I work as a Marine Propulsion Design Engineer in Sweden and electric vehicles all have one thing in common... they use compressed energy which is then stored in a container.
Compressed energy is merely energy which is stored within a vessel, which is energy that has already been generated by an outside source and is ready to use.
The energy that comes from a lithium battery is NOT energy that is generated by the lithium itself, but in fact is energy that is generated by something else like a diesel generator. The lithium itself is nothing more than a storage medium for energy that was generated to be stored in until needed for future use.
For example a rubber elastic band is an energy storage vessel. An elastic band does not generate it's own energy. When the elastic is stretched out, the elastic now contains stored energy. What generated the elastic's stored energy in the first place was a human who used her own energy to stretch the elastic band to it's structural limit.
In other words, the elastic did not stretch ITSELF but instead required another energy source to stretch it. That energy that was expended to stretch the elastic band is now being stored within the rubberized elastic fibers.
A lithium battery is the same thing as an elastic band in principle... it stores energy that was generated from some other unrelated source of which is then transferred into the lithium-based vessel for storage until needed sometime in the future.
The problem with lithium batteries in a car or truck is that you cannot boost the amount of energy that a battery holds, as if making the sides of the vessel expand outward to carry more energy.
What this means is, a lithium battery has a very 'finite' energy expenditure which is very predictable AND which is highly dependent on temperature to give back what was put into the lithium storage vessel in the first place.
The hotter the temperature (to a point), the more seemingly expanded energy seems to flow from a lithium battery, compared to what was first generated into it. If it gets too hot however, the battery will fail and will cease to operate.
The colder the temperature (to a point), the LESS seemingly expanded energy will flow from the battery, compared to what was first generated into it. If it gets too cold however, the battery will fail to expend stored energy. What this means is, lithium batteries are like flashlight batteries in the extreme cold... meaning they simply don't work at all, never mind work just a little bit!
It also means that in extreme hot, the batteries become quickly overheated which results in very little energy output. This can be experienced in Arizona for example.
Lithium batteries for cars and trucks were designed to operate at a temperature of 59 degrees Fahrenheit or 15 degrees Celsius. That is the reference point from which all calculations and predictions are made from.
When you operate 'plus or minus' outside that temperature range, your battery will not yield back to you what you generated into that battery in the first place.
That is why electric snow plows will not work in Maine or anywhere else for that matter and the colder the temps, the less they will work.
That is why a nuclear powered submarine works so well... because nuclear power is not pre-generated energy like a lithium battery is, but instead is stored fuel.
@jackjjackson You are very welcome! I know you never needed that stuff explained to you, but this whole issue of EV replacing petrol-powered transportation in the USA is a fallacy at this juncture in EV's evolution.
The reason for this is that EV theory is based on temperatures that are consistent with mid-latitude States like South Carolina for example. Anything north or anything south will have problems in winter and summer respectively because of the inherent nature of lithium as a storage medium, meaning it only stores energy but it does not generate it's own energy.
In addition to that not being thought out the reliability, availability of charging and battery disposal are all huge unknowns. We need a gaggle of small nuclear plants spread out everywhere. @SandWitch
@SandWitch As a technicality, the carbon hydrogen bond in all fossil fuels and the change of mass in deteriorating nuclear fuel is only a storage medium. There are no vehicles I know that can increase the number of carbon hydrogen bonds in their fuel tank. So, the battery isn't that much different, is it. Temperatures can be compensated for using fluids and a heat pump,but all that takes energy that could go to other things if the ambienf temp were more ideal.
Battery disposal doesn't look too bad. We already have reclamation facilities. No process is going to be 100% efficient, but they can get pretty close.
Wishful thinking. What’s needed is back to the drawing board this time with real manufactures who aren’t government funding driving the process inasmuch as they know what they CAN do how to do it and make it and the numbers work. Liberal arbitrary dictates are always bound to fail. @IronHamster
@SandWitch says [quote] electric vehicles all have one thing in common... they use compressed energy which is then stored in a container.
Compressed energy is merely energy which is stored within a vessel, which is energy that has already been generated by an outside source and is ready to use.[/quote] Agreed.
This is also true of gasoline, diesel, and oil powered engines. They are all limited by a fuel tank.
Oh, wait, they can all be refueled. Oh, wait, so can electric vehicles.
So the question actually boils down to the ease and speed and convenience of refueling. Being from Sweden you may be unaware, but a big component of Biden's trillion dollar infrastructure plan is to greatly increase our electric charging infrastructure. At the same time, battery researchers are eliminating bottlenecks to fast charge times, like 80% charge in 5 minutes. [b]https://www.motortrend.com/news/nasa-ev-fast-charging-space-tech/[/b]
@jackjjackson 100% agreed. While I love my Tesla and believe there is a place for EVs in our future, these pie in the sky dictates are infuriating.
I remember the light bulb efficiency standards. I bought a number of incandescent bulbs because I knew they would be hard to find and didn't like the light off the CFLs. The CFLs required hazardous waste treatment, too, which I guarantee most didn't get. Now, the LED bulbs have come into their day, and the CFL is obsolete as well as, in most cases, the incandescent. Nobody needs a mandate to switch to something that is less expensive, more enjoyable, and lasts longer.
In time, the battery backs will evolve, and the problems we associate with them will be history, and consumers will make different choices based on the criteria of "what is best for me," as they do today, and as they should.
@IronHamster [quote]As a technicality, the carbon hydrogen bond in all fossil fuels and the change of mass in deteriorating nuclear fuel is only a storage medium.[/quote]
My good friend, I was not re-producing my Thesis as a Navy Marine Propulsion Engineer when I wrote that short piece to @jackjjackson, I was comparing a lithium storage battery to the energy storage ability of a household elastic rubber band, using both as a comparable analogy to keep this thread in a simplified reading context for an SW reading audience, which apparently didn't work for you.
Why would your ego feel the need to set the record strait on a technicality that has no relevance to this thread? Is correcting my already overly simplistic analogy of energy storage the only way that you can find to contribute your two cents worth to a thread of this nature? Is that really your situation here?
@jackjjackson [quote]In addition to that not being thought out the reliability, availability of charging and battery disposal are all huge unknowns. We need a gaggle of small nuclear plants spread out everywhere.[/quote]
Yes, I agree. Nuclear power generated from mini-nuclear plants scattered around the country are an excellent way to go anyway, even without EV transportation as the issue. Above ground oil storage tanks at an oil refinery are more susceptible to catastrophic events than are the mini-nuclear plants that have far more stringent safety protocols in place.
Right now in the USA, the power grid is an antiquated system that in some places dates right back to the 1930's in design and installation practices. It is a crumbling infrastructure, particularly in the State of Texas I've noticed. The part of the overall system that is crumbling is the transmission lines which transport power from it's singular source to towns and cites hundreds of miles away.
Mini-nuclear plants are the size of a sewage treatment plant on the edge of any town, which means they're not noticeable as a brick structure nor do they smell. The use of mini-nuclear plants located at the edge of any town or city would thereby eliminate the need for hundreds of miles of power transmission lines and towers which your country cannot afford to replace right now.
So I agree with you, in that America's current power grid is actually incapable of providing re-charging capability for every vehicle on American streets if full-on EV acceptance was implemented today across your country. The grid will not handle it if the grid cannot handle hot days without brown-outs as it is.
@ElwoodBlues [quote]So the question actually boils down to the ease and speed and convenience of refueling. Being from Sweden you may be unaware, but a big component of Biden's trillion dollar infrastructure plan is to greatly increase our electric charging infrastructure. At the same time, battery researchers are eliminating bottlenecks to fast charge times, like 80% charge in 5 minutes. [/quote]
Yes, I am aware of Biden's Trillion dollar initiative you speak of and that's very nice of him to come up with that idea! The truth is, Biden would have to do that anyway even without EV coming on stream. This is because of America's crumbling electrical grid from coast to coast which needs immediate replacement just to satisfy the status quo of today's needs, even without EV added into the equation.
The bottom line however, is that replacing America's power grid infrastructure as it currently transports electrical power for hundreds of miles from it's generating source, could not even begin to service the re-charging needs of 350 million cars that will require re-charging each day or at least once a week. It isn't going to happen! That is why a country's power grid system cannot be expected to power all the lights in town plus recharge our cars at the same time!
You mentioned Sweden. Yes, I am from Sweden which is also where my mailbox is.
In Sweden right now as we speak, 95% of all vehicular traffic is EV. The only vehicles that are not EV are diesel trucks that are running around with special licensing permits which permit their special-case use.
The difference between Sweden and the USA is that we don't have Kraft processed cheese. The second difference is found when a girl (yes the girl) goes into a pharmacy in her town to purchase condoms for her boyfriend, Swedish condoms look different than American condoms. Those two mentioned are really the only two differences between our countries which hold a prominent place in my mind. Kraft processed cheese and American-style condoms! Everything else is the same!
If I were to take my EV car shopping in downtown Stockholm for example, every single parking place I will find will also have a credit card-operated charging cable for my car to plug into. They aren't super-fast chargers, but they do charge a car sufficiently enough to get back home if I happen to be shopping for an hour.
Additionally, if I travel from the south of Sweden to the north where I'm originally from, there will be dozens of charging ports at every former gas station along the way which are strategically placed about 1 hour's driving time away from each other.
Even if I park along a street in the middle of any town in Sweden, where a parking meter use to sit, there is now a credit card-operated charging port for my car. As long as you're buying a charge for your car, your car will not be ticketed if it occupies that parking spot. If you're just parked without charging, you will be ticketed the equivalent of a 1 hour charge for every hour your car sits there.
The bottom line of my discussion here, is that "bottlenecks" to get a car re-charged do not exist in Sweden because there are so many options available everywhere for a charge, including everyone's own residence. Super-fast chargers therefore, are unnecessary if their intent is to eliminate bottlenecks at charging centers.
Where all the power is generated from in Sweden to operate this EV re-charging infrastructure which was set in motion before the first EV car ever arrived here, is solar and wind generators locally located and out of sight for the most part. There is also a backup system linking EV charging ports to the local power grid should the need arise.
The problem with EV in North America including Canada, is that it is being implemented backwards to the general public. The cars and trucks are showing up before the re-charging stations are in place. You only need to get your car towed once because you couldn't find a recharging station, to change your mind about EV transportation. I've been reading about that happening already in Canada.
The last thing the politicians in America need right now is an uprising from the people who can no longer buy a gasoline-powered car and are forced to buy EV but with few places to charge it without long lineups resulting. That was definitely not thinking outside the box. The very first thing Biden should have done when he took Office in 2020, was get the power grid infrastructure replaced across your country, not the last thing he does before his current Term expires.
It’s suspicious that only one company per geographic area owns ans is paid for transmission lines while there are many options for purchasing power that goes through those lines? It smells of monopoly and limitless ripoffs of the public. Those should be government owned and put out for lease bid every 2-5 years. @SandWitch
There was a shit pile of money approved for infrastructure improvement however to date none has been used for that purpose. I agree that every penny of infrastructure spending should be on the power grid for the intermediate future. @SandWitch
@jackjjackson [quote]It’s suspicious that only one company per geographic area owns and is paid for transmission lines while there are many options for purchasing power that goes through those lines?[/quote]
I don't exactly know what you're referring to here. I can't recall raising issue with your point.
@SandWitch Thanks for the info in Swedish charging infrastructure. How long did it take to arrive at that high level of availability? "President Biden's goal of having 50 percent of all new vehicle sales be electric by 2030" means that we really won't be facing "re-charging needs of 350 million cars" in the immediate future. 15-16 million cars and light trucks sold per year gives you a sense of our replacement rate. Charging that much reduced number of EVs, along with grid upgrades, grid scale batteries, etc is very much an achievable goal.
@jackjjackson says [quote] however to date none has been used for that purpose.[/quote] FALSE!!
[quote]Since 2021, ten high-capacity transmission projects have begun construction, expected to connect 19.5 GW of new generation to the grid and representing over $22 billion in investment. Federal permitting progress by the Biden-Harris Administration helped achieve this milestone. The Department of the Interior has successfully shepherded several major transmission projects on public lands through environmental reviews to approvals including: Gateway South, Gateway West, Ten West, TransWestExpress, and the SunZia Southwest Transmission Project.[/quote]
They've also modified rules to accelerate the permitting process, as well as streamlining the rules to connect new generation sources - solar, wind, battery, nuclear, etc - to the grid.
Grid scale batteries store afternoon solar power for heavy evening loads, and they can be located much closer to cities than big generators. They also replace "peaking" power plants (those that switch on & off to feed peaks in load). Peaking plants are the least efficient, thus most beneficial to replace.
Another way to "improve" the grid is by drawing less power. Thus, money is also being granted to individual cities to build efficiency improvements: LED street lights, solar panels on schools & city buildings, and other items. The list is long: [b]https://www.energy.gov/scep/energy-efficiency-and-conservation-block-grant-program-awards[/b]
Frankly it's weird, @jackjjackson, that you would make such a blanket statement when a quick web search proves you wrong.
@jackjjackson I own a plug-in hybrid. Also have solar cells on the roof and a battery in the basement.
Here's how well my solar/battery works in summer months. Our local electric utility is asking me if they can pay me to drain my battery in the evenings to feed the evening loads.
@ElwoodBlues [quote]Thanks for the info in Swedish charging infrastructure. How long did it take to arrive at that high level of availability?[/quote]
That high level of availability only took about 4 years, but it started prior to the Covid pandemic and work continued throughout the pandemic as that project was considered a National priority. I expect it would have taken less time if the pandemic didn't happen because there were supply issues as could be expected, despite most of the hardware being manufactured right in Sweden.
[quote]"President Biden's goal of having 50 percent of all new vehicle sales be electric by 2030" means that we really won't be facing "re-charging needs of 350 million cars" in the immediate future. 15-16 million cars and light trucks sold per year gives you a sense of our replacement rate.[/quote]
Yes, I understand that 350 million cars aren't suddenly going to show up at a charging station instead of a gas station anytime soon! I think the primary difference between the Swedish model and the American model for supplying power to each charging station is local solar/wind generation, versus conventional long distance grid power transfer from centrally located nuclear power/coal plants or hydro dam generators typically used in North American grid systems.
What the issue was in Sweden, was EV charging having to depend on tapping into the main grid which can get compromised in summer, or can failure entirely from sabotage. For that reason a solar/wind generator approach was adopted in very localized areas which only supplies the needs of EV charging for that area, not the grid itself.
The last thing Sweden wanted to do was have an EV charging issue along with a grid issue if the grid itself went down. The solar/wind approach became more of a fail/safe scenario than anything. Additionally, the localized solar/wind supply systems for EV are about one tenth the cost of hyping up the grid to accommodate EV charging.
Using the grid to power cities and towns and EV charging as well, was thought to be putting all our eggs in one basket by using only one supply source for all users of power.
Biden's initiative to be ready for pure EV by 2030 is admirable, but let's keep in mind that the entire infrastructure of electrical power distribution is antiquated across the USA and is regarded as a crumbling infrastructure in it's current state.
Regardless of EV coming on stream or not, Biden (or somebody else) has to make the call to upgrade the entire U.S. electrical grid before the whole thing self-implodes as it becomes a patchwork quilt of repair from coast to coast which is the current modus operandi for grid repair and has been since the 1960's.
If Biden is doing this initiative to accommodate EV, that is very noble of him, but the power requirement to feed EV from the main grid (if that is the plan) will quickly max out any brand new grid system if old methods of power transfer across the country remain to be utilized.
Keep in mind that the oil industry in the USA can barely keep up with America's thirst for oil to run their cars and trucks and when EV comes on stream in 2030 in a big way, that component of the oil industry will fall squarely onto the back of the electrical power generation industry in your country which will now be required to supply the charging needs of cars that no longer burn gasoline.
Though Biden's actions are commendable to say the least, nobody in Europe can figure out why Biden waited SO long into his Presidency to take this major infrastructure initiative, considering the fact that he could be out of Office before the end of this year?
What everyone in America is assuming of course, is that Biden's initiative will be adopted by any future governing body and take it to completion. But if the next government in power after the next Presidential Election is looking to cut government spending, there goes Biden's initiative out the window! It's no different than Trump's wall along the US/Mexico border. As soon as Biden took Office, the construction of Trump's wall came to a standstill because of two things... Biden didn't believe it was necessary and Biden didn't want it known forevermore as President Trump's wall. What will Trump do to Biden's grid upgrade initiative one has to wonder, if that Presidential outcome ever happens?
@SandWitch [quote]Biden (or somebody else) has to make the call to upgrade the entire U.S. electrical grid before the whole thing self-implodes[/quote] Biden has already made that call and it's a big component of his trillion dollar infrastructure initiative.
[quote]m the main grid (if that is the plan) will quickly max out [/quote] The plan also involves locally augmenting "the grid" with batteries, wind, and solar. Renewable electricity sources now exceed both coal and nuclear [quote]the oil industry in the USA can barely keep up with America's thirst for oil to run their cars and trucks[/quote] One of the tragedies of American energy policy is that "light trucks" have much more lenient fuel economy standards than "cars." As a result, many people gas guzzling drive 4 door pickup trucks and/or gas guzzling truck based SUVs. Never the less, EVs have started to make a dent in gasoline consumption: [quote]Biden waited SO long into his Presidency to take this major infrastructure initiative, [/quote] It wasn't that long. "The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), aka Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), was signed into law by President Biden on November 15, 2021." There is a long delay from getting a bill passed to breaking ground on construction. As noted above, [quote]Since 2021, ten high-capacity transmission projects have begun construction, expected to connect 19.5 GW of new generation to the grid and representing over $22 billion in investment. Federal permitting progress by the Biden-Harris Administration helped achieve this milestone. The Department of the Interior has successfully shepherded several major transmission projects on public lands through environmental reviews to approvals including: Gateway South, Gateway West, Ten West, TransWestExpress, and the SunZia Southwest Transmission Project.[/quote]
Actually, your claims about Trump's wall are false. Actually, Trump's "wall" completely failed to do its job.
"U.S. Customs and Border Protection records ... show that suspected smuggling gangs managed to hack through the heavy steel bollards making up the fence 3,272 times between 2019 and 2021." [b]https://fox4kc.com/news/smugglers-cut-through-trump-border-wall-over-3000-times-report-says/[/b]
Turns out Trump's "big beautiful wall" can be sawed thru in a few minutes with $100 worth of cordless tools. And smugglers have been doing it three times a night for at least three years!!
@ElwoodBlues [quote]Actually, your claims about Trump's wall are false. Actually, Trump's "wall" completely failed to do its job.[/quote]
Elwood, your insatiable desire to be perceived as 'right' with almost every post you make on this website, no matter how you twist your perception to make your own position appear to be the correct version of America's reality, has actually made it sound like Donald Trump who's doing the talking whenever you post, which is actually getting quite nauseating for me to listen to from you, with all due respect!
The truth about Trump's wall is that Biden put the brakes on that wall construction project on the very first day he took Office 4 years ago. The cold hard reality that gangs can cut through Trump's wall with cutting tools thereby rendering the wall a failed idea from the get go is actually quite irrelevant to this discussion.
We're not talking about the reliability of Trump's wall to keep out undesirables here Elwood, we're talking about Biden ending Trump's wall legacy at the termination of Trump's Presidency.
My point in bringing Biden's actions against Trump's wall initiative to your attention was to link that cold hard reality with what is likely to happen to Biden's infrastructure upgrade initiative if a Republican President is voted into Office in 2024. That was my point.
A Republican President would take great joy from cancelling Biden's infrastructure plan, no different than Biden took great joy in cancelling Trump's wall initiative.
That is why the American version of 'democracy' doesn't work nor ever has because it does nothing to sustain the long-term viability of the USA as a thriving, productive country.
Instead, the USA blows in the wind and changes it's national direction with every new kid on the block who shows up to play his hand at being President until he gets kicked out on Election Day. Then, the next guy comes along and changes everything the previous guy did and America's progress grinds to a halt.
The fact that Trump's wall can be cut through with a steel saw is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Why did you put yourself in a position of having to be told that?
@SandWitch [quote] your insatiable desire to be perceived as 'right'[/quote] Personal insult, not debate data. I'm not going to apologize for supplying supporting data for my claims. I'm a data driven person; show me better data and I'll change my mind.
[quote]We're not talking about the reliability of Trump's wall to keep out undesirables here Elwood, we're talking about Biden ending Trump's wall legacy at the termination of Trump's Presidency.[/quote] Wrong. You are talking about imagined and projected motives. In fact, terminating a project that merely wastes money is the smart thing to do, and that's what I'm talking about.
[quote]A Republican President would take great joy from cancelling Biden's infrastructure plan,[/quote] Funny thing: Trump ALSO, repeatedly, promised $1 trillion on infrastructure. He just didn't deliver on the promise. Another funny thing: republican members of Congress who voted [i]against[/i] the infrastructure bill are now claiming credit for it, [b]LOL!!![/b]
Despite voting against the bill, lawmakers like Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), Clay Higgins (R-LA), Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX), Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA), Rep. Michelle Steel (R-CA) and Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) have all touted parts of the $14 billion recently allocated from the law to the Army Corps of Engineers making its way to their districts.
