Split Replacing ICE cars with Hybrid or Electric: Pros and Cons

[Jarhyn]

There is a minimal amount of resistance and loss between the magnets on the generator and the magnets on the motors of an IC-EV. ...
It's the same force of the engine but transmitted along a copper wire by pushing only electrons, without also having to push around protons.

The railroads figured this out a hundred years ago.

So, I might note one challenge often presented with electric drive trains is that I think they are currently badly designed: parts that MUST be manufactured with LOW failure rates and HIGH importance should be user replaceable INCLUDING electronic components, as individual components. Wrecking a board shouldn't scrap your FETs, and there should be no vital need for a microcontroller unless you want one.

Ideally the drive train mechanism should be representable with a logic as simple as the control of a steering wheel, brakes, (force request normal) accelerator, and "scalar" (shifter), and this should ideally be a sturdy circuit that can be built on a breadboard by a college student using components that could be built as easily at the local university, as in a fab in china, as regards normal deployment.

As regards an argument from @Toni I think there is no reason this system needs to be more complex than it must be, and it should be fully maintainable with the knowledge level of the average mechanic.

It just means that knowledge of transaxles becomes knowledge of the drive bus, knowledge of differentials becomes knowledge of differential amps, etc.

It's terrifyingly similar, assuming the same folks as teach mechanics started teaching electromechanics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think as far as reliability goes, nothing beats an EV with a built in IC generator.

Nothing will ever beat it.

Even if we move to post-Fischer-Tropsch captured hydrocarbons, we will still want that immediate portability and injectability of liquid fuels, because we can make and store them with renewable electricity now, and we can do so quasi-passively.

What makes the most sense is to charge batteries for vehicles as much as possible on clean and renewable sources, and then bridge reliability gaps with an IC generator on the EV itself

This, although my thought is the IC generator should be something that's attached if needed, not built-in.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Peanuts? Isn't it a $10+k premium for the plug-in part compared to the Rav-4?

Fair point; but we ran the numbers before we bought it and it looked like the gas savings will cover that, no issue.

Even at $4 a gallon, 75,000 miles to break even (ignoring inflation), and that is excluding what I'm assuming was something installed at home to feed electricity to the car's charge.

Regardless, I like the concept of the Rav-4 / Volt more than an all electric.

 

[bilby]

I think as far as reliability goes, nothing beats an EV with a built in IC generator.

Nothing will ever beat it.

Even if we move to post-Fischer-Tropsch captured hydrocarbons, we will still want that immediate portability and injectability of liquid fuels, because we can make and store them with renewable electricity now, and we can do so quasi-passively.

What makes the most sense is to charge batteries for vehicles as much as possible on clean and renewable sources, and then bridge reliability gaps with an IC generator on the EV itself

You could skip the pathetic energy storage of chemistry (whether in batteries or hydrocarbons), and make nuclear powered vehicles, whose factory installed fuel will last the lifetime of the vehicle, and so would never need refueling.











Yeah, I have a reputation to maintain as a crazy nuclear power advocate. But it’s not a completely crazy idea. It isn’t currently practical for road vehicles, but it’s a great idea for ships. Independence from refuelling is one of the big advantages of nuclear power for naval vessels, whose range is now limited only by how much food they are physically able to carry.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think as far as reliability goes, nothing beats an EV with a built in IC generator.

Nothing will ever beat it.

Even if we move to post-Fischer-Tropsch captured hydrocarbons, we will still want that immediate portability and injectability of liquid fuels, because we can make and store them with renewable electricity now, and we can do so quasi-passively.

What makes the most sense is to charge batteries for vehicles as much as possible on clean and renewable sources, and then bridge reliability gaps with an IC generator on the EV itself

You could skip the pathetic energy storage of chemistry (whether in batteries or hydrocarbons), and make nuclear powered vehicles, whose factory installed fuel will last the lifetime of the vehicle, and so would never need refueling.











Yeah, I have a reputation to maintain as a crazy nuclear power advocate. But it’s not a completely crazy idea. It isn’t currently practical for road vehicles, but it’s a great idea for ships. Independence from refuelling is one of the big advantages of nuclear power for naval vessels, whose range is now limited only by how much food they are physically able to carry.

Ships yes, absolutely. Right until someone decides to lodge a nuke in a straight.

Nuclear naval vessels make sense because of the responsibility level on such.

Nuclear shipping vessels only make sense if we want to see pain, and gnashing of teeth

 

[bilby]

I think as far as reliability goes, nothing beats an EV with a built in IC generator.

Nothing will ever beat it.

Even if we move to post-Fischer-Tropsch captured hydrocarbons, we will still want that immediate portability and injectability of liquid fuels, because we can make and store them with renewable electricity now, and we can do so quasi-passively.

What makes the most sense is to charge batteries for vehicles as much as possible on clean and renewable sources, and then bridge reliability gaps with an IC generator on the EV itself

You could skip the pathetic energy storage of chemistry (whether in batteries or hydrocarbons), and make nuclear powered vehicles, whose factory installed fuel will last the lifetime of the vehicle, and so would never need refueling.











Yeah, I have a reputation to maintain as a crazy nuclear power advocate. But it’s not a completely crazy idea. It isn’t currently practical for road vehicles, but it’s a great idea for ships. Independence from refuelling is one of the big advantages of nuclear power for naval vessels, whose range is now limited only by how much food they are physically able to carry.

Ships yes, absolutely. Right until someone decides to lodge a nuke in a straight.

I assume you mean “strait”. And I assume you are thinking of Hollywood nuclear power, that explodes like the Tsar Bomba if you look at it funny, and not real nuclear power, which would pose a lower environmental risk in such circumstances than current oil fueled vessels already do.

Nuclear naval vessels make sense because of the responsibility level on such.

No, they make sense because the military can simply say “fuck off, hippy” to anyone who has irrational reasons for opposing their ability to go wherever they feel the need to go.

Nuclear shipping vessels only make sense if we want to see pain, and gnashing of teeth

?

Nuclear shipping vessels are vastly better on every level for human safety and the environment than current vessels.

The gnashing of teeth, by fearful and ignorant people who don’t know or want to know what they are opposing, is literally the only thing that makes nuclear shipping less desirable than current shipping.

 

[Toni]

Would you have to scrap the car or would it go into the hands of someone who can only afford an 18 yr old car?

There's nothing wrong with the car, so it would seem wasteful beyond absurdity to scrap it. It would almost certainly be given or sold to somebody- (possibly a niece or nephew)-who I assume would use it. And then I would replace the car I'd given away with a new car with new manufacturing costs and materials and the rare earth elements that have to be mined to put in it.

I would think the more electric cars in actual use the better. Your present car has only a few more years of life left in it. Too many variables to think long and hard on.

If electric cars didn't have an environmental cost to manufacture, sure, yet they surely do have that cost.

We also tend to keep our cars until they can't go anymore. My son is driving my old car (now his) that is 17+ years old and going strong. He plans to drive it until it isn't operational any longer. I purchased it in the first place because it got good mileage and was reliable. At the time, I purchased a new model of the same car. I chose not to purchase a hybrid because, given the way I thought I would be driving, I could not justify the additional cost with what, at that time reviews told me, would be minimal fuel efficiency since at the time, almost all of my driving was longer distance highway miles, 100 miles/day when I was working. At least at that time, hybrids were much more efficient and made sense if you were mostly driving short distances in town. That was such a tiny portion of my driving at the time, it didn't make sense and I couldn't justify the additional cost. I decided to retire a bit earlier than I had anticipated and now, a hybrid would probably make sense as most of my driving is short distance in town, and that not very frequently. However my husband needed to replace his vehicle and purchased a hybrid with a self-charging battery: no plug in. So far, he loves it and it's quite fuel efficient.

All of that is well and good but like you, I am also cognizant of the fact that there is a significant environmental cost to manufacturing any vehicle. Here's an article that details some of the issues:

Developing countries pay environmental cost of electric car batteries

Global consumers are warming up to electric cars, whose sales are expected to jump from 3 million vehicles in 2017 to 23 million in 2030, according to the International Energy Agency. Similar growth is expected for rechargeable batteries, with the market for cathode – the positive electrode of...

unctad.org

 

[Toni]

Something that bothers me about replacements is the seeming downplaying of total environmental cost (as compared to carbon cost).

My car is 18 years old, and my brother in law is encouraging me to buy an electric vehicle. But what about my current vehicle? There's nothing wrong with it. Surely all the steel and energy that went into its manufacture needs to be counted, and all the energy (and lithium) that goes into an electric vehicle needs to be counted.
Surely it would be better, in terms of total environmental cost, to run my car until it is goes absolutely kaput?

Depends on emissions.

EDIT: And surely the same with many other appliances, like fridges? Surely keeping an inefficient fridge going is a lower total environmental cost than buying a brand new one. Either you will sell or give away your old fridge for its inefficiency to be used by someone else, or it will go to landfill, with all the materials (and refrigerant) with it.

These are viable arguments, but I just get the feeling that you are using them as excuses. Also, are older fridges that much more inefficient?

Reduce, reuse, recycle. Reduce is the biggest component here as it limits needing to waste energy recycling.

Personally, I'm not sold on electric vehicles. The tether is an issue for me. Get a vehicle with low emissions and very good mileage. I wish the hybrid system could have worked out, but it kind of was abandoned. The Prius got you up there in mileage and had seating for four.

We have a hybrid van with seating for 6.

 

[Rhea]

Data shows that about 75% of the emissions are from less than 20% of the cars.

So yes, it’s a good thing for the environment to get those old cars off the road (or upgraded).

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

One good thing about all electric. You don't have to worry about catalytic coverter thieves.