Germany looking to ban ICE's by 2030

mad_machine wrote: One thing people seem to be forgetting.. you are looking at it from our perspective. In my lifetime, I have seen people pooh-pooh Catalyst exhausts and the way the first ones cut power the engines were able to produce.. but here we are today with your average going to the store car producing 300+ hp and being an ULEV on top of it. Something else, I know about this because I am looking into it for my boat.. self generation. Solar cells integrated into the hood, roof, and trunk of the car will go a long way towards extending range and speeding up charging. You can even get solar "glass".. literally the windows in the car can generate power.

Solar panels are really bad at producing power. The Leaf has one as an option, and granted it's pretty small, but it's almost enough to power the accessories. They need far more surface area than a car can give them to be of any meaningful benefit.

GameboyRMH wrote:

alfadriver wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: I drive 300 miles a week. 200 miles is quite realistic here in the US. Ask any Challenger how far they drove and how many breaks they took. Again, to assume people are 100% charging is a false assumption. We keep getting into the thinking that the "average commuter only needs X" which has never, EVER been close to correct. How is going to EV's going to change that? Unless that F150 that has one driver and is empty actually a Fiesta that is in disguise. Germany is just like the US- just smaller spaces so that C cars are just as popular as C/D cars. Few actually have just a commuter car. They have a car "just in case" just like we do. And if public transit was that effective, they wouldn't have a market for cars right now.... The usage is MUCH higher than the US, sure. But it's nowhere near 100%.

Why is it a false assumption to assume people are charging to 100% at home? If you didn't, you've done the equivalent of leaving your cell phone unplugged overnight or letting your car's gas run too low to make it to work the next day, you messed up. The exception in the short term will be people who live in cities and only have curbside parking - but they're in an EV's ideal habitat, doing short distances in stop-and-go traffic, and they're more likely to have charging available at work, so they're not completely out of luck. The "average commuter only needs X" is also a valid construct to use. You drive 300 miles a week, an average of under 43 miles a day. If you had an EV with 200 miles range, and you plugged it in overnight just like your cell phone, how often would you need to stop for a charge? Let's say you're super-wasteful and it's a bigass American pickup that you drive empty all the time and it only has 100 miles range. How often then?

I totally agree. I know I am not "normal", but I only neglected to overnight charge the Leaf once and I drove it anyway. I charge my phone every night, I turn off the lights every night, it's no different for people who had houses and such. Harder for apartments and city parking though, admittedly.

mad_machine wrote: Something else, I know about this because I am looking into it for my boat.. self generation. Solar cells integrated into the hood, roof, and trunk of the car will go a long way towards extending range and speeding up charging. You can even get solar "glass".. literally the windows in the car can generate power.

I don't think self-generation will help much until a car has both solar glass and solar paint. You need a huge surface area to get anything more than a slight top-up

Brett_Murphy wrote: Also, and I don't understand battery technology well, but I thought constant partial charging of batteries was a bad idea. It might be a specific type (I think I am remembering that it is) but is that still a limitation?

That was true for ni-cads, modern EVs all use li-ions which last longest if only run between 20-60% charge. Going from 0-100% wears them down faster.

Also, from a sunlight perspective, Germany is way worse off than we are (unless you live in Michigan, western NY, or Alaska). Generating solar power there is significantly harder.

alfadriver wrote: It takes me just over 30 min to commute. I'm not that willing to wait 10 min to do that. Which is still a stretch for the current high charge systems. If everyone is charging at work or home at the same time, that, too, is a lot of additional energy to supply at once. Basically, taking all of the gasoline used and replacing it with electricity to charge cars. The phase in of power plants to deal with that is pretty big- say for the US, it would be 15M cars a year to add to the charging system until we reach about 300M cars. That's for a 100% EV market in the US. To see if it's a big deal, once a month for a year, take 30 min to fuel your car up 1/2 way. See if you can deal with it, since it's not a big deal.

You're right to mention some of the obstacles that currently exist with EVs, but will those obstacles still be obstacles by 2030? You're thinking about it from today's perspective. By the time this phaseout is implemented (if it happens at all) the infrastructure will be improved. Solar power could be used to charge your EV without plugging into the grid at all. Wireless charging already exists that eliminates the need for the operator to remember to plug the vehicle in, so there's no panic when you try to leave for work in the morning and realize you forgot to charge because the car was charging all night. It's probably safe to assume there will be some improvement in efficiency and speed of wireless charging too. Improvements in energy efficiency in other areas should reduce the impact they have on the grid, allowing more available power to be used for devices like EVs.

I don't think wireless charging will take off. It requires more equipment inside and outside the car (while a charging reminder can be done in software), it introduces another efficiency loss into the charging system, and it adds another standard for cars to comply with. Also a universal wireless charging system would need to have a jacking mechanism built in (either on the car or the charger) to work with everything from a low-riding sports car to a tall 4x4 - the distance between charging pads has to be within a narrow range.

I think the only chance for wireless charging to work is if it can somehow be made to transmit more power than a charging cable, which looks pretty much impossible at the moment.

Also, most of the grid power needed to charge EVs could come from reductions in fossil fuel production.

That's a valid point about vehicle height requiring different wireless chargers, at least with current tech. It would make universal charging in public more difficult. But, some manufacturers are already offering wireless chargers as accessories when purchasing new cars, so you should be able to have one setup at home that is designed to work with your vehicle, which negates the "I forgot to plug it in, so now I'm late for work" argument.

You are also correct that wireless charging adds another layer of inefficiency. I'm guessing that the tech will improve over the next decade enough that they will become more efficient. Not as efficient as plugging in directly probably, but an improvement over current systems.

STM317 wrote:

alfadriver wrote: It takes me just over 30 min to commute. I'm not that willing to wait 10 min to do that. Which is still a stretch for the current high charge systems. If everyone is charging at work or home at the same time, that, too, is a lot of additional energy to supply at once. Basically, taking all of the gasoline used and replacing it with electricity to charge cars. The phase in of power plants to deal with that is pretty big- say for the US, it would be 15M cars a year to add to the charging system until we reach about 300M cars. That's for a 100% EV market in the US. To see if it's a big deal, once a month for a year, take 30 min to fuel your car up 1/2 way. See if you can deal with it, since it's not a big deal.

You're right to mention some of the obstacles that currently exist with EVs, but will those obstacles still be obstacles by 2030? You're thinking about it from today's perspective. By the time this phaseout is implemented (if it happens at all) the infrastructure will be improved. Solar power could be used to charge your EV without plugging into the grid at all. Wireless charging already exists that eliminates the need for the operator to remember to plug the vehicle in, so there's no panic when you try to leave for work in the morning and realize you forgot to charge because the car was charging all night. It's probably safe to assume there will be some improvement in efficiency and speed of wireless charging too. Improvements in energy efficiency in other areas should reduce the impact they have on the grid, allowing more available power to be used for devices like EVs.

The physics are not going to change. 1W will always be 1V*1A, and if you need to transfer 1,000,000 Joules quickly.... well.

It will generate a LOT of heat.

Wireless charging is great for low power use phones and computers- as the rate you can charge with is pretty limited. I doubt a wireless charger will charge faster than even a 120V outlet- which is slow. Again, the physics are well known and are not going to change.

The idea that cars are like computers and phones, where the energy they need to operate has gone down as they have gotten better just isn't true. It takes a lot of energy to move a body from A to B at speed X. That's never going to change. And it takes energy to heat and cool the interior compartment, too. That core energy amount isn't going to change.

100mpge (over 3x the fleet) is about it, unless there really is a massive downsize in cars.

As for liquid fuel cells- here are a few that are getting really close-

http://www.nordicgreen.net/startups/energy-storage/nordic-power-systems

http://www.powercell.se/products/powerpac/

And with Royal Caribbean's recent announcement that their new (2022) ships will have large scale fuel cell electricity on them- it makes me think that the HC fuel cell is progressing really quickly.

They are claiming 20-30% more efficient than a diesel generator + batteries- which is pretty impressive. Having an EV with this as the rolling power source- that I can buy.

GameboyRMH wrote:

alfadriver wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: I drive 300 miles a week. 200 miles is quite realistic here in the US. Ask any Challenger how far they drove and how many breaks they took. Again, to assume people are 100% charging is a false assumption. We keep getting into the thinking that the "average commuter only needs X" which has never, EVER been close to correct. How is going to EV's going to change that? Unless that F150 that has one driver and is empty actually a Fiesta that is in disguise. Germany is just like the US- just smaller spaces so that C cars are just as popular as C/D cars. Few actually have just a commuter car. They have a car "just in case" just like we do. And if public transit was that effective, they wouldn't have a market for cars right now.... The usage is MUCH higher than the US, sure. But it's nowhere near 100%.

Why is it a false assumption to assume people are charging to 100% at home? If you didn't, you've done the equivalent of leaving your cell phone unplugged overnight or letting your car's gas run too low to make it to work the next day, you messed up. The exception in the short term will be people who live in cities and only have curbside parking - but they're in an EV's ideal habitat, doing short distances in stop-and-go traffic, and they're more likely to have charging available at work, so they're not completely out of luck. The "average commuter only needs X" is also a valid construct to use. You drive 300 miles a week, an average of under 43 miles a day. If you had an EV with 200 miles range, and you plugged it in overnight just like your cell phone, how often would you need to stop for a charge? Let's say you're super-wasteful and it's a bigass American pickup that you drive empty all the time and it only has 100 miles range. How often then?

Do you really think that consumers always remember to plug in their phones???

If they did, the ads complaining about it would not exist, nor would the neat little USB batteries that can be used to charge up a low phone.

And not everyone has access to overnight charging- look around and see where people park outside with no access to power. To think that cities and companies will install thousands and thousands of stations isn't realistic, either. The only place one will be able to charge consistently is at the home location. Every living location will have to have a charger per car to avoid the need of fast charging stations.

Per car.

Outside of people with garages, I just can't see that happening that quickly. So the idea that EVERYONE 100% of the time can charge overnight makes no sense to me.

Liquid fuel cells would get around the hydrogen infrastructure nightmare, but won't do much for the environment - from a purely environmental perspective, it's effectively no different from an ultra-low-emissions ICE. It doesn't make vehicles energy-source-agnostic and allow them to be cleaned up centrally like an EV does.

Yes I think people generally do always plug in their phones at night (except maybe light users of phones with huge batteries, who can get away with not doing that). I do, and I have a USB battery for extended heavy use on flights etc. And phones don't even remind people to plug them in, with greater consequences for forgetting, it would make sense for cars to add that feature. We know they love to remind us to turn off our lights and close our doors and put on our seatbelts and take the keys out of the ignition.

One charger per car is only a problem for people who only have curbside parking. Cities love to drop in parking meters for profit and I'm sure they'd be happy to install charging stations for profit. The curse of only having curbside parking will be paying extra for charging your car.

Transferring the power won't be nearly as difficult as everyone is imagining. You could have something operating in the thousands of volts and amps ranges that is safe to handle.

Source: I design high voltage/high current switchgear.

I agree the limitations of overnight charging will definitely limit the widespread use of pure EV's. Having a garage, I could definitely see myself buying an EV for commuting if something were to happen to my TDI.

To me, it seems like a good "break point" would be a 300 mile range that could be fully charged in about 30 min. That would allow people on trips to stop for bathroom and food breaks - could start a whole new revitalization of rest areas. There are Tesla charging stations at rest stops along the New Jersey Turnpike and at rest areas along the Merritt Parkway in CT. I usually see at least one Tesla charging in CT as I drive through (which I've been doing a lot lately), but about 50% on the NJTP.

I really think we need to stop thinking about there having to be one solution to replace dino fuels. Why? In some cases, a pure EV is a good option. For others, maybe a fuel-cell car. For others, bio-diesel. While it's currently logical to believe ditching ICE's by 2030 is impossible, technology has a way of surprising us. Who knows what will happen in 14 years.

BA5 wrote: Transferring the power won't be nearly as difficult as everyone is imagining. You could have something operating in the thousands of volts and amps ranges that is safe to handle. Source: I design high voltage/high current switchgear.

OK, show me how I can easily handle, connect and disconnect something capable of 6,000,000 W.

GameboyRMH wrote: I'm sure they'd be happy to install charging stations for profit.

Because ripping up the sidewalk and possibly roads to attach a charging station to the existing power grid is cheap and easy.

Do you actually understand the billions of dollars it would take to do this across the country?

alfadriver wrote: The physics are not going to change. 1W will always be 1V*1A, and if you need to transfer 1,000,000 Joules quickly.... well. It will generate a LOT of heat. Wireless charging is great for low power use phones and computers- as the rate you can charge with is pretty limited. I doubt a wireless charger will charge faster than even a 120V outlet- which is slow. Again, the physics are well known and are not going to change. The idea that cars are like computers and phones, where the energy they need to operate has gone down as they have gotten better just isn't true. It takes a lot of energy to move a body from A to B at speed X. That's never going to change. And it takes energy to heat and cool the interior compartment, too. That core energy amount isn't going to change. 100mpge (over 3x the fleet) is about it, unless there really is a massive downsize in cars.

I agree with you on the physics part. I won't argue the math. But I think that through a combined improvement in efficiencies of vehicles, vehicle range, charging systems, energy consumption across the board, and improved understanding by EV owners as they become more common, the need to "fast charge" will be greatly reduced. You can go 230 miles on a single charge in a Chevy Bolt. That number will only increase over time with new model introductions.

And as to the limit of 100MPGe being as high as it goes, the Chevy Bolt is currently rated at 119MPGe, and there's a version of the BMW i3 that is around 124MPGe. You can buy them now or in the next couple of months. They may be chasing tenths of a percent in efficiency gains at some point, but I think there's still significant room to grow considering these are the first real EVs from their respective companies.

z31maniac wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: I'm sure they'd be happy to install charging stations for profit.

Because ripping up the sidewalk and possibly roads to attach a charging station to the existing power grid is cheap and easy. Do you actually understand the billions of dollars it would take to do this across the country?

How much money has been spent over the years ripping up sidewalks and roads to build gas stations? If the need is there, I'm sure private companies and energy providers would be happy to oblige.

z31maniac wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: I'm sure they'd be happy to install charging stations for profit.

Because ripping up the sidewalk and possibly roads to attach a charging station to the existing power grid is cheap and easy. Do you actually understand the billions of dollars it would take to do this across the country?

Each charger could pay itself off in a few years. A common level-2 charger can fully charge a present-day EV overnight (say 8 hours of charging) and won't be obsolete for decades. Say each meter, purchased and installed, costs $4k and draws 80c worth of electricity per hour. Charge $1.50 per hour of charging, each charger can generate $5.60 per day and over $2k per year, paying itself off in just under two years.

If the chargers use a modular design with a unit on a pole, when they have to be upgraded a new unit can just be placed on the pole.

STM317 wrote: I agree with you on the physics part. I won't argue the math. But I think that through a combined improvement in efficiencies of vehicles, vehicle range, charging systems, energy consumption across the board, and improved understanding by EV owners as they become more common, the need to "fast charge" will be greatly reduced. You can go 230 miles on a single charge in a Chevy Bolt. That number will only increase over time with new model introductions.

Actually there's not much room for EVs to become more efficient. Current EV powertrains are already over 95% efficient. Range and charging speed can increase, maybe there could be some aero improvements and people can run skinny i3/i8-style wheels for a little less rolling resistance, but that's about it.

I think range and charging speed increases alone can reduce the need to fast charge.

STM317 wrote:

alfadriver wrote: The physics are not going to change. 1W will always be 1V*1A, and if you need to transfer 1,000,000 Joules quickly.... well. It will generate a LOT of heat. Wireless charging is great for low power use phones and computers- as the rate you can charge with is pretty limited. I doubt a wireless charger will charge faster than even a 120V outlet- which is slow. Again, the physics are well known and are not going to change. The idea that cars are like computers and phones, where the energy they need to operate has gone down as they have gotten better just isn't true. It takes a lot of energy to move a body from A to B at speed X. That's never going to change. And it takes energy to heat and cool the interior compartment, too. That core energy amount isn't going to change. 100mpge (over 3x the fleet) is about it, unless there really is a massive downsize in cars.

I agree with you on the physics part. I won't argue the math. But I think that through a combined improvement in efficiencies of vehicles, vehicle range, charging systems, energy consumption across the board, and improved understanding by EV owners as they become more common, the need to "fast charge" will be greatly reduced. You can go 230 miles on a single charge in a Chevy Bolt. That number will only increase over time with new model introductions. And as to the limit of 100MPGe being as high as it goes, the Chevy Bolt is currently rated at 119MPGe, and there's a version of the BMW i3 that is around 124MPGe. You can buy them now or in the next couple of months. They may be chasing tenths of a percent in efficiency gains at some point, but I think there's still significant room to grow considering these are the first real EVs from their respective companies.

Think bigger- when we are talking 100% EV's this is the entire fleet of cars. Small, medium, large cars, trucks, etc. The overall fleet average is about 30mpg. Which translates to roughly 100mpge. This is far more than the Bolt and i3 sized cars.

(and also don't get distracted with the 55mpg requirement- much of that includes reducing the energy it takes to produce cars- and HUGE effort is going into that)

GameboyRMH wrote:

STM317 wrote: I agree with you on the physics part. I won't argue the math. But I think that through a combined improvement in efficiencies of vehicles, vehicle range, charging systems, energy consumption across the board, and improved understanding by EV owners as they become more common, the need to "fast charge" will be greatly reduced. You can go 230 miles on a single charge in a Chevy Bolt. That number will only increase over time with new model introductions.

Actually there's not much room for EVs to become more efficient. Current EV powertrains are already over 95% efficient. Range and charging speed can increase, maybe there could be some aero improvements and people can run skinny i3/i8-style wheels for a little less rolling resistance, but that's about it. I think range and charging speed increases alone can reduce the need to fast charge.

I agree. You've got a lot of this right in as far as I see it. The biggest bottleneck is going to be convincing people that they should be a more expensive car that has less range and must be charged for a long time. Really EVs are already quite good in terms of efficiency and performance and packaging. If there was a real need, you're right in that local governments would likely partner with private companies to provide chargers on the street. I already have several free EV charging parking places here in SC, where we don't exactly have high taxes. If they could charge they'd pop up as needed, so I don't see that as an issue.

Range will eventually come up to what a normal ICE car can handle, so it'll end up being long trips that EVs won't really be good at.

GameboyRMH wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: I'm sure they'd be happy to install charging stations for profit.

Because ripping up the sidewalk and possibly roads to attach a charging station to the existing power grid is cheap and easy. Do you actually understand the billions of dollars it would take to do this across the country?

Each charger could pay itself off in a few years. A common level-2 charger can fully charge a present-day EV overnight (say 8 hours of charging) and won't be obsolete for decades. Say each meter, purchased and installed, costs $4k and draws 80c worth of electricity per hour. Charge $1.50 per hour of charging, each charger can generate $5.60 per day and over $2k per year, paying itself off in just under two years. If the chargers use a modular design with a unit on a pole, when they have to be upgraded a new unit can just be placed on the pole.

The person who parks their car in front of my house isn't going to get a charge. Heck, most street side parking isn't going to get a charge at all. There are not enough poles out there to support the modular idea.

I just went for a drive around western Wayne county. I didn't see that many easy opportunities for charging stations other than garages or individual homes.

tuna55 wrote: I already have several free EV charging parking places here in SC, where we don't exactly have high taxes. If they could charge they'd pop up as needed, so I don't see that as an issue.

To support 100% EV's there needs to be more than just a few charging stations available to consumers. Over 10 years, there needs to be enough to support half of the current fleet (since the average car is about 11 years old). And since there is about 1 car per person, what's the population of SC? Half that is how many charging stations you will need 10 years after 100% EV's is the market.

GameboyRMH wrote: Liquid fuel cells would get around the hydrogen infrastructure nightmare, but won't do much for the environment - from a purely environmental perspective, it's effectively no different from an ultra-low-emissions ICE. It doesn't make vehicles energy-source-agnostic and allow them to be cleaned up centrally like an EV does.

Right now, the claims are 20-30% more efficient than stationary diesels. Which is more efficient than moving diesels, and is more efficient than gas cars. So it would not be equal.

And, like batteries- fuel cells are developing fast, too. Fast enough that they are going on passenger ships in 2022, as they are cost effective compared to large scale diesel engines.

So from a CO2, HC, CO, and NOx perspective, I see all of them going down compared to a SULEV car.

And it totally solves the charging issue- be it the physics or the location and cost of the charging system. Again, given how they work, they are ok on bio fuels- which is also getting better.

To me, from a total system perspective, fuel cells look like a more likely solution.

In reply to alfadriver: Good point. I didn't realize you were talking about the entire fleet of vehicles on the road.