EV's and Transportation as a Service to kill Alberta economy by 2030?

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/10...ry-china-year/

GM is building a battery factory in China and says that by 2020 two-thirds of all new vehicles they sell there will be "new energy" vehicles.

Yup, sure looks like EVs wont catch on calgaryblood.

China's high density coastal cities could be a place where EVs catch on fantastically, especially if the cities are powered by fission plants IMO.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Here is a quick link that highlights some of the technical aspects of wireless charging standardization.


https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/01...alized-europe/


https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/w...ciency-levels/

And a fluffy video:

Thanks Flash, that's f-ing awesome. It's no secret how much I love the work that gets done at oak ridge. There is naturally much potential in building out transportation infrastructure that enables this for both ev, light rail, heavy rail... my mind races! Definitely points to the activity in mining, materials, manufacturing and construction. But again I really think this applies best in high density hubs.

Somewhat on-topic... I met a fellow the other day who is looking at harvesting the magnetic fields native to massive cloud systems. One of the concepts they'll be researching is planting massive coils that would generate electricity as the clouds gently rolled overhead. Fascinating..

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/10...ry-china-year/

GM is building a battery factory in China and says that by 2020 two-thirds of all new vehicles they sell there will be "new energy" vehicles.

Yup, sure looks like EVs wont catch on calgaryblood.

And we all know how great of a business GM has been in the last few decades...it's not like they needed billions of dollars just to stay in business because of horrible business practices.

This time must be different.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Isreal tests wireless charging roads...will they be cost effective

[Fuzz]

I think this is the biggest issue with wireless charging:

Despite of its convenience, wireless charging system has certain drawbacks like its higher cost and energy loss during transmission. Right now a Plugless L2 wireless charger is about $1500 (this depends on the model). Compared to the regular level 2 charger (about $500) it is a lot more expensive. Plugless reported that the energy efficiency of L2 is about 12% less than corded L2 30amp 240V charging systems. Assuming one drives 2015 Nissan Leaf (energy consumption rate 30 KWh/100mi) for 12000 miles per year, the electricity consumption will increase by 432 KWh each year. In other words, wireless EV charging for one EV would waste as much electricity each year as an average U.S. home consumes in two weeks. The accumulative energy loss of 300,000 wireless charging systems predicted by the Navigant Report would be pretty significant: 129,600,000 KWh. It remained unseen whether the wireless charging technology will represent the future of EV charging industry and whether it is beneficial for the EV adoptions. One more question that is remained to be answered is the distribution of the cost of the wireless charging facility and the electricity.

https://faculty.washington.edu/dwhm/...orth-the-cost/

That is a lot of waste. Unless they can get it down to about 5% loss, or we get nuclear fusion worknig, I'm not sure this is a good idea.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Isreal tests wireless charging roads...will they be cost effective

Aren't there already charging lanes in place in Britain?

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think this is the biggest issue with wireless charging:



https://faculty.washington.edu/dwhm/...orth-the-cost/

That is a lot of waste. Unless they can get it down to about 5% loss, or we get nuclear fusion worknig, I'm not sure this is a good idea.

I own an electric car, and plug it in pretty much daily at my office. At home, I plug it in on occasion. Every electric car owner recognizes the (minimal) effort it takes to plug in the car, a task ICE owners don't have (never mind gas station trips). Purchasing a wireless charger for work or home eliminates the single electric car hassle. Wireless is a big deal. It is a matter of time before I buy one or two, and don't have a good reason why I haven't.

My level 2 wired charger at home cost about $2,000, the price has dropped over the last few years, as will the wireless. Don't be surprised if wireless becomes standard.

The parasitic load on your house is a significant portion of your power use, as is the gas to heat your home when you are out, the gas used to drive to the gas station, it goes on and on. Put a device behind your DVR to see how much power those suckers are pulling, you would be disgusted.

Absolutely, there is some power loss associated with a wireless charger, but there is line loss in every single electronic device you own. Our waste is high, in general, across the board.

If I lose (with current technology, based on your quote) 12%, that is 12% on about $20/month in electric charges it takes to drive my car. In other words, $2.40/month for a significant pain in the but to go away. This is literally, a kWh/day.

I often laugh at these articles.

[opendoor]

Yeah, I don't know that 12% loss is a huge deal. On the Nissan Leaf they're referencing, it means it goes from 19 KW/100 km to 21 KW/100km. The additional energy used in a year of driving 20K km is about 400 Kw/hr. Switching a couple of heavily used 60w bulbs to LED would save that much alone in a year. Or having one fewer cable box plugged in. Or a family of 4 each reducing their shower length by 1 minute each.

[GGG]

Aren't natural gas powered EVs only about 12-15% more ghg efficient than ICEs for equivalent vehicles once line losses in distribution are taken into account?

So doesn't wireless charging kill the greenness of the tech

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by GGG

Aren't natural gas powered EVs only about 12-15% more ghg efficient than ICEs for equivalent vehicles once line losses in distribution are taken into account?

So doesn't wireless charging kill the greenness of the tech

I thought it was more like 40% more efficient.

That said the GHG emissions are certainly dictated by how the electricity is generated. In West Virginia where 96% of electricity is generated by coal, an electric car emits about 50% more than a hybrid and probably about 30% more than efficient smaller vehicles. On the other hand in Washington state, hybrids produce about 8 times the emissions of an EV and normal cars about 10 times.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

A good summary of the original report.

Is it fair to say that the timing of this shift will be uncertain and it will roll out unevenly across the world but that this shift is underway and driven by market forces?

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Is Canada ready for a world awash in $0 oil...

I think that its important to realize that this $0 oil may not come to pass...but are Albertans prepared for this possibility?

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Is Canada ready for a world awash in $0 oil...

I think that its important to realize that this $0 oil may not come to pass...but are Albertans prepared for this possibility?

I have come to realize that my time working in Oil & Gas has probably come to an end. I'm already preparing for life after oil.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I really wish they wouldn't do those sorts of comparisons. It's "car vs car shaped transportation object". Without being in it you can't really understand that it's a totally different feeling. And if you're an enthusiast, it's not a feeling you particularly want. You might as well be comparing a car to a bullet train. There's a reason they call it (and the NSX for that matter) "driving your laptop".

A rather hilariously disparaging anachronistic view, and one I don't doubt our great great grandfathers had when the horseless carriage came out as they lamented the fact that it's not a worthy mode of transport unless you get a waft of manure from the front.

Many exotic super/hypercar manufacturers are already incorporating electric engines into their cars to capitalize on the obvious acceleration benefits, not to mention high level computer controls to improve handling. Some already permit electric only mode, and its only a matter of time before they officially produce a pure electric.

Cost aside, I don't think many true performance enthusiasts would choose a 350Z "sports car" over the fast laptop toaster on wheels, but to each their own. Your future kids will understand.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Many exotic super/hypercar manufacturers are already incorporating electric engines into their cars to capitalize on the obvious acceleration benefits, not to mention high level computer controls to improve handling.

Yes, some of them are, the epitome of which is the car I mentioned: the Acura NSX. Which everyone acknowledges is very quick and very precise, but about which the general consensus is it's not much fun.

Meanwhile, arguably the most talked about hypercar being released in the near future is the new Ford GT... which has none of that stuff, and is as a result a more engaging to drive. Even that though (for me and many others) is too much "race car" and not enough "sports car".

Cost aside, I don't think many true performance enthusiasts would choose a 350Z "sports car" over the fast laptop toaster on wheels, but to each their own. Your future kids will understand.

The total cost for a Model S is about $100,000*, so you're actually currently competing with - as sports cars go - a 911 Carrera S, an Alfa Romeo 4C, Jaguar F type S with a supercharger, a fully loaded Corvette Z06, even a Viper. Go ask in the general automotive thread which of those cars people would prefer to drive for fun compared to the Tesla. My answer is all of them.

*EDIT: I looked closer at the website. That $100,000 cost is for the 75 or 75D model, which are in the high 5's in 0-60 times. In other words, more than a full second slower than my 370z (we'll ignore the cost difference and the obvious difference in handling and road feel). If you want the P100D they're testing there you're up around $200,000. The sheer volume of "more fun" cars that exist at that price range are too numerous to type out.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Yeah, I don't know that 12% loss is a huge deal. On the Nissan Leaf they're referencing, it means it goes from 19 KW/100 km to 21 KW/100km. The additional energy used in a year of driving 20K km is about 400 Kw/hr. Switching a couple of heavily used 60w bulbs to LED would save that much alone in a year. Or having one fewer cable box plugged in. Or a family of 4 each reducing their shower length by 1 minute each.

You're suggesting that powering a car for a year is about 8x what you'd save by switching a couple bulbs to LED?

Come on.

I honestly don't know how much electricity it takes to power an EV for a year, and have been meaning to look into it, but I am having trouble buying this post.

(you compared the 12% bleed to the bulb, implying that the total power for the car is 8x that)

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Yeah, I don't know that 12% loss is a huge deal. On the Nissan Leaf they're referencing, it means it goes from 19 KW/100 km to 21 KW/100km. The additional energy used in a year of driving 20K km is about 400 Kw/hr. Switching a couple of heavily used 60w bulbs to LED would save that much alone in a year. Or having one fewer cable box plugged in. Or a family of 4 each reducing their shower length by 1 minute each.

400 kWh is still a significant amount of power, but I drive closer to 12,000 km/year.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yes, some of them are, the epitome of which is the car I mentioned: the Acura NSX. Which everyone acknowledges is very quick and very precise, but about which the general consensus is it's not much fun.

Meanwhile, arguably the most talked about hypercar being released in the near future is the new Ford GT... which has none of that stuff, and is as a result a more engaging to drive. Even that though (for me and many others) is too much "race car" and not enough "sports car".

The total cost for a Model S is about $100,000*, so you're actually currently competing with - as sports cars go - a 911 Carrera S, an Alfa Romeo 4C, Jaguar F type S with a supercharger, a fully loaded Corvette Z06, even a Viper. Go ask in the general automotive thread which of those cars people would prefer to drive for fun compared to the Tesla. My answer is all of them.

*EDIT: I looked closer at the website. That $100,000 cost is for the 75 or 75D model, which are in the high 5's in 0-60 times. In other words, more than a full second slower than my 370z (we'll ignore the cost difference and the obvious difference in handling and road feel). If you want the P100D they're testing there you're up around $200,000. The sheer volume of "more fun" cars that exist at that price range are too numerous to type out.

Sure there may be something to real purist driving cars (the frugal example is the Miata) and maybe an EV won't quicken the pulse in the same way (imagine autonomous vehicles...no fun left at all).

But that is not a major trend...it's much more likely that driving for pleasure will become an increasingly niche activity (like driving a manual transmission car or a motorcycle).

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I think it already is a reasonably niche trend, and I agree with you, trending more so. The whole point wasn't to suggest that that was somehow a reason that EV's won't catch on. Far from it. It was responding to the motor trend comparison between the RS7 and the Tesla on the quality of the driving experience. That's all.

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by bossy22

this is true. It's known that you shouldn't use superchargers regularly. To keep your battery life extended, limit supercharger use. So only for road trips. Also, charge between 50 and 80% the majority of the time. And in winter, warm up your car. If you follow those rules, your battery can last a long time. My buddy's roadster has only had a 10% degradation in his battery over the past 8 years.
Some people want free power and were charging at superchargers all of the time. With our car, we get free unlimited supercharging. With new models, tesla is giving credits/year 400kwh which equates to approx 1000 miles. So you are limited to how much you can use them. After that you have to pay. 24cents/minute above 60kw, and 19 cents/minute below 60kw. This is to help keep battery life extended, as well as pay for all of these new chargers going in.
We've only had our car for a year and half and it's testing at 100%. We follow the recommend guidelines, and i fully expect to get 10 years out of the battery.

I don't know how tesla is dealing with the degraded batteries. They have a 8 year unlimited warranty, so i imagine tesla will just have to replace them.

too complicated, keep burning gas!

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You're suggesting that powering a car for a year is about 8x what you'd save by switching a couple bulbs to LED?

Come on.

I honestly don't know how much electricity it takes to power an EV for a year, and have been meaning to look into it, but I am having trouble buying this post.

(you compared the 12% bleed to the bulb, implying that the total power for the car is 8x that)

Well, the caveat was that they were heavily used bulbs, like exterior lights that are left on all night or perhaps kitchen lights that are on most of the time. But yeah, that's basically what EVs use for power.

The Nissan Leaf uses 18.7 KWh/100 km (even less if primarily used in urban areas), so someone who drives 20K km a year will use about 3740 KWh in a year of driving.

As for the bulbs, lets say you replace sixteen 65W flood or pot lights with 10W LEDs, that's 0.88 KWh of energy savings every hour they're run. So to get to 3740 KWh a year they'd need to run 11.6 hours a day. So you're not going to get that if it's a powder room light that's on 30 minutes a day, but for main lights in a house or if you have exterior lights that are left on at night then it's more realistic.