What Needs to Happen before Electric Cars Take Over the World

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The auto industry is betting billions that electric vehicles will soon be as cheap as conventional cars, but a number of challenges must be met before that becomes a reality. One is that the price of motors will have to decrease: the average electric drivetrain still costs $10,000 more than the conventional counterpart. This is dependent on battery prices, however, which is another issue in itself.

Manufacturers are dealing with a geopolitical dimension. Three-quarters of the world’s reserves of lithium, a crucial ingredient in the most common kind of electric car battery, are in China and Chile, according to the United States Geological Survey. As demand surges, China could deploy its natural resources as a diplomatic cudgel the same way that Saudi Arabia uses oil.
 
With the high electrical prices here in California and the higher price of an electric car, it doesn't make economic sense for me. I can drive a hybrid with a 600+ mile range and 2 minute refueling for about the same cost. (even with the high gas taxes out here)

Don't see any reason to pay more for a smaller car with less range.
 
Last edited:
Honestly I think the biggest thing needed is a better infrastructure of Primary & secondary charging stations, as well as a defined universal format for fast/moderate/slow public charging stations. That way you could roll up to a Tesla fast charger in a chevy volt "not sure if this is possible or not, just using it as an example" and be able to plug it in without any adapters, no fuss no muss, just flat charging after confirming your payment info.
 
To me, price isn't the biggest issue, the issue is how long it takes to charge. 300-500 miles per charge is completely acceptable. Sitting there for hours to recharge is not.

Price will come down over time but battery technology and power grids need to improve before the charging will get better.
 
1. battery capacity needs to increase by an order of magnitude, at least. The energy density of gasoline is 100 times that of current Li-ion batteries, but the efficiency of gasoline engines is pretty low, which balances it out a little, but not near enough. Right now, we need 5 times the volume in batteries to get one third the driving range on electric cars. In addition, when cars burn gas, they get lighter, making it more efficient over time, which batteries can't do. Ten times the energy capacity in batteries would solve this.

2. costs need to decrease. As stated in the article, electric drive trains cost a LOT more to produce. We need technology to advance enough to overcome this issue.

3. infrastructure. The article makes no mention of this, but this is a vital point that seriously hurts electric cars' primary buyers. Right now, we have more people moving into apartments and condos because houses are expensive, and yet there are no apartment or condo complexes below the luxury level that have charging facilities for electric cars. That makes half the population unable to take advantage of them, most of those being the very ones who would take best advantage of them, the people in urban areas. Another method that might work, once we get battery technology worked out would be for swappable batteries, no more than 30lbs and the size of a suitcase, that the owner could remove when the car is parked and charge inside, then bring them back out for the morning commute. This would also make it possible to take a long road trip by having 2-3 extra charged batteries in the trunk, with just a stop to swap them.
 
Part of the reason batteries are so expensive, relative to gas, is that the US government subsidizes gasoline production and doesn't (as far as I'm aware) do the same for battery production. With politicians in the pocket of petroleum manufacturers, that's not going to change any time soon.
 
-Anomie- said:
Part of the reason batteries are so expensive, relative to gas, is that the US government subsidizes gasoline production and doesn't (as far as I'm aware) do the same for battery production. With politicians in the pocket of petroleum manufacturers, that's not going to change any time soon.
Click to expand...

Wait, so what if they don't subsidize battery production, the end product is far more subsidized that what fuel subsidies account for. Or did you forget about the people who were buying new Leaf's for like nothing at all, virtually free cars.
 
lcpiper said:
Wait, so what if they don't subsidize battery production, the end product is far more subsidized that what fuel subsidies account for. Or did you forget about the people who were buying new Leaf's for like nothing at all, virtually free cars.
Click to expand...
I sure as shit did.. where did this happen. Got a link or something?

Or was that just hyperbole?
 
lcpiper said:
Wait, so what if they don't subsidize battery production, the end product is far more subsidized that what fuel subsidies account for. Or did you forget about the people who were buying new Leaf's for like nothing at all, virtually free cars.
Click to expand...

Oil Companies receive over $20 billion a year in subsidies: Oil Change International report

US EV Credit: $7,500 per vehicle for the first 200,000 vehicles per auto-maker (this is not a yearly number, just the first 200k and it's over). That would be 1.5 billion per auto maker (again this is just once) and just to make sure it's clear the credit does wind down over the next two quarters so we'll say $1.75 billion. Even adding up all auto makers it's still less than what is given to big oil every year.
 
travisty said:
Oil Companies receive over $20 billion a year in subsidies: Oil Change International report

US EV Credit: $7,500 per vehicle for the first 200,000 vehicles per auto-maker (this is not a yearly number, just the first 200k and it's over). That would be 1.5 billion per auto maker (again this is just once) and just to make sure it's clear the credit does wind down over the next two quarters so we'll say $1.75 billion. Even adding up all auto makers it's still less than what is given to big oil every year.
Click to expand...
Well I know that every time I fill up I get a sub.....wait no. I pay a tax....Wait no, that's not right either. I pay at least two taxes.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20150604/OEM05/150609925/average-u.s.-mpg-edges-up-to-25.5-in-may

http://cars.lovetoknow.com/about-cars/how-many-miles-do-americans-drive-per-year

https://www.statista.com/statistics/198029/total-number-of-us-licensed-drivers-by-state/

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=10&t=10

The math comes out to ~$54,260,717,647.06 total payed in gas tax per year. Of course these are rough numbers and does not account for diesel which is much more. Oh and then there's the gas guzzler tax etc.

Sorry, but I just could not let that one stand.
 
DeathYourFace said:
Well I know that every time I fill up I get a sub.....wait no. I pay a tax....Wait no, that's not right either. I pay at least two taxes.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20150604/OEM05/150609925/average-u.s.-mpg-edges-up-to-25.5-in-may

http://cars.lovetoknow.com/about-cars/how-many-miles-do-americans-drive-per-year

https://www.statista.com/statistics/198029/total-number-of-us-licensed-drivers-by-state/

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=10&t=10

The math comes out to ~$54,260,717,647.06 total payed in gas tax per year. Of course these are rough numbers and does not account for diesel which is much more. Oh and then there's the gas guzzler tax etc.

Sorry, but I just could not let that one stand.
Click to expand...

You realize the move to EV is more than just monetary right?
 
dgingeri said:
Another method that might work, once we get battery technology worked out would be for swappable batteries, no more than 30lbs and the size of a suitcase, that the owner could remove when the car is parked and charge inside, then bring them back out for the morning commute. This would also make it possible to take a long road trip by having 2-3 extra charged batteries in the trunk, with just a stop to swap them.
Click to expand...

Just what we need, easily removable batteries that are standardized.
Imaging how many will be stolen every day.
 
I want to switch to electric but I'd need a car that can at the very least get from Toronto to Ottawa on a single charge. That's about 400 km give or take.

It needs to be able to do this at -20.

Someone needs to get off their ass an figure out how to make cheap graphene batteries. Then we'll be set.
 
dgingeri said:
1. battery capacity needs to increase by an order of magnitude, at least. The energy density of gasoline is 100 times that of current Li-ion batteries, but the efficiency of gasoline engines is pretty low, which balances it out a little, but not near enough. Right now, we need 5 times the volume in batteries to get one third the driving range on electric cars. In addition, when cars burn gas, they get lighter, making it more efficient over time, which batteries can't do. Ten times the energy capacity in batteries would solve this.

2. costs need to decrease. As stated in the article, electric drive trains cost a LOT more to produce. We need technology to advance enough to overcome this issue.

3. infrastructure. The article makes no mention of this, but this is a vital point that seriously hurts electric cars' primary buyers. Right now, we have more people moving into apartments and condos because houses are expensive, and yet there are no apartment or condo complexes below the luxury level that have charging facilities for electric cars. That makes half the population unable to take advantage of them, most of those being the very ones who would take best advantage of them, the people in urban areas. Another method that might work, once we get battery technology worked out would be for swappable batteries, no more than 30lbs and the size of a suitcase, that the owner could remove when the car is parked and charge inside, then bring them back out for the morning commute. This would also make it possible to take a long road trip by having 2-3 extra charged batteries in the trunk, with just a stop to swap them.
Click to expand...
#1 doesn't have to be such an issue if the cost of gas rises enough. People will still need long range, but if we were at $15, $20 a gallon, a lot of people would be willing to switch to electric for commutes, local errands and visits, etc. with people using gas or bus for long trips if they needed to.

#3 is such a big deal most people don't realize. All this talk of electric cars taking over may as well be fantasy. We're decades behind where we need to be for a smooth transition on infrastructure. Moreover, if we wait until we HAVE to switch, then the costs of building it becomes dramatically higher. We're boned on this.
 
Battery Capacity, Charge Rate, User replaceable battery packs.

Sorry, but I don't think these vehicles will be viable in my usage parameters any time soon. I Drive very far north, away from any infrastructure that supports this stuff. Even Gas can be hard to find up there, forget about electricity. Guess I need to paint my car orange and get my confederate flag decal ready. hmm.. I guess since I live in canada, better make that a dominion flag.
 
well they mine the nickel in Canada... ship it to Japan to make batteries on diesel freighters, and refine it in japan/china making all kinds of nasty by products, then ship the batteries back to mexico again on a diesel freighter to build the cars, then when the batteries are worn out they get shipped back to japan/china to recycle, again making all kinds of nasty by products, then shipped back once refurb/rebuilt.

all they are doing it shifting the carbon footprint from the cars to something else, same when they are being charged. instead of carbon at the pump it carbon from a coal plant, or nuclear waste from a nuke plant or from a hydro electric damn thats destroying fish migrations and habitat...the whole idea that battery powered cars is the way to go is stupid

until people can go similar distances on battery as a fuel powered car they will also be the other option, the only once that make any sort of sense have a small petrol motor for extended distances, but that adds cost and repairs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
Putz said:
well they mine the nickel in Canada... ship it to Japan to make batteries on diesel freighters, and refine it in japan/china making all kinds of nasty by products, then ship the batteries back to mexico again on a diesel freighter to build the cars, then when the batteries are worn out they get shipped back to japan/china to recycle, again making all kinds of nasty by products, then shipped back once refurb/rebuilt.

all they are doing it shifting the carbon footprint from the cars to something else, same when they are being charged. instead of carbon at the pump it carbon from a coal plant, or nuclear waste from a nuke plant or from a hydro electric damn thats destroying fish migrations and habitat...the whole idea that battery powered cars is the way to go is stupid

until people can go similar distances on battery as a fuel powered car they will also be the other option, the only once that make any sort of sense have a small petrol motor for extended distances, but that adds cost and repairs.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of shifting. I hate to talk about carbon footprint because CO2 is the least of your worries with producing stuff like solar panels and batteries.
A coal fired electric plant is still a whole heap more efficient than a gas engine. It's stupid to think that electric is totally clean, but comparatively electric cars are much cleaner. Combine that with a nuke plant instead of coal and now you're not polluting into the atmosphere. Combine a nuke plant with a fast reactor and now you've reduced the waste down to 99% of the original waste which is maintainable.

Batteries have always been a problem. We don't have any energy storage solutions that rival the power stored in gas, nor any convenient way of refilling the tank (or battery) in a way that makes it equal to gas. The only thing i can think of is charging stations that swap out batteries. But since no manufacturer will even consider a standard and battery packs have been put in hybrid/electric cars in all different configurations i doubt that'll ever come to light. Hydrogen is not a viable option for many reasons.

That's why for the foreseeable future, plug in hybrids make the most sense. You get a part electric car for your daily commute and the ability to travel across country like a normal gas powered car.
 
Putz said:
well they mine the nickel in Canada... ship it to Japan to make batteries on diesel freighters, and refine it in japan/china making all kinds of nasty by products, then ship the batteries back to mexico again on a diesel freighter to build the cars, then when the batteries are worn out they get shipped back to japan/china to recycle, again making all kinds of nasty by products, then shipped back once refurb/rebuilt.

all they are doing it shifting the carbon footprint from the cars to something else, same when they are being charged. instead of carbon at the pump it carbon from a coal plant, or nuclear waste from a nuke plant or from a hydro electric damn thats destroying fish migrations and habitat...the whole idea that battery powered cars is the way to go is stupid

until people can go similar distances on battery as a fuel powered car they will also be the other option, the only once that make any sort of sense have a small petrol motor for extended distances, but that adds cost and repairs.
Click to expand...
I think electric still comes out ahead, but you're right, it's not the best solution. Robust mass transit is way more friendly environmentally. The fact that we don't have passenger rail to every major city shows how far behind we are on where we need to be.

westrock2000 said:
It's almost like there are valid reasons internal combustion has been king for 100+ years.

I am hopeful for electric, but I think a lot of people are fooling themselves thinking gasoline was just a fluke waiting to be replaced.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's some of both. On one hand, there really has been favoritism and artificial boosting of it, oil subsidies, plus auto companies buying up streetcars so they could shut them down along with an anemic public transit system has boosted gas beyond what it should be. On the other hand, the energy value of oil is simply incredible and our entire civilization still depends on it. Oil isn't going away anytime soon for very legitimate reasons, but we have hampered efforts to try and transition away from it as much as we can.
 
Gigus Fire said:
There is a lot of shifting. I hate to talk about carbon footprint because CO2 is the least of your worries with producing stuff like solar panels and batteries.
A coal fired electric plant is still a whole heap more efficient than a gas engine. It's stupid to think that electric is totally clean, but comparatively electric cars are much cleaner. Combine that with a nuke plant instead of coal and now you're not polluting into the atmosphere. Combine a nuke plant with a fast reactor and now you've reduced the waste down to 99% of the original waste which is maintainable.

Batteries have always been a problem. We don't have any energy storage solutions that rival the power stored in gas, nor any convenient way of refilling the tank (or battery) in a way that makes it equal to gas. The only thing i can think of is charging stations that swap out batteries. But since no manufacturer will even consider a standard and battery packs have been put in hybrid/electric cars in all different configurations i doubt that'll ever come to light. Hydrogen is not a viable option for many reasons.

That's why for the foreseeable future, plug in hybrids make the most sense. You get a part electric car for your daily commute and the ability to travel across country like a normal gas powered car.
Click to expand...

Ummmmm NO

Car IC's engines sometimes leave ari cleaner than it went in. Keeping the car engine operating at the correct temperature and then pushing it through the cat, as well as gas fume recovery and overburn are what effect engine efficiency. You could get a much more efficient engine if you weren't worried about making the air coming out the pipe clean as possible.

50% of US power comes from Coal.
Over 50% of China power comes from Coal
Coal launches all kinds of nasty 2#$#@%@#$ into the atmosphere. Less NOx and Sulfates, less Mercury, Toluene, Xylene, Cadium, etc. Mercury build up is a serious issue for large fish like Tuna. Sulfates are a hazard to the environment as they form acids. Just ask Rome and Paris their efforts to control sulfates damaging their statues and monuments. And Coal ash (The left over) has all kinds of environmental problems. They dump the used coal into huge sludge ponds that just sit there. They are full of toxic chemicals. These ponds have failed on more than one occasion and leaked into the fresh water supply

We pretty much banned all coke plants in the USA because the off gas is so incredibly nasty it would never come close to passing EPA regs without a metric @#$@# ton of money. So we outsource it all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Any way, large electric motors (100 HP or more) are not that expensive, even with active cooling. I work with them every day. That includes cold rolled and cast housings. These are simple DC motors using PWM

What is expensive is the driving electronics. Luckily these are DC motors so it's a lot cheaper than AC
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DigitalGriffin said:
Ummmmm NO

Car IC's engines sometimes leave ari cleaner than it went in. Keeping the car engine operating at the correct temperature and then pushing it through the cat, as well as gas fume recovery and overburn are what effect engine efficiency. You could get a much more efficient engine if you weren't worried about making the air coming out the pipe clean as possible.

50% of US power comes from Coal.
Over 50% of China power comes from Coal
Coal launches all kinds of nasty 2#$#@%@#$ into the atmosphere. Less NOx and Sulfates, less Mercury, Toluene, Xylene, Cadium, etc. Mercury build up is a serious issue for large fish like Tuna. Sulfates are a hazard to the environment as they form acids. Just ask Rome and Paris their efforts to control sulfates damaging their statues and monuments. And Coal ash (The left over) has all kinds of environmental problems. They dump the used coal into huge sludge ponds that just sit there. They are full of toxic chemicals. These ponds have failed on more than one occasion and leaked into the fresh water supply

We pretty much banned all coke plants in the USA because the off gas is so incredibly nasty it would never come close to passing EPA regs without a metric @#$@# ton of money. So we outsource it all.
Click to expand...
https://www.quora.com/What-is-more-...ty-for-electric-cars-or-gasoline-powered-cars
In terms of efficiency and waste produced, coal plants/electric cars win over gas cars (and i was talking about nuclear mostly as a great alternative to coal for a few posts).
A large scale plant will always be more efficient than several smaller engines.
 
I think what we really need is a paradigm shift in the way power is generated and distributed to communities. Having a power plant 60 miles away, churning out really high voltage just to make the long haul to substations and then step it down at further substations, then again at transformers near your home is incredibly wasteful. You lose tons of power in transmission and to make matters worse, there is really no storage mechanism for the power generated. If the plant is generating more than is consumed by the grid, it goes to waste. There have been attempts at being able to store energy at the plants using flywheels, but that is quite the rarity. If each suburb or community had their own, smaller power generation unit, I think we could cut down on a lot of the waste, but we would also have to be alright living with those compromises.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Theres a difference between efficiency and pollution. Two separate metrics.
Click to expand...
They are different, but they're highly related. A highly efficient power plant is going to have very little waste (pollution). A lousy power plant is going to have lots of waste.
Coal fired power plants and it's related electric cars (the entire combo) is still more efficient and less polluting than gas refineries and transport of fuel and cars that use the fuel.
And i don't think adding a catalytic converter to a gas car makes it clean.
 
Gigus Fire said:
They are different, but they're highly related. A highly efficient power plant is going to have very little waste (pollution). A lousy power plant is going to have lots of waste.
Coal fired power plants and it's related electric cars (the entire combo) is still more efficient and less polluting than gas refineries and transport of fuel and cars that use the fuel.
Click to expand...

Umm NOOOOOOOOOOOOO they aren't because the fuel source isn't the same. Coal is so dirty it isn't even funny. Even if you went with the 15% efficiency of ICE versus the 40% efficiency of an all electric driveline with no transmission losses the amount of pollutants you dump in the air from coal far exceeds anything a car engine will do.
 
DeathYourFace said:
The math comes out to ~$54,260,717,647.06 total payed in gas tax per year. Of course these are rough numbers and does not account for diesel which is much more. Oh and then there's the gas guzzler tax etc.

Sorry, but I just could not let that one stand.
Click to expand...

That's a tax on you purchasing oil, not the oil industry. The International Energy Agency estimates that governments subsidized fossil fuels by $548B in 2013. Further, despite that large seeming number, gas taxes still aren't sufficient to actual maintain roads and driving infrastructure.

Further, fossil fuels benefit because their negative externalities are not priced in - air pollution, health effects, other environmental damage, etc.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Umm NOOOOOOOOOOOOO they aren't because the fuel source isn't the same. Coal is so dirty it isn't even funny. Even if you went with the 15% efficiency of ICE versus the 40% efficiency of an all electric driveline with no transmission losses the amount of pollutants you dump in the air from coal far exceeds anything a car engine will do.
Click to expand...
EV%20emissions.JPG
 
Gigus Fire said:
EV%20emissions.JPG
Click to expand...

CO2 isn't the only metric of pollution dummy. And there's still some dispute if it's actually a pollutant. If you are worried about greenhouse gas, (Which is debatable. The science of that from when I worked at NASA pure sciences is based on a lot of assumptions and suppositions from those assumptions. There are many competing models) then yes worry about CO2

Mercury, NOx, Sulfates, are much more short term destructive than CO2 any day.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
CO2 isn't the only metric of pollution dummy. And there's still some dispute if it's actually a pollutant. If you are worried about greenhouse gas, (Which is debatable. The science of that from when I worked at NASA pure sciences is based on a lot of assumptions and suppositions from those assumptions. There are many competing models) then yes worry about CO2

Mercury, NOx, Sulfates, are much more short term destructive than CO2 any day.
Click to expand...
I never claimed CO2 was, i in fact said i hate to talk about it as i don't quite agree with the idea of a carbon footprint.
But your assertion really relies on the grid which is supplying the power. The closest article i found stated that the west is much cleaner than the east. http://www.motherjones.com/environm...les-actually-cause-more-pollution-gas-cars-0/

As renewable energy becomes more prevalent this should shift even in areas not producing the cleanest energy currently.
 
Gigus Fire said:
I never claimed CO2 was, i in fact said i hate to talk about it as i don't quite agree with the idea of a carbon footprint.
But your assertion really relies on the grid which is supplying the power. The closest article i found stated that the west is much cleaner than the east. http://www.motherjones.com/environm...les-actually-cause-more-pollution-gas-cars-0/

As renewable energy becomes more prevalent this should shift even in areas not producing the cleanest energy currently.
Click to expand...

But the fact still stands, with 50% of our power coming from coal, the number of nasty ass chemicals getting dumped from power plants is currently worse than ICE.

And please forgive my bluntness. I get a little crass sometimes to slap someone up side their head to pay attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top