[LINK] Standards, please! The third coming of electric vehicles

Karl Auer kauer at biplane.com.au
Wed Apr 18 16:40:44 AEST 2012


On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 15:34 +1000, David Boxall wrote:
> As far as my inexpert research can tell, the best batteries, under the
> best conditions, are 80 % efficient. That is, of the energy put in to 
> charging a battery, 20% will not be delivered back.

You might like to apply the same logic to the energy created by burning
a fossil fuel. Of the energy released, how much actually makes it to the
wheels? Electric vehicles have massively simplified drive trains,
electric motors provide the same torque regardless (almost) of rpms, are
generally lighter, smaller, allowing them to be made with less materials
etc etc. Also, an electric morot doesn't much care where the electricity
comes from, allowing relatively seamless changes in battery technology.

Let's not allow "perfect" to destroy "good enough"...

> As a battery ages, its efficiency decreases.

True. All machines wear out.

>  Under less than ideal conditions, efficiency declines.

And this is different to fossil fuels how?

> Add to that, environmental impacts of battery production, use and 
> recycling, the impacts of batteries that _aren't_ recycled, plus those
> of generating and reticulating electricity to charge them and the 
> picture is far from rosy. We should learn the lessons of lead/acid; 
> though the technologies may be different, I doubt the problems will be
> any less.

I repeat - don't let "perfect" destroy "good enough"...
> > One big, and not-often-thought-about problem that must be resolved
> before EVs can begin to be sold in larger numbers is the issue of
> “standardisation” – simply, the process of developing and implementing
> agreed-upon technical standards that become the established norm
> across the EV industry.

Nope. Nope, nope, nope, nope. This is a total red herring put about by
vested interests trying to obstruct EV take-up. There is ZERO
requirement for engine design standardisation; what need there is will
be ironed out by market forces, if any is required at all. With the
exception of a few things like battery voltages, tyre sizes and
suchlike, there are very few applied standards in engine design. There
are zillions of standards governing safety, emissions and so on, but
these are not engine design standards - you can build your engine pretty
much however you like as long as the car as a whole meets certain safety
and similar standards. Tried getting a spare crankshaft for your Subaru
from your friendly Honda dealer lately?

Note that I am not saying there is zero need for safety standards! But
these are essentially independent of the drive chain. There don't even
need to be standards covering the electrical power used, because all
these voltages and high currents are already present in an ordinary FFV.

> > As well as "the initial cost of ownership and their shorter driving
> abilities", the other main issues are the long recharging time or
> logistics of battery swapping, and the realisation of many people that
> electric cars just move emissions from the engine back to the
> electricity generation site. These cars are almost certainly never
> going to be accepted in rural and regional areas for these practical
> reasons.

Wrong and wrong. These are *perceived* issues, and the writer misses the
one MAJOR reason why rural and regional areas have a problem with EVs -
range. As to the others, put a few solar panels on your roof and:

a) you will completely cover your direct EV energy usage

b) the panels have an energy payback of about three to five years

c) the panels will last you 20 years at least, even allowing for
decrease in panel efficiency

If you take energy from the grid instead AND you use electricity fro
coal-fired or other polluting forms of generation, then yes, you have
moved the emissions. However, EV allows you to use electricity from
non-polluting sources as well, whereas FFVs do not. You must emit
locally, and you cannot avoid the emissions.

For rural/regional Australia, maybe FFVs are the way to go. But the vast
majority of Australians are not in rural and regional Australia, they
are in cities, with average trips of 20-50km per day and average in-city
speeds of 20kph or less. Battery swapping will almost certainly not be
necessary at all. For the vast majority of Australians, therefore, EVs
make a LOT of sense. Of course, before they buy them, the average
Australian will have to get over the idea that the best vehicle for
in-city driving and parking is an SUV...

Once again - do not let "perfect" prevent progress by obstructing "good
enough".

> > Hybrid owners in the US, and probably in Australia, almost never buy
> another one, so overall the outlook is not promising.

Could this be because hybrids are very expensive for little real
payback? And the hybrids are generally battery-assisted FFVs, which is
absolutely arse-about. A real EV is generally a much better bet, or make
an FF-assisted EV. That is, a *small* FF engine, spinning at optimum
revs, that is started and stopped automatically as necessary to charge
the battery. This gives you a massive range, with extremely good fuel
economy in terms of l/100k, and you don't have to use it if you have
on-tap electricity for charging.

Regards, K.
 
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer

GPG fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017
Old fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/attachments/20120418/8fc13479/attachment.sig>


More information about the Link mailing list