Zero-emission vehicles, their batteries & subsidies/rebates for them.- No politics regarding the subsidies!

[j_j]

Ideally, you'd have a level-2 charger at your destination. That way, you could arrive "on empty" and have a "full tank" in the morning. Otherwise, you'd have to Supercharge in Bozeman (both coming and going).

(Destination charging is an amenity we should begin to expect every hotel and airbnb to provide. You wouldn't book a hotel that didn't provide Wifi, would you?)

Have you ever been to Gardiner? The good news is that it is very convenient to Yellowstone. The bad news is that the entire town barely has internet service, at the end of an 80 mile long cable.

But I understand your point. Fast charging in Bozeman both ways leaves you no miles to go into the park, which is frankly the only reason one visits Gardiner. Inside the park, most of the areas have no power, and in some of the big visitor areas, it's still 110 (not 120). Seriously. And adding infrastructure to areas that may just decide to sink, rise, or become a boiling pool is no mean feat.

But I admit this is the edge case.

 

[samsa]

Have you ever been to Gardiner? The good news is that it is very convenient to Yellowstone. The bad news is that the entire town barely has internet service, at the end of an 80 mile long cable.

But I understand your point. Fast charging in Bozeman both ways leaves you no miles to go into the park, which is frankly the only reason one visits Gardiner. Inside the park, most of the areas have no power, and in some of the big visitor areas, it's still 110 (not 120). Seriously. And adding infrastructure to areas that may just decide to sink, rise, or become a boiling pool is no mean feat.

Umh, well, according to the PlugShare App, there's at least one Destination Charger (two J1772 chargers, open 24/7) in Gardiner MT (308 W. Park St). If I read the entry correctly, charging is even free at that location.

 

[j_j]

Umh, well, according to the PlugShare App, there's at least one Destination Charger (two J1772 chargers, open 24/7) in Gardiner MT (308 W. Park St). If I read the entry correctly, charging is even free at that location.

That's a start. Expect about 6000 tourists wanting it.

 

[samsa]

That's a start. Expect about 6000 tourists wanting it.

I guess that's the advantage of being an early EV-adopter: shorter queues for charging.

(Just FYI: J1772 is a "level-2" charger — 240V/30A — which will net you ~28 mi/hr.)

 

[j_j]

I guess that's the advantage of being an early EV-adopter: shorter queues for charging.

(Just FYI: J1772 is a "level-2" charger — 240V/30A — which will net you ~28 mi/hr.)

(grin) So about 8 hours minimum for a day in the park. This is, in the larger scheme of things, not impossible, but the infrastructure has to come around.

I wonder if a turbine/secondary generator built into a hybrid could do this kind of thing. Run off of petrol/jp2/jp4 or the like only if necessary.
How efficient would that be, I wonder. (Has to do secondary recovery, obviously.)

 

[Blumlein 88]

(grin) So about 8 hours minimum for a day in the park. This is, in the larger scheme of things, not impossible, but the infrastructure has to come around.

I wonder if a turbine/secondary generator built into a hybrid could do this kind of thing. Run off of petrol/jp2/jp4 or the like only if necessary.
How efficient would that be, I wonder. (Has to do secondary recovery, obviously.)

Mazda is supposed to be making a mostly electric SUV which will have a small, very high rpm rotary engine as a range extender. They are claiming high efficiency which is odd as the rotary engine in the past has poor efficiency inherent in the way it works.

 

[EJ3]

Long journeys imply highway driving at higher speeds. Unfortunately the range of electrical vehicles is a lot worse at those speeds, and often no more than about 250 km. We use our car mostly for long drives, such as from the Netherlands to the South of France or Italy. My wife and I typically drive some 2-2.5 hours each, and after 400-500 km we take a break for stretching our legs, fuellling the car and something to eat for ourselves. So with current range figures we would have to have twice as many breaks to recharge. That is not a disaster, but it increases journey time, and all the more so since you do not want to compensate by driving full blast on the Autobahn if you want any serious range.
I am convinced our next car will be an EV, but not quite yet, even though I like their big V8 like driving sensation from all that torque. For now, we have invested our money for eco projects in a serious home insulation project (we already had solar panels) and are now waiting for the supply of heat pumps to have improved (I cannot even get a quote right now, such is the shortage). We did manage to buy an induction cooker, and it is great even if the savings on natural gas are only small.

I'm late to this thread but I'll say categorically that our next car will be an all-electric EV. However I see that purchase 2-3 years away.

I live in southern Ontario and recharging stations are fairly plentiful, nevertheless I indent to have a home charging station involved though that may cost a couple of thousand CAN. As I see it, 98% of the driving we do will anxiety free as far as recharging is concerned.

Is it the case the rapid charging isn't very good for battery longevity? Is it t the same for charging above 80% capacity as I've heard.

Warning: discussion flag here. I consider government purchase subsidies to be logically justified and not necessarily a political issue. The economic concept is "externalities", in this case, a positive externality: that is, a move to EVs is a public benefit regardless of whether current EV purchase prices are directly competitive with IC vehicles. (EVs will cost less in the long run due to lower maintenance as well as lower energy cost.)

In any case, I hope more and cheaper EVs will come along before I'm ready to buy as new car, (2-3 years). I'd love a Tesla Model 3 but that's over CAN 60k. At the limit of my budget right now would be the Hyundai IONIQ 5 at CAN 48k less 5k Federal rebate plus taxes -- a nice looking car, IMO.

And for those of us who live on an Island in the Western Pacific (Oceana [where gas is only 2 times more expensive than in the USA but electricity is 7 times more expensive than in the USA] {Air Con runs 24 7 as the outdoor temperature is never below 74 F (24 C), the average wage is $3.40 an hour & their are only 975 people living here). Who will pay for all this solar & wind power in order to have incredibly expensive electric cars. We have a system that works very well: import the ICE car, import the gas. Now what? Import cars that we cannot & will likely never be able to power? For people on a continent, this may be a good solution, but when your nearest source for anything is 800-1200 miles across the water... We have no rivers to make hydroelectric, I guess someone with enough money could build us a nuclear plant but we would be indebted forever. Electric cars: seems to me a first world problem of people who are not thinking about people who fish for a living (how will we power electric fishing vessels, do not manufacture anything & do not have any monetary wealth. I guess that we will have to completely cover our island with solar panels & of shore wind mills (completely destroying our environment [and again, who will pay for all this]}. Maybe we'll have to go back to using water buffalo to pull a cart to get around.

 

[j_j]

Mazda is supposed to be making a mostly electric SUV which will have a small, very high rpm rotary engine as a range extender. They are claiming high efficiency which is odd as the rotary engine in the past has poor efficiency inherent in the way it works.

More to the point, Wankel rotary engines have huge apex seal problems, and it's inherent in the design. I wonder if it's some other rotary engine, or a turbine?

And I don't want QUITE an SUV but we shall see. (Currently driving a Mazda 3 skyactiv that gets 30 in town and 40 on the highway.)

 

[Blumlein 88]

More to the point, Wankel rotary engines have huge apex seal problems, and it's inherent in the design. I wonder if it's some other rotary engine, or a turbine?

And I don't want QUITE an SUV but we shall see. (Currently driving a Mazda 3 skyactiv that gets 30 in town and 40 on the highway.)

It is the upcoming MX30, and it is a Wankel rotary which will be small, run at high rpm and fixed speed, fixed throttle.

Mazda MX-30 Rotary Range Extender: Why I'm Looking Forward To 2023

An electric Mazda MX-30 with a Rotary Range Extender is coming soon-- here's Why I'm Looking Forward To 2023!

cleantechnica.com

Way down in this second link is more info. Mostly claims with little specifics.

Mazda Might Actually Be Onto Something - CleanTechnica

When I heard the rotary was coming back, I was skeptical. It has a history of poor efficiency and bad emissions. But Mazda might be right about the rotary.

cleantechnica.com

 

[BostonJack]

Currently driving a Scion FRS which gets 30 to 35 mpg by soft driving, which feels like an eco-crime now. I'm thinking of a Honda Accord Sport Hybrid as my next vehicle, practical, 55 mpg, frees me from the recharging near nightmare (especially for an apartment dweller, like me.)

On the good side, my driving has fallen from ~16,000 miles per year to ~6000 miles per year during the pandemic and that looks like a major and permanent change.

I think I can get my fuel consumption down to ~100 gallons per year without a major change and without an EV.

 

[j_j]

It is the upcoming MX30, and it is a Wankel rotary which will be small, run at high rpm and fixed speed, fixed throttle.

Mazda MX-30 Rotary Range Extender: Why I'm Looking Forward To 2023

An electric Mazda MX-30 with a Rotary Range Extender is coming soon-- here's Why I'm Looking Forward To 2023!

cleantechnica.com

Way down in this second link is more info. Mostly claims with little specifics.

Mazda Might Actually Be Onto Something - CleanTechnica

When I heard the rotary was coming back, I was skeptical. It has a history of poor efficiency and bad emissions. But Mazda might be right about the rotary.

cleantechnica.com

Interesting. Yes, running only at optimum speed could make the wankel a bit better. I still wonder about the apex seals.

But yes, the size and shape make it much easier to stash away than a 3 cylinder Geo Metro engine and you get high rotation speed at low torque, which could drive a rather lighter generator, too, especially one rectified to DC immediately. Maybe quadrature rectification

 

[Blumlein 88]

Interesting. Yes, running only at optimum speed could make the wankel a bit better. I still wonder about the apex seals.

But yes, the size and shape make it much easier to stash away than a 3 cylinder Geo Metro engine and you get high rotation speed at low torque, which could drive a rather lighter generator, too, especially one rectified to DC immediately. Maybe quadrature rectification

The high speed may be better for the Wankel apex seals. The consensus on later Wankel engines is the apex seals get good lubrication at higher rpm. Most premature apex seal wear is caused by overly conservative driving where the engine rarely sees high rpm operation (below 3000 rpm was considered bad). If so, running at a fixed high rpm may make apex seals a non-issue. The rotary is also more efficient at higher rpm.

 

[samsa]

And for those of us who live on an Island in the Western Pacific (Oceana [where gas is only 2 times more expensive than in the USA but electricity is 7 times more expensive than in the USA]

In other words, a place where the cost per mile of an EV is still cheaper than an ICE vehicle. Here in Texas, where gasoline is relatively cheap, figure $0.16/mile to fuel an ICE vehicle, whereas it costs ~$0.04/mile to charge an EV.

You can do this calculation yourself:

(gas price/liter)/(km/liter)

versus

(0.15 kWhr/km)*(electricity price/kWhr).

{Air Con runs 24 7 as the outdoor temperature is never below 74 F (24 C), the average wage is $3.40 an hour & their are only 975 people living here). Who will pay for all this solar & wind power in order to have incredibly expensive electric cars.

Why do you need an EV with > 300 miles of range? The Chinese are making a plethora of cheaper EVs, with lower ranges, which sound more appropriate to life on an island.

We have a system that works very well: import the ICE car, import the gas. Now what? Import cars that we cannot & will likely never be able to power? For people on a continent, this may be a good solution, but when your nearest source for anything is 800-1200 miles across the water... We have no rivers to make hydroelectric, I guess someone with enough money could build us a nuclear plant but we would be indebted forever. Electric cars: seems to me a first world problem of people who are not thinking about people who fish for a living (how will we power electric fishing vessels, do not manufacture anything & do not have any monetary wealth. I guess that we will have to completely cover our island with solar panels & of shore wind mills (completely destroying our environment [and again, who will pay for all this]}. Maybe we'll have to go back to using water buffalo to pull a cart to get around.

Again, solar + offshore wind + battery storage are ideal for Oceana. Yes, there are up-front costs (a lot lower than for nuclear), but then the operating costs are near zero.

Long-term, how can shipping petroleum from halfway around the world possibly be more cost-effective?

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

A real sign I saw in a Chicago (Lincoln Park) parking deck (that, like many parking decks in civilized parts of the world today, has EV chargers available):

View attachment 211440

Still, I agree: in terms of fire risk I’m pretty confident sitting atop a battery is safer than sitting atop a tank and tubing containing inflammable liquefied algae corpses….




No. That’s the recommended regular charge. I’m not sure why people are so bent on spreading misinformation to champion obsolete technologies. Join a tubes n’ vinyl forum maybe?



We can and have done that in both our cars (Model 3 LR RWD, Model Y 7 seat LR AWD).

We agree the regular maximum charge is 80%?
Do we agree manufacturers’ say exceeding the 80% recommended charge will shorten battery life?
We are on vacation and our apartment has no charging points our return journey would increase the needed range to 440 miles, are you saying your Teslas’ would cover that distance without recharging?
The local supermarket has free charging points, however read an article recently where a motoring journalist plugged his EV into a supermarket charger. Did his shopping, had a coffee waited for a further 40 minutes, the charge added 10 miles. Can’t comment on the situation in the US and elsewhere, in the UK EVs aren’t an all round solution.

 

[samsa]

We agree the regular maximum charge is 80%?

No. That's wrong.

It's misunderstanding the instructions for lithium ion batteries (see below), and does not apply at all to LFP batteries.

Do we agree manufacturers’ say exceeding the 80% recommended charge will shorten battery life?

No. Leaving the battery at > 90% SoC will shorten its life. No problem charging to 100% and then driving away.

We are on vacation and our apartment has no charging points our return journey would increase the needed range to 440 miles, are you saying your Teslas’ would cover that distance without recharging?

Your round-trip is 440 miles and there are no fast-charging options available anywhere along your route? In the UK? Really? Have you looked at the map? (That's just Tesla, of course. The map in the PlugShare app has much more extensive charging options. I'd have to work very hard to find a 220 mile stretch of road in the UK without any fast-charging options along it.)

The local supermarket has free charging points, however read an article recently where a motoring journalist plugged his EV into a supermarket charger. Did his shopping, had a coffee waited for a further 40 minutes, the charge added 10 miles. Can’t comment on the situation in the US and elsewhere, in the UK EVs aren’t an all round solution.

 

[Blumlein 88]

We agree the regular maximum charge is 80%?
Do we agree manufacturers’ say exceeding the 80% recommended charge will shorten battery life?
We are on vacation and our apartment has no charging points our return journey would increase the needed range to 440 miles, are you saying your Teslas’ would cover that distance without recharging?
The local supermarket has free charging points, however read an article recently where a motoring journalist plugged his EV into a supermarket charger. Did his shopping, had a coffee waited for a further 40 minutes, the charge added 10 miles. Can’t comment on the situation in the US and elsewhere, in the UK EVs aren’t an all round solution.

No charging to 100% hurts nothing if you then use the charged battery. Plenty of Teslas have been in use in Europe now as taxis. All charging is rapid charging to 100% and many have exceeded 125,000 to 150,000 miles on the original battery. You seem intent on looking for a problem where none exists.

Even if you don't have a charger you need now will it stay that way? No there will be one soon if there isn't one already.

Really, really strange people's resistance to EVs now that they are rather practical and will be increasingly so in the near future.

 

[JJB70]

The beauty about a range extender ICE is that if properly designed it should be possible to design it to run at optimum efficiency, getting much better mileage out of the petrol used. For that application a small Wankel would be excellent. I remember the old RX-8, that was a terrific car, as long as you didn't mind keeping revs high and using the gear box it was great. Needed a lot of oil though.
For many applications a range extender or PHEV is still an excellent solution. In the UK average mileage is typically around 25 - 30 miles per day, well within the range of modern PHEVs with long range available for occasional trips. There's an argument that at the moment that may well be a better use of batteries than buying a car with 300 miles plus range for emergencies and that once a year vacation or whatever. Here in Singapore, unless you're a taxi driver or delivery driver a range of 30 - 40 miles is pretty much all that is needed if people really want a car. Though personally I can't see the point with such a superb public transport system.

 

[EJ3]

In other words, a place where the cost per mile of an EV is still cheaper than an ICE vehicle. Here in Texas, where gasoline is relatively cheap, figure $0.16/mile to fuel an ICE vehicle, whereas it costs ~$0.04/mile to charge an EV.

You can do this calculation yourself:

(gas price/liter)/(km/liter)

versus

(0.15 kWhr/km)*(electricity price/kWhr).



Why do you need an EV with > 300 miles of range? The Chinese are making a plethora of cheaper EVs, with lower ranges, which sound more appropriate to life on an island.


Again, solar + offshore wind + battery storage are ideal for Oceana. Yes, there are up-front costs (a lot lower than for nuclear), but then the operating costs are near zero.

Long-term, how can shipping petroleum from halfway around the world possibly be more cost-effective?

Don't need 300 mile range but have had scheduled rolling black outs for many years. There cannot be enough tax money to do solar & wind. Maybe over a 50 year period, their could be. Every thing (wood, cement for concrete, food) here is imported. Most vehicles are 4 cyl pick up trucks which are used as station wagons (many people in the bed). The majority of vehicles are mopeds & scooters. And most people are living on the edge. Cell phones are owned by less than 40% of the people. Computers even less. Internet at home? Very few people have that. If you get sick here (cancer or some other chronic disease) there is nothing that can be done for you here. You'll have to somehow get to Guam or the Philippines (and have insurance [a very unusual thing for anyone to have] to pay for your hospitalization). It's a vastly different life here than Europe, the USA, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, other industrialized countries. The power plant runs on diesel. I don't see the infrastructure for any more electric power happening without a lot of donations from NGO's or something like that.

 

[samsa]

There cannot be enough tax money to do solar & wind. Maybe over a 50 year period, their could be.

Power plant construction is invariably funded by bond issues, with the rate-payers repaying the loan over the course of subsequent decades.

The power plant runs on diesel.

And you say that, by contrast, wind and solar would "completely destroy[ing] our environment"?

Uh huh.

I don't see the infrastructure for any more electric power happening without a lot of donations from NGO's or something like that.

The typical life-expectancy of a diesel-fired power plant is about 25 years. Since yours is probably not brand-new, you'll be replacing it in the not-too-distant future, whether you want to or not.

For new power generation, solar is now cheaper/MWhr than any alternative.

 

[Gorgonzola]

And for those of us who live on an Island in the Western Pacific (Oceana [where gas is only 2 times more expensive than in the USA but electricity is 7 times more expensive than in the USA] {Air Con runs 24 7 as the outdoor temperature is never below 74 F (24 C), the average wage is $3.40 an hour & their are only 975 people living here). Who will pay for all this solar & wind power in order to have incredibly expensive electric cars. We have a system that works very well: import the ICE car, import the gas. Now what? Import cars that we cannot & will likely never be able to power? For people on a continent, this may be a good solution, but when your nearest source for anything is 800-1200 miles across the water... We have no rivers to make hydroelectric, I guess someone with enough money could build us a nuclear plant but we would be indebted forever. Electric cars: seems to me a first world problem of people who are not thinking about people who fish for a living (how will we power electric fishing vessels, do not manufacture anything & do not have any monetary wealth. I guess that we will have to completely cover our island with solar panels & of shore wind mills (completely destroying our environment [and again, who will pay for all this]}. Maybe we'll have to go back to using water buffalo to pull a cart to get around.

Courage, EJ3:

975 people aren't a problem anywhere, so -- come to that -- you can do whatever you like and no one need care. Sure, EVs are most relevant in places where there are a lot of vehicles the "1st world" be the prime instance.

OTOH, I'll bet you have sun and wind on your Pacific isle. One suspects that solar and wind might already be a cheaper alternative for you islanders than imported gasoline where it can be substituted.