Bottom line batteries

[MikeSharp01]

Just listened to bbc R4 Bottom line on battery technology. Well worth a listen.

 

"The last sentence is most interesting: went something like: UK and France have announced zero carbon emission cars by 2040 my guess is that ministers know there is a technology about to break." 

 

Is it lithium suphur?

Edited October 5, 2017 by MikeSharp01
Quote marks added

[ProDave]

Electric cars are not zero emission unless charged exclusively from solar PV or wind power.

 

Hybrid cars will be allowed after 2040.

 

More green wash.

[MikeSharp01]

Just now, ProDave said:

More green wash.

Sorry Dave, maybe I came across badly. I felt the programme was focused on batteries and ranged far and wide across economics / physics / technology of wind / solar and storage technologies. It didn't seem to come down one way or another but gave some useful insights into the bigger picture.

 

 

[jack]

One of the problems with cars is that they tend to concentrate their pollution in cities. Even if efficiency were the same, it would still make sense to consider remote production (enabled by electric cars) in order to make cities safer to live in.

[Onoff]

I see Sadiq Kahn is spouting something about charges being brought in for electric vehicles going into London etc. On about they're still polluting due to brake and tyre dust.

 

As I've said before "they" are not prepared to the lose the massive revenue streams generated by congestion charging etc for traditional vehicles. They'll just come up with something for EVs like the aforementioned.

 

On another note there was something the other day from an energy supplier I think about EV users never having to pay for charging again if they agree to connect their cars up and feed back to the grid when not in use.

[MikeSharp01]

28 minutes ago, Onoff said:

On another note there was something the other day from an energy supplier I think about EV users never having to pay for charging again if they agree to connect their cars up and feed back to the grid when not in use.

That was discussed in the programme as a mechanism for grid balancing.  I guess it means that they guarantee to have your car fully charged by a given time when you put it on charge but they can fill it and empty is as many times as they like during the period.

[ProDave]

 

10 hours ago, MikeSharp01 said:

That was discussed in the programme as a mechanism for grid balancing.  I guess it means that they guarantee to have your car fully charged by a given time when you put it on charge but they can fill it and empty is as many times as they like during the period.

 

So this DNO scheme to use your car for grid storage.

 

Am I right in saying battery life in the main is the number of charge / discharge cycles, not time?  So if your car is used as a grid back up it will be charged / discharged more and the battery life will be shortened?  No doubt that's the small print they don't want you to read?

 

11 hours ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Sorry Dave, maybe I came across badly. I felt the programme was focused on batteries and ranged far and wide across economics / physics / technology of wind / solar and storage technologies. It didn't seem to come down one way or another but gave some useful insights into the bigger picture.

 

I am indeed interested in any new battery technology. One that makes home storage of solar PV viable is the breakthrough that I want (mainly a battery life issue)

[SteamyTea]

There are so many separate issues that get clumped together with transport that it is sometimes hard to disaggregate them.

 

So a few points:

 

Lithium Sulphur batteries.  The energy density may reach 5 times the energy density of Lithium Ion batteries, so maybe reaching a practical level of 1 kWh/kg.

 

Gasoline is 13 kWh/kg.  Now there are advantages in motor efficiencies that help electric vehicles (90% compared to 45% for an IC).  So still a big gap.  There is also a lot of life left in the IC engine.  I don't think that the charge/discharge cycle numbers are that great yet, maybe 1000.

 

Greenhouse gases.  It is probably better to centrally generate (or at least MW locally) than burn fuel in a vehicle.  The grid is getting cleaner and will continue to do so for a couple of decades.

 

Other pollutants.  The main ones are particulates and oxides of nitrogen.  These are relatively short lived in the environment, but have a long term affect on health.  Getting rid of high concentrations of these is a good thing.  EVs will help greatly here.

 

Traffic Congestion.  This may not change greatly with the introduction of EVs.  It is really a function of the economy.  The better off we become, the worse the traffic becomes, unless there is intervention from governments/councils/planners.

 

Walking/Cycling.  While we still mix vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists, we will have a problem.  Vehicles easily kill and main people, people hold up traffic.  Major rethink is needed.

 

Living in the South West, and liking both walking/cycling, it is not the vehicles that puts me off, it is the weather.

 

I don't think that covered walkways are the answer though, they just feel like a good placed to get mugged.  I don't know the best way around this one.

 

I am sure there are many other things that affect transport and new technologies being introduced.  One being costs.  Oddly enough, in the past, generally the more you paid for a car the higher the performance and the less mileage you got from the fuel.  With EVs it seems that the more you pay, the better distance you get from a  charge.  This is not strictly true as Tesla recently showed by remotely upgrading the battery packs for Florida residence (so they could flee when the hurricane hit).  Because battery energy density, and power delivery is pretty poor compared to gasoline/diesel, vehicles need to be larger and heavier, not always a good thing.  I saw a new Leaf today it is not a small car, nor is the ZOE, but then again, not many cars are small today.

 

[Onoff]

Reminds me of Ben Elton's book back in the early 90's, "Gridlock". From memory the hero invents an engine that runs on water or something but won't release the tech for it just to supplant mass ICE vehicle congestion. His vision is it's use in mass transport.

 

Good read.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Onoff

[jack]

10 hours ago, Onoff said:

Reminds me of Ben Elton's book back in the early 90's, "Gridlock". From memory the hero invents an engine that runs on water or something but won't release the tech for it just to supplant mass ICE vehicle congestion. His vision is it's use in mass transport.

 

Good read.

 

I remember reading that. I'm not sure if it's how the book starts, but I do remember something about aliens being able to understand everything about human behaviour other than why they insist on surrounding themselves in metal boxes before going anywhere.

 

Oh, and that very unexpected death in the middle...

[SteamyTea]

I read it too, can't remember anything about it to be honest.

I liked the 80's too much.

[Jeremy Harris]

11 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

  I don't think that the charge/discharge cycle numbers are that great yet, maybe 1000.
 

 

My car is currently showing that it's had 1153 charge discharge cycles.  Range is seemingly identical to when it was new, if anything it's a bit

better, as the past few weeks recorded the highest range over a couple of dozen cycles that I've seen since I've owned it.

 

Calendar life seems to have been the Achilles Heel of most lithium cells in the past, but that seems to have been fixed now, with Tesla saying that their current cells have a life of at least ten years.

 

The energy density thing is, to some extent, a bit of a red herring.  We like the high energy density of liquid fuels only because we are used to the use model of filling up at roadside fuel stations.  When we had horses, we accepted that the fuelling model was to feed them at home, or at an overnight stop at an inn.  When you factor in charging at either end of a journey as a matter of course (mine's on charge from the PV array right now  - nice sunny say for once) then the whole range thing comes down to one specific issue - how do you deal with the need for the occasional very long distance journey?

 

For more people, being able to do 50 to 100 miles between charges is fine, except when they need to go in a long trip, where they may well need 300 miles or so.  If we get to the stage where there are charging points at hotels, pubs, guest houses, holiday accommodation, car parks etc, and cars have a range of around 300 miles or so, then many of the range problems just go away. 

 

It takes a change of mindset to get away from the idea that you can only refuel your car at a roadside fuel station though.  I think that concept will be the hardest one to sell to enable widespread take up of EVs.

[gravelld]

Something to consider.

 

There's a stat that goes something like: 90% of all cars are not being driven 90% of the time. I have no citation for this. Just heard it. Maybe it's rubbish.

 

However, if it's true, then IF self driving cars become a thing, that's going to allow the possibility of far, far fewer cars.

 

And what this means is that carbon reduction targets can be met even if cars are still relatively polluting. We won't need extra generation capability, because the massive waste of producing all these piles of metal doing nothing will no longer be required (as much).

 

I think sometimes we tend to overestimate technical development in the short term and underestimate how it can restructure society in the long term (I know, I nicked and paraphrased that, but it's true).

[jack]

6 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

My car is currently showing that it's had 1153 charge discharge cycles.

 

I think he was talking about lithium sulphur batteries in particular.

 

7 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

The energy density thing is, to some extent, a bit of a red herring.  We like the high energy density of liquid fuels only because we are used to the use model of filling up at roadside fuel stations.  When we had horses, we accepted that the fuelling model was to feed them at home, or at an overnight stop at an inn.  When you factor in charging at either end of a journey as a matter of course (mine's on charge from the PV array right now  - nice sunny say for once) then the whole range thing comes down to one specific issue - how do you deal with the need for the occasional very long distance journey?

... 

It takes a change of mindset to get away from the idea that you can only refuel your car at a roadside fuel station though.  I think that concept will be the hardest one to sell to enable widespread take up of EVs.

 

I agreed completely.

 

I don't use the car anywhere near as often as my wife. When I do get into it, there's a decent chance it's going to be low on fuel, because getting petrol involves an out-of-the way drive which she hates doing.

 

I'm assured that when we get an electric car, she'll plug it in every time she gets out of it. Certainly that behaviour will be reinforced the first few times she realises that an "empty" electric car is going nowhere for a while, because it can't be driven on fumes to the petrol station on the way to wherever she actually wants to go!

 

3 minutes ago, gravelld said:

However, if it's true, then IF self driving cars become a thing, that's going to allow the possibility of far, far fewer cars.

 

This is how it will eventually be for all but the rich. Self-driving cars will also be involved in far fewer traffic jams, because they will self-route as a group to avoid them. Tailbacks at merge points will also be reduced, because self-driving cars will optimise their spacing before and afterwards to maximise throughput.

 

There's so much work going on in this space that it's unreal. Self-driving cars are the next mobile-phone-type paradigm shift for society, imo. 

 

[ProDave]

Re roadside charge points. I have yet to see a car parked and using the charge points at a motorway service station. That will no doubt change and unless they build more you could well find you need a charge, but all charge points are in use and you have to wait an hour before you can even begin to charge.

 

I noted when I looked there were two different cords with two different plugs at each charge point. So we are in the "VHS Vs Betamax" phase where the "standard" charge point is not yet established?

[SteamyTea]

3 hours ago, JSHarris said:

For more people, being able to do 50 to 100 miles between charges is fine

Where will the charging points go?

[SteamyTea]

Being more serious, it will take a complete rethink for our personal transport needs.

Really down to how that is done.  Will it be top down management, which usually falls short somewhere, or bottom up management, which usually reduces quality.

Or will we have a Google/Facebook/Twitter model where we think we are getting a good deal, but with high hidden costs.

[Jeremy Harris]

27 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Re roadside charge points. I have yet to see a car parked and using the charge points at a motorway service station. That will no doubt change ant unless they build more you could well find you need a charge, but all charge points are in use and you have to wait an hour before you can even begin to charge.

 

I noted when I looked there were two different cords with two different plugs at each charge point. So we are in the "VHS Vs Betamax" phase where the "standard" charge point is not yet established?

 

 

There are different standards of connector, yes, but the dominant, fits nearly everything, standard is AC charging using a "J1772" type connector.  In terms of making charge points more universal, then those that have no cable, but just an IEC 62196-2 will charge anything with an onboard AC charger, be it single or three phase.

 

The two alternative charge connectors are both for fast DC charge points, either CHAdeMO or the Tesla Supercharger connector.  Teslas have the option of charging from either AC, via a "J1772" connector, or DC, via a Supercharger, and Nissan Leaf's (and a couple of others) can charge either via a DC connected CHAdeMO or a "J1772" AC connector.

 

I normally charge at home with a tethered "J1772" lead, as it's easy to just uncoil the lead and plug in.  The whole charging process is automatic - the car detects the plug going in, checks the data, signals to the charge point, tells it is ready for power and the charge point then closes the main contactor and starts supply current to the car.  When the car is charged it signals to the charge point to turn off.  If the release latch on the car connector is pushed the same off signal is sent to the charge point contactor.

 

When charging from remote charge points, I usually use the ones with the IEC 62196-2 socket, and keep a 32A charging lead in the lead stowage space in the back of the car for this purpose.  This lead has a "J1772" connector on one end and an IEC 62196-2 connector on the other end.  I also have a low current (10 A) charge lead in the car, with a standard BS1363 13 A plug on it, plus a box with the charge point controls and RCD that's required.  I rarely use this though, unless away on holiday somewhere that has an outdoor socket I can plug the car into.

 

I would guess that eventually we'll settle down to a single AC charge connector (probably just a pillar with an IEC62196-2 connector on it, as it's more vandal resistant) and a single DC charge connector (and my guess is that the Tesla Supercharger will win out over CHAdeMO, just because Tesla look like being the leaders in the DC fast charge market)

Edited October 6, 2017 by JSHarris

[Jeremy Harris]

23 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Being more serious, it will take a complete rethink for our personal transport needs.

Really down to how that is done.  Will it be top down management, which usually falls short somewhere, or bottom up management, which usually reduces quality.

Or will we have a Google/Facebook/Twitter model where we think we are getting a good deal, but with high hidden costs.

 

 

Yes, there will be a rethink, but I think it will happen by stealth.  I filled my car up with fuel yesterday, the first time in 7 weeks.  It seemed pretty odd to have to remember to stop at a garage, as I only do it a few times a year.  Once you're in the mindset where you get out of the car, lock it and then just plug the charge lead in before going indoors, it becomes second nature. 

 

It's going to take time for people to adapt to this, but my guess is that plug-in hybrids may well end up being a useful transition vehicle to bring about change, whilst retaining insurance against range anxiety.  The problem may well be economics, and what happens to filling stations as their custom drops off.  Very few people are going to need, or want, to stop to recharge on the road, as for most people, the majority of their daily driving can be covered by home, on-street, or place of work charge points.  There will come a point where filling stations don't have enough business to keep going, I think, and that could then create a problem for those with conventionally fuelled cars.

[gravelld]

I might be taking you too literally - but I disagree.

 

There will NOT be a "re-think". Societal development does not happen by "thinking" or grand design, it happens by collective action, or more specifically a series of action. That might be action by disruptive (yuk!) startups, volte face by populist governments, fashions, trends, world events... anything. No-one at any point will "think" this through beyond short termist positions, of which I would count things like governmental market control, new product development and so on.

 

Examples like "where will the charging points go" are very myopic. A solution will be found, of some sort. If there's no solution, it probably won't happen in the first place, or people in tower blocks simply won't have cars... sometimes bad shit happens. No technical development in the history of mankind has happened with zero disadvantages. Even the wheel flattened people's toes now and then.

 

As such it's almost pointless discussing what might be, because no-one knows, and anyone that does know is (a) lying, (b) deluded or (c) trying to sell you something. We'll learn and have to live with it either way.

Edited October 6, 2017 by gravelld

[daiking]

13 minutes ago, gravelld said:

I might be taking you too literally - but I disagree.

 

There will NOT be a "re-think". Societal development does not happen by "thinking" or grand design, it happens by collective action, or more specifically a series of action. That might be action by disruptive (yuk!) startups, volte face by populist governments, fashions, trends, world events... anything. No-one at any point will "think" this through beyond short termist positions, of which I would count things like governmental market control, new product development and so on.

 

Examples like "where will the charging points go" are very myopic. A solution will be found, of some sort. If there's no solution, it probably won't happen in the first place, or people in tower blocks simply won't have cars... sometimes bad shit happens. No technical development in the history of mankind has happened with zero disadvantages. Even the wheel flattened people's toes now and then.

 

As such it's almost pointless discussing what might be, because no-one knows, and anyone that does know is (a) lying, (b) deluded or (c) trying to sell you something. We'll learn and have to live with it either way.

 

Which suggests I should make sure my next car has 8 cylinders rather than none.

[Onoff]

Bio-gas V8...everybody's happy!

[Jeremy Harris]

14 minutes ago, gravelld said:

I might be taking you too literally - but I disagree.

 

There will NOT be a "re-think". Societal development does not happen by "thinking" or grand design, it happens by collective action, or more specifically a series of action. That might be action by disruptive (yuk!) startups, volte face by populist governments, fashions, trends, world events... anything. No-one at any point will "think" this through beyond short termist positions, of which I would count things like governmental market control, new product development and so on.

 

Examples like "where will the charging points go" are very myopic. A solution will be found, of some sort. If there's no solution, it probably won't happen in the first place, or people in tower blocks simply won't have cars... sometimes bad shit happens. No technical development in the history of mankind has happened with zero disadvantages. Even the wheel flattened people's toes now and then.

 

As such it's almost pointless discussing what might be, because no-one knows, and anyone that does know is (a) lying, (b) deluded or (c) trying to sell you something. We'll learn and have to live with it either way.

 

As I wrote, "there will be a rethink, but I think it will happen by stealth" which amounts to exactly as you say, it will come about as a consequence of collective action.

 

My view is coloured by three and a half years experience of plugging my car in practically every day, at least once, more usually twice (there are some Sundays when I don't).   What I've seen is a change in my whole attitude to refuelling my car.  I now view it as a real nuisance to have to break my journey and stop to mess about pouring smelly stuff into a hole in the side of the car.  If you'd asked me if I'd have felt like this four years ago I would have guessed that I'd have answered very differently - when I bought the plug-in hybrid I didn't anticipate the changes it has created to the way I think about my car.

 

For example, having once had to rush to our local A&E years ago, and finding that my car was a bit low on fuel, I well remember the stress of wondering whether I'd have to try and stop on the way to fill up.  As I was driving with a fairly serious injury to my left hand (I'd nearly taken the end of a finger off with an electric plane) I really didn't want the hassle of trying to put fuel in the car.  As it happens I made it to the hospital OK, but I well remember making the decision to make sure the car was always topped up with fuel after that.  Now that pressure doesn't exist.  I know that the car has more than enough charge to get me to the hospital and back, even if there's no fuel in it, so I simply don't need to worry about filling the car up.

 

It's subtle, the way you start to think differently about fuelling the car, and there are plenty of infrastructure changes needed to deal with those who don't have the convenience of being able to charge on their own drive or garage, but if the demand and the will is there, the infrastructure will get put in place.  Cable and fibre TV is a good example - that didn't exist at all around 30 years ago, yet now millions of homes are connected, and that needed loads of road works to lay cable or fibres down residential streets.

[ragg987]

5 hours ago, gravelld said:

There's a stat that goes something like: 90% of all cars are not being driven 90% of the time.

Even if the numbers are wrong the sentiment if probably right.

 

However, chances are that majority of the vehicles are used at PEAK times - e.g. morning run to office / school whatever. So then we still need 70% ⁽¹⁾ of the vehicles to support the concurrent users at peak. So traffic cannot be avoided unless there is a major change in our ways of living or we adopt mass transport in larger numbers.

 

This is the problem with stats - on the face of it they can show anything, but the detail is importnat too.

 

⁽¹⁾ or whatever the percentage might be - I made that up to illustrate the point

[ProDave]

4 minutes ago, ragg987 said:

Even if the numbers are wrong the sentiment if probably right.

 

However, chances are that majority of the vehicles are used at PEAK times - e.g. morning run to office / school whatever. So then we still need 70% ⁽¹⁾ of the vehicles to support the concurrent users at peak. So traffic cannot be avoided unless there is a major change in our ways of living or we adopt mass transport in larger numbers.

 

This is the problem with stats - on the face of it they can show anything, but the detail is importnat too.

 

⁽¹⁾ or whatever the percentage might be - I made that up to illustrate the point

That of course brings us to road design and pinch points.

 

One of the reasons I gave up living in the SE was ever increasing traffic but no major new roads to take it. What was a pleasant drive to work when I started when I was younger, had become a stop go crawl by the time I gave up. At that point I had concluded there was not the will to "solve" the issue of private car congestion, other than to tell  us to cycle or take the bus (stuck in the same traffic jam)

 

Now I have moved to an area of low population density, there is not much traffic congestion, but there is some. The issue here is bridges.  It seemed a brilliant idea to build bridges over estuaries to link "close" populations separated by water. Thinking Forth bridge, Tay bridge, and to a lesser extent (but closer to home) the Kessock and Cromarty bridges.  But what then happens is people start basing where to live on the fact that it's just a simple hop over the bridge to get to work. It's not long before the rush hour demand on the bridge is too great and it becomes a pinch point and long queues form.  Without the bridges, long journeys would be slower as you would have to "go round" but people would have chosen to live on the same side as they worked and there would be no need tor thousands to cross the same pinch point at the same time twice per day.