Electric Vehicle Thread!

[Albuquerque]

Not sure which car Jawed has.

I know Teslas have both the HV battery (480vdc Li-ION or LFP) and then the LV battery (12vdc lead acid on everything except the newest Model Y, which uses a 16vdc LI-ION now.) There isn't actually a cigarette lighter port, instead are a USB Type C ports -- all of which are powerd via the LV battery. There's a transformer charger of sorts which uses the HV battery pack to charge the LV battery, however it's only rated for maybe a few dozen amps tops.

Funny anecote: a Tesla can actually suffer a dead 12v battery while still having a "full charge" and, just like an ICE car with a full tank of gas and a dead battery, the Tesla becomes equally useless. You can even "jump start" a Tesla if the 12v dies, although you need to go get it replaced ASAP. I'm not sure why they elected to do it that way, however I know they're not the only EV manufacturer to make this decision.

 

[orangpelupa]

Or ac port. Like hyundai ioniq 5

 

[Sxotty]

Btw how's the battery life gonna be?

Sure LFP batteries probably won't have any observable effect. But how about other batteries like NMC?

The question you should be asking is how it will affect the warranty.

I tested lfp batteries at one time and the degradation from v2g is extremely low if you are talking energy arbitrage, if you are talking grids stabilization charge discharge often changing polarity it is much worse. All this talk is premature though. They need to control charging first to charge at night which will make the grid more consistent and power production more predictable and economical.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

So, about that charging vehicles at night thing... According to a study by Stanford and as reported by the LA Times:

California needs to charge electric vehicles during day, not night, to save grid, study says

Stanford researchers found that California will need a drastic increase in infrastructure to support daytime charging, which will make better use of solar energy.

www.latimes.com

People should be charging their vehicles during the day to help ease pressure on the CA grid. The main reason being CA's reliance on solar power for it's "renewable" energy source due to it's naturally sunny climate.

And as if things couldn't get any more wacky with a state that is completely incompetent at managing its own electricity grid and thus needs to import electricity from surrounding states, they've signed legislation to ban the use of natural gas for heating and cooking. IE - Californian's will be all but required to rely on the least efficient method of heating ... electricity. Geothermal heat pumps can also work but they can be incredibly expensive to install and maintain.

For a state that hasn't been able to generate enough electricity for their residents for years, increasing resident reliance and burden on that grid is just ... argh.

Regards,
SB

 

[Mariner]

A pity they've shut down their nukes as well, then.

 

[wco81]

The idea to charge during the day is to use more solar because it's clean.

But most people are at work during the day, where they may or may not have charging facilities.

And on hot days, there probably isn't enough excess solar for people to charge up.

Peak times are in the early evening hours, because accumulated heat during the day makes that time of the day often hotter than noon. My utility has time of use pricing and makes 4 to 9 PM peak pricing.

CA has one of the highest percentages of solar-generated electricity and while they've been adding a lot of capacity, it is capital intensive to build utility-scale solar farms. And now they're adding battery storage with many of the new installations.

One thing to note is that electricity demand has been mostly flat in the past decade or two, but with the pandemic and with extreme weather, there's been a little surge in demand.

Long term, EVs are going to increase demand and utilities are going to run promotions to encourage EV adoption because obviously means greater consumption and more revenues. Those increased revenues will fund construction of new solar and wind capacity.

The other thing they're working on, as I posted in the climate change thread, is more use of wind, particularly offshore win and also deep water wind, that is 20 miles out from the coast, where there's greater wind potential and the possibility of constructing huge turbines -- 60 stories tall -- on floating platforms because the sea is too deep to anchor the platforms to the sea floor.

CA was one of the centers of anti-nuclear activism in the '80s and '90s. We not only were close to Yucca Mountain, our history with earthquakes were well-known so the idea of nuclear plants on or near faults caused anxiety, long before anyone had heard of Fukushima.

They may keep Diablo Valley operating for a few more years but don't count on any new nuclear plants, either here or most places in the US. If you want to see why, look up Vogtle in Georgia, which started with a cost estimate of $14 billion but now the current estimate is approaching 2X as much.


As for encouraging Californians to adopt EVs, Californians have seen record droughts, wildfires and heat waves in the last decade or two. So while EVs may not be perfect, they understand why we can't keep going on business as usual, including with cars.


BTW, you can thank CA for the wide use of things like catalytic converters and other smog equipment because they pushed the envelope on emissions controls for decades. Air quality has improved by requiring cars to reduce emissions and because CA is such a large market, auto manufacturers worldwide adopted the CA emissions standards for most or all of their cars for all markets.

CA isn't alone in setting a deadline for non ZEVs from being registered by 2035 for new vehicles. They're not forcing people who own gas or diesel cars to buy new EVs then, just the they can't register new ones after the deadline.

Other states and countries have similar or more aggressive deadlines.

So that is why virtually all major car manufacturers are investing in a EV supply chain -- batteries, motors, etc. Because once all these different jurisdictions bar registration of new vehicles which emit CO2, demand is going to plunge and costs are going up as the economies of scale are not as favorable as before.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Which is all great ... if they could generate their own electricity. But the fact that they still rely so heavily on fossil fuel generated electricity (buying it from other states) just show the hypocrisy of the CA government. It's great to make a show of doing the right thing, but if they REALLY meant to do the right thing they'd actually generate their own power in state rather than make things worse for the states surrounding CA.

Those other states have to bear the brunt of CA's mismanaged power policies. My electricity rates skyrocketed here when my regional power company started to sell electricity to CA back in the 2000's. I'd love to see the other states cut off sending electricity to CA because I'd like to see CA actually back up what they are attempting to do with actual infrastructure as well as words and regulations.

A good start would be making it easier for the average CA resident to install solar on their property rather than putting so many roadblocks in the way that it can take over 4+ years to get all the permits and environmental impact studies done in order to do it. And then incentivizing them to do so rather than tax them more heavily if they install solar. Also making it easier for them to sell excess power generation from their solar panels back to the grid.

For another would be to actually have the infrastructure in place to handle said solar panels when their EOL arrives, instead of bailing on the recycling industry and allowing those panels to just go into landfills.

I'm not claiming they haven't done some good things. As you mentioned they did great things WRT real particulate pollution and one of the reasons that the US led Europe WRT banning dirty diesel. I spent a good part of my life down in LA in the 80's when the sky was routinely a dirty brown if you didn't live on the beach. It's much improved since then, although they've got many other problems that would prevent me from voluntarily living in LA again.

OTOH - I'd been suffering from wasting water on their ill conceived water restrictor initiatives with low flow water appliances which has propagated to my state. I've halved my water usage ever since I removed the flow restrictors in my shower and kitchen sink since I now run the shower less in order to rinse the soap off. Anyone that really wants to save water showering should instead use and abuse the pause water function that you can get with either special standard showerheads or handheld showers. The real waste comes from running the water when you don't need to (like soaping up) or hoping that the fine mist from flow restricted showerheads that kind of reaches your legs is actually removing the soap.

Regards,
SB

 

[wco81]

You want to blame CA for participating in the spot electricity market?

The blame should go to deregulation. The promise was that all these generators competing should lead to lower prices.

As far as states having to import electricity, that's just smart design. Nobody is overbuilding capacity or building for peak demand times like 100 degree temperatures when everyone is using AC all day. Because at least for now and for the past century or so, those periods of high-temperatures are not common, maybe a couple of weeks out of the year for most states other than those in the south.

So this arrangement has worked for decades but is feeling stresses because of greater frequency of high temperature periods, not to mention dry conditions.

As the world converts electricity to renewable sources, they have an opportunity to reconsider what kind of capacity is needed, especially with growing evidence of how disruptive climate change already is.

 

[Sxotty]

So, about that charging vehicles at night...

For a state that hasn't been able to generate enough electricity for their residents for years, increasing resident reliance and burden on that grid is just ... argh.

Regards,
SB

They are able they chose not to. Nimby.
Flattening demand will make all legacy generation cheaper.
Last I knew wind and solar did not have to pay for their variability and the requirements of more ancillary services. If they did they would not be undercutting legacy generators by as much. Of course one might argue that EV adoption can obviate the need for those same ancillary services if they include variable rate charging. It will be interesting to see what policy they actually pursue, but for now it seems poorly thought out in many cases. It would not be hard to require dispatchable load capabilities in EV's.

To better understand these impacts, we developed a detailed model of the grid in 2035 based on the outputs of recent state- and region-level capacity expansion planning

So it isn't the current grid. It is a planned future grid. One with much more pv that won't be of much use unless it has some demand shifted to line up.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41...7555&CJEVENT=2903ed733b5011ed83fc02ab0a1c0e11

Charging controls are often presented as a solution to grid capacity constraints and, indeed, we find that 12 a.m. SFH timers and randomized SFH timers substantially increase the level of EV adoption that the grid can support. In the Universal Home access scenario, they increase the capacity from 67% to 86% and 83%.

That is pretty good since those scenarios are ridiculous to begin with since not everyone has a home with charging available.

frequent and fast ramping of fossil fuel generators can shorten plant lifetimes and increase operational costs43,61

This is what I'm talking about we can stop that which makes legacy generation cleaner and cheaper per Wh produced.

For some of our modelled days in the year, non-fossil fuel generation exceeds demand. Without modelling transmission, we cannot determine if this excess generation is curtailed or exported to another region. In either case, it may represent a missed opportunity for WECC to reduce its emissions and increase its use of non-fossil fuel sources. Without EVs, the total annual excess non-fossil fuel generation is around 2.8 TWh.

This is because of the imaginary 2035 generation mix which does not yet exist. So instead of throwing away that electricity they are saying we should use it.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Towing With Ford F-150 Lightning A "Total Disaster," Owner Finds

While towing a total of around 3,700 pounds in 55-degree Fahrenheit rainy weather, the Ford F-150 Lightning lost 90 miles of range during a 32-mile drive.

insideevs.com

Ouch, completely useless for anything other than show. Out at the family ranch we regularly have to haul cattle or horses 100's of miles.

Regards,
SB

 

[orangpelupa]

The ev hummer probably have better tow range

 

[wco81]

How many people tow stuff?

I never have in decades of driving. But I don’t live or work in a farm or ranch.

So what percentage of car owners need to regularly tow? People fortunate enough to own a boat?

Doesn’t seem like a big percentage. But they probablY shouldn’t buY an EV.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

How many people tow stuff?

I never have in decades of driving. But I don’t live or work in a farm or ranch.

So what percentage of car owners need to regularly tow? People fortunate enough to own a boat?

Doesn’t seem like a big percentage. But they probablY shouldn’t buY an EV.

I don't live out at the family ranch anymore, but at least 4 of my neighbors regularly tow stuff. One is a contractor, another has a boat and is an electrician, the 3rd has a 5th wheel RV and the one across from my house has a bunch of dirt bikes and jet skis and has a landscaping business.

Regards,
SB

 

[Laurent06]

How many people tow stuff?

I never have in decades of driving. But I don’t live or work in a farm or ranch.

So what percentage of car owners need to regularly tow? People fortunate enough to own a boat?

Doesn’t seem like a big percentage. But they probablY shouldn’t buY an EV.

I think the question rather is: how many people owning a truck tow stuff? And I guess the percentage is much higher than those driving smaller cars.

 

[tuna]

EVs are generally pretty great at towing short distances due to the inherent torque characteristics. Long range towing is another story, but that is pretty obvious.

 

[Sxotty]

I think the question rather is: how many people owning a truck tow stuff? And I guess the percentage is much higher than those driving smaller cars.

I think we would be surprised. Many trucks do nothing but go to the grocery store. It really depends where you live, but yes evs suck for long distance towing. What is the cd for the lightning? If it is the same as regular f150 then this result is more surprising. I don't have the data and don't know where we could find it to see about towing frequency. i venture to guess it is low as a percentage. We just use our truck to carry a load about half the time because when you get 1400# of cement it is usually empty on the drive there. Even in communities where trucks do work they also do a lot of other junk.

 

[wco81]

I think we would be surprised. Many trucks do nothing but go to the grocery store. It really depends where you live, but yes evs suck for long distance towing. What is the cd for the lightning? If it is the same as regular f150 then this result is more surprising. I don't have the data and don't know where we could find it to see about towing frequency. i venture to guess it is low as a percentage. We just our truck to carry a load about half the time because when you get 1400# of cement it is usually empty on the drive there. Even in communities where trucks do work they also do a lot of other junk.

Yeah, at least in the US, people buy big cars, even though they don't use the capabilities.

So people have bed liners or covers for their pickups, which is rarely used to cart stuff. Pickups are among the best-selling vehicles in the US, so millions of people do not use them for their work.

It's similar with AWD cars too, millions of them never go off-road or even go to places with snow or ice.

 

[Davros]

Yeah, at least in the US, people buy big cars,

They like a bomb proof Cadillac
Air conditioned, gold taps
Back seat gun rack
Platinum hub caps
They pick horses for courses
They're the market forces

 

[Silent_Buddha]

What is the cd for the lightning?

I'm assuming you mean the coefficient of drag? If so it should be virtually identical to the naturally aspirated F150 as they share the same body.

Regards,
SB

 

[Jawed]

Today I drove from Oban to Stirling in my big fat BMW iX XDrive50.

I'm only posting because in 86 miles at an average of 40 miles per hour up and down hills and lots of beautiful twisty turny roads through the Scottish highlands I got 3.8 miles per kWh (16 kWh/100 km). It is bonkers how efficient this 2.5 tonne thing is when driven smoothly. Temperatures between 9 and 14 C.

I got 3.4 yesterday driving 305 miles through the highlands, at the same average speed and temperatures, but with lots of rain and more changes in height. I thought that was damn good, but today's result is crazy.

In 7700 ish miles since the factory the car reports 3.2 miles per kWh.