Trade a Raptor for a Lightning?

[Non-Sense]

Just to chime in for a brief moment:

I don’t really understand the comments people make about the government shoving EVs down the throat of anyone. It is a free country no one is obligated to buy anything. In California, next election they can choose a different government, which can change the mandates if they do not like the idea of getting rid of ICE by 2030.

The incentives the Feds give for EV production, battery production, solar power, and sales is minuscule to the incentives we have been giving to the oil and gas companies for decades. We never thought they are shoving dirty oil down our throats.

Also interestingly, some of the consumers in Cali are now feeding their battery stored power back to the grid. Just amazing how solutions pop up in the face of challenges. So, imagine we have bunch of EVs in the future that can help the grid deal with extreme situations.

I never thought having an EV, but now I cannot be happier. Yes, it has its challenges, not as easy as an ICE vehicle, but I can make those compromises. Without some incentives introduced from the external, most people like me won’t agree to make the compromises, which at the end, are not life altering.

I hope we can be open minded for change overall.

Yeah, but where is the source for the electricity coming from and where are these heavy metals coming from that contribute to the batteries for the EV? Also, it is the most arrogant thing in the world to think that the US with their BS regulations against ICE do anything for climate (or man in general in the whole world).

 

[GordoJay]

Just to chime in for a brief moment:

I don’t really understand the comments people make about the government shoving EVs down the throat of anyone. It is a free country no one is obligated to buy anything. In California, next election they can choose a different government, which can change the mandates if they do not like the idea of getting rid of ICE by 2030.

A free country is one where you can do as you like so long as you're not infringing on others. It's not one where you have to get half of the voters to agree with you to change the rules that everyone must follow.

The incentives the Feds give for EV production, battery production, solar power, and sales is minuscule to the incentives we have been giving to the oil and gas companies for decades. We never thought they are shoving dirty oil down our throats.

Not true at all. Rather than offer incentives, our government regulates the hell out of them. They're paying their own way.

Also interestingly, some of the consumers in Cali are now feeding their battery stored power back to the grid. Just amazing how solutions pop up in the face of challenges. So, imagine we have bunch of EVs in the future that can help the grid deal with extreme situations.

It's the obvious answer to grid leveling. Too bad it degrades batteries more quickly. And too bad that you have to plug in while you're at work to have that extra storage available.

I never thought having an EV, but now I cannot be happier. Yes, it has its challenges, not as easy as an ICE vehicle, but I can make those compromises. Without some incentives introduced from the external, most people like me won’t agree to make the compromises, which at the end, are not life altering.

Not life altering if you live in a city, seldom drive long distances, and don't go off grid.

I hope we can be open minded for change overall.

I think the technology in EVs is really cool. I think anyone who wants to drive one should be able to. Eventually the technology will mature and people will adopt it because it makes sense. Forcing adoption before it makes sense is wasteful of resources and damages the environment more than allowing things to take their natural course. I'm not against EV. I'm against top-down government control because they fúçk up everything they touch.

 

[thatJeepguy]

Just to chime in for a brief moment:

I don’t really understand the comments people make about the government shoving EVs down the throat of anyone. It is a free country no one is obligated to buy anything. In California, next election they can choose a different government, which can change the mandates if they do not like the idea of getting rid of ICE by 2030.

The incentives the Feds give for EV production, battery production, solar power, and sales is minuscule to the incentives we have been giving to the oil and gas companies for decades. We never thought they are shoving dirty oil down our throats.

Also interestingly, some of the consumers in Cali are now feeding their battery stored power back to the grid. Just amazing how solutions pop up in the face of challenges. So, imagine we have bunch of EVs in the future that can help the grid deal with extreme situations.

I never thought having an EV, but now I cannot be happier. Yes, it has its challenges, not as easy as an ICE vehicle, but I can make those compromises. Without some incentives introduced from the external, most people like me won’t agree to make the compromises, which at the end, are not life altering.

I hope we can be open minded for change overall.

Most people inherently recognize the ironic ruse that is the EV. Its the 24/7 gaslighting and marketing / manufactured oil crisis all timed to create “demand” . When the range is 700miles and can charge in 20 minutes no one will want a gas car. Right now they get barely 240 miles and take hours or overnight to charge. Cost 60-110 k and the dust hasnt settled on the used market and or batt replacement costs or disposal ( i guarantee those batteries will wind up at the bottom of the ocean one day). Best part is the lie is sold and those consequences are 5-7 years away so its the perfect trick.

Windmills are net zero profit due to the fact that it costs more petroleum/ energy to make and manufacture than net energy produced. They also destroy themselves eventually.

Current solar tech is only 70% efficient at turning radiation into electrons. Even worse is that they cut down swaths of forrest near me to put in solar at a sub station.

California is lost and no they cant choose another option. Its fully rigged at this point. Its Dem vs Dem. And basically the state is so overun with Mexican nationals with drivers license and plausibly voting rights to sway municipalities at a snap of a finger.

Lithium is a toxic metal that is highly flammable and has the energy density of 1/10th to that of petroleum.
Carbon dioxide is a nutrient to plants.
If anything the issues are in India and China containing 3 billion people and counting- 85% of which in abject poverty ****** the environment .
The EU canada and the US are a pittance of consequence in terms of “carbon emissions” (which is a ******** term when you discover the carbon cycle).
I was just in South America the 20k hectares of Amazon forrest that is slashed and burned EVERY YEAR for profit while politicians turn a blind eye and then fly to Davos on a g5 to preach climate change the next week.

 

[rfc805]

There's so much wrong in what you just said it's hard to even begin.

Let's focus on efficiency though, because your own points on efficiency and energy density are important to understanding with using electric drivelines is important.

You mention lithium is 1/10th the energy density of petroleum. I'm not exactly sure how you're working out that comparison, as we don't combust lithium to release energy, but, let's take your statements as truth!

ICE have a theoretical max efficiency in the 30%s. Most in practice are in the low-mid 20%. Electric motors are reasonably close to 100% efficient, but for the sake of argument let's say 90%.

So even if we continue to use petroleum for an energy source, let's look at that.

1L of 87 Octane contains 32 MJ of energy.

ICE using it directly in a vehicle will utilize about 8MJ of the 32MJ potential (25%, which is pretty good, the Raptor is likely worse than that).

If we instead use that in a larger scale efficient power plant, we can get about 55-60% efficiency from the same fuel. So instead of 8MJ, we extract about 17MJ. This is important, because in a power plant, we have the possibility to continue to improve at capturing waste heat and pushing this efficiency up. In a vehicle, we just don't have the same capability to do so.

Delivery/transmission/etc sap some of that, so we're down to about 14MJ of it delivered to the endpoint.

Then you use an electric driveline, and you end up with about 12MJ from the same 1L of gasoline that you could only get 8MJ from when directly used in an ICE.

We are about 10 years into commercial iteration on these drivelines at this point, versus over 100 for ICE. It's going to improve further, and the end result is that we can stop wasting 70% of the energy that is contained in that petroleum. It's important. It's not all about replacement, it's about waste. The production efficiencies are at worst even today, and will continue to get better. Eventually, they're going to tilt sharply in favor of electric systems.

Lithium batteries in current EVs have at least a 1000 charge cycle life. So as to something indicating they consume more petroleum to create than they can offset, I don't see how that can even be within orders of magnitude true.

As to the lithium ending up at the bottom of the ocean, why would you do that? Lithium is is an element. It doesn't get "used up". It's still lithium, unless somehow you change it into a different element - but that's not going on. It isn't like combustion fuels where after you use it, it's gone, broken down into different compounds. An entire industry will be formed around this, similar to what exists for lead acid batteries today. We're just very early on in the process, but it's not hard to look at history and see where it will go from similar other industries that are more mature.

 

[Littlefx4]

Most people inherently recognize the ironic ruse that is the EV. Its the 24/7 gaslighting and marketing / manufactured oil crisis all timed to create “demand” . When the range is 700miles and can charge in 20 minutes no one will want a gas car. Right now they get barely 240 miles and take hours or overnight to charge. Cost 60-110 k and the dust hasnt settled on the used market and or batt replacement costs or disposal ( i guarantee those batteries will wind up at the bottom of the ocean one day). Best part is the lie is sold and those consequences are 5-7 years away so its the perfect trick.

Windmills are net zero profit due to the fact that it costs more petroleum/ energy to make and manufacture than net energy produced. They also destroy themselves eventually.

Current solar tech is only 70% efficient at turning radiation into electrons. Even worse is that they cut down swaths of forrest near me to put in solar at a sub station.

California is lost and no they cant choose another option. Its fully rigged at this point. Its Dem vs Dem. And basically the state is so overun with Mexican nationals with drivers license and plausibly voting rights to sway municipalities at a snap of a finger.

Lithium is a toxic metal that is highly flammable and has the energy density of 1/10th to that of petroleum.
Carbon dioxide is a nutrient to plants.
If anything the issues are in India and China containing 3 billion people and counting- 85% of which in abject poverty ****** the environment .
The EU canada and the US are a pittance of consequence in terms of “carbon emissions” (which is a ******** term when you discover the carbon cycle).
I was just in South America the 20k hectares of Amazon forrest that is slashed and burned EVERY YEAR for profit while politicians turn a blind eye and then fly to Davos on a g5 to preach climate change the next week.

There's so much wrong in what you just said it's hard to even begin.

Let's focus on efficiency though, because your own points on efficiency and energy density are important to understanding with using electric drivelines is important.

You mention lithium is 1/10th the energy density of petroleum. I'm not exactly sure how you're working out that comparison, as we don't combust lithium to release energy, but, let's take your statements as truth!

ICE have a theoretical max efficiency in the 30%s. Most in practice are in the low-mid 20%. Electric motors are reasonably close to 100% efficient, but for the sake of argument let's say 90%.

So even if we continue to use petroleum for an energy source, let's look at that.

1L of 87 Octane contains 32 MJ of energy.

ICE using it directly in a vehicle will utilize about 8MJ of the 32MJ potential (25%, which is pretty good, the Raptor is likely worse than that).

If we instead use that in a larger scale efficient power plant, we can get about 55-60% efficiency from the same fuel. So instead of 8MJ, we extract about 17MJ. This is important, because in a power plant, we have the possibility to continue to improve at capturing waste heat and pushing this efficiency up. In a vehicle, we just don't have the same capability to do so.

Delivery/transmission/etc sap some of that, so we're down to about 14MJ of it delivered to the endpoint.

Then you use an electric driveline, and you end up with about 12MJ from the same 1L of gasoline that you could only get 8MJ from when directly used in an ICE.

We are about 10 years into commercial iteration on these drivelines at this point, versus over 100 for ICE. It's going to improve further, and the end result is that we can stop wasting 70% of the energy that is contained in that petroleum. It's important. It's not all about replacement, it's about waste. The production efficiencies are at worst even today, and will continue to get better. Eventually, they're going to tilt sharply in favor of electric systems.

Lithium batteries in current EVs have at least a 1000 charge cycle life. So as to something indicating they consume more petroleum to create than they can offset, I don't see how that can even be within orders of magnitude true.

As to the lithium ending up at the bottom of the ocean, why would you do that? Lithium is is an element. It doesn't get "used up". It's still lithium, unless somehow you change it into a different element - but that's not going on. It isn't like combustion fuels where after you use it, it's gone, broken down into different compounds. An entire industry will be formed around this, similar to what exists for lead acid batteries today. We're just very early on in the process, but it's not hard to look at history and see where it will go from similar other industries that are more mature.

TLDR either. BLUF.…Bottom Line Up Front next time or perhaps bullet points fellas. LOL

 

[CruiserClass]

I’d be interested to see what can come of hydrogen cells and autos. Although I have no idea how much energy it takes to create and maintain hydrogen. But the exhaust is h2o I believe.

Hydrogen, in an imperfect analogy, is a sort of battery. It can carry energy but doesn't make energy. It has yet to be market competitive due to the cost of production. It makes very little sense for nations with large, and relatively cheap, access to fossil fuels and it makes little sense for vastyly spread out nations that would need a massive investment in infrastructure to deliver it widely.

In short, it will likely be viable in some nations but never viable in others. It makes quite a bit more sense for nations without their own reserves and with nuclear or other large scale electricity production capability vs fuel needs and with compact areas with high population densities. Japan, perfect sense. Canada, terrible value proposition.

 

[CruiserClass]

Nobody has a crystal ball, but just a thought: The automobile had displaced the horse as the preferred mode of transportation and had made significant in roads into agricultural use in roughly 20 years or so. Some of it due to regulation in cities, but much just do to shifting consumer preference. In roughly 50 years, horses were a novelty or sporting only sort of thing, nobody used them for serious work (other than the Amish and other hold outs, I suppose)

Think of how rapidly the internet and data transmission tech has improved. Computers have gone from giant machines of limited ability to smart phones in many of our lifetimes. For that matter, even ICE has made leaps and bounds. Nobody in the 70's or 80's would imagine the combination of power, efficiency, and reliability rung out of a modern vehicle. Those of you thinking this is some flash in the pan or will take generations to mature, maybe, but I personally wouldn't bet on it given the investment in talent and treasure the big players are putting in to it. There are some very smart people working on something that can make a lot of money, and that's historically been a recipe for rapid advancement of a given technology. I'm not ready for an EV yet, but I suspect it's the future if you prefer it or not.

 

[rfc805]

And for very good reason.

Embrace Jay Leno's views on them. These aren't here to obsolete these things we enjoy. They are here to give us a way to continue to enjoy them for a long time to come.

 

[jamanrr]

the future of battery tech is Iron Phosphate, not Lithium. However there exists tons of options to extract Lithium from Bromine. The battery makers are the one that will be breaking new technology as it comes to market. We are probably 10 years away from major EV adoption.

 

[Ruger]

It turns out that hurricanes and Teslas don't mix very well. The battery packs are heavy and therefore mounted low in the vehicles to improve handling by maintaining a low center of mass. That makes them vulnerable to salt water from hurricane Ian's storm surge. In one week nine EVs caught fire in Florida.

And here's an interesting EV factoid that oddly doesn't get much air time: It takes 8,000 to 12,000 gallons of water to put out an EV battery fire - ten times that for a fire in a gas-powered vehicle - and up to six hours. It ties up the fire department pretty thoroughly and is wasteful of water resources.