Tags
China, Elon Musk, Guangzhou Shioyard International Company Ltd., Honda, John Feddersen, Megacharger, solar power, Supercharger, Tesla, Tonopah Solar Power Plant
There has been a bit more news on the electric vehicle front since my last post: Tesla: The Free Market Cometh. It seems Honda might be making a breakthrough of sorts–maybe–by 2022-ish. The Drive.com reports:
According to Nikkei, the world’s largest manufacturer of internal combustion engines claims it will have EVs capable of a full charge in just 15 minutes by 2022.
The key to Honda’s plan is the battery itself. Honda currently sources batteries for plug-in hybrids from Panasonic and is looking for a partner to collaborate with on its new, quick charging battery. Honda is also working with the unique challenges of electrified cars by engineering lighter bodies that are able to go farther on a single battery charge to reduce the range anxiety that’s been plaguing EV drivers since their introduction. The goal for 2022 is for a Honda EV to go 150 miles on a 15-minute charge.
As I’ve often noted, there are essentially three ways to improve the range of an EV: lighten the entire vehicle, make it more aerodynamic, or produce a nearly unimaginable breakthrough in battery technology. Each of these factors demands substantial trade offs. Cars that are light enough to make a real difference must be very small–Chevy Bolt small or smaller–and of necessity, more dangerous in accidents. We’re pretty much at the aerodynamic limits, but an additional mile or two of range might still be squeezed out somehow. And that brings us back to battery technology.
Currently, the fastest quick chargers are able to charge an EV battery to about 80 percent in roughly 30 minutes. That’s pretty good, but still not good enough to establish widespread acceptance of electric vehicles with drivers who are used to the convenience of quickly filling fuel tanks for internal combustion engines in five minutes anywhere in the world’s massive network of gas stations.
Not mentioned is such quick chargers are very expensive, use an enormous amount of energy, and are virtually nonexistent in the real world. Even if this optimistic prediction comes to pass, even 15 minutes will not be enough to allow EVs to capture significant market share. They’ll still cost far more than comparable conventional vehicles, still have much less range, still take longer to refuel, still have all the limitations of EVs beyond range, and if generous pubic cash infusions for EVs are rescinded, as is at least possible under the current administration, that pretty much tells the story.
And there is news from Tesla, the company that promises much and delivers, well, not much of late. The Guardian reports:
In typical Musk style, the CEO had hyped the truck on Twitter throughout the week. On Sunday, he promised that it ‘will blow your mind clear out of your skull and into an alternate dimension’, while on Wednesday he teased that the truck ‘can transform into a robot, fight aliens and make one hell of a latte.”
There was no espresso machine to be seen, but Musk did promise a laundry list of features that he claimed would ensure the overall cost of ownership will be 20% less per mile compared with diesel trucks. Among them: faster acceleration, better uphill performance, a 500-mile (805km) range at maximum weight at highway speed, and ‘thermonuclear explosion-proof glass’ in the windshield.
Safety features include enhanced autopilot, lane-keeping technology, and a design that makes jackknifing ‘impossible’, Musk said.
The company plans to build a network of ‘Megachargers’ (as opposed to the ‘Superchargers’ used by other Tesla vehicles) that can produce a 400-mile charge in 30 minutes.
Go here to refresh your memory on Tesla’s “supercharger” technology and network.
Musk claimed it would be ‘economic suicide’ to continue using diesel trucks, saying the Tesla version, if driven in convoy, would be cheaper than shipping goods by rail.
Do you see the inherent problems, gentle readers? I mean, beyond Tesla’s dismal record of delivering promised vehicles on time? Briefly, the only way such vehicles could be remotely competitive with conventional trucks is if megachargers were ubiquitous, pretty much everywhere. And there’s the “in convoy” bit. Will Tesla place multiple chargers at each charging station? If not, a three-vehicle convoy is going to take 90 minutes to recharge, and that’s if Tesla’s promised 400-mile charge is remotely accurate. Oh, and recharging batteries of that size and power will take an enormous amount of electrical energy, which doesn’t come from unicorn farts and fairy dust. The truck looks cool, but there’s much to prove before diesels become a thing of the past.
How much power, you ask? Ft.com has an idea:
One of Europe’s leading energy consultancies has estimated that Tesla’s electric haulage truck will require the same power as up to 4,000 homes to recharge, calculations that raise questions over the project’s viability.
Why yes. I guess that would raise such questions.
John Feddersen, chief executive of Aurora Energy Research, a consultancy set up in 2013 by a group of Oxford university professors, said the power required for the megacharger to fill a battery in that amount of time would be 1,600 kilowatts.
That is the equivalent of providing power for 3,000-4,000 “average” houses, he told a London conference last week, and is 10 times as powerful as Tesla’s current network of “superchargers” for its electric cars. Tesla declined to comment on the calculations.
I’m sure Tesla did, which didn’t keep Elon Musk from making claims that should be taken with a block of salt:
Elon Musk, Tesla’s chief executive, has previously said the megachargers would be solar-powered but the company has not confirmed whether they will also have a grid connection for when it is not sunny.
Solar power. Right. Maybe if the chargers were all connected to the Tonopah Solar Plant, which is mostly successful in flash frying birds on the wing… But maybe I’m just being overly pessimistic:
Other experts in battery technology have claimed that charging a truck in half an hour would require technology exceeding anything available. ‘The fastest chargers today can support up to around 450kW charging, so it’s not clear yet how Tesla will achieve their desired charging speeds,’ said Colin McKerracher, head of advanced transport at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a consultancy.
Un-huh. I guess I’m not. But here is yet another battery powered conveyance breaking the boundaries of science, and causing a great many to ask “why?” Science Alert.com has the story:
As reported by China Daily, the 2,000-metric-ton ship was launched in the city of Guangzhou last month and runs in the inland section of the Pearl River.
Constructed by Guangzhou Shipyard International Company Ltd, it can travel 80 kilometres (approximately 50 miles) after being charged for two hours. As noted by Clean Technica, two hours is roughly the amount of time it would take to unload the ship’s cargo while docked.
Other stats for China’s cargo ship include being 70.5 metres (230 feet) in length, a battery capacity of 2,400 kWh, and a travel speed of 12.8 kilometres per hour (8 miles per hour).
Fifty miles? Remember how EV manufacturers claim 50 miles, which tends, in the real world, operated by real people, to be about half that?
“As the ship is fully electric powered, it poses no threats to the environment,’ said Huang Jialin, general manager of Hangzhou Modern Ship Design & Research Co, the company behind the ship’s design.
Of course not. The environment has always been the top priority of murderous Communist dictatorships. The electricity to recharge this particular ship must be generated by uniquely Chinese unicorn farts and fairy dust. Actually, irony abounds:
Ironically, the world’s first all-electric cargo ship is being used to move coal, according to Chen Ji, general manger of Guangzhou Shipyard International.
And why would it need to transport coal? Why, to heat and cook, and to fuel electric generating plants, which provide the electricity to charge–you guessed it–the ship transporting coal. That’s kind of like no-calorie chocolate truffles: all of the benefit, and none of the downside. Clever, those Chinese.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
The range anxiety inspired by the current crop of EVs reminds me of the range anxiety experienced by owners of the Ford Model T. With a 10 gallon fuel tank and fuel economy of about 12 to 20 mpg depending on circumstances, people were not sanguine about range limitations. This is why so many service stations posted signs warning people how much further the next gas station was. This range anxiety did not dissuade people from making the car a massive success. The just as limited range of 1950s and 1960s vintage land barges and station wagons with V-8 engines that yielded single digit fuel economy and 20 gallon gas tanks did not dissuade consumers until the 1973 oil embargo.
Only in recent decades have much higher fuel efficiencies conditioned drivers to expect very long range. My 2001 VW, Jetta diesel never got less than 40mpg which resulted in a range of 480 miles on it’s 12 gallon fuel tank. My Isuzu Diesel Trooper consistently got better than 30mpg which resulted in a spectacular 600+ mile range on it’s 22 gallon diesel tank. Even with a trailer loaded with camping gear, driving from the Beaverton area to Imnaha for deer and elk hunting became a one tank trip. A stop in Lagrande ensured a full weeks worth of running around with just a pair of Jerry cans for insurance.
The many ghost gas stations that can be seen during a drive through Western States such as Nevada reveals how modern, longer ranged gas and diesel vehicles have transformed driver expectation. Simply reverting to pre 1973 range expectations will make EVs very feasible.
There was a time I was as skeptical as you appear to be, but all that has changed since 2014.
In that year, in an effort – a continuing never ending effort I should add – to reduce the outgo of my income, I decided to buy a Ford C-Max hybrid to try and reduce fuel costs.
It worked. I went from around $320/month in a Ford Escape on a commute of roughly 2500 miles per month to $180/month. The ride was comfortable and quite safe with essentially the same internal room and physical attributes.
Thus stoked with enthusiasm, after 3 years of ownership and somewhat north of 60,000 miles on the odometer, it was time to look deeper and consider a plug in hybrid or full electric vehicle.
Because I live at the base of the Adirondacks, I’m in an area that will probably be the last on Earth to receive public fast chargers. The lack of a charging infrastructure here, and down in the Solomons area of Maryland where we take sailing lessons, meant an all-electric vehicle was out for this next vehicle purchase.
I chose instead to go with a plug-in hybrid, and chose the vehicle with the longest electric-only range – the 2017 Chevrolet Volt (incidentally, it’s the first time I’ve purchased something other than a Ford in over 20 years).
Wow, have I not been disappointed! At an average 53 miles of electric range and a distance on battery sufficient to take me the 50 miles one way to work each day (where I recharge on a standard outlet for the 12 hours of my shift for nothing because my company supports vehicle charging by policy (it’s a power plant), I’m averaging less than $10 on my electric bill and $25 in gas every month. So, $320 dropped to $180 dropped to $35 to power my vehicle. I upped my 401k two more percentage points as a result!
The Chevy Volt, unlike many plug-in EV’s doesn’t look weird (it’s not a Prius). It handles essentially like a regular car but just requires some minor tweaks to a decades-old driving style to improve regeneration technique to keep the car on battery. Sometimes this can actually be kind of a fun game. It rarely needs oil changes, and the engine has so few moving parts inside that there’s almost no maintenance costs at all.
I was able to equip the car with a hitch for my bike rack, and because it’s technically a hatchback, internal storage is more than sufficient for lumber, camping gear or a large dog or two.
Do I care that having more electric vehicles on the road will require more electric generation? Nope. We call that job security.
Do I care that some of the materials used in the battery are mined by people in abusive situations? Yeah, somewhat. However, that charge can be leveled at many of the contractors for many of the devices we know and love (own an Apple product?). Should we shut down our lifestyle and thereby make their lives unemployed and worse? Nah.
Don’t get me wrong. There are range issues to overcome, recharge rates and a host of minor infrastructure headaches. Yet since EV’s came on my radar about 2013 there has been substantial – heck, I’ll even go with massive – infrastructural and technological improvement. Mankind always finds a way to do what it wants to do. I have faith in our ability to overcome these hurdles too.
Whether you’re a climate hysteric, climate denier, or, like me, a person who just calls it weather, I think the change to electric drives is cleaner, cheaper in the long run and safer.
Time will tell.
I think that hybrids can fill a niche. I think that an all battery over the road Semi Tractor is not feasible.
A Hybrid Semi Tractor could make sense, with a battery pack that can accelerate the semi to full speed several times, and mai ntain normal highway speed for ten to twenty miles. The diesel DC generator can be sized to provide enough power to maintain the semi tractor and a fully loaded trailer set at maximum highway speed (75mph) in a 20 mph headwind while powering all the tractor and trailer loads. The battery pack can be used to supplement the DC Generator when accelerating or climbing hills. If the unit is used in the mountains, a larger generator may be needed. The heat from an engine powered generator can be used to maintain the cab and battery at normal operating temperature in the winter, eliminating the need to use battery energy for heating.
The diesel generator running at a constant speed and load can be optimized for efficiency and pollution control. The “bad” VW Diesels turned off their pollution control to provide acceleration and performance, which isn’t necessary for a constant load and speed.
The battery can be used to drive the semi in urban areas, or where quiet operations are needed. There is no need for thousands of battery chargers, just fill the diesel tank and turn on the diesel generator. Need to charge the battery? Take a lunch or rest break, or just accept you can only drive at low speeds until it is charged.
Dear rd:
Among the things I didn’t take the space to mention is the debilitating effect cold has on batteries. Truckers must take mandatory rest breaks, which is why they have sleeping compartments. What’s going to power the heater necessary to keep drivers from freezing in cold climes, or the A/C in hot climes? And when cold saps battery power and charging capacity, to say nothing of significantly lengthening charge times, what then? Trucks are only efficient if they’re able to keep strict time schedules. Batteries won’t provide that kind of flexibility, certainly not with contemporary technology or any technology on the horizon.
Mike,
Using the Diesel powered DC generator, you can tap the waste engine heat, just like a conventional engine set-up. For back up you can use battery powered resistance heat, even if it is very inefficient. For A/C, PTO off the drive train and an electric motor drive for slow/non running periods with a couple of slip clutches.
The goal would be to have the hybrid generator be as small and efficient as possible, while still capable of maintaining the semi and load at full highway speed. The energy for acceleration and climbing hills would come the battery. Small engine, small battery. No charger Infrastructure.
Dear xsubsquid:
I’m glad you found the Volt to your liking, but my primary point about such vehicles is they’re not suitable for most Americans. I also take issue with the federal government picking economic winner and losers with my tax dollars. I think we both know without those federal and state subsidies,. the EV market would quickly dry up and blow away.
But, if an EV meets your needs, good for you. Buy one for each day of the week and change them like undies!
Actually, the only subsidies involved at the purchaser end of the deal are tax credits which allowed me to get back my own tax money, not anything anyone else put in.
Now, if you are referring to various taxpayer supported grants, tax credits and other programs people like Musk and others gobble up prolifically in order to fund these programs, I, in fact generally agree with you that that sort of corporate welfare is not in the taxpayers best interest. A significant portion of those programs (thinking half a dozen solar manufacturers) go belly up or move out of the country.
Dear xsubsquid:
Some $7500 in federal money, and more in state money in some states, is merely what you’ve paid into the government’s coffers as your tax share? I’ve been negligent in not demanding all of my money back! Where do I go to get it, and do I really have to buy an EV just to claw back the money I’ve paid in taxes? Spending another $30,000 plus just to get back $7500 kind of seems excessively expensive…
Unless you happen to already be in the market for a new/replacement vehicle anyway, which I was because of the excessive amount of commuting miles my job entails.
My point, by the way, is that it was my money I was getting back, not someone else’s tax money flowing into my pocket. I am a practical idealist. Ideally, I would prefer none of these redistribution schemes existed. Practically, however, they do exist so I’d be a fool not to grab my money back if someone wants to give it to me for buying a fancy widget that also saves me money to operate.
I think the term is “opportunist.”
Dear xsubsquid:
Indeed. I couldn’t do a Volt because I commute about 60 miles (to and fro) three times a week for rehearsals or performances. I could never be certain I’d be able to make the trip. I suspect most Americans, particularly those living in states like North and South Dakota, Wyoming, etc. are in that position as well.
The Volt is a plug-in hybrid. The 53 miles I mentioned is just the electric range. It has an additional 330 mile gas engine range. In June, July and August I traveled approximately 5000 miles each month without filling up. That’s real easy to get used to!
Dear z-subsquid:
You’re quite right. I intended to write “EV”–generic–rather than Volt, but had “volt” on the brain after your comment. That’s what I get after grading a hundred student papers.
That would drive me bananas. Professors/teachers have my undying respect for their ability to do such work.
All of the added weight and cost of the electric drive system in a Volt replaces about 1 – 1.5 gallon of gas (in comparison to, for example, a carefully driven gas version with a 6 speed.)) My daily commute is ~ 20 miles round trip. Therefore, I could only save the cost of a gallon of gas every 2 days. The 20,000 dollar cost of the hybrid features over the base gas car looks like a mountain to pay back at that rate.
Dear Rum:
Some years ago–it’s in the SMM EV archive–I wrote an article proving with simple math it’s impossible to recover the difference in purchase price for an EV compared to a comparable, conventionally powered vehicle, in gas savings. I’ve also provided convincing arguments from a variety of sources that EVs are not, in fact, better for the environment. Virtue signaling, certainly. Saving the planet, not so much.
Pingback: Tesla: Musk Fought The Law (Of Physics), And The Law Won | Stately McDaniel Manor