The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: The Hin on April 05, 2021, 08:29:27 AM
-
Like many of you, I am watching the development of EVs into the auto market (I live in the US, so written from that perspective) and it's been great fun to follow the disruption within the auto industry. I am neither an engineer nor am I particularly a gear-head, so my impressions are not informed by any real level of technical knowledge regarding EV or internal combustion (ICE) cars, but at a high level perspective it feels like Tesla has helped catalyze a long-awaited transition away from ICE vehicles and the rate of wholesale change within the auto industry is higher now than any time in my memory. At any rate - it's plain to see that there are billions and billions of dollars being poured into the EV transition now (everything from basic research on battery technology and building out charging infrastructure to ramping up production capacity and designing/redesigning vehicles for an EV world) I have been pondering where I think the current state of EVs are relative to where they'll be in, say, 5-10 years. I'd be curious to hear thoughts and predictions from you smart and curious people.
Here are questions that I have been wondering about:
- What rate of EV efficiency improvement will we see going forward? Looking at rankings of EVs by efficiency the top is sedans (mostly Tesla models) at 24-25 KwH per 100 miles; SUV form factor EVs are more like 30 KwH per 100 miles. EV design is still a relatively new field; what happens when companies aside from Tesla throw themselves into reducing inefficiencies in powertrain, etc? Might battery technology (such as designing batteries that serve in part as the vehicle body) help reduce vehicle weight substantially? I am thinking that 20 KwH per 100 miles for a sedan, and 25 KwH for an SUV, is a reasonable future goal.
- What improvements in battery performance characteristics will come to fruition for consumer EVs? Current battery tech has a number of limitations that impose drawbacks for current EVs, such as dramatically reduced range in cold/hot weather, restrictions on charging rates and potential to damage the battery if you discharge it too far. I understand that many different companies and academics are working on experimenting with different battery chemistries and battery pack designs; how far off are we from production versions of anything that would allow for noticeable changes in how EVs work as compared to current models?
- How quickly does the price of EV batteries drop? When does the price of EVs reach parity with relatively comparable ICE vehicles?
- When (if ever) does the charging landscape look consumer-friendly in the US? Tesla has obviously set up a great charging network for its vehicles, but public charging for non-Teslas in the US is (as I understand it) a bit of a dicey proposition. Lots of smaller companies providing charging services, each with their own system, lots of reports of frustrations/failures to charge. I don't even know if there's for sure one standard charging port style. Reminds me of Apple vs. Android.
- What political issues are going to be challenges? ICE vehicles provide funding for road maintenance through gas taxes; there is currently no such mechanism for EVs. Will public charging stations (and home ones?) be forced to introduce a tax intended to replace the gas tax? If not, how will states address the funding shortfall for road maintenance with more and more road miles coming from EVs?
- Overall, how mature is current EV technology? On the whole, how much better do you expect the EV proposition/experience relative to ICE vehicles to be in, say, 5 years? Let's measure it on the iPhone scale; if the EV models of five years from now will be an iPhone 12, what model iPhone are the current EVs?
-
I think we are still on flip phones and Tesla is Nokia. Clear market leader but watch out for that new guy Apple and the smart phone.
-
Do you mean the Apple Car project specifically or as a metaphor of what Apple brought to the smartphone market?
-
I am most certainly not a gear head either, but I have been educating myself on this since the beginning of the year, and here is a few things I have found out.
Might battery technology (such as designing batteries that serve in part as the vehicle body) help reduce vehicle weight substantially?
My understanding is that Tesla is already starting to do that. This is supposed to cut ~400 pounds of weight from their newly designed cars.
When does the price of EVs reach parity with relatively comparable ICE vehicles?
It looks we are already there when you include the full life of the vehicle. The problem is with EVs the savings come more after the purchase. It will take time for the regular consumer to understand that change.
- When (if ever) does the charging landscape look consumer-friendly in the US? Tesla has obviously set up a great charging network for its vehicles, but public charging for non-Teslas in the US is (as I understand it) a bit of a dicey proposition. Lots of smaller companies providing charging services, each with their own system, lots of reports of frustrations/failures to charge. I don't even know if there's for sure one standard charging port style. Reminds me of Apple vs. Android.
As I understand there is *not* a standard charging port style. To use other ports you need to buy an adapter. Though I think this is a bit overblown as most people will be charging at home (assuming they live where they can charge at home).
- Overall, how mature is current EV technology? On the whole, how much better do you expect the EV proposition/experience relative to ICE vehicles to be in, say, 5 years? Let's measure it on the iPhone scale; if the EV models of five years from now will be an iPhone 12, what model iPhone are the current EVs?
EVs shouldn't have the same issues as iPhones. They're not dependent on the network providers like the phones are. I only see two possible changes to make them "obsolete". Functionality at charging stations (just get an adapter) or the chips / boards installed on your car (so far Tesla has replaced these as needed). The cars should not become unusable as they age, but you will probably want to upgrade your car if we ever get to fast recharging (its the only major downside I see to current EVs)
-
@Bradlinc4 - I meant to use iPhone models as a way to benchmark the sophistication of all EVs available now to your expectations of all EVs available in, say, 5 years.
@PhrugalPhan
It looks we are already there when you include the full life of the vehicle. The problem is with EVs the savings come more after the purchase. It will take time for the regular consumer to understand that change.
That's a valid point, but consumers typically don't keep vehicles for "the full life of the vehicle", they buy for 2-3 years and then trade up, so the sticker price is relevant and a highly visible point of comparison for potential buyers.
EVs shouldn't have the same issues as iPhones. They're not dependent on the network providers like the phones are. I only see two possible changes to make them "obsolete". Functionality at charging stations (just get an adapter) or the chips / boards installed on your car (so far Tesla has replaced these as needed). The cars should not become unusable as they age, but you will probably want to upgrade your car if we ever get to fast recharging (its the only major downside I see to current EVs).
I didn't mean to imply that the current EVs would become obsolete in the way old cell phones do (once the OS is no longer supported), my intent in introducing "the iPhone scale" was to suggest a way to describe qualitatively how much improvement you think will occur in EV models over the next 5 years. The answer could be marginal improvements - say, there are more EV models to choose from, price is a little better and all of the new ones support fast charging - and you could say maybe that's the equivalent of an iPhone 8 or 9 now vs. a 12 then. Perhaps that's what you're thinking. @Roland of Gilead is probably envisioning far more sweeping improvements (including the possibility of things that I haven't even contemplated) happening with all the new entrants to the market, hence his response suggesting that the changes will be well beyond iterative improvements to fundamental changes/improvements in the product.
-
Many states already add an additional fee to the annual vehicle registration for EVs that is intended to make up for the lost fuel taxes. In some states it's $150+/yr just to register an EV, with a lower fee for PHEVs. This can really affect the payback math when comparing EVs to ICEs, but I think that fee-based model expands going forward:
(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5ac5143f9d5abb8923a86849/1589567440041-8WBRZDTYJA4Y6G1D8O6Z/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kDh6L3ZMJs4umMi5Arn8xohZw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZUJFbgE-7XRK3dMEBRBhUpxBRbtblPM4y_PcsekTZop5zyaLX3QaWQwMI7WTKvQZSTstoybRLUcOeg7dpRr2Ikg/EVfees-2019.PNG?format=1500w)
People are concerned about reduced EV range in cold temps, but don't realize that ICEs can see similar reduction in range in the same conditions. It's just that ICE's can currently be refueled more quickly/easily than an EV can currently be charged. BUT, if you park in the same spot everyday (like a garage or carport) then you can plug your EV in overnight and leave your house with a full tank every day, so the need for widespread public charging is only an issue for long trips, or those who do not park in the same place for several hours at a time. That means we don't need the same number of EV chargers as we currently have fuel pumps. Something that's 20-30% of the toal number could probably work if those chargers are focused on urban areas where people don't have garages and along highways for those who are taking long trips.
I think the biggest areas of research in batteries moving forward will be cost reduction and/or material construction. Sourcing cheaper, cleaner materials from places that are more politically stable is where I see the real focus in the coming years so that $/kwh continues to fall.
-
@Paper Chaser yep, my family lives in a state with a $200 annual EV fee. We bought a used BMW X5 plug-in hybrid last year (wonderful vehicle, but not great efficiency-wise when running battery-only) and elected not to register it as an EV as it's primarily gas powered in order to avoid that annual fee.
-
Perhaps one of the biggest barriers I see to widespread EV adoption (perhaps because it’s a direct obstacle to my buying an EV) is charging for apartment dwellers and renters more generally. I wonder how long it will be until “EV Charging Available” will be a marketing point for higher-end apartment buildings. Further down the line perhaps changes to the zoning code mandating parking spots with EV chargers in new buildings.
-
As for charging, I think in the short-ish long-term we'll end up with something akin to the old mobile plans where you have a home area and pay more to roam. I.e. I think about how there are several power companies that will sell you power, even though there's only one that actually handles the power distribution. If you're "in-network", then you pay the same rate as you do at home. If the power company can sell power anywhere in the state, then you're in-network anywhere in the state (unless there's different rates at different locations, but you get the idea). Travel outside that area, and you pay "roaming rates". You could end up paying whatever the provider at that location choose to bill anyone not on a plan. Or maybe your plan has some kind of nationwide pricing.
For example, maybe anywhere in the metro area where you live, you pay 10c per kWh. Outside that metro area but in-state, you pay 15c kWh. Nationwide you pay 25c per kWh. You may also be billed on your regular electric bill, vs having to pay at time of usage. Be careful of international roaming charges!
"Free" EV charging will be a justification for increased parking rates. If it used to cost $5 an hour to park, now it'll be $8. Won't take long to round that up to $10 (or just keep at $8 but start charging for, um, charging). It'll be a decent deal for the earlier EV adopters, but anyone driving a gas vehicle will have to pay the same higher fees. Note that I'm not saying that EVs will be at fault...rather, if there's an easy way to justify charging more, it's going to happen.
Battery replacements will become more mainstream and a bit more reasonable in cost, but I don't see DRM going away. Perhaps manufacturers could quote a price to "recondition" the powertrain, which includes a new (or refurbished) battery, and give it a new warranty. Paying $8k for a new battery in a ten year old car ain't gonna happen...but $8k for a completely refurbed powertrain with six year warranty? I'm listening....
-
The battery life and/or replacement cost need to come way down in order to make EV competitive with an equivalent ICE vehicles from an overall cost perspective. I think it will happen but we are not there yet. 5-10 yrs?
-
- What rate of EV efficiency improvement will we see going forward? Looking at rankings of EVs by efficiency the top is sedans (mostly Tesla models) at 24-25 KwH per 100 miles; SUV form factor EVs are more like 30 KwH per 100 miles. EV design is still a relatively new field; what happens when companies aside from Tesla throw themselves into reducing inefficiencies in powertrain, etc? Might battery technology (such as designing batteries that serve in part as the vehicle body) help reduce vehicle weight substantially? I am thinking that 20 KwH per 100 miles for a sedan, and 25 KwH for an SUV, is a reasonable future goal.
I'm not sure what the prospect for improvements in inverter/motor efficiency is, since those are already very efficient. Most of the energy consumption goes into aerodynamic and rolling friction. This means a larger vehicle directly translates to a higher energy consumption.
Better battery chemistry may translate into lower charging losses, but this would really only impact the "well to wheel" energy efficiency, not the EPA MPGe number which is a "tank to wheel" number (apart from a tiny effect of lower regen losses.)
I don't think the EPA numbers include heating/cooling either, or at least puts a quite low multiplier on them. I know that our Pacifica Hybrid never gets above 60 MPGe when the EPA number is 80, and I attribute most of that difference to AC use. If you drive in very cold or hot conditions, especially in slow traffic, then a substantial fraction of energy will go into conditioning the cabin instead of into propulsion regardless of improvements in propulsion technology. It's hard to imagine substantial improvements there either (as long as it has a heat pump cabin heater) since those are well-known thermodynamic cycles.
-
Batteries will become cheaper through a combination of increased supply of raw materials and larger factories producing them. This will lead to higher power/weight ratios, resulting in better efficiency for electric cars. Everything else (aerodynamics, drivetrains, air conditioning/heating) is a near peak efficiency. Older batteries will be re-packaged into commercial or residential energy storage.
Most people will get used to slow-charging their car at home or work. Long-distance trips will require fast chargers or people will just charge at whatever hotel they stay at overnight.
We will all still wonder why the hell we are sitting in traffic instead of on a beach somewhere.
-
The battery life and/or replacement cost need to come way down in order to make EV competitive with an equivalent ICE vehicles from an overall cost perspective. I think it will happen but we are not there yet. 5-10 yrs?
I agree on battery-price needing to come down, but current technology has the battery outliving the cars useful life. Improvements should help that even further along.
Well designed EVs like those from Hyundai, Kia and Tesla all have active battery thermal management and these batteries last a long long time. Early Nissan Leafs didn't and get much worse degradation-
-
Personal Electric Cars are a nice stepping stone, but still inherently really wasteful. Giant 5000-6000 lb monsters that take up tons of street space and parking space really should not be what we aspire to. We're talking about trying to get to 20 kWh for 100 miles, when I'm able to ride my electric bike at about 1.5 kWh for 100 miles. Yes, you could probably bump that number up a bit more for the extra food I have to eat, but it's still around an order of magnitude better, and that would also apply to the lifecycle costs. The costs in land use and infrastructure of the personal car culture we have are also enormous - huge portions of cities have to be reserved for streets and parking rather than livable, natural/green or productive areas.
Sure, you can't use a e-bike or other small PEV for everything, but shared vehicles and public transit could bridge much or most of the gap there. There are countries and cities doing it successfully. Not so much in the USA, but if we're thinking about sustainability, why not consider what baby steps we could take to move toward something an order of magnitude better than two electric cars in every garage?
Now, I'm well aware that a vision of small PEVs/shared cars/mass transit for 9X% of personal transportation is a pipe dream in this country and many others, at least for the next 50 years if not more, but I thought I would throw it out there as food for thought - this is the MMM forum, after all.
-
Sure, you can't use a e-bike or other small PEV for everything [...]
But they are capable of quite a bit more than most people would think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qag-AxNPhg
-
I recommend watching a talk by Tony Seba on just this topic. There are some fascinating points he raises about EV disruption https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y916mxoio0E
-
The battery life and/or replacement cost need to come way down in order to make EV competitive with an equivalent ICE vehicles from an overall cost perspective. I think it will happen but we are not there yet. 5-10 yrs?
I agree on battery-price needing to come down, but current technology has the battery outliving the cars useful life. Improvements should help that even further along.
Well designed EVs like those from Hyundai, Kia and Tesla all have active battery thermal management and these batteries last a long long time. Early Nissan Leafs didn't and get much worse degradation-
So they don't need to be replaced after 7-9 yrs? I'm not refuting this, I actually want to know. Do you have a link?
-
The battery life and/or replacement cost need to come way down in order to make EV competitive with an equivalent ICE vehicles from an overall cost perspective. I think it will happen but we are not there yet. 5-10 yrs?
I agree on battery-price needing to come down, but current technology has the battery outliving the cars useful life. Improvements should help that even further along.
Well designed EVs like those from Hyundai, Kia and Tesla all have active battery thermal management and these batteries last a long long time. Early Nissan Leafs didn't and get much worse degradation-
So they don't need to be replaced after 7-9 yrs? I'm not refuting this, I actually want to know. Do you have a link?
I'm not sure we have enough data to know how time plays a factor in battery lifespans, since the oldest mainstream Teslas are only 9 years old right now. But Tesloop has been pretty transparent with their costs and maintenance. They've got a handful of Teslas with over 300k miles, and they typically get about 200-400k miles out of a battery pack:
https://www.tesloop.com/blog/2018/7/16/tesloops-tesla-model-s-surpasses-400000-miles-643737-kilometers
Here's the cost breakdown for the entire life of 2 of their Teslas and 2 of their standard ICE counterparts:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HqBIOtNsYPalG51nAw_nubgskv4TQPGx8WhPZO4a_U8/edit#gid=0
I'd say that most ICE powered vehicles will need extensive engine and/or transmission work during a similar timeframe too so large maintenance/replacement costs over 300-500k miles of ownership aren't something that is isolated to EVs.
Also, in the Prius/Insight communities, there are lots of owners that DIY replacement of individual battery cells and keep driving on for a fraction of the cost of replacing the entire battery. You can often find individual battery cells for under $50/piece.
-
The battery life and/or replacement cost need to come way down in order to make EV competitive with an equivalent ICE vehicles from an overall cost perspective. I think it will happen but we are not there yet. 5-10 yrs?
I agree on battery-price needing to come down, but current technology has the battery outliving the cars useful life. Improvements should help that even further along.
Well designed EVs like those from Hyundai, Kia and Tesla all have active battery thermal management and these batteries last a long long time. Early Nissan Leafs didn't and get much worse degradation-
So they don't need to be replaced after 7-9 yrs? I'm not refuting this, I actually want to know. Do you have a link?
I can say with 100% certainty that my 2015 EV still has a perfectly usable battery after 210.000 km. https://electrek.co/2020/06/06/tesla-battery-degradation-replacement/ (https://electrek.co/2020/06/06/tesla-battery-degradation-replacement/) has some information on batteries with high mileage. So far the picture is that the batteries will last an extremely long time and probably outlive the car.
I'm sorry I can't link to huge studies as they haven't been made yet. But I would be very surprised if my battery dies before 1.000.000 km.
-
Perhaps one of the biggest barriers I see to widespread EV adoption (perhaps because it’s a direct obstacle to my buying an EV) is charging for apartment dwellers and renters more generally. I wonder how long it will be until “EV Charging Available” will be a marketing point for higher-end apartment buildings. Further down the line perhaps changes to the zoning code mandating parking spots with EV chargers in new buildings.
There are already charge points that look similar to parking meters. Of course this is in Europe so here in the USA we ought to see them in the next 20 years or so. ;)
-
Personal Electric Cars are a nice stepping stone, but still inherently really wasteful. Giant 5000-6000 lb monsters that take up tons of street space and parking space really should not be what we aspire to. We're talking about trying to get to 20 kWh for 100 miles, when I'm able to ride my electric bike at about 1.5 kWh for 100 miles. Yes, you could probably bump that number up a bit more for the extra food I have to eat, but it's still around an order of magnitude better, and that would also apply to the lifecycle costs. The costs in land use and infrastructure of the personal car culture we have are also enormous - huge portions of cities have to be reserved for streets and parking rather than livable, natural/green or productive areas.
Sure, you can't use a e-bike or other small PEV for everything, but shared vehicles and public transit could bridge much or most of the gap there. There are countries and cities doing it successfully. Not so much in the USA, but if we're thinking about sustainability, why not consider what baby steps we could take to move toward something an order of magnitude better than two electric cars in every garage?
Now, I'm well aware that a vision of small PEVs/shared cars/mass transit for 9X% of personal transportation is a pipe dream in this country and many others, at least for the next 50 years if not more, but I thought I would throw it out there as food for thought - this is the MMM forum, after all.
All good points. I've been watching this channel (below). I think reshaping our country to be less dependent on cars is the most sustainable answer. Not that there is the political will for this in the USA. Perhaps it will start in cities and spread. Perhaps it will start in golf cart communities and spread. I don't know.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0intLFzLaudFG-xAvUEO-A
-
The battery life and/or replacement cost need to come way down in order to make EV competitive with an equivalent ICE vehicles from an overall cost perspective. I think it will happen but we are not there yet. 5-10 yrs?
I agree on battery-price needing to come down, but current technology has the battery outliving the cars useful life. Improvements should help that even further along.
Well designed EVs like those from Hyundai, Kia and Tesla all have active battery thermal management and these batteries last a long long time. Early Nissan Leafs didn't and get much worse degradation-
So they don't need to be replaced after 7-9 yrs? I'm not refuting this, I actually want to know. Do you have a link?
https://youtu.be/Ws9Y1be8N-U
Replace a cell, not the whole pack. eBay has cells for ~$100 all the time for Leafs. My Prius friend bought cells a while back for his car for ~$50. Did his own work too.
-
For the Leaf there is an app call Leaf Spy that can show the user which cells are low and aging badly.
I said eBay has cells for ~$100. Actually $100 gets a person a module (several cells bundled).
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313&_nkw=nissan+leaf+battery&_sacat=0
-
@Bradlinc4 - I meant to use iPhone models as a way to benchmark the sophistication of all EVs available now to your expectations of all EVs available in, say, 5 years.
@PhrugalPhan
It looks we are already there when you include the full life of the vehicle. The problem is with EVs the savings come more after the purchase. It will take time for the regular consumer to understand that change.
That's a valid point, but consumers typically don't keep vehicles for "the full life of the vehicle", they buy for 2-3 years and then trade up, so the sticker price is relevant and a highly visible point of comparison for potential buyers.
EVs shouldn't have the same issues as iPhones. They're not dependent on the network providers like the phones are. I only see two possible changes to make them "obsolete". Functionality at charging stations (just get an adapter) or the chips / boards installed on your car (so far Tesla has replaced these as needed). The cars should not become unusable as they age, but you will probably want to upgrade your car if we ever get to fast recharging (its the only major downside I see to current EVs).
I didn't mean to imply that the current EVs would become obsolete in the way old cell phones do (once the OS is no longer supported), my intent in introducing "the iPhone scale" was to suggest a way to describe qualitatively how much improvement you think will occur in EV models over the next 5 years. The answer could be marginal improvements - say, there are more EV models to choose from, price is a little better and all of the new ones support fast charging - and you could say maybe that's the equivalent of an iPhone 8 or 9 now vs. a 12 then. Perhaps that's what you're thinking. @Roland of Gilead is probably envisioning far more sweeping improvements (including the possibility of things that I haven't even contemplated) happening with all the new entrants to the market, hence his response suggesting that the changes will be well beyond iterative improvements to fundamental changes/improvements in the product.
People do that often because new cars have new features and older cars start to need more maintenance - engines/transmissions need more work, etc. Much of this is either mitigated or completely a non-issue with an EV.
The battery life and/or replacement cost need to come way down in order to make EV competitive with an equivalent ICE vehicles from an overall cost perspective. I think it will happen but we are not there yet. 5-10 yrs?
No they don't. https://www.wheelsjoint.com/toyota-camry-vs-tesla-model-3-cost-of-ownership-after-5-years/
-
No they don't. https://www.wheelsjoint.com/toyota-camry-vs-tesla-model-3-cost-of-ownership-after-5-years/
LOL what BS in that link.
First, they breakdown the total costs on the Camry but suspiciously don't on the Tesla.
They do mention depreciation on the Camry, $17,751 but claim they don't really have figures on the model 3 and use 34%, which is $15,055...a much lower figure of depreciation % than they used on the Camry.
-
No they don't. https://www.wheelsjoint.com/toyota-camry-vs-tesla-model-3-cost-of-ownership-after-5-years/
LOL what BS in that link.
First, they breakdown the total costs on the Camry but suspiciously don't on the Tesla.
They do mention depreciation on the Camry, $17,751 but claim they don't really have figures on the model 3 and use 34%, which is $15,055...a much lower figure of depreciation % than they used on the Camry.
Congratulations, you found the point! :P Go price a used Model 3, then go price a new one.
Here's KBB for a 2020 Model 3 with 4700 miles on it:
(https://i.imgur.com/1CuLlH4.png)
A 2021 is $48,190 new from Tesla after the documentation fee (and has 353 miles of EPA range vs 322 in 2020).
-
A 2018 with 14,000 miles on it is $32,000
A 2018 camry with 14,000 miles on it is $27,000
-
A 2018 with 14,000 miles on it is $32,000
A 2018 camry with 14,000 miles on it is $27,000
A 2018...SR, SR+, LR RWD, LR? What trim Camry?
Here is a 2018 Camry LE for $15,985 (https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inventorylisting/viewDetailsFilterViewInventoryListing.action?zip=07508&maxPrice=34000&maxMileage=15000&showNegotiable=true&sortDir=ASC&sourceContext=carGurusHomePageModel&distance=50000&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity2=c26652&sortType=DEAL_SCORE&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity=c26652#listing=289214457). MSRP started at $23,495, so it is listed at 68% of new MSRP.
The cheapest 2018 Model 3 under 14k miles in the US on Cargurus is a LR RWD at $37,500, which was $37,000 new after federal tax credit.
-
A 2018 with 14,000 miles on it is $32,000
A 2018 camry with 14,000 miles on it is $27,000
A 2018...SR, SR+, LR RWD, LR? What trim Camry?
Here is a 2018 Camry LE for $15,985 (https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inventorylisting/viewDetailsFilterViewInventoryListing.action?zip=07508&maxPrice=34000&maxMileage=15000&showNegotiable=true&sortDir=ASC&sourceContext=carGurusHomePageModel&distance=50000&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity2=c26652&sortType=DEAL_SCORE&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity=c26652#listing=289214457). MSRP started at $23,495, so it is listed at 68% of new MSRP.
The cheapest 2018 Model 3 under 14k miles in the US on Cargurus is a LR RWD at $37,500, which was $37,000 new after federal tax credit.
Maybe they are collector items now lol? I don't know why anyone would pay that much for a three year old car...
You can't really count the federal tax credit though in cost of ownership when you are discussing if battery tech is competitive cost wise since it will be going away at some point. Also, EV are not paying their fair share yet of road maintenance in a lot of places (a 3000 pound EV does just as much damage to road surfaces as a 3000 pound hybrid/gas) which may also change in the near future.
It is getting a lot closer for sure though. EV will take over very soon, sooner in places like CA.
-
Couple of points.
What rate of EV efficiency improvement will we see going forward? Looking at rankings of EVs by efficiency the top is sedans (mostly Tesla models) at 24-25 KwH per 100 miles; SUV form factor EVs are more like 30 KwH per 100 miles. EV design is still a relatively new field; what happens when companies aside from Tesla throw themselves into reducing inefficiencies in powertrain, etc? Might battery technology (such as designing batteries that serve in part as the vehicle body) help reduce vehicle weight substantially? I am thinking that 20 KwH per 100 miles for a sedan, and 25 KwH for an SUV, is a reasonable future goal.
Tesla's efficiency is not that great. They overstate their range figures by about 20% relative to other automakers. Multiple independent sources have confirmed it including Consumer Reports. There's also a number of Alex on Autos videos on youtube where he runs Teslas against other EVs and he's found the same thing in test after test with multiple different cars, multiple routes. What Tesla is reporting is legal, but it basically pushes the limits of what's legal. Other automakers take a much more middle of the road approach to estimating range.
When (if ever) does the charging landscape look consumer-friendly in the US? Tesla has obviously set up a great charging network for its vehicles, but public charging for non-Teslas in the US is (as I understand it) a bit of a dicey proposition. Lots of smaller companies providing charging services, each with their own system, lots of reports of frustrations/failures to charge. I don't even know if there's for sure one standard charging port style. Reminds me of Apple vs. Android.
Non issue, as has been pointed out. There's WAY more non-Tesla chargers out there than there are Tesla chargers in fact, with the last two years or so being the tipping point, partly due to the establishment of Electrify America as part of VW's penance for their destroying the planet with their diesel engines and then lying about it for years.
What political issues are going to be challenges? ICE vehicles provide funding for road maintenance through gas taxes; there is currently no such mechanism for EVs. Will public charging stations (and home ones?) be forced to introduce a tax intended to replace the gas tax? If not, how will states address the funding shortfall for road maintenance with more and more road miles coming from EVs?
No issues. The #1 greatest thing governments are good at is raising taxes. There is literally nothing governments do better than raising and collecting taxes. "Roads and bridges" is the most overused phrase in all of campaigning even though it accounts for only 1% of spending. There is no shortage of money, but it's the most visible infrastructure the government provides, thus it will always be used as a bogeyman to raise taxes. There will absolutely never ever be a shortage of money for roads and bridges, only the perception of a shortage as an excuse to raise taxes.
-
A 2018 with 14,000 miles on it is $32,000
A 2018 camry with 14,000 miles on it is $27,000
A 2018...SR, SR+, LR RWD, LR? What trim Camry?
Here is a 2018 Camry LE for $15,985 (https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inventorylisting/viewDetailsFilterViewInventoryListing.action?zip=07508&maxPrice=34000&maxMileage=15000&showNegotiable=true&sortDir=ASC&sourceContext=carGurusHomePageModel&distance=50000&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity2=c26652&sortType=DEAL_SCORE&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity=c26652#listing=289214457). MSRP started at $23,495, so it is listed at 68% of new MSRP.
The cheapest 2018 Model 3 under 14k miles in the US on Cargurus is a LR RWD at $37,500, which was $37,000 new after federal tax credit.
Maybe they are collector items now lol? I don't know why anyone would pay that much for a three year old car...
You can't really count the federal tax credit though in cost of ownership when you are discussing if battery tech is competitive cost wise since it will be going away at some point. Also, EV are not paying their fair share yet of road maintenance in a lot of places (a 3000 pound EV does just as much damage to road surfaces as a 3000 pound hybrid/gas) which may also change in the near future.
It is getting a lot closer for sure though. EV will take over very soon, sooner in places like CA.
That's what makes Tesla different. A three year old Model 3 is getting the same software updates that a new one is -- other than incremental improvements here and there, they're largely the same. New features and functionality get pushed out and boom, upgraded. There's just not a substantial difference between a 2018 and a 2021 Model 3, and there's nothing significant to wear out.
The federal tax credit has been gone for Tesla for a while - note the KBB image above for my car. It's still worth what I paid for it new, despite no tax credit.
Other EVs depreciate like rocks - take the Chevy Bolt for example, you can buy a 2017 Premiere for $15k now (a bargain IMO - I actually had one before NJ started a $5k rebate on new EVs). They were well over $40k new.
-
The battery life and/or replacement cost need to come way down in order to make EV competitive with an equivalent ICE vehicles from an overall cost perspective. I think it will happen but we are not there yet. 5-10 yrs?
I agree on battery-price needing to come down, but current technology has the battery outliving the cars useful life. Improvements should help that even further along.
Well designed EVs like those from Hyundai, Kia and Tesla all have active battery thermal management and these batteries last a long long time. Early Nissan Leafs didn't and get much worse degradation-
So they don't need to be replaced after 7-9 yrs? I'm not refuting this, I actually want to know. Do you have a link?
I'm not sure we have enough data to know how time plays a factor in battery lifespans, since the oldest mainstream Teslas are only 9 years old right now. But Tesloop has been pretty transparent with their costs and maintenance. They've got a handful of Teslas with over 300k miles, and they typically get about 200-400k miles out of a battery pack:
https://www.tesloop.com/blog/2018/7/16/tesloops-tesla-model-s-surpasses-400000-miles-643737-kilometers
Here's the cost breakdown for the entire life of 2 of their Teslas and 2 of their standard ICE counterparts:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HqBIOtNsYPalG51nAw_nubgskv4TQPGx8WhPZO4a_U8/edit#gid=0
I'd say that most ICE powered vehicles will need extensive engine and/or transmission work during a similar timeframe too so large maintenance/replacement costs over 300-500k miles of ownership aren't something that is isolated to EVs.
Also, in the Prius/Insight communities, there are lots of owners that DIY replacement of individual battery cells and keep driving on for a fraction of the cost of replacing the entire battery. You can often find individual battery cells for under $50/piece.
Thanks for the info. I thought the fuel savings would be more between a Tesla and a 20mpg Lincoln. Considering that I think you could get a comparable ICE car for $30k compared to a Model S, the fuel savings need to be tremendous.
-
The battery life and/or replacement cost need to come way down in order to make EV competitive with an equivalent ICE vehicles from an overall cost perspective. I think it will happen but we are not there yet. 5-10 yrs?
I agree on battery-price needing to come down, but current technology has the battery outliving the cars useful life. Improvements should help that even further along.
Well designed EVs like those from Hyundai, Kia and Tesla all have active battery thermal management and these batteries last a long long time. Early Nissan Leafs didn't and get much worse degradation-
So they don't need to be replaced after 7-9 yrs? I'm not refuting this, I actually want to know. Do you have a link?
I'm not sure we have enough data to know how time plays a factor in battery lifespans, since the oldest mainstream Teslas are only 9 years old right now. But Tesloop has been pretty transparent with their costs and maintenance. They've got a handful of Teslas with over 300k miles, and they typically get about 200-400k miles out of a battery pack:
https://www.tesloop.com/blog/2018/7/16/tesloops-tesla-model-s-surpasses-400000-miles-643737-kilometers
Here's the cost breakdown for the entire life of 2 of their Teslas and 2 of their standard ICE counterparts:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HqBIOtNsYPalG51nAw_nubgskv4TQPGx8WhPZO4a_U8/edit#gid=0
I'd say that most ICE powered vehicles will need extensive engine and/or transmission work during a similar timeframe too so large maintenance/replacement costs over 300-500k miles of ownership aren't something that is isolated to EVs.
Also, in the Prius/Insight communities, there are lots of owners that DIY replacement of individual battery cells and keep driving on for a fraction of the cost of replacing the entire battery. You can often find individual battery cells for under $50/piece.
Thanks for the info. I thought the fuel savings would be more between a Tesla and a 20mpg Lincoln. Considering that I think you could get a comparable ICE car for $30k compared to a Model S, the fuel savings need to be tremendous.
First, your target comparison should likely be a Model 3, not a Model S -- but what are you considering to be comparable? Acceleration, noise, fuel efficiency, maintenance costs, safety features all factored in?
-
No they don't. https://www.wheelsjoint.com/toyota-camry-vs-tesla-model-3-cost-of-ownership-after-5-years/
LOL what BS in that link.
First, they breakdown the total costs on the Camry but suspiciously don't on the Tesla.
They do mention depreciation on the Camry, $17,751 but claim they don't really have figures on the model 3 and use 34%, which is $15,055...a much lower figure of depreciation % than they used on the Camry.
A Camry is much bigger than a Model 3. A Civic is probably a better comparison. So $20k compared to $35k purchase price. You better be getting a lot of fuel savings. The opportunity cost of having an extra $15k equity stuck in a vehicle is around $750/yr alone. Which is more than I would pay for gas each year driving a Civic.
-
No they don't. https://www.wheelsjoint.com/toyota-camry-vs-tesla-model-3-cost-of-ownership-after-5-years/
LOL what BS in that link.
First, they breakdown the total costs on the Camry but suspiciously don't on the Tesla.
They do mention depreciation on the Camry, $17,751 but claim they don't really have figures on the model 3 and use 34%, which is $15,055...a much lower figure of depreciation % than they used on the Camry.
A Camry is much bigger than a Model 3. A Civic is probably a better comparison. So $20k compared to $35k purchase price. You better be getting a lot of fuel savings. The opportunity cost of having an extra $15k equity stuck in a vehicle is around $750/yr alone. Which is more than I would pay for gas each year driving a Civic.
Have you priced a Civic with premium audio, leather, auto LED headlights, auto wipers, heated front/rear seats, and AWD?
-
I'm not sure we have enough data to know how time plays a factor in battery lifespans, since the oldest mainstream Teslas are only 9 years old right now. But Tesloop has been pretty transparent with their costs and maintenance. They've got a handful of Teslas with over 300k miles, and they typically get about 200-400k miles out of a battery pack:
https://www.tesloop.com/blog/2018/7/16/tesloops-tesla-model-s-surpasses-400000-miles-643737-kilometers
Here's the cost breakdown for the entire life of 2 of their Teslas and 2 of their standard ICE counterparts:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HqBIOtNsYPalG51nAw_nubgskv4TQPGx8WhPZO4a_U8/edit#gid=0
I'd say that most ICE powered vehicles will need extensive engine and/or transmission work during a similar timeframe too so large maintenance/replacement costs over 300-500k miles of ownership aren't something that is isolated to EVs.
Also, in the Prius/Insight communities, there are lots of owners that DIY replacement of individual battery cells and keep driving on for a fraction of the cost of replacing the entire battery. You can often find individual battery cells for under $50/piece.
Thanks for the info. I thought the fuel savings would be more between a Tesla and a 20mpg Lincoln. Considering that I think you could get a comparable ICE car for $30k compared to a Model S, the fuel savings need to be tremendous.
Well Tesloop is located in CA and their cost to "fuel" the Tesla was estimated at $0.26/kwh. The national average price is around $0.13/kwh so you could probably cut the cost to "fuel" the Tesla in half in most places.
And their assumption with the ICE sedan was based on an estimate of $3/gal which is nowhere near what it would cost in the same CA environment that they operate their Teslas in (CA is currently $3.92/gal average for regular unleaded per AAA).
So the cost to fuel the ICE in the same situation as the Tesla would be about 30% higher than their estimate using current pricing. OR, if the comparison were done outside of CA, with more reasonable electric rates, then the cost to "fuel" the EV would be quite a bit lower.
The difference in purchase price is still a big deal, but it's not as bad as their comparison makes it out to be because most people pay a lot less for electricity, and their fueling costs for the ICE were based on estimates that aren't realistic in that environment. It's not really apples to apples.
-
Well designed EVs like those from Hyundai, Kia and Tesla all have active battery thermal management and these batteries last a long long time. Early Nissan Leafs didn't and get much worse degradation-
So they don't need to be replaced after 7-9 yrs? I'm not refuting this, I actually want to know. Do you have a link?
I have a 2013 Nissan Leaf. Advertised range was 84 miles. I still get 70+ miles. It was 2010-2012 Leafs that had the quickly degrading batteries. 2013 and later still have passive cooling, but the system is better designed.
Your replacement needs are going to depend entirely on your driving. If you're driving 80 highway miles a day and can't charge away from home, a small decrease in capacity is ruinous, and that kind of usage will likely degrade the batter more quickly. On the other hand, if you're driving 30 miles a day, I don't think we have a great idea of how long the battery will last. At least 10 years?
Really, EVs are economical and practical for 80% of current use cases (with the big caveat that you need a place to charge it). But people are willing to pay a big premium for that last 20% of use cases. That's why people buy trucks for that annual trip to the lake or the Suburban when they need to pick up the family from the airport.
-
I'm not sure we have enough data to know how time plays a factor in battery lifespans, since the oldest mainstream Teslas are only 9 years old right now. But Tesloop has been pretty transparent with their costs and maintenance. They've got a handful of Teslas with over 300k miles, and they typically get about 200-400k miles out of a battery pack:
https://www.tesloop.com/blog/2018/7/16/tesloops-tesla-model-s-surpasses-400000-miles-643737-kilometers
Here's the cost breakdown for the entire life of 2 of their Teslas and 2 of their standard ICE counterparts:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HqBIOtNsYPalG51nAw_nubgskv4TQPGx8WhPZO4a_U8/edit#gid=0
I'd say that most ICE powered vehicles will need extensive engine and/or transmission work during a similar timeframe too so large maintenance/replacement costs over 300-500k miles of ownership aren't something that is isolated to EVs.
Also, in the Prius/Insight communities, there are lots of owners that DIY replacement of individual battery cells and keep driving on for a fraction of the cost of replacing the entire battery. You can often find individual battery cells for under $50/piece.
Thanks for the info. I thought the fuel savings would be more between a Tesla and a 20mpg Lincoln. Considering that I think you could get a comparable ICE car for $30k compared to a Model S, the fuel savings need to be tremendous.
Well Tesloop is located in CA and their cost to "fuel" the Tesla was estimated at $0.26/kwh. The national average price is around $0.13/kwh so you could probably cut the cost to "fuel" the Tesla in half in most places.
And their assumption with the ICE sedan was based on an estimate of $3/gal which is nowhere near what it would cost in the same CA environment that they operate their Teslas in (CA is currently $3.92/gal average for regular unleaded per AAA).
So the cost to fuel the ICE in the same situation as the Tesla would be about 30% higher than their estimate using current pricing. OR, if the comparison were done outside of CA, with more reasonable electric rates, then the cost to "fuel" the EV would be quite a bit lower.
The difference in purchase price is still a big deal, but it's not as bad as their comparison makes it out to be because most people pay a lot less for electricity, and their fueling costs for the ICE were based on estimates that aren't realistic in that environment. It's not really apples to apples.
I believe 26c/kwh is supercharger pricing. I pay around 17c in NJ, and when I get around to changing to a time-of-use power plan I will charge off peak at 6-7c / kwh, so less than two cents a mile in power.
-
No they don't. https://www.wheelsjoint.com/toyota-camry-vs-tesla-model-3-cost-of-ownership-after-5-years/
LOL what BS in that link.
First, they breakdown the total costs on the Camry but suspiciously don't on the Tesla.
They do mention depreciation on the Camry, $17,751 but claim they don't really have figures on the model 3 and use 34%, which is $15,055...a much lower figure of depreciation % than they used on the Camry.
A Camry is much bigger than a Model 3. A Civic is probably a better comparison. So $20k compared to $35k purchase price. You better be getting a lot of fuel savings. The opportunity cost of having an extra $15k equity stuck in a vehicle is around $750/yr alone. Which is more than I would pay for gas each year driving a Civic.
It's not just size that matters for comparison. Tesla markets themselves and prices their products as a Premium/Luxury brand. You can argue the merits of that, but a BMW 3 series is a much better comparison to a Model 3 than a Civic is. They're nearly identical in size, offer both RWD and AWD, and have similar features/tech and driving focus. Your average Model 3 buyer is a lot more like the average BMW 3 series buyer than the average Civic buyer. Model 3 vs BMW 3 series pricing is very close, and probably favorable to the Tesla in most cases. The mid-size luxury sedan market has been a bloodbath in recent years because of the Model 3 success. I'm no Tesla fan, but they're sucking up market share in that space for a reason.
As for price gaps between EVs and similar ICE vehicles, compare what a Chevy Bolt is selling for vs a similar ICE hatchback. I'm seeing a lot of brand new Bolts being offered below $20k when they had MSRP of $38k. A Bolt that sells for $20-25k compares really well to an ICE hatchback that starts at $18k, especially if you try to get them equipped in a similar way.
-
On the other hand, if you're driving 30 miles a day, I don't think we have a great idea of how long the battery will last. At least 10 years?
Sure we do, EVs have been around since 2011 (Leaf). Plenty of data to say batteries will last as least as long as X years and Y miles. Those two variables are improving every year.
And the manufacturers warranty them for 8-10 years and 100K miles. Those batteries aren't failing immediately after the warranty ends. Bad PR if they did.
Buy a 250 mile EV and drive it 30 miles a day. Even if the range falls 50%, you still have 125 miles of range. The warranties usually state that if the battery capacity dips below a certain threshold during the warranty period, it'll be replaced or repaired. Some of these waranty thresholds are in the 75% range.
So, in 10 years or 100K miles, the manufacturer is guaranteeing that the battery will still have 187.5 miles left in it at 100% charge. Still plenty to accomplish a 30 mile daily use.
As mentioned an above comment about Teslas - Tesloop has shown that the battery degradation is not linear, at least in Teslas. I've seen graphs on the Leaf and the curve is different but not completely different.
-
No they don't. https://www.wheelsjoint.com/toyota-camry-vs-tesla-model-3-cost-of-ownership-after-5-years/
LOL what BS in that link.
First, they breakdown the total costs on the Camry but suspiciously don't on the Tesla.
They do mention depreciation on the Camry, $17,751 but claim they don't really have figures on the model 3 and use 34%, which is $15,055...a much lower figure of depreciation % than they used on the Camry.
A Camry is much bigger than a Model 3. A Civic is probably a better comparison. So $20k compared to $35k purchase price. You better be getting a lot of fuel savings. The opportunity cost of having an extra $15k equity stuck in a vehicle is around $750/yr alone. Which is more than I would pay for gas each year driving a Civic.
Have you priced a Civic with premium audio, leather, auto LED headlights, auto wipers, heated front/rear seats, and AWD?
I'm talking about mustachians like myself who probably aren't worried about all that extra garbage.
-
I'm not sure we have enough data to know how time plays a factor in battery lifespans, since the oldest mainstream Teslas are only 9 years old right now. But Tesloop has been pretty transparent with their costs and maintenance. They've got a handful of Teslas with over 300k miles, and they typically get about 200-400k miles out of a battery pack:
https://www.tesloop.com/blog/2018/7/16/tesloops-tesla-model-s-surpasses-400000-miles-643737-kilometers
Here's the cost breakdown for the entire life of 2 of their Teslas and 2 of their standard ICE counterparts:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HqBIOtNsYPalG51nAw_nubgskv4TQPGx8WhPZO4a_U8/edit#gid=0
I'd say that most ICE powered vehicles will need extensive engine and/or transmission work during a similar timeframe too so large maintenance/replacement costs over 300-500k miles of ownership aren't something that is isolated to EVs.
Also, in the Prius/Insight communities, there are lots of owners that DIY replacement of individual battery cells and keep driving on for a fraction of the cost of replacing the entire battery. You can often find individual battery cells for under $50/piece.
Thanks for the info. I thought the fuel savings would be more between a Tesla and a 20mpg Lincoln. Considering that I think you could get a comparable ICE car for $30k compared to a Model S, the fuel savings need to be tremendous.
Well Tesloop is located in CA and their cost to "fuel" the Tesla was estimated at $0.26/kwh. The national average price is around $0.13/kwh so you could probably cut the cost to "fuel" the Tesla in half in most places.
And their assumption with the ICE sedan was based on an estimate of $3/gal which is nowhere near what it would cost in the same CA environment that they operate their Teslas in (CA is currently $3.92/gal average for regular unleaded per AAA).
So the cost to fuel the ICE in the same situation as the Tesla would be about 30% higher than their estimate using current pricing. OR, if the comparison were done outside of CA, with more reasonable electric rates, then the cost to "fuel" the EV would be quite a bit lower.
The difference in purchase price is still a big deal, but it's not as bad as their comparison makes it out to be because most people pay a lot less for electricity, and their fueling costs for the ICE were based on estimates that aren't realistic in that environment. It's not really apples to apples.
That makes more sense. You would think tesla would be smart enough to make that adjustment so it is apples to apples.
-
No they don't. https://www.wheelsjoint.com/toyota-camry-vs-tesla-model-3-cost-of-ownership-after-5-years/
LOL what BS in that link.
First, they breakdown the total costs on the Camry but suspiciously don't on the Tesla.
They do mention depreciation on the Camry, $17,751 but claim they don't really have figures on the model 3 and use 34%, which is $15,055...a much lower figure of depreciation % than they used on the Camry.
A Camry is much bigger than a Model 3. A Civic is probably a better comparison. So $20k compared to $35k purchase price. You better be getting a lot of fuel savings. The opportunity cost of having an extra $15k equity stuck in a vehicle is around $750/yr alone. Which is more than I would pay for gas each year driving a Civic.
It's not just size that matters for comparison. Tesla markets themselves and prices their products as a Premium/Luxury brand. You can argue the merits of that, but a BMW 3 series is a much better comparison to a Model 3 than a Civic is. They're nearly identical in size, offer both RWD and AWD, and have similar features/tech and driving focus. Your average Model 3 buyer is a lot more like the average BMW 3 series buyer than the average Civic buyer. Model 3 vs BMW 3 series pricing is very close, and probably favorable to the Tesla in most cases. The mid-size luxury sedan market has been a bloodbath in recent years because of the Model 3 success. I'm no Tesla fan, but they're sucking up market share in that space for a reason.
As for price gaps between EVs and similar ICE vehicles, compare what a Chevy Bolt is selling for vs a similar ICE hatchback. I'm seeing a lot of brand new Bolts being offered below $20k when they had MSRP of $38k. A Bolt that sells for $20-25k compares really well to an ICE hatchback that starts at $18k, especially if you try to get them equipped in a similar way.
That is probably a better comparison. I didn't think you could get bolts for $20k. If the batteries do last the life of a typical ICE vehicle then it's probably more than worth it
-
No they don't. https://www.wheelsjoint.com/toyota-camry-vs-tesla-model-3-cost-of-ownership-after-5-years/
LOL what BS in that link.
First, they breakdown the total costs on the Camry but suspiciously don't on the Tesla.
They do mention depreciation on the Camry, $17,751 but claim they don't really have figures on the model 3 and use 34%, which is $15,055...a much lower figure of depreciation % than they used on the Camry.
A Camry is much bigger than a Model 3. A Civic is probably a better comparison. So $20k compared to $35k purchase price. You better be getting a lot of fuel savings. The opportunity cost of having an extra $15k equity stuck in a vehicle is around $750/yr alone. Which is more than I would pay for gas each year driving a Civic.
Have you priced a Civic with premium audio, leather, auto LED headlights, auto wipers, heated front/rear seats, and AWD?
I'm talking about mustachians like myself who probably aren't worried about all that extra garbage.
In that case, your comparison is invalid because you're not comparing equivalents, or even competitors.
-
That is probably a better comparison. I didn't think you could get bolts for $20k. If the batteries do last the life of a typical ICE vehicle then it's probably more than worth it
Just for easy window shopping look at Autotrader and CarMax as examples. Folks say CarMax is expensive so know that if true, you can probably beat that price.
We bought a CarMax car several years ago, self financed and it was a very competitive price and trouble free since then (45K->105K miles) now. They had the best price at that time and place compared to other potential sources si I don't agree that CarMax is automatically more expensive than other sources.
You might be surprised at what is available used and how few miles a used vehicle can have. Who turns in a car with 10K miles? - but people do.
I did the footwork for my employer to buy a Nissan Leaf with ~10K miles for ~$20K from CarMax. Car was and is like new.
-
I predict hydrogen fuel cells will replace batteries by 2030. Instead of Tesla super chargers, we'll be seeing hydrogen fuel at the pumps.
-
I predict hydrogen fuel cells will replace batteries by 2030. Instead of Tesla super chargers, we'll be seeing hydrogen fuel at the pumps.
I don't agree -- running power to new locations is not free, but neither is replacing gasoline storage tanks with high pressure tanks and hauling hydrogen all over the place. Electricity's simplicity is quite lovely - nearly no moving parts involved in charging stations, not much to go wrong, no spills to worry about, no tanks to build/store, no fuel to transport, and the infrastructure for it already exists nationwide.
-
Sure we do, EVs have been around since 2011 (Leaf). Plenty of data to say batteries will last as least as long as X years and Y miles. Those two variables are improving every year.
I'm not a skeptic. I have a 2013 Leaf and have lost less than 10% capacity. I would add many/most of the 2011/2012 Leafs don't have their original batteries. But I suspect battery degradation isn't linear, so do we know if my battery will last for 2 more years or 20?
Now, I'm well aware that a vision of small PEVs/shared cars/mass transit for 9X% of personal transportation is a pipe dream in this country and many others, at least for the next 50 years if not more, but I thought I would throw it out there as food for thought - this is the MMM forum, after all.
I agree with this, and it requires land-use reform, and I'm mildly optimistic about it. There's been some progress over the last few years with California (one of the worst offenders at the local level) making it easier to build housing at the state level.
-
Main problem with EVs as I see it,
The energy required to manufacture an EV is worse than petrol cars. The batteries are mined in one part of the world using dirty energy and shipped to the other side of the world for manufacturing. Then the cars are shipped around on massive oil tankers. There is nothing ‘green’ going on here.
The charging is inconvenient unless you have a garage with a fast charger at home. Millions of people live in apartments or houses with street parking.
The charging is slow. Who wants to wait 30mins to 5 hours to get enough electricity to take you where you need to go? It’s slowing the world down.
The electricity coming out of the plug is usually not green at all. In Australia it is burnt coal. In other countries even worse.
The cars are dynamically not very good, much Heavier than normal cars which is not good for handling, unless a Porsche Taycan which is wildly expensive.
Popular affordable brands like Tesla have very limited model ranges limiting appeal
The owners of EVs are too quirky for me.
Result? I will stick to petrol and diesel cars as long as possible.
-
I predict hydrogen fuel cells will replace batteries by 2030. Instead of Tesla super chargers, we'll be seeing hydrogen fuel at the pumps.
They haven't particularly caught on in the last three decades so I really doubt it will in the next either. It has numerous problems (some of which are mentioned above by JLee) and the automotive industry is already leaning heavily into BEVs.
-
Main problem with EVs as I see it,
1. The energy required to manufacture an EV is worse than petrol cars. The batteries are mined in one part of the world using dirty energy and shipped to the other side of the world for manufacturing. Then the cars are shipped around on massive oil tankers. There is nothing ‘green’ going on here.
2. The charging is inconvenient unless you have a garage with a fast charger at home. Millions of people live in apartments or houses with street parking.
3. The charging is slow. Who wants to wait 30mins to 5 hours to get enough electricity to take you where you need to go? It’s slowing the world down.
4. The electricity coming out of the plug is usually not green at all. In Australia it is burnt coal. In other countries even worse.
5. The cars are dynamically not very good, much Heavier than normal cars which is not good for handling, unless a Porsche Taycan which is wildly expensive.
6. Popular affordable brands like Tesla have very limited model ranges limiting appeal
7. The owners of EVs are too quirky for me.
Result? I will stick to petrol and diesel cars as long as possible.
1) Lifecycle emissions are superior to ICE: Source 1 (https://blog.ucsusa.org/rachael-nealer/gasoline-vs-electric-global-warming-emissions-953), Source 2 (https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change)
2) Millions of people also live in apartments or houses with accessibility to or potential to install EV chargers.
3) How often are you driving more than 300 miles in a day? If you are, you're certainly not using level 2 charging on the road, so your 5 hour wait is hyperbolic. If you're not, it's a non issue because any modern EV will easily fully recharge overnight on a household L2 charger.
4) Solar is projected to provide 48% of US power by 2050, and five years ago 24% of global energy was renewable. (https://www.c2es.org/content/renewable-energy/) This is only going to get better with time and technology.
5) A Tesla Model 3 Performance set a lap time of 1:41.28 (https://drivetribe.com/p/tesla-model-3-performance-is-the-QWDGk8iBSFW8ZJObva6BJQ?iid=ETH-yWzERfip69JkDTwAjw) at Laguna Seca. For reference, a Jaguar F-Type R (https://fastestlaps.com/models/jaguar-f-type-r-coupe) ran 1:42.00 and an Alfa Romeo 4C (https://fastestlaps.com/models/alfa-romeo-4c) 1:43.78.
6) The Model 3 is the best selling car across all passenger segments in California (https://thedriven.io/2020/06/04/tesla-beats-toyota-and-honda-as-model-3-becomes-top-selling-car-in-california/) and their production is still not ahead of demand (current estimated delivery from order is 8-12 weeks).
7) I can't help you there.
-
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have been “10 years away” for the last 20 years.
-
Couple of factual errors @JLee already pointed out, and I have a few points to add regarding power sources:
US power source by fuel type: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php
Natural gas: 40%
Nuclear: 20%
Coal: 19%
Oil: 1%
Renewable: 20%
Canadian power source by fuel type:
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science-data/data-analysis/energy-data-analysis/energy-facts/electricity-facts/20068
67% Renewable
15% Nuclear
11% Natural gas/oil
7% Coal
EU: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/pdfscache/9990.pdf
30% Renewable
27% Nuclear
43% Natural Gas & Coal (30% Natural gas, 13% coal from other sources, but not specified here)
All of those sources except coal are lower emitters per watt than oil, and when accounting for efficiencies of coal power plants (~80%) vs car engines (30-40%), coal is probably on par (if not lower). Overall, as percent of energy source, renewable and natural gas are increasing while nuclear is slowly dropping and coal is dropping quickly.
-
To add to @Abe, if the primary argument is "our power is made by coal" that's not as much a downfall of EVs as it is a criticism of an antiquated power generation system that should be replaced anyway!
-
This seems like as good a place/time as any to drop this link:
The Dirty Truth about Combustion Engine Vehicles on the Fully Charged channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk-LnUYEXuM)
Unfortunately leaves out some stuff and obviously has some bias but otherwise generally a good overview of why we want a future with EVs.
-
Not that I think it will happen, but I want the future of EVs to look more like https://www.biohybrid.com/en/ than a tesla or bolt. The problem is that for the price of a new bio-hybrid, I could buy a lighty used bolt. If the enclosed ebike could get closer to the economy of scale that lets a bolt be sold new for $30k and bring it the ebike down to 3k (because, let's be honest, there's a lot less material, battery, motor, etc there) -- that's really more in line with what we need than more full-on cars, EV or otherwise.
I mean my unenclosed (cargo) ebike I have is nice. But it'd be sure nice to have a canopy/sides/3+ wheels when it is cold/rainy/icy/windy. That describes probably half the year here, if you include weather during late spring/summer/early fall.
-
I predict hydrogen fuel cells will replace batteries by 2030. Instead of Tesla super chargers, we'll be seeing hydrogen fuel at the pumps.
They haven't particularly caught on in the last three decades so I really doubt it will in the next either. It has numerous problems (some of which are mentioned above by JLee) and the automotive industry is already leaning heavily into BEVs.
BEVs are nice options for a lot of personal vehicles, but they're really lacking for a lot of commercial applications. There's just not enough energy density, and you end up hauling around a bunch of heavy batteries all the time, whether they're charged or not. In the last 3-5 years, there has been a lot of money dumped into fuel cells by companies that make vocational vehicles, ships, trains, etc. That's where I think hydrogen is most likely to catch on. I know that fuel cells have been 'The Next Big Thing' for a long time, but there's been more investment in the last 5 years than any time before, and we're seeing more and more real world applications trickle out. A few SE Asian countries are even taking nationwide approaches to adopt hydrogen.
It's not without flaws, but hydrogen made via renewable energy has some potential advantages over batteries in both usefulness and environmental impact. Thinking about it more, I guess I see hydrogen as the diesel of the future (less commonly found, but great for applications where getting work done efficiently is mission critical) and BEVs more like a gasoline equivalent (more common, and good enough/cheap enough to work for most civilian needs).
-
I predict hydrogen fuel cells will replace batteries by 2030. Instead of Tesla super chargers, we'll be seeing hydrogen fuel at the pumps.
They haven't particularly caught on in the last three decades so I really doubt it will in the next either. It has numerous problems (some of which are mentioned above by JLee) and the automotive industry is already leaning heavily into BEVs.
BEVs are nice options for a lot of personal vehicles, but they're really lacking for a lot of commercial applications. There's just not enough energy density, and you end up hauling around a bunch of heavy batteries all the time, whether they're charged or not. In the last 3-5 years, there has been a lot of money dumped into fuel cells by companies that make vocational vehicles, ships, trains, etc. That's where I think hydrogen is most likely to catch on. I know that fuel cells have been 'The Next Big Thing' for a long time, but there's been more investment in the last 5 years than any time before, and we're seeing more and more real world applications trickle out. A few SE Asian countries are even taking nationwide approaches to adopt hydrogen.
It's not without flaws, but hydrogen made via renewable energy has some potential advantages over batteries in both usefulness and environmental impact. Thinking about it more, I guess I see hydrogen as the diesel of the future (less commonly found, but great for applications where getting work done efficiently is mission critical) and BEVs more like a gasoline equivalent (more common, and good enough/cheap enough to work for most civilian needs).
Ah, yes, I should clarify that I was specifically referring to hydrogen fuel cells in passenger vehicles (first proof-of-concept in 1991). Energy density is a huge advantage for hydrogen so I can see it becoming viable for some commercial level applications.
-
A hydrogen fuel cell car is an EV with a fuel cell to recharge a smallish battery. So it is a more complicated, more expensive EV.
And so far, the fuel cell itself isn't durable. Needs to be replaced several times over the course of the vehicle's lifetime according to what I've read.
The only advantage to the owner is that it refuels faster than an EV. The real advantage is to the oil companies who are guaranteed a product that everyone needs to buy to motor around town. And there is far, far, far less fuel cell infrastructure for refueling than there is EV infrastructure. And any EV can charge off of any electrical outlet with the right adapters.
Installing a commercial L2 EV charger is dead simple. Hydrogen infrastructure always seems to include a fueling station (tanks, lighting, etc) so more expensive and complex.
https://youtu.be/9AQhZEdWXnI
As batteries continue to improve they'll get lighter, more durable, and smaller. We are already witnessing that trend.
As for delivery and commercial vehicles - many of those vehicles don't drive that many miles per day. Our rural route mail lady says she drives ~75 miles a day. Even if a UPS/FedEX/DHL driver drove twice that much, its very doable in 2021 using an EV delivery van.
-
Not that I think it will happen, but I want the future of EVs to look more like https://www.biohybrid.com/en/ than a tesla or bolt. The problem is that for the price of a new bio-hybrid, I could buy a lighty used bolt. If the enclosed ebike could get closer to the economy of scale that lets a bolt be sold new for $30k and bring it the ebike down to 3k (because, let's be honest, there's a lot less material, battery, motor, etc there) -- that's really more in line with what we need than more full-on cars, EV or otherwise.
I mean my unenclosed (cargo) ebike I have is nice. But it'd be sure nice to have a canopy/sides/3+ wheels when it is cold/rainy/icy/windy. That describes probably half the year here, if you include weather during late spring/summer/early fall.
I'm wholeheartedly behind light duty pedal/battery powered hybrids in urban environments if the infrastructure is done right. Culturally we Americans seem welded to the idea of ever larger, faster cars. I'd also like to see a spoke shape bike path system in our small town into the rural parts of the county. Help the people who want to pedal into and around town do so. Get some cars off the road. Traffic here is lousy due to volume. I'm sure the city will decide to widen all the streets so it becomes impossible to walk or bicycle anywhere. It is unlikely that this town will ever do much about bike paths for utility. We have some paths but its for recreation.
-
EVs have a long way to go at about 3% market share in the US, most of which is Tesla which continues to suffer appalling reliability.
-
EVs have a long way to go at about 3% market share in the US, most of which is Tesla which continues to suffer appalling reliability.
...and?
Average vehicle age in the US is nearly 12 years. It will take time.
-
A hydrogen fuel cell car is an EV with a fuel cell to recharge a smallish battery. So it is a more complicated, more expensive EV.
And so far, the fuel cell itself isn't durable. Needs to be replaced several times over the course of the vehicle's lifetime according to what I've read.
The only advantage to the owner is that it refuels faster than an EV. The real advantage is to the oil companies who are guaranteed a product that everyone needs to buy to motor around town. And there is far, far, far less fuel cell infrastructure for refueling than there is EV infrastructure. And any EV can charge off of any electrical outlet with the right adapters.
Installing a commercial L2 EV charger is dead simple. Hydrogen infrastructure always seems to include a fueling station (tanks, lighting, etc) so more expensive and complex.
https://youtu.be/9AQhZEdWXnI
As batteries continue to improve they'll get lighter, more durable, and smaller. We are already witnessing that trend.
As for delivery and commercial vehicles - many of those vehicles don't drive that many miles per day. Our rural route mail lady says she drives ~75 miles a day. Even if a UPS/FedEX/DHL driver drove twice that much, its very doable in 2021 using an EV delivery van.
Delivery vans and mail trucks are relatively light duty, and they typically start and finish their day in the same location where they can charge for several hours. They're a good enough fit for batteries that they can be done right now. But things like trains, boats, semi trucks, heavy construction equipment, airplanes, etc are not good fits for batteries because batteries are too heavy, take up too much space, or simply cannot be charged with any certainty due to the location. Big machines that do hard work will sap batteries very quickly. This is a problem with energy density and duty cycle. It's going to take major battery breakthroughs to fix that for these applications. Look at the 50-60% range losses that a Tesla might have while towing a small trailer and you get the idea.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1122487_towing-a-camper-with-a-tesla-model-x-thank-elon-for-superchargers
Now scale that small trailer up from 3800lbs in that story to 50k lbs, make it larger/less aerodynamic, and let the driver do the speed limit instead of being limited to 50-55mph and the problem is made even worse. And that's before you consider lengthy charge times. If you need to get a ship full of goods across an ocean, or 80k lbs from the west cost to the east coast, or a train half a mile long up the coast or a big pile of dirt loaded into trucks ASAP, batteries require a lot of compromises right now. Hydrogen packs more energy density into a given volume than a battery, gets lighter as it's consumed, and the smaller battery uses far fewer rare Earth minerals, so much like a PHEV, you can spread out the amount of battery material that might go into a single EV into multiple vehicles and get more environmental bang for your buck. You're correct that it's got massive hurdles like infrastructure to overcome, particularly in the US. But if it can be made to work (with lots of green electricity generation and money spent on infrastructure), it's probably a better overall solution than vehicles that are strictly battery powered.
-
Our 2018 Ford Transit mid roof van is *almost* the perfect vehicle.
It has 5'9" of headroom, can easily fit a 10 foot long item in the cargo hold and can convert to a camper with a queen size memory foam mattress with storage underneath in about 5 minutes.
The ONLY problem is it sucks in the snow. It is RWD and unless you load up the back with 3000 pounds, the tires just spin in the snow.
If you were to take the powertrain of a 2 motor cybertruck, with all wheels powered, give it a 250kWh battery, put it in this van, you would have IMO the most bad ass vehicle around. 300+ mile range, ability to tow, excellent AWD snow/ice performance, and the ultimate camper with a 250kWh battery bank for extended stays with no generator noise.
Elon, you listening?
-
Look at ICE vehicle advancement over the past 100 years. Considering technology and international commercial cooperation today compared to 100 yrs ago, I think EV tech will develop much faster. It has been around 25 yrs since the first Toyota Prius. I find myself reading about new battery tech at least monthly. I suspect we will see significant increases in power density and reduced charged times over the next 10 -15 yrs or so. I wouldn't be surprised to see 1k mile driving range within that timeframe. It may even be eventually be possible to have lighter EV sports cars that have similar driving ranges as ICE. The batteries we use now are far from eco friendly, but I suspect we will see improvements in this area as well.
One of the areas we need to improve is infrastructure. I see Biden is already trying to tackle this one. I don't know how standardized these are, but it makes sense to standardize, similar to fuel pumps. I see a large uptick in solar in the south, which is also experiencing a lot research. It only makes sense that we will see solar becoming more common on residential homes that compliment in-home charging for personal EV's.
I also think that we will see an increase in safer and more cost effective use of nuclear. Bill Gates is partnering with a company that is building one example of this and it looks very promising. Nuclear would provide added supply for the expansion of electric demand.
I can honestly say I haven't been very interested in EV's so far, but I think they are a necessary step toward reduced emissions and they are here to stay. If humanity expects to use Earth as our primary residence long-term, we have no choice but to find better ways to live with the planet, instead of living on the planet.
-
Look at ICE vehicle advancement over the past 100 years. Considering technology and international commercial cooperation today compared to 100 yrs ago, I think EV tech will development much faster. It has been around 25 yrs since the first Toyota Prius. I find myself reading about new battery tech at least monthly. I suspect we will see significant increases in power density and reduced charged times over the next 10 -15 yrs or so. I wouldn't be surprised to see 1k mile driving range within that timeframe. It may even be eventually be possible to have lighter EV sports cars that have similar driving ranges as ICE. The batteries we use now are far from eco friendly, but I suspect we will see improvements in this area as well.
One of the areas we need to improve is infrastructure. I see Biden is already trying to tackle this one. I don't know how standardized these are, but it makes sense to standardize, similar to fuel pumps. I see a large uptick in solar in the south, which is also experiencing a lot research. It only makes sense that we will see solar becoming more common on residential homes that compliment in-home charging for personal EV's.
I also think that we will see an increase in safer and more cost effective use of nuclear. Bill Gates is partnering with a company that is building one example of this and it looks very promising. Nuclear would provide added supply for the expansion of electric demand.
I can honestly say I haven't been very interested in EV's so far, but I think they are a necessary step toward reduced emissions and they are here to stay. If humanity expects to use Earth as our primary residence long-term, we have no choice but to find better ways to live with the planet, instead of living on the planet.
That's an important point that I think a lot of people miss - we are very early into the world of EVs, and they're being compared against the pinnacle of 100+ years of ICE engineering and development. If you were to compare to emissions/environmental impact of a cars from even three decades ago, the difference would be utterly astonishing.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0037-5
(https://i.imgur.com/oz3bYzV.png)
-
If you need to get a ship full of goods across an ocean, or 80k lbs from the west cost to the east coast, or a train half a mile long up the coast or a big pile of dirt loaded into trucks ASAP, batteries require a lot of compromises right now. Hydrogen packs more energy density into a given volume than a battery, gets lighter as it's consumed, and the smaller battery uses far fewer rare Earth minerals, so much like a PHEV, you can spread out the amount of battery material that might go into a single EV into multiple vehicles and get more environmental bang for your buck. You're correct that it's got massive hurdles like infrastructure to overcome, particularly in the US. But if it can be made to work (with lots of green electricity generation and money spent on infrastructure), it's probably a better overall solution than vehicles that are strictly battery powered.
True on some of those applications. I expect alot of coast to coast freight could be better served by trains with the last leg done by electric delivery trucks (train depot to customer). Of course that implies a major change to how America does business and change happens slowly. The trucking company won't just let themselves be rendered obsolete overnight.
I think commercial traffic might be a good fit for fuel cells - they already have the maintenance facilities to repair these vehicles when they need complex repairs. They can have a hydrogen depot onsite, etc.
Still, we'll see if Tesla trucks are well received by trucking companies. They may be able to put enough range into their trucks that the driver is restricted by driving hours rather than miles or recharge times.
-
If you need to get a ship full of goods across an ocean, or 80k lbs from the west cost to the east coast, or a train half a mile long up the coast or a big pile of dirt loaded into trucks ASAP, batteries require a lot of compromises right now. Hydrogen packs more energy density into a given volume than a battery, gets lighter as it's consumed, and the smaller battery uses far fewer rare Earth minerals, so much like a PHEV, you can spread out the amount of battery material that might go into a single EV into multiple vehicles and get more environmental bang for your buck. You're correct that it's got massive hurdles like infrastructure to overcome, particularly in the US. But if it can be made to work (with lots of green electricity generation and money spent on infrastructure), it's probably a better overall solution than vehicles that are strictly battery powered.
True on some of those applications. I expect alot of coast to coast freight could be better served by trains with the last leg done by electric delivery trucks (train depot to customer). Of course that implies a major change to how America does business and change happens slowly. The trucking company won't just let themselves be rendered obsolete overnight.
I think commercial traffic might be a good fit for fuel cells - they already have the maintenance facilities to repair these vehicles when they need complex repairs. They can have a hydrogen depot onsite, etc.
Still, we'll see if Tesla trucks are well received by trucking companies. They may be able to put enough range into their trucks that the driver is restricted by driving hours rather than miles or recharge times.
The potential for Tesla trucks to convoy is interesting - geese style, with the first one doing the aero work and the rest tucked right in behind.
-
Ocean shipping has a alot of room to improve. I'm sure like everything else their strategy starts with cheap to maximize profits. They use the cheapest and dirtiest fuels. Could do fuel cells, nukes, diesel-electric, etc. More expensive cleaner fuels, higher construction costs, and more expensive expertise to operate and maintain.
Low cost is more important than paying for the pollution (long term consequences).
-
Ocean shipping has a alot of room to improve. I'm sure like everything else their strategy starts with cheap to maximize profits. They use the cheapest and dirtiest fuels. Could do fuel cells, nukes, diesel-electric, etc. More expensive cleaner fuels, higher construction costs, and more expensive expertise to operate and maintain.
Low cost is more important than paying for the pollution (long term consequences).
Ironically ocean shipping has the lowest carbon footprint (https://www.sourcinghub.io/air-freight-vs-sea-freight-carbon-footprint/) of any shipping method, but yeah the fuel is horrifically dirty.
-
Look at ICE vehicle advancement over the past 100 years. Considering technology and international commercial cooperation today compared to 100 yrs ago, I think EV tech will development much faster. It has been around 25 yrs since the first Toyota Prius. I find myself reading about new battery tech at least monthly. I suspect we will see significant increases in power density and reduced charged times over the next 10 -15 yrs or so. I wouldn't be surprised to see 1k mile driving range within that timeframe. It may even be eventually be possible to have lighter EV sports cars that have similar driving ranges as ICE. The batteries we use now are far from eco friendly, but I suspect we will see improvements in this area as well.
One of the areas we need to improve is infrastructure. I see Biden is already trying to tackle this one. I don't know how standardized these are, but it makes sense to standardize, similar to fuel pumps. I see a large uptick in solar in the south, which is also experiencing a lot research. It only makes sense that we will see solar becoming more common on residential homes that compliment in-home charging for personal EV's.
I also think that we will see an increase in safer and more cost effective use of nuclear. Bill Gates is partnering with a company that is building one example of this and it looks very promising. Nuclear would provide added supply for the expansion of electric demand.
I can honestly say I haven't been very interested in EV's so far, but I think they are a necessary step toward reduced emissions and they are here to stay. If humanity expects to use Earth as our primary residence long-term, we have no choice but to find better ways to live with the planet, instead of living on the planet.
That's an important point that I think a lot of people miss - we are very early into the world of EVs, and they're being compared against the pinnacle of 100+ years of ICE engineering and development. If you were to compare to emissions/environmental impact of a cars from even three decades ago, the difference would be utterly astonishing.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0037-5
(https://i.imgur.com/oz3bYzV.png)
Just curious, do you know what caused the jump in the US around 2001?
-
Look at ICE vehicle advancement over the past 100 years. Considering technology and international commercial cooperation today compared to 100 yrs ago, I think EV tech will development much faster. It has been around 25 yrs since the first Toyota Prius. I find myself reading about new battery tech at least monthly. I suspect we will see significant increases in power density and reduced charged times over the next 10 -15 yrs or so. I wouldn't be surprised to see 1k mile driving range within that timeframe. It may even be eventually be possible to have lighter EV sports cars that have similar driving ranges as ICE. The batteries we use now are far from eco friendly, but I suspect we will see improvements in this area as well.
One of the areas we need to improve is infrastructure. I see Biden is already trying to tackle this one. I don't know how standardized these are, but it makes sense to standardize, similar to fuel pumps. I see a large uptick in solar in the south, which is also experiencing a lot research. It only makes sense that we will see solar becoming more common on residential homes that compliment in-home charging for personal EV's.
I also think that we will see an increase in safer and more cost effective use of nuclear. Bill Gates is partnering with a company that is building one example of this and it looks very promising. Nuclear would provide added supply for the expansion of electric demand.
I can honestly say I haven't been very interested in EV's so far, but I think they are a necessary step toward reduced emissions and they are here to stay. If humanity expects to use Earth as our primary residence long-term, we have no choice but to find better ways to live with the planet, instead of living on the planet.
That's an important point that I think a lot of people miss - we are very early into the world of EVs, and they're being compared against the pinnacle of 100+ years of ICE engineering and development. If you were to compare to emissions/environmental impact of a cars from even three decades ago, the difference would be utterly astonishing.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0037-5
(https://i.imgur.com/oz3bYzV.png)
Just curious, do you know what caused the jump in the US around 2001?
It's in the article as "(The increase in 2002 U.S. NOx is due to an EPA modeling methodology change.)"
-
Oh sorry.....didn't see the link.
-
If you need to get a ship full of goods across an ocean, or 80k lbs from the west cost to the east coast, or a train half a mile long up the coast or a big pile of dirt loaded into trucks ASAP, batteries require a lot of compromises right now. Hydrogen packs more energy density into a given volume than a battery, gets lighter as it's consumed, and the smaller battery uses far fewer rare Earth minerals, so much like a PHEV, you can spread out the amount of battery material that might go into a single EV into multiple vehicles and get more environmental bang for your buck. You're correct that it's got massive hurdles like infrastructure to overcome, particularly in the US. But if it can be made to work (with lots of green electricity generation and money spent on infrastructure), it's probably a better overall solution than vehicles that are strictly battery powered.
True on some of those applications. I expect alot of coast to coast freight could be better served by trains with the last leg done by electric delivery trucks (train depot to customer). Of course that implies a major change to how America does business and change happens slowly. The trucking company won't just let themselves be rendered obsolete overnight.
Trains are great for efficiency, but they take a long time. If you need something on the other side of the country tomorrow, it goes on a plane. If you need it there next week, it goes on a truck. If you need it there next month, then trains are probably good enough.
I think commercial traffic might be a good fit for fuel cells - they already have the maintenance facilities to repair these vehicles when they need complex repairs. They can have a hydrogen depot onsite, etc.
Yeah. There are fuel cell trains running in Europe right now that have hydrogen fueling on both ends of the line. I haven't heard any reviews yet but it seems like a good fit. Or if that's not viable, they could truck in hydrogen like they currently do for other liquid fuels.
Still, we'll see if Tesla trucks are well received by trucking companies. They may be able to put enough range into their trucks that the driver is restricted by driving hours rather than miles or recharge times.
You still run into the energy density issues. Batteries are really heavy. Trucks are capped at 80k lbs of combined weight for the truck, trailer, and it's cargo. Based on some spy shots of the Tesla semi and it's reported gross weight at the time, it's probably 5-7klbs heavier than an average diesel powered truck. That means the truck potentially hauls less cargo at a time, which means you essentially use more trucks to haul an equal amount of goods. The lack of nationwide parts/service for the Tesla truck compared to it's peers could be a hurdle as well. There are numerous truck repair places across the country right now that have common parts on hand to make quick repairs, and techs trained on those repairs. Tesla may eventually get to the same point, but they don't have the same support capability currently which could be seen as a detriment by a fleet owner.
-
I think at this point that there is little doubt that the next century belongs to EV for all privat and light commercial traffic. Very likely the electric drivetrain will also dominate heavy transport at some point, but the picture is more murky.
EV's are inarguably better for our climate: https://thedriven.io/2020/04/27/life-cycle-emissions-of-electric-cars-are-fraction-of-fossil-fuelled-vehicles/ (https://thedriven.io/2020/04/27/life-cycle-emissions-of-electric-cars-are-fraction-of-fossil-fuelled-vehicles/)
There is real hard science all over the internet documenting this again and again and again.
However what really will transform the world will be the combination of self driving technology and the electric drive train. I urge anyone with an interest in this topic to watch Tony Sebas presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYFbnrBrbhs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYFbnrBrbhs).
There is good reason to believe that working from home, autonomous transportation and electric drivetrains will transform the urban landscape over the coming decade. I hope that it changes to more liveable, walkable, bikeable cities centered around the human experience not the car.
But in my personal opinion the future is heading to electric vehicles and ICE will be regarded as a technology from the dark ages.
If batteries improve by even 20% over what is currently available then no ICE vehicle will be able to match any EV at any price. This is highly likely given the trajectory of battery tech over the last 10-20 years.
-
ICE vehicle have also become increasingly complex as they try to squeeze out power and every MPG possible. I remember talking to a vehicle repair shop in 2019, where the owner said he was soon to leave the business due to the increased complexity of cars. He said he couldn't afford to keep up with the diagnostic equipment needed to effectively troubleshoot newer cars. Engines and all of the parts needed to support their operation on a vehicle is extensive. EV's seem relatively simple to me. The platform GM is buying into is a "universal sled" to be used under many different vehicle types. I suspect an EV's long-term cost to own and maintain will be lower.
-
If you need to get a ship full of goods across an ocean, or 80k lbs from the west cost to the east coast, or a train half a mile long up the coast or a big pile of dirt loaded into trucks ASAP, batteries require a lot of compromises right now.
If the demand was there - and there would be if planes and trucks were no longer viable ways to express ship things - I'm sure the rail industry could start running express freight trains from one coast to another. A bullet train could do it in about 15 hours (using fast math). A fast freight train might be able to do it in double or triple that which is still pretty fast. Faster than a truck b/c drivers need sleep.
-
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have been “10 years away” for the last 20 years.
Third time's the charm!
-
I predict hydrogen fuel cells will replace batteries by 2030. Instead of Tesla super chargers, we'll be seeing hydrogen fuel at the pumps.
They haven't particularly caught on in the last three decades so I really doubt it will in the next either. It has numerous problems (some of which are mentioned above by JLee) and the automotive industry is already leaning heavily into BEVs.
BEVs are nice options for a lot of personal vehicles, but they're really lacking for a lot of commercial applications. There's just not enough energy density, and you end up hauling around a bunch of heavy batteries all the time, whether they're charged or not. In the last 3-5 years, there has been a lot of money dumped into fuel cells by companies that make vocational vehicles, ships, trains, etc. That's where I think hydrogen is most likely to catch on. I know that fuel cells have been 'The Next Big Thing' for a long time, but there's been more investment in the last 5 years than any time before, and we're seeing more and more real world applications trickle out. A few SE Asian countries are even taking nationwide approaches to adopt hydrogen.
It's not without flaws, but hydrogen made via renewable energy has some potential advantages over batteries in both usefulness and environmental impact. Thinking about it more, I guess I see hydrogen as the diesel of the future (less commonly found, but great for applications where getting work done efficiently is mission critical) and BEVs more like a gasoline equivalent (more common, and good enough/cheap enough to work for most civilian needs).
It's good to see at least a couple of people straying away from the herd of BEV believers! This thread is going to be pretty boring if we're just going to extrapolate from Tesla, the Nissan leaf and the Chevrolet volt. (Or is it the bolt? There's an imaginative name for you.) The US and Canada used to be full of innovative people with imagination. It wasn't just Elon Musk. Instead of jumping on the BEV wagon, companies would be exploring hydrogen more aggressively. Most plentiful substance in the universe, maybe there's some use for it?
-
...
It's good to see at least a couple of people straying away from the herd of BEV believers! This thread is going to be pretty boring if we're just going to extrapolate from Tesla, the Nissan leaf and the Chevrolet volt. (Or is it the bolt? There's an imaginative name for you.) The US and Canada used to be full of innovative people with imagination. It wasn't just Elon Musk. Instead of jumping on the BEV wagon, companies would be exploring hydrogen more aggressively. Most plentiful substance in the universe, maybe there's some use for it?
Hydrogen is plentiful but not in useful forms. It takes a lot of tech and energy (or carbon) to get it into a useful form to fuel anything. It also degrades storage tanks in a matter of years. But it may be a great solution in some things that are not small/medium trucks or personal vehicles.
-
True on some of those applications. I expect alot of coast to coast freight could be better served by trains with the last leg done by electric delivery trucks (train depot to customer). Of course that implies a major change to how America does business and change happens slowly. The trucking company won't just let themselves be rendered obsolete overnight.
Fun fact: the USA already leads the world in freight by rail. People complain about not enough passenger rail, but the effect has been that rail lines are almost completely devoted to freight and they increase capacity every year. https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/IS.RRS.GOOD.MT.K6/rankings What the US lacks in passenger rail is made up for by the fact the existing rail lines are almost exclusively and heavily utilized for freight, which is arguably the better usage anyway.
-
Hydrogen is plentiful but not in useful forms. It takes a lot of tech and energy (or carbon) to get it into a useful form to fuel anything. It also degrades storage tanks in a matter of years. But it may be a great solution in some things that are not small/medium trucks or personal vehicles.
Hydrogen embrittlement?
-
Hydrogen *is* difficult to store and transfer. But once these problems are solved for commercial vehicles, they can be applied to consumer vehicles.
And hydrogen can be produced locally using the same electricity you BEV people would use to recharge your batteries. No need for a huge distribution system as we have for gasoline.
-
Hydrogen *is* difficult to store and transfer. But once these problems are solved for commercial vehicles, they can be applied to consumer vehicles.
And hydrogen can be produced locally using the same electricity you BEV people would use to recharge your batteries. No need for a huge distribution system as we have for gasoline.
So...it's used like a battery. And the upside is...faster recharging? I checked Amazon and they don't sell hydrogen refuelers for a couple hundred or less (or for any price that I can see), so...how do I charge one of these hydrogen dohickies at home?
-
Correct, hydrogen is basically a battery, but its a battery with dramatically higher charging losses than current "normal" batteries. Where you lose something like 10-15% to fast charge a conventional Li-Ion battery, you could be looking at something like 40-50% losses to turn electricity into compressed hydrogen that actually makes it into a vehicle tank. Also while Li-Ion batteries can generally sit for months at a time with only something like 1% loss per day, compressed hydrogen can leak a bit quicker and liquid hydrogen could be looking at as little as two weeks in vehicular cryogenic tanks. IMO liquid H2 is a non-starter for multiple reasons.
Compressed H2 gas is likely going to come down to how quickly we can have an electric grid with a huge surplus of electricity. Thus far, the most promising potential use case for hydrogen fuel cells isn't vehicles at all, it's for generating and using excess renewable energy, such as wind and solar where you can easily have way too much power at certain locations and times of day, then suddenly not enough power at night or when the wind dies down too much. Hydrogen fuel cells and generation could be a great way to act as a grid-scale battery to aid our transition to renewable energy grids.
-
Realistically one of the main drawbacks for us if we were to get a fully electric vehicle is less range and more charging at destinations. Numerous frequent destinations we go to are family located in more rural areas where we wouldn't be able to easily charge.
Until charging is somewhat ubiquitous, we're going to be stuck with ICE.
Plus, EV minvan when???
Our recent purchase was a hybrid Sienna though... :-)
-
If your rural family has an electric dryer plug near a door you could still charge. Slip them a $10 bill for the electricity.
-
Realistically one of the main drawbacks for us if we were to get a fully electric vehicle is less range and more charging at destinations. Numerous frequent destinations we go to are family located in more rural areas where we wouldn't be able to easily charge.
Until charging is somewhat ubiquitous, we're going to be stuck with ICE.
Plus, EV minvan when???
Our recent purchase was a hybrid Sienna though... :-)
My family has gone electric and this means that we can charge no matter who we visit. So this is a problem that solves itself given enough time.
Also there is power at every house we visit so we can just plug it into a normal outlet. It takes forever, but it does charge the car.
-
An entertaining summary of the state of hydrogen fuel cell cars was posted today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b88v-WvqzeQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b88v-WvqzeQ)
Fair warning if you are a boomer and might be offended by an adult man in skinny jeans you may want to skip it.
-
An entertaining summary of the state of hydrogen fuel cell cars was posted today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b88v-WvqzeQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b88v-WvqzeQ)
Fair warning if you are a boomer and might be offended by an adult man in skinny jeans you may want to skip it.
It's the refusal to shave that offends me! And take off that stupid baseball cap, you're indoors!
The argument he was making was essentially "EVs have first mover advantage and we haven't made much progress on the technical and economic problems of hydrogen" not "The laws of physics say BEVs will always be better than hydrogen".
-
An entertaining summary of the state of hydrogen fuel cell cars was posted today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b88v-WvqzeQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b88v-WvqzeQ)
Fair warning if you are a boomer and might be offended by an adult man in skinny jeans you may want to skip it.
It's the refusal to shave that offends me! And take off that stupid baseball cap, you're indoors!
The argument he was making was essentially "EVs have first mover advantage and we haven't made much progress on the technical and economic problems of hydrogen" not "The laws of physics say BEVs will always be better than hydrogen".
Was someone making that argument in this thread? You asserted "hydrogen fuel cells will replace batteries by 2030 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/predict-the-future-development-path-of-evs!/msg2821380/#msg2821380)." It doesn't take the laws of physics to decisively argue against that. Today's problems with hydrogen make it extremely unlikely to see a reversal in majority between BEV vs FCV in just nine years. If you had said you expect that in 2050 then there is less evidence to argue with as the technology might have enough time to overcome today's problems and current inertia by then. But 2030? No way. That's well within currently publicized automaker EV market share roadmaps and there is barely a peep from them about FCV plans.
-
An entertaining summary of the state of hydrogen fuel cell cars was posted today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b88v-WvqzeQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b88v-WvqzeQ)
Fair warning if you are a boomer and might be offended by an adult man in skinny jeans you may want to skip it.
It's the refusal to shave that offends me! And take off that stupid baseball cap, you're indoors!
The argument he was making was essentially "EVs have first mover advantage and we haven't made much progress on the technical and economic problems of hydrogen" not "The laws of physics say BEVs will always be better than hydrogen".
They did break down the energy efficiency of each, some of that is base physics. If you want to argue that solar will one day give near free electricity ok but it will still take less infrastructure to charge a BEV and that infrastructure is literally everywhere already. Billions have been spent on hydrogen and they are stuck in "also ran" status. I agree it would be great to have more viable non-carbon options but I have trouble seeing it with hydrogen.
scottish: For personal vehicles would you put 100$ on hydrogen out selling BEVs in the US by what year?
-
FCV feels like greenwashing.
Something for oil company to use as a place holder so share holders continue to believe that big oil will continue to be relevant to the average consumer in the future.
Honestly, I look forward to charging at home and seldom if ever needing a gas station. Pay at the pump was a big improvement to me back in the day too.
Would be real pleased to move away from single use plastic packaging from the grocery store too. Seemingly unrelated to EVs but related to big oil.
-
An entertaining summary of the state of hydrogen fuel cell cars was posted today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b88v-WvqzeQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b88v-WvqzeQ)
Fair warning if you are a boomer and might be offended by an adult man in skinny jeans you may want to skip it.
It's the refusal to shave that offends me! And take off that stupid baseball cap, you're indoors!
The argument he was making was essentially "EVs have first mover advantage and we haven't made much progress on the technical and economic problems of hydrogen" not "The laws of physics say BEVs will always be better than hydrogen".
They did break down the energy efficiency of each, some of that is base physics. If you want to argue that solar will one day give near free electricity ok but it will still take less infrastructure to charge a BEV and that infrastructure is literally everywhere already. Billions have been spent on hydrogen and they are stuck in "also ran" status. I agree it would be great to have more viable non-carbon options but I have trouble seeing it with hydrogen.
scottish: For personal vehicles would you put 100$ on hydrogen out selling BEVs in the US by what year?
Pretty sure battery charging efficiencies are improving year over year. Why would fuel cell charging efficiencies not do the same?
You want to bet - are you near Richmond? I'm not sure if you guys have all changed my mind yet... the first mover advantage is a pretty big deal.
-
The sales story is not pretty for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. :-(
Here are the electric vehicle sales - 3.24M last year and growing rapidly.:
In 2019 there were only 7500 HFC vehicle sales worldwide. And 2020 looks quite a bit worse.
That doesn't look like a very good bet.
(https://www.ev-volumes.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WW-S2-12-2020.png)
-
But things like trains, boats, semi trucks, heavy construction equipment, airplanes, etc are not good fits for batteries
I agree with airplanes and semi trucks. Trains is not a problem, you just electrify the track rather than carry a battery. (I think the U.S is the only country with a cross-country railway network that isn't electrified.) I think ships aren't really weight-sensitive, either, it's probably more a volume/cost issue there.
-
But things like trains, boats, semi trucks, heavy construction equipment, airplanes, etc are not good fits for batteries
I agree with airplanes and semi trucks. Trains is not a problem, you just electrify the track rather than carry a battery. (I think the U.S is the only country with a cross-country railway network that isn't electrified.) I think ships aren't really weight-sensitive, either, it's probably more a volume/cost issue there.
Saw some numbers for freight trains years back, and given the weight and terrain there are individual routes that would require entire power plaints to power the trains electrically. Then you still need tens of thousands of miles of electrical lines. Similar problem with electrifying large aircraft, jet engines produce crazy amounts of equivalent electrical power. I have heard that in large aircraft aviation using electrical motors for propulsion has been five years off for a decade or two. Its not that we cant produce large amounts of electrical power, we can, its just on an airplane you have painful size, weight and cooling considerations that dont exists on the ground.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/19569/how-many-kilowatts-to-get-an-electric-747-8-airborne (https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/19569/how-many-kilowatts-to-get-an-electric-747-8-airborne)
Dang, was going to get me 100$ :-(
-
With regards to the above, the 747 isn't really relevant as all the superjumbos are being retired from service anyway. The direction the world is going is a higher number of smaller planes. If we scale back from jets entirely, there are turboprops that seat around 80 passengers and use 5000hp turboprop engines. It's actually not all that difficult to make 5000hp from a geared electric motor.
The issue isn't so much the power, it's the energy storage. In other words, not the thing that turns the propeller, but the fuel. For a turboprop, that fuel is Jet-A, which has an incredible energy density per pound. For electric motors in an airplane it means either batteries or relying on hydrogen storage tanks and H2 fuel cells to convert that H2 into electricity. Batteries have a very low energy density per pound compared to Jet-A. It's the reason why a Ford Fusion can go 300 miles on 60 pounds of gasoline but the Ford Mach-E needs a 1200 pound battery pack to go the same distance. H2 is better on a per-pound basis, but it is very bulky to store and presents its own problems if you go for liquid hydrogen tanks to maximize density.
At any rate, the move to electric cars is happening because cars are so easy by comparison to anything else and already make up about half of the transportation sector's GHG footprint while also being one of the top sources of smog, which is arguably just as important to eliminate as GHG anyway. The transportation sector accounts for about 29% of the USA's total GHG output, so that puts passenger cars at something like 14-15% of the total GHG, which sounds small, but the point is that we're addressing every sector at the same time, and personal automobiles are the easiest part of the transportation sector to address. Airplanes are way low on the list relative to everything that has easier fixes.
-
But things like trains, boats, semi trucks, heavy construction equipment, airplanes, etc are not good fits for batteries
I agree with airplanes and semi trucks. Trains is not a problem, you just electrify the track rather than carry a battery. (I think the U.S is the only country with a cross-country railway network that isn't electrified.) I think ships aren't really weight-sensitive, either, it's probably more a volume/cost issue there.
Saw some numbers for freight trains years back, and given the weight and terrain there are individual routes that would require entire power plaints to power the trains electrically. Then you still need tens of thousands of miles of electrical lines.
This article: http://theoildrum.com/node/4301 (http://theoildrum.com/node/4301) makes a pretty good case for the electrification of rail. If the Russians managed to electrify the Trans-Siberian railroad, it seems it shouldn't be a problem here if there's a will to get it done.
The energy has to be supplied somehow anyway, and building the power lines starts to look a lot less expensive when you realize that we are talking about a need to seriously beef up our power distribution capacity anyway, to better handle renewables.
-
But things like trains, boats, semi trucks, heavy construction equipment, airplanes, etc are not good fits for batteries
I agree with airplanes and semi trucks. Trains is not a problem, you just electrify the track rather than carry a battery. (I think the U.S is the only country with a cross-country railway network that isn't electrified.) I think ships aren't really weight-sensitive, either, it's probably more a volume/cost issue there.
So it sounds like we agree on all counts then? Things like trains, boats, semi trucks, heavy construction equipment, airplanes, etc are not good fits for batteries.
-
Hopefully boats could be one day. They are making some progress with solar assisted power on boats, which would mesh well with battery storage and electrical propulsion.
-
Max engine thrust by type: (varies by aircraft version and engine type)
747: 46,000 to 66,000 lb (x4)
777: 77,000 to 115,000 lb (x2)
787: 64,000, 76,000, lb (x2)
Yes energy storage is a major problem, perhaps even the critical point that will prevent changes in large aircraft. But the point was that generating large amounts of thrust electrically on large aircraft is also not solved and has been being worked for awhile - if I have missed some advance here I would love to read about it.
-
Saw some numbers for freight trains years back, and given the weight and terrain there are individual routes that would require entire power plaints to power the trains electrically. Then you still need tens of thousands of miles of electrical lines. Similar problem with electrifying large aircraft, jet engines produce crazy amounts of equivalent electrical power. I have heard that in large aircraft aviation using electrical motors for propulsion has been five years off for a decade or two. Its not that we cant produce large amounts of electrical power, we can, its just on an airplane you have painful size, weight and cooling considerations that dont exists on the ground.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/19569/how-many-kilowatts-to-get-an-electric-747-8-airborne (https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/19569/how-many-kilowatts-to-get-an-electric-747-8-airborne)
Dang, was going to get me 100$ :-(
Just put nuclear power in that airplane. Its was done in the 1960s. It had its drawbacks...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft
-
It's the reason why a Ford Fusion can go 300 miles on 60 pounds of gasoline but the Ford Mach-E needs a 1200 pound battery pack to go the same distance. H2 is better on a per-pound basis, but it is very bulky to store and presents its own problems if you go for liquid hydrogen tanks to maximize density.
Perhaps long distance travel will circle around to trains again...
-
Hopefully boats could be one day. They are making some progress with solar assisted power on boats, which would mesh well with battery storage and electrical propulsion.
You know how you make hydrogen? You use electricity to split water molecules into atoms of hydrogen and oxygen. You know what ships have an almost unlimited supply of? Free water. Instead of using the clean electricity to charge an insane number of batteries that would fill half a ship, why not take the solar or wind generated electricity and use it to turn the water the ship is floating in into hydrogen fuel? It will probably take up less space on the ship, and be lighter weight than an insane amount of batteries. They could centralize the hydrogen production at ports to improve scale, and then just fuel the ships like they currently do too. Or add the solar/wind generation capabilities to the ships so they can restore some of their fuel supply while at sea.
-
Hopefully boats could be one day. They are making some progress with solar assisted power on boats, which would mesh well with battery storage and electrical propulsion.
You know how you make hydrogen? You use electricity to split water molecules into atoms of hydrogen and oxygen. You know what ships have an almost unlimited supply of? Free water. Instead of using the clean electricity to charge an insane number of batteries that would fill half a ship, why not take the solar or wind generated electricity and use it to turn the water the ship is floating in into hydrogen fuel? It will probably take up less space on the ship, and be lighter weight than an insane amount of batteries. They could centralize the hydrogen production at ports to improve scale, and then just fuel the ships like they currently do too. Or add the solar/wind generation capabilities to the ships so they can restore some of their fuel supply while at sea.
Salt water is harder to turn into hydrogen than pure water. Though the problem is being worked on:
https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/18/new-way-generate-hydrogen-fuel-seawater/
-
Hopefully boats could be one day. They are making some progress with solar assisted power on boats, which would mesh well with battery storage and electrical propulsion.
You know how you make hydrogen? You use electricity to split water molecules into atoms of hydrogen and oxygen. You know what ships have an almost unlimited supply of? Free water. Instead of using the clean electricity to charge an insane number of batteries that would fill half a ship, why not take the solar or wind generated electricity and use it to turn the water the ship is floating in into hydrogen fuel? It will probably take up less space on the ship, and be lighter weight than an insane amount of batteries. They could centralize the hydrogen production at ports to improve scale, and then just fuel the ships like they currently do too. Or add the solar/wind generation capabilities to the ships so they can restore some of their fuel supply while at sea.
The energy loss going into and out of hydrogen is much larger than the energy loss going into and out of electric batteries. Is idea is to power the ship by solar and store energy for at night like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BBranor_PlanetSolar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BBranor_PlanetSolar)? It says they cruised at 10knots, google says container ships cruise at 24knots.
-
Hopefully boats could be one day. They are making some progress with solar assisted power on boats, which would mesh well with battery storage and electrical propulsion.
You know how you make hydrogen? You use electricity to split water molecules into atoms of hydrogen and oxygen. You know what ships have an almost unlimited supply of? Free water. Instead of using the clean electricity to charge an insane number of batteries that would fill half a ship, why not take the solar or wind generated electricity and use it to turn the water the ship is floating in into hydrogen fuel? It will probably take up less space on the ship, and be lighter weight than an insane amount of batteries. They could centralize the hydrogen production at ports to improve scale, and then just fuel the ships like they currently do too. Or add the solar/wind generation capabilities to the ships so they can restore some of their fuel supply while at sea.
Salt water is harder to turn into hydrogen than pure water. Though the problem is being worked on:
https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/18/new-way-generate-hydrogen-fuel-seawater/
Yep. Correct. Sorry if I implied it's a simple process, or even all that efficient. I was mostly speaking in generalities to simplify the point. For some applications "add more batteries" isn't the solution. Hydrogen has some very strong advantages over batteries as we know them, particularly in large scale commercial vehicles. You understand this of course, I'm mostly just responding to anyone that might be less familiar with subjects like this.
-
Perhaps long distance travel will circle around to trains again...
France just passed legislation in one of their representative bodies that would suspend domestic flights between points reachable by train in 2.5 hours, or something similiar.
The trains there are quite nice. Same in Spain, where I greatly prefer train travel -- so much less stress and very civilized. I mean, who doesn't love standing in a dining car eating jamon sandwiches and drinking wine while flying past the landscape at the speeds of a F1 car, and it feels almost like you are standing on the platform still...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/apr/12/france-ban-some-domestic-flights-train-available-macron-climate-convention-mps
-
Hopefully boats could be one day. They are making some progress with solar assisted power on boats, which would mesh well with battery storage and electrical propulsion.
You know how you make hydrogen? You use electricity to split water molecules into atoms of hydrogen and oxygen. You know what ships have an almost unlimited supply of? Free water. Instead of using the clean electricity to charge an insane number of batteries that would fill half a ship, why not take the solar or wind generated electricity and use it to turn the water the ship is floating in into hydrogen fuel? It will probably take up less space on the ship, and be lighter weight than an insane amount of batteries. They could centralize the hydrogen production at ports to improve scale, and then just fuel the ships like they currently do too. Or add the solar/wind generation capabilities to the ships so they can restore some of their fuel supply while at sea.
The energy loss going into and out of hydrogen is much larger than the energy loss going into and out of electric batteries.
Yes, it's a less efficient process to turn electricity into hydrogen than it is to simply store the electricity in batteries. As you're aware, the problem with batteries is that they're really big, really heavy, and really resource intensive. Hydrogen is an improvement over batteries in each of those categories for a lot of applications. There's not a single way forward. We don't currently rely on a single fuel for all transportation because some fuels work better than others at accomplishing different tasks. I think the future will be similar. Batteries have their place, especially now. Personally, I think hydrogen is a better end goal for all EVs, but at the very least I think it has more potential as a more viable battery alternative in vehicles that do lots of work.
-
A container ship at 1200 foot length and 160 foot beam could sport up to 2.8 megawatts of solar at 15% efficiency panels.
Unfortunately it takes something like 30GWh to cross the Atlantic in a big container ship according to one source I read.
In a 30 day crossing with 6 hours of full sun, you would only generate about 0.5GWh.
need a brighter sun!
-
I found this two-part series on the hydrogen economy to be very enlightening. I have a subscription so heard the full episodes, but their free short versions are also well done. The podcast has been well worth the subscription if you are into this topic at all. Highly reccomended, as the host Chris Nelder has been working on EVs for decades.
https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-142-hydrogen-economy-2-0-part-1/
-
This may be a dumb question, but can hydrogen gas be used to power turbines rather than natural gas? Obviously there's some engineering that'll go into using a different fuel source, but technically should be possible, right? Then fuel cells won't be needed, just land-based electrolysis stations and storage tanks on the ships.
-
This may be a dumb question, but can hydrogen gas be used to power turbines rather than natural gas? Obviously there's some engineering that'll go into using a different fuel source, but technically should be possible, right? Then fuel cells won't be needed, just land-based electrolysis stations and storage tanks on the ships.
Yes.
https://www.powermag.com/siemens-roadmap-to-100-hydrogen-gas-turbines/
-
Oil is still struggling to overtake coal as an energy source, 120 years after discovery. Any electric, solar or hydrogen revolution will have to get in line.
-
This may be a dumb question, but can hydrogen gas be used to power turbines rather than natural gas? Obviously there's some engineering that'll go into using a different fuel source, but technically should be possible, right? Then fuel cells won't be needed, just land-based electrolysis stations and storage tanks on the ships.
Yes.
https://www.powermag.com/siemens-roadmap-to-100-hydrogen-gas-turbines/
Nice. Found that when I searched but with the fuel cell / battery talk wasn’t sure if I was missing something.
What do you all think of the volkswagen id4?
-
This may be a dumb question, but can hydrogen gas be used to power turbines rather than natural gas? Obviously there's some engineering that'll go into using a different fuel source, but technically should be possible, right? Then fuel cells won't be needed, just land-based electrolysis stations and storage tanks on the ships.
Fuel cells are far more efficient than turbines. In general, 2/3 of the potential energy from a turbine engine is lost to heat and friction versus something like only 10% through a fuel cell. This would mean a hydrogen gas turbine engine equipped ship could need to carry 3 times as much fuel for a given journey.
Oil is still struggling to overtake coal as an energy source, 120 years after discovery. Any electric, solar or hydrogen revolution will have to get in line.
Coal is within 10-15 years of extinction in the developed world. Germany and China might be the last two countries still using coal, and even they are likely to be done within 30 years. Oil basically isn't EVER used for power generation except on islands where it's impractical to ship any other type of fuel to the island.
-
What do you all think of the volkswagen id4?
The ID.4 and its slightly more upscale cousin, the Audi Q4 e-tron, look to be excellent EVs overall. I expect them to be quite popular (at least as far as non-Teslas go). I've heard the ID.4 has some issues with the infotainment system being laggy so hopefully that can be improved in the future, maybe with software updates. If it wasn't for the upcoming Ioniq 5/EV6 these would probably be at the top of my list for consideration.
I am disappointed that VW isn't releasing the ID.3 in the US though. That is closer in size to the Golf which would be perfect for us. I've heard lots of good things about the ID.3.
In other EV news the redesigned Bolt for 2022 is going to be $5500 cheaper (~$32k MSRP). Though it doesn't qualify for federal incentives anymore and they didn't bother updating the charging rate from the mediocre 55 kW...
-
I'm pretty excited about the new vehicles coming out considering their price. I think in general I want to wait a year or two to let them iron out the bugs. My wife and I are (like good Mustachians) in no hurry to buy a new car and don't really drive much, so there isn't a good reason to purchase an EV until we have one that will last 10-15 years. But the technology is rapidly advancing and I think at least for luxury cars EV will be a new status symbol and quickly take over.
Fuel cells are a bit further behind, but maybe they will be practical for larger vehicles that are depot or port-based (limiting the amount of new infrastructure).
-
In other EV news the redesigned Bolt for 2022 is going to be $5500 cheaper (~$32k MSRP). Though it doesn't qualify for federal incentives anymore and they didn't bother updating the charging rate from the mediocre 55 kW...
The updated Bolt still uses the same battery I believe, instead of GMs latest and greatest Ultium packs. So you can't charge it very quickly because it's essentially 5 year old battery tech. The new EVs coming from GM in the next year or so get the new batteries with faster charging. I really like what GM is doing with their approach to modular batteries and motors. It seems really flexible.