The Electric Car may be entering its “cell phone” period
ideas.4brad.comGood electric car battery standard would solve almost all of the problems of electric cars.
1. The battery is where most development happens and where it's most needed. So you don't have to worry about your car getting too old too fast. Just get fresh battery.
2. Range: just swap the battery if you run out of juice. They could be rented like gas bottles are at service station.
3. Battery charge lifespan.
4. Potentially emerging fuel cells. They are just a way to burn something into electricity. Why do you care what kind of black box feeds you car some current?
How could this be done? Build robots at service stations that lift a battery pack into the bottom of the car. Good place could be where the spare wheel currently goes. Bottom of the trunk. You could steal mechanical locking from intermodal containers, just scale it down. And electric connectors could be upscale speakon connectors stolen from pro audio.
Tesla did have battery swap stations where the battery would be swapped in around 90 seconds (less time than it takes to fill up a tank)[0]. However, uptake was apparently very small so focus was shifted to building the network of supercharger stations[1].
[0] https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/battery-swap-pilot-program
Tesla's battery swap station was a compliance tool in order to collect ZEV credits in California. A battery swap station costs ~$500K, while a Supercharger station with charging stalls costs $150K.
Tesla has determined that Supercharging is adequate for Tesla owners, and continued uptake of the product seems to confirm that hypothesis.
Here's a close up demonstration
The more interesting question, then, becomes "why didn't you swap your battery?" to drivers who charged instead.
You had to swap back to your own battery on the way home. When I drive SF/LA, I go down on I5 (passing the swap station) and come back up the coast.
If Teslas had leased batteries it would be easier, but they do not.
Charging is currently free, whereas the battery swap was US$60.
The idea makes sense. There was an Israeli startup that was trying to do this exact thing that didn't make it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place
Gogoro in Korea is trying to do this with mopeds (or scooters). There was a lot of hype a year ago, haven't heard much since http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/5/7484171/gogoro-smartscooter...
That sounded like a winner to me.
Here's a recent update about Gogoro:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/5/10707858/gogoro-gocharger-o...
I think the best situation would be formation of W3C of car batteries. Then they could design a limited set of interfaces. The thing we need is not specific implementation of technology, but somewhat boring specification to work between technologies. Current standardization authorities could do this, but they seem only interested in refining the old ones. (ISO I'm looking at you.)
PG agrees that standards and platforms are not good ground for startups. But I could not find that essay now.
>> Good electric car battery standard would solve almost all of the problems of electric cars.
It'd create a bunch more problems, just like all cellphones aren't going to use the same battery. Each car is designed around the battery since it's such a large piece of the car.
>>Each car is designed around the battery since it's such a large piece of the car.
This is not exactly true. Battery is heavy piece, so it has to be low for low center of gravity. The bottom mount is going to happen anyhow. Tesla and Leaf both have their battery in the bottom.
The only real problem would be that you can't use the battery as structural element if it's easily detached. But the bottom center point is not exactly critical for structural integrity, so the result would be slightly increased weight.
> 1. The battery is where most development happens and where it's most needed. So you don't have to worry about your car getting too old too fast. Just get fresh battery.
Isn't the situation more like, current battery technology (lithium) has only seen small incremental improvements for a while and apart from cost reductions there isn't anything major on short-medium timescale coming up.
You can still put in a new battery around the 10-15 year mark of course even with current cars, with hopefully a fraction of today's cost.
Personally I'm waiting for the moment when someone notices that you can burn pretty much anything in fuel cell. Then long distance travel could be fueled with vegetable oil or biowaste extracted methane. Once you step away from hydrogen, everything gets much easier. But the hype is on hydrogen and currently the economical incentives for alternatives are lacking.
Gogoro in Taiwan are going the battery swap route with their scooters: http://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/gogoro-scooters/
Battery swap failed after a $700M investment from Better Place for many reasons. But the big issue is that with battery swap, car owners do not buy or own their battery. But most of the innovation is in the battery. For innovation, you need competitive markets with lots of buyers and lots of competitors. It's much harder to have that with swap
Might be a bit early for an industry wide battery standard. Can you upgrade the battery with one from the same manufacturer after a few years now?
1) The Tesla just surpassed the Leaf as the most popular electric car (yes, even with the price difference).
2) Electric car perks are everywhere and rarely mentioned. Free charging, way better parking, fielding questions from curious onlookers, more cargo space, no noise, no warmup, no oil changes, etc.)
3) In the winter months in areas of the world with real seasons (read: not San Francisco area), cabin heating will detract significantly from your range on a long 20 degree F drive. Talking 25% less maximum range or so. You can mitigate it somewhat by using seat heat instead but I've found that passengers REALLY do not want to go that route (or worse, they want BOTH lol).
Georgia just ended their EV subsidy. You could get $5000 tax credit on leasing a LEAF for 2 years. That amounted to a free car for two years, in an area where EVs are the perfect commuter car. As a result, Georgia fast developed a huge EV market - which disappeared the moment the tax credit ended.
No surprise LEAF sales just crashed below Tesla's.
My experience is that the decrease during cold weather is more a function of the lowered performance of the battery than the result of the cabin heating. The battery draw at freeway speed is maybe 30kw. The baseline draw from the accessories in the vehicle ( radio, console ) and no heating/cooling/defroster is around 0.5kw. With the heat cranked up all the way and all the various heaters turned up to high the additional draw above baseline is 2-2.5kw.
Of course I can't find the links now via Google, but I saw an announcement recently (multiple actually) about batteries in development that are not affected by cold temperatures AND have higher charge capacity AND speed than Li-Ion. I believe (guessing here) it involved aluminum (but not those charge-only-once aluminum-air batteries... something else).
If those batteries were released commercially within the next 5 years, it would be a game-changer
I have just been scheduling a 100% charge overnight when its below freezing to compensate for the loss of battery efficiency. Normally I just charge to 80%. This is mostly just for peace of mind, my trip is about 20 miles each way.
Why don't electric cars come with a tiny kerosene cabin heater as standard? A small heater would take up little space or weight, could be easily refueled at home so not need a detour to a petrol station, and be much more cost effective than adding extra batteries just to provide cabin heat. Sure, it's not zero-emission, but the efficiency of a kerosene heater can be pretty good (much better than an internal combustion engine) and it might go a long way to increase the usefulness on cold days.
No one would be silly enough to cart around a tank of highly explosive liquid in their vehicle.
I look forward to hearing my grandkids saying this in disbelief, to which I respond, "No, really, we carted around a massive tank of highly flammable liquid. To make matters worse, we actually steered vehicles ourselves."
While outputting toxic carbon monoxide directly into the breathing air of the vehicles following immediately behind
I like your thinking. See my other comment for what I think is a good idea for improving the heating situation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10953036
Regarding the hearing issue. These cars already have an Ac. I was thinking they could run it in reverse as a heat pump to save energy on heating. That's how residential heat pumps work both as heaters and ac.
Id think the insulation on electric cars could also be drastically improved. No one ever put much thought into insulating a car since there's free heat from the engine.
The LEAF has a heat pump and it works till about freezing at which point it switches over to an electric heater. The loss of efficiency due to cold weather really dwarfs the cost of heating/cooling in the vehicle.
1) the rich have more disposable income and there are quite a few techies with money to burn. The Leaf isn't that capable of a car. I will be watching GM to see if they can push the Bolt out in real numbers instead of compliance only.
2/3) and severe range drop in winter, driving with minimal heat because of the range loss, and more. Unless you are driving a Tesla which has that huge range buffer its not fun if you already are near you car's max range and cold weather sets in.
Give it five years and we might be in a cell phone phone like era, but it isn't decided still that all battery is how it will pan out. Batteries still suffer a horrible weight to KwH ratio that works against auto manufacturers trying to trim weight to increase range. Finally thirty minutes to recharge is fine if your home or going to be parked, otherwise its still a major issue.
I will be watching GM to see if they can push the Bolt out in real numbers instead of compliance only.
GM says it isn't a compliance car: http://www.hybridcars.com/not-a-compliance-car-gm-says-2017-....
Which to me makes sense: It's obvious that the world is going to move to electric cars. The question is only one of timing.
The potential for depreciation was a powerful deterrent for me. Assuming 20% depreciation a year, then a £65K Tesla would be "costing" over £1000 a month just in depreciation alone.
However, the Tesla Model S has apparently so far had lower depreciation than any other car in the UK[0], according to CAP Black Book ("the industry benchmark for used car values"[1]). Presumably this is in large part due to its relative scarcity (still a 2 month lead time for a new one, so an instantly-available second hand one becomes more attractive). Quite how long that situation holds remains to be seen.
[0] http://evobsession.com/cap-black-book-teslas-retain-value-be...
[1] http://www.cap.co.uk/en/products-and-services/black-book/
EDIT: The 20% depreciation was a rough estimate based on the Resale Value Guarantee if you buy on finance. Using figures of £64,600 cash price, £72,477 if bought on finance, and £37,584 Guaranteed Minimum Future Value after 3 years, then the actual "worst case" depreciation would be around 18% per year over 3 years.
I don't think lead time is relevant here. Built to spec lead times are generally much longer for upmarket ICE cars.
I have exactly these dynamics with my 2013 Nissan Leaf. I leased it, assuming depreciation would be brutal on it. And it was, in fact, Nissan just offered me $5,000 credit to buy it off them, meaning I got to finance far less of the depreciation than I should have, and some corporate arm is going to take the writeoff for me.
I was going to buy it, but the technology is changing so quickly, it seems almost pointless. On the other hand, what is the minimum a low mileage four year old electric car would be worth, even if its range is not up to industry standards? It's hard to imagine it would be worth less than $6k. If it is, the electric car depreciation will drive other used car values down.
Nissan is offering lease extensions, typically the stupidest possible way to pay for driving a car, but in this case, I think it's probably a good idea. The internal pressure to innovate against GM and Tesla means they are going to be aggressively obsoleting these older cars.
> There is a $7500 federal tax rebate on a new electric car, so the moment you drive it off the lot, its blue book value drops an additional $7500.
But isn't that fine because you got the $7500 anyway?
Maybe, but when you buy your car it's important to realize that these $7,500 are not just free money, they have a direct impact on your car resell value.
So if you buy a leaf that starts at $30,000, get rebates to $20,000, you must remember that since anyone can get it new for $20,000 that's the actual "new" value to take before you apply depreciation.
In other words you're not really buying a $30k car for $20k, you're buying a $20k car.
So it follows that right before the rebate ends is the best time to buy?
Correct.
But only if the reason why the rebate is ending is a breakthrough in technology that will cut the price of a new one by more than the rebate in 2-3 -- which is in a sense what happened with solar subsidies in a lot of places.
Since people would start to want to buy cars more frequently because of the constant increate in performance/features (which the article is saying will be faster than the current state of motor innovation), would the car manufacturers be able to offer lower-cost models that would be bought every 3/4 years.
They could recoup the money from cheaper cars from the faster purchase cycle.
Or else move to a leasing model (this is becoming more popular with people I know in the UK, Ireland).
>would the car manufacturers be able to offer lower-cost models that would be bought every 3/4 years.
I think people buying new cars every 3 or 4 years is already the status quo, regardless of cost. That's the average lease/finance period (though financing duration is increasing).
> I think people buying new cars every 3 or 4 years is already the status quo, regardless of cost. That's the average lease/finance period (though financing duration is increasing).
Not where I come from. Most of the folks I know are sitting on 8+ year old cars.
Leasing is useless in the US at this point because you are on the hook for the full price of the car if you get in an accident and total it.
Assuming that the article is correct and that adoption is being hampered by concerns about secondhand values, rebates and diminishing relative performance, then leasing would seem to offer the best option. You can always then turn in you existing model for a better one after a couple of years.
However, this doesn't seem that green. You might not be pushing clouds of particulates into the air around your home, but there is still the power consumed in manufacturing a new car for you every 2 years.
Perhaps, the Riversimple model would also work for electric cars. They sell you mobility as a service - and the motivation to keep you moving efficiently remains with them. In theory this should force them to keep the vehicle upgradable. http://riversimple.com/how-the-business-works/
The comparison with phones is interesting. We are starting to get phones with batteries that can't be changed. Do we now just plan to throw them away every 2 years, or are we actually losing interest and need to be forced to upgrade?
But when you lease, at the end the vehicles are refurbed and sold on. And if they aren't then they will be almost totally recycled nowadays.
Current oil prices make electronic cars a total personal economic loss.
Perhaps at face value, and only at this exact moment in time. It would be interesting to see examine both the hidden and extrinsic costs of both sorts of vehicles. I believe that maintenance/performance of electric cars ends up being less in lifetime costs than combustion - that's a relatively well-studied area, and narrows the amortized gap between electric and combustion. What hasn't been studied much, and may be interesting to examine, are the extrinsic costs of both types of cars. Take health expenses for instance - does owning a combustion vehicle have an effect on an owner's health, vs electric ownership? Would this effect be reflected in higher healthcare costs later on? At the macro level, if emissions were reduced dramatically by mass replacement by electric vehicles, would aggregate healthcare costs decrease as well?
Just for comparison here, I have a 2013 Leaf. In December I drove 920 miles and with my utility prices the cost of electricity to cover those miles was about $28. You still need either an extremely efficient car or quite a bit lower gas prices to beat this. This also does not account for the fact that you can routinely get free electricity for your EV.
This is true of almost all cars, electric or not. People buy way more car than they need, just because they like it.
Electric is starting to take off because it's finally moving past that "save a little money by not buying gas" phase, and towards "this is a great car, spend some extra money on it."
Not everything is about dollars and cents.
I've read fairly similar takes comparing EVs to the digital camera. I'm very interested to see what ends up happening, but my guess is the car market will be quite unique.
I do think the author is overestimating the importance of peripheral functions of cars.
By peripheral do you mean things like entertainment systems and apps? If so I agree. However the author specifically emphasized the importance of the computer and it's associated software. I've got to think that entails things like autonomous (or assisted) driving capability as seen in the recent Tesla updates as well as things like improved accident avoidance, "hailing" features, or self-maintenance. I can certainly see how these software improvements would be compelling.
Them child miners had better get digging cobalt faster !
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/01/Child-labour-...
Here's a question I've always wanted to ask someone about electric cars: Why don't the companies make cars with detachable batteries, and basically do a battery 'swap' in the charging stations, so that the charging time becomes very little, if people want to?
I guess people didn't care.
You're mistaken, Tesla's batteries are swapable. In less time than it takes to fill up a tank of gas.
Two issues, I think:
- Building out these charging stations. That's a huge capital outlay for anyone.
- Standardizing batteries, tough when they're in a rapid development phase both in chemistry and form factor.
The batteries are huge and expensive. You and the company would have to be comfortable swapping 5-10k dollar parts. You'd probably have to do that on a leasing model.
And you'd need something bigger than a gas station and way bigger than a charging station. And they would need to be everywhere to have value. Nobody wants to drive miles out of their way to swap.
As the long as the charging is not way faster I do not see mass adoption.
If you're using cars just in the city then charging is no issue but for long distance travel it is one. Only way is to own at least two cars but this can't be the solution.
>If you're using cars just in the city then charging is no issue but for long distance travel it is one.
Yeah, I'm also curious how this pans out. Generally, people traveling long distances on the Tesla SC network route say, "No big deal, I stop for 20 minutes to stretch, charge, and away I go."
But what does that scenario look like when there are millions of EVs on the road? Imagine it took 20 minutes to fill up with fuel? The lines would be horrendous. Travel during prime vacation time and they already are on some routes.
Presumably the number of quick charge locations will grow if electric cars become normal. They won't be free (even tesla is walking back that free forever promise).
States could let companies lease spots at rest stops.
Fast charging stations are a lot cheaper to build than gas stations. The answer to your scenario is to build more, which is totally doable.
This argument again...
The average commute time in 2011 was 25.5 minutes in USA and 24.5 in Canada. In Canada 17.2% of commuters drove more than 45 minutes to get to work. Source: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-012-x/99-0...
At least for 82.8% of people the commute as well as grocery stop can be handled with a single charge. For many their whole day of driving can be done with a single charge!
Now consider that for the people for who the daily errands are within the sweet spot they never have to waste time to stop anywhere to charge! Their charging station is at home.
Even if a short-range car would be fine for your daily commute (and you have a second car or some other method for making longer trips), there's another issue to consider: If you have to charge your car every night in order to get to the work in the morning, then you need to be guaranteed a parking spot with a charger, but in densely packed areas where short commutes are common, shitting parking is common as well. That means a lot of places would need to improve their parking situation in addition to providing reliable charging infrastructure, and that's going to take a lot of money and effort.
Nothing you said contradicts what he said. Yes, commuting can be handled by an EV, but the three holidays a year when you drive 300 miles to your inlaws means you need a second car, a rental or some other way of handling that.
Essentially a pure EV auto, while it has lots of positive points, is an auto that can't do everything that a current ICE auto can. There are ways to mitigate that. If an individual or family has multiple vehicles, maybe their usage is such that they're OK with one of those vehicles having a potential range limit. Maybe longer distance needs are sufficiently rare that renting a car for those times isn't unreasonable. An EV probably isn't right for you if you can't charge it at home.
None of that means that there isn't a market for pure EVs. But each limitation makes it less suitable as a truly mass-market vehicle and makes it more likely IMO that various types of hybrid designs will be more popular in the mainstream.
With sufficient range and a good fast charging infrastructure, this problem is solved today. Teslas make for an awesome road trip car. Those requirements mean that only Tesla currently has it solved, but others will get there.
So? In the US, owning two cars is not at all uncommon.
Making the one you use for your daily commute an EV and the other one a gasoline engine is still a huge improvement in air quality.
Most people buy a car every three years. Sounds similar to how often people switch cell phones. I don't think electric cars change much in regards to people always wanting something different or the shiny new model.
The awesome thing about the Tesla is all the over the air updates. Other car makers want you to buy the new model to get the new features.
I worked in the car biz for a long time.
>Most people buy a car every three years.
This is shocking to me. Are you in the US? I'm pretty sure it's more like 10 years here in the UK.
Pretty much the only people who own cars for just 3 years are those who are leasing.
The average car on the road is over 11 years old in the US and average length of ownership for new cars is over 6 years. [1]
[1] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/07/29/Here-s-Why-American...
Really? I live in the UK. I and most of my family changes their car around every 3-5 years.
I'm about to chop my current car in after 2.
> Most people buy a car every three years.
This is an absurd statement.
Yes. Possibly the meaning of "people" is not the same for you as for him.
While many people do buy a car every 3 to 5 years, they sell that car to somebody else, and the average car lasts about 19 years, with several owners. On the other hand, cell phones are sometimes resold but not nearly in the same way. Many of us have those old phones in the drawer, and would still do that even if there were a big ecosystem for selling them.