a reply to: verschickter
Still my point stands, no one is going to charge his EV in a reasonable amount of time to a reasonable amount of reach, neither at home, nor
nearby a powerplant.
There are already electric vehicles with reasonable charging speeds, both at home, and at dedicated charging stations. And with reasonable range.
Tesla Model 3 has two battery variants, one with a 50 kWh battery and one with a 75 kWh battery. These have an EPA range of 350 km and 500 km
respectively. Fast charging can be done at 210 km per 30 minutes (50 kWh battery) or 270 km per 30 minutes (75 kWh battery). Home charging can be done
at 32 A giving 48 km per hour with the 50 kWh battery or 40 A giving 60 km per hour with the 75 kWh battery. 40 A is easily supported by the cabling
to almost any home (I have 80 A and my place is for two people). Yes, some additional equipment would need to be installed and yes you are out of luck
if you park on the street. Anyway, that means you start each day with a full battery.
Crucially, it was only half a decade ago that electric vehicles in this price range had less than half the range and could charge less than half as
Note that EPA range estimates can be fairly accurate. Yes I am familiar with all the drive-cycles.
The Porsche Mission E, whilst a concept car, is actually going ahead. It will be expensive at $85,000 (to be seen) but has a claimed range of more
than 500 km (unknown drive-cycle), but Porsche is already building the chargers which are rated at 350 kW. That would mean 500 kilometers of driving
range in 15 minutes. Porsche isn't the only one building 350 kW chargers either. Again, less than half a decade ago cars in the price range "only" had
the performance of the Tesla Model 3. And again, you start each day with a full battery.
What will another 5 years bring?
Battery prices have done this:
And those prices are for existing technologies.
Used electric vehicle batteries still have value. And again, I'm not saying the only solution is electric vehicles. Just that it's obvious that a
substantial uptake is possible if not probable. Maybe it's too expensive for the cheapest cars, so perhaps regular hybrids or efficient passenger
vehicles like we have today could continue to dominate in those segments. Hopefully fuel cells catch up as well so we can even stop worrying about
Not busses or trams, trains.. personal EV´s
There are already cities of millions of people using electric buses (Shenzhen). There are plenty of smaller cities across the world which also use
electrified buses. Regarding trams, usually if catenary needs to be eliminated then the trams are powered via wireless inductive power transfer, but
it's pretty typical to run on batteries for short segments.
My wrong example was 1 car. Take only 100k cars that are charging at any given time round the clock. Try to do that with our current reneweable
clean tech, it´s not possible. At least if you look at carbon reduction. If you burn gas, oil, coal, biomass or nuclear rods to charge any EV.
100 thousand cars in what area? Norway has 5 million people and has 100 thousand plug-in cars already.
Also all cars are not going to magically transform to be electric overnight. It would take several decades. During that period, charging
infrastructure could be built up. Also electric vehicles are already incredibly efficient which means they tend to pollute less even if powered by
todays grid. And again, the grid is not going to magically turn to be 100% renewable overnight.
Impact of myopic decision-making and disruptive events in power systems planning
The delayed deployment of low-carbon energy technologies is impeding energy system decarbonization. The continuing debate about the
cost-competitiveness of low-carbon technologies has led to a strategy of waiting for a ‘unicorn technology’ to appear. Here, we show that myopic
strategies that rely on the eventual manifestation of a unicorn technology result in either an oversized and underutilized power system when
decarbonization objectives are achieved, or one that is far from being decarbonized, even if the unicorn technology becomes available. Under perfect
foresight, disruptive technology innovation can reduce total system cost by 13%. However, a strategy of waiting for a unicorn technology that never
appears could result in 61% higher cumulative total system cost by mid-century compared to deploying currently available low-carbon technologies early
a reply to: roguetechie
I agree with basically everything you said, same as in the thread called "The Solar Power Scam".
Then there's stuff like this that could very drastically reduce actual power demand by radically reducing losses which would also be very
One of the most important factors in the efficiency of an electric powertrain or high voltage battery system is the power electronics. These convert
AC to DC, DC to AC, DC to DC, or AC to AC. At the moment the industry is transitioning from conventional silicon based transistors to wide-band-gap
transistors based on Gallium Nitride (GaN) or Silicon Carbide (SiC). A high voltage charger or motor controller could go from ~95% efficient to ~99%
efficient (>80% reduction in waste heat). The switching frequency can also be higher which shrinks the size of passive components such as
transformers, inductors, and capacitors, so the overall package becomes smaller and cheaper. Switching frequency can also be pushed out of the audible
range more easily, so less coil whine.
edit on 24/5/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)
edit on 24/5/18 by C0bzz because:
(no reason given)
edit on 24/5/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)