I'm sure it's all those nasty strawman liberals are propagating that "reasoning"....

I never knew the CBO was made up of a bunch of "strawman liberals"....

The Congressional Budget Office says there’s no future for this industry. “Unless consumers view electric vehicles very differently in the years ahead, sales of electric vehicles will probably be no greater than those of traditional hybrids because of their higher purchase price and lengthy recharging times.”

The Congressional Budget Office was created by Title II of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (P.L. 93-344), which was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on July 12, 1974. Official operations began on February 24, 1975, with Alice Rivlin as director.

Never took Tricky Dicky as a straw man liberal....

 

"Never"

Can you see 5 or 10 years into the future that maybe storage capacity could increase and cost come down??

I am grossly handicapped in this thread by knowledge of the subject. I actually know how batteries are recharged, controlled, built. I have built countless circuits to charge them, also defined IC products for charge control.

I doubt that 99% of even electrical engineers understand just how difficult the battery design is, how restricted it's operation is, and how complex the design has to be.

1) All rechargeable batteries (both Li and Ni chemistries) tolerate "fast charge" (ie one hour or faster) over a VERY NARROW temperature range like about 15C to 30C. Outsde that range, they MUST be slow charged or not charged at all or they are damaged. That's why batteries require temp sensors.

2) The "battery" in an EV is made up of hundreds of cells: do you know how that complicates the design?

3) Thermal management is a huge problem since "inner" cells would obviously get hotter.

4) Cell balancing (matching) is a problem which few talk about but must be addressed. EVERY SINGLE CELL has to be monitored during charge and discharge and EVERY CELL must have a bypass shunt device to allow shunting current by it during "balance charge" where the "weaker" cells are brought back up to match the others. This requires very slow charging because the shunt devices dissipate too much heat.

5) You have to have a controller system which monitors and controls all the cells at all times. This is enormously complicated and would require:

6) The chargers all have some kind of standardized communication/control protocols that "talk" to the battery packs.


So, you have to understand if I fall on the floor laughing when people start talking about 15 minute recharges for these monsters..... even if they had a small nuclear power plant in the back yard to supply the current.

So, to answer your question: yes, there may be technological advancements. NO, there will never be an EV which recharges fast enough to satisfy the needs of somebody trying to travel with it..... and NO, the EV will never be actually cost effective. Note I said ACTUALLY cost effective which means on it's own merits, not propped up by billions in taxpayer subsidies.

This is a technology with no future beyond a very small market at a massive cost.

And, as I pointed out, that is not just my opinion but also the CBO's.

 

I never knew the CBO was made up of a bunch of "strawman liberals"....
...............

So

The current "reasoning" is that as EVs are bought in larger volumes, citizens will "demand" the government provide this service..

is a direct quote form the CBO?

 

I am grossly handicapped in this thread by knowledge of the subject.

Sure, you're the ONLY member with any knowledge at all on the subject. All the other engineers on here (myself included) have no knowledge at all about batteries or anything technical.

The rest of us aren't willing to ignore the advancements already made in battery technology that was predicted to be impossible by all those others who were the only ones with "knowledge of the subject." Neither are we willing to ignore the advancements in sensor, controller and communications technologies, which we were all told were impossible from those "in the know." The trajectory of sensor, control and battery advancement tells another story altogether.

 

Vanadium Redox Batteries

Still below the lead acid battery in energy density so too early to hope for this as a solution, but I will mention it because it has the best option for a replacement battery recharge. Pouring in fresh electrolytes is not going to work because strong acids don't take well to pouring.

The only safe way to replace the electrolytes would be to disconnect the tank and put on a new tank of fresh electrolytes, but that could be done.

 

Ironic that Tesla is one of the major factors that will kill off EV's in the US:

http://gigaom.com/2013/08/08/tesla-...s-getting-inconvenient-for-future-ev-drivers/

Tesla: why it’s getting inconvenient for future EV drivers



If we’ve learned anything over the past couple months about Tesla, it’s that the company is concerned about range anxiety, particularly as it heads into the next couple years in which it’ll try to make a splash in the mass market. Tesla is willing to foot the entire $100,000 to $175,000 bill of installing superchargers in public venues. All the real estate provider has to do is agree to allocate half the spots to Tesla only supercharging and the other half to all EVs.



Now that’s all well and good for Tesla, but what about the entire EV landscape? Tesla’s supercharger utilizes a proprietary plug, and although the stations its planning to build will have four to six EV spots servicing any vehicle, four will be dedicated to Tesla. Imagine going to the gas station, and four of the pumps were reserved for BMWs. When the automakers get a say in the powering of their EVs, they are choosing to create closed systems that exclude their competition.


Tesla isn’t the only one taking a proprietary approach. There’s been a long brewing conflict between the Japanese and American/European automakers about which plug to use for fast charging. It’s unresolved and we’re about to see a betamax vs. VHS showdown as the Japanese automakers have adopted CHAdeMO plugs while the likes of GM will use the SAE combo coupler. In a sign of how crazy this will get, the largest independent owner of charging stations Car Charging Group will install 48 CHAdeMO fast chargers in various cities by year end only to subsequently switch support to the SAE combo coupler.


I’ve never been a fan of proprietary plugs nor the land grab that is likely to occur among charging network startups. The consumer will lose here as will the overall EV industry. That will make it harder to sell EVs. Tesla’s recent moves to build out its own supercharging network is one more example of this trend. Tesla’s behavior overall reminds me a lot of Apple in its attempt to create a closed ecosystem.



In the end what we need is a cost effective, easy to use charging system for all EV owners, particularly with fast charging because it can unlock the ability of EV owners to take roadtrips and hence address a major range anxiety concern. What we’re getting is a decade of standards fighting over the best fast charging plug and an inherently less convenient system for the consumer, which will damper the prospects of overall EV sales growth.

Tesla CEO is making some very bizarre statements...... lowering the bar for expectations on future performance:

The always-bullish Tesla Motors founder says the next six months will be “very tough” for the electric car maker as it seeks more customers.

Elon Musk is considered one of today’s most audacious technology entrepreneurs. But even he recognizes that Tesla Motors is entering a challenging period for the electric vehicle company. Musk, who founded Tesla and space exploration company SpaceX, spoke last week at the Clean Energy Summit where he sounded a cautionary note with regards to Tesla’s near future.



“The challenge Tesla faces over the next several months, which is a very difficult one, is to scale up production and achieve enough of a gross margin on the product that we get to a situation where we’re cash flow positive. If we aren’t able to do that we will join the graveyard of all the other car company startups of the last 90 years,” he said according to an article at AOL Energy.



The company expects to meet its target of selling 5,000 cars this year. How Tesla fares in attracting buyers beyond those who already reserved their Model S’s will determine whether Tesla will survive and in what form. It projects selling 20,000 cars next year, which is a relatively high number among luxury brands. Tesla also needs to make a profit on those shipments. If it can become cash-flow positive, Telsa can pursue its long-term plan to make a more affordable electric vehicle, Musk said.


At the same time, competition for plug-ins is heating up. The major automakers, including Ford, General Motors, Nissan, and Toyota, have all released plug-in vehicles which, although more expensive than comparable gasoline cars, have a lower price than the Model S. Tesla is also meeting competition from hybrids and EVs in the luxury category as well.


Musk last week said the company can’t afford to make many mistakes over the next six months.
“We can show that it’s technologically possible to other manufacturers. If Tesla doesn’t make it I hope we have nonetheless served that purpose. I don’t want to sound dour but it’s definitely going to be a tough six months,” he said, according to AOL Energy.

 

So the Tesla offers more than over 200Miles range in a sports car and you can plug it in almost anywhere.

If you plan to stay at your destination for at least 4 to 6 hours, and they will let you plug in once you get there, it is not a bad choice for most trips that people make. It is not a commercial vehicle but you could drive to a lot of meetings in a day with 200 miles range and an electric socket near your parking spots.

 

No, you missed mine. I pointed out about 15 pages back in this thread that the only viable mode of use for EV's to gain any kind of non-negligible market share would be if they standardized battery pack modules across vehicle brands and types and had "recharge" stations which could do a drop-and-swap in 15 minutes or less.
...

Actually unless I'm mistaken I introduced the concept back in post #132, you discussed it later in post #137.

...
Of course, standardizing would require the FED stepping in and setting standards and makers conforming .... none of which is going to happen.

Wrong again. Standardising happens all by itself!

There's a myriad of products that all naturally standardised pluggability on some common "default standard", usually whoever made it first. An example would be a special battery size a manufacturer uses in their cellphone, soon after the device is popular there are aftermarket batteries with the same form factor and plug connector, aftermarket chargers, etc.

 

Wrong again. Standardising happens all by itself!

There's a myriad of products that all naturally standardised pluggability on some common "default standard", usually whoever made it first. An example would be a special battery size a manufacturer uses in their cellphone, soon after the device is popular there are aftermarket batteries with the same form factor and plug connector, aftermarket chargers, etc.

+1 (actually more like +3)

Actually unless I'm mistaken I introduced the concept back in post #132, you discussed it later in post #137.

Yes, and then I shot it shot it down in post #145:

Is government MANDATED standardization the only type that exists? Do we have no examples of the market coming together of its own accord to settle upon a standard? CDs, AA batteries, screw-in light bulbs, 15" wheels, soda cans, garden hose fittings, etc. I'm sure you could think of some more examples yourself. Sure, there are some variants of soda can sizes and vegetable cans, batteries other than AA size, and so forth, but that's fine, and it would be fine for EV battery pack cells as well. Sure, some standardization agency like the IEEE or NEMA or UL, or ISO or independent agency would emerge, whose stamp of approval world guarantee acceptance in the market, and that's fine, expected, and welcome. So what's your beef?

He still hasn't addressed this. More convenient to just completely ignore things that don't support your point.

 

Sure market-driven standardization occurs, but it is a messy and lengthy process and generally only gets started in earnest once a product type is achieving widespread use, generally close to commodity status, and the lack of standardization is causing a widespread and widely felt problem.

Also, standardizing a dollar-scale commodity item such as a transistor radio battery or a video graphics interface is much more feasible than standardizing an item that costs many thousands of dollars and which has an inherently small annual market. Even so, standardization efforts have taken an amount of time often measured in decades. And you want it to. Yes, it's length. Yes, it's messy. Yes, it results in a sub-optimal end-result. But without that process that allows competing interests to take their shot at influencing the technology and the standard, you generally end up with an even more sub-optimal end-result.

There is an intrinsic cart-and-horse Catch-22 involved when you have a technology that requires standardization before it can take off because standardization generally only happens after (or as) it is taking off.

 

I believe we will see better batteries before battery swapping becomes popular. Hybrids don't need battery swapping but they do need a big improvement battery range, my guess is that we will see a plug-in hybrid with 100 mile battery range in the works sometime in the next 3 years, now that hybrid will put the big dent in fuel usage and pollution.


"http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/14/battery-breakthrough-could-improve-capacity-and-reduce-charge-time-by-a-factor-of-ten-each/"

Researchers at Northwestern University claim to have created an improved lithium ion battery that not only would hold ten times as much energy, but would charge ten times as quickly.

 

Seems reasonable but I still think that replacing tanks of electrolytes for a VRB is a fix that could be done fairly soon.

They are making progress on the precipitation issues, which means they can increase concentrations and energy density.

I am wondering if they won't devise a way to tank up a dry electrolyte and then make solutions - dehydrate - rehydrate as needed. That might be the way to make the VRB a leader of the pack for energy density.

Aluminum Air Fuel cells are another possibility. You have huge solar towers in the desert that are used to cook up the aluminum power packs and then your car smokes aluminum instead of fossil fuels. Still a long way from happening but just another example of all the possible ways things could be done differently.

 

Standardization need not be messy not non-optimal. USB, Ethernet, TCP/IP, Wi-Fi, all standards that work across multitude of platforms. Being necessary to enable the market is even more incentive to standardize.

 

Standardization need not be messy not non-optimal. USB, Ethernet, TCP/IP, Wi-Fi, all standards that work across multitude of platforms. Being necessary to enable the market is even more incentive to standardize.

None of these are optimal and none of them arose from the mist in isolation. Just look at all of the variants for network physical layers and protocols that existed and that took a long time for a winner to separate out from the pack.

 

Originally Posted by Brownout
Standardization need not be messy not non-optimal. USB, Ethernet, TCP/IP, Wi-Fi, all standards that work across multitude of platforms. Being necessary to enable the market is even more incentive to standardize.

Interesting apples to oranges analogy: the personal computer was a device that carried it's own inertia and momentum because consumers really needed what it could do for them, it was new and they didn't have that capability. They would, therefore, accept a lot of hassle to gain that reward or function. Somethings "sprouted" standards and some didn't, but when they did it was because there was an underlying product or function driving that standard and there was enough market demand for it that the manufacturers would produce the product.

EV's really are a study of a common sense system trying to be run backwards: nobody will gravitate towards them because the infrastructure doesn't exist that is needed to charge them.... and it WON'T exist until they are driven in large quantities which they never will because there is no infrastructure.

People will not buy EV's in large quantity because their price is WAYYY out of line with the product that already exists..... of course "the price will come when people buy lot's of them"..... which they never will because the price is too high.

The biggest problem killing EV's: gasoline is not nearly expensive enough to motivate a significant amount of people to buy them and it never will be. Big Oil has teams of people who tell them exactly how and where to manipulate the price to best advantage... as you see now. The bump to $4 caused some grumbling and some people buying EV's, so they gradually drift the price back down to $3.50 until people get used to that then drift it back up. Unless gas tops about $10/gallon, the EV is going to need continual government welfare to live.

 

Sure market-driven standardization occurs, but it is a messy and lengthy process and generally only gets started in earnest once a product type is achieving widespread use, generally close to commodity status, and the lack of standardization is causing a widespread and widely felt problem.
...

Sorry, I think standardisation happens very quickly. My experiences with the TV/video/appliance industry show once something becomes common or a market pioneer etc then "standardisation" or copying of plugs and fittings etc takes off like wildfire.

I was watching a half hour TV docco on the Tesla model S last night, they made a point about the recharging adapter plug being a "standardised" fitting as used by other vehicles.

"Standardisation" has already started, and would almost instantly follow any introduction of modular plug-in battery packs.

The E.V. people need to stop thinking like car manufacturers, and think a lot more like appliance manufacturers or remote control (electric) model car enthusiasts. They've got this stuff well sorted out, decades in advance of the E.V. industry!

 

None of these are optimal and none of them arose from the mist in isolation. Just look at all of the variants for network physical layers and protocols that existed and that took a long time for a winner to separate out from the pack.

Well, they are optimal for thier purpose. As I stated, they are applied across a wide variety of platforms. It didn't take long at all for these solutions to displace the others. Newer products assimilate standard features even more quickly.

Interesting apples to oranges analogy: the personal computer was a device that carried it's own inertia and momentum because consumers really needed what it could do for them, it was new and they didn't have that capability.

Not quite "apples to oranges." Both are commodity products that benefit from standardization, EV's even more so. It can be expected that EV's will standardize even more quickly if that is a market enabler.

 

On the issue of standardization, I think they have to start smaller. You need packs that are only about 20kgs and no more than 25kgs. The heat issues that plague batteries especially during fast recharge are much easier to manage with a smaller size. It is a matter of surface area increasing with a square while volume increases with a cube.

Multiple packs that are used up sequentially will help because that way you can use up maybe 2 of 8 packs and only need to swap those 2 out if you know you will need full range.

A smaller pack allows the jerrycan strategy. You can own extra battery packs that you keep charged up at home. Your charger can work as a sort of whole home UPS in a grid support scheme, so those extra batteries make more sense than you think.
Those extra batteries are useful for doing a quick swap recharge at home. You can even throw spare batteries in the back seat or the trunk, maybe even borrow a few more some from your friends or family, and now you can pull over anywhere, swap your batteries and double or triple your range.

Smaller size also helps with commodity granularity which is a component of fluidity. Achieving commodity status is an important result of standardization. Nothing brings down prices like achieving a commodity status.

 

Women don't even like having to fill up with gas. If you think they're going to be swapping jerry can battery packs, you don't know women.

 

So, back to "full service" stations? Perhaps the women would get a kick out of seeing well muscled men exchanging 50Kg battery packs for them.

Bob