RIP the internal combustion engine!

All things Rugby
Gwenno
Posts: 8167
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Gwenno »

Took the plunge, bought a second hand Renault Zoe as my local run about and car for 2 youngest sons. Driven sensibly it will do 90 m/full charge. It is a 2014 model so 22 kWh battery. My estimate based on predicted miles and average m/kWh is that the battery is at 89%, hence the c 90 miles, so I can't ask Renault for a replacement battery - 75% is the threshold in the hire agreement. If all goes well (so far, very happy) I will trade in a few years for a newer model, with 40 or 50 kWh batteries.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 9066
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by booji boy »

Colleague at work bought a second hand Nissan Leaf for his wife as their 'run about town' car. I live in a small regional town and it is a long way to other towns so given the limited range of the Leaf it is definitely just for buying groceries, dropping off and picking up kids from school etc. To go any further beyond the towns boundaries you'd definitely need a recharging station somewhere along the journey.
User avatar
A5D5E5
Posts: 11408
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by A5D5E5 »

My next door neighbours have just got a Tesla Model S. I'll be very interested to hear what they think of it.
User avatar
The Man Without Fear
Posts: 11126
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by The Man Without Fear »

Gwenno wrote:Took the plunge, bought a second hand Renault Zoe as my local run about and car for 2 youngest sons. Driven sensibly it will do 90 m/full charge. It is a 2014 model so 22 kWh battery. My estimate based on predicted miles and average m/kWh is that the battery is at 89%, hence the c 90 miles, so I can't ask Renault for a replacement battery - 75% is the threshold in the hire agreement. If all goes well (so far, very happy) I will trade in a few years for a newer model, with 40 or 50 kWh batteries.
The new 50 kWh version is out soon, so there should be a good selection of used ones in a couple of years.
User avatar
julian
Posts: 3377
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by julian »

I wonder whether electric cars carbon footprint production matches or is higher than regular fuel cars. If electricity is produced from fossil fuels then is a total snobbery.
bimboman
Posts: 68784
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by bimboman »

julian wrote:I wonder whether electric cars carbon footprint production matches or is higher than regular fuel cars. If electricity is produced from fossil fuels then is a total snobbery.

It’s more a great big signal that you care about the planet.
User avatar
The Man Without Fear
Posts: 11126
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by The Man Without Fear »

julian wrote:I wonder whether electric cars carbon footprint production matches or is higher than regular fuel cars. If electricity is produced from fossil fuels then is a total snobbery.
I understand that production is higher, lifetime is always lower, even if the car is run entirely on coal power for every single day of its life.
User avatar
The Man Without Fear
Posts: 11126
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by The Man Without Fear »

bimboman wrote:
julian wrote:I wonder whether electric cars carbon footprint production matches or is higher than regular fuel cars. If electricity is produced from fossil fuels then is a total snobbery.

It’s more a great big signal that you care about the planet.
Only in your tiny little brain.
User avatar
Leinsterman
Posts: 10119
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Leinsterman »

julian wrote:I wonder whether electric cars carbon footprint production matches or is higher than regular fuel cars. If electricity is produced from fossil fuels then is a total snobbery.
It's slightly higher but is more than offset during the actual usage of the car, even if the electricity is generated using fossil fuels.
Even without taking that into consideration, there is a considerable benefit in reducing exhaust-pipe emissions particularly in built-up areas.
bimboman
Posts: 68784
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by bimboman »

The Man Without Fear wrote:
bimboman wrote:
julian wrote:I wonder whether electric cars carbon footprint production matches or is higher than regular fuel cars. If electricity is produced from fossil fuels then is a total snobbery.

It’s more a great big signal that you care about the planet.
Only in your tiny little brain.

Oh, TMWF is saving the planet, one carbon offset after the next.
User avatar
The Man Without Fear
Posts: 11126
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by The Man Without Fear »

bimboman wrote:
The Man Without Fear wrote:
bimboman wrote:
julian wrote:I wonder whether electric cars carbon footprint production matches or is higher than regular fuel cars. If electricity is produced from fossil fuels then is a total snobbery.

It’s more a great big signal that you care about the planet.
Only in your tiny little brain.

Oh, TMWF is saving the planet, one carbon offset after the next.
Whatever.
User avatar
julian
Posts: 3377
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by julian »

Leinsterman wrote:
julian wrote:I wonder whether electric cars carbon footprint production matches or is higher than regular fuel cars. If electricity is produced from fossil fuels then is a total snobbery.
It's slightly higher but is more than offset during the actual usage of the car, even if the electricity is generated using fossil fuels.
Even without taking that into consideration, there is a considerable benefit in reducing exhaust-pipe emissions particularly in built-up areas.
Do you drive an e car at the moment or have any kind of tax break for having one in Ire??
User avatar
julian
Posts: 3377
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by julian »

The Man Without Fear wrote:
julian wrote:I wonder whether electric cars carbon footprint production matches or is higher than regular fuel cars. If electricity is produced from fossil fuels then is a total snobbery.
I understand that production is higher, lifetime is always lower, even if the car is run entirely on coal power for every single day of its life.
:thumbup:
User avatar
Leinsterman
Posts: 10119
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Leinsterman »

I have a plug-in hybrid that I imported from the UK.
EVs benefit from a lower Vehicle Registration Tax in Ireland and the government also give a grant towards purchasing new ones.
The reduced VRT was a benefit of approx €2k to me.
bimboman
Posts: 68784
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by bimboman »

The Man Without Fear wrote:
bimboman wrote:
The Man Without Fear wrote:
bimboman wrote:
julian wrote:I wonder whether electric cars carbon footprint production matches or is higher than regular fuel cars. If electricity is produced from fossil fuels then is a total snobbery.

It’s more a great big signal that you care about the planet.
Only in your tiny little brain.

Oh, TMWF is saving the planet, one carbon offset after the next.
Whatever.

How can you tell when meeting someone if they drive an electric car?



A: there’s no need they’ll obviously tell you.
User avatar
julian
Posts: 3377
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by julian »

Leinsterman wrote:I have a plug-in hybrid that I imported from the UK.
EVs benefit from a lower Vehicle Registration Tax in Ireland and the government also give a grant towards purchasing new ones.
The reduced VRT was a benefit of approx €2k to me.
That's some money. Having those kind of benefits I would be thinking about having an e car as well.
User avatar
Leinsterman
Posts: 10119
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Leinsterman »

Since I've bought it, I've done over 5000 miles.
I've been operating in full EV mode for exactly half those miles.
Combined mpg is currently 56mpg. I was only managing approx 30mpg in my old car so significant savings for my wallet.
Gwenno
Posts: 8167
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Gwenno »

We drove over the Beacons to Merthyr Tydfil in it. After crossing the highest point on the A470 on the way home, the 15 or so miles home 'cost' me about 3 miles because of the regenerative braking, the fact that it is almost all down hill. It clearly is so more efficient in terms of pence/mile compared with diesel (roughly 4 for electricity, 13 for diesel). I don't give shit about virtue signaling - I like to have a second car for emergencies, and for my younger son son to use when home, and the fact that I can 'fill the tank' at home is a great bonus. I've always been interested in electric cars, and I'm glad that they are now in reach.
User avatar
The Man Without Fear
Posts: 11126
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by The Man Without Fear »

Leinsterman wrote:Since I've bought it, I've done over 5000 miles.
I've been operating in full EV mode for exactly half those miles.
Combined mpg is currently 56mpg. I was only managing approx 30mpg in my old car so significant savings for my wallet.
What did you get?
User avatar
Leinsterman
Posts: 10119
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Leinsterman »

Merc C350e
User avatar
The Man Without Fear
Posts: 11126
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by The Man Without Fear »

Leinsterman wrote:Merc C350e
Nice, but the charge flap is in a really odd place, back bumper, I seem to recall.

Estate or saloon?
User avatar
Leinsterman
Posts: 10119
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Leinsterman »

Saloon. Yeah it's on the back bumper but I think that's a good spot because it minimises a trailing lead.
Thinking of the new PHEV Grandland X or the Mitsubishi Outlander for the wife's next car.
User avatar
Rinkals
Posts: 17659
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Rinkals »

Gwenno wrote:We drove over the Beacons to Merthyr Tydfil in it. After crossing the highest point on the A470 on the way home, the 15 or so miles home 'cost' me about 3 miles because of the regenerative braking, the fact that it is almost all down hill. It clearly is so more efficient in terms of pence/mile compared with diesel (roughly 4 for electricity, 13 for diesel). I don't give shit about virtue signaling - I like to have a second car for emergencies, and for my younger son son to use when home, and the fact that I can 'fill the tank' at home is a great bonus. I've always been interested in electric cars, and I'm glad that they are now in reach.
That's not the sort of thing that Bimbo wants to read: can't you throw in a couple of negatives in there? maybe that you were overtaken by a bicycle and a couple of sheep?
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 33483
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by guy smiley »

booji boy wrote:Colleague at work bought a second hand Nissan Leaf for his wife as their 'run about town' car. I live in a small regional town and it is a long way to other towns so given the limited range of the Leaf it is definitely just for buying groceries, dropping off and picking up kids from school etc. To go any further beyond the towns boundaries you'd definitely need a recharging station somewhere along the journey.

My sister and BiL live in West Melton, about 25km outside Christchurch. Both work in town, they use a second hand Leaf. I'm not sure of the battery size in theirs but over the year or so they've had it it's done everything they need from a car including multiple trips on weekends for shopping, visits etc along with the commute. It's cost them a recharger unit, which was fairly cheap to replace..

oh, and of course being virtue signallers par excellence they're charging it through the household PV array with back up from NZ's hydro powered grid. It's costing sweet f-all.
Gwenno
Posts: 8167
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Gwenno »

Rinkals wrote:
Gwenno wrote:We drove over the Beacons to Merthyr Tydfil in it. After crossing the highest point on the A470 on the way home, the 15 or so miles home 'cost' me about 3 miles because of the regenerative braking, the fact that it is almost all down hill. It clearly is so more efficient in terms of pence/mile compared with diesel (roughly 4 for electricity, 13 for diesel). I don't give shit about virtue signaling - I like to have a second car for emergencies, and for my younger son son to use when home, and the fact that I can 'fill the tank' at home is a great bonus. I've always been interested in electric cars, and I'm glad that they are now in reach.
That's not the sort of thing that Bimbo wants to read: can't you throw in a couple of negatives in there? maybe that you were overtaken by a bicycle and a couple of sheep?
We were overtaken by a couple of sheep, but they were driving hybrids.
User avatar
Leffe
Posts: 5034
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:39 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Leffe »

julian wrote:I wonder whether electric cars carbon footprint production matches or is higher than regular fuel cars. If electricity is produced from fossil fuels then is a total snobbery.
I'd say not. Electric cars ensure cleaner air in cities, this is really important.
Gwenno
Posts: 8167
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Gwenno »

Leffe wrote:
julian wrote:I wonder whether electric cars carbon footprint production matches or is higher than regular fuel cars. If electricity is produced from fossil fuels then is a total snobbery.
I'd say not. Electric cars ensure cleaner air in cities, this is really important.
Also green electricity production rises every year. The point is, the western world long ago decided to have a system whereby plentiful supplies of energy are delivered directly to our houses, namely electricity, and this means that, for the most part, you haven't got to fill up on the way home, or drive a 10 mile round trip to the nearest garage, you just fill up while you're making the suppper and watching the match. I'm heartened by the fact that there are 50 kwhr batteries available for the little cars now, but we still need more fast charge points around the uk to match the convenience of fossil fuel cars, and the more people that buy electric cars the more worthwhile it will be to set up these points and the cheaper the cars will become.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 9066
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by booji boy »

guy smiley wrote:
booji boy wrote:Colleague at work bought a second hand Nissan Leaf for his wife as their 'run about town' car. I live in a small regional town and it is a long way to other towns so given the limited range of the Leaf it is definitely just for buying groceries, dropping off and picking up kids from school etc. To go any further beyond the towns boundaries you'd definitely need a recharging station somewhere along the journey.

My sister and BiL live in West Melton, about 25km outside Christchurch. Both work in town, they use a second hand Leaf. I'm not sure of the battery size in theirs but over the year or so they've had it it's done everything they need from a car including multiple trips on weekends for shopping, visits etc along with the commute. It's cost them a recharger unit, which was fairly cheap to replace..

oh, and of course being virtue signallers par excellence they're charging it through the household PV array with back up from NZ's hydro powered grid. It's costing sweet f-all.
Yeah my colleague was explaining the maths re fuel cost/consumption of the Leaf vs a petrol car and it's a significant saving over the course of a year.

A few years ago another colleague demo'd a small electric car, can't recall the model, might have been a Leaf. Decided to drive it from Taupo to Mangakino. A 56km journey. Starting with 100% charge he arrived at Mangakino and the battery was down to 51%. So he plugged it in to recharge for the return journey. Since it had used 49% of the charge to get there he charged it up to 60% for the return trip figuring that would be sufficient to get him home. What he didn't realise, and neither did I despite driving the journey many times, is that the return leg is uphill compared to the trip there. Part way home the trip was eating the battery alive and he realised there was no way he was going to make it back. So he had to pull into a farm and beg the farmers wife to let him charge his car while she made him a cup of tea. :lol:

I guess the range has improved a lot since then. 8)
User avatar
Geek
Posts: 473
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:02 pm

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Geek »

Interesting that Dyson canned their planned electric car, stating that it wouldn't be commercially viable. A little worrying for those predicting a major shift away from ICE to motors.
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 13418
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by message #2527204 »

Saw an article the other day saying that some British guy had invented a new electrolyte for Al-air batteries. Could be a game changer, but stiffly resisted by the motor industry who've invested in li ion tech no doubt.
merlin the happy pig
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by merlin the happy pig »

Geek wrote:Interesting that Dyson canned their planned electric car, stating that it wouldn't be commercially viable. A little worrying for those predicting a major shift away from ICE to motors.
I think this mostly relates to how difficult it is to be profitable as a car manufacturer rather than the pros/cons of electric power.

It's not a foregone conclusion, but battery prices continue to fall slowly but surely, and battery chemistry continues to improve.

Perhaps the biggest news in this space is the feasibility of batteries that last 1 million miles (1.6 million kms)
https://bigthink.com/technology-innovat ... le-battery.

Longer battery life obviously helps lessen some of the downsides of batteries, i.e. mining, recycling/toxic waste, and replacement cost.
merlin the happy pig
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by merlin the happy pig »

message #2527204 wrote:Saw an article the other day saying that some British guy had invented a new electrolyte for Al-air batteries. Could be a game changer, but stiffly resisted by the motor industry who've invested in li ion tech no doubt.
Ultimately I think Al-Air or Li-Air is the holy grail.
Li-Air is supposed to be theoretically capable of 10x the energy density of Li-ion, which would be of huge benefit in reducing mass and increasing range/performance of electric vehicles.

At that point some all-electric air travel becomes realistic.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 17547
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Farva »

merlin the happy pig wrote:
message #2527204 wrote:Saw an article the other day saying that some British guy had invented a new electrolyte for Al-air batteries. Could be a game changer, but stiffly resisted by the motor industry who've invested in li ion tech no doubt.
Ultimately I think Al-Air or Li-Air is the holy grail.
Li-Air is supposed to be theoretically capable of 10x the energy density of Li-ion, which would be of huge benefit in reducing mass and increasing range/performance of electric vehicles.

At that point some all-electric air travel becomes realistic.
Just started reading on that. You are right, they get a huge boost in energy density and so ranges go up dramatically, while weight plummets.
User avatar
Sensible Stephen
Posts: 3079
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Sensible Stephen »

merlin the happy pig wrote:
Geek wrote:Interesting that Dyson canned their planned electric car, stating that it wouldn't be commercially viable. A little worrying for those predicting a major shift away from ICE to motors.
I think this mostly relates to how difficult it is to be profitable as a car manufacturer rather than the pros/cons of electric power.

It's not a foregone conclusion, but battery prices continue to fall slowly but surely, and battery chemistry continues to improve.

Perhaps the biggest news in this space is the feasibility of batteries that last 1 million miles (1.6 million kms)
https://bigthink.com/technology-innovat ... le-battery.

Longer battery life obviously helps lessen some of the downsides of batteries, i.e. mining, recycling/toxic waste, and replacement cost.
Probably hinges on a battery break through which from the latest couple of posts here seems like there might just be one around the corner?

Hydrogen seems to be very much in the picture still. For use in cars, but more importantly perhaps, also as a replacement for natural gas. Seems a bit dangerous, but looks like that is the way things are going.
User avatar
bok_viking
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:45 pm
Location: Shenzhen, China
Contact:

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by bok_viking »

Sensible Stephen wrote:
merlin the happy pig wrote:
Geek wrote:Interesting that Dyson canned their planned electric car, stating that it wouldn't be commercially viable. A little worrying for those predicting a major shift away from ICE to motors.
I think this mostly relates to how difficult it is to be profitable as a car manufacturer rather than the pros/cons of electric power.

It's not a foregone conclusion, but battery prices continue to fall slowly but surely, and battery chemistry continues to improve.

Perhaps the biggest news in this space is the feasibility of batteries that last 1 million miles (1.6 million kms)
https://bigthink.com/technology-innovat ... le-battery.

Longer battery life obviously helps lessen some of the downsides of batteries, i.e. mining, recycling/toxic waste, and replacement cost.
Probably hinges on a battery break through which from the latest couple of posts here seems like there might just be one around the corner?

Hydrogen seems to be very much in the picture still. For use in cars, but more importantly perhaps, also as a replacement for natural gas. Seems a bit dangerous, but looks like that is the way things are going.
I think the whole renewable energy thing would really take off if one of those battery breakthroughs actually get to market. The incremental improvements with current tech is just not enough for the whole industry to take a major step forward. Whether it is electric cars, energy generation, houses running of renewable sources. Everything is waiting for that battery breakthrough.
I hope it happens very soon, a lot of great battery tech never made it through the commercial upscaling process.
Countries like Denmark can already generate more than 50% of their energy consumption from wind, rubbish recycling, etc, so for such countries going fully renewable would happen very fast with the right battery tech. I myself would love to get to the point where i can fully run my house and car of renewable sources. I'm not an ICE devotee so as soon as it is convenient enough for my lifestyle i would jump to electricity.
Yer Man
Posts: 21054
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Yer Man »

julian wrote:I wonder whether electric cars carbon footprint production matches or is higher than regular fuel cars. If electricity is produced from fossil fuels then is a total snobbery.
That's an interim stage.
Energy production has been moving from fossil to renewables for years and will continue to do so until it is hugely in the majority (even if it never reaches 100%).
Cleaning up the air in urban areas is a huge benefit regardless.




Al-Air batteries... interesting.
Although I can't see it taking off in 'Murica - sound like an Ay-rab plot :lol:
User avatar
Leinsterman
Posts: 10119
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Leinsterman »

Geek wrote:Interesting that Dyson canned their planned electric car, stating that it wouldn't be commercially viable. A little worrying for those predicting a major shift away from ICE to motors.
They would be starting from scratch though. Zero history of manufacturing cars so they would need to invest significantly in plant. It's not as if they could just wake up one morning and start making cars and turn a profit quickly.
User avatar
bok_viking
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:45 pm
Location: Shenzhen, China
Contact:

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by bok_viking »

Leinsterman wrote:
Geek wrote:Interesting that Dyson canned their planned electric car, stating that it wouldn't be commercially viable. A little worrying for those predicting a major shift away from ICE to motors.
They would be starting from scratch though. Zero history of manufacturing cars so they would need to invest significantly in plant. It's not as if they could just wake up one morning and start making cars and turn a profit quickly.
I think it is quite difficult for a new player to come into the market. Even some existing car manufacturers are struggling to get their foot into the electric market. Specially at this stage where I thing R&D money is a much larger percentage of the company's budget that with traditional cars and the market percentage is very low.

I spend a lot of time in China and even with a rapid rise in purchases in electric vehicles here, the new electric car chinese companies that started up with loads of government backing are folding one after the other. They just cannot sell enough cars to cover the R&D costs required to be competitive against the existing car companies, it is a massive uphill battle for any newbie, no matter how deep your pockets are. I can imagine it is quite difficult for a new guy to get their hands on the top innovative staff required to have a successful crack at it.
User avatar
Rinkals
Posts: 17659
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Rinkals »

message #2527204 wrote:Saw an article the other day saying that some British guy had invented a new electrolyte for Al-air batteries. Could be a game changer, but stiffly resisted by the motor industry who've invested in li ion tech no doubt.
Yes, I think this is the article you are referring to: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7592485/Father-eight-invents-electric-car-battery-drivers-1-500-miles-without-charging-it.html?fbclid=IwAR1ZCNUNFIh2NACTXOS2SeV5dMr-Ti_Vk57f7BWM079h0c7-z-AYrPX1ix0

However, it IS the Daily Mail and you should probably read this before investing too much in the story of the plucky English inventor making a world-changing discovery but having to fight against the dastardly European Car Makers.

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/aluminum-air-batteries/
But as always, the devil is in the details. What exactly are they talking about? There are lots of red flags in this article, starting with the fact that it is in the Daily Mail, which doesn’t exactly have a good reputation for high quality journalism. Also it makes it seem like this is the invention of one guy, rather than a lab, company, or even industry. That’s not realistic. There is also this:

Few will have heard of Jackson’s extraordinary invention. The reason, he says, is that since he and his company Metalectrique Ltd came up with a prototype a decade ago, he has faced determined opposition from the automobile industry establishment.

Sorry, but this conspiracy theory does not pass the smell test. New battery tech would not threaten the automotive industry, it would be a new option.

In any case, regardless of the sensational reporting, what are the actual facts of the battery itself. The inventor is Trevor Jackson, who claims to have made a breakthrough in aluminum-air (al-air) batteries. This technology is not new, it has been around since the 1960s, and is actually being used in some settings, like the military. This might be better described as a fuel cell than a battery, however. First – it is not rechargable. The energy comes from oxidizing aluminum:

This battery uses the oxidation of aluminum at the anode and the reduction of oxygen at the cathode to form a galvanic cell. In the process the aluminum is completely consumed to produce aluminum hydroxide. The metal air battery has a very attractive energy density because part of the reactants come from the air.

Aluminum is also a light metal, with good energy density. One technical limitation to widespread use of an al-air cell is that the electrolyte solution is very toxic. This is the breakthrough that Jackson claims, that he developed a new electrolyte solution that is so non-toxic you can drink it. He is not revealing his formula, saying it is proprietary, but he claims he has demonstrated his fuel cell to third parties. OK – let’s assume his core claim is true, that he has a new version of the al-air battery with a non-toxic electrolyte. Is this a good option for the next fleet of automobiles?

I think there are good reasons the automotive industry remains skeptical. There are practical considerations here. A Telsa lithium ion battery pack weighs 540 kg (1,200 lbs). Even at five times the energy density, a pack with a 300 mile range would weigh 240 pounds. Since the battery cannot be recharged, it would need to be swapped out. The driver would not be expected to lift a 240 pound battery, or more for longer range vehicles. You could break it up into many 20 pound batteries, or require a station with equipment to lift out the spent battery. Either way, this would require a new infrastructure that is not trivial.

All these spent batteries can be recycled to reclaim the aluminum, but that is an energy-dependent process. Basically you have to put more energy back in than what you got out from the battery. This is another required infrastructure. Requiring new infrastructure is not a deal-killer, if the advantages are worth it, but it is a significant barrier.

The potential advantages are the good energy density, and the fact that aluminum is cheap and abundant. You could use aluminum recycled from cans, for example, to make the batteries. But the non-rechargeable thing is a huge drawback. This would require an entirely new approach to electric vehicles, at the very least delaying adoption. You get a chicken-and-egg problem – will people buy the car before the infrastructure is ready, and who will build the infrastructure until there are enough users on the road? Such situations are frequent, and they can be bootstrapped by early adopters and industry and government investments to boost the infrastructure enough to lure in users. If we decide that this is the best way to go, we can make it happen.

But I am just not seeing the advantages necessary to make such a huge investment in a fairly dedicated infrastructure. Swapping out hundreds of pounds of batteries every few days doesn’t seem practical.
Yer Man
Posts: 21054
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Yer Man »

Not quite so promising after all.
Post Reply