3 ms·

> Just to charge our current EV's, we need to run dedicated circuits at max capacity and it still takes a couple hours No, you can use a standard clothes dryer

> Just to charge our current EV's, we need to run dedicated circuits at max capacity and it still takes a couple hours No, you can use a standard clothes dryer hookup and charge overnight. You can even arrange it so that the car charger only consumes power when other high-powered appliances are not (e.g. water heater, dryer, stove). > It just seems like batteries aren't the bottle neck. It's our efficiency to produce and distribute this electricity. They may not be "the" bottleneck, but they definitely are one of them. With increased density comes either longer range or lighter vehicles. The lighter the vehicle, the more efficient it becomes. > ICE isn't perfect, but it's an extreme dense form of energy and the output of it rotational energy. Which is exactly what our end goal is. So you do understand why denser battery packs are useful then? Also, ICE is not a "rotational energy" and more or less than "EV" is. I don't understand why this is included. > In electricity production we outsource it, then store it. Basically the same concept as winding up a spring loaded toy then letting it go when we want to use it. The spring isn't the source of power, it's just the energy storage. Just because we made the spring bigger and output more doesn't make it more efficient. We didn't make the spring bigger. We made it smaller and lighter and got the same output. That is more efficient. > We cannot even make the electric motors more efficient, we already run at 80-90% efficiency. What will we see? 1% more? 2% more? Yes, we no longer have to improve efficiency in the motor itself. It's already many times more efficient than an ICE. > All this electricity needs to transported but the power lines waste power, the charger wastes power, the AC-DC converters waste power, the EV motor wastes power. It's so many little losses outsourced to someone else. And yet, after all those transformations and power losses, an EV is still a net gain in efficiency in most cases. An ICE sends about 20% of the energy to the wheels. An EV triples that in the worst case. This means the infrastructure that you get your energy from can lose a lot along the way and you still end up net positive. And it concentrates further efficiency improvements. That abstraction is huge. > Personally, the battery pack prices are the biggest killer for me. I drive a 90s Toyota pickup. It's been problem free. I've driven it for years. Unless it rots to the ground, I'll never see a surprise bill in 10-20 years saying I need a new battery pack. My motor could entirely fail and it would be a $500 fix. Not to mention, it's entirely recyclable. People will give me money just for the metal. This is also something we all need to keep in mind. You continuing to drive that truck is a benefit to the environment. I'm not trying to say you should scrap it and go get an EV. But for someone who doesn't own any vehicle, choosing an EV today is better than going with a new combustion car.

Ralo 3y ago
>No, you can use a standard clothes dryer hookup and charge overnight. These are also high power, special circuits. The outlet your TV is plugged into isn't near that power level. Most appliances run off 110v. >With increased density comes either longer range or lighter vehicles. The lighter the vehicle, the more efficient it becomes. Yeah, that's certainly an inefficiency. Not as big of an issue to its power source inefficiency. Heavy EVs aren't it's main flaw. >So you do understand why denser battery packs are useful then? Also, ICE is not a "rotational energy" and more or less than "EV" is. I don't understand why this is included. I should have said "it uses an extreme dense form of energy". You can make bigger springs on a wind up car, but you need a better source of energy to wind it up. Gas goes from, "fuel -> combustion -> rotational energy". There's too many steps to go from "coal -> rotational energy" to even list. All of which, have losses. >We didn't make the spring bigger. We made it smaller and lighter and got the same output. That is more efficient. Sure, but doesn't fix the real issue of production and transportation. The weight is a lesser issue. >Yes, we no longer have to improve efficiency in the motor itself. It's already many times more efficient than an ICE. In a small scope, yes. In the whole picture, no. There's no more efficiency gain on the EV. That's it. It's at it's max efficiency and the only way to improve its efficiency is to redesign the entire system and create new technology to produce and transport electricity. Mean while, ICE is still getting improvements such as the Freevalve [0]. Not to mention how much more efficient diesel is compared to gas. >And yet, after all those transformations and power losses, an EV is still a net gain in efficiency in most cases. An ICE sends about 20% of the energy to the wheels. An EV triples that in the worst case. This means the infrastructure that you get your energy from can lose a lot along the way and you still end up net positive. And it concentrates further efficiency improvements. That abstraction is huge. Depends on your source. If you have wind powering your EV from a turbine, you generally don't care about the losses as much since it's all "free" anyways. Your EV is still wind powered though, it's no different than compacting that wind and using it to blow you down the street. It would take A LOT of wind to do that, so does generating electricity out of it. If your source of power is coal, you start at 66% loss, then 8-15% for powerlines, then you got charger losses, DC-AC losses, drive train losses. It's not as efficient as you think. You cannot create more power than you put in, no matter how much you try. Don't forget how much more efficient diesel is as well. [0]https://www.freevalve.com/ https://www.freevalve.com/

Ralo 3y ago

>No, you can use a standard clothes dryer hookup and charge overnight. These are also high power, special circuits. The outlet your TV is plugged into isn't near that power level. Most appliances run off 110v. >With increased density comes either longer range or lighter vehicles. The lighter the vehicle, the more efficient it becomes. Yeah, that's certainly an inefficiency. Not as big of an issue to its power source inefficiency. Heavy EVs aren't it's main flaw. >So you do understand why denser battery packs are useful then? Also, ICE is not a "rotational energy" and more or less than "EV" is. I don't understand why this is included. I should have said "it uses an extreme dense form of energy". You can make bigger springs on a wind up car, but you need a better source of energy to wind it up. Gas goes from, "fuel -> combustion -> rotational energy". There's too many steps to go from "coal -> rotational energy" to even list. All of which, have losses. >We didn't make the spring bigger. We made it smaller and lighter and got the same output. That is more efficient. Sure, but doesn't fix the real issue of production and transportation. The weight is a lesser issue. >Yes, we no longer have to improve efficiency in the motor itself. It's already many times more efficient than an ICE. In a small scope, yes. In the whole picture, no. There's no more efficiency gain on the EV. That's it. It's at it's max efficiency and the only way to improve its efficiency is to redesign the entire system and create new technology to produce and transport electricity. Mean while, ICE is still getting improvements such as the Freevalve [0]. Not to mention how much more efficient diesel is compared to gas. >And yet, after all those transformations and power losses, an EV is still a net gain in efficiency in most cases. An ICE sends about 20% of the energy to the wheels. An EV triples that in the worst case. This means the infrastructure that you get your energy from can lose a lot along the way and you still end up net positive. And it concentrates further efficiency improvements. That abstraction is huge. Depends on your source. If you have wind powering your EV from a turbine, you generally don't care about the losses as much since it's all "free" anyways. Your EV is still wind powered though, it's no different than compacting that wind and using it to blow you down the street. It would take A LOT of wind to do that, so does generating electricity out of it. If your source of power is coal, you start at 66% loss, then 8-15% for powerlines, then you got charger losses, DC-AC losses, drive train losses. It's not as efficient as you think. You cannot create more power than you put in, no matter how much you try. Don't forget how much more efficient diesel is as well. [0]https://www.freevalve.com/ https://www.freevalve.com/