Is all the "fuel saving" tech really worth it in the long run?

[JExpedition07]

If you drink the electric kool-aid it’s fine. But reality is it’s not that great....small children overseas are mining for the lithium batteries and getting sick from it. The lithium mining breaks ground up and releases toxic chemicals into the drinking water, ground, and air where it’s mined and hurts locals. We have found no efficient way to dispose of lithium batteries besides throwing them in a landfill or burying them. Batteries and electric motors are very heavy and reduce a vehicles payload significantly, particularly a problem for trucks.

In applications where the engine is loaded up at all times (boats, heavy equipment) you need an extremely high weight in batteries in comparison to an ICE power plant and they run down faster without the equivalent range. The reality is lithium ion batteries suck, they are yesterdays news and we need something better.

 

[JasonH]

Why do you drive an Expedition then? They only come with a turbocharged V6 or V8........both larger engines that consume more fuel. You are on the wrong forum my friend. I’ll take my Expedition over a Tesla any day, I’ll make a bet on which driver survives between the 4,000 pound Tesla and 6,000 pound Ford in a collision. Elon doesn’t have enough steel to overcome physics when that big boxed frame rail comes knocking! Also not having to wait 2 hours for a charge and having a 525 mile range with my 34 gallon tank full of poison is great.

Because I tow a 7,000lb trailer and an EV can't do that yet. Emphasis on the yet. The technology is improving rapidly while ICE improvements are generating smaller returns. The Model X actually weighs 5,500 lbs. And with no ICE in the front, it also has ample crush space. EVs also have their weight in the bottom so rollover risk is greatly reduced.


My next car is an EV. I need something to offset all the fuel my Expedition swills, and would appreciate no maintenance apart from tires. If Ford had a plug-in Expedition, I would buy it in heartbeat. Better mpg around town and could still pull my trailer.

You can't stop the march of technology. Lamenting a past that never existed is pointless. Our older cars needed more maintenance, didn't last as long, were less safe, less fuel efficient when adjusting for weight safety and power, and polluted more. Our cars are way better than they ever have been and electrification is the next rung on the ladder.

 

[JExpedition07]

While I get the point you’re kidding yourself with no maintenance, I know personally a few Tesla owners and one is family. It’s been a repair queen and always in for bugs and service. EVs are not up to parr with Internal Combustion engines as we sit. That will change maybe. The reality is for many situations batteries are still lame. Too heavy, too polluting, too limited in range. EV lovers can never answer my logical questions on the hurdles and just tout “future”. Alright you can buy them now while they suck butt. I’ll gladly buy one in 20 years when it’s actually a good vehicle and sorted out as the new power plant.

 

[bobmbx]

I thank God for emissions tech. I would rather not be poisoned from leaded gas and NOx. The ICE needs to die. It converts under 40 percent of fuel into locomotion. Electric motors are over 90 percent efficient. Y'all can keep your horse drawn buggies and fume spewing deathtraps. I want the car from 100 years in the future that go 1000 miles on a puff of air and never wrecks, with a 200,000 mile service interval. People always want to go back to some good ol' day that never really existed. My question is...which decade?

Satire?

 

[Plati]

I thank God for emissions tech. I would rather not be poisoned from leaded gas and NOx. The ICE needs to die. It converts under 40 percent of fuel into locomotion. Electric motors are over 90 percent efficient. Y'all can keep your horse drawn buggies and fume spewing deathtraps. I want the car from 100 years in the future that go 1000 miles on a puff of air and never wrecks, with a 200,000 mile service interval. People always want to go back to some good ol' day that never really existed. My question is...which decade?

Its a Red Herring to say an electric motor is 90% efficient , in a comparison against the internal combustion engine. And also toss in "fume spewing" into the analysis. Where do you think the electricity that charged the vehicle battery came from … coal? Yes this country and many others (especially China) burns a lot of coal to make the electricity that charges the battery. How efficient is the overall process? How much air pollution results? Its also takes a lot of energy to manufacture the battery. I'm not saying battery powered transportation doesn't have its place, just do a complete economic and environmental analysis. Its like all that corn based Ethanol used in gasoline to fuel cars. Of course farmers like it (since it puts money in their pocket) but overall I believe it costs more in petroleum based fuel to grow the corn and manufacture the Ethanol than is saved by using it to replace the petroleum based fuel that would have powered the car to begin with.

Not going to adequately discuss and understand these issues in a Forum post, just a couple points here that can lead to a deeper understanding if time is taken to research and think.

Me … I'm hoping for hydrogen fuel in the future using next generation nuclear power on a massive basis.

 

[Black]

I thank God for emissions tech. I would rather not be poisoned from leaded gas and NOx. The ICE needs to die. It converts under 40 percent of fuel into locomotion. Electric motors are over 90 percent efficient. Y'all can keep your horse drawn buggies and fume spewing deathtraps. I want the car from 100 years in the future that go 1000 miles on a puff of air and never wrecks, with a 200,000 mile service interval. People always want to go back to some good ol' day that never really existed. My question is...which decade?

You do realize what goes into sourcing the battery materials correct?
The fact we are still trying to figure out what to do with the dead batteries.
Also what about creating the electricity needed to charge the batteries.

Don’t get me wrong I am excited about EV technology but it has nothing to do with believing they are overall better for the environment.

I like the simplicity of the components. I like the high levels of instantaneous torque. I like the idea of having an independent motor for each wheel (creating huge possibilities for independent 4 wheel drive) of road capabilities for ground clearance and few moving parts.
Getting rid of drive shafts, transfer cases, front mounted motors adding to storage space so similar or even smaller vehicles, I could go on.

The father in law is planning on getting in on a Rivian once they hit the real world.

I am highly intrigued by the Bollinger but the 200 mile range and 4 seats only is a deal breaker for me.
Not huge on the looks but the simplicity of the thing is very attractive.
Pricing will be interesting to see.

The mind set that the internal combustion engine needs to go is quite flawed.

 

[JasonH]

If you drink the electric kool-aid it’s fine. But reality is it’s not that great....small children overseas are mining for the lithium batteries and getting sick from it. The lithium mining breaks ground up and releases toxic chemicals into the drinking water, ground, and air where it’s mined and hurts locals. We have found no efficient way to dispose of lithium batteries besides throwing them in a landfill or burying them. Batteries and electric motors are very heavy and reduce a vehicles payload significantly, particularly a problem for trucks.

In applications where the engine is loaded up at all times (boats, heavy equipment) you need an extremely high weight in batteries in comparison to an ICE power plant and they run down faster without the equivalent range. The reality is lithium ion batteries suck, they are yesterdays news and we need something better.

You're right about applications with consistently heavy loads, but the rest is poppycock. You basically said lithium batteries don't work for some applications, so they don't work for any, which is false.

On mining, you're referring to cobalt mining, not lithium. Lithium comes from brine pools.


Tesla has reduced use of Cobalt in it batteries substantially, and will continue to do so.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/09/cobalt-free-car-batteries-in-the-works-for-panasonic-tesla/

Batteries are heavy. But you are wrong about the motors. And they are far more power dense than an ICE, and with substantially fewer parts. The battery weight is only a limitation for commercial vehicles that travel long distance. For vehicles that work in a metropolitan area, it's not an issue. Which is why Amazon ordered 1,000 electric delivery vans from Rivian.

https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-the-Tesla-Model-S-motor-weigh
https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/19/20873947/amazon-electric-delivery-van-rivian-jeff-bezos-order

Jeff Bezos is arguably smarter, more informed, and definitely richer, than all of us. What does he know that we don't?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/rivian-announces-700-million-investment-round-led-by-amazon.html

UPS knows the deal.
https://www.ups.com/us/es/services/knowledge-center/article.page?kid=ac91f520

So does Mack.
https://www.trucks.com/2019/05/10/mack-joins-growing-number-testing-electric-garbage-trucks/

As I said, the energy density is only a problem for vehicles that travel long distance. A substantial portion of the commercial vehicle fleet never leaves a metropolitan area. And for consumers, that is even more true. My daily commute is 54 miles. All commercially available EVs exceed that range substantially. The biggest limitation is price, and that is dropping rapidly while range is increasing. Electrification of the fleet will continue because it makes sense.

 

[JasonH]

While I get the point you’re kidding yourself with no maintenance, I know personally a few Tesla owners and one is family. It’s been a repair queen and always in for bugs and service. EVs are not up to parr with Internal Combustion engines as we sit. That will change maybe. The reality is for many situations batteries are still lame. Too heavy, too polluting, too limited in range. EV lovers can never answer my logical questions on the hurdles and just tout “future”. Alright you can buy them now while they suck butt. I’ll gladly buy one in 20 years when it’s actually a good vehicle and sorted out as the new power plant.

That may be true. But it's no different from any other luxury vehicle. How many Audi and Mercedes vehicles go in for electrical or mechanical issues. Purely anecdotal, but my neighbor's Benz has 55,000 miles on it and is in the shop for a $3,500 repair. Tesla may have issues, but I doubt they're any worse than any other vehicle manufacturer. Ford 6.0 diesel anyone?

 

[cmiles97]

I love these technology fear discussions.

The Amish think we went down hill two hundred years ago. Nothing more reliable or simpler than an Amish lifestyle.

Posting for an Amish friend.

 

[JasonH]

Its a Red Herring to say an electric motor is 90% efficient , in a comparison against the internal combustion engine. And also toss in "fume spewing" into the analysis. Where do you think the electricity that charged the vehicle battery came from … coal? Yes this country and many others (especially China) burns a lot of coal to make the electricity that charges the battery. How efficient is the overall process? How much air pollution results? Its also takes a lot of energy to manufacture the battery. I'm not saying battery powered transportation doesn't have its place, just do a complete economic and environmental analysis. Its like all that corn based Ethanol used in gasoline to fuel cars. Of course farmers like it (since it puts money in their pocket) but overall I believe it costs more in petroleum based fuel to grow the corn and manufacture the Ethanol than is saved by using it to replace the petroleum based fuel that would have powered the car to begin with.

Not going to adequately discuss and understand these issues in a Forum post, just a couple points here that can lead to a deeper understanding if time is taken to research and think.

Me … I'm hoping for hydrogen fuel in the future using next generation nuclear power on a massive basis.

It's not a red herring, it's a simple statement of fact. Is it the only relevant fact? No. You are correct, the cleanliness of the emissions varies based on the source of the fuel. But coal is declining as an energy source in the US. Our power generation is increasingly switching to natural gas and other renewable sources, like wind and solar, primarily because all three are cheaper than coal. As the US increasingly switches to renewables, the scale will tilt even more heavily in favor of EVs. EVs generate more emissions during manufacturing, but they make up for it during operations. Ethanol is socialist agricultural subsidy, don't even get me started.