This Motor Industry Will Self Destruct In... ?

[electracity]

I know his work was disputed and even if you look at today as "we're nearly full" may be incorrect. But two or three things are generally accepted. There is not an unlimited amount of oil. And that easy oil has help us blossom population from 1 Billion around 1900 to 7.5 Billion today with 2-3 Billion more to come due to easy oil. Once oil is gone it is going to be fairly hard for humanity to consume at the levels it does today. If we learn a bit to live smaller, maybe like they do in Hong Kong (big apartment buildings full of small living spaces to stuff as many as possible per acre) this is scaleable to an extent. But if Asia wants to have the American middle class lifestyle but is 10x bigger, things look bleak long term. Think about how Autonomous activity is already marginalizing millions worldwide. Add drivers to that level and it looks like we will need to move to a larger welfare state to support those who cannot find work.

The "misleading" view that is repeated a lot about Ehrlich is discussed in this video.

Take a listen - it helps shed light on his implications. Plus, he is "for" climate change reaction, for trying to get off fossil fuel and for management of trying to fee those who are still hungry in the world. Those who live a hungry life today are close to the full world population that existed in 1900.

 

[bonaire]

The share of population is a bad graph because the overall counts are higher as the graph "looks" like it is declining.

 

[jkn]

Are air/metal batteries rechargeable? My hearing aid batteries are zinc/air, so they are highly energy dense due to oxygen being the cathode. They run down when the zinc is consumed. I don't see how that reaction can be reversed by charging. What am I missing?

I remember somebody is trying to develop real rechargeable metal air battery. I'm not sure if they ever succeed. But at least it will be possible to return battery to factory and charge it by replacing metal oxide with metal. This is not reasonable with hearing aid battery. With car battery it would be.

 

[brucet999]

I remember somebody is trying to develop real rechargeable metal air battery. I'm not sure if they ever succeed. But at least it will be possible to return battery to factory and charge it by replacing metal oxide with metal. This is not reasonable with hearing aid battery. With car battery it would be.

So I would go and swap my battery at Harris Ranch every time it reaches 10% SOC?

 

[jkn]

I appreciate that you are bullish on electric transportation, but lets play with the numbers here. The factory kerb weight of my Landcruiser Wagon is 2265kg. Add a bullbar, winch, under body protection, recovery equipment, servicing tools, an extra spare wheel, cargo, 2 - 3 people and you get the vehicle up to 3000kgs easily.

Now for comparison, the kerb weight of a Model X P90D is 2440kg - add all of the above recovery equipment on the landcruiser and you are pushing up to 3200kgs. Not that the Model X is comparable to a Landcruiser - just trying to show you the wight impact of the battery. Even when one is an all steel rail chassis vs a monocoque aluminium family car.

Take a track like the Madigan Line, 800km over sand dunes - conservatively this would take 14 days. The recommended fuel load for a diesel 4WD is 220 litres as there is no infrastructure.

Let's say your theoretical Electric Landcruiser has a 200kwh battery - that is 720 MJ of energy

For perspective the aforementioned 220 litres of diesel fuel is 8580 MJ of energy - almost 12 times more energy.

Now here is an advantage you describe - you can set up your 100msq solar away and grab solar energy. Well first of all you would have to be stationary to collect that energy. So lets say you collect 20kwh - that's 72 MJ of energy collected - put that in perspective against the 8580 MJ of diesel for the trip. You are going to be doing a hell of a lot of daytime camping.

So all that said - you are now proposing that the military would use electric power for vehicles - a Busmaster PMV has a kerb weight 11400kg, I don't know what sort of battery capacity you would need to power one of those for any sort of decent range but I imagine you would need a trailer full of cells. Where are you proposing these electric PMV's charge?

Some suggested reading that helps inform this discussion:
Energy density - Wikipedia

Electrochemical energy storage is unfortunately limited vs chemical energy storage - a ham and cheese sandwich provides better energy density than the very best litium battery. By far.

Metal–air electrochemical cell - Wikipedia

Lithium-air has theoretical specific energy 11,140 Wh/kg
gasoline 12,200 Wh/kg

Of course practical energy density will be lower. But efficiency of electric motor is so much better that we might have lighter EV than fossil fuel V for same range!

Waste heat makes an easy target for a missile. Avoiding that with EV would be very useful for military.

Madigan Line, 800km over sand dunes...
It does not have fuel stations, because transporting fuel would be too expensive. Solar charging station with cheap batteries would need much less service.

One possible cheap battery:
The missing link to renewable energy

 

[jkn]

So I would go and swap my battery at Harris Ranch every time it reaches 10% SOC?

Tesla had battery swapping station. With metal-air you could swap batteries manually.

Ideally car would have would have rechargeable battery and docking port for metal-air battery. You would charge normally at Harris Ranch. If you need to go far away from charging stations, you buy metal-air batteries you need.

Of course rechargeable metal-air would change this.

 

[jkn]

I forgot one problem:

With theoretical values: 25 kWh fully charged Li-air battery would weight 2.24 kg. When fully discharged it would weight 4.8 kg. So 5210 Wh/kg is better value for Li-air. Aluminum-air comes close 8140 Wh/kg charged and 4300 Wh/kg empty.


If we could get 50 % of theoretical values, then fully charged 25 kWh Al-air would weight 6.1 kg. Discharging would add 2.74 kg oxygen to it.

If discharging efficiency is 80 % then fully charged 25 kWh Al-air is 7.7 kg and discharged 11.1 kg. Buy as many as you need.

 

[wdolson]

Metal–air electrochemical cell - Wikipedia

Lithium-air has theoretical specific energy 11,140 Wh/kg
gasoline 12,200 Wh/kg

Of course practical energy density will be lower. But efficiency of electric motor is so much better that we might have lighter EV than fossil fuel V for same range!

Waste heat makes an easy target for a missile. Avoiding that with EV would be very useful for military.

Madigan Line, 800km over sand dunes...
It does not have fuel stations, because transporting fuel would be too expensive. Solar charging station with cheap batteries would need much less service.

One possible cheap battery:
The missing link to renewable energy

The energy density per weight is one thing, the volume is another. Gasoline has a density of about .7-.8 (water is 1.0). Air at sea level has a density of around 0.001. Lithium is denser, but it's pretty low density per volume too. 10 Kg of Gasoline is about 14 gallons of fuel, what an average passenger car has these days. To get 10 Kg of Li-air batteries, you might need a volume larger than the current Model S/X battery pack, which is 96 gallons in volume.

In the US Nova (PBS) had an interesting program on next generation batteries a few weeks ago. I think the most promising tech in the labs today is the solid state electrolyte lithium battery. It promises better safety than current li-ion batteries along with better energy density. They didn't talk about the expected densities, but I would guess about 2-3X current densities would be possible. The solid state electrolytes are also lighter, so it's a win-win in many ways. The examples they showed in the program were pretty promising I thought.

This could be the killer combination that makes EVs the undisputed better tech. If the energy density was just 2X what we have today, that would give the top Model S/X a 200 KWh battery and a range of over 600 miles on a single charge. At that point, supercharger use would decrease and people would be seeking out destination chargers. Some people like to drive 1000 miles in a day, but in the motorcycle world they give awards for people who can do 1000 miles in 24 hours on a bike, it's called the Iron Butt. (A friend has won one, he said it was grueling.)

I've done 700 miles in a day and recently did 600 miles in one day in my Model S. I wouldn't want to do more than about 700 in a day. I was pretty much comatose by about 650 miles. The only way we made it the last 50 miles was I had my SO able to take over, even though she was tired too and at the end of that last 50 miles was home.

At worst most people would only do one supercharger stop in a long day of driving. That changes the dynamics of long distance EV travel to a point where there are no valid arguments against it anymore.

Solid state batteries might end up being cheaper too. They do appear to be simpler construction. If so that would definitely put the nail in the ICE's coffin.

Charging rates still have to be seen. That could be a drawback. There are a lot of variables, which is one reason it takes a long time from lab to production. All those variables have to be tested thoroughly.

 

[jkn]

The energy density per weight is one thing, the volume is another. Gasoline has a density of about .7-.8 (water is 1.0). Air at sea level has a density of around 0.001. Lithium is denser, but it's pretty low density per volume too. 10 Kg of Gasoline is about 14 gallons of fuel, what an average passenger car has these days. To get 10 Kg of Li-air batteries, you might need a volume larger than the current Model S/X battery pack, which is 96 gallons in volume.
...

Density of air has nothing to do with density of metal-air batteries. Those batteries are air breathing, not air storing.

I calculated in previous post 11.1 kg max mass for 25 kWh Al-air battery. (Assuming 80 % efficiency and 50% of mass reactive aluminum.) 1000 kWh battery would have mass of 444 kg. Fully charged (=all oxygen released into air) mass would be 308 kg. Volume would be similar to 100 kWh Lithium-ion battery. It needs air channels. But density of Al and its oxide is not very low. Air breathing transfers impurities of the air into battery. This might prevent recharging. Also available power might be much lower than in Li-ion battery.

There are several possibilities to increase energy density of current Li-ion batteries by factor 2 or perhaps 3. This would be enough for many applications, but not for all. Aluminum is so common (8% of Earths crust) that recycling is not necessary. Recycling metallic Al is important and profitable, because of its high energy contents.

 

[Pezpunk]

Getting the energy density up is a tough challenge but there are a lot of people working on it. Tesla has gone a long ways towards lowering the cost though. The GigaFactory will be making the least expensive Li-ion batteries in the world.

this is one of the things that worries me about Tesla in the (very) long term. the whole idea of transporting a humongous energy reserve around with you is inherently inefficient fundamentally, but it's especially bad when the storage container is a lithium-ion battery. it worked for 100 years for ICE because gasoline provides 1,200 wH of energy per kilogram, while even Tesla's own estimates of the model 3 put their next generation battery at only 130 wH per kilogram. gasoline still contains ten times more energy per pound.

purely from a standpoint as an energy storage medium, gasoline obliterates lithium-ion batteries in efficiency, and no incremental technological innovations will change that.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

this is one of the things that worries me about Tesla in the (very) long term. the whole idea of transporting a humongous energy reserve around with you is inherently inefficient fundamentally, but it's especially bad when the storage container is a lithium-ion battery. it worked for 100 years for ICE because gasoline provides 1,200 wH of energy per kilogram, while even Tesla's own estimates of the model 3 put their next generation battery at only 130 wH per kilogram. gasoline still contains ten times more energy per pound.

purely from a standpoint as an energy storage medium, gasoline obliterates lithium-ion batteries in efficiency, and no incremental technological innovations will change that.

EVs have to move a greater mass, and yet they still require less energy to move the vehicle. The really extraordinary thing about electrification: add weight but still improve efficiency. It really shows how hard ICE engineering is.

Incremental innovation can obliterate the gasoline advantage. Because of the efficiency advantage of EV the density advantage of gasoline is only relevant for _travel beyond range that requires on-the-road refueling_. Any incremental improvements in battery technology would, over time, reduce the number of vehicle miles that need to be provided by energy dense fuel. 200 mile BEVs on average, _without any fast charging_, drop the need for energy dense gasoline equivalent fuel below 15% of miles. If you add in fast charging and PHEV or EREV and the number would drop further while also raising fuel economy. Given that retail gasoline is _already_ 10% ethanol, and given ethanol contains about 70% of the energy of gasoline, we should only need PEV to cover 93% of miles to allow the current fleet to shift to BEV and PHEV with ethanol.

In addition, electrification already provides a pathway that makes it possible to have clean, domestic, sustainable energy providing electricity for transportation and other uses. The piece that's missing is cheap. We can already do _some_ of it cheaply, but incremental innovation in battery technology that reduces battery prices beyond certain key price points would dramatically reduce the overall cost (including externalities) of transportation energy.

 

[bonaire]

this is one of the things that worries me about Tesla in the (very) long term. the whole idea of transporting a humongous energy reserve around with you is inherently inefficient fundamentally, but it's especially bad when the storage container is a lithium-ion battery. it worked for 100 years for ICE because gasoline provides 1,200 wH of energy per kilogram, while even Tesla's own estimates of the model 3 put their next generation battery at only 130 wH per kilogram. gasoline still contains ten times more energy per pound.

purely from a standpoint as an energy storage medium, gasoline obliterates lithium-ion batteries in efficiency, and no incremental technological innovations will change that.

There are the metal-air batteries but also if a simplified NG or Propane type of Fuel Cell extender could be done up, then an "EV" could be more like a Chevy Volt - maybe 100 mile electric range on 28 kWh and small efficient fuel cell and tank on board could offer range extension. But 100 kWh or more on board is a lot of excess capacity that is not necessary. I've always been a fan of "smaller battery per vehicle, put more of the batteries in MORE vehicles". Two cars with 50 kWh is better for mass consumption over one with 100 kWh. Lighter cars = more efficiency. More efficiency is more sustainability. Lower economic costs and lower resource consumption costs = best sustainability. Also, high-recharge count batteries like LTO are good for making for cars and energy storage that can take 20,000 recharges rather than huge batteries with 1000 or so recharges.

 

[wdolson]

this is one of the things that worries me about Tesla in the (very) long term. the whole idea of transporting a humongous energy reserve around with you is inherently inefficient fundamentally, but it's especially bad when the storage container is a lithium-ion battery. it worked for 100 years for ICE because gasoline provides 1,200 wH of energy per kilogram, while even Tesla's own estimates of the model 3 put their next generation battery at only 130 wH per kilogram. gasoline still contains ten times more energy per pound.

purely from a standpoint as an energy storage medium, gasoline obliterates lithium-ion batteries in efficiency, and no incremental technological innovations will change that.

I've been essentially saying this since I joined this forum. Petroleum's high energy density is only rivaled by nuclear fission. As a result, it will be the fuel of necessity for some applications like aircraft for the foreseeable future. Electric motors are staggeringly more efficient than ICE, which do allow electric transportation to supplant gasoline for applications like land travel, especially types of uses where the vehicle sits for part of the day. It's more difficult for commercial vehicles that stay on the move for long periods, but will be doable sooner than aircraft.

Battery packs are going to remain bigger than gas tanks because of the energy density limitations, which may never go away entirely. However with a well designed EV combined with some modest improvements in energy density in batteries (on the order of 2-3X today) which are considered theoretically feasible though not achieved yet, EVs will have the range of an ICE or more and will be cheaper to run and maintain. For passenger vehicles, it will likely destroy the ICE passenger car market except for some specialty applications and for hobbyists. EVs don't need to achieve the same energy density as gasoline to be much better in just about every respect. Tesla's approach is already better in most respects than ICE.

 

[lmaccaro]

There will continue to be a market for diesel powered vehicles a long way into the future, petrol however is likely to continue as a hobby as you suggest.

Why? Using Australia as an example, we have a huge expanse of open land that is traversable only by 4WD, in some cases requiring a Toyota Landcruiser, Nissan Patrol, etc to carry 220 litres of diesel to be able to make it between fuel stops. For these sorts of trips to be made using electric 4WD's we would need the following to occur:

• A substantial cost reduction in stationary energy storage to allow remote area fuel stops to store energy captured from solar, wind, etc.
• A huge increase in the energy density of EV battery storage

In addition to the above, military forces will need the ability to take and hold terrain in areas where there is no supporting infrastructure, currently that need is met by diesel fueled vehicles and supply chains. That said there will be opportunities for EV's in a military context, it's just not going to replace a large portion of the fleet in the medium term.

2 meter wide, 30 meter long roll of flexible PV in the trunk would charge at 12kw.

 

[lmaccaro]

this is one of the things that worries me about Tesla in the (very) long term. the whole idea of transporting a humongous energy reserve around with you is inherently inefficient fundamentally, but it's especially bad when the storage container is a lithium-ion battery. it worked for 100 years for ICE because gasoline provides 1,200 wH of energy per kilogram, while even Tesla's own estimates of the model 3 put their next generation battery at only 130 wH per kilogram. gasoline still contains ten times more energy per pound.

purely from a standpoint as an energy storage medium, gasoline obliterates lithium-ion batteries in efficiency, and no incremental technological innovations will change that.

You can't compare the weight of gasoline to the weight of a battery.

--
You have to compare the weight of gasoline AND all drivetrain components unique to ICE such as engine, transmission, driveshaft, oil, etc.

to

The weight of the battery and all drivetrain components unique to EV (one motor and a perhaps the coolant subsystem etc).

Then you have to control for the fact that the EV is approximately 3x more efficient in energy usage than the best ICE, so perhaps cut the EV battery and drivetrain weight by 66%.

Now you have a true comparison of battery vs gas density.

 

[fsch]

Following up on my own post from a year ago, the 2017 numbers for Canada show that the trend of a plug-in EV market share doubling every 1.8 years still holds (or is even slightly exceeded), much like Moore's law. (In the graph below, the curve is the trend I fitted a year ago on data from 2011 to 2016, and the red dot is the new data point for 2017.)

As I wrote last year, car companies that did not develop "significant" pluggable cars will be, by 2022, in the position Nokia was 7-8 years ago.

 

[ElectricTundra]

I'd agree with your projection though I think it could begin to ramp a bit steeper. At some point in the next few years it will begin to not make sense to purchase an ICE. The total cost of ownership will simply be too high compared to electric, there will be fewer petrol stations and resale values will plummet for all cars like they've begun to do with Model S competitors. Combined with people loosing their range anxiety when they see friends and co-workers enjoying electric with no problems and the other benefits of electric, the market for ICE will begin to quickly dry up.

 

[fsch]

I agree with you, though we could say that when a friend, co-worker, neighbor or family member gets an EV, people may watch for some time (a year?) how things go for that person, and then start looking for the different options, which is compatible with a 1.8 year time constant. But it may indeed accelerate.

Anyway, it looks like a chain reaction. It will blow up soon enough!

 

[Merrill]

As I have said before, as the old guard leaves and younger ceo’s take charge the transition will happen. It is unfortunate that they cannot think into the future, change is hard as you age. As more and more countries ban ICE vehicles the manufactures will be forced to make more all electric vehicles I just hope it will not be to late.

 

[mspohr]

I think we're still far to the left on the adoption curve. We should see an acceleration.