News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by hoseja on Monday November 02, 2020 @04:03AM (#24966000)
Maybe when the charging speeds are in the megawatt range (equivalent of pumping gas).
Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by adrianN on Monday November 02, 2020 @06:33AM (#24966920)
The average car spends 23h a day parked somewhere. You just need to equip a largeish fraction of the parking spots with a charger. You don't need high currents, because most people drive less than 30kWh (~150km) a day, so a normal 220V 16A plug is more than sufficient. The only issue are long roadtrips, where high current chargers are needed, but they already exist. In 20 minutes you can recharge more than you can drive in two hours. You're supposed to take breaks anyway.
Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by bluGill on Monday November 02, 2020 @12:18PM (#24970513)
That makes things worse. Right now there are many fast fill gas pumps in my little city. If everyone is charging at home there is less demand and so those pumps go away - even for the rare long distance trip where the slow recharge isn't an option.

95% of the time you are correct, it would be just fine to charge in my garage and who cares if it takes 12 hours as the car isn't moving anyway. However a couple times a year I - like most people - take a longer trip and depends on the infrastructure that allows me to refill my car in a few minutes and get on my way.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by toomuchtodo on Monday November 02, 2020 @10:45PM (#24976095)
https://supercharge.info/map

With that said, electrical infrastructure is ubiquitous. You can install EV chargers anywhere there is power.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by bluGill on Tuesday November 03, 2020 @11:09AM (#24980882)
When I'm in some unknown location I'm not going to hire an electrician to put in a charging station where I happen to need one. I depend on one being there. However as I already said charge at home means refueling places become uneconomical and they out out of business meaning that even though it isn't hard to put a charging station anywhere that doesn't mean they will exist.

Of course what I'm lacking is knowing how much this will affect things long term. Right no charging stations are being installed on hope they are worth it, if this turns out to be false owners will start to tear them out.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by toomuchtodo on Tuesday November 03, 2020 @11:18AM (#24980967)
Business owners, land owners, and property managers are working with EV charging station partners to install chargers because EV owners spend money while charging. For example, Tesla colocates Superchargers at Meijer in the Midwest (a grocery store chain) and Wawa in Florida and on the East Coast (which isn't just a convenience store with bathrooms, but also makes sandwiches and such). There is a Wawa location in Vienna, VA that only has EV chargers [1], no petrol pumps. I'll agree that chargers aren't ubiquitous, yet, but they are being deployed rapidly. Tesla continues to own their Supercharger stations (and all associated equipment), and I've heard mostly positive reviews from business owners who provide Tesla destination (high power wall chargers) and J1772 Clipper Creek chargers to patrons.

It's a net positive if we push petroleum refueling stations out of business. They sell a harmful product that we're working to phase out rapidly through electrification of transportation, and there will be a cost to remove and remediate petroleum storage tanks that were used at these stations.

In short, the EV charging infra will be built, but if there's someplace you want to go that doesn't have chargers, make it known to those folks you're looking for that amenity (now, or in the future).

[1] https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/09/29/210091...

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by hedora on Monday November 02, 2020 @06:24PM (#24974667)
I recently drove a long way (24 driving hours) through multiple states in the southwestern US (deserts, scrubland, etc).

There was a Tesla charging station within walking distance of most of the places we stopped for gas, food or lodging. I don’t think the trip would have taken any additional planning with an EV.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by yholio on Monday November 02, 2020 @05:22AM (#24966462)
I think battery swap can be made to work and solve all these problems with the right economic structure that does not yet exist.

You have a battery pack that you own and maintain carefully, and you absolutely do not want to rent it out to anyone. So you use it day to day transport and charge slowly overnight, perfect to prolong life.

When time comes to make a long, cross country trip, you visit a swap center and deposit your battery, and switch to rented batteries for the duration of the trip, while paying a charge+rent fee. When you come back from the trip, your own battery is waiting for you at the same station, charged and stored in good conditions. Or, you can make the first leg of the journey on your own battery, then have it shipped back to a station near your home before you return; by necessity the network will have to perform rebalancing anyway for the rental stock.

I know Tesla demoed battery swap, but they were only interested in the associated subsidy and not keen on it because it requires a large stock of batteries that they had no capacity to produce in large quantities at the time. When safe and cheap batteries are available in quantity, they will pretty much be forced to revisit this model or face tough competition from charge networks that can handle swap.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by klondike_ on Monday November 02, 2020 @05:45AM (#24966601)
Battery swapping isn't practical with modern electric car design. In most EVs today, the battery is part of the structural frame of the car and can't be removed easily.

DC fast charging seems like a much more practical solution for the occasional cross country trip

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by yholio on Monday November 02, 2020 @06:52AM (#24967067)
That seems more like a practical engineering decision since battery swap is not yet widespread. There doesn't seem to be anything fundamental that prevents it and in fact Tesla retrofitted the idea for vehicles that were not initially designed with swap in mind.

It's either that fast charging attains exceptional safe speeds (i.e less than 5 minutes), or that competitive pressures will force electrics to embrace swap. The current status quo of waiting an hour for a full charge cannot stand on the long term; the lost productivity is so large that it completely dwarfs the costs of implementing the swap networks, so somebody is bound to package it in a consumer friendly product and pocket the profits.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by bluGill on Monday November 02, 2020 @12:29PM (#24970629)
engineering tradeoffs are important. By making the battery part of the car you can put more battery in, and you need less framework around the battery. This means integrated batteries have a larger capacity, and the car is more aerodynamic. (there is also less weight in not having to have a separate frame around the battery, but this is more than outweighed by the fact that you have more heavy batteries which means a heavier frame)
Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by yholio on Monday November 02, 2020 @07:06PM (#24974919)
A vehicle without battery that is just standing there on the swap platform waiting to get a fresh pack does not need a structurally sound frame. So while the battery is structurally important, it does not follow that non-swappable batteries are by default of a higher capacity; the same structural elements can be integrated in the swappable battery.

The only real margin is the swap hardware and any structural binding parts designed to pass loads towards the battery frame as if it was built in part of the fixed frame. True, it makes no sense to design and include those parts when swap is not on the market, so it's a tradeoff. But is it a salient tradeoff, does it make the car with the built-in battery significantly better? Only very marginally I would say.

The same for aerodynamics, there is really only one place to put a large battery pack, it's not like you can gain lots of design liberty by putting an unconventional shape battery in the bumper or in the roof. Swappability of the underside of the car has no impact on aerodynamics.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by bluGill on Tuesday November 03, 2020 @11:06AM (#24980850)
The structural needs of each car are different. If the battery can handle them all, then it is overbuilt and you can save enough by not being swapable to make your car cheaper (or give it longer range or some other trade off) so you won't do it. If you have a different battery for each car you can follow your plan, but then the logistics of handling all the different batteries means nobody has the right one for your car in stock.

There is only one place to put a large battery pack. However there are lots of places to put a smaller battery back. Or you can have a non-rectangular battery pack in that one place to better fit the room you have. Cars are about compromises, so a standard swapable battery pack will be smaller than the customized for the car one you can make. A tiny economy car doesn't have as much space as a large family car so plan is harmful to families that want to go on vacation as they have to stop more often.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by LarvaFX on Monday November 02, 2020 @04:08AM (#24966025)
Car charges overnight. Not wasting any more time on trips to the gas station. On longer trips, charge while eating.
Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by layoutIfNeeded on Monday November 02, 2020 @04:21AM (#24966115)
Most people don’t live in houses with garages where they can charge their car.
Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by londons_explore on Monday November 02, 2020 @04:49AM (#24966288)
Chargers will get cheap and public when electric cars become common.

In the same way street lights are pretty much everywhere today.

You could imagine a special type of paving stone that has a magsafe socket in, and you just pull a wire from your parked car to the kerb.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by lstodd on Monday November 02, 2020 @05:03AM (#24966351)
No way.

People can't get lousy fiber pulled to their houses and you're talking about multimegawatt electricity supply.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by londons_explore on Monday November 02, 2020 @05:07AM (#24966377)
I'm talking about slow chargers - the kind that are 60 amps or so AC. The kind that require no expensive electronics in the charger. The kind that'll take 12 hours for a full charge.

Fast DC chargers will always cost more due to the need for expensive power electronics.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by yholio on Monday November 02, 2020 @06:04AM (#24966720)
The issue is not power electronics, but power supply. You might have a 60 Amps grid supply, or even a 100Amps split phase 120/240V as is typical for newer US homes, which allows drawing 24KW from the grid at full power. Your neighbor might have the same.

But that doesn't mean everybody in your neighborhood can draw 24KW all night long. Those are maximal currents for intermittent loads like heaters, clothes driers etc. You might have a single 100KVA polemount transformer suppling a whole street and a single 15KV / 300Amp line servicing a whole neighborhood.

When everybody attempts to draw even 5-10KW in the air-conditioning season, you get circuit breaks because the main feed is incapable of supplying sufficient power. The upgrading will be done but it will take a decade or more, especially considering the push from local municipalities towards buried power feeds which are very expensive.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by adrianN on Monday November 02, 2020 @06:37AM (#24966956)
Electric cars consume about 20kWh/100km. If your whole neighborhood needs to draw double digit kilowatts for 10h a night, you live in a neighborhood of long distance truck drivers.
Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by im3w1l on Monday November 02, 2020 @11:35AM (#24969924)
Maybe it doesn't happen every night, but only some nights. Say when everyone comes home from thanksgiving with empty batteries.
Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by adrianN on Monday November 02, 2020 @11:49AM (#24970099)
If everyone wants to fill up their tank at once, the gas stations run out of gas. This doesn't happen with any regularity, which I take as an indicator that the scenario you're describing is very rare.
Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by im3w1l on Monday November 02, 2020 @12:27PM (#24970607)
The gas system has buffering and slack at many levels. Cars store more mileage. Gas stations have a buffer. Gas stations can request more trucks come refill much easier than a grid can be upgraded. I don't think you proved anything.
Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by adrianN on Monday November 02, 2020 @11:29PM (#24976297)
And yet runs on gas stations happen during crisis times and they do in fact run out of gas.
Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by yholio on Tuesday November 03, 2020 @10:00AM (#24980193)
Precisely, even with that significant slack, it still happens. How frequent will be the overloads in a system with no energy storage capacity, which is sized to handle the existing load peaks and already has infrequent overloads?

The average commute in the US is 50 Km per day and if that is the average it is reasonable to assume some communities will be highly correlated above average, for example if they are 40-50 Km away from a large economic hub, a large proportion of residents will drive the 100Km roundtrip per working day. The lower price of electric comute will prompt many residences to have two electric cars driving the average every working day, for a total, again, of 100Km = 20KWh. So double digit is not exceptional, it will be the average, an extra 3KW of power for each household for the entire night, assuming an outstandingly smart grid that can perfectly level off demand.

Combine that with rare events like hot nights and large movements, psychological reactions like panic, and you have an unreliable local supply that might trip every few months without expensive upgrades.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by Reason077 on Monday November 02, 2020 @06:38AM (#24966963)
Generally speaking, you don't need massive upgrades of local grid infrastructure to support electric vehicles.

There is plenty of capacity available, provided charging is spread out over the night and not concentrated at peak demand periods. You just need chargers that are smart enough to ensure this happens.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by lstodd on Monday November 02, 2020 @05:29AM (#24966505)
Even just +7 kVA per house means a complete rebuild of the grid.

1 MW would be enough for just ~150 chargers. And where would you get that megawatt at night? More base load, which means nuclear or fossil which means less niche for solar because no one would shut down such amount of base load generation each day.

Besides 60 amps isn't exactly cheap in electronics. It might not require active cooling for the cable and the battery, that's true.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by Reason077 on Monday November 02, 2020 @05:46AM (#24966607)
> "Even just +7 kVA per house means a complete rebuild of the grid."

Only if every car in your neighbourhood is plugged in and pulling 7 kW at the same time.

Smart charging solves this, by reducing charging during demand peaks (ie: 6pm when everyone is arriving home from work and plugging in at the same time), and increasing it later in the night when more capacity is available.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by lstodd on Monday November 02, 2020 @08:07AM (#24967746)
However you slice it, you have to deliver say 40KWh to that many cars overnight, or they fail to charge and thus are useless. So the grid has to handle that and even if you can get rid of extreme peaks with "smartness", you can't lower the cables and switches ratings much.
Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by Reason077 on Monday November 02, 2020 @08:19AM (#24967831)
First of all, the average car does not need 40 kWh every day. The average driver in the USA drives 13,500 miles per year (far more than the average driver in the UK/Europe!)

That's about 37 miles per day, so about 12.5 kWh per night on average at ~3 miles per kWh. And remember, those who are driving long distance are probably going to be using fast chargers on-route, so their domestic charging demand will be lower.

Secondly, even if they did need 40 kWh every night, that only equates to 4 kW over a 10 hour charging cycle. Easily manageable by avoiding the typical late afternoon / early evening peaks. Most grids have a lot of spare capacity between, say, 9PM and 7AM.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by lstodd on Monday November 02, 2020 @04:46PM (#24973807)
You fail to take into account inefficiencies in transmission and charging. That would multiply required input by a factor of two or three, depending where you measure it.

So no. Switch most commute to electric - then at first grid goes down, then power plants struggle.

"Most grids have a lot of spare capacity between, say, 9PM and 7AM" - that's not the grids we're talking about. HV circuits might not feel it, but something laid down for a suburb was scrupulously designed to carry only just enough, because it's basically burying refined metal, be it copper or aluminium.

There is no spare even 4KW for every house and never has been because that would have cost more in about everything - meters, cables, multiple stages of step-down transformers, transmission lines, generation.

Electicity is not free, never has been, and distibution costs are surprisingly a very important consideration.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by Reason077 on Monday November 02, 2020 @07:07PM (#24974922)
> "There is no spare even 4KW for every house and never has been"

Yes, there is. It's just the timing that matters. Domestic electricity demand during off-peak overnight hours is as little as 1/3 as it is at peak time. If all those houses can run 4 kW of air conditioning, or heating, or electric ovens at 6PM, then there is 4 kW to spare at 2AM.

This issue has actually been studied in some detail by the UK's National Grid. The conclusion was that additional demand from millions of electric vehicles would cause issues if they all were charged at peak times. But, provided demand can be managed, existing grid infrastructure can cope with an entirely electric vehicle fleet with modest investments in the coming years/decades.

Fun fact: UK grid demand used to be significantly higher than it is today. It peaked at 62 GW in 2002, but it now rarely gets above 45 GW, despite significant population growth! Much of this reduction in demand is due to improved energy efficiency.

If we could handle 62 GW in 2002, then there's no reason that we can't handle 62 GW again in, say, 2042.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by lstodd on Tuesday November 03, 2020 @01:33PM (#24982506)
> If we could handle 62 GW in 2002, then there's no reason that we can't handle 62 GW again in, say, 2042.

There is - supply and grid maintenance was scaled down with demand.

The grid certainly can be rebuilt to 2002 state in UK, but this will not be cheap.

The other point that I was making is that any deviation from current patterns, like night demand significantly growing will require significant changes in generation.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by Reason077 on Friday November 06, 2020 @04:07PM (#25011157)
> "The grid certainly can be rebuilt to 2002 state in UK, but this will not be cheap."

It doesn't need "rebuilding". The grid, broadly speaking, hasn't changed since 2002. Generation has changed dramatically, but generally the transmission lines that served old power plants do not get removed when the plants close. They're still there, still active, and are often reused (for example, off-shore wind farm built off the coast from closed coal plant).

> "The other point that I was making is that any deviation from current patterns, like night demand significantly growing will require significant changes in generation."

First you were talking about lines, now you are talking about generation. But it's the same story. Power plants get turned off and curtailed at night because there is less demand. If demand increases at night? Plenty of spare capacity available, they just need to run for longer.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by Reason077 on Monday November 02, 2020 @07:14PM (#24974968)
> "You fail to take into account inefficiencies in transmission and charging. That would multiply required input by a factor of two or three, depending where you measure it."

I do not account for transmission inefficiencies, as this is highly variable depending on your location and grid infrastructure. But it would be extremely unusual for transmission losses to be as high as 66% like you suggest!

As for charging losses, that's something like 10%. About 90% of the energy as measured at your domestic electricity meter will make it into the battery. I did account for this, by giving a deliberately low miles per kWh figure. In reality, most EVs will get significantly better efficiency than the 3 miles per kWh that I quoted.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by Reason077 on Monday November 02, 2020 @05:19AM (#24966444)
Ubitricity already have a pretty nice kerb-side charging solution, including sockets which integrate into existing street light poles:

https://www.ubitricity.co.uk/

These are quite widely deployed in a few London boroughs.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by dfgdghdf on Monday November 02, 2020 @05:27AM (#24966489)
Great, so we can turn London into a parking lot for electric cars. The solution for urban centres is to have fewer (but electric) cars.
Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by Reason077 on Monday November 02, 2020 @05:33AM (#24966527)
No, these aren't adding any additional parking spaces. Just allowing cars to be charged at existing ones.

(I totally agree about fewer cars, but remaining ones must be electric. And electric cars need charging infrastructure.)

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by trengorilla on Monday November 02, 2020 @04:59AM (#24966327)
Yet.
Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by randunel on Monday November 02, 2020 @04:29AM (#24966163)
Not good enough for many of my friends, I'm afraid. It would definitely not be an option for me, I drive 1200km in roughly 12h - 14h each night, for 2w long tours:

- Heviz to Saint Tropez 1200km

- Empuriabrava to Malaga 1100km

- Porto to Andorra 1100km

- Krakow to Bucharest 1200km

- other shorter trips (700km-800km)

-----

- business trip Bucharest to Leipzig 1600km (I go much farther without passengers)

- Leizig to London 1200km (slow ferry)

- etc

I drive a diesel and it's just excellent for my family's holidaying, we would be wasting considerable time charging, reducing the overall time to enjoy the tour's destinations.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by wastedhours on Monday November 02, 2020 @04:40AM (#24966228)
I mean, impressive mileage - but you must definitely be an outlier with those numbers in single trips I'd imagine. Also, if you're only do those kinds of numbers a few weeks a year, you could have an electric car for 50 weeks of the year and then hire a diesel one for the longer stints?

That being said, it'll only be a couple more generations of tech before we're getting fast charge in the 15-20 minute ranges. By the time you've done a full-tank fill, used the toilets, picked up a few Rom bars in the shop and paid - you probably wont lose much time.

(I'm still a car lover, but change is coming, and it'd be hard to argue with it in a few more years).

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by bluGill on Monday November 02, 2020 @12:32PM (#24970669)
The fixed costs of owning two cars means that it rarely works out. Rental cars can work, but again the math rarely works out because it is so expensive to rent a large car.
Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by jfk13 on Monday November 02, 2020 @01:22PM (#24971254)
I also worry that in the hypothetical world where most people just own a small electric for local daily use, and rent a large diesel (or whatever) for the family holiday, demand for those larger, longer-range vehicles will be extremely seasonal.

It may not be viable to maintain a large fleet of family-vacation-type vehicles just to satisfy the demand for summer holidays in August and ski trips in February.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by wastedhours on Tuesday November 03, 2020 @03:58AM (#24977783)
I did mention rental, 100% agree owning two would be absurd. For rentals, it might end up being more expensive now, but that's not really my point, the daily practicality (both in fuel savings lugging around a huge car for 50 extra weeks a year) and in ease of having a smaller, easier to manoeuvre, potentially cheaper to maintain electric car are not only on a cost basis.

This is merely an interstitial time until you can run from Bucharest to Leipzig with fast charge stations in every town and village along the route.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by arghwhat on Monday November 02, 2020 @06:02AM (#24966707)
Your example is an extreme outlier (even if you have friends with similar usage), and is irrelevant to the general practicality of electric cars. And yet, it's still doable.

The vast majority of car users do not refuel a full tank daily, which is a good indicator of their driving habits being perfectly compatible with overnight slow-charging with plenty of capacity to spare. (If the user normally refueled a full tank daily, and got an electric car with a small battery, work-place slow-charging might be needed.)

The vast majority, should they go on a long car trip (note that this universally popular), will not be doing completely uninterrupted driving for 12 hours. They will need at least a few sizable breaks for food, toilet and leg stretching. If breaks are taken around a fast charger, a 20 minute break can give you 50% charge, 40 minutes giving 80% charge. If the drive is for vacationing, the stops will likely all be long enough for full charges as people see the sights.

Even with your driving, it seems reasonable to pull off with fast charging, assuming you have human physiological needs and assuming you drive safely and responsibly (i.e. break with rest every N hours to not lose attention and fall asleep, where N is usually ~4). Maybe your average speed would drop a bit, but that's not that important.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by rienbdj on Monday November 02, 2020 @05:09AM (#24966390)
Are you a trucker? That is an alarming carbon footprint for a day-to-day lifestyle. Fortunately, most do not need to travel so far for work.
Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by Reason077 on Monday November 02, 2020 @05:11AM (#24966407)
I’m curious, what do you do during the day when you’re driving for 12-14 hours each night on these 2-week tours? Sleep, I would assume! Why not sleep at night and drive during the day (traffic?)

Aren’t you “wasting considerable time” by having to sleep as soon as you arrive at your tour destinations?

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by randunel on Monday November 02, 2020 @08:37AM (#24967971)
Indeed, I sleep before and after long drives, but not for 8 full hours, I catch up, eventually. However, my family gets to go shopping, buys groceries etc while I rest for a few. For some reason, I seem to be functioning just fine making up for lost sleep by sleeping in every other day.

Perhaps "each night" isn't the right choice of words, "every 3 nights or so" would be more accurate.

Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016) by adammunich on Monday November 02, 2020 @04:20AM (#24966107)
The latest DC fast charging standard goes up to 400kW, it's only a matter of time.