The Future of Electric Vehicles

I believe your number is correct, 1/3 KWH per mile. So after 300 miles, each car needs 100 KWH to refuel.

To service 10 cars/hour, which seems a conservative estimate for an average fueling station, would require 1 MW average power (assuming 100 percent efficiency).

Soon you'll be able to rent these for trips....

http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=30986

....or maybe something like this....

http://www.gizmag.com/dlr-free-piston-linear-generator-range-extender/27736/

http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10081/151_read-6318/year-all/151_page-2/#gallery/8873

I already have one of those "Range Extenders" built into my 2014 Chevy Volt. I have had the car for three months averaging 1000 miles per month. So far I have used a total of 8 gallons of gasoline from the full tank of gas that was in it when I picked it up.

GA

Well put.

If electricity were used when long distances are seldom required, it will still be a great thing provided that battery prices can be manged better. Today they can be over half the value of the car.

When the car is 5 years old and the batteries need replacing, the car is effectively worthless.....a surprise for some of the "greenies" who bought one....

(Green meant in my RN time, someone who did not know what he was doing, or untrained!! The color is therefor perfect for such people today!!)

There was an idea to buy the car and lease/rent a battery module, one that could be quickly replaced at a "battery" filling station. I don't see any movement yet on that score.....

To me, hybrid is best, smaller/cheaper battery and normal fuels for power. The battery can be charged at home to also save money.....

Until a small safe and secure atomic/fusion reactor (or similar) is available for cars, I see no good, long term, viable solution....and who is going to develop that???? It would put dangerous materials in the hands of terrorists....

Rixter I gave you a GA for your post. But a lot of the people today are not aware of the supercharging stations that are coming on line. They will charge to 80% in 10-15 min and a full charge in about an hour maybe a little more. Since I have not had the occasion to use one yet I am not fully aware of their full potential. Here in Indianapolis we have several charging stations that will and can charge while you shop or have dinner, they are popping up everywhere. I have a friend that is an EE who was working on a turbine gen-set that would put out near 45 KW it was the size of a lunch box it proved to be unreliable due to overheating and runaway they just could not control it accurately enough. Their original goal was to put a very small generator on board like a hybrid just a lot smaller package to go with their battery system so it could charge quietly while you were parked or driving. It went away about the same time as the EV-1. I have not heard anything else about it from him in a long time. He said their original goal was 45 KW. I do not remember just how close they came to their original goal at the time. Duke

And Pandora's box.

(Said to be the source of all v.d.)

Your calculation must be wrong. I have a small, 2-person Hungarian electric car named "Puli".

It has a 60V - 240 Ah Pb battery. It's 14.4 kWh. This energy is sufficient for at least 40 miles (in summer without heating it can be more). That means its average consumption is about 14.4/40=0.36 kWh/mile.

This is a 21-year old car with serial DC motor so there is no recuperation; modern cars must be significantly more efficient.

Roughly about 80% of crude oil goes to making liquid fuel for automobiles, heavy equipment, ships and airplanes. Somewhere less than 50% of crude oil goes to making gasoline. Gasoline is probably far more susceptible to replacement by battery/electric set-ups, but the most significant changes still involve hybrid electric-gasoline systems.

.

The reality is the change will not occur overnight. It will be slow. Increases in costs to recover crude oil and a decrease in the growth of demand will certainly increase the pressure on the oil industry, but that industry has been very profitable for a long time. At least 20% of their business is not affected at all by electric vehicle technology. At least another 30% of their business is at most very weakly affected by this technology, and unlikely to become significantly more susceptible to changes in the near term. The remaining 50% of their business will be affected slowly. The amount of the effect might not be large enough to offset the growth in car ownership/use. Given the expected long term increases in recovery I highly doubt there will be a collapse in prices.

.

Absent a collapse in prices, I am not concerned that oil industry profits will be under pressure. Profits in every other industry are under pressure at one time or another, and I don't see the the threat of another environmental catastrophe of epic proportions as credible or a good reason to shield the oil industry from a reality of doing business in every other industry.

Apart from problems of charging time others have mentioned, electric, hydrogen, pneumatic and hydraulic are methods of power transmission, not production. The energy still has to come from somewhere, often oil-fired power stations. There might be environmental advantages if power station emissions are controlled better than vehicles, and oil companies could suffer if there's a shift to nuclear (even cleaner) or coal, but it won't be overnight.

Over here in the continental US, less than 1% of the electricity on the grid comes from crude or crude derived fuels.

A similar scenario might develop. Not one in which all cars can use the same battery packs, but instead where many models from different manufacturers use the same exchangeable packs among a variety, not unlike the way tires are sold today.

.

This would allow many producers to compete with their own version of a particular battery, but would impede innovation.

I think they should all be the same. Fuel should be fuel, they can be produced by different manufacturers just as gasoline is.

But fuel is generally a liquid or gas, not a solid shape that restricts designs. Vehicle tires would be a better model because it would allow for multiple manufactures to compete yet allow for updates and variations so that batteries can be tailored to different spaces and different types of use.

My OT was really about how the oil companies would deal with this. I know they will not ignore the problem. Is it possible they might even try to sabotage any drift towards electric powered vehicles? I tend to be very sceptical about the motives of giant corporations. They usually put profit before anything else.

No , first of all they sell to the world market, which is growing.....second they are investing in battery technology and energy in general....So rather than rage against the storm, they will continue to provide the shelter....(so to speak)

Hi

Steam is not a dead technology. It's used in all nuclear, oil, gas and coal power stations. Wherever heat is generated, steam is used to convert it into rotational energy. Remember electricity has to be made, whether by the sources above or by natural means.

Most of us like electric vehicles, but cost and range is currently the killer, market forces will determine it's success.

Tony

Personally, I like the idea of electric vehicles that have range extender generators in them. Otherwise we still have the same problems that were previously mentioned (i.e. charge times in service stations and the limitation of available on demand power). Assuming we can further develop biofuels (like biodiesel), I think an electric vehicle with a small turbine generator (or other efficient means of generating electricity) would be a great idea.

.

I would be surprised though if big oil hasn't already invested in alternative energy. The most successful companies tend to diversify, so one would think that they would have already as well.

.

I think that the problem with electric cars is that they will be getting their electricity predominantly from coal. At least in Ohio where I used to live, my power bill came with a pie chart that showed 97% of the electricity coming from coal. Then 3% was "unknown" lol. When you consider that from the coal to the plug, the efficiency may only about 30% from generation and transmission losses, you're already further ahead and probably pollute less by just using an efficient turbocharged direct injected IC engine. That is the biggest obstacle! Getting rid of big coal.

Steam is STILL a major player...in power plants.

Its not battery design which is the problem...it is the attempt to adapt a battery design to our stupid urban sprawl. Fix the sprawl, the batteries will be fine.

Oil companies have PLENTY of places to sell their oil. Diesel trains and cars are becoming HOT right now because oil pipeline ideas and projects are collapsing under regulations. (and rightly so)

People have been complaing about the oil industry for a long time...I remember back in the sixties articles (actually adverts) in Popular Mechanics about how the poor guy who invented the car engine which would run off of pure water was shut down by the big bad oil companies. It was bogus then and bogus now)

In fact, aside from a recent (possibly temporay) fracking solution which may not last long, most oil companies are desperate to create more efficient engines, better fuels, and more complete use of bitumen and other by products because they know, as we all do, that peak oil exists. (though not in the form most alarmists take!)

The loss of fuel for transportation will simply free it up to make better plastics.

Just a reminder: Oil and water do not typically mix, and can be separated. Lithium at some high level is a water miscible pollutant. Other not so nice metals are often utilized in batteries....choose your poison carefully.

Pollutant/mood stabilizer. Tomato/tomahto.

Greetings Ron,

Sorry I am late to the discussion but man are we hopping. Just wanted to let you know in case you hadn't heard, that my friend Elon Musk dropped one of the biggest bombs in automotive history last week.He took all of Tesla's patents and made them public domain.As a share holder I was a bit concerned until it was explain.

1. A hostile take over had been attempted.

2. It was a front company set up by our friends at GM and Exxon/Mobile and BP.

3. Several large stake holders alerted Elon of this move.

4. Elon very quickly stopped the buy and bury strategy in its tracks with this move.(see the documentary "who killed the electric car")

5. He also set the stage for continued growth of electric cars by making his technology available to everyone who can't seem to figure out how to get an electric car to go more than 90 miles on a charge. ( a long held falacy of the big oil big auto consortium)

6. As an investor, I am content as it was perfectly timed for our new "Giga factory" effort.

7. For this factory to be a good money maker we need more companies using this technology so now that is possible.

Yepper, the 21st century came to Madison!

Ah, so the releasing of the patents to public domain wasn't pure altruism, it was a defense against Big Oil.

I should talk with my Tax Adviser/Mutual Fund Manager and see about picking up a share or two of Tesla on the side, as a 'buy and hold' strategy, as well as a show of support for the company.

I think I will do as well.

Good answer