An auto CEO came close to saying the right thing about heavy EV batteries(theverge.com)
theverge.com
An auto CEO came close to saying the right thing about heavy EV batteries
https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/22/23733215/ford-ev-battery-size-weight-safety-jim-farley
79 comments
I'll just quote this same story:
"An article in the Telegraph points to the added weight of batteries in EVs as the main risk factor, neatly sidestepping the fact that the average petrol-powered car is twice as heavy today as it was when these car parks were built. Which we’re positive is just an oversight."
"An article in the Telegraph points to the added weight of batteries in EVs as the main risk factor, neatly sidestepping the fact that the average petrol-powered car is twice as heavy today as it was when these car parks were built. Which we’re positive is just an oversight."
[deleted]
That's nothing compared to the risks associated with having vehicles like the Hummer EV driving over old bridges.[1]
[1] https://www.motorbiscuit.com/gmc-hummer-ev-weight-might-disq...
[1] https://www.motorbiscuit.com/gmc-hummer-ev-weight-might-disq...
I doubt that UK car parks are at a significant risk of being packed full of Cadillac Escalade EVs any time soon. Yes, some early attempts at EVs are heavier than they need to be, but as the industry matures, expect to see an EV weight tax closer to 20%.
Very few American cars, even small ones, will be able to fit in a UK multi-story car park. They are uncomfortably optimised to maximise the use of space and larger cars can barely drive in them, nevert mind actually park.
As presented by 'Not Just Bikes' [1] the heavy truck trend has been going for some time. The legislation around larger trucks is different and has a stronger profit motive. Curious to see an exec talking about the trend as a negative.
[1] https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo
[1] https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo
The road degradation will be significant, whether from heavier EVs or the much older trend of cars generally getting bigger. Streets may be less safe, and certainly less easy to navigate as big heavy cars squeeze past one another. And presumably it's harder and less efficient to accelerate and decelerate heavy cars. I wonder if a road tax assessed on (in part) the car's weight, will be necessary.
I don't have the statistics at hand but I remember a study about road degradation based on vehicle type. The difference between industrial vehicles and passenger vehicles (including pickup trucks) was enormously skewed so that industrial vehicles were responsible for 80% of the degradation, Pareto-like. Meaning that heavier passenger vehicles might not make a difference.
The rule of thumb is that the road wear is roughly proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight.
It looks like the current road tax frameworks of many countries use either CO2 emissions or car price as a main factor for road tax, which presumably correlates with weight - except for EVs. Seems like at least the CO2 bit will have to change with EVs becoming more mainstream.
Montreal (and presumably inspired from elsewhere) are moving to car weight as a metric for pricing parking permits (begin of a trend in that direction, I think).
Although they do use different thresholds for EVs and ICEs, not to penalize EVs.
They mostly wanted to tackle the problem of lost space from larger cars, and would have taken car dimensions if the data was available, but apparently weight and size often correlate (previously they use car cylinders, but nowadays there are huge cars with tiny motors).
Although they do use different thresholds for EVs and ICEs, not to penalize EVs.
They mostly wanted to tackle the problem of lost space from larger cars, and would have taken car dimensions if the data was available, but apparently weight and size often correlate (previously they use car cylinders, but nowadays there are huge cars with tiny motors).
Rather than giving any government more excuses to tax the individual, perhaps we should look into forcing governments to spend their money wiser and not write so many blank checks.
Calibrating road tax based on vehicle weight as a proxy for road maintenance costs is a step away from taxing the individual, which is the current situation with more-or-less flat road tax rates.
The problem is that any talk of additional taxes is unnecessary if governments can’t do their jobs with the money they have.
Just recently, my small town had their roads paved. It cost $35,000 to bring a miller in, and the county engineer made a mistake where only 1 of our roads were being milled. It took another $35,000 to bring it back to do the rest.
Adding taxes can’t fix government inefficiency, in fact they make it worse.
Just recently, my small town had their roads paved. It cost $35,000 to bring a miller in, and the county engineer made a mistake where only 1 of our roads were being milled. It took another $35,000 to bring it back to do the rest.
Adding taxes can’t fix government inefficiency, in fact they make it worse.
A road tax wouldn’t be about the revenue collection or government expenditure. It would be a pigouvian tax to disincentivise gigantic vehicles and their negative impact on everyone around them.
IMO doesn’t even need to be framed as pigouvian. It’s just trying to match better what a person pays for a public service and what they consume from it, in this case road wear and tear.
Road wear and tear is the starting point, but I worry more about increased road trauma and the loss of amenity that bigger vehicles cause. Letting them just ‘pay their way’ isn’t enough - we need to reverse course.
What? Presumably we need roads and it’s a fact of physics that heavier vehicles put more wear on them.
I didn’t say we need to remove roads. I said governments should prioritize roads rather than wasting money unnecessarily.
So until the government (which?) meets someone’s (whose?) intuitive guess (how?) at what an appropriate degree of efficiency is, then we should not have public investment?
Given almost any degree of govt efficiency I’d prefer more of it, but we do in fact need to be able to walk and chew gum. It’s just not the case that letting roads deteriorate will increase discipline in whatever area of govt your particular hobby horse lives.
Given almost any degree of govt efficiency I’d prefer more of it, but we do in fact need to be able to walk and chew gum. It’s just not the case that letting roads deteriorate will increase discipline in whatever area of govt your particular hobby horse lives.
Car manufacturers have two big problems:
- Most of the EVs currently produced by ICE car manufacturers are either sold at a loss or with very thin margins at best. The reason is that they waited too long with ramping up investments and the market caught up with them. So, they are now playing catch up with manufacturers that are already profitable and producing at scale.
- Meanwhile Manufacturers that have never had any ICE vehicle business are not holding back with producing increasingly better and cheaper vehicles. And quite a few of these are actually profitable. While traditional manufacturers are scrambling to catch up, those new manufacturers are absorbing most of the growth in the market.
If it weren't for manufacturers like Tesla, BYD, NEO, and others taking over the market with very competitively priced products that can sell in large volumes and with very nice margins, they'd be milking their ICE car revenue for years to come and take it much slower. As it is, they are facing a reality of millions of cheap EVs entering the market. Growing to tens of millions world wide in the next few years. That's going to wipe out a lot of ICE car revenue.
- Most of the EVs currently produced by ICE car manufacturers are either sold at a loss or with very thin margins at best. The reason is that they waited too long with ramping up investments and the market caught up with them. So, they are now playing catch up with manufacturers that are already profitable and producing at scale.
- Meanwhile Manufacturers that have never had any ICE vehicle business are not holding back with producing increasingly better and cheaper vehicles. And quite a few of these are actually profitable. While traditional manufacturers are scrambling to catch up, those new manufacturers are absorbing most of the growth in the market.
If it weren't for manufacturers like Tesla, BYD, NEO, and others taking over the market with very competitively priced products that can sell in large volumes and with very nice margins, they'd be milking their ICE car revenue for years to come and take it much slower. As it is, they are facing a reality of millions of cheap EVs entering the market. Growing to tens of millions world wide in the next few years. That's going to wipe out a lot of ICE car revenue.
I'm down for the swapover, but I hope that some of these other battery technologies overtake lithium sooner rather than later, and I also hope that at least some companies start feathering back the weight of their vehicles.
Lighter, smaller cars are better for the roads, easier on tires, more convenient pound for pound, easier to park, and typically less expensive to maintain.
I mean, Lotus made a car frame that could be lifted by one not particularly strong person in the 80s and they're working on replicating that feat for EVs today:
https://electrek.co/2021/09/21/lotus-unveils-lightweight-cha...
And aside from all of that, giant pickups are probably the lamest vehicle in America. I'd rather drive a minivan. Maybe in middle America they make sense, but any time I see them in the city they are rarely being used for construction or heavy moving or anything that you would actually need a truck for.
They're basically mom car SUVs with a lift kit and a penis extension truck bed on the back.
Lighter, smaller cars are better for the roads, easier on tires, more convenient pound for pound, easier to park, and typically less expensive to maintain.
I mean, Lotus made a car frame that could be lifted by one not particularly strong person in the 80s and they're working on replicating that feat for EVs today:
https://electrek.co/2021/09/21/lotus-unveils-lightweight-cha...
And aside from all of that, giant pickups are probably the lamest vehicle in America. I'd rather drive a minivan. Maybe in middle America they make sense, but any time I see them in the city they are rarely being used for construction or heavy moving or anything that you would actually need a truck for.
They're basically mom car SUVs with a lift kit and a penis extension truck bed on the back.
Cars are generally a commodity these days...especially since vehicles look 60-80% the same (in each class of vehicle), short of some design changes.
So, MPC (Miles per Charge) is essentially the equivalent of the computer GHz race, the faster the processor the better...at least as far as marketing is concerned.
Couple that with range anxiety and you have the perfect way to incentivize people to buy heavier cars for longer range batteries.
In a few years, if/when battery technology improves for autos then we'll start seeing a gain in milage without a gain in battery size. Look at the battery in an Apple Watch. It wasn't so long ago that a device that does as much as the watch does lasting your waking hours seemed a fantasy.
So, MPC (Miles per Charge) is essentially the equivalent of the computer GHz race, the faster the processor the better...at least as far as marketing is concerned.
Couple that with range anxiety and you have the perfect way to incentivize people to buy heavier cars for longer range batteries.
In a few years, if/when battery technology improves for autos then we'll start seeing a gain in milage without a gain in battery size. Look at the battery in an Apple Watch. It wasn't so long ago that a device that does as much as the watch does lasting your waking hours seemed a fantasy.
And while I'm here, we need a better "standard" of reporting MPC on EVs based on the manufacturer's suggested daily charge rate (80 - 90%), not the maximum that could be achieved in specific scenarios.
Clickbait title. So here is the summary (Generated by GPT):
The article discusses the growing concern regarding the increasing size and weight of batteries in electric vehicles (EVs). Ford CEO Jim Farley expressed confusion over the industry's trend of producing EVs with ever-larger batteries to achieve longer ranges, with some models offering up to 500 miles of range. He pointed out that these batteries are very large
There is a growing trend among US automakers to use large batteries to power equally large EVs, particularly electric trucks. The rationale seems to be that electrifying popular pickup trucks would make it easier to sell EVs to the truck-loving American market. However, these big trucks require big batteries to provide the range that potential buyers might expect
The article provides examples of this trend: the Rivian R1T truck and R1S SUV use batteries as large as 135kWh, and the Hummer EV’s 212kWh battery is heavier than a Honda Civic. The forthcoming Silverado EV from Chevy, boasting a range of 450 miles, is powered by a 200kWh Ultium battery. The Ram 1500 REV offers an option for a 229kWh battery aiming for a range of 500 miles The author argues that this trend is not sustainable, citing several reasons. Firstly, the process of mining, refining, and manufacturing of EV batteries has significant environmental impacts. Secondly, EVs are generally heavier than their internal combustion engine counterparts, leading to increased non-exhaust emissions from sources like rubber tires, road dust, and brakes. Heavier vehicles also pose a higher safety risk when they collide with pedestrians or cyclists due to their larger size and mass
Farley's main concern with the size of batteries appears to be the cost, as larger batteries are more expensive to produce and can impact profit margins. He has suggested that the industry needs to focus on the efficiency of batteries relative to their size and range
Even though Ford has contributed to this trend with its F-150 Lightning extended range version, which uses a 1,800-pound, 131kWh battery, the author of the article expresses hope that Farley's realization might result in smaller, more efficient batteries in future Ford EVs
The article discusses the growing concern regarding the increasing size and weight of batteries in electric vehicles (EVs). Ford CEO Jim Farley expressed confusion over the industry's trend of producing EVs with ever-larger batteries to achieve longer ranges, with some models offering up to 500 miles of range. He pointed out that these batteries are very large
There is a growing trend among US automakers to use large batteries to power equally large EVs, particularly electric trucks. The rationale seems to be that electrifying popular pickup trucks would make it easier to sell EVs to the truck-loving American market. However, these big trucks require big batteries to provide the range that potential buyers might expect
The article provides examples of this trend: the Rivian R1T truck and R1S SUV use batteries as large as 135kWh, and the Hummer EV’s 212kWh battery is heavier than a Honda Civic. The forthcoming Silverado EV from Chevy, boasting a range of 450 miles, is powered by a 200kWh Ultium battery. The Ram 1500 REV offers an option for a 229kWh battery aiming for a range of 500 miles The author argues that this trend is not sustainable, citing several reasons. Firstly, the process of mining, refining, and manufacturing of EV batteries has significant environmental impacts. Secondly, EVs are generally heavier than their internal combustion engine counterparts, leading to increased non-exhaust emissions from sources like rubber tires, road dust, and brakes. Heavier vehicles also pose a higher safety risk when they collide with pedestrians or cyclists due to their larger size and mass
Farley's main concern with the size of batteries appears to be the cost, as larger batteries are more expensive to produce and can impact profit margins. He has suggested that the industry needs to focus on the efficiency of batteries relative to their size and range
Even though Ford has contributed to this trend with its F-150 Lightning extended range version, which uses a 1,800-pound, 131kWh battery, the author of the article expresses hope that Farley's realization might result in smaller, more efficient batteries in future Ford EVs
Would be funny if EV bet was failure and something like hydrogen was an actual future
That would be the "energy too cheap to meter" future ...
If energy was truly that cheap it's a non-issue anyway, they could just make gasoline directly from atmospheric CO2 capture.
i'd like it compared to the energy imbalance with alkaline batteries. the ammount of energy is just insignificant in relation to the collaterals and amenities.
I feel like what we really need for EV cars is a SpaceX like move towards simpler materials and chemistry (steel for example instead of complex materials), even at the cost of lesser performance.
At this point higher manufacturing scale / cheaper to produce / less toxic is possibly much more impactful than extreme densities for energy storage tech. These can also be used for more stationary usage (domestic, grid).
Maybe also rethinking infrastructure to make shorter point-to-point travels sensible, so that we don't keep seeking higher and higher capacities?
At this point higher manufacturing scale / cheaper to produce / less toxic is possibly much more impactful than extreme densities for energy storage tech. These can also be used for more stationary usage (domestic, grid).
Maybe also rethinking infrastructure to make shorter point-to-point travels sensible, so that we don't keep seeking higher and higher capacities?
Batteries with higher energy densities are already going into production, and things like new anode materials, semi-solid state and solid state batteries are starting to come online and be productionized.
As charging density and speed increases, a lot of users will get more comfortable with smaller batteries over time as well. This is really just a temporary state of affairs.
As charging density and speed increases, a lot of users will get more comfortable with smaller batteries over time as well. This is really just a temporary state of affairs.
>Car companies (perhaps rightly) assumed that the best way to sell America’s truck-loving population on plug-in power is to electrify a bunch of pickups.
This smacks of revisionist history. American car companies mostly stopped selling cars when the EPA made emissions restrictions for cars and not for trucks (auto lobbyists helped). They based the regulation on something the auto industry gets to define for itself.
Since then, vehicles have been getting bigger. Lots of Americans aren't happy about it.
Many still buy these because there's an arms race for road visibility. You need a giant vehicle to see around the giant vehicles.
Others buy the popular thing because of deals and the increased possibility of getting parts to fix it in several years. It's harder to get parts for a vehicle that was only sold for two years twenty years ago.
US customers have been buying large vehicles, but that doesn't mean the customers have been the ones driving the trend.
This smacks of revisionist history. American car companies mostly stopped selling cars when the EPA made emissions restrictions for cars and not for trucks (auto lobbyists helped). They based the regulation on something the auto industry gets to define for itself.
Since then, vehicles have been getting bigger. Lots of Americans aren't happy about it.
Many still buy these because there's an arms race for road visibility. You need a giant vehicle to see around the giant vehicles.
Others buy the popular thing because of deals and the increased possibility of getting parts to fix it in several years. It's harder to get parts for a vehicle that was only sold for two years twenty years ago.
US customers have been buying large vehicles, but that doesn't mean the customers have been the ones driving the trend.
> US customers have been buying large vehicles, but that doesn't mean the customers have been the ones driving the trend.
which in turn means that markets are not really self-regulating or demand-driven
which in turn means that markets are not really self-regulating or demand-driven
That's certainly true about some markets. Not sure how much that can be generalized.
Batteries are not inherently heavy, The current Lithium ones are.
IIRC the EV industry is waiting for high-density solid state battreries, which could be a game changer if works.
IIRC the EV industry is waiting for high-density solid state battreries, which could be a game changer if works.
> mass multiplied by velocity equals momentum
Isn't kinetic energy, ie. 1/2 m v^2, more appropriate for measuring the danger of vehicles?
Isn't kinetic energy, ie. 1/2 m v^2, more appropriate for measuring the danger of vehicles?
Measures of danger (at least in terms of fatality) does seem to scale with velocity squared.
I do not find info on various measures of danger may scale with mass. There is a huge connection between fatality and vehicle size, at least up to the size of today's giant trucks and SUVs (I do not find buses nor semis included). Of course size is correlated with mass. Though, what I read, the danger of today's trucks and SUVs is due to the high front end impacting human bodies where they are more vulnerable (torso instead of legs) and then dragging them under instead of allowing them to go over.
OTOH, stopping distance and reaction distance is linear with velocity.
I do not find info on various measures of danger may scale with mass. There is a huge connection between fatality and vehicle size, at least up to the size of today's giant trucks and SUVs (I do not find buses nor semis included). Of course size is correlated with mass. Though, what I read, the danger of today's trucks and SUVs is due to the high front end impacting human bodies where they are more vulnerable (torso instead of legs) and then dragging them under instead of allowing them to go over.
OTOH, stopping distance and reaction distance is linear with velocity.
Physicist here. Stopping distance is actually directly related to square of velocity.
Work-Energy theorem:
Work = ΔKE
Force * distance = 1/2(mass)(velocity^2)
distance α v^2
Slow down everyone :)
Work-Energy theorem:
Work = ΔKE
Force * distance = 1/2(mass)(velocity^2)
distance α v^2
Slow down everyone :)
I agree with your analysis. I had conflated distance and time.
And, I definitely agree with slowing down! Perhaps we can all start by actually obeying existing speed limits.
And, I definitely agree with slowing down! Perhaps we can all start by actually obeying existing speed limits.
The difference in mass between a pedestrian and any vehicle is so great that at the moment of collision, the pedestrian's velocity becomes that of the car, and the car's velocity is practically unchanged. (That is, energy transferred is a function of vehicle's velocity and pedestrian's mass.)
Mass of the vehicle only practically comes into play for stopping distance, and as a proxy for its frontal cross-section.
Mass of the vehicle only practically comes into play for stopping distance, and as a proxy for its frontal cross-section.
"Fossil fuels are not sustainable, we must switch to EVs"
companies build EVs that consumers want, with good range and large capacity
"This is not sustainable. Bigger batteries, longer range, heavier trucks... these are not the hallmarks of the sea change the auto industry is trying to sell us on."
So its just the old "they should drive Lada instead of Mercedes"?
But what many people seem to forget is that heavier vehicles are inherently more polluting than lighter ones, regardless of whether they emit any tailpipe emissions. All vehicles produce non-exhaust emissions from a variety of sources, including rubber tires, road dust, and brakes. This is especially true for electric vehicles thanks to the added weight from their batteries.
This is never going to end, is it? First eliminate exhaust, still not good enough. EV brakes actually last a lot longer, because energy recuperation (electric braking) reduces wear on them, so what remains is... more rubber dust?
At what point is driving a car actually ok?
companies build EVs that consumers want, with good range and large capacity
"This is not sustainable. Bigger batteries, longer range, heavier trucks... these are not the hallmarks of the sea change the auto industry is trying to sell us on."
So its just the old "they should drive Lada instead of Mercedes"?
But what many people seem to forget is that heavier vehicles are inherently more polluting than lighter ones, regardless of whether they emit any tailpipe emissions. All vehicles produce non-exhaust emissions from a variety of sources, including rubber tires, road dust, and brakes. This is especially true for electric vehicles thanks to the added weight from their batteries.
This is never going to end, is it? First eliminate exhaust, still not good enough. EV brakes actually last a lot longer, because energy recuperation (electric braking) reduces wear on them, so what remains is... more rubber dust?
At what point is driving a car actually ok?
I think environmentalist have been trying to say this forever.
A lifestyle where everyone is supposed to own a car is not sustainable. Cities need to adjust to such an environment. You can see this slowly happening in Europe.
Furthermore you can check the infrastructure spend in Netherlands over time as they stopped prioritizing the needs for car drivers.
A lifestyle where everyone is supposed to own a car is not sustainable. Cities need to adjust to such an environment. You can see this slowly happening in Europe.
Furthermore you can check the infrastructure spend in Netherlands over time as they stopped prioritizing the needs for car drivers.
> A lifestyle where everyone is supposed to own a car is not sustainable.
Can you elaborate on why that is?
Can you elaborate on why that is?
making them takes a lot of resources. keeping them in working condition is not without hassle, most only work for 15-20 years before complete breakdown.
(parking) space in cities is a premium commodity that other humans would like to use instead.
edit:
and then there is that thing with cars adding a weight overhead factor of 10-30x which correlates very tightly to energy use per person/distance
(parking) space in cities is a premium commodity that other humans would like to use instead.
edit:
and then there is that thing with cars adding a weight overhead factor of 10-30x which correlates very tightly to energy use per person/distance
> making them takes a lot of resources. keeping them in working condition is not without hassle, most only work for 15-20 years before complete breakdown.
This can be said about every aspect of our civilisation. Everything you see around you, the houses, gardens, trees, roads, shops etc is there because people are working hard to maintain them. Without it, they would quickly fall into disrepair. I think people should decide for themselves if something, eg a car, is worth their money or not - who am I (or you) to decide?
> (parking) space in cities is a premium commodity that other humans would like to use instead.
The city often already charges money for this. Many houses have underground garages. You can argue that very large cars have no place in a city, but thats a nuanced discussion, not doing away with all cars altogether.
> and then there is that thing with cars adding a weight overhead factor of 10-30x which correlates very tightly to energy use per person/distance
The great thing about civilisation, industry and technology is that we are no longer limited to what our bodies can provide, which is just a few hundred watts. People were worked to exhaustion and death in the fields and then the mines, because we had no other surplus energy other than animals and maybe windmills. You can argue about the costs and downsides of specific energy production methods, but we worked hard to escape the abject monetary and energetic poverty of most of our existence, and I don't see a good reason to go back to those times.
This can be said about every aspect of our civilisation. Everything you see around you, the houses, gardens, trees, roads, shops etc is there because people are working hard to maintain them. Without it, they would quickly fall into disrepair. I think people should decide for themselves if something, eg a car, is worth their money or not - who am I (or you) to decide?
> (parking) space in cities is a premium commodity that other humans would like to use instead.
The city often already charges money for this. Many houses have underground garages. You can argue that very large cars have no place in a city, but thats a nuanced discussion, not doing away with all cars altogether.
> and then there is that thing with cars adding a weight overhead factor of 10-30x which correlates very tightly to energy use per person/distance
The great thing about civilisation, industry and technology is that we are no longer limited to what our bodies can provide, which is just a few hundred watts. People were worked to exhaustion and death in the fields and then the mines, because we had no other surplus energy other than animals and maybe windmills. You can argue about the costs and downsides of specific energy production methods, but we worked hard to escape the abject monetary and energetic poverty of most of our existence, and I don't see a good reason to go back to those times.
> You can argue that very large cars have no place in a city, but thats a nuanced discussion, not doing away with all cars altogether.
i am telling you that owning a car is not a sustainable option for all of humanity.
you are arguing for "c'mon, just a little bit longer"
i am telling you that owning a car is not a sustainable option for all of humanity.
you are arguing for "c'mon, just a little bit longer"
ok then I'll guess that settles it
Driving a car is OK when the cost to drive the car matches the price of driving the car.
Right now, the costs (in vehicle deaths, emissions, direct CO2 emissions, sprawl, noise pollution, CO2 from asphalt and concrete, animal deaths, habitat destruction...) are not reflected in the car's price. Instead, they are paid by all of us, our children, our grandchildren, and the living environment.
If you actually had to pay the true price of remediating these externalities, a toll on every road would cost $10, a toll on the interstate highway would cost $100, a tank of gas would cost $1000, and the car itself would cost $100,000. Would you still drive?
Right now, the costs (in vehicle deaths, emissions, direct CO2 emissions, sprawl, noise pollution, CO2 from asphalt and concrete, animal deaths, habitat destruction...) are not reflected in the car's price. Instead, they are paid by all of us, our children, our grandchildren, and the living environment.
If you actually had to pay the true price of remediating these externalities, a toll on every road would cost $10, a toll on the interstate highway would cost $100, a tank of gas would cost $1000, and the car itself would cost $100,000. Would you still drive?
it's ok as soon as a minority of people use them, the people that actually need them and majority will use public transportation and bicycle, but it's debatable, since in US/canada most people need them due to sprawl, so I guess there, they should just increase tax proportionally to the vehicle mass/size in parallel with phasing out combustion. People will use cars as before, but using suv's will become more and more tedious and as result road damage and tire pollution will be reduced
> So its just the old "they should drive Lada instead of Mercedes"?
Just get a smaller Mercedes. :P
> At what point is driving a car actually ok?
When bike or public transport is not an option.
Just get a smaller Mercedes. :P
> At what point is driving a car actually ok?
When bike or public transport is not an option.
> At what point is driving a car actually ok?
Maybe it's not?
Maybe it's not?
Everything we do has a negative impact on the environment. The best thing to do for the good of the others is to not exist in the first place. This will never end because it can always be optimized further
Swappable batteries are the solution to both vehicle weight and range/charging dwell time.
The missing piece is a standardized form factor - I hope the EU parliament or California legislature are working on something to nudge things in that direction.
The missing piece is a standardized form factor - I hope the EU parliament or California legislature are working on something to nudge things in that direction.
But day to day driving is far inside the boundaries of any range issues. Swappable would inevitably imply something that's essentially a switch to rented, because battery wear cannot be ignored.
The best way would be some rentable range extender battery (one-way, so that you can swap them like horses). With that available, affordable short range cars would suddenly become an attractive reality.
I guess the most universal interface for this would be some kind of trailer. Or perhaps even some semi-autonomous companion battery that follows in the slipstream under it's own power but on a non-tensioned reverse umbilical? Just brainstorming about ways in which modern technology could help making the add-on battery painless.
The best way would be some rentable range extender battery (one-way, so that you can swap them like horses). With that available, affordable short range cars would suddenly become an attractive reality.
I guess the most universal interface for this would be some kind of trailer. Or perhaps even some semi-autonomous companion battery that follows in the slipstream under it's own power but on a non-tensioned reverse umbilical? Just brainstorming about ways in which modern technology could help making the add-on battery painless.
I like that approach, because I know from experience eBikes and large-battery trailers are very useful for road trips.
Three problems:
A) Battery weight is constant even when there is no power, compared to liquid fuel which gets consumed and the weight decreases. B) Because batteries are heavy (optimal location is low in the vehicle for centre of gravity) which is a mechanical and logistical problem for battery swaps C) Batteries are big and heavy. Swapping 1,800 pounds of battery is hard. Pumping gas is easy, fast, compact, and light.
Engineering around physics is hard.
A) Battery weight is constant even when there is no power, compared to liquid fuel which gets consumed and the weight decreases. B) Because batteries are heavy (optimal location is low in the vehicle for centre of gravity) which is a mechanical and logistical problem for battery swaps C) Batteries are big and heavy. Swapping 1,800 pounds of battery is hard. Pumping gas is easy, fast, compact, and light.
Engineering around physics is hard.
all non-stoppers imho
gasoline is very hazardous. getting rid of this in exchange for some weight seems a good trade.
gasoline is very hazardous. getting rid of this in exchange for some weight seems a good trade.
Why? Battery capacity/density is going up quicky. Charging times go down. Why swap a battery?
If not hot-swappable, having a design that will at least let you replace the battery would be good for battery-wear and as a secondary effect the used car market (since replacing the battery wouldn't impossible, if not labor-intensive).
I kind of like your point. Replaceable batteries should somehow be mandatory- i agree. Hot swapping still seems driven by range anxiety.
Is it? All I see is prices going down so that bigger/heavier batteries become a reality.
That just a side effect of the current "luxury/premium" market. I will just fade away and nobody will rememer in a few years.
It's more of a "large vehicles" thing. Battery size scales with vehicle size, so large SUVs and trucks need very large batteries. Larger than we're used to seeing on the typical Tesla or similar.
Current EVs are around 200kg heavier than comparable ICE cars.
For example the BYD Dolphin is 1285-1450 kg depending on options, where the comparable Honda Fit is 1070-1280 kg.
Likewise the Tesla Model 3 is 1611-1847 kg, compared to a Toyota Camry weighing 1470-1660 kg.
The weight penalty for EVs could well go down over time as energy density of batteries increases and weight of electric drivetrains decreases. There is also more of an incentive to keep weight down on an EV as it means you can use a smaller (cheaper) battery for the same range.
For example the BYD Dolphin is 1285-1450 kg depending on options, where the comparable Honda Fit is 1070-1280 kg.
Likewise the Tesla Model 3 is 1611-1847 kg, compared to a Toyota Camry weighing 1470-1660 kg.
The weight penalty for EVs could well go down over time as energy density of batteries increases and weight of electric drivetrains decreases. There is also more of an incentive to keep weight down on an EV as it means you can use a smaller (cheaper) battery for the same range.
200kgs seems fine to me, it's almost like having 3.5 Americans in the Toyota Camry vs 1 American in a Tesla Model 3.
Average adult American of 80kgs.
Average adult American of 80kgs.
Even the smaller EVs carry 700lbs of battery and weight as much as small SUVs. So while it is a “large vehicle” problem, EVs are on average deceptively heavier than normal cars.
How heavy are PHEVs? They have 1/10th the battery size as an EV and the engine is typically smaller than an ICEV, so are they about the same weight as an ICEV? They must be lighter than an EV.
There's a bit that needs flipped - the idea that "filling the tank" is an infrequent thing that is done at a scarce number of special places equipped with reservoirs.
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/suvs/uk-car-parks-are-appar...