News:

Willkommen im Notebookcheck.com Forum! Hier können sie über alle unsere Artikel und allgemein über Notebook relevante Dinge disuktieren. Viel Spass!

Main Menu

Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:

Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by A
 - July 29, 2024, 22:07:37
Quote from: NikoB on July 29, 2024, 13:02:40The discussion was about the benefit for the consumer and freedom of movement "here and now" - it is obvious that electric cars without subsidies are extremely disadvantageous for the average buyer and they enslave freedom of movement and distances.
Nothing more than fossil fuel industry propaganda. You can't produce your own gasoline, you can only get it if your masters allow you to have it. And being consumable with a shelf life means you are forever a slave. You have no "freedom of movement", just the delusion of freedom like a person who thinks being allowed to pick the color of your slavery collar is freedom. "Freedom is slavery"

QuoteAnd taking into account the a priori built-in control systems of owners from companies and authorities - these are simply concentration camp vehicles against the background of gasoline and diesel cars. Although they are trying to implement tracking and control technologies there too.
There is no modern new car in existence without a tracking and control system, gas, diesel, electric you name it. Powertrain has 0 to do with these things.

QuoteI do not argue with the fact that the transfer of the entire vehicle fleet in large cities is an undoubted plus for local society, which I have always emphasized, but the overall damage to the environment from the entire chain of infrastructure of electric cars is undoubtedly higher than from cars with internal combustion engines, although locally they pollute the air in cities simply an order of magnitude more.
The environmental supplychain of an EV is not more than ICE. The reason is obvious, because the ICE supplychain has more stuff "consumed" in it

QuoteIt's like the obvious shortcomings of LED bulbs - 99% of consumers on the planet are forced to buy bulbs with a worse luminous spectrum than incandescent bulbs. They simply have no choice...LED bulbs were forced on them.
Nobody is forcing people to buy LED bulbs, while many places have set limits on general stores selling other bulbs, that is just general stores. You can buy any bulb you want on amazon or at a non general store



Quote from: EV aren't new on July 29, 2024, 14:08:46Sadly despite the EV fad deeming to a new idea they aren't! ELECTRIC electric vehicle Golden age" was occurred between 1890 and 1910. At some 80% of self propelled vehicles were electric. Why the internal combustion were were more complicated than an electric motor and provided better power to weight didn't scare horses and didn't product noxious clouds of smoke due incombudtion using total loss oiling systems.
Ev were particularly successful for horseless taxi in like new York and London. By Comparison despite being complicated high maintenance form transport a significant proportion of the non electric self propelled vehicles still exist in working order. The same is not true for early ev's which scapped.
In my opinion EV fad will follow follow the same fate as stillborn EV Design by Fredinad Porche. His foe used hub motors and mid mounted batteries. It failed to the London Paris endurance race used prove reliability if the new fangled technology we now call a car. It was leafing on the London Dover stint. Despite charging on the ferry and being to early part calais ro Paris leg is failed to finish almost ran out before reaching Paris. His second attempt which incorporated an on board generator and regenerative braking similar to used by electric subway trains. It finished but was outperformed by petrol powered rivals which a better power to weight and could carry enough liquid energy source we could the fuel they needed to both complete the journey.
Batteries also as green as the hype suggests. The mining operations to produce the materials create toxic chemical lake and themselves highly energy intensive requires large expensive production facilities. The transport distances involved mive both the rawmayetials and the resulting products ate huge.
Automotive production using the an can all be done locally. Which what lifted the internal combustion to dominance.
Even today long supply all the components to build for the shipping a single battery.
If look at lessonshistory a dispassionalte eye we 2 things. Electric motors have good power weight but an external source. Internal combustion engines need fuel which whilst plentiful today wasn't the case for early history of automotive development. Histories solution to lack of fuel was to ship fuel receptcals that could carried in the car and exchanged for full ones after use. There is technology that van provide a replacement for the "Jerry Can" and that contains condesed source for electric motor. That is a hydrogen fuel cell with suitcase sized pods that are simple to change. Simt the histories solution to the fuel problem of early supply issues.
Souch a suction doesn't any major unstructured investment enable electric power grids to with significant load balance issues arrising from mass charging of batteries. You really need locate the hrigen production next to always on power station to electrolyise water and create standard pod that allows plug and go convenience!

That is a fairly naive take, especially at a technology forum. It is like saying a nuclear reactor isn't new, we had steam engines in the 1700s

Sure, we had electric cars between 1890 and 1910. But you can't compare them to modern electric cars. The first big thing is, the building block of every modern electronic we have today didn't exist until 50 years later, the transistor. Nor did the lithium ion battery until 100 years later.

As for battery manufacturing, just like clean, green is a relative word. When you clean your house, is your house ever 100% clean? No it isn't. It is only clean relative to what it was before. The same applies here, EVs are only green relative to ICE cars, that is all. It doesn't mean it is pollution free, but it is a step forward. And more steps will be taken after to continue to make it greener

Many DC fast chargers come with their own batteries. Using hydrogen makes no sense as you would need 3x more electricity due to the inefficiency


Quote from: L Pham on July 29, 2024, 15:55:17Solar powered EV is an answer for most commuting needs.  Several start ups are working on a production of EVs with solar panels.  The best and most likely to succeed is Aptera.  The car is super efficient in design to get the most per watt-hour of energy. It promised to deliver 10 miles per kWhr.  With that highly efficient design, adding solar cells could add 40 miles, on average, in 8-hr of full sun.  That's enough to get most commuter from home-work-home.  When one need to plug in to the grid, it will get more miles per minutes of charging than most others.  And it will come with Tesla or NACS plug.  The company already has 47000 reservations and will begin production this year and starting to deliver in 2025.  In the near future, one can order 1k miles of range option.
EV is NOT a fad.  It will evolved and will replace ICEs; like cell phones replacing rotary dialed desk phones... (Some of you probably had never used or know what I am talking about). It is not IF but SOON.

It isn't that we can't have solar powered cars, the problem is that cars have gotten too heavy for solar power directly on the car to do anything more than climate control. While it would be great if we went to smaller cars, as long as someone is driving a huge truck, you'd never want to be in a crash in a small car. Governments would need to ban large cars
Posted by George
 - July 29, 2024, 21:39:14
Reinvented supercapacitor again?
Posted by L Pham
 - July 29, 2024, 15:55:17
Solar powered EV is an answer for most commuting needs.  Several start ups are working on a production of EVs with solar panels.  The best and most likely to succeed is Aptera.  The car is super efficient in design to get the most per watt-hour of energy. It promised to deliver 10 miles per kWhr.  With that highly efficient design, adding solar cells could add 40 miles, on average, in 8-hr of full sun.  That's enough to get most commuter from home-work-home.  When one need to plug in to the grid, it will get more miles per minutes of charging than most others.   And it will come with Tesla or NACS plug.  The company already has 47000 reservations and will begin production this year and starting to deliver in 2025.  In the near future, one can order 1k miles of range option.
EV is NOT a fad.  It will evolved and will replace ICEs; like cell phones replacing rotary dialed desk phones... (Some of you probably had never used or know what I am talking about). It is not IF but SOON.



Posted by EV aren't new
 - July 29, 2024, 14:08:46
Sadly despite the EV fad deeming to a new idea they aren't! ELECTRIC electric vehicle Golden age" was occurred between 1890 and 1910. At some 80% of self propelled vehicles were electric. Why the internal combustion were were more complicated than an electric motor and provided better power to weight didn't scare horses and didn't product noxious clouds of smoke due incombudtion using total loss oiling systems.
Ev were particularly successful for horseless taxi in like new York and London. By Comparison despite being complicated high maintenance form transport a significant proportion of the non electric self propelled vehicles still exist in working order. The same is not true for early ev's which scapped.
In my opinion EV fad will follow follow the same fate as stillborn EV Design by Fredinad Porche. His foe used hub motors and mid mounted batteries. It failed to the London Paris endurance race used prove reliability if the new fangled technology we now call a car. It was leafing on the London Dover stint. Despite charging on the ferry and being to early part calais ro Paris leg is failed to finish almost ran out before reaching Paris. His second attempt which incorporated an on board generator and regenerative braking similar to used by electric subway trains. It finished but was outperformed by petrol powered rivals which a better power to weight and could carry enough liquid energy source we could the fuel they needed to both complete the journey.
Batteries also as green as the hype suggests. The mining operations to produce the materials create toxic chemical lake and themselves highly energy intensive requires large expensive production facilities. The transport distances involved mive both the rawmayetials and the resulting products ate huge.
Automotive production using the an can all be done locally. Which what lifted the internal combustion to dominance.
Even today long supply all the components to build for the shipping a single battery.
If look at lessonshistory a dispassionalte eye we 2 things. Electric motors have good power weight but an external source. Internal combustion engines need fuel which whilst plentiful today wasn't the case for early history of automotive development. Histories solution to lack of fuel was to ship fuel receptcals that could carried in the car and exchanged for full ones after use. There is technology that van provide a replacement for the "Jerry Can" and that contains condesed source for electric motor. That is a hydrogen fuel cell with suitcase sized pods that are simple to change. Simt the histories solution to the fuel problem of early supply issues.
Souch a suction doesn't any major unstructured investment enable electric power grids to with significant load balance issues arrising from mass charging of batteries. You really need locate the hrigen production next to always on power station to electrolyise water and create standard pod that allows plug and go convenience!
Posted by NikoB
 - July 29, 2024, 13:02:40
Quote from: A on July 29, 2024, 12:49:55As for profit, to make profit you need scale as there are a lot of initial costs. In general even for ICE cars, most new production models lose money. You just don't see it because manufacturers don't break it down by profit by car, at best they break it down by entire segment. Only once you get a few years in of production does profit begin to appear and it requires mass production of over hundreds of thousands to millions on the same platform
The discussion was about the benefit for the consumer and freedom of movement "here and now" - it is obvious that electric cars without subsidies are extremely disadvantageous for the average buyer and they enslave freedom of movement and distances.

And taking into account the a priori built-in control systems of owners from companies and authorities - these are simply concentration camp vehicles against the background of gasoline and diesel cars. Although they are trying to implement tracking and control technologies there too.

I do not argue with the fact that the transfer of the entire vehicle fleet in large cities is an undoubted plus for local society, which I have always emphasized, but the overall damage to the environment from the entire chain of infrastructure of electric cars is undoubtedly higher than from cars with internal combustion engines, although locally they pollute the air in cities simply an order of magnitude more.

It's like the obvious shortcomings of LED bulbs - 99% of consumers on the planet are forced to buy bulbs with a worse luminous spectrum than incandescent bulbs. They simply have no choice...LED bulbs were forced on them.
Posted by A
 - July 29, 2024, 12:49:55
Quote from: Roy on July 27, 2024, 16:23:16One missing piece of information is what is the power rating of the charger needed to achieve a 9 minute charge. The UK street supply is 235KW, and a recent article elsewhere talked kf fast charging using a 350KW charger. This means that with the present street supply, it would be impossible to charge even a single car. I suspect yhat every country will have similar issues and so a short charge is a nice to have pipe dream. Consider this, at 350KWh, only 3 cars xan be charged per megawatt. If a generating site produces 1000MWh then only 3,000 can be charged at the same time - then think of how many cars your country has...... Finally, take fossil fuel stations out of the supply equation.

The CCS standard allows up to 750kw.

Many DC fast chargers come with batteries themselves to push power when needed (and also avoid peak costs)

The thing about EVs in general is the more EVs range EVs have, the less people would charge them outside the home. For places like UK, 600 miles would get you pretty much anywhere in 1 charge.

Quote from: Lee S on July 28, 2024, 10:11:43Jokes on them when they cannot even put in a smartphone a sub-30 minute fast charging tech 😂

Phones are much harder due to lack of liquid thermal management systems. It is like imagine running an ICE engine without coolant

Quote from: Julian Hudson on July 28, 2024, 23:01:19I'm not impressed one bit. A 20 year life span is nothing compared to the lifespan, speed with which you can fill it and the fact you can fill it 100%. Don't forget a gasoline tank is a simple hollow container that sits in an area of the car where it's protected in the event of an accident. Gasoline tanks are also cheap to replace should it ever be necessary.
What's the point in buying a vehicle where a significant percentage of the financed price is dedicated to soring the fuel that powers the vehicle rather than to enhancing the performance and longevity of the vehicle?
E.V.'s are a scam. When you come down to it cars are about physics. Body design, weight, airflow, friction of the tires on the road etc. The power source is a matter of weight, energy density, durability, expense etc.
Having a battery powered car makes as much sense as an employer devoting twice the footage of his retail space to bathrooms. The economics of fuel source favors petrol as opposed to electricity for reason of physics and the plain fact that electricity isnt a fuel. It is a manufactured product that yields less net energy to the system every step of the way.

20 year lifespan for batteries is considered 80%, for a 600 mile battery that would be 480 miles which is still plenty. And likely it would last longer than that.

I also don't understand why you compare batteries with gasoline tanks. It's a false equivalency because batteries do way more than a gas tank does. Since a battery both stores and converts energy. End of the day it is irrelevant because a car is a sum of all parts. In a crash, an ICE car is far worse off because the engine is right in the front compartment. Even worse, a lot of tricks have to be done to insure the pipes from the engine don't intrude into the passenger compartment and impale you.

The only reason why the battery is so expensive is compared to other components it is the most newest and lacks economies of scale. In reality, an EV would be much cheaper to build than an ICE car considering same scale. The laws of physics also favor EVs as they are far more efficient. Do remember the equation isn't just energy density, but energy density*efficiency + all equipment


Quote from: NikoB on July 28, 2024, 23:27:29As soon as state subsidies (at the expense of taxpayers) cease, sales of electric cars plummet. They are not profitable at the individual level, but they are profitable for the communities of cities, because they sharply improve the air quality there.

For this reason, city authorities of large cities should be vitally interested in subsidies and the transfer of the entire local vehicle fleet to electric power.

The problems of ecology on the planet as a whole do not concern the city ellois.

The thing about subsidies is complex. At issue is that when a subsidy ends, you get the effects of "If I wait a bit more, they may come back" and "If I bought just a month ago, I'd be paying much less". Historically, these last for a year or 2, and after sales recover even without subsidies

As for profit, to make profit you need scale as there are a lot of initial costs. In general even for ICE cars, most new production models lose money. You just don't see it because manufacturers don't break it down by profit by car, at best they break it down by entire segment. Only once you get a few years in of production does profit begin to appear and it requires mass production of over hundreds of thousands to millions on the same platform.
Posted by Rogers Ward
 - July 29, 2024, 08:32:19
All of this will be useless by the time you read this msg. See invention home web page. I have designed a system whereas an ev battery will never need a charging station and the car companies are balking
Posted by Avakarian
 - July 29, 2024, 05:16:31
Quote from: Roy on July 27, 2024, 16:23:16One missing piece of information is what is the power rating of the charger needed to achieve a 9 minute charge. The UK street supply is 235KW, and a recent article elsewhere talked kf fast charging using a 350KW charger. This means that with the present street supply, it would be impossible to charge even a single car. I suspect yhat every country will have similar issues and so a short charge is a nice to have pipe dream. Consider this, at 350KWh, only 3 cars xan be charged per megawatt. If a generating site produces 1000MWh then only 3,000 can be charged at the same time - then think of how many cars your country has...... Finally, take fossil fuel stations out of the supply equation.
600 mile range would require 150 kwh.  100Mwh is an amount of storage capacity. I assume you mean 1000MW wich would charge 7000 per hour or 150000 per day. 600 mile range equals a charge every 2 weeks. 
Posted by Avakarian
 - July 29, 2024, 05:01:08
Its a fake article sponsored by Toyota. None of these batteries have been produced.  600 mile range requires about 150kwh of evergy. A 600kw charger would take 15 minutes if one was available.  As far as capacity , its not as big as a problem as people believe.  The average daily consumption is about 12kwh. This is not a major problem for developed nations
Posted by Dana
 - July 29, 2024, 02:11:29
This is exciting to me mostly because it means we can get 400 miles of range with less weight.  My subaru solterra has crap range but i got it because it felt the lightest in handling of what I test drove (which wasnt a lot but the price had me).. getting weight under control will be great for tires and handling.  My biggest gripe is that highway in the winter the 220 mile range is actually 130 miles... so doubling it would be nice while keeping it as nimble as it is. 

 
Posted by Truzak
 - July 29, 2024, 00:55:24
600 mile range?  That under perfect conditions . . . moderate temp, no A/C, no radio, headlights, wipers, Bluetooth.

And 9 minute charging?  Only if you can find a charger in the middle of the Mohave desert, or rural Utah, Montana or Wyoming.  There are still places along major highways without any cell signal.
Posted by Cs
 - July 29, 2024, 00:06:37
Quote from: Roy on July 27, 2024, 16:23:16Consider this, at 350KWh, only 3 cars xan be charged per megawatt. If a generating site produces 1000MWh then only 3,000 can be charged at the same time - then think of how many cars your country has...... Finally, take fossil fuel stations out of the supply equation.

Fully electrifying light duty cars needs an increase in electricity production of about 1% per year for the next 25 years.
Posted by Nate
 - July 28, 2024, 23:57:28
There are so many anti EV poo-pooers out there. You can read old articles from the early days of combustion vehicles where many people sounded the exact same. There's no infrastructure for combustion, they'll never overtake horses, what happens when the motor stops working in the middle of nowhere, etc. It's really fun to read some of those comments from back then, they sound so similar to the negative comments about EVs today. Simple fact is we're in the early days of this "new" technology. Innovation moves more quickly every day. The entire EV landscape will continue to get better at a rapid pace because of some simple facts;they're a much cleaner form of transportation (not perfect, but nothing is), they're far more capable and offer far more utility. And they're just a lot of fun to drive, which I know sounds silly. We got a R1S last year, have over 32,000 miles on it already and everyday I still have a blast driving it. It's far and away the best vehicle we've ever owned. Had a Quatro and a Rover that I used to think were the most capable and fun vehicles I've ever had, but they're not even in the same realm as the R1S - which I never thought I'd say. Makes me so excited to see what the EV landscape looks like in a decade. The charging infrastructure will come, "necessity is the mother of invention". If you have a driveway, and don't drive more than 300/miles per day routinely, charging is zero issues. Just plug in when you get home and you've got a "full tank" long before you leave in the morning. We only ever use public chargers on long road trips. And the fact we pay 11 to 12 cents per kw for electricity at home means it costs about $14 to get a "full tank" which gets you about 300 miles of driving. Simple math people. EVs are just cheaper to operate and maintain, more fun to drive, more capable, and cleaner.
Posted by NikoB
 - July 28, 2024, 23:27:29
As soon as state subsidies (at the expense of taxpayers) cease, sales of electric cars plummet. They are not profitable at the individual level, but they are profitable for the communities of cities, because they sharply improve the air quality there.

For this reason, city authorities of large cities should be vitally interested in subsidies and the transfer of the entire local vehicle fleet to electric power.

The problems of ecology on the planet as a whole do not concern the city ellois.
Posted by Julian Hudson
 - July 28, 2024, 23:01:19
I'm not impressed one bit. A 20 year life span is nothing compared to the lifespan, speed with which you can fill it and the fact you can fill it 100%. Don't forget a gasoline tank is a simple hollow container that sits in an area of the car where it's protected in the event of an accident. Gasoline tanks are also cheap to replace should it ever be necessary.
What's the point in buying a vehicle where a significant percentage of the financed price is dedicated to soring the fuel that powers the vehicle rather than to enhancing the performance and longevity of the vehicle?
E.V.'s are a scam. When you come down to it cars are about physics. Body design, weight, airflow, friction of the tires on the road etc. The power source is a matter of weight, energy density, durability, expense etc.
Having a battery powered car makes as much sense as an employer devoting twice the footage of his retail space to bathrooms. The economics of fuel source favors petrol as opposed to electricity for reason of physics and the plain fact that electricity isnt a fuel. It is a manufactured product that yields less net energy to the system every step of the way.