Waiting for Superbatteries They are still a long way from matching the energy density of liquid fue

What's the difference between doing a battery swap and an engine overhaul on a semi truck?

 

I haven't been following the thread much lately.

Has anyone discussed the expected mileage of these batteries? In other words, how long do they last before they need replaced?

It seems (other than the cost of the battery), that the prices are in-line with costs to replace an ICE engine. A well maintained engine might last you 200-300k miles before needing replaced.

I see a couple points here: usually vehicle's don't reach that much mileage and, if they do, most opt for a new vehicle instead of replacing the engine due to cost.

Would battery replacement be synonymous with how people normally manage engine replacements? I.E wouldn't they just buy a new car?

 

Cars are where going EV really isn't consequential other than the added cost and inconvenience. If you can accept that and really don't demand much in terms of work from your vehicle (mostly just driving to work or the grocery store in reasonably warm climate) it's been conceded here by virtually everyone that actually knows something about it that that's your prerogative. Cars rarely live much beyond 250,000 miles anyways. And cars can be regulated to drive ICEs to extinction through the fraud of CO2 (ie, miles per gallon) regulation.

That's pretty much why EV zealots focus there, trying to force inferior vehicles on people to somehow save the planet.

However, when it comes to vehicles that actually do work in any form (something most folks never really think about), going EV is impossible and can't be forced by government regulation as it currently exists in the US.

In the first place, in work vehicles (GVWR over 14,000 lbs) emissions are regulated on an engine only basis. That means that MPG considerations and regulatory requirements don't and can't exist. That's why it hasn't managed to be done in the last 14 years since CO2 became a regulated pollutant. In truth, CO2 has never before been considered a pollutant for very good reason- because it isn't. The composition of perfect engine exhaust is about 30% CO2, 30% water, and the rest Nitrogen. Actual pollutants which come from the inevitable imperfections of combustion that comes from rapidly changing volumes and pressure in the combustion chamber are miniscule and are virtually eliminated with exhaust aftertreatment.

In work vehicles this is needed because 1) ICE engines are at their best at full load, compared to EVs which are at their best in no load conditions, and 2) work vehicles are perfect in the middle of nowhere with no infrastructure to rely on (you can always get a tanker truck to bring you the diesel you need), and 3) ICE can power cranes and all kinds of work implements you need.

And commercial engines can be and are easy to rebuild to easily get a million or more miles out of them getting great return on your capital investment.

This can be seen in the recent CAFE standards from the Biden Administration. It's been widely publicized that the greenies were really upset that light trucks (that are regulated on a vehicle basis like cars) really skated without significant increases in mileage requirements. Again, kind of a rock and a hard place for regulators since you can always step up to a nice F450 if the government kills your F350. That's also why I believe folks like Ford haven't been all in on EVs. They'll do what they need to do to play along, but they've also got a whole bunch of medium duty vehicles if good cars are forced out of existence.

And if commercial vehicles can't be replaced by EV, petroleum will continue to be available making an all EV fleet impossible no matter how much EV propaganda and subsidies you throw at it.

Check mate.

 

Yeah I'm not an adherent of the climate crazies. I also don't believe that one size fits all, or that the government trying to basically outlaw ICE's is in anyone's best interest.

There are at least two major areas of consideration when it comes to vehicles: commuter and transportation. There are also at least two major areas for commuter vehicles: urban and rural.

I think it's obvious that most vehicles are going to fall into the commuter category. This is further complicated by urban/rural as well as climate. An EV's performance is going to degrade in the cold and should be taken into consideration. The performance hit probably not a big deal in urban areas, but would be in rural.

EV's could fill that part of the market with sub 200 mile range, which is probably the majority of commuter vehicles. I don't think that's a bad thing IF the charging infrastructure exists.

It doesn't address the problems people would face charging their vehicle if they're renting, for example. Charging would need to be available either at work or at home. In urban areas, this would mean parking garages and places where people live in apartments would need to have that built in to their leases.

One area of pollution that WOULD be addressed by reducing the number of ICE engines in the commuter category would be waste oil, waste coolant, etc. I'm not sure what petroleum products would exist in the drivetrains of an EV. Haven't looked into that. I'd guess there is probably some form of lubrication in the differentials, for example.

It might not eliminate it, but I think it would reduce the amount of waste fluids generated.

My point on the battery costs though is that it's fairly congruent with engine replacements in terms of cost and timeline on when it would need to be done. I suspect most would just replace the vehicle itself.

I'm one of the outliers when it comes to vehicle ownership. I'd rather replace an engine than replace the car, but I have a garage and can do it myself so it doesn't cost me nearly as much.

Do it yourselfers probably won't have many options when it comes to working on their own electric vehicles.

I really haven't looked at the commercial aspect yet, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a few hundred miles followed by hours of charging time isn't going to work in long distance transportation.

 

Today's Tesla car batteries appear to last between 300k and 500k miles.

But, battery technology is rapidly advancing. One would have to keep investigating how long the various emerging battery types last.

Tesla motors are claimed to last 500,000 miles.

However, there are Tesla cars that have lasted more than a million miles on original equipment.

 

Oh yes, because pedestrian protection is such an important safety feature.

 

So batteries technically could last about twice as long as well maintained ICE engines.

That's not bad, as most people replace a car well before an engine replacement is required.

Pushing for the banning of ICE engines is a serious mistake though for several reasons.

The EV isn't practical for every scenario in urban and rural areas. Charging is a long process that isn't feasible on long drives, and doesn't have the infrastructure. Even at home charging is complicated for many, like those who have limited parking or park in parking lot style apartments.

Then of course you get into cost and available repair facilities. People without a lot of money aren't going to be finding $2k-$5k used EVs for sale, which is all a lot of people can afford. What are they going to do, walk?

There are going to be a lot of unintended consequences if the people pushing these things don't objectively address these, and other, points.

I won't even get into long distance transportation/heavy machinery. That's a whole 'nother thing entirely.

 

I fully believe that there could be modifications to the bans on the sale of new ICE vehicles.

There may well be categories in which there aren't competitive EV offerings.

There could well be failures to provide adequate charging in particular regions.

However, cities are not going to like having ICE cars on their streets and EVs are clearly attractive to a broad marketplace as their prices are becoming competitive and range has continued improving.

It's really too early to judge the sales of used EVs, as there are a number of factors, especially including the comparison of fleet size comparison between ICE and EV at this stage.

Another such factor is that If you drive the average number of miles for an American, a typical car should last you about 14 years and an electric car will last about 21 years. So, buying a 10yo EV isn't the same as buying a 10yo EV. Plus, it is pushing up the number of years that people keep their car. Besides, why trade your Tesla in on a new Tesla when the new Tesla looks identical and really doesn't have much that your Tesla has?

Tesla isn't like legacy manufacturers who are constantly changing hugely expensive taillights, body styling, front grills, etc., increasing their manufacturing and maintenance costs in the hopes that owners will get dazzled by the nonsense.

https://www.thezebra.com/resources/...drive the average,has increased to 12.1 years.

 

I seriously doubt that, most EVs seem to have lifespans of around a decade. I can't think of any conventional engine that has a lifespan anywhere near that low (in conventional vehicles it is closer to 20-30+ years).

And you actually can find EVs remarkably cheap. However, most of them tend to have batteries at the end of their lifespan so need around $7k put into them to keep operating. And we will see how well the gearbox lasts after that. And that is not something I say lightly, as EVs do not use a transmission like conventional vehicles but a gearbox that is constructed very differently than a transmission. And to start with, only the transmission manufacturer can service the things. You can't just pop down to your local tranny place and have them fix it or have your mechanic buddy rebuild it for you.

They are literally core swapped, and sent back to the manufacturer. And the terminal failure for those tends to occur at around 15 years. And that is another $4k when it fails.

That is why EV prices drop like a rock after around 6-7 years. As at that point if somebody planned on keeping it they would have to start saving a hell of a lot of money to pay for the replacements that would be due at almost any time. Figure that on top of what you pay, by the time it is 10-15 years old expect to throw in an additional $10-15k just to keep it working. Then throw that in again every decade or so.

 

Yeah I was looking at some statistics on passenger vehicles trying to see if some comparisons could be made.

It looks like the average age of cars on the road are around 12 years old, but the average owner replaces their car every 7 years or so.

It's not a 1 for 1, but it's fairly close to that 10 year mark you're suggesting for EV replacement.

While it's actually cheaper to put a new engine in than to trade in your old car for a new one, a lot of people don't opt for that option. That could be because they don't have enough money to pay for a single large expense all at once, and prefer to spend more but over a longer period of time. Major car repairs (hell even minor ones) don't often factor into people's budgets and they're just more comfortable with the concept of long term car payments. Maybe they just want something different. I dunno.

It's hard for me to relate to how often most people replace their vehicles as I usually maintain my own. My Wrangler is getting up there in age and I've been looking into pricing out doing a hemi swap. The only thing I have had to rely on a mechanic's shop for are auto trannys and differential gearing. Not something I'd do often enough to have the the special tools that requires, and autos are voodoo compared to replacing clutch material, throw out bearings, etc in a manual transmission.

I did mention earlier that finding a local place to work on your EV is going to be problematic and I don't even know if the manufacturer will even allow it. It will take time for drivetrain repairs to be possible at the local level. I don't even think a lot of body damage can be repaired locally on many of them.

Still, for a large segment of the US that is already replacing their cars every 7 years on average, so most of the major repair concerns wouldn't even come up.

The people it will hurt are those who tend to work on their own cars and those who simply can't afford to replace their car every 7-10 years. It would make the used EV market (where perhaps the dealers are replacing batteries and reselling) quite expensive. There would be no sub $10k vehicles available in working condition.

It's workable for a segment of the population, but there are still a lot of issues here.

 

I agree with a lot of that but there are a lot of other major factors.

Charging is one, and not just the availability of charging stations, but the time required and locations you can charge. A lot of people that don't have a garage or a private parking area aren't going to be near a source of power.

The entire national electric grid is creaky and you're talking about a huge increase on that grid even if you only get up into a 25% replacement of current ICE commuter category vehicles. Right now I think it's like 6% EVs (but that includes hybrids I think) and the charging problems are already showing themselves.

Why do people replace their phones every year when it's basically the same thing? People like new stuff. They like the idea of new features that their 7 year old car doesn't have. They want to get rid of their existing car before major problems start to happen. They're comfortable with known, fixed expense of a car payment instead of the large, out of nowhere expense of a repair. They don't like not having their car while it gets repaired. There's lot of reasons people replace their car every 7 years on average.

The other unintended side effect of mandating EVs by law is going to be that ICE engine options are going to vastly increase in price.

We saw what happened to the used car market during all the self-inflicted covid nonsense.

 

Bans on the sale of new ICE vehicles are simply practical fantasies, even in the self righteousness capital of the country California, since there's simply no way to divorce themselves from the rest of the country. Yes, bunches of stuff is made or imported there, but that actual people who will buy it are a couple thousand miles away and there's no way to get your products to market there if all you've got are EVs. And as for only being able to buy EVs in the state, there are a lot of state borders to be crossed to buy what you want there and then license it in California as "gently used" with 17 miles on the odometer.

Just too many workarounds and unintended consequences to make that work.

 

Automakers and the government are working on charging locations.

Charging time is getting the full attention of EV manufacturers. Significant improvements are in the works. Today, there are EVs that can give you 200 miles of charging in 15 minutes. When the charging stations are at the facilities that people use (government buildings, shopping centers, etc., 15 minutes is not an issue. And, it is also not the limit on how fast charging can get - so it can't be used as a limit on future advancement.

I agree that the nation's infrastructure, certainly including electricity, is weak. There are many reasons for needing improvements in our electric grid. And, there have been serious attempts to fund improvements. Unfortunately, that is a tough battle in congress. I've seen YOU post on that.

Your characterization of our COVID disaster is a jaunt into nonsense land.

 

Cars. Not trucks.

Please check before you make claims.

 

The infrastructure would need to be in place before you can push that much energy that fast. It doesn't matter how fast the charger can deliver.

Congress needs to get back to single issue bills, instead of wrapping all kinds of random nonsense into a bill for infrastructure that has nothing to do with infrastructure.

No, my covid mention wasn't nonsense at all. It was a major self inflicted wound to shut down the world for it.

 

I do know my claims. Apparently a lot better than you know yours.

 

There is no bill that can get through congress without there being Democrats and Republicans adding stuff that many would see as irrelevant. That is the sausage factory of our federal legislature.

BUT, the issue of improving our electricity infrastructure is needed for many serious reasons.

Your COVID nonsense was proven false by Trump. He directed meat packers to stay in full production mode. That was a disaster for the cities where those companies resided, and they ended up having to shut down because of their work force and their families getting sick as COVID raged through their workplaces.

 

Nope. The CA EV sales rule is on cars.

 

Oh lawrd I set off the TDS.

 

Yes, just MENTIONING something Trump did sets of a cataclysm of righteous denial all across the RNC.

But, the catch is that he tried YOUR idea and it was proven not to work.

 

Yeah sure. Go put some ice on that TDS bro.

 

So they're not banning light trucks or small SUVs or any other types of vehicles that are usually considered in the same classification as cars (ie. Class 1 & 2 vehicles)?

Good. Then it's an even stupider rule than I first envisioned.

 

Huh? I don't recall Trump ever "directing" anybody to remain open. At worst, he never really directed anybody to close for COVID. Individual governors closed their states down to varying degrees (Newsome shuttered California, DeSantis didn't shut anything down) but noone was directed to remain open. Here in Virginia I worked for a company that was exempted from Governor Northam's mandated shut downs and I continued to work but had to carry a letter from the Governor just in case someone asked why I was out driving. I think only two people got leave for COVID in all that time.

But that had nothing to do with Trump. I think your memory's going.

 

It covers cars and light trucks and is a staged approach:

The new rule requires that 35% of new passenger cars and light trucks sold in California be either zero-emission, plug-in hybrid or hydrogen-powered models by 2026.

That's raised to 68% in 2030 and 100% in 2035.

Manufacturers face fines if they don't comply with those targets.

We'll see how it goes. Laws can change.

I think the biggest pressure will come from buyers. The major manufacturers do not have the kind of margins that would allow them to sell fewer vehicles and still survive. And, they are losing sales internationally due to this issue - sales numbers that are important to the bottom lines of several of the major manufacturers.

That's going to be the first big hurdle. By 2026, we'll see who is likely to live and who isn't.

 

Trump declared meat packing to be an exceptional national need. He directed that they should remain open and that they didn't need to bother with any of the safety direction by OHSA and CDC - even though those suggestions were cheap and easy and even though those directions have usually been considered requirements.

So, they stayed open and became centers of COVID in several states, resulting in closures due to disease.