to power your home.

PS. The chairman of CATL, Zeng Yuqun, said in May 2020 that his company had the design for a 1,000,000-mile EV battery. Said his company was ready to sell it to anybody, but it cost 10% more than their usual cell.

Zeng actually said "2 million kilometers" (China uses the metric system). That is 1.2 million miles.


PPS. About powering the grid and risking running down the EV and not being able to escape if a fire breaks out, it's easy to maintain a reserve on your battery.

An EV may have a battery of 75 to 100 kWh. If you use only 25 kWh out of it to feed back to the grid, you still have enough left for your escape.

 

[ERD50]

but different = NuScale design I discussed a few pages back.

Yes, that looks interesting, I hope to study it more thoroughly a bit later. I like the idea of small modular nukes, IIRC one of the Japaneses companies proposed one a decade ago, not sure what became of it.

In order for EVs to not put additional demand on the grid and cause fossil fuel consumption, EVs should be allowed to be charged only when there's excess power from solar and wind. ...

Yes, but just how much "potential overproduction" are they expecting? I'm familiar with the Duck Curve graph, but as shown here, wouldn't it actually need the net to go below zero for there to be overproduction? And note the discontinuity in the axis, the zero line is actually about twice as far down as it appears.

... And then, for cars that are not being used and just sitting in home garages, their large batteries could be tapped as an energy storage to stabilize the grid in the late afternoon and early evening, when the duck in the above "duck curve" raises its head. ... .

While I would consider it a great benefit to be able to run my fridge during power outs.

I would be not happy to supply power to the grid via my car as perhaps I need to go on a long trip that evening, or perhaps this extra discharging - and needed charging later cycles would reduce the life of the battery, making the car worthless (or $10K battery replacement).

I agree with Sunset, that large scale use of EV batteries isn't likely to make good sense. EV batteries are the most expensive of batteries, as they must be light, small, and safe in a crash. Using them routinely will degrade their life, and as Sunset mentioned, you really don't want to regularly run your EV battery down, as then you don't have the range if you unexpectedly need it. Though smart apps could handle a schedule - say you only plan to do short trips during the week, but plan a longer trip on this w/e. Enter on your calendar, and it can make sure you are ready for the W/E.

EV batteries could play a part, but I think it would be a small part.

-ERD50

 

[eroscott]

Even at x1.5 speed (youtube gear icon) it is easy to follow. Batteries are changing fairly quickly without radical chemical changes. Cheaper and more capacity.

This is about Tesla cars and Tesla powerwalls and powerpacks. A couple of key company acquisitions lead to big improvements show in the below presentation pieces. Certainly other big companies are moving forward quickly too (pan, LGchem, etc).

Title: Tesla Battery Day, only the best parts

 

[NW-Bound]

Yes, but just how much "potential overproduction" are they expecting? I'm familiar with the Duck Curve graph, but as shown here, wouldn't it actually need the net to go below zero for there to be overproduction? And note the discontinuity in the axis, the zero line is actually about twice as far down as it appears.

Agree that there's no overproduction now. But as people clamor for "more, more, more" solar and wind generation, there will be a point where you have energy out the wazoo in the morning, but nowhere to put it.

Oh, they will put the morning production into utility-scale battery storage installations for electricity to use in the late afternoon and through the night. They cannot build them fast enough, because they are expensive.

I was only saying to charge the EVs during that same period. For emergency driving that you need to charge outside the peak-production period, it is allowed but will cost you more. Time of use, baby.

I agree with Sunset, that large scale use of EV batteries isn't likely to make good sense. EV batteries are the most expensive of batteries, as they must be light, small, and safe in a crash. Using them routinely will degrade their life, and as Sunset mentioned, you really don't want to regularly run your EV battery down, as then you don't have the range if you unexpectedly need it. Though smart apps could handle a schedule - say you only plan to do short trips during the week, but plan a longer trip on this w/e. Enter on your calendar, and it can make sure you are ready for the W/E.

EV batteries could play a part, but I think it would be a small part.

-ERD50

I posted the follow-up info about the "million-mile" battery. I wonder if you have seen it.

Now, as much of the car does not last a million mile, what good is this "million-mile" battery? The car body is all rusted out, the paint all faded, the interior all shabby, suspension all worn out and shaky at what, 200K miles?

But CATL claims to have this wonderful battery which costs only 10% more. What good is it?

Some people suggest that this long-lasting battery may get repurposed after the car is junked, and put into utility-scale energy storage installations.

Some suggest that the battery may get removed, and reinstalled into a new car chassis.

Both above ideas run into practical considerations that I will not elaborate here.

So, how about using this long-lasting EV battery as a dual-purpose one? And I am not the only one thinking it. There are talks on the Web by energy experts about this idea.

Right now, there are not enough EVs for this to make a dent, but in the future when there are EVs in every household, each holding a battery of 100 kWh storage, man, that's a lot of juice.

For comparison, the most I use in a day in the summer is 100 kWh, when the temperature is 120+F. My average usage through the year is about 45 kWh/day.

 

[eroscott]

So, how about using this long-lasting EV battery as a dual-purpose one? And I am not the only one thinking it.

Technically good. However, by in large consumers don't like it when they are informed how it uses up battery cycles and the life of their car battery (life = adding to the degradation and capacity (lowers max miles)).

 

[NW-Bound]

OK, it is tough to people to swallow if you mandate the pumping back of energy into the grid. It can be structured as an incentive.

Some Californians are using the Powerwalls to do "peak-shaving", meaning storing energy during the cheap off-peak period to use later during the on-peak period. If you have a "million-mile" battery that lasts longer than the rest of the car, it can be used as the Powerwalls to save you a lot in utility bills.

Yes, even while the "million miles" have not been exceeded, extra cycles will reduce the capacity of the battery, and the range of the car. But is it really that much?

I have not seen any more elaboration about the million-mile battery from CATL, but let's suppose the range shortening is proportionally the same as in the current Tesla battery. Tesla guarantees 70% capacity over 8 years or 150,000 miles whichever comes first.

Now, if you have this CATL 1,200,000-mile battery, and use 25 kWh each day for peak shaving, that's equivalent to driving an additional 80 mi each day. That's 220,000 miles more over 8 years. Nothing, compared to the 1.2 million miles!

 

[eroscott]

OK, it is tough to people to swallow if you mandate the pumping back of energy into the grid. It can be structured as an incentive.

Some Californians are using the Powerwalls to do "peak-shaving", meaning storing energy during the cheap off-peak period to use later during the on-peak period. If you have a "million-mile" battery that lasts longer than the rest of the car, it can be used as the Powerwalls to save you a lot in utility bills.

Yes, even while the "million miles" have not been exceeded, extra cycles will reduce the capacity of the battery, and the range of the car. But is it really that much?

I have not seen any more elaboration about the million-mile battery from CATL, but let's suppose the range shortening is proportionally the same as in the current Tesla battery. Tesla guarantees 70% capacity over 8 years or 150,000 miles whichever comes first.

Now, if you have this CATL 1,200,000-mile battery, and use 25 kWh each day for peak shaving, that's equivalent to driving an additional 80 mi each day. That's 220,000 miles more over 8 years. Nothing, compared to the 1.2 million miles!

Food for thought. V2G has been around for a long time and I've followed it but it has not caught on in the minds of EV owners that I can tell based on articles and discussions I've read. You have some technical points that I get but not the "masses". I don't think most owners will believe the "million mile" argument when it is put in terms of their max mile capacity. 90% (10% loss) of their original off the lot range feels like a LOT to many even tho this is expected in the first couple years then slows down a lot. It seems people like a lot of extra buffered and in winter/colder months where you loose (temporarily) 30%.

i.e "300 mile" goes 270 after 1.5-2 yrs (10%). They loose 30% in their winter driving. Telling them V2G may cost them 5%-10% over a few years will not go well I don't think. Plus any losses they see they psychologically will blame V2G IMO vs just driving degradation.

HTH explain from someone that does a lot of following of EVs for a long time.

Of course if we get to 400 and 500 mile batteries in the next few years (see Tesla's presentation) then maybe the V2G losses work in peoples minds.

 

[ERD50]

...
Yes, even while the "million miles" have not been exceeded, extra cycles will reduce the capacity of the battery, and the range of the car. But is it really that much?

I have not seen any more elaboration about the million-mile battery from CATL, but let's suppose the range shortening is proportionally the same as in the current Tesla battery. Tesla guarantees 70% capacity over 8 years or 150,000 miles whichever comes first.

Now, if you have this CATL 1,200,000-mile battery, and use 25 kWh each day for peak shaving, that's equivalent to driving an additional 80 mi each day. That's 220,000 miles more over 8 years. Nothing, compared to the 1.2 million miles!

OK, if the "million mile battery" becomes available (without some large premium), then sure, you can pull some amount daily w/o negatively impacting your driving or the car's useful life.

Now we are in that "100% renewables" thread area. I seem to recall that adding up all that EV battery capacity (and taking a small enough amount to not create range problems for the driver), didn't add up to a huge amount of storage. Maybe enough to help with that duck-curve problem where demand rises in late afternoon-evening just as solar is waning. But IIRC, not enough to carry people through a several day black out (unless they go to restricted mode, basics and refrigerators only).

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

Food for thought. V2G has been around for a long time and I've followed it but it has not caught on in the minds of EV owners that I can tell based on articles and discussions I've read. You have some technical points that I get but not the "masses". I don't think most owners will believe the "million mile" argument when it is put in terms of their max mile capacity. 90% (10% loss) of their original off the lot range feels like a LOT to many even tho this is expected in the first couple years then slows down a lot. It seems people like a lot of extra buffered and in winter/colder months where you loose (temporarily) 30%.

i.e "300 mile" goes 270 after 1.5-2 yrs (10%). They loose 30% in their winter driving. Telling them V2G may cost them 5%-10% over a few years will not go well I don't think. Plus any losses they see they psychologically will blame V2G IMO vs just driving degradation.

HTH explain from someone that does a lot of following of EVs for a long time.

Of course if we get to 400 and 500 mile batteries in the next few years (see Tesla's presentation) then maybe the V2G losses work in peoples minds.

Well, I was just playing an armchair utility commissioner here. Just wondering and fantasizing how society can gather up all its resources to avoid brownouts and the horrible PSPS (Public Safety Power Shutoff to prevent fires). The "million-mile" battery that CATL said it had has not been seen or put in any car. Electric semi-trucks must have a very long life to replace diesel trucks, but even here I don't know if a million-mile battery is a must. And we don't know if CATL is not just bluffing.

OK, if the "million mile battery" becomes available (without some large premium), then sure, you can pull some amount daily w/o negatively impacting your driving or the car's useful life.

Now we are in that "100% renewables" thread area. I seem to recall that adding up all that EV battery capacity (and taking a small enough amount to not create range problems for the driver), didn't add up to a huge amount of storage. Maybe enough to help with that duck-curve problem where demand rises in late afternoon-evening just as solar is waning. But IIRC, not enough to carry people through a several day black out (unless they go to restricted mode, basics and refrigerators only).

-ERD50

No, not to last several days. I went through that exercise a while back, on a renewable energy thread. It took a lot and a lot of batteries. Way way more than all the batteries that have ever been built (and many of these batteries already ended up in landfills).

But what if all vehicles in California turn into EV? How much storage is that?

California uses 270 terawatthours a year, or 736 gigawatthours/day on the average.

California currently has 16 million registered cars (trucks not counted). Let's say they all turn into EVs somehow, and each car has the storage of 75 kWh of the top-of-the-line Tesla Model 3. The total storage of the fleet would be 1,200 gigawatthours. That's 64% higher than the average daily total consumption.