🚀 go-pugleaf

will1000@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) wrote:

>In <30f28311.9516250@news.teaser.fr> bdebreil@teaser.fr (Bernard
>Debreil) writes: 
>
>>will1000@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) wrote:
>
>>>There are batteries in development that have shown to
>>>have ranges over 200 miles for Taurus-sized vehicles. 
>
>
>>I am not against EVs 
>
>That's difficult to surmise from your posts...

The day when EVs will appear practical, that is, when I can drive 300
miles with an EV without refueling, and that the cost per driven mile
(including that due to battery wear) will no longer be a lot higher than
that of ICEs, I will gladly buy an EV. 

But, if I were to bid on any new car, I would rather bet on an electric
car that would be powered by an hydrogen fuel cell... Hydrogen seems
most convenient, since it does not pollute, it is easily produced at a
good recovery by electrolysis of water... Hydrogen, in a way, would be a
good medium of storageing electric power, a lot better than chemical
cells batteries. Of course, some appropriate technology must be worked
out to make it safe. Unfortunately, I also know that the technology of
fuel cells is not quite up to the requirements... however, I think that
research on fuel cells is going forward a lot faster than that on
batteries. However, I may be wrong on that point... If anyone can bring
something forward, he will be welcome.
>
>>I have even tried one for a short drive. Here in France, a few hundred
>>people have had propositions to try EVs at a very
>>reasonable cost: one month trial for 1000 FF, that is, about $200. Had
>>I been on the list, I would surely have taken one. But there is no way
>>that I would buy such a vehicle at its regular price, knowing its
>>limitations and the lack of reliability of batteries, their cost and
>>short life.
>
>Lack of reliability of batteries?  Every car I know relies upon
>batteries to start.

Sure, but this is not the same thing, by a long shot. To start an ICE
vehicle, you need a 40 lbs battery that costs $50 or so, and will last 4
years or more. Why will it last so much longer than an EV battery ?
Well, you must consider that a standard ICE battery remains almost
always at full charge; it is not being submitted to discharge currents
of more than one tenth of its capacity (except for a few seconds at a
time, when starting the car). Lead batteries wear a lot faster when in a
state of discharge, since lead sulphate is being produced. An EV battery
is being constantly discharged at intensities that are a lot higher than
that of one tenth of their capacities. If that were to be so, the
battery capacity would have to be such that, at cruising speed, the car
can be driven for about 10 hours, while most EVs, driven at 60 miles an
hour, would run out of power in one and a half hour or so. Therefore,
the batteries are overworked, being submitted to a much too high
intensity. To do the things right, you would have to have batteries that
would be about seven times bigger... weighing something like 7,000 lbs !

True: Ni/Cd batteries offer a few advantages, but there are other
drawbacks in the balance. At first, they cost a lot more. You need a
greater number of cells to get to the desired voltage, since a NiCd cell
gives only 1.25 volts instead of 2v for lead. Also, Ni/Cd batteries
often show greater differences from one cell to the other, they will
keep charge even less time than lead batteries, except when new. 

I have heard of a lot of other battery types having been experimented
over the last two decades, some of them working at high temperatures
(900�F or so), none of them has come up for practical use so far... My
portable computer is being equipped with a Ni/MH battery, which
replacement costs about $350 !!! while IBM only states that it will last
about 500 charge/discharge cycles, which is much less than with a NiCd
battery... True enough, it is supposed to give about 30% more power for
the same weight... 

So, I believe that, with today's technology, an EV is workable in
circumstances where costs don't count: in the army or for competition
purposes for instance...

>
>Do you know what the cost of the EVs in France are expected to be, from
>the showroom?

I will have to check for recent figures, but, a year ago or so, Renault
and Peugeot were proposing something at prices that were about 50%
higher than that or regular cars, but the battery was not included in
the price: you had the choice between two types of batteries, one lead
battery that costed about $3,500, and a NiCd battery which was priced
about $7,000. The cars were warrantied by the manufacturer, but none of
the proposed batteries were. Today, I don't know anyone in France who
owns an EV privately. There are some which are owned by cities or towns,
most of these don't pay the regular price (they are subsidized by the
car manufacturers, or in some cases by the power company, to participate
in a trial)
>
>>It remains that, to day, no EV offers more than 90 miles autonomy,
>>except on prototype. I believe that it is possible to make almost
>>anything: an electric car that would haul a trailer full of batteries,
>>could probably drive more than 90 miles... (at least I suppose so,
>>for, indeed, the more weight to haul, the more power you need...)
>
>Hybrids are an answer for longer distance needs.  EVs are targeted at
>commutes.

Maybe... I've heard of a Volvo prototype which is supposed to work fine,
but its price is not yet realistic. Besides, not everyone agrees on the
advantages of hybrid cars as far as the environment is concerned. In the
city, they will have an even lesser autonomy, unless the ICE is
started... True: the Volvo prototype I have heard of, has a turbine
engine, which is supposed to be a lot better than an ordinary motor.

Maybe someday, when the technology of batteries will have made a lot of
progress, will there be a possibility of swapping batteries in relay
stations: you get a fully charged one in exchange for you discharged
one, for so much money... If this ever happens, the price of the swap
will have to be rather high, since it will call for costly handling, and
take account of battery replacement when out of order...

Besides, if electrical energy does seem cheap today, compared to
gasoline prices, the reason is that taxes are a lot higher on gas (at
least here in Europe). If EVs were to replace ICEVs, taxes would have to
be increased on Kilowatt hours, since the tax money is needed anyway.
>
>>> Recharges are
>>>also shown to be less that 90 minutes with many batteries.
>
>>Is it ?   On normal service ?
>
>I should have mentioned charging depths and battery types.  The Horizon
>is one such battery.
>
>>To my opinion, if these are regular lead or cadmium/nickel batteries,
>>either the 90 minutes charge is a partial charge, that will give you,
>>say, only 20 miles autonomy, or it is an accelerated charge at higher
>>intensity, and then the battery life will be greatly reduced if this 
>>is done often, notwithstanding the fact that its recovery in energy 
>>will be less.
>
>It a partial charge, though more than 20 miles range.
>There are different battery types (Zinc/air and others) that have
>varying charging profiles.
>
>>>>It is not reasonable either to expect a battery which
>>>>cost per driven mile be acceptable, considering that it is worth not 
>>>>less than $2,500 and cannot be expected to last much longer than a 
>>>>year or two. 
>
>>>Acceptable is in the mind of the acceptor.  We will assume you speak
>>>for yourself.
>
>>Yes, I do, and I think that these are well known concepts. However, I
>>don't pretend to detain the truth, and the purpose of most such
>threads
>>is not to state some faultless truths, it is rather to call for
>>discussion and share knowledge and mistakes. 
>
>Yes, and I am guilty of being an EV proponent. 

No, you are not in  any way, I am, too, in a way, an EV proponent, even
if my opinion is that research and technology still have a long way to
go before EVs become workable in practical ways for the average driver
and for the average budget.

If EVs were so evidently advantageous, we would see mostly everyone with
one... Electric cars and electric motors are very fine and technically
perfect, but batteries are not... 

> I just tend to
>overreact after seeing many posts that profer ridiculous scenarios that
>EVs can't satisfy, and pretend that the scenarios are commonplace.
>
>>>>Besides, as soon as the battery is more than a few months old, you
>>>>can no longer rely on any device to appreciate, at a given time, how
>>>>many miles can be driven before running out of power. 
>
>>>This sentence is a little unclear; what are you claiming here?
>
>>OK: to your opinion, what, on an EV, is a replacement for the fuel 
>>gauge of an ICE ?  On the only EV that I have seen from close, it was 
>>a mere voltmeter. You've got to remember that a single lead battery 
>>cell gives about 2 volts, that is, something like 2.2 volts when fully
>>charged, and 2.0 or so, when 90% discharged (one must avoid full 
>>discharges). I have no time to go check if the right figures are 
>>indeed 2.2 and 2.0, or if it is 2.3 and 1.95v, but I know that I am 
>>not too far. What does this mean, anyways ?  it means that, if we 
>>suppose that the vehicle is powered in 120 volts (60 - 2 volts cells, 
>>that is, 10 - 12 volts elements), the voltmeter will read 132 volts 
>>when the system is fully charged, and 120 volts when almost empty of 
>>energy. This is on such a voltage gap of 12 volts or so, (120 to 132 
>>volts) that the full-empty gauge is relied. Besides, it is more 
>>complex than that, since the voltage versus % charge curve is nothing 
>>close to a straight line : there is a long flat around 2.1 volts or 
>>so, the length of the flat, and its range of co-ordinates being 
>>subjected to changes as the cell wears. When all 60 cells of the 
>>battery are new, this system is likely to work fine. But, the problem 
>>with batteries, is that they wear, they deteriorate, unevenly. Some 
>>elements die a lot sooner than others  (this is even worse with NiCad 
>>elements). Therefore, after awhile, the voltages to be relied upon for
>>full capacity, half capacity, or 1/4 capacity, will change, and the 
>>system will not know what figures to rely upon. 
>
>>Besides, batteries do not hold charges forever, and, after a bit of
>>wearing, they will not hold charge for more than a few days. This mean
>>that one will not be able to rely on how many miles have been driven
>>since last recharge, especially if these miles have been driven over
>>several days. You must also take this into account when reasoning 
>>about recoveries and costs per mile: if the car is not driven on a 
>>regular basis, it will still use power to keep its battery in
>>charge...
>
>>Isn't there a battery specialist here, that could explain this better
>>than I did ?
>
>I've renamed this thread to see if someone will tune in.  My first
>blush answer would be to have a narrow range for voltage, resetting the
>full charge to 'full' on the voltmeter. 

That might be an answer, at least a partial one: il might help a bit...
would have to be tried...

> My second blush answer is the
>use measure the amps.

I don't understand what you mean here. The amps won't depend upon the %
load of the battery, but on the effort that the motor has to make... 
>
>>>>Besides, EVs, if produced at a large scale, will boost up the
>>>>implementation of more nuclear plants... for, indeed, what would be
>>>the point to produce the required electric energy from coal or oil,
>which
>>>>would produce as much CO2 (greenhouse effect, global warming) and
>>>>other pollutants as gasoline does...
>
>>>What are your sources?  What pollutants do you think are emitted by 
>>>an ICE? A coal-fired plant?  
>
>>Oh God, when saying "as much" CO2 and other pollutants as gasoline
>>does, I surely didn't mean that I had figures to prove that the 
>>amounts being released in either processes where indeed exactly the 
>>same, or just
>>about... I just meant that, from what is widely known, the overall
>>pollution  problem would  possibly remain about the same. 

Here, I agree that the figures on the Calstart website have convinced
me. However, a few areas of shade remain, especially about pollution due
to batteries.
>
>Widely known?  Or widely speculated?  If you visit
>http://www.calstart.org/reference/papers/emission.html you will find a
>sample estimation/comparison.
>
>>True, an oil
>>or natural gas power plant may pollute a little less than an ICE car,
>>since its releases are supposed to be constantly monitored, but, in
>the
>>other hand, using batteries, which recoveries are not 1 (how much ?
>>The last figure I had was around 0.5), wastes part of the energy and
>>therefore calls for a greater production with, in turn, more 
>>polluting.
>
>Don't forget the losses for oil exploration, drilling, transportation,
>refining (significant), and other transportation and pumping
>requirements.

True...
>
>ICEVs, especially in commuting profiles, operate over a wide range of
>engine speeds and loads.  The emission controls cannot operate at a
>optimum level over most of these ranges, but a power plant, at a far
>narrower range, can.  Plus, it's easier to control emissions at one
>point source rather than a million.
>  
>>>Please provide your references ('I read it in a news post' does not
>>>count for much).
>
>>I don't have any at hand. My sayings are based upon a lot of things
>that
>>I have come up to over several years, reading, also experiencing
>>batteries (not very much though). As I said before, if you don't agree
>>with me, please explain and give your figures if you have any, and I
>>will gladly read you, whether your elements are sound ones, or not so
>>sound ones, as long as they are not outright stupid (which I don't
>>suppose they will be) 
>
>I try my best to avoid the latter :-)
>
>Let me know what you think of the website I mentioned earlier.  

It is a very nice one, and I enjoyed reading the results of this study.
Indeed, you were right in saying that, even when taking account of the
power plants, EVs in the overall save a lot of pollution. However, my
concern about this study is that it doesn't take account of the
batteries. I have read somewhere, in this newsgroup I think, that it had
been found that, if half the cars in California were to be EVs with lead
batteries, it would take several years of the whole world production of
lead to make so many batteries... Just for California's cars, not even
considering that in the whole United States... Once worn out, the lead
electrodes would have to be recycled, which we can do at a recovery of
about 0.95. The 5% waste of lead would amount to, if I recall well what
I have read, about 60 times as much as the lead pollution that was due
to leaded gas a few years ago... I have not verified the figures,
however, they don't seem crazy at first sight, when you think about the
half ton of lead that there is in a single EV...

I went through a few of the Calstart participants, and one of them (NCP)
puts forward a Ni/Zn battery. I think that this is quite interesting,
and there my be hope in this direction. Whenever I have more time, I
will go through all participants, and maybe I will find more about new
battery technologies.

If you or anyone else know where to find data on new batteries
technologies, I am interested in this subject.


>
>Cheers,
>
>Will Stewart

Bernard DEBREIL
---------------
Le Chesnay (France)
Home Page: http://www.teaser.fr/~bdebreil/
Chats possible through PowWow (in writing only)
email: bdebreil@teaser.fr