Can we talk EV headwinds and the rise of hydrogen hybrids?

I sure am glad to see the same people aligning with their same old arguments. 

I must say it makes threads like this somewhat like listening to a broken record. 

EVs aren't the answer passed down from God almighty. I drove 400 miles this past weekend the closest I got to a charger was 25 miles. ICE is not the be-all, end-all answer either and will be going away over the next 50-100 years. My money is on something hybrid for the near future and we are only one discovery away from an entirely new answer or possibly even a new question. I'm keeping an open mind and buying what works best for me regardless of how loud some people on here type. 

Keep in mind, the more outraged you sound the fewer people listen to you. 

What is confusing some people here is that the BMS system controls your charging.  Yes, a lithium ion battery should not by charged to 100% or drained to 0% but what you see on the dash takes that into account.  The BMS is programmed to give you a "fuel gauge" reading where full or "100%" is 80% of what the battery is chemically able to hold.

SV reX said:

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

I would. There absolutely is a huge percentage of drivers who get behind the wheel with zero planning whatsoever. 
 

Does your GPS also show nearest charging station?

It was last updated in 2009, so no 

I expect that things have changed in fifteen years.

Toyman! said:

Keep in mind, the more outraged you sound the fewer people listen to you. 

Considering I was responding to a direct insult I think I was quite restrained. But if peopel woud stop being stupid, I'd stop being angry at the BS.

Chris_V said:

Toyman! said:

Keep in mind, the more outraged you sound the fewer people listen to you. 

Considering I was responding to a direct insult I think I was quite restrained. But if peopel woud stop being stupid, I'd stop being angry at the BS.

If you reply with anger, you have already stepped down to their level and added nothing to the discussion except your anger. 

That's what gets these threads locked. 

There are better ways to add to a discussion using a reasonable tone and facts. Try that instead. More people will be willing to learn from what you write. 

dannyp84 said:

I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable than I am reads this and responds (and isn't angry that this might get slightly off topic), but to my knowledge there are a handful of operational carbon capture plants across the world. Would it not be feasible to continue building these plants, as well as initiating some reforestation projects, in order to to try and net zero the carbon output of ICE engines? Seems easier than waiting and hoping for solid state battery usage to become viable, since in the meantime we're mining for lithium to make EV batteries, which is probably no less destructive to the planet than drilling for oil. Also, it seems like public attention is focused mostly on the personal automobile as the carbon producing enemy, but do all the cars in the country produce even a third of the emissions of the large container ships that use dirty fuel while traveling international waters? I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but if you want to be earth-friendly on an individual basis, I suspect the answer is to keep an old car in good running condition rather than buying something new, and try to source a lot of your consumer goods locally. 

I would think this would have the same problem as trying to replace fossil fuels with renewable e-fuels, simply too much energy required. A quick search confirms it:

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/the-amount-of-energy-required-by-direct-air-carbon-capture-proves-it-is-an-exercise-in-futility/2-1-1067588?zephr_sso_ott=YLFSmK

Continuing to dump fossil CO2 into the atmosphere at recent rates and then sucking it out at least as quickly with carbon capture plants would require more energy than humanity currently uses in total, even including the fossil fuels that are being burned. To compare that to the renewable e-fuel re-power idea, it would require a sextupling of grid energy production rather than a tripling/quadroupling.

Also trees capture carbon much more slowly than fossil fuel use releases it, so it's hard to have a major effect on atmospheric CO2 levels through reforestation on human-relevant timescales. That's more of an ultra-long-term measure.

Mining lithium for EV batteries is far less destructive than drilling for oil, mainly because of the much smaller amount of material required. An EV needs a new battery pack that's maybe 4-5x the size of an ICE's fuel tank every 2 decades or so, and then the old one could be recycled. An ICE vehicle can go through 4-5 tanks in a month if driven regularly and ends up burning off all of that into the atmosphere. A few years ago I did a comparison and found that the world's biggest lithium mine in China could fit inside just one of the waste ponds at the Fort McMurray oil sands facility in Alberta, it was in a thread on here, wish I could find it now...

Edit: OOOOH I finally found it after searching so many times! Seems the thread got deleted: https://web.archive.org/web/20230422044314/https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/most-useless-automotive-thing-ever/144496/page2/

GameboyRMH said:

Also trees capture carbon much more slowly than fossil fuel use releases it, so it's hard to have a major effect on atmospheric CO2 levels through reforestation on human-relevant timescales. That's more of an ultra-long-term measure.

Also, if those trees ever catch on fire, guess where all that captured carbon goes.

dannyp84 said:

I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable than I am reads this and responds (and isn't angry that this might get slightly off topic), but to my knowledge there are a handful of operational carbon capture plants across the world. Would it not be feasible to continue building these plants, as well as initiating some reforestation projects, in order to to try and net zero the carbon output of ICE engines?

To add onto other great comments, said carbon capture technologies also require a chemical reaction with the CO2 as well to work; so if you use calcium carbonate for example, you have to mine that (which costs) ship it (costs) and refine it (costs) which obviously makes it unfeasible.

Also, it seems like public attention is focused mostly on the personal automobile as the carbon producing enemy, but do all the cars in the country produce even a third of the emissions of the large container ships that use dirty fuel while traveling international waters? I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but if you want to be earth-friendly on an individual basis, I suspect the answer is to keep an old car in good running condition rather than buying something new, and try to source a lot of your consumer goods locally. 

So there's progress made there too. The focus was on cars largely because it was a consumer desire that was easily altered and genuinely does move the needle, but when you talk about things like said shipping monsters across the oceans you have problems between governments, economics, and the intersections between them all- because even if America bans one thing other nations might not, seeing possible revenue from selling millions of tons of Bunker fuel. Worldwide we finally began to ban bunker fuel but other articles you can easily find show it's not completely out (supposedly, cruise companies lobbied for "scrubbers" that spray seawater to drag the particulate into the ocean, putting more waste into the sea so they could keep using the E36 M3) but at the end of the day, it's a massive problem that would frankly almost demand a whole nother thread just by the geopolitical ramifications it would have alone because of the "worth" each of these vessels have in economic force and activity.

The other detail is just good old oil company propaganda. BP Invented the "personal carbon footprint" after all.

GIRTHQUAKE said:

The other detail is just good old oil company propaganda. BP Invented the "personal carbon footprint" after all.

Dont want to get too off track here, but we do have an individual footprint.  I agree collective action is necessary, but its silly to claim only corporations shoulder the responsibility just like its silly to claim only individuals do.

I've had enough of the silly arguments. I'll just keep driving. Closing in fast on 97K miles on this EV in three years. The 1st gen Leaf had just under 30K when the lease ended. They'll work just fine, but people will buy based on what they feel, not math or reality.

In reply to tuna55 :

I would be interested in an EV if a manufacturer made one that would work for me (essentially, an EV minivan with competitive range and doesn't sacrifice utility to be a fashion statement - looking at you, VW...).

I'm lazy, so the idea of not having to buy gas and do oil changes sounds wonderful. 

triumph7 said:

What is confusing some people here is that the BMS system controls your charging.  Yes, a lithium ion battery should not by charged to 100% or drained to 0% but what you see on the dash takes that into account.  The BMS is programmed to give you a "fuel gauge" reading where full or "100%" is 80% of what the battery is chemically able to hold.

That is not true.  It IS true that many (most?) manufacturers have 100% on the gauge set to something less than 100% capacity but noone is leaving 20% on the table.  Model S Teslas absolutely charged to 4.2V/100% when they first came out.  I don't know if it's true today.

In reply to mfennell :

That varies by manufacturer and model, some EVs are indeed leaving 20% or even 40% of total battery capacity "on the table" to extend pack life. Some of the low-end Teslas have the same packs as top-end models but with a restricted charge range, and what you're really paying for with the higher-range model is an uprated warranty.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Other than the unique Tesla situation, what EV is only using 60% (or even 80%) of the available capacity?  That would be a great deal for the consumer.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

SV reX said:

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

I would. There absolutely is a huge percentage of drivers who get behind the wheel with zero planning whatsoever. 
 

Does your GPS also show nearest charging station?

It was last updated in 2009, so no 

I expect that things have changed in fifteen years.

I have no criticism of that whatsoever. But you did illustrate my point…

You are a car guy with some technical know-how. And yet in your day-to-day life you use a tool that hasn't been updated in 15 years, even though we all know it's pretty simple. 
 

Everyone does that.  Much more so for people who are not technically oriented.

When someone says "it's really not that hard", they're ignoring the fact that the simple updates, checks, and planning that is necessary, is outside the routines of what is normal for the vast majority of people. It may be "simple", but it simply isn't being done.

And that's completely normal. The reality is the vast majority of people aren't gonna put the effort into learning things that are outside of their normal routine, even if they're simple.  
 

I'm one of them.  I want to jump in my car with no planning whatsoever  knowing that I don't have to plan for fuel.  It's available when I need it.  I have no interest in watching gauges, calculating range, Googling where the next charging station is, or trying to figure out if I can coordinate my stop with the next bathroom break.

Some folks love geeking out on that crap. I'm not the slightest bit interested.  
 

I think that makes both you and me just a little bit average. 

In reply to mfennell :

I WANT to say, the Taycan and E-Tron both "reserve" about 30% of the battery from the consumer. I think nowadays, current teslas only reserve 10-15% from the owner, partly both to forestall damage to the battery if it drops below 0% for extended periods, but also because until you're about 4.1-4.2 volts (near max) any percentage of a batteries charge is an extrapolation based on math and data, not an actual reading- so it makes sense to always have this little bit of "wriggle room" available for the battery on the off-chance you go all the way to 100.

Some of the low-end Teslas have the same packs as top-end models but with a restricted charge range, and what you're really paying for with the higher-range model is an uprated warranty.

I don't believe any Tesla does this anymore, but forgive me- Tesla changes and alters plenty of things all the time.

I BELIEVE The current Model S/X, regardless of drive configuration (long range or Plaid) use the same battery pack- which was redone in 2020/2021 to a 5 module setup. The lower range on the Plaid is just from the bigger motor consuming more power.

As for the 3 and Y, the base models of both are now using prismatic lithium-iron phosphate packs but we don't know what the tolerances of those packs are for discharge/recharge rates, ect. You also have the Y's coming out of Texas that are supposedly using the 4680 cell, and the original Model 3 packs which used the 2170- and of that, had two major pack "types" to pick from based on wether it was standard, long range, or performance. Basically there's a lot of answers here lmao

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

Yeah more recently the pack options for Teslas have exploded with totally different cell and chemistry options, all of which are basically hidden from the buyer...from what I understand they no longer have any "same pack & different charge range" setups in their current lineup.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Yeah and it's not even getting into the physical differences in the specific cell chemistries. Tesla's long-term plan supposedly is to move towards having 3 separate cells, where lithium irons are in the base models and the extremely high discharge vehicles, the ternary lithium ions in the middling pack vehicles, and their high-silicon 4680s in things that could really abuse the cell but ALSO need extremely high density. Problem then becomes of course, we're worldwide limited in how many and what cell we can easily make so we end up with this "kitchen sink" issue with packs and chassis.

Frankly i'm not even sure if the OG Model Y and the current, 4680 Model Y can swap packs despite being only a few years old, since the 4680 Y also bolts the seats and seat risers to the battery tray and lowers the rest of the car on top of it during assembly.

mfennell said:

triumph7 said:

What is confusing some people here is that the BMS system controls your charging.  Yes, a lithium ion battery should not by charged to 100% or drained to 0% but what you see on the dash takes that into account.  The BMS is programmed to give you a "fuel gauge" reading where full or "100%" is 80% of what the battery is chemically able to hold.

That is not true.  It IS true that many (most?) manufacturers have 100% on the gauge set to something less than 100% capacity but noone is leaving 20% on the table.  Model S Teslas absolutely charged to 4.2V/100% when they first came out.  I don't know if it's true today.

I can't speak for Tesla but our converted ProMaster vans used prismatic LiFePo3 cells that were protected by an Orion BMS.  The setup in the BMS prevented charging beyond 80% and discharging below 20% as expressed in max and min voltages.  To exceed those limits damaged the cells... guaranteed.

Relevant update, hydrogen cars just got a lot harder to fuel, because apparently not even a fossil fuel company thinks it's that good of an idea:

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/shell-permanently-closes-all-of-its-hydrogen-refuelling-stations-for-cars-in-california/2-1-1596104