Study: Your Electric Car May Not Be So Green

I think this is being based off our current level of battery tech, if you look here www.engadget.com... , a scientists recently discovered you can manipulate the molecular structure of hemp to create something similar to graphene, graphene is one of the best materials on the planet. It has applications in almost every sector. Apparently the batteries made this way charge extremely quickly, hold charge very well, and the best part. Its cheap and easy to make in reference to the process and money required to make a similar material (graphene is expensive as hell and hard to produce). These batteries could last 10 or more years, and would be far more recyclable than lead/ni-mh or li-ion.

From above link

Forget lab-made materials like graphene -- natural, old-fashioned hemp may be the ticket to our energy future. Researchers have demonstrated that you can make very efficient carbon electrodes simply by heating hemp bast fibers in a two-stage process. The resulting substance holds as much energy as graphene, but is much cheaper to make. You're just using biological leftovers, after all. It's much more tolerant of temperature extremes, too, and can survive anything from freezing conditions to a scorching 200F. And before you ask -- this is hemp, not pot, so you're not going to get a contact high just by using a battery.

(This tech also has implications in space travel too)

Next: Solar roadways. If you haven't heard about them you should just google it right quick. Replacing all the major highways in the US (or in my case, canada) or both would supply power for the entire country, and then some. Using surface area that's already in use. Create thousands of jobs for the building and maintenance. Heated tops, no more snow removal. LED lights built in, not only will it reduce accidents due to crappy weather (not seeing the lines can be tricky), but also give warnings to animals on the road ahead (pressure sensors). Modular so it's easy to repair. Where i'm from, moose are a real problem on the highways, getting a heads up from the road that there is a two tonne animal crossing, saves lives.

The right technology applied properly would make electric cars the norm and gasoline obsolete. There is even wireless power technology now, advance that technology further and slap it into the solar road system and vehicles. All of a sudden power to travel is almost infinite as the road will power your car on the go.

The tech is there, the money and ingenuity, and need is not there. Stuck in an oil dollar loop.

a reply to: 727Sky

Air cars use as much electricity to compress their tanks as electric cars do to charge their battery. The difference is if the tank goes bad it's cheap to replace.

a reply to: Sovaka

I didn't dismiss your post. I addressed it in it's entirety, you then dismissed mine. I showed you how Australia still generates over 80% of it's power from coal...you can't run from that stat. Yes, Australia is making massive strides, but you do know the USA is leaps and bounds ahead of you right?

Source

Coal 39%
Natural Gas 27%
Nuclear 19%
Hydropower 7%
Other Renewable 6%
Biomass 1.48%
Geothermal 0.41%
Solar 0.23%
Wind 4.13%
Petroleum 1%
Other Gases < 1%

Only 40% of our energy is from Coal. The rest is considered clean energy.

I am a huge supporter of nuclear energy as a clean energy. If only they would commit resources to researching better disposal methods for the waste. I find it funny that the very green movement who now supports nuclear is the very green movement who oversaw it's demise.

a reply to: raymundoko

Nuclear power -- the answer. People new how to make electricity that was "too cheap to meter" all the way back in the 1960's.

en.wikipedia.org...

The total irony of nuclear power is exactly as you stated! Nuclear power is now advocated by the green movement, who did its best to kill it off earlier -- definitely a big change in attitude that doesn't help the "green movement" credibility gap, or help the practical discussion keep moving.

All the nuclear waste in the USA could be put in a single warehouse covering about 50 acres -- put it in the middle of any one of our 1000 or so military basis. The French figured this out a long time ago.

So -- Tesla may be at the crest of a wave, as electricity becomes super cheap -- as batter technology gets better -- as these types of cars become less expensive -- it may be the most disruptive and future changing technology we have right now. I predict electric cars will be major transformative technology of the next 20 years. I am not the first to say that.

a reply to: AgentShillington

I agree -- Graphene is what will enable electric cars -- and I can't figure out why this is not a bigger deal in the media.

I was hearing about "Megapacitor" (Mega Farad Capacitor) technology three years ago (where you could build a 1 Megafarad capacitor about the size of a trash can, using graphene sheets.) Such a capacitor would (given a big enough electrical feed) charge your car in two minutes, and let you drive continuously for 20 hours.

Strangely, I can't find one link about Megapacitors -- seems to be gone from the web, perhaps replaced by the term "ultracapacitor", but "megapacitor" sounded cooler to me.

But to your point -- graphene is something that isn't getting enough attention. I agree.

a reply to: Axial Leader

Electric cars work great for commuting to and from work and around town. They do NOT work for long range trips.

Right now the best battery gets you a bit over 200 miles on a charge. Do you realize that can't even get you from LA to Vegas, a drive done by a huge amount of people every week??

Batteries are coming (including graphene) that boast potentially 300 miles...so now you can actually get to Vegas...

The thing about Graphene is how fast it can charge. I believe a 200 mile range is estimated about about 30 minutes? (Can't find the source for that), so the equivalent of a really long stop at a gas station? Graphene batteries can also discharge faster, meaning you could potentially put more power into a car than currently (which is impressive because Tesla's are quite powerful).

Ultimately, the range is the issue for electric cars. So in the end it would be better to have a hybrid than an electric car, especially for families who aren't in higher tiers of the middle class. With current power creation options (Coal mainly) the electric car is nothing more than a gimmick for the upper middle class and the rich. Not only does the range and charging time of the electric cars need to be resolved, but so does the power generated to charge them. I believe we are 20-30 years away from the Electric car being better for the environment and more economical for typical familes than a hybrid diesel.

By all means, if you live in a non coal powered area and you can afford an electric car, GO FOR IT. Otherwise, it doesn't really do anything for the environment.

a reply to: raymundoko

I don't care what Australia or any other country does to generate their electricity.
That isn't the argument.

But if you want to make it that argument, then fine.

It takes roughly the same amount of CO2 in terms of burning coal to propel an electric vehicle 1 mile as it does for a petrol vehicle.
Except for one thing that you dismissed entirely...
The amount of electricity required to produce the petrol itself... which as you love to state, comes from burning coal.

So... Which is cleaner????

a reply to: Sovaka

No, the study took that into consideration...please read the source material.

a reply to: raymundoko

Well then the study is wrong...

It is a well known fact that an I.C.E isn't anywhere near efficient in terms of how much fuel it burns for mileage.

So how does it logically factor in that Burning coal to generate electricity to create petrol is more "green" than burning coal to generate electricity to store and use in an electric vehicle???
You are skipping a whole step.

Not to mention the electricity required to pump created fuel into transportation trucks, the fuel used to transport these transportation trucks, THEN the electricity used to pump this fuel from the station, into the vehicles that will be burning it.

Common sense and logic prevail.

a reply to: Sovaka

So you didn't read the source at all? Hybrid diesels were the most environmental at this point in time. I also think you don't understand how much of a pollutant coal is...

Yes, how green an EV is depends on where the electricity comes from. If the electricity comes from coal they can be worse than regular vehicles.

a reply to: raymundoko

Current Lithium-Polymer batteries, including those which have high energy density such as those used in electric cars, can charge at 2C to 3C. This implies a charge to about 80% in between 20 and 30 minutes. Tesla Model S can charge at up to 170 miles (EPA rated range) in 30 minutes and the chargers are already in place in the USA. Driving to Vegas wouldn't be an issue, except for a somewhat longer gas stop.

I have an automotive LiPo cell in my hand right now. We regularly do full charges in an hour. The cell doesn't even get warm. It's just a matter of having a powerful enough charger.

There are also Lithium Titanate cells - they have about half the energy density of regular NMC, but can charge to 80% in 6 minutes.

Lithium Titanate:
www.eigbattery.com...

Li NMC (more typical):
www.eigbattery.com...

www.xaltenergy.com...

www.xaltenergy.com...

a reply to: raymundoko

I don't need to read the source to know that putting electricity generated from coal burning directly into an electric vehicle is cleaner than using that same electricity to make petrol and distribute it.

If you are talking about the initial cost of the production of the vehicle in terms of CO2 released... Then that is a different story.
Yes the initial amount MAY slightly exceed normal vehicles... but in the long term, they are a ton greener.

It's just logical.

Weekend Op-Ed: Why My Jeep Wrangler Is Greener Than Your Hybrid

My 20 year old, 4 cylinder, steel box with wheels that I fastidiously maintain will outlast the newest, fanciest hybrid #box that rolls off the lines tomorrow.



Not to mention, I doubt there are many girls clamoring to go for a ride with some hipster douche in his Prius....

originally posted by: Lipton
Weekend Op-Ed: Why My Jeep Wrangler Is Greener Than Your Hybrid

My 20 year old, 4 cylinder, steel box with wheels that I fastidiously maintain will outlast the newest, fanciest hybrid #box that rolls of the lines tomorrow.

Bang on the money,

35 MPG in 1976 and nothing that can't be fixed with pliers and a screwdriver

I really really miss my 74 Nova for the same easy fix it reasons.
Things sure have gone backwards in my opinion.
Regards Iwinder

a reply to: Lipton

This doesn't really show anything.

Cars were smaller back then. They had less safety equipment. They had less emission controls. They had less comforts. Of course if you remove a ton of stuff from the vehicle and make it smaller, it will get better MPG, even with a less advanced engine.

You want a small car, that's simple, and gets good MPG:

www.eliomotors.com...

Or get a motorcycle.

Also if you look at well-to-wheels assessment, the dominating factor in terms of CO2 emissions and fuel use is operating the vehicle, rather than manufacture. So claims that older cars with worse MPG end up a net benefit aren't necessarily true, it would depend on how close the MPG of both cars are. Older cars will also have less life remaining in them.

A used Jeep Wrangler wouldn't even come close to a new Prius, even including manufacturing.

Also Hybrids like the Prius have been proved to last a very long time.

I'm hoping advances in computer control (i.e. self-driving cars and such) and advances in metallurgy and manufacturing (i.e. changing to aluminium) will help bring weights down under control again.

a reply to: Lipton

The author also talks about how having to transport a car thousands of miles uses lots of fuel.

Japan is approximately 10,000 kilometers away from the USA. A container ship is also significantly more efficient than the car itself, probably factor of 5 or so. So that means transporting the vehicle is equivalent in fuel use to driving the car a couple thousand kilometers. Probably 1% of the total fuel use for the vehicle, over its entire life.

originally posted by: C0bzz


Also if you look at well-to-wheels assessment, the dominating factor in terms of CO2 emissions and fuel use is operating the vehicle, rather than manufacture. So claims that older cars with worse MPG end up a net benefit aren't necessarily true, it would depend on how close the MPG of both cars are. Older cars will also have less life remaining in them.

Development and Applications of GREET 2.7 — The Transportation Vehicle-Cycle Model

Essentially, unless you pass the 160,000 mile mark with your hybrid, then my steel box with wheels is greener. Seeing as how most people cannot manage to keep a houseplant alive, I doubt most of sort that drive a Prius (the ones I've met have soft, supple hands) can maintain their electronic enigma past 100,000, whereas I have 9 3/4 of my fingers and have 350,000+ on mine. At least I was able to rebuild my engine...and transmission...and transfer case...and axles... What can your average wrench turner fix on a hybrid, or EV?

I would love to see some hard data regarding the life expectancy; both of the chassis mileage and battery pack mileage of hybrids and EV's. But I'm willing to bet most are scrapped before they've rolled through their second set of tires. And lets not even get in to the batteries; from their birth in a Lithium strip mine in China, to the woefully lacking recycling infrastructure which leads them to be dumped in landfills. Meanwhile their antiquate lead-acid counterparts are recycled nearly 99.9% of the time. Check your local paper, odds are you'll find an ad for a guy willing to pay you 'up to $10' for your old car battery.

Accept it, hybrids are targeted at the same demographic that replaces their cell phone every 6 months. They're nothing but a wasteful novelty. They're like e-waste with wheels.

Development and Applications of GREET 2.7 — The Transportation Vehicle-Cycle Model

Essentially, unless you pass the 160,000 mile mark with your hybrid, then my steel box with wheels is greener.

The study shows that a new HEVs are significantly cleaner than a new ICEVs. Look at FIGURE 19 Total Energy-Cycle Results: Total Energy Use (Btu/mi). The production of the vehicle is under the "Vehicle Cycle" part. If you delete the "Vehicle Cycle" part then the HEV still comes out way ahead after 160,000 miles. Hence the point at which the hybrid is cleaner than your vehicle occurs significantly before 160,000 miles.

Here is what Argonne National Lab says about hybrids:

[Snip]

HEVs also emit fewer tailpipe pollutants because of
their electric powertrains and efficient ICEs.

[Snip]

In HEVs, the engines can be smaller, lighter, cleaner-running, and designed to operate efficiently when meeting average power needs because the battery kicks in when extra energy is required.

[Snip]
So far, five‑year maintenance costs for HEVs have been lower than those for conventional vehicles.

www.transportation.anl.gov...

Seeing as how most people cannot manage to keep a houseplant alive, I doubt most of sort that drive a Prius (the ones I've met have soft, supple hands) can maintain their electronic enigma past 100,000, whereas I have 9 3/4 of my fingers and have 350,000+ on mine

There are plently of Priuses with over 100,000 miles on them.

299,999+ Mile Club

Roadshow: Prius goes 530,000 miles on one battery

The 200,000-mile question: How does the Toyota Prius hold up?

In any event, any new vehicle will contain a large amount of electronics inside of it. Not just a HEV. I find it unconvincing that a HEV is going to be significantly difficult to maintain than a new ICEV because of increased electronics content. Besides which, the gearbox can be eliminated.

At least I was able to rebuild my engine...and transmission...and transfer case...and axles... What can your average wrench turner fix on a hybrid, or EV?

An EV is significantly simpler than a ICEV mechanically. There is therefore less to break and less to go wrong. That is a good thing. It means an EV will be more reliable and simpler to maintain than an ICEV. I have a book sitting here called:

"Automative Mechanics" VOL1.

Most of the systems described are substantially simpler or totally deleted in an EV.

The main thing is the motor controller will age, so will the battery pack. Eventually they will need to be replaced.

I've also designed the electrical system for a racing EV, competing mainly against ICEVs. Yeah, it's a complex system. But we have tended to have the most reliable car on the track. It simply will not break.

I would love to see some hard data regarding the life expectancy; both of the chassis mileage and battery pack mileage of hybrids and EV's. But I'm willing to bet most are scrapped before they've rolled through their second set of tires.

In other words, you don't know, so you're guessing.

And lets not even get in to the batteries; from their birth in a Lithium strip mine in China,

Lithium isn't mined in China. South America typically. Lithium is pretty benign, there is worse stuff in the batteries than that but it varies depending on the battery chemistry used. Older Lithium-Ion contained large amounts of Cobalt, which has been massively reduced with NMC chemsitry. LFP is very environmentally friendly compared to other Lithium chemistry's.

The Prius does use huge amounts of other rare earths since it uses NiMH batteries, not Lithium. These are mined in China. I don't particularly care about NiMH batteries since the energy density is poor. I doubt they will be used in future vehicles. The PHEV version of the Prius does use Lithium, as do most EVs and the Chevy Volt.

to the woefully lacking recycling infrastructure which leads them to be dumped in landfills. Meanwhile their antiquate lead-acid counterparts are recycled nearly 99.9% of the time.

I doubt a Lithium battery even approaches the toxicity of Lead-Acid. Besides which, the batteries are still probably usable for grid storage after they are no longer suitable for an EV.

Accept it, hybrids are targeted at the same demographic that replaces their cell phone every 6 months. They're nothing but a wasteful novelty. They're like e-waste with wheels.

Well, you have been wrong on many counts so far. I've also never met anyone who replaces there cell phone every 6 months.

a reply to: Lipton

Not to mention, I doubt there are many girls clamoring to go for a ride with some hipster douche in his Prius....

It's not 2002 anymore, the Prius is a pretty regular car driven by normal people.

The Tesla Model S P85D is where it's at. Definitely a cooler car than any of its ICEV competition. 0 - 60 mph in 3.2 seconds, more room any any ICEV sedan, 90 mpg(e).