What's the problem with electric vehicles

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, Spock66 said:

You could argue it's the same with ICE vehicles, manufacturers quote the power output and torque of the engine, after 10-years / 100k miles it's likely that those figures will have degraded.

Not by as much and as well, it is much less relevant. If one buys decently powerful car (say between 200-300hp), then even with 20% less power the car will still be completely useful for all normal speeds which are legal. Whereas range on EVs is already an issue even when new e.g. 300 miles isn't that amazing considering how long it takes to charge... and we all know that in real life with heater, A/C, music, headlights and all the rest of the stuff real range will already be much less. let's say 240 miles... and then -20% after 8 years really leaves just 190miles range. Now sure - that is not an issue for the ranges they are "intended" to be used for, the problem is that the assumption of average 30 miles per day is just wrong.

I guess we can twist it any way we like, but charging, Battery capacity and degradation, range etc. are all weaknesses of BEVs... they have positives as well, for example that in the city they do not pollute, so air quality improves in the city... the only problem I have with all this is only - they are not yet good enough to replace ICEVs as single do-all vehicle and therefore they should not be mandated. So really the issue is not with BEVs, they have their little niche which they are good at and I have no problem with them being in that niche, the problem is with mandates which will force them onto everyone.

It is like going to supermarket and saying - do people like beef? The answer is yes - some people like beef and it is ok, I think everyone can agree with that... but now take that step further... let's ban all other meats, by 2030 no turkey, no pork, no lamb, no chicken will be allowed! Well that is now clearly an issue! So it is same here - BEVs are not issue per say, it is the mandate banning other types of cars which are an issue. The most ironic part is that the reason is to supposedly help the environment, but as it turns out at the moment there seems to be no clear benefit to environment either.

[dutchie01]

My daughter just bought a perfectly fine 12 yr old nissan qashqai. Great family transport and at 100k km many more years of happy motoring.

Now fast forward to 2032. Would i be able to write thesame sentence about her buying a 10 yr old BEV?

 

[Linas.P]

11 minutes ago, dutchie01 said:

My daughter just bought a perfectly fine 12 yr old nissan qashqai. Great family transport and at 100k km many more years of happy motoring.

Now fast forward to 2032. Would i be able to write thesame sentence about her buying a 10 yr old BEV?

I would say yes... but it depends on a lot of things... like family needs, whenever they can charge at home, whenever public infrastructure has improved etc. So if the need is just to drive 20-30 miles per day, can charge at home, there are no rolling blackouts and electricity price is affordable... I am quite sure 10 years old BEV still going to be usable car... but I don't think BEV itself will be an issue. All the things surrounding it will be problematic. 

[dutchie01]

The question was more about the max lifespan of batteries. I do know there is no historical data for the moment but a toyota starlet petrol for instance will live happily for 30 years or more.

Now to BEV. the car no problem but what about the batteries. Do they need replaced after 10 or so years and at what cost and again after another 10?

[Las Palmas]

3 hours ago, Linas.P said:

I would say yes... but it depends on a lot of things... like family needs, whenever they can charge at home, whenever public infrastructure has improved etc. So if the need is just to drive 20-30 miles per day, can charge at home, there are no rolling blackouts and electricity price is affordable... I am quite sure 10 years old BEV still going to be usable car... but I don't think BEV itself will be an issue. All the things surrounding it will be problematic. 

With all the "if" you mention I think the better answer would have been "maybe".

Most of the electric car would probably have been OK. But "maybe" the useful range of a 10-year-old Battery would be rather limited.

"If" fuel price will be acceptable in 10-years is a political question.

[Moleman]

1 hour ago, dutchie01 said:

a toyota starlet petrol for instance will live happily for 30 years or more.

Mine is almost 26 years old and still going strong. Doubt any BEV will last like that.

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, Las Palmas said:

With all the "if" you mention I think the better answer would have been "maybe".

Most of the electric car would probably have been OK. But "maybe" the useful range of a 10-year-old battery would be rather limited.

"If" fuel price will be acceptable in 10-years is a political question.

Maybe/If - that is pretty much same thing, but I can't say it won't work because that is subjective. Rather limited range depends on where it started and again depends on the needs... I keep repeating it but the key fault of BEV thinking is "average daily journey"... and with that in mind even if 10 years old BEV going to have 70% of 200 miles range left, it would be plentiful enough city driving... assuming that 30 miles a day is all you need... that will be plenty of range. 

I am just saying that going electric confines us into situation where instead of having freedom to drive anywhere we like anytime we like (like the main advantage of having personal transportation)... we instead are constricted to flawed nature of the technology. Those flaws won't disappear, but if BEV works for you today, then it will work for you in 10 years time as well.

So from the perspective... will 10 years old BEV be good buy in 10 years time... yes for those for whom it works today when new, and no for those for whom it doesn't work anyway. 

Simply said it is more nuanced then simply being good or bad. 

[Mr Vlad]

That's one of the best posts I've read anywhere in any forum. Very accurately said Linas. 

I'm sure I've mentioned it somewhere that I seem to remember again a Fifth Gear programme of a few years back when EV'S were on our roads for a good few years. A garage darn sarf transitioned into an EV specialist. Servicing EV'S etc. He actually did Battery swaps on the very early EV'S. Can't remember the actual year or ages of those vehicles but to have a replacement Battery after say 8 or so years seemed a bit much. The garage kept the old batteries as storage power supplies. Now that must tell you there must have been some good use left in those batteries 

Don't you think it surprising that you can but a new EV with a small Battery with a 100 mile range. Ok that vehicle would be so right for a short city commute assuming one had home charging or a charger at place of work or one very very nearby to home. 

But how long can an EV last. I wouldn't be surprised if they last decades if looked after. Their only achilies heel is the Battery.

[toffee_pie]

Electric cars and Net Zero are clearly all skulduggery to get control of people. It's all kicking off now what with the 15 minute commutes in Oxford next year. Covid looks to have been the green light to governments to begin this totalitarian control bull and we have all the other measures taking shape (bike sheds, squiggle lines, picnic tables, flower beds, removal of parking spaces and general nonsense, eventually it looks like ULEZ zones and all these restrictions will cover large swathes of the country) all done with no consultation because why bother with tax payers they are just getting in the way of things, referendums are long abolished - Governments use the net zero climate change narrative for everything - they are hell bent on it so much they created a war. Governments are like cartels since 2019 pretty much - the bank of England and the banks of every other western economy are getting ready to roll out a digital currency also - that too is another controlling measure - because when you ignore all the science and look beneath the bs you will see carbon credits are basically a tax on your wealth itself - hence the phrase you will own nothing, banks, high Street shops, airports closing are all part of the plan it seems. 

 

[toffee_pie]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/01/20/green-revolution-fuelling-environmental-destruction/?WT.mc_id=e_DM97043&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Loy_Dig_Acq_Tue_4Dto7D&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Loy_Dig_Acq_Tue_4Dto7D20230124&utm_campaign=DM97043

[toffee_pie]

I've seen this on social media and it pretty much sums up how our brains are wired

https://imgur.com/a/Z27qS3v

 

 

 

[Linas.P]

32 minutes ago, toffee_pie said:

Governments use the net zero climate change narrative for everything

Completely agree - net zero is basically anti-human policy. There was good video I have posted to other thread which nicely puts everything in right perspective. 

Human life means creation of pollution, it can be reduced, but it won't be eliminated and most importantly cars have nothing to do with reducing the pollution, they are way too minor source to make any difference. The focus should be on developing world, because that is where majority of people are and where poor people live... and poor people do not care about climate.

What net zero policy is... is basically dehumanizing policy... Government can't quite stand-up to their desire to reduce the numbers of "undesirables", so at very least they are trying to take away everything they can, cars, freedoms, homes and just make it look like a massive ant nest.

On 1/18/2023 at 2:54 PM, Linas.P said:

I don't want to take credit or be overly smug about it... but I have raised all these topics for years. The facts were in the open for those looking... the difference now is that now people with larger following started making videos about it, but the points all remain the same. I mean it is very nice to see and people with influence started talking about it and hopefully this will reach the point where government will have to abandon their dangerous and completely unjustified ban on ICEVs by 2030, but still nothing is really new in the video. Sure the number may have moved over the time - last time I checked and with data which was available the transportation was 10% and cars were 24% of that, perhaps that has changed now to 16% and 45% respectively (especially with developing countries continuing to develop e.g. in China car ownership increased 10 fold between 2012 and 2022, so expect that to have impact), but nothing has changed fundamentally - ok previously getting rid of all cars would have left 97% of the problem, now it leaves 93% of the problem (be it we still need to check on sources and years to see what numbers we quoting). Point we getting to - cars are not the issue to begin with and this witch hunt was never justified!

Hopefully this view will become mainstream soon!

To the same topic:

 

 

[toffee_pie]

It's just Brainwashing on a global scale, I said this a few years ago and it's only getting worse. What people should do is write to your local council and ask them what measures (if any of course) they are planning and if they like you know considering actually asking if it was ok with the tax payer itself before going ahead with this bs. Richard Vobes on YT is good, no nonsense and speaks sense. 

Electric cars have nothing to do with the environment, it's all about control.. like covid and everything else happening. In 2030 the government will have more control than whoever is in the car, if you are an engineer it's easier to figure out this racket going on. I can only imagine the amounts of money exchanging hands since 2015 to make everything happen as it is now and it's easily trillions of dollars we are talking here - it's why I never trust a politician and this is going back decades. They're not trustworthy and never were - swanning around in jets and yachts and armoured vehicles while everyone else is getting crippled, Sunak getting a jet weeks ago to some meeting, Prince Charles is just as bad another puppet for the WEF spreading the net zero narrative. 

The uptake on electric cars at my company is poor, we have a scheme going on since last year - everyone working here are engineers so not easily played, the company are just going along with whatever dross the government say.

[Steven Lockey]

23 hours ago, Linas.P said:

I hope this is sarcasm as you clearly have no clue what you talking about, but it is me who needs to do some "basic research before typing"...

No, but it seems your reading comprehension might need some work....

 

Quote

and that will happened in "next few years"... which is the same story for last 15 years...

Different techs take different amounts of time to put into practical mass production. This process tends to get accelerated rapidly when large companies start throwing large amounts of money into R&D, which is exactly what they have been doing for the past few years. Some techs have gone into mass productions as quickly as a few months after been discovered. Lots of factors involved. The lithophobic plating however is extremely promising as it requires very little changes to existing production lines. Things like solid state batteries which require entirely new equipment to be invented to mass produce them will however take longer. 

Thing is, you tend not to hear much about these after the initial discovery, but there is a reason that modern li-ion batteries have around double the energy storage of those produced in 2010. Its because these discoveries were implemented. It's just all you ever heard about it was "And your new more power hungry phone/laptop will still run all day"
 

Quote

And I think this is the bit I like the most, honestly one of the dumbest thing I heard in a while - "They could charge a lot faster if they weren't worried about battery damage"... ohh so you are saying they could not charge faster... because faster charging would damage the batteries? Isn't that exactly what was said... or this is some language problem?

I don't know? Do you have a problem reading english? 
Its not simply "charging faster damages the Battery more", at lower charge rates, the damage from charging is practically negligible. It's only when you go beyond a certain threshold that charging faster causes more damage. Electric cars always, even on superchargers are under that threshold. 

Quote

So if just for illustration let's say single "slow" charge at 7Kw degrades the battery by 0.01%, then charging the same battery with 350Kw "fast" charger may actually degrade it by 0.1%... which part of that you didn't understand? 

This is only true if 350KW is over the battery's threshold. Otherwise both will degrade the Battery equally or at least so close it's practically impossible to measure. EVs will literally prevent this from happening by cutting off the recharge if needed, either entirely or to certain cells. Your scenario is made up and simply doesn't apply to EVs.

I don't disagree that EVs are far far more practical if you can charge at home however or at least very locally, simply for the fact its a pain having to go and wait somewhere for over an hour for a recharge. As someone said, supermarkets would be a great place for this.
 

Quote

each battery type is affected differently by the charging, some can be half-charged (shallow-charge) without issue, some are actually damaged more by it

Since we are specifically talking about Li-ion which doesn't suffer from this and behaves consistently... charge cycles is a useful metric. I agree it would be a less useful metric if we were comparing li-ion with a different type of Battery but we aren't.... 

 

[Linas.P]

8 hours ago, Steven Lockey said:

Different techs take different amounts of time to put into practical mass production. This process tends to get accelerated rapidly when large companies start throwing large amounts of money into R&D, which is exactly what they have been doing for the past few years. Some techs have gone into mass productions as quickly as a few months after been discovered. Lots of factors involved. The lithophobic plating however is extremely promising as it requires very little changes to existing production lines. Things like solid state batteries which require entirely new equipment to be invented to mass produce them will however take longer. 

Thing is, you tend not to hear much about these after the initial discovery, but there is a reason that modern li-ion batteries have around double the energy storage of those produced in 2010. Its because these discoveries were implemented. It's just all you ever heard about it was "And your new more power hungry phone/laptop will still run all day"

Its not simply "charging faster damages the battery more", at lower charge rates, the damage from charging is practically negligible. It's only when you go beyond a certain threshold that charging faster causes more damage. Electric cars always, even on superchargers are under that threshold. 

This is only true if 350KW is over the battery's threshold. Otherwise both will degrade the battery equally or at least so close it's practically impossible to measure. EVs will literally prevent this from happening by cutting off the recharge if needed, either entirely or to certain cells. Your scenario is made up and simply doesn't apply to EVs.

I don't disagree that EVs are far far more practical if you can charge at home however or at least very locally, simply for the fact its a pain having to go and wait somewhere for over an hour for a recharge. As someone said, supermarkets would be a great place for this.

Since we are specifically talking about Li-ion which doesn't suffer from this and behaves consistently... charge cycles is a useful metric. I agree it would be a less useful metric if we were comparing li-ion with a different type of battery but we aren't.... 

Tesla, Nissan, Mitsubishi and several other manufacturers are throwing big money at it for at least 10 years (really only Toyota was out of this for most of the time) and still no breakthroughs... so what makes you believe that in next 2 years there will be breakthrough made. Unless you have some insiders information which we don't. And that is before we even consider all other tech giants like Samsung, Panasonic, Sony, Sanyo who were perfecting lithium batteries for use in mobile devices since 90s. I mean sure - incremental improvements were made, but nothing in the ground-breaking or making any fundamental differences. And I was following this topic for quite some time, not only from cars perspective, but technology as well... there were hundreds of "extremely promising tech" project every year. Anyone remembers solid state batteries, graphene - that was big buzz few years ago... one is yet to be put in production. So - a lot of tech is very promising in limited lab testing, there is company in Australia making aliminium-suphur Battery which has ~60% capacity of lithium Battery, but it is ~20% more compact per pack as it does not require cooling... meaning the equivalent size/weight Battery pack would have 80% of lithium capacity per size/weight... and most importantly it could charge at 600Kw in 5-10 minutes. That is before we even consider benefits like not using rare and expensive lithium, or dirty and slave mined cobalt! Great I guess... but somehow that hasn't made it into mass production, despite prototype pack being completed in 2019 and I have not heard any plans of it becoming mass produced. There are reasons for that... and those reasons are that mass producing something at scale and at cost is more complicated then you think.

Then it comes to fast charging and charging cycles. Where did I say we talking about Lithium here... it is you who made this assumption. Sure - lithium was mentioned from time to time as this is most common Battery type nowadays. My statement was simply "depending on Battery tech and how fast you charge it the degradation could be from 50% higher to 10 times higher" and this is the range from absolute worst case scenario to absolutely best case scenario. The problem is that there is no such definition what is "fast charger", the consensus seems to be that anything below 7Kw is slow and anything above 22Kw is "fast". But that is just because of historic reasons as charger tech improved, however 22Kw is clearly not as fast as 150Kw or as 350Kw. I guess you can say "if Battery is well designed" then it should not be damaged by whatever charger even if it is 5000Kw... and that is true, because car is charging at the fastest rate it could charge, regardless what charger it uses. However, we are not talking about "damage" here, we talking about accelerated degradation of cells. All the research shows that batteries consistently degrade more when "fast" charging, how much again depends. 

All in all you sounds like overhyped EVangelist with lid blown-off after reading some science fiction. We are talking about what exists today and what one could buy... what will happen 2 years from now is speculation at best, so it is a bit strong to come up here claiming that I haven't done basic research, by which you mean - I am not hyped like a child about technology which may or may not come to the market. I may be pessimist, but you need reality check!

 

[geller1968]

The slave labour needed to make the batteries is terrible, and it’s a Virtual signals dream, I had a chat to my local Lexus dealer regarding how many they have sold so far this year……2 !

[Steven Lockey]

7 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Tesla, Nissan, Mitsubishi and several other manufacturers are throwing big money at it for at least 10 years (really only Toyota was out of this for most of the time) and still no breakthroughs... so what makes you believe that in next 2 years there will be breakthrough made. Unless you have some insiders information which we don't. And that is before we even consider all other tech giants like Samsung, Panasonic, Sony, Sanyo who were perfecting lithium batteries for use in mobile devices since 90s. I mean sure - incremental improvements were made, but nothing in the ground-breaking or making any fundamental differences. And I was following this topic for quite some time, not only from cars perspective, but technology as well... there were hundreds of "extremely promising tech" project every year. Anyone remembers solid state batteries, graphene - that was big buzz few years ago... one is yet to be put in production. So - a lot of tech is very promising in limited lab testing, there is company in Australia making aliminium-suphur battery which has ~60% capacity of lithium battery, but it is ~20% more compact per pack as it does not require cooling... meaning the equivalent size/weight battery pack would have 80% of lithium capacity per size/weight... and most importantly it could charge at 600Kw in 5-10 minutes. That is before we even consider benefits like not using rare and expensive lithium, or dirty and slave mined cobalt! Great I guess... but somehow that hasn't made it into mass production, despite prototype pack being completed in 2019 and I have not heard any plans of it becoming mass produced. There are reasons for that... and those reasons are that mass producing something at scale and at cost is more complicated then you think.

Then it comes to fast charging and charging cycles. Where did I say we talking about Lithium here... it is you who made this assumption. Sure - lithium was mentioned from time to time as this is most common battery type nowadays. My statement was simply "depending on battery tech and how fast you charge it the degradation could be from 50% higher to 10 times higher" and this is the range from absolute worst case scenario to absolutely best case scenario. The problem is that there is no such definition what is "fast charger", the consensus seems to be that anything below 7Kw is slow and anything above 22Kw is "fast". But that is just because of historic reasons as charger tech improved, however 22Kw is clearly not as fast as 150Kw or as 350Kw. I guess you can say "if battery is well designed" then it should not be damaged by whatever charger even if it is 5000Kw... and that is true, because car is charging at the fastest rate it could charge, regardless what charger it uses. However, we are not talking about "damage" here, we talking about accelerated degradation of cells. All the research shows that batteries consistently degrade more when "fast" charging, how much again depends. 

All in all you sounds like overhyped EVangelist with lid blown-off after reading some science fiction. We are talking about what exists today and what one could buy... what will happen 2 years from now is speculation at best, so it is a bit strong to come up here claiming that I haven't done basic research, by which you mean - I am not hyped like a child about technology which may or may not come to the market. I may be pessimist, but you need reality check!

 

Your splitting hairs now. The R&D funding has been increasing for some time. Exactly when you define them throwing big money at it is kinda arbitrary. 
Of course other companies were funding research before but with so many companies wanting it now including the military, energy companies, car companies e.t.c. that funding has spiked in recent years.

 

Quote

Anyone remembers solid state batteries, graphene - that was big buzz few years ago... one is yet to be put in production.

Solid state batteries should go into full mass-production in 2030 according to the company that is currently building the factories to produce them. 
Graphene is the same were we have to develop entirely new production processes for it and maybe entirely new techs to enable those processes.

You've literally picked the two with the biggest walls in the way and ignored the others. 
 

Quote

Australia making aliminium-suphur battery which has ~60% capacity of lithium battery, but it is ~20% more compact per pack as it does not require cooling... meaning the equivalent size/weight battery pack would have 80% of lithium capacity per size/weight...

Because it expands when charging, which causes membrane issues. They think they have a way to solve it but its not exactly simply and again requires a new production process.
There are multiple big advantages if we can get sulphur batteries working but that is likely to take longer, such are tripling the energy density when combined with lithium or these much cheaper non-lithium batteries.
Don't expect to see these pre-2040 however. They are several years behind solid state batteries and require basically the same steps.

 

Quote

Then it comes to fast charging and charging cycles. Where did I say we talking about Lithium here... it is you who made this assumption.

Conversation is about EVs which currently use Li-ion batteries. When we get EVs using other Battery types they will become more relevant.
That's why charge cycles is generally only used alone when talking about a specific chemistry or at least those with similar properties.

 

Quote

However, we are not talking about "damage" here, we talking about accelerated degradation of cells. All the research shows that batteries consistently degrade more when "fast" charging, how much again depends. 

Two ways of saying the same thing. Again all batteries have a threshold  which charging above that threshold increases degradation. All EVs force charging below this threshold. 
If a Battery has a threshold of 100KW, then you won't notice any difference in degradation if you charge at 1KW, 20KW or 100KW. 

I can describe the physics why this is the case if you'd like 😉 But basically its due to the electrical field allowing the dendrites to grow more forcefully once it reaches a certain level,
below that point, dendrite growth is basically linear with amount of charge passed, regardless of how quickly it is charged. The electrical field generated simply isn't powerful enough
to overcome the material's resistance.

 

Quote

so it is a bit strong to come up here claiming that I haven't done basic research, by which you mean - I am not hyped like a child about technology which may or may not come to the market. I may be pessimist, but you need reality check!

That things you presented as fact were simply wrong. That statement was nothing to do with future techs.

And yes I may be slightly optimistic, but I actually look at the technologies and see what the professionals are saying about them. 
Much like when they found salting graphene cathodes with silicon increased energy density with no charge degradation, since it was simple to implement, it was in mass production in under a year. I never expected solid state batteries before
2028 at earliest because it is an entirely now production chain. If a new discovery only involves things we already know how to do at scale however, these are generally much quicker to implement. Different techs are very likely to have vastly
different time-scales.

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, Steven Lockey said:

Exactly when you define them throwing big money at it is kinda arbitrary. 

This was the statement you made... So is it arbitrary or is it not?!

1 hour ago, Steven Lockey said:

You've literally picked the two with the biggest walls in the way and ignored the others. 

I have picked-up two random buzzwords from last few years where it was on every EVangelist dream-list as the tech "which will change the world as we know it tomorrow". Yet nothing come out of it and I have no reason to believe anything going to change that soon. As I said - the discussion is about what exists now and when we have something else tomorrow, then we can make different concussions. For example if there is electric car tomorrow which can do 200miles per charge in most adverse conditions (meaning high altitude, winter, -20C, heating on full blast, everything that could be ON is ON) and most importantly can charge within 5 minutes without degradation of the Battery, then I am sold - count me in, I can get rid of my petrol car tomorrow. I don't even need long range, even 150miles will do as long as I can stop and refuel it within the time it takes to ***** and go another 150 miles, because I always said it is not the range that is an issue, most off current BEVs have plenty of range already. But I am not going to count something that doesn't exist yet.

1 hour ago, Steven Lockey said:

Conversation is about EVs which currently use Li-ion batteries. When we get EVs using other battery types they will become more relevant.

That the Battery has Lithium in it, that does not mean it is the same Battery tech, there is like dozen different types. Then there is Battery architecture, other Battery aspects like whenever it is passively, actively, water or air cooler. Sure - it seems for the time being water-cooled NCM are the primary type, but it is far from only type... and they all have different properties. 

1 hour ago, Steven Lockey said:

 [>]charging above that threshold [and] dendrites to grow more forcefully once it reaches a certain level, below that point, dendrite growth is basically linear with amount of charge passed, regardless of how quickly it is charged.

Yes the main reason for Battery degradation is crystallisation (we can call it "dendrites" if you prefer, crystals are more Lead-Acid terminology, but principal is the same - material transfer between anode and cathode), they grow with every cycle... But this is where we disagree... as you talking purely theoretically and I am talking about what is happening now in practice of BEV ownership/charging. That is where I said - depending on the technology, quality, design etc. they may degrade faster or slower and further it depends on how empty the Battery is discharged, how full it is charged, how fast it is discharged and charged, the voltage and amperage of charging, the temperature and a lot more things. Generally speaking charging is what causes this and the faster is the charging the faster Battery will crystallise.

In theory you right, if Battery is overall designed for say 1000 cycles at 100Kw charge, then it should survive 1000 cycles, regardless if it was charged at "1KW, 20KW or 100KW"... However, I simply don't agree that all current batteries are designed for say 100Kw charge, most of batteries in current BEVs are cycle-rated at 7-22Kw, meaning that they will degrade quicker when charging at 100Kw (not saying that all BEVs going to even allow 100Kw). Anyway - point is (and I agree with you here) charging slower than rating won't slowdown Battery degradation, but charging faster than rating will increase degradation. Most current fast chargers are above the Battery rating for common BEVs, and most current BEVs will allow charging above their rating (obviously not full 350Kw, but many for example allows 55Kw), so in practice it means that "fast charging degrades the batteries" and owner of average BEV basically have to compromise... either choose faster charger to get advertised 40% charged in 30min, but degrade Battery faster, or they wait 2 hours and preserve the Battery life. 

1 hour ago, Steven Lockey said:

That things you presented as fact were simply wrong. 

Basically you came-up with your strawman interpretation of what you thought I said and then proven the strawman wrong... well done!

1 hour ago, Steven Lockey said:

And yes I may be slightly optimistic, but I actually look at the technologies and see what the professionals are saying about them. 

Calling others uneducated for not being hyped about tech which doesn't exist is not "slightly" optimistic... I would describe it more fanatical... maybe. 

[toffee_pie]

The reason auto manufacturers are throwing money at EVs is because the skulduggery cowboys in the gov told them to, that should be pretty obvious. It's not like your council or government or auto manufacturers are telling you stuff they don't want you to know. Electric cars, come on you don't need to spend 50 grand to get from A to B. The environmental damage these things cause is catastrophic, they are a pain in the butt to own, I wouldn't swap my Subaru for one if I was paid - 3 hour queues in the winter that's just waiting to charge the damn things up, I fill up every 3 ish weeks, takes me 2 minutes. I can drive 60,70,80 mph no problem, leave my sound system on, turn on the heated seats, climate control maxed up and overtake useless slow drivers, many driving EVs - I'm not looking at the range every 5 darn minutes and more costly it seems to run than a petrol car now it seems.

Half a tonne of lithium batteries in a car isn't eco friendly and besides combustion engine cars in England account for less than 1 percent of global greenhouse gases themselves - trust the science aren't telling you this. 

It's all about control and getting people off the road, all this nonsense is only impacting the over populated and over gluttonous western world who are having too much of a good time 

 

[toffee_pie]

This is what a EV is like and £500 a month for the Volvo, madness 

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/motoring/motoring-features/how-easy-charge-electric-car-25989706#amp-readmore-target

 

 

 

[Linas.P]

33 minutes ago, toffee_pie said:

The reason auto manufacturers are throwing money at EVs is because the skulduggery cowboys in the gov told them to, that should be pretty obvious. It's not like your council or government or auto manufacturers are telling you stuff they don't want you to know. Electric cars, come on you don't need to spend 50 grand to get from A to B. The environmental damage these things cause is catastrophic, they are a pain in the butt to own, I wouldn't swap my Subaru for one if I was paid - 3 hour queues in the winter that's just waiting to charge the damn things up, I fill up every 3 ish weeks, takes me 2 minutes. I can drive 60,70,80 mph no problem, leave my sound system on, turn on the heated seats, climate control maxed up and overtake useless slow drivers, many driving EVs - I'm not looking at the range every 5 darn minutes and more costly it seems than a petrol car now it seems.

Half a tonne of lithium batteries in a car isn't eco friendly and besides combustion engine cars in England account for less than 1 percent of global greenhouse gases themselves - trust the science aren't telling you this. 

I generally with you on this... 

I am not against BEVs... I am just against the current "type" of BEVs . And I think the "range-anxiety" is misplaced... really it isn't the problem with range, it is problem with charging. Imagine if you would have to pay £500 to refill at petrol station and had to wait 3 hours vs. £5 to do it at home overnight... you would look at the range of your petrol car as well and would always try to have as much range as possible when leaving your home! So it isn't range, it is the cost and the time it takes to charge that is a problem!

And sure... Elun the liar Mushk and all the EVangelists keeps saying how it is not an issue - "yeah sure maaaan...  but how often you stop at services and you sit down for 40 minutes to have coffee there... and then on occasion as well decide to watch the movie as well... and then as well have massive sticky dump as well which takes you 40 minutes to clean-up after... and then how often you as well just say ffff-it I am just going to stay at stinky Holiday-In for the night... so yeah maaaaan that isn't an issue if it takes 2 hours to charge, because you staying overnight in the motorway services anyway...". NOPE - sorry not for me! Sure on occasion I have to spend 10 minutes looking at some idiot at the till who can't decide what sauce he wants on his hot-dog and maybe overall stop takes much longer than I expected... so instead of taking 2 minutes it takes maybe 15. But I am not waiting more than 15 minutes to refuel... I am not into this "new way of thinking" where I have to alter my perception to convince myself it is ok to spend 2 hours every 200 miles in the motorway services. This "new way of thinking" is basically a brain-rot... it is not just changing "perspective", it is literally dumb and retarded. And ok... I am driving more than 30 miles only once a week, and more than 200 miles only once a month... but when I am driving I want every thing to be ON... and I am not sticking to 60... 70... 80... If I am in Europe I go as fast as it actually goes, because I generally want to get where I am going as fast as possible. Because on 1500 miles trip the last thing I am interested in is my range! (small side note - BEVs not only **** at charging, they as well crap at any speed above 60MPH).

So in the end of the day the biggest problem in my mind is charging and that is literally endless pit of problems... capacity, generation, transmission, how long it takes, Battery degradation etc. Like there is a lot of problems with that... and until they are resolved I can't see myself in BEV.

The global emissions from private vehicles are 2.4% - 2.1 diesel and 0.3% petrol and hybrid combined. So not quite "less than 1%", but the point remains the same - how comes 2.4% are such a big focus, when remaining 97.6% requires no attention. Just doesn't make sense... unless like you say this is a trick to make us all into slaves, who have no freedom and no control... and who can only go where public transport takes them, when it works and only on routes where it goes.

[toffee_pie]

22 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I generally with you on this... 

I am not against BEVs... I am just against the current "type" of BEVs . And I think the "range-anxiety" is misplaced... really it isn't the problem with range, it is problem with charging. Imagine if you would have to pay £500 to refill at petrol station and had to wait 3 hours vs. £5 to do it at home overnight... you would look at the range of your petrol car as well and would always try to have as much range as possible when leaving your home! So it isn't range, it is the cost and the time it takes to charge that is a problem!

And sure... Elun the liar Mushk and all the EVangelists keeps saying how it is not an issue - "yeah sure maaaan...  but how often you stop at services and you sit down for 40 minutes to have coffee there... and then on occasion as well decide to watch the movie as well... and then as well have massive sticky dump as well which takes you 40 minutes to clean-up after... and then how often you as well just say ffff-it I am just going to stay at stinky Holiday-In for the night... so yeah maaaaan that isn't an issue if it takes 2 hours to charge, because you staying overnight in the motorway services anyway...". NOPE - sorry not for me! Sure on occasion I have to spend 10 minutes looking at some idiot at the till who can't decide what sauce he wants on his hot-dog and maybe overall stop takes much longer than I expected... so instead of taking 2 minutes it takes maybe 15. But I am not waiting more than 15 minutes to refuel... I am not into this "new way of thinking" where I have to alter my perception to convince myself it is ok to spend 2 hours every 200 miles in the motorway services. This "new way of thinking" is basically a brain-rot... it is not just changing "perspective", it is literally dumb and retarded. And ok... I am driving more than 30 miles only once a week, and more than 200 miles only once a month... but when I am driving I want every thing to be ON... and I am not sticking to 60... 70... 80... If I am in Europe I go as fast as it actually goes, because I generally want to get where I am going as fast as possible. Because on 1500 miles trip the last thing I am interested in is my range! (small side note - BEVs not only **** at charging, they as well crap at any speed above 60MPH).

So in the end of the day the biggest problem in my mind is charging and that is literally endless pit of problems... capacity, generation, transmission, how long it takes, battery degradation etc. Like there is a lot of problems with that... and until they are resolved I can't see myself in BEV.

The global emissions from private vehicles are 2.4% - 2.1 diesel and 0.3% petrol and hybrid combined. So not5 quite "less than 1%", but the point remains the same - how comes 2.4% are such a big focus, when remaining 97.6% requires no attention. Just doesn't make sense... unless like you say this is a trick to make us all into slaves, who have no freedom and no control... and who can only go where public transport takes them, when it works and only on routes were it goes.

I call it BS from the way they are going about it along with all the rest of the blatant totalitarian measures taking shape. If govs said ok if you live in an urban setting please consider getting an electric car, they have no tail pipe emissions and will help air quality - which is true - to an extent. Most of the rubbish air pollutants are from manufacturing plants and such but having EVs in this setting wouldn't be a bad thing but no they want everyone in the world to have EVs which is clearly due to back handed agreements. I've been in Tokyo twice the last visit several years ago and the air quality is fine, this is way before EVs and Tokyo and it's greater districts is the largest populated place on earth. Toyota have said no to going fully Electric too I believe, they have brains over there.

Ultimately everything going on is using the net zero climate change narrative, that's a load of humdinger nonsense, there's a different between littering, destroying the planet with plain stupidity, damaging coral reefs and things like that compared to the rubbish we are seeing - the financial hit on net zero is bonkers, see the telegraph article I posted, and automobiles aren't even the chief culprit in greenhouse gases in the first place but if everyone is listening to the science.. and the next time you see a news article on this follow the money trail, who wrote it and who is funding it - with money anything is possible and oil companies have enough money to fill out the north sea, that's just profits from the last year -  Ofgem more puppets to the WEF.

[Steven Lockey]

3 hours ago, Linas.P said:

This was the statement you made... So is it arbitrary or is it not?!

Again, splitting hairs. Are you disagreeing that investment in R&D has risen dramatically? 
If not then you are literally looking for an argument here. 

 

Quote

For example if there is electric car tomorrow which can do 200miles per charge in most adverse conditions (meaning high altitude, winter, -20C, heating on full blast, everything that could be ON is ON) and most importantly can charge within 5 minutes without degradation of the battery, then I am sold - count me in, I can get rid of my petrol car tomorrow.

Yeah, same for most people. I mean it's mainly the charge time that is the limiting factor as the longer range cars at the moment can do 200 miles on a full charge in the worst conditions.
Otherwise if you can charge at home, most people's needs are met by current EVs as most people very rarely take trips longer than the range of their EV.

Quote

That the battery has Lithium in it, that does not mean it is the same battery tech, there is like dozen different types. Then there is battery architecture, other battery aspects like whenever it is passively, actively, water or air cooler. Sure - it seems for the time being water-cooled NCM are the primary type, but it is far from only type... and they all have different properties. 

The degradation is at cell level, the Battery architecture is irrelevant as is the cooling/heating. So long as they keep the cells charging at the correct level and within temperature bounds they have no effect on the properties other than the maximum charge rate (aka more cooling, you can probably charge faster as thermal expansion encourages dendrite growth)

 

Quote

Yes the main reason for battery degradation is crystallisation (we can call it "dendrites" if you prefer, crystals are more Lead-Acid terminology, but principal is the same - material transfer between anode and cathode),

Dendrites are a bit different. Material transfer was mostly eliminated quite a while back using semi-permeable membranes.

 

Quote

However, I simply don't agree that all current batteries are designed for say 100Kw charge, most of batteries in current BEVs are cycle-rated at 7-22Kw, meaning that they will degrade quicker when charging at 100Kw

Numbers vary from Battery to Battery. The EV computer knows the current state of the Battery and limits charging to stop increased degradation. 

 

Quote

Most current fast chargers are above the battery rating for common BEVs, and most current BEVs will allow charging above their rating (obviously not full 350Kw, but many for example allows 55Kw)

Simply not true for the simple fact that manufacturers have to limit degradation or they are liable for replacing the batteries for free.
If the car allows 55KW thats because it's Battery is 55KW rated. It's actually far smarter than that and even if the Battery is 55KW rated,
it may charge at below that level due to cell charge levels, temperature e.t.c. to prevent exactly what you are talking about from happening. 

 

Quote

Basically you came-up with your strawman interpretation of what you thought I said and then proven the strawman wrong... well done!

Calling others uneducated for not being hyped about tech which doesn't exist is not "slightly" optimistic... I would describe it more fanatical... maybe. 

Nope, just calling out where you are wrong. The fact you seem unable to read doesn't help. I specifically called out in my last
post I was saying you were wrong about existing tech, the stuff about future inventions was entirely separate. 
So either you have a reading issue or you are trying to deliberately twist what I said. 

[Mincey]

The move to EVs is also affecting jobs: Ford to cut one in five jobs in the UK - BBC News

[Linas.P]

8 hours ago, Steven Lockey said:

Again, splitting hairs. Are you disagreeing that investment in R&D has risen dramatically? If not then you are literally looking for an argument here. 

It has risen steadily since 90s, so you can count as disagreement... even if it is splitting hairs... I mean we already agree you have arbitrary time measurement for that... so not sure what else is there to discuss.

8 hours ago, Steven Lockey said:

Otherwise if you can charge at home, most people's needs are met by current EVs as most people very rarely take trips longer than the range of their EV.

That's is true... the problem is that majority of people can't charge at home and there is nothing that government does to change this situation, the 2030 dates is quickly approaching and we still have massive housing project popping-up not only without charging, but even without parking. And obviously nothing is done to retrofit the existing homes with chargers either. It is not like I disagreeing here - just pointing out the obvious. And the charging is still an issue if you ever go above the range of BEVs, which isn't really that hard to do.

8 hours ago, Steven Lockey said:

The degradation is at cell level, the battery architecture is irrelevant as is the cooling/heating. So long as they keep the cells charging at the correct level and within temperature bounds they have no effect on the properties other than the maximum charge rate (aka more cooling, you can probably charge faster as thermal expansion encourages dendrite growth)

Simply not true for the simple fact that manufacturers have to limit degradation or they are liable for replacing the batteries for free.
If the car allows 55KW thats because it's battery is 55KW rated. It's actually far smarter than that and even if the battery is 55KW rated,
it may charge at below that level due to cell charge levels, temperature e.t.c. to prevent exactly what you are talking about from happening. 

Numbers vary from battery to battery. The EV computer knows the current state of the battery and limits charging to stop increased degradation. 

Again you talking theory here... "So long as they keep the cells charging at the correct level" basically means charging at 7-22Kw... anything faster than that and it requires cooling and all the fancy "Battery management" which was already discussed. You can repeat the same sentence another 100 times, but it won't make you more correct (or rather more wrong). I have no issue with your theories, it is just a fact that it does not happen in practice.

Simply said in practice batteries can charge at much lower rate than you would like to think, yes they are managed at the cell level and that is why all the overprovisioning. Basically, no Battery can fast charge at the cell level at the moment (depending where we put arbitrary "fast charging" line, according to government even 7Kw is "fast") and any charging at 100, 150, 250Kw are achieved by managing Battery pack at cell level. And indeed all advertised charge levels are just up-to (you said that as well basically) and they do hurt batteries. Yes they are designed in such way that even if you always charge them at fast charger, they most likely going to meet or exceed their warranted capacity. But that is not because they don't degrade, but because there is built in spare cells to manage this and still have enough warranted capacity.

I don't know if you don't understand it, don't want to understand it or don't want to admit it... The reason there is no perceptible degradation at first is because 75Kwh Battery isn't 75Kwh Battery, it is most likely starting as 90Kwh or 100Kwh Battery and all degradation is absorbed/hidden. You kind of said that in your last sentence, but you still maintain that you right... point is - when computer limits the charging speed is because charging at any faster rate would cause damage beyond the the level of degradation allowed.

8 hours ago, Steven Lockey said:

Dendrites are a bit different. Material transfer was mostly eliminated quite a while back using semi-permeable membranes.

I think it is you who splitting hair now. Dendrites are what and where they attach to? Still lithium structure, still material transfer between anode and cathode. I am sure you can explain chemistry of all this in more complex way, but that just doesn't matter. End result is same... overtime Battery loses capacity and degrades. 

8 hours ago, Steven Lockey said:

Nope, just calling out where you are wrong

You calling me out where you disagree with me, whenever I am wrong it remains to be seen.