20-30 years for EV transition?

[agoldman]

5 years

Sponsored

 

[Efthreeoh]

GM made a serial-hybrid where the engine was sized appropriately to run a generator to power the wheels. It was called the Volt.

Early on they realized that just running the engine to generate electricity to drive the wheels was not as efficient as just connecting the engine directly to the wheels in certain circumstances. So they added in some clutches to do so. The second generation of the Volt expanded the circumstances under which that would happen.

The time to develop a special-use case engine using exotic materials was 20 years ago. That ship has sailed.

Actually no, you can search and find examples of such engines being developed currently. I will say development of new engines with lower heat loss/higher efficiency can be brought to market far quicker than an EV battery that doubles energy density and lowers the weight of the current financially producible BEV battery.

 

[Efthreeoh]

What do you think the waste amount is? Hint: it's not nearly as big as you think.

15% to 25% from plant to electron parked in the EV battery.

 

[devmach-e]

15% to 25% from plant to electron parked in the EV battery.

Average transmission loss is 5% from plant to house. So what you are really talking about is the internal charger inefficiency. What I see from Car Scanner and my electricity usage monitor is that the Mach-E's efficiency is about 92%. So it's closer to 13% for me.

 

[devmach-e]

Actually no, you can search and find examples of such engines being developed currently. I will say development of new engines with lower heat loss/higher efficiency can be brought to market far quicker than an EV battery that doubles energy density and lowers the weight of the current financially producible BEV battery.

Please enlighten us with these examples of engines being developed specifically for power generation with higher thermal efficiencies that could be then put into a car.

 

[ChehRob]

I don't understand why anyone considers the RAV4 Prime availability successful. It is an outstanding vehicle, aimed the the biggest market, and Toyota has let Tesla run away with that market. Maybe my salesman in December of 2018 was wrong to tell me that the hybrid would not be available for a while.

 

[Mach1E]

Solar panels have been constantly improving. 15 years ago they were around 15% efficient. These days it's common to see 22.5% panels. Prototype panels have hit 47%. Everytime we think we've hit a limit, we find a way around it. It is going to be the same with battery technology.

Yes, exactly why it doesn’t follow Moore’s law.

Moore’s law was that things double every 2 years.

With Solar panels- that’s impossible because of physical limitations.

I’m saying similar physical limitation exist for batteries and thus any reference to Moore’s law doesn’t apply.

 

[Efthreeoh]

Please enlighten us with these examples of engines being developed specifically for power generation with higher thermal efficiencies that could be then put into a car.

It will take a few days. In 2021/2022, I found some compelling examples in the U.K. that are not readily coming up in my recent searches on the subject matter. Yet, ceramic engines have been under study for several decades, and alternate cylinder architectures such as free-pistion and opposing-cylinder-opposing piston designs have been studied and EDM testing has been conducted.

 

[Efthreeoh]

Average transmission loss is 5% from plant to house. So what you are really talking about is the internal charger inefficiency. What I see from Car Scanner and my electricity usage monitor is that the Mach-E's efficiency is about 92%. So it's closer to 13% for me.

5% says one source on the internet. Other sources state it is triple or quadruple of that number. Long before any of this discussion, a retired electrical energy expert told me directly it was in the 20% - 30% range. I asked out of curiosity.

 

[devmach-e]

I don't understand why anyone considers the RAV4 Prime availability successful. It is an outstanding vehicle, aimed the the biggest market, and Toyota has let Tesla run away with that market. Maybe my salesman in December of 2018 was wrong to tell me that the hybrid would not be available for a while.

You are conflating the RAV4 hybrid and the RAV4 Prime. One is a hybrid that has been available since early 2016 and the other is a plug-in hybrid that has been available since late 2020.

There's no way that your salesman in December of 2018 knew about the RAV4 Prime. It didn't get announced as coming to the US until November 2019 at the LA Auto Show. Perhaps you misheard him.

Are the numbers of RAV4 Primes lower than a lot of people would like? Sure. But they've done over 71K over the past 3 years. And the 2022 to 2023 numbers are going up and up. The numbers are a lot better than the Prius Prime.

 

[OcSteve39]

15 to 20 years before talk of end to gas stations begins.
My unqualified take.

 

[devmach-e]

5% says one source on the internet. Other sources state it is triple or quadruple of that number. Long before any of this discussion, a retired electrical energy expert told me directly it was in the 20% - 30% range. I asked out of curiosity.

The 5% average transmission loss figure comes from here:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3

Another site says 6%:
https://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06...sappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/

And this one says 8% to 12%, but they're trying to sell you something to bring down those losses, so they may be overstating things:
https://chintglobal.com/blog/how-much-power-loss-in-transmission-lines/

 

[TheSteelRider]

Solar panels have been constantly improving. 15 years ago they were around 15% efficient. These days it's common to see 22.5% panels. Prototype panels have hit 47%. Everytime we think we've hit a limit, we find a way around it. It is going to be the same with battery technology.

Efficiency is an issue, but the issue is more the wattage per square meter. If solar panels were 100% efficient at converting all energy across the electromagnetic spectrum from the sun into electricity, AND all the energy from the sun actually reached the surface of the earth they would only generate about 1.3 KW per square meter of panel. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant).

But,
(1) Solar panels do not convert all of the electromagnetic energy, only in and near the visible light spectrum. The visible light spectrum is only a fraction of the total energy from the sun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum)
(2) Our atmosphere reflects a decent of the energy from the sun, so in perfect clear-sky conditions in the perfect latitude, this equals about 1 KW per square meter that actually hits the surface

Most of the energy hitting a solar panel is wasted as heat and unusable by solar panels. And, that will likely be true for many years if not decades. The march up the efficiency curve is going to be a multi-generational affair just like the efficiency gains from ICE engines. Don't blame me, blame physics!

Oh, fun fact ... did you know that all solar panels are light emitting diodes and all light emitting diodes are solar panels?

 

[Efthreeoh]

The 5% average transmission loss figure comes from here:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3

Another site says 6%:
https://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06...sappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/

And this one says 8% to 12%, but they're trying to sell you something to bring down those losses, so they may be overstating things:
https://chintglobal.com/blog/how-much-power-loss-in-transmission-lines/

Considering the Feds are pushing EV, 5% may be understating...

 

[devmach-e]

Efficiency is an issue, but the issue is more the wattage per square meter. If solar panels were 100% efficient at converting all energy across the electromagnetic spectrum from the sun into electricity, AND all the energy from the sun actually reached the surface of the earth they would only generate about 1.3 KW per square meter of panel. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant).

But,
(1) Solar panels do not convert all of the electromagnetic energy, only in and near the visible light spectrum. The visible light spectrum is only a fraction of the total energy from the sun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum)
(2) Our atmosphere reflects a decent of the energy from the sun, so in perfect clear-sky conditions in the perfect latitude, this equals about 1 KW per square meter that actually hits the surface

Most of the energy hitting a solar panel is wasted as heat and unusable by solar panels. And, that will likely be true for many years if not decades. The march up the efficiency curve is going to be a multi-generational affair just like the efficiency gains from ICE engines. Don't blame me, blame physics!

Oh, fun fact ... did you know that all solar panels are light emitting diodes and all light emitting diodes are solar panels?

Efficiency and wattage per square meter are directly related. Less efficient panels require more square footage to produce the same wattage. The panels on my roof were 14.9% efficient when they were installed 11.5 years ago. If I were to upgrade today to panels that are 22.5% efficient, I'd get 50% more power for the same square footage. That's not an insignificant improvement for me, especially given the roof constraints I have.

Sponsored