JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Wranglers are smaller and the Jeep trucks aren't very popular so I'm not sure of the impact but certainly some.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla BEV Competition Developments
- Thread starter uselesslogin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- TSLA
Rivian markets their R1T as an adventure vehicle, which is in the general Jeep realm. Having camp kitchen and bed tents, etc. all align with at least appealing to similar buyers. I don't know that I see the Cybertruck appealing to the same crowd but it turns out I know nothing about what other people like or why they like it.
CT is a travel and adventure vehicle for me. The overlanding aftermarket will be taking advantage of the all-electric architectures of Rivian, CT, F150E, ...etc... Vehicles and appliances should be significantly more robust, AC won't be a luxury while boondocking, ...etc...
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Rivian making their numbers with the midsize 135kWh "large pack" there will also be the larger 180 kWh "max pack" and a smaller pack getting ~250 miles of range.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
It is 30% more efficient than a 2021 Prius.
And far more capable. And off road way more capable than a Model X. And comes with 3rd row stadium seating not 3rd row ditch sitting.
A Model X Performance is less efficient than a Model 3 SR+. Generally, more capability means less efficiency.
Any reasonable person knew there was a efficiency penalty vs Model X.
Doesn't really matter if the electricity source is clean.
Last edited:
ZachF
Active Member
I wish they better separated out PHEVs from EVs.
It would also be nice if they separated out "full range" EVs from one with only like 150mi of range.
I must be missing something. If it’s 49 kWh/100 mi and the range is 316 miles, doesn’t that imply a 155 kWh pack for the R1S (and likewise 151 kWh for the R1T)? A 135 kWh pack should deliver 275-280mi at those efficiencies.
So you’re saying that the 490 Wh/mile EPA is measuring power from the wall, not power from the battery?
I assume that the Wh/mi shown on the Tesla in-car display is from the battery, not from the wall, since it’s supposed to indicate your usable range.
Should we then assume a Rivian would show something more like 450 Wh/mi on the in-car display, because it would not be including charging losses there?
I assume that the Wh/mi shown on the Tesla in-car display is from the battery, not from the wall, since it’s supposed to indicate your usable range.
Should we then assume a Rivian would show something more like 450 Wh/mi on the in-car display, because it would not be including charging losses there?
It might. The EPA has a comparison tool where you can compare their rating for cars. Here are several Teslas side by side
Compare Side-by-Side
My 2016 Model S gets rated range at 285 Wh/Mi, but the EPA has it rated at 330 Wh/Mi which is their added losses for charging.
They are being a bit harder on EVs here. Overall the losses getting electricity from whatever fuel is used to generate the electricity into the battery are must less than the energy used to pump the oil out of the ground, transport it to a refinery, refine it into gasoline, transport it again to the gas station, and then into the gas tank. On a hot day there is evaporation loss while pumping the gas too.
Doggydogworld
Active Member
Yes, Rivian would probably be 420-440 Wh/mile measured from the battery. So about 135 Wh usable pack size.
EPA measures from the wall plug (and the gas pump) because that's what you pay for. It's an economic metric, not a thermodynamic one. They figure upstream losses factor into the plug/pump price. Upstream losses are generally much higher for electricity than gas/diesel. But upstream losses for non-fossil electricity can get pretty abstract. Do you count the 80% of solar energy panels don't convert to electricity? No. What about the 65% of nuclear fuel rod heat that gets wasted? Some count it, others don't.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I've been watching YASA motors for many years and they were just acquired by Mercedes. Interesting motor technology though I question their claims about power density compared to Tesla. I suspect they include the Tesla gear reduction which may actually be fair since their motors are designed to be lower RPM and potentially don't need gear reduction.
finance.yahoo.com
www.yasa.com
Acquired by Mercedes-Benz, YASA's revolutionary electric motor is set for big things
Back in July, YASA (formerly Yokeless And Segmented Armature), a British electric motor startup with a revolutionary "axial-flux" motor, was acquired by Mercedes-Benz. Founded in 2009 after being spun out of Oxford University, YASA will now develop ultra-high-performance electric motors for...
YASA Motors | Axial Flux Motors for Electric Vehicles | YASA Ltd
YASA is at the forefront of eMotor innovation and development. Our axial flux technology motors are up to 4x more powerful than those used in nearly all Electric Vehicles on the road today.
www.yasa.com
navguy12
Active Member
Always a point of discussion with Ev skeptics.
Apparently the gasoline being dispensed at the pump is conjured up out of thin air.
I always bring the discussion back to this:
Source: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/Energy_US_2020.png
Personally I think the best metric is to count all the energy captured and lost that cost somebody money at some point in the process. Before it can be used in a nuclear reactor some energy, work, and cost needs to go into making the fuel rods. That's part of the energy budget involved in that kind of fuel.
Different industries have various fixed costs too. All power generation involves a one time cost to make and install the equipment and then the equipment has a useful life that needs to be taken into consideration. Solar has gotten much cheaper because the fixed costs of the panels has gone down quite a bit, plus the expected lifespan of the panels has gone up. Nuclear power plants by themselves are not that much more expensive to build than conventional power plants. A bit more, but not staggeringly more, but there is so much legal wrangling with the NIMBY crowd that building nuclear power plants ended in the US 40 years ago.
Gasoline/diesel has a massive fixed cost tail by the time it gets to the tank. For solar finding the energy source is pretty easy, but oil needs to be found in the ground. Initially wild cat oil drillers just drilled up the landscape hoping to hit it rich. There were a lot of dry holes drilled. Geology and various new technologies allowed a bit more precision in finding oil, but it only increased the odds, not make things certain.
By dropping various electronic instruments into newly drilled oil wells before the oil was pumped out and gathering data about the surrounding formations, Geologists could hone their ideas about how the area down there looks and where the oil is likely to be hiding.
Once the wells are drilled, they sometimes need to be fracked. Fracking has become controversial, but it's been common practice in California since the 70s and there were no problems until it started being used on oil shale formations. Fracking pumps fluids down the well to what the oil people call the payzone to allow oil to flow to the wellhead more easily. It breaks up any impediments. In the case of oil shale they need to use significantly more pressure and significantly more fluid to shatter the shale into a kind of sand. Wells have casing from the surface to the payzone, but if the casing cracks under pressure, or was cracked during installation, the fracking fluids can escape at much shallower depths.
California heavily regulates fracking and requires and indication of cracked casing to be dealt with before continuing. Other states like the Dakotas have no state regulation and leaky wells are allowed to go ahead.
But I digress... With off shore oil a platform needs to be built and if in fairly deep waters, there are some techniques only a couple of decades old that need to be used. The Deep Water Horizon was one of these deeper wells and it demonstrated that when something goes wrong, the technology isn't really there to stop it. The only tech that actually works in those cases is to drill another well into the well that has blown out and pump a bunch of sealant down the well to block up both of them. That takes a long time to drill, which is why the Deep Water Horizon went on so long.
Anyway, after a significant investment just to get the well drilled and ready to pump oil. A pump needs to be installed unless the oil is under a lot of pressure down there. Oil under pressure caused the classic oil gushers, but they were never that common, and the only new wells like that are under the Gulf of Mexico today. All the onshore high pressure wells are at or near end of life.
The pump burns energy doing its thing getting oil from the depths of the earth. In older fields under secondary recovery some wells are used to inject water or steam into the field to cause the oil to flow better. An ingenious method used in California separates produced water from the oil, and captures natural gas from the well, burns the natural gas to boil the water, then other wells nearby pump the steam back into the ground after running it through an electric generator. The fields produce a bit more electricity than they use that goes on the grid, but they burn natural gas that could have been used elsewhere.
After the oil is produced, water that came up with the oil needs to be separated and the water disposed of. Pumping is back where it came from is both environmentally the best solution, but it also is cheapest, but the pumps burn energy to do it. Now the oil needs to be transported. It can go into a pipe line or go into rail cars. Much of the oil produced today is heavy, tarlike oil that requires heating to move it anywhere, which costs more energy.
Once it gets to the refinery, heavy oil needs to be "cracked". Most of oil is chains of carbons with hydrogens attached, the basic stuff of organic chemistry. Oil can be "dirty" by having sulfur, and other atoms attached to the strings. But most of the oil is just simple carbon and hydrogen chains. Very short chains are gases at most of the temperatures seen on the surface of the Earth. Methane is the shortest with one carbon surrounded by hydrogens. Propane is three carbon atoms.
When the chains get longer, they become liquid at room temperature, but are very volatile. The octane rating for fuel is a measure against 100% octane (8 carbons). Somewhere around 10 or 12 carbons you start getting tar at room temperatures. Cracking breaks the chains into shorter chains turning tar into gasoline. Cracking takes energy to accomplish, including electricity from the grid. The oil then needs to be refined to produce whatever fuel the refinery is making that day. That also requires energy.
For light, sweet crude (the easiest to refine), it takes about 8 KWH of electricity from the grid to refine into gasoline and consumes a couple of gallons of oil out of a 42 gallon barrel. For heavy crude it takes more like 16 KWH of electricity and more oil consumed from a barrel to make gasoline.
After all that energy consumed, and money spent to get gasoline, it then needs to be transported to the gas station where it's bought and used. Most gasoline is transported by pipeline to another metro area where it is put in trucks and taken the last few miles. Then the gas station burns some electricity just sitting there and a bit more pumping it out of the underground tanks into the car.
Gasoline has somewhere around 33-34 KWH/gallon so all this massive energy expenditure is economically viable in the end. By contrast li-ion car batteries are about 1 KWH/gallon (volume). Of course li-ion batteries are not a single use product and gasoline is. And electric motors are much more efficient than ICE.
The difference in infrastructure between ICE and EVs is comparable to old fashioned photography and digital photography. Kodak made the bulk of it's money on photo supplies to process film, photographic paper, the supplies to process the paper into prints, and all the other items in the long tail of old fashioned photography. If you want to make prints today there is a supply chain for that, but it's vastly smaller than the chain for old fashioned prints.
Ecological impact aside, if we just calculated the things that cost money between the ground and the tank for oil vs the things that cost money between the electricity being generated and the battery, the massive cost of ICE would shock people.
Doggydogworld
Active Member
I love these charts and have used them for many years. 2020's 92.9 Quads was depressed by COVID, we were 100-101 quads the prior few years and have been 95-102 for as long as I can remember.
They show transportation with 5.09 useful and 19.2 rejected for 21% efficiency. Passenger cars are 18-19%, IIRC, but trucking pulls the average back up. They show electricity generation with 12.4 useful and 23.2 rejected for 35% efficiency. But that's at the power plant. Figure 5-6% transmission and distribution losses plus 10-15% charging losses to get ~27% overall efficiency coming out of the Transportation box for electricity.
27% vs. 18-19% for passenger vehicles is a big improvement, but nothing like the EPA's 100++ MPGE figures suggest. Furthermore, hybrids such as Toyota Prius are in the 27-28% range, basically equal to EVs on an overall efficiency basis.
The big advantage EVs have is they can use a variety of fuels. This includes cheap fossil fuels like coal/NG which cost ~80% less per BTU than gas/diesel. It also includes low CO2 sources like nuclear, wind, hydro and solar. EVs force oil to compete with cheaper and cleaner fuels.
Final note: the left hand side of the graph shows thermal energy even for nuclear, which kind of makes sense as it's possible to use some of that waste heat. A couple dozen old Soviet reactors send waste heat to nearby towns (Chernobyl heated Pripyat this way) as do some reactors in China and elsewhere. But LLNL also shows an implied "thermal energy equivalent" on the left hand side for Hydro, Wind and Solar. This is really just for cosmetics, it sizes those boxes equivalently to fossil/nuclear/biomass, but it doesn't make much physical sense.
It's also why they are shipping with a 135kWh pack as their mid-pack and a 180kWh pack as their long range vs. Tesla's current vehicle pack sizes. Backing out the numbers, it appears they'll be able to exceed 400 miles with the long range pack using the same EPA calculations.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Cadillac opened the reservation book on the Lyriq today.
1500 spots for the Debut Edition were fully booked within 30 minutes.
I guess this will be the deal for compelling BEVs for a while.
LG will make Ultium batteries at their small Michigan facility until the Ohio Gigafactory is up and running.
1500 spots for the Debut Edition were fully booked within 30 minutes.
I guess this will be the deal for compelling BEVs for a while.
LG will make Ultium batteries at their small Michigan facility until the Ohio Gigafactory is up and running.
Is there any reason to believe Ultium batteries will be delayed due to the same manufacturing issue as Bolt batteries? I don’t know how much they have in common.
Similar threads
