You're viewing a single thread.
Personally I think hybrids are the way forward, you don't really have range anxiety when the generator is built in. I really want to get my hands on one of those Edison motors kits and drop it into a late 60s chevy or mid 90s ford.
I'm not sold given that you've got the mechanical complexity of two types of engine systems in a hybrid.
I think just getting the charging network sorted out would basically make EVs fine for most people.
Hybrid engines have been around for quite some time, though, and they can be just as reliable as ICEs.
On the other hand, the weakness of EVs right now isn't just the charging infrastructure - it's the batteries. They're big, heavy, and very expensive to replace. This is especially true given all the new electric pickups/SUVs coming onto the market in the US. Battery tech needs to mature a while longer, IMO.
What the hell are you doing that you need to replace the battery enough for it to be classed as a weakness for all EVs??
Look up Lithium Iron phosphate batteries. They will outlive the car they're in even better than the lithium ion ones that are the majority at the moment. Those lithium ion batteries will also outlive the vehicle they're in btw. The only ones that won't are Leaf batteries because either they're an old chemistry or because nissan cheaper out and didn't put a coolant loop in them.
It's not so much of a problem for brand new models but there are still many older ones that suffer from battery failure and degradation outside of warranty.
Look up Lithium Iron phosphate batteries. They will outlive the car they're in even better than the lithium ion ones that are the majority at the moment. Those lithium ion batteries will also outlive the vehicle they're in btw. The only ones that won't are Leaf batteries because either they're an old chemistry or because nissan cheaper out and didn't put a coolant loop in them.
Do all cars use LiFePO4? I thought most used Lithium Cobalt Oxide because it has a higher energy density, that's what's used in smartphones and laptops. Using LiFePO4 means reducing range and increasing weight. Ditto for Sodium Ion batteries.
All Lithium Cobalt batteries need replacing after about 8 years of regular usage. That's not great given we still see 20 year old cars in use. I guess there are steps you can take to reduce this, like not charging to 100%, but they all fail sooner or later. All this rapid charging stuff doesn't exactly help either.
You're going to have to come up with some serious evidence if you want to say car batteries are not a problem for current gen EVs. Maybe with better Sodium Ion tech they can be extended in lifespan and reduced in cost enough to be practical for most people, but it's still going to require infrastructure overhaul and won't be applicable everywhere.
No, I'm not going to have to come up with serious evidence because it's been all over the place for quite a few years. It's not new that the batteries in current a recent gen EVs will easily outlast the car. Sure, early and probably current Leafs are crap but even they can last quite well. Tesla? Easy piss.
https://insideevs.com/news/722367/tesla-model-s-430000-miles-original-battery-motors/
Thanks for playing.
Sorry but I'm not going to be more thorough because I've had this conversation plenty and your statement that a battery needs replaced after 8 years is one of those classic giveaways for people who don't actually look into any of this but rather just read the usual FUD and click bait. Go look up everything electric, read and watch their content for a good start.
I mean, it works though. The Prius is one of the most reliable cars on the road. It can go 500,000 miles
But can it go 500,000 more?
It depends on use case. If you're driving in a city or living in a small country or state, electric makes a lot of sense.
Range anxiety only really kicks in if driving long distances. But 300 miles on a full charge is already common among electric cars. I'm in the UK - that'd easily covet the 200 mile journey from Manchester to London.
I think the real anxiety around range is a lack of chargers either on the journey or at the destination. Without that infrastructure then it will put people off electric cars. But the infrastructure is getting better every day -at least in Europe anyway.
Yeah, I've got a petrol car, and now that I've got my own house I don't think I'd gotten into a situation where an electric car wouldn't have covered my needs just as well.
Obviously it was different when I was renting and stuck off street parking, but for anyone that has a garage, having an electric car and just plugging it in overnight covers pretty much everything, with maybe the odd public charging on a road trip.
hybrids might be a PART of the way, but there’s absolutely no reason they need to be the only way. For many many use cases BEVs already work better than hybrids and those cases are only going to grow in number as the charging infrastructure is built out and energy storage tech improves. Maybe there will always be fringe cases where hybrids are practical, maybe not.
In what case is a BEV better than hybrid already?
well for a start it produces 0 gas emissions at point of use. we still have to sort out tyre fragments and brake dust, and ensure the electricity grid is non-polluting too. but every hybrid car is burning petrol or diesel, just the same as we've been doing for the last 100 years or so. recent research in the uk has shown that plug-in hybrids are often not plugged in because it's too much bother.
Why not hybrid or plain ICE vehicles powered by biofuels? Even things like waste vegetable oil can be turned into viable fuel, and it can actually be less environmentally destructive than getting rid of it in other ways. ICE technology is very mature, and we currently produce more food than we need and waste much of it. Why not put it all to some use?
Pretty much any fat could be used in compression ignition engines with the right treatment, any carbohydrates turned into ethanol for spark ignition engines, and all waste wood burned for electric power and domestic heating.
Biofuels are even less efficient than making hydrogen for a fuel cell. It's the same as growing cattle for a burger. It's way less efficient an energy source because you have to grow up to 10 x more feed for the cow than you get out of the burger. You're better using that land to grow the actual food for you. Same for biofuel. You get relatively little out for the shit tonne of land you need. Still use chemicals which all need energy to make and transport and use. Then you've got to cut, transport, process, refine, transport and then use the fuel. Much better to use the land for food or hell, just leave it to be wild and soak up carbon. Then all that energy you were going to use to make the bio fuel, stick it in a battery.
You're forgetting things like used vegetable oil which is waste that would be thrown away otherwise. Same for the stuff wood pellets are made from, they are typically mostly saw dust and other waste products. This should hopefully cover airplanes and maybe diesel trains and some cars for when electric isn't practical.
Even if you were to start planting crops for biofuels, how much less efficient than solar plus batteries would it be? The problem with solar and especially battery storage is that the materials used to make them are not renewable, and cause all kinds of issues in their mining and manufacturing. We've grown plants sustainably for thousands of years now. I've yet to see anyone make a solar panel from sustainable or recycled materials.
Right, let's start with old oil. How much do you think is generated world wide? It's about 1/20th of the amount of oil we use currently and that created not recycled so that number is far lower so really that's a niche. Likewise wood pellets. Unless you're actively chopping trees down to make into pellets you're not going to have any real volume there. Plus as I said previously, all of that takes energy to be made into usable fuel. Where does that energy come from and also why not just use that energy directly?
As for the last paragraph, no, sorry you're just misunderstanding that whole arena. Batteries are more than 90% recyclable and that number is going up as we design them to be easier to recycle. Plus that's most likely 20 years from now on average. As for solar panels they're aluminium (easily recycled) glass (easily recycled) metals (easily recycled) and silicon (mostly recyclable) and again they're being designed to be recycled better than they were. Ontop of that they now last up to 40 years with greater than 90% of their original capacity left so basically they'll outlive most of us on here.
We've grown plants sustainable for thousands of years except for in the last 150 where we have systematically wrecked the ecology at the same time as massively increasing our population. The average westerner uses 32 times more resources than the average Kenyan. Do you want to have the same lifestyle as they have? Because they want what westerners have so that means we can't keep going as we are and have to change.
Right, let's start with old oil. How much do you think is generated world wide? It's about 1/20th of the amount of oil we use currently and that created not recycled so that number is far lower so really that's a niche. Likewise wood pellets. Unless you're actively chopping trees down to make into pellets you're not going to have any real volume there. Plus as I said previously, all of that takes energy to be made into usable fuel. Where does that energy come from and also why not just use that energy directly?
5% of our current oil demand is still a big improvement. That's probably enough to move a significant portion or even all of aviation to sustainable fuels. Aviation is one of the places where batteries don't work yet, and probably not anytime soon either.
As for the last paragraph, no, sorry you're just misunderstanding that whole arena. Batteries are more than 90% recyclable and that number is going up as we design them to be easier to recycle. Plus that's most likely 20 years from now on average. As for solar panels they're aluminium (easily recycled) glass (easily recycled) metals (easily recycled) and silicon (mostly recyclable) and again they're being designed to be recycled better than they were. Ontop of that they now last up to 40 years with greater than 90% of their original capacity left so basically they'll outlive most of us on here.
Can you give me some evidence?
We've grown plants sustainable for thousands of years except for in the last 150 where we have systematically wrecked the ecology at the same time as massively increasing our population. The average westerner uses 32 times more resources than the average Kenyan. Do you want to have the same lifestyle as they have? Because they want what westerners have so that means we can't keep going as we are and have to change.
So you're saying sustainable agriculture is impossible? If so then climate change is inevitable and there is nothing we can do.
Aviation is likely to be serviced by batteries or hydrogen for short to medium flights. Long haul and cargo is likely to remain fossil fuel based for quite a while due to the nature of the fuel caution uses. If you had said shipping you might have had a point, they can burn near enough anything but they seem to be trending towards something like ammonia.
What do you want me to say other than Google it for recycling? It's widely known and has been for quite a while now. Unless you're actively looking for the opposite you should have no trouble finding independent information rather than trusting some random on social medium. But here's a few to set you off:
https://solarfast.co.uk/blog/solar-energy-myths-debunked/
This one is from the energy saving trust, a non-profit government organisation and had a good round up of typical myths:
https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/myths-about-solar/
And here's an excellent talk by a Dr who's a specialist in the battery and energy storage arena:
Incidentally if you actually want to learn more about this then Everything Electric is a good start.
Sustainable agriculture for food is one thing, to make fuel is something completely different and I think you know that but are being obstuse on purpose.
Look, I get it. You don't like what you're seeing, that doesn't mean it's wrong and it's OK to change and adapt when presented with new information. The future is a mixture of technology that we have, are developing and haven't even thought of. Biofuels may even have a small niche but that's all it will be, a niche. Fully electric will be the dominant source of transport in the near future and batteries are going to make up the majority of that.
We already have sustainable aviation fuel that is being used in commercial air travel. It's not certain that Hydrogen will ever be safe enough for air travel. Current battery technology isn't good enough in terms of energy density to be used here.
Lots of people are very dismissive about hydrogen technology anyway, based on it being difficult to store and inefficient. Do you have evidence counter to this?
Look, I get it. You don't like what you're seeing, that doesn't mean it's wrong and it's OK to change and adapt when presented with new information.
That's not it at all. Lots of people here on Lemmy like to talk the talk about climate change without actually understanding practical or engineering considerations. It's the same as the socialists and communists who rarely have an economic plan to implement after a revolution.
The future is a mixture of technology that we have, are developing and haven't even thought of.
That's precisely why I don't like you dismissing biofuels out of hand. There are certain applications where batteries just don't work like aviation. I still am not convinced about lithium batteries as lithium is a fairly limited resource, sodium ion seems like the future of batteries for cars and trains, but sodium ion has lower energy density.
I am not saying biofuels will replace electric vehicles or solutions for grid power like nuclear, wind, solar, and so on. Just that they have a place in the larger strategy. People talk about electric vehicles making sense for most situations especially for city dwellers, I am talking about the 20% or whoever remain. This includes car enthusiasts as well as people who travel large distances on a day to day basis, and of course aviation where energy density, safety and performance are critical.
I will take a look at those sources though. If it's easy to recycle solar panels that's a huge boon. When it comes to batteries I think technologies like sodium ion or iron oxide batteries are likely to win out anyway, and those are materials we have in abundance, it's just a shame about the energy density limitations.
To be honest I didn't even think about shipping as it only accounts for a small amount of emissions. Vegetable oil makes perfect sense here. Though I would remind you that compression ignition engines in cars can also be designed to run pretty much any fuel you like.
Sustainable agriculture for food is one thing, to make fuel is something completely different and I think you know that but are being obstuse on purpose.
No I am not being obtuse. You talk about agriculture as if it's impossible to make sustainable. How much extra agriculture would it require compared to what's needed to feed the world? It's not something I have looked at, and I would be interested to see if you have statistics on this.
I think plug-in hybrids are probably the way, particularly outside the US where Tesla hasn't made a bid for controlling the charging network by overinvesting in proprietary charging spots.
At that point it's probably the price that is the issue, but otherwise that seems to be the proposal that people are most comfortable with. The scalability of "EVs as tech toys" upstart approach has always been a bit weird, and without that leading the way as much I don't know that there are incentives to fully transition without an in-between step.
I think plug-in hybrids are probably the way, particularly outside the US where Tesla hasn’t made a bid for controlling the charging network by overinvesting in proprietary charging spots.
This is the very first time I've heard anyone spin the number and ubiquity of Tesla Supercharging network as a bad thing. The charging connector is no longer proprietary. Its an SAE approved charging connector just like SAE J1772 used in nearly all EVs, the SAE Tesla connector is J3400.
I didn't say it's a bad thing at all. I said there are territories where they didn't do it, so the charging infrastructure hasn't been built up by a private company effectively losing money in pursuit of cornering a specific market, start-up style. Even in the US the coverage is uneven, and outside the US it's basically nonexistent, so the headstart Tesla created to solve that issue is not the norm.
But... yeah, no, they made a bid for controlling the charging network and standard by losing money on a charging network the market didn't support yet so they could kickstart a segment they were trying to lead. I don't think even Tesla people would deny that.
I didn’t say it’s a bad thing at all.
You said:
particularly outside the US where Tesla hasn’t made a bid for controlling the charging network by overinvesting in proprietary charging spots.
I'm having difficulty seeing your usage of "a bid for controlling the charging network" and "overinvesting in proprietary charging spots" as positive statements and only see negative connotations from your choice of words. Can you clarify how your statement is positive?
But… yeah, no, they made a bid for controlling the charging network and standard by losing money on a charging network the market didn’t support yet so they could kickstart a segment they were trying to lead. I don’t think even Tesla people would deny that.
Thats partially correct but you've got some revisionist history there. Tesla came out with NACS/J3400 charging connector because the alternative established industry standard was CHAdeMO. The better than CHAdeMO connector, CCS only came out on paper in 2012. This was after Tesla Model S had actual shipped cars on the road earlier that year.
The 'make a bid to control the charging network' is a bit strange. There was no one else building charging networks in 2012, when the first 6 superchargers were built in the USA). I'm pretty sure Tesla would have been delighted if someone else would have done the work to take care of charging, but no one else stepped up. Tesla needed a charging network to sell cars so they built it.
I didn't say it was a good thing either. It's just... a thing. That happened.
I get that people get super wrapped into morality on this issue and rooting for the things they "support" or whatever they view it as, but that's genuinely not how I look at it or how I'm framing it.
EVs are EVs. They're a consumer product and also a part of a larger process of overhauling our energy generation, infrastructure and consumption. I do not have a horse in that race, beyond the obvious large-scale global impact, and even there I'm a lot more broad and neutral than the average online commenter, from what I can tell.
So no, it's not a good or a bad thing. A company made a very strong bet on electrifying vehicles, and as part of that bet they invested very heavily in a charger network, which was very costly but also placed them in a position to control key parts of the infrastructure. It was a bold move, and it worked, kinda. But even that big investment couldn't possibly be global, so all I'm saying is charger coverage is very uneven and there are regions where plug-in hybrids make sense as a transitional option where the charger network is moving slower in the absence of Tesla investment.
You keep trying to make this into part of an ongoing argument you're clearly having with someone else as part of some online side-taking. I'm not sure which side you're on, or the other guys are on or what the dividng lines are supposed to be. As a casual observer with an interest only in the big picture ramifications, I legitimately could not are any less about that.
A company made a very strong bet on electrifying vehicles, and as part of that bet they invested very heavily in a charger network, which was very costly but also placed them in a position to control key parts of the infrastructure. It was a bold move, and it worked, kinda.
I think that's a mischaracterization. I don't believe Tesla set out to build the best charging network in the USA. It just ended up being that because of the ignorance and/or apathy of every other automaker and charging network provider.
You keep trying to make this into part of an ongoing argument you’re clearly having with someone else as part of some online side-taking.
Believe me, I'm not.
I’m not sure which side you’re on, or the other guys are on or what the dividng lines are supposed to be. As a casual observer with an interest only in the big picture ramifications, I legitimately could not are any less about that.
I was surprised at your usage of language which had a pretty clear negative connotation to my reading. I hadn't seen that before from anyone and was interested in your view on it because it was unique.
True hybrids that can get 50+ mpg are better than ICE for sure. But plug-in hybrids are not the way forward. You can travel 20-30 miles on the tiny electric battery then it's a full on ICE vehicle and mpg usage. Environmental impact on those plug-in hybrids is way worse the more miles you drive, really only a good fit for low mileage drivers that will be consistent with plugging in at home.
they definetly can help us transition, yeah. the downsides currently there for full EVs don't need to be a thing when you have a small ICE attached to the electric motors to help it out when needed.
nothing stopping us from taking an easier step in the right direction.