Is this big news for Electric vehicles?

crunchman

hywelg said:

ICBM said:

OK, that's a different thing from being able to wind them around a drum for raising and lowering a weight... but those kinds of cables and weights are   not beyond our current technology.

FTFY

Most mine skip winding  is of the order of 20-30 tonnes per skip, usually two skips per winder, one up one down. There is a diminishing return on rope diameter, the weight of the rope itself is a limiting factor. Thats why in the deepest mines theres usually a second shaft (called a staple shaft) starting at 1000m or so below ground. Output capacity is usually improved by faster winding speeds and automated operation.

This was on PM just now, I do wonder why no-one has taken the company to task about the stupidity of the basic assessment. Aparently HM Inspectorate of Mines and Quarries (I have a mate who's a Mines Inspector, both of us worked in British Coal up to 1993) were approached about it last year and they dismissed it as implausible based on the maintenance costs alone ( new winding ropes every three years, capel renewed every six months, daily inspections of winding ropes by qualified staff, weekly inspections of shaft hardware etc.etc.) And if theres going to be a significant store of energy theres going to need to be a method of automatically detaching the weights and storing them above ground and in the shaft bottom.  We're talking multi-million pound investments, probably into the 100's of millions.

Large scale battery storage isn't cheap though.  A Telsa Powerwall costs £400 per kWh (without installation).  Enough storage to charge a 100kWh Telsa car would be £40k.  That's a lot of money.

Prices for large scale will obviously be cheaper, but it's not going to be cheap, and they will need replacing every few years.

There is also a risk that the price of things like lithium and cobalt will go through the roof because of demand.   You could use lead-acid for storage attached to the grid, where weight isn't an issue, but they would need replacing twice as often, and might end up costing just as much, if not more.  There are also the whole life costs of the batteries.  They are nasty, and expensive to recycle.

While cables might need replacing, that should be a lot cheaper than replacing batteries.  There is no reason why some other parts of the system couldn't last 20 or 30 years, and keep the whole life cost down.

We do need to be exploring these options.

octatonic

I'll buy an electric car when charge time approaches the same time as filling a tank with something flammable.
Otherwise I have shit to do.

roundthebend

octatonic said:

I'll buy an electric car when charge time approaches the same time as filling a tank with something flammable.
Otherwise I have shit to do.

I hear what you're saying, but it's a bit narrow minded in my opinion.
If you need to drive beyond the range capacity of the battery then you do need to consider the charge time. But if you are going to do less than the range capacity, and then park up overnight, you really don't need to worry.

Of course, most of us do use a car for longer distances at least occasionally. But we could look at car hire or trains for those occasions. If you do it regularly, then maybe petrol/diesel is your only option.

How about if a scheme existed where you could book an electric car journey, with pre-arranged vehicle swaps so you didn't have to wait for charging?

Anyway, this fuel cell claims to be swappable in 90 seconds. So, the tech you're asking for might be there soon.

crunchman

roundthebend said:

octatonic said:

I'll buy an electric car when charge time approaches the same time as filling a tank with something flammable.
Otherwise I have shit to do.

I hear what you're saying, but it's a bit narrow minded in my opinion.
If you need to drive beyond the range capacity of the battery then you do need to consider the charge time. But if you are going to do less than the range capacity, and then park up overnight, you really don't need to worry.

Of course, most of us do use a car for longer distances at least occasionally. But we could look at car hire or trains for those occasions. If you do it regularly, then maybe petrol/diesel is your only option.

How about if a scheme existed where you could book an electric car journey, with pre-arranged vehicle swaps so you didn't have to wait for charging?

Anyway, this fuel cell claims to be swappable in 90 seconds. So, the tech you're asking for might be there soon.

Charge time would only be number 3 on my list of issues.

The biggest one is that it's still a lot more expensive than a petrol car for the kind of driving we do. We only spend about £1500 per year on petrol anyway.  We would never get back the extra cost of buying an electric car in the first place.

The other one is the lack of charging facilities.  We don't have off street parking.  The council has put a few charging points in lamp posts, but only 3 in a street with 59 houses - some of which have multiple cars.  You have to pay £500 to be able to connect to them as well, which is another reason that it doesn't stack up cost wise.

Those two problems are much more important than charging time, but charging time is still an issue.

I've said multiple times that hydrogen fuel cells are the answer.  You just convert existing filling stations to hydrogen.  It also solves the energy storage issue, as you use surplus solar during the day to produce the hydrogen.

If the thing that started this thread is legit then that might change things, but with what we know at the moment, we are barking up the wrong tree and need to be pushing towards fuel cells.

strtdv

octatonic said:

I'll buy an electric car when charge time approaches the same time as filling a tank with something flammable.
Otherwise I have shit to do.

I could deal with one car in the household being electric. My wife drives less than 100 miles a week in her car, which could easily be replaced by an electric car, particularly if I keep a dino juice powered one which lets us do the infrequent 100+ mile each way journeys without range anxiety.

All our cars being electric wouldn't work though (I currently do about 650 miles a week and having to constantly charge each time I park up would be an annoyance)

ICBM

crunchman said:

I've said multiple times that hydrogen fuel cells are the answer.  You just convert existing filling stations to hydrogen.  It also solves the energy storage issue, as you use surplus solar during the day to produce the hydrogen.

If the thing that started this thread is legit then that might change things, but with what we know at the moment, we are barking up the wrong tree and need to be pushing towards fuel cells.

Or synthesised fuel directly from carbon capture, with the energy required to make it coming from renewable electricity. That's already being looked at for aviation fuel - a very small scale trial as yet.

https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/producing-sustainable-aviation-fuel-in-the-netherlands/

If synthetic car fuels can be made in the same way, that would have the great advantage that the existing cars and the vast infrastructure that goes with fuel supply would not need to be scrapped.

digitalscream

Getting back to the aluminium-air batteries...they're not batteries, they're effectively fuel cells. The initial issue with Al-air fuel cells is the degradation of the anode, which he claims to have solved (although Fuji apparently solved it back in 2015). The problem then becomes the fact that the electrolyte needs to be replaced regularly, because these aren't rechargeable batteries (hence the more accurate "fuel cell" moniker). At that point, the electrolyte needs to be mass-produced at scale, and the question of environmental credentials of this solution shift to production of that electrolyte, which nobody can assess because he's trying to patent its composition. Ask yourself this: how popular do you think petrol would've been, had its composition been patented and licence fees been payable for its production?

Oh, and Fuji solved the problem while still using water as the electrolyte.

Yes, Al-air fuel cells have a vastly higher energy density than any current battery type, but it's not really a practical solution for mass production. Glass electrolyte batteries still have a higher energy density than Li-ion (roughly three times, so on the same order as the difference between Al-air and Li-ion), but are also properly rechargeable and are much faster to recharge than current-generation batteries.

crunchman

ICBM said:

crunchman said:

I've said multiple times that hydrogen fuel cells are the answer.  You just convert existing filling stations to hydrogen.  It also solves the energy storage issue, as you use surplus solar during the day to produce the hydrogen.

If the thing that started this thread is legit then that might change things, but with what we know at the moment, we are barking up the wrong tree and need to be pushing towards fuel cells.

Or synthesised fuel directly from carbon capture, with the energy required to make it coming from renewable electricity. That's already being looked at for aviation fuel - a very small scale trial as yet.

https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/producing-sustainable-aviation-fuel-in-the-netherlands/

If synthetic car fuels can be made in the same way, that would have the great advantage that the existing cars and the vast infrastructure that goes with fuel supply would not need to be scrapped.

I read about the direct air capture one a few weeks ago.  That's at very early stages at the moment. The trial plant is only producing 1000 litres per day.  Scaling that up to the kind of size needed would be very expensive.

The other one is using hydrogen produced from electrolysis powered by wind.  For air travel that might make sense, but for cars it would make far more sense to just use the hydrogen to power the cars - especially as an electric motor is far more efficient than an internal combustion engine, and you can get energy back with regenerative braking to make it more efficient still.

digitalscream said:

Yes, Al-air fuel cells have a vastly higher energy density than any current battery type, but it's not really a practical solution for mass production. Glass electrolyte batteries still have a higher energy density than Li-ion (roughly three times, so on the same order as the difference between Al-air and Li-ion), but are also properly rechargeable and are much faster to recharge than current-generation batteries.

Bigger battery capacities and faster charging would help a lot, but our current grid will need massive (and expensive) upgrades to make the fast charging feasible.  I don't think you would ever get to the point of being able to charge in 5 minutes though.  You would be talking about hundreds, maybe thousands, of amps. 

You also still have the problem of storing intermittent renewables.  I suppose the big benefit of these is that you could make electric cars a lot lighter.  A lot of the problem at the moment is that you are having to waste a lot energy moving very heavy batteries around.  If you could make the car a quarter of a tonne lighter, it would help a lot.

digitalscream

crunchman said:

digitalscream said:

Yes, Al-air fuel cells have a vastly higher energy density than any current battery type, but it's not really a practical solution for mass production. Glass electrolyte batteries still have a higher energy density than Li-ion (roughly three times, so on the same order as the difference between Al-air and Li-ion), but are also properly rechargeable and are much faster to recharge than current-generation batteries.

Bigger battery capacities and faster charging would help a lot, but our current grid will need massive (and expensive) upgrades to make the fast charging feasible.  I don't think you would ever get to the point of being able to charge in 5 minutes though.  You would be talking about hundreds, maybe thousands, of amps. 

You also still have the problem of storing intermittent renewables.  I suppose the big benefit of these is that you could make electric cars a lot lighter.  A lot of the problem at the moment is that you are having to waste a lot energy moving very heavy batteries around.  If you could make the car a quarter of a tonne lighter, it would help a lot.

Agreed - however, reducing it to 15 minutes for a full charge isn't beyond the realms of possibility. You'd never be able to do it at home, of course, but I can see a world where petrol stations are converted to have massive batteries and supercapacitors in place of the current underground fuel tanks, which would significantly reduce the load they place on the grid. Those be some hefty-ass cables they'd need, though.

As far as I can tell, the energy density of these Al-air cells isn't actually that much bigger than the glass electrolyte batteries, so the mass reduction benefits would probably be of a similar order of magnitude.

It does bring up a significant point, though - would we be better off trying to work out how to make lighter cars? All the safety gubbins that have been brought in over the last couple of decades have made cars quite a bit heavier, so figuring out a better way to implement such measures might actually have measurable environmental benefits.

Haych

digitalscream said:

It does bring up a significant point, though - would we be better off trying to work out how to make lighter cars? All the safety gubbins that have been brought in over the last couple of decades have made cars quite a bit heavier, so figuring out a better way to implement such measures might actually have measurable environmental benefits.

We would be far better off working out how to use personal transport less.  Just as an example, my dad (born in 1938) used to walk four miles each way to work and back, every day, rain, shine or blizzard.  Lots of people of his generation did the same.

How many people do that now or would be willing to do that now?  Nah, hop in the car, innit!

Business has to change too.  Using my previous example of my dad, how many people have jobs within four miles of their home?  Some, but not many, I'd wager. 

Decades ago towns and villages were built around jobs for local people, nowadays the average commute is something like 45 minutes.  We build commuter villages in the suburbs for people who commute to the cities.

So bassackwards.

ICBM

crunchman said:

I read about the direct air capture one a few weeks ago.  That's at very early stages at the moment. The trial plant is only producing 1000 litres per day.  Scaling that up to the kind of size needed would be very expensive.

Definitely, but it's a start. I read the typical head-in-the-sand comment about that from Friends of the Earth, saying that 1000 litres would power a 747 for about five minutes - which is true. But the same was said when the first wind turbines were built as well - you have to start somewhere, and build up to the point where the economies of scale kick in. The technology has been proved to work, and currently there is no feasible way to power heavier-than-air flight other than by burning chemical fuel.

I'm sure that a lot of people thought that those new internal combustion engines would never replace steam locomotives and horses either - but they did within about fifty years, for most purposes.

Danny1969

Removable batteries are the answer .... then no one needs to charge on the street ... no cares so much about range because you have more than one battery and can flip a switch to bring in a spare battery should you run out mid journey. 

Most people need to put enough KWh in a battery to get to work and back and maybe go to the supermarket or offy .... a battery pack giving a range of 30 miles would do for a lot of people. Especially in a car that only weighed 1\4 ton and not 1 ton 

Electric planes are coming !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0DHhiwvatQ

JayGee

octatonic said:

I'll buy an electric car when charge time approaches the same time as filling a tank with something flammable.
Otherwise I have shit to do.

...and I’ll buy another ICE powered car when the time it takes to refuel it is less than the time it takes for me to plug my electric car in when I get home in the evening and then unplug it when I leave the house the next morning.

I’ve got shit to do as well... :-)

crunchman

Haych said:

digitalscream said:

It does bring up a significant point, though - would we be better off trying to work out how to make lighter cars? All the safety gubbins that have been brought in over the last couple of decades have made cars quite a bit heavier, so figuring out a better way to implement such measures might actually have measurable environmental benefits.

We would be far better off working out how to use personal transport less.  Just as an example, my dad (born in 1938) used to walk four miles each way to work and back, every day, rain, shine or blizzard.  Lots of people of his generation did the same.

How many people do that now or would be willing to do that now?  Nah, hop in the car, innit!

Business has to change too.  Using my previous example of my dad, how many people have jobs within four miles of their home?  Some, but not many, I'd wager. 

Decades ago towns and villages were built around jobs for local people, nowadays the average commute is something like 45 minutes.  We build commuter villages in the suburbs for people who commute to the cities.

So bassackwards.

Four miles would be a long way to walk, but on the flat it's 25 minutes on a bike at a gentle non-sweaty pace.  When something like two thirds of car journeys are under 5 miles, we need to get people onto bikes.

For older people, and/or hilly journeys, electric bikes have to be part of the solution.  Moving 20kg of electric bike is a lot better for the environment than moving a tonne and half of car.

For those who just need a computer and screen, working from home should be a big part of the solution.  Reducing the number of journeys would help a lot as well.

boogieman

digitalscream said:

crunchman said:

digitalscream said:

Yes, Al-air fuel cells have a vastly higher energy density than any current battery type, but it's not really a practical solution for mass production. Glass electrolyte batteries still have a higher energy density than Li-ion (roughly three times, so on the same order as the difference between Al-air and Li-ion), but are also properly rechargeable and are much faster to recharge than current-generation batteries.

Bigger battery capacities and faster charging would help a lot, but our current grid will need massive (and expensive) upgrades to make the fast charging feasible.  I don't think you would ever get to the point of being able to charge in 5 minutes though.  You would be talking about hundreds, maybe thousands, of amps. 

You also still have the problem of storing intermittent renewables.  I suppose the big benefit of these is that you could make electric cars a lot lighter.  A lot of the problem at the moment is that you are having to waste a lot energy moving very heavy batteries around.  If you could make the car a quarter of a tonne lighter, it would help a lot.

Agreed - however, reducing it to 15 minutes for a full charge isn't beyond the realms of possibility. You'd never be able to do it at home, of course, but I can see a world where petrol stations are converted to have massive batteries and supercapacitors in place of the current underground fuel tanks, which would significantly reduce the load they place on the grid. Those be some hefty-ass cables they'd need, though.

As far as I can tell, the energy density of these Al-air cells isn't actually that much bigger than the glass electrolyte batteries, so the mass reduction benefits would probably be of a similar order of magnitude.

It does bring up a significant point, though - would we be better off trying to work out how to make lighter cars? All the safety gubbins that have been brought in over the last couple of decades have made cars quite a bit heavier, so figuring out a better way to implement such measures might actually have measurable environmental benefits.

You don’t need “hefty ass cables”. High current stuff either uses bus bars (made of solid copper) or you raise the transmission voltage considerably and that reduces the amperage in the cable, same as high voltage overhead cables which are relatively thin but carry the power at 33kV or 11 kV. You step the voltage down at the end with a transformer. 

strtdv

I'm with @crunchman , I think bicycles (in general, and e-bikes in particular) are a big potential solution.

Look at something like a Tern GSD, there's a bike that could genuinely replace a second car for a lot of families. We do need to get legislation and infrastructure to make it work though (increasing the e-bike speed limit to 20mph and improving cycle lanes would be a start).

ICBM

crunchman said:

Four miles would be a long way to walk, but on the flat it's 25 minutes on a bike at a gentle non-sweaty pace.  When something like two thirds of car journeys are under 5 miles, we need to get people onto bikes.

You have a very optimistic view of human nature if you think that 25 minutes on a bike is going to replace 5 minutes in a car for most people. And that's even in nice weather.

E-bikes *might* be slightly more popular, but for most people it's still not going to be an attractive option unless the journey is under a few minutes.

I would like it not to be so... but it is.

goldtop

There's a Catch 22 situation for a lot of commuters: they would like to cycle, but they do not want to cycle alongside the existing car/van/bus/truck risks for the obvious reasons of accidents and pollution levels.

Moreover, not everyone has space to securely park a pair of £2000 e-bikes.

Creed_Clicks

octatonic said:

I'll buy an electric car when charge time approaches the same time as filling a tank with something flammable.
Otherwise I have shit to do.

Unfortunately, this is the problem. I have got shit to do. It's why we have sliced pan, pre prepared salads and sandwiches wrapped in plastic, already sliced cheese in plastic, fruit already cut wrapped in plastic, margarine in plastic tubs instead of butter, etc. because people don't have the time to make a sandwich, cut butter or mix a few things together for a salad. Convenience. (How long would it take to make a sandwich the night before going to work?)

It's a shame that the modern world has gone that way, but most of us would possibly be the same: I don't have time to wait around for a car to charge. Well, why not? 

crunchman

ICBM said:

crunchman said:

Four miles would be a long way to walk, but on the flat it's 25 minutes on a bike at a gentle non-sweaty pace.  When something like two thirds of car journeys are under 5 miles, we need to get people onto bikes.

You have a very optimistic view of human nature if you think that 25 minutes on a bike is going to replace 5 minutes in a car for most people. And that's even in nice weather.

E-bikes *might* be slightly more popular, but for most people it's still not going to be an attractive option unless the journey is under a few minutes.

I would like it not to be so... but it is.

A lot of those journeys are into and around cities though.  They don't take 5 minutes in a car.  My current journey to work is only 2 miles, but the average time is quicker by bike than by car. 

If you did what @strtdv said and made the limit on ebikes 20mph instead of 15mph, they would be noticeably quicker for a lot of journeys - and a lot cheaper in terms of energy costs.