Seven automakers unite to accelerate growth of North America’s EV charging network

I wonder just how much of an issue recharging will become in the future.  
 One version of the Cyber truck will have a 500 mile range.  
Tesla is working with their battery development branch and they already have  working prototypes that will recharge in less time to fill a gas tank.  And!!! Maybe last 30 years.   The great news it will cut the cost of the battery pack from$5200  to less than $3000.  
  Then there are several other batteries out there. Toyota is still working on their electronic battery.  Carbon Carbon is extremely promising.    NASA is pushing their lightweight nickle battery that has a flawless record in the space program.  
  Then other promising ones like the salt water one. Which save a great deal in cost and potentially a extremely long life.  Borophene and it's brother seem like a very light weight  option. 
  Most of the options recharge very quickly. With some of them promising a more than 100 year life 

   Finally Elon Musk isn't satisfied with the current motors.  The new hairpin radial motor will lower the drive motor cost down to $1000 and  get   a lot more  range.   There have been some engineering talk about  potentially getting 900 miles out of the current 300 mile battery pack  because of its greater efficiency

     How much of this is going to actually happen?   I have no idea.  I doubt Tesla is going to just sit on their hands  or waste a lot of time making flashy gimmicky changes just to offer something new.  
 

      To read more about this go to Tesla World or the Electric Viking. . 

Interestingly, Honda and some others are still working on hydrogen fuel cell, https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42796089/2024-honda-cr-v-powered-by-hydrogen-details/

I think that article indicated it will be built on the line that produced the most recent NSX

It will be interesting to see if that is the future or a dead end. 

In reply to Apexcarver :

Most heavy equipment companies, commercial truck companies, etc are investing heavily into hydrogen as well. Many of the same companies did battery prototypes in recent years and found that batteries just don't work very well for most of those duty cycles. Or more correctly, they work pretty well, but not long enough or with enough "up time" thanks to lengthy recharge times.

So the first step (3-5 years out) is hydrogen combustion engines, which represent a relatively easy adaptation of the status quo. That could provide a better option than diesel while simultaneously increasing demand/scale for hydrogen. And that years long process might allow costs of hydrogen fuel cells to decrease enough to be viable for these applications at some point (probably 15+ years out).

Meanwhile, it's at least possible that there could be a battery and/or charging breakthrough during that time too.

In reply to frenchyd :

Frenchyd- please step back and look at what you wrote analytically. Pretend that you are unconvinced and decide the plausibility of what you wrote. If any of the above is true, we should not be buying any EV's right now. We should put on the brakes, full stop, and wait for these miracle technologies that are right around the corner. Why would should person buy an EV today if it will be obsolete tomorrow? Why are we pushing people to compromise on todays EV's, to the point of giving them billions in subsidies to persuade them, if just around the corner is an EV that would satisfy anyone? Why are we spending billions to build charging infrastructure if we already have much better replacements available. If what you said was true, it would be a great argument to NOT buy and EV right now, but wait for the incredible advancements just around the corner. But the truth is that they have been just around the corner for 60 years now. 
 

This takes the cake though...

   Finally Elon Musk isn't satisfied with the current motors.  The new hairpin radial motor will lower the drive motor cost down to $1000 and  get   a lot more  range.   There have been some engineering talk about  potentially getting 900 miles out of the current 300 mile battery pack  because of its greater efficiency

There is talk about cold fusion, that doesn't mean that we are anywhere near utilizing it. And the above example of a three fold increase in range by changing the motor is ridiculous. That would put current electric motors on par with ice engines in converting energy to motion. For comparison, current EV's convert around 75% (calculations range from 60-90%) of the energy to the motor into power at the ground. To increase this three fold, the motor would need to put out 225% more power to the ground than is fed to the motor. That would be a neat trick, and could solve all of our power generation and distribution problems. But it would break physics, so there are downsides. 

I've been traveling so I missed this.  Just dropped in to see if the usual suspects were having the usual conversation.  Was not disappointed.  

Carry on.

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Frenchyd- please step back and look at what you wrote analytically. Pretend that you are unconvinced and decide the plausibility of what you wrote. If any of the above is true, we should not be buying any EV's right now. We should put on the brakes, full stop, and wait for these miracle technologies that are right around the corner. Why would should person buy an EV today if it will be obsolete tomorrow? Why are we pushing people to compromise on todays EV's, to the point of giving them billions in subsidies to persuade them, if just around the corner is an EV that would satisfy anyone? Why are we spending billions to build charging infrastructure if we already have much better replacements available. If what you said was true, it would be a great argument to NOT buy and EV right now, but wait for the incredible advancements just around the corner. But the truth is that they have been just around the corner for 60 years now. 
 

This takes the cake though...

   Finally Elon Musk isn't satisfied with the current motors.  The new hairpin radial motor will lower the drive motor cost down to $1000 and  get   a lot more  range.   There have been some engineering talk about  potentially getting 900 miles out of the current 300 mile battery pack  because of its greater efficiency

There is talk about cold fusion, that doesn't mean that we are anywhere near utilizing it. And the above example of a three fold increase in range by changing the motor is ridiculous. That would put current electric motors on par with ice engines in converting energy to motion. For comparison, current EV's convert around 75% (calculations range from 60-90%) of the energy to the motor into power at the ground. To increase this three fold, the motor would need to put out 225% more power to the ground than is fed to the motor. That would be a neat trick, and could solve all of our power generation and distribution problems. But it would break physics, so there are downsides. 

We will see when my model 2 arrives. That's supposed to have that motor

        As for why?  Buy now when something new is coming?   
     Cars have been improving since the beginning. And will continue to do so in the future.   At some point people stopped riding horses and bought cars. 
    I understand skepticism.    I'm more positive then many here. That's OK,  just don't forget that change is the only real constant. 

Apexcarver said:

Interestingly, Honda and some others are still working on hydrogen fuel cell, https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42796089/2024-honda-cr-v-powered-by-hydrogen-details/

I think that article indicated it will be built on the line that produced the most recent NSX

It will be interesting to see if that is the future or a dead end. 

 With my love of Jaguar V12's. You know I really like ICE 

 BUT  gas diesel or hydrogen.  Somebody else will control that.  While solar and wind offers personal independence from those.  
      Me final point to be made.   As I understand the process to get hydrogen is to extract it from water.   Particularly out west where water is a commodity in very short supply.  Are you sure you want to devote some of that to making cars/trucks / equipment run?  

Newest battery announcement.  Quantum Scapes  An American battery company just released information about their sold state battery  for EV's. 
 Reportedly VW is the prime partner. ( big investment on their part)  but they announced prototypes were going out to 6 EV companies and 1 stationary battery company. 
        Toyota has been on the verge of solid state batteries for 15 years now. But what makes QS different is they are sending out exact details about them. Not just making big statements without details. 
   The Electric Viking has more information 

In reply to STM317 :

Is industry looking at hydrogen combustion or fuel cells?

Keith Tanner said:

In reply to STM317 :

Is industry looking at hydrogen combustion or fuel cells?

Oddly both, I think it's a "whatever the industry goes with we will be ready". 

In reply to frenchyd :

You confuse "water" and "drinkable water".  They already have tech to go straight from seawater. Just Google it

That all said, I have a feeling mass market viable fuel cells that aren't a niche thing are probably... 10 years? Out.  Minimum. 

I'll also admit, I thought we'd have more algae based biofuel stuff going. I think electric is headed to dominate the market for a good long while. Battery chemistry and design is making amazing progress.

In reply to frenchyd :

We will see when my model 2 arrives. That's supposed to have that motor

No, we won't see. That's the point. What you stated is an absolute impossibility in this universe. There are zero paths to increasing range three fold from increased electric motor efficiently. Yet here you are restating the same thing. 

        As for why?  Buy now when something new is coming?   
     Cars have been improving since the beginning. And will continue to do so in the future.   At some point people stopped riding horses and bought cars. 
    I understand skepticism.    I'm more positive then many here. That's OK,  just don't forget that change is the only real constant. 
 

Also Frenchyd-

"I want an EV, but I'm waiting on the Model 2 that is not yet in production. It's  a better choice than anything available now and it will be worth the wait."

Care to reconcile your statement above with your plan to wait for the Model 2? How is that any different than my statement to wait until the technology you promised is available to me? 
 

I know I'm an idiot for responding, but I'm really trying you help you out. You add a couple good points to the conversation, but they get lost in the dozens of exaggerations, unsubstantiated rumors, and just flat wrong info that you frequently post. When I read your posts, they remind me of a grade school kid describing what his dad does for a living. Just stick to the facts, and avoid using numbers unless you checked them out. Maybe read through them and make sure they make sense before you hit "post." If someone questions them, definitely check before you double down. 

GIRTHQUAKE said:

bobzilla said:

In reply to Keith Tanner :

Does Ford need to since they're switching over to the Tesla style charging? 

All the conversion and power electronics are in the inverter, so from my perspective and knowledge as just a fan I'd say they'll have to incorporate into Tesla's software (especially for payment!) and maybe plant that makes the NACS port.

Also another point on the Tesla supercharger- they're ~400 volts, with most Teslas (until now) being 350-400v nominal from the battery. Grid power at the junction where it's coming from is ~440. I think part of their reliability is that they're barely stepping down the voltage from the grid at all.

Grid voltage is a whole lot higher than 440.  At 440 grid efficiency would be intolerable.  Kv....  big kilovolt numbers are the grid (like 16,000 volts or more depending on the grid distribution line and system; aka 16 kv).  16kv is a local grid line too.  Longer lines will be 32kv or more.  480v is what most electric  industrial motors use. Higher horsepower motors use higher voltages.  480v runs most manufacturing.  Homes and offices are 240 and 120.  

Apexcarver said:

In reply to frenchyd :

You confuse "water" and "drinkable water".  They already have tech to go straight from seawater. Just Google it

 

That all said, I have a feeling mass market viable fuel cells that aren't a niche thing are probably... 10 years? Out.  Minimum. 

 

I'll also admit, I thought we'd have more algae based biofuel stuff going. I think electric is headed to dominate the market for a good long while. Battery chemistry and design is making amazing progress.

I can well imagine marine sea water could be used, except it will need another energy using step.  Think they'd use reverse osmosis? Or distillation?    But not every location has easy access to the sea.  So do we pump the sea water to New Mexico to be turned into Hydrogen, or convert on the coast and try our best to contain the hydrogen  all the way to Wyoming or wherever?  

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

We will see when my model 2 arrives. That's supposed to have that motor

No, we won't see. That's the point. What you stated is an absolute impossibility in this universe. There are zero paths to increasing range three fold from increased electric motor efficiently. Yet here you are restating the same thing. 

        As for why?  Buy now when something new is coming?   
     Cars have been improving since the beginning. And will continue to do so in the future.   At some point people stopped riding horses and bought cars. 
    I understand skepticism.    I'm more positive then many here. That's OK,  just don't forget that change is the only real constant. 
 

Also Frenchyd-

"I want an EV, but I'm waiting on the Model 2 that is not yet in production. It's  a better choice than anything available now and it will be worth the wait."

Care to reconcile your statement above with your plan to wait for the Model 2? How is that any different than my statement to wait until the technology you promised is available to me? 
 

I know I'm an idiot for responding, but I'm really trying you help you out. You add a couple good points to the conversation, but they get lost in the dozens of exaggerations, unsubstantiated rumors, and just flat wrong info that you frequently post. When I read your posts, they remind me of a grade school kid describing what his dad does for a living. Just stick to the facts, and avoid using numbers unless you checked them out. Maybe read through them and make sure they make sense before you hit "post." If someone questions them, definitely check before you double down. 

You ask a very valid question.    I'm going on the word of Elon Musk who much as he wants things to happen according to schedule, they don't always happen.  I guess that's what happens when progress is worked for.  
   So if he doesn't deliver the $25,000 model 3 in the 3rd quarter of this year.  I'll just wait patiently until it happens. 
         Now why  is that different from what you asked?   
   While it's not much, I do have a definite goal. If not exactly a date certain. 
   Waiting for the best EV with the best battery, motor, etc etc. is another way of standing  on the side ones.   
    I get it.  New is scary.  It's hard to be sure. And what if you choose wrong?  
       I know How I made my choice.   
 I read everything I could on the subject.  Then I made a mental spread sheet and was willing to change my mind based on changed information. 
  You guys were close to my whole thought process.  
  I don't know if that's what you'll do. Or the results you'll achieve.  But I do wish you well.   

Keith Tanner said:

In reply to STM317 :

Is industry looking at hydrogen combustion or fuel cells?

Excuses a stupid question 

 isn't hydrogen combustion just what it does in the engine to drive the piston down on the power stroke?  
 And fuel cell one method of transporting Hydrogen?  

In reply to frenchyd :

Google it, there's a direct route 

Keith Tanner said:

In reply to STM317 :

Is industry looking at hydrogen combustion or fuel cells?

Both. The plans that I've seen and read about have hydrogen combustion coming to market first in ~3-5 years (depending on location/government incentives). And then the hope is that adoption of hydrogen combustion can accelerate viability of fuel cells via increased infrastructure, etc. Seems like most current estimates put that in the 2040-2050 ballpark.

frenchyd said:

Keith Tanner said:

In reply to STM317 :

Is industry looking at hydrogen combustion or fuel cells?

Excuses a stupid question 

 isn't hydrogen combustion just what it does in the engine to drive the piston down on the power stroke?  
 And fuel cell one method of transporting Hydrogen?  

Hydrogen combustion is simply using hydrogen as the fuel in an ICE. They're not EVs. It's sort of similar to running a cleaner burning fuel like natural gas. It's not the most thermally efficient process, but it could theoretically be carbon neutral and has other advantages for implementation, servicing, cost, etc. You do still need some sort of cleaning tech in the exhaust to meet air pollution regulations because ultimately you're burning stuff to do work.

Hydrogen fuel cells are not like the fuel cell tanks that we use in race cars. Here's how the Department of Energy boils it down:

"Fuel cells work like batteries, but they do not run down or need recharging. They produce electricity and heat as long as fuel is supplied. A fuel cell consists of two electrodes—a negative electrode (or anode) and a positive electrode (or cathode)—sandwiched around an electrolyte. A fuel, such as hydrogen, is fed to the anode, and air is fed to the cathode. In a hydrogen fuel cell, a catalyst at the anode separates hydrogen molecules into protons and electrons, which take different paths to the cathode. The electrons go through an external circuit, creating a flow of electricity. The protons migrate through the electrolyte to the cathode, where they unite with oxygen and the electrons to produce water and heat."

So a fuel cell is kind of like a generator, creating electricity from a fuel source but there's no ICE involved. It's just a chemical reaction. There is no combustion that occurs, no ICE with frictional losses, and no exhaust to clean up so it's a much cleaner and more thermally efficient process (at least once the hydrogen gets to the vehicle). The only thing that comes from the "tailpipe" is water. Fuel cell vehicles and equipment are EVs.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

at this point it's "triple down"..... maybe even quadruple down.

In reply to STM317 :

Thank you for clarification.  I foolishly had equated it with the fuel cells we use in race cars. 

STM317 said:

Keith Tanner said:

In reply to STM317 :

Is industry looking at hydrogen combustion or fuel cells?

Both. The plans that I've seen and read about have hydrogen combustion coming to market first in ~3-5 years (depending on location/government incentives). And then the hope is that adoption of hydrogen combustion can accelerate viability of fuel cells via increased infrastructure, etc. Seems like most current estimates put that in the 2040-2050 ballpark.

Thank you for that explanation.  I assumed it was like our race car fuel cells. 
   By 2040 we should have contactless charging on some of the major highways.   There are already sections in Sweden and Germany with that.  
   Elon Muck bought the German company that was doing that.  So between better batteries  and contactless  charging.  Range  anxiety, the final obstacle  to EV's, will be gone. 

frenchyd said:

STM317 said:

Keith Tanner said:

In reply to STM317 :

Is industry looking at hydrogen combustion or fuel cells?

Both. The plans that I've seen and read about have hydrogen combustion coming to market first in ~3-5 years (depending on location/government incentives). And then the hope is that adoption of hydrogen combustion can accelerate viability of fuel cells via increased infrastructure, etc. Seems like most current estimates put that in the 2040-2050 ballpark.

Thank you for that explanation.  I assumed it was like our race car fuel cells. 
   By 2040 we should have contactless charging on some of the major highways.   There are already sections in Sweden and Germany with that.  
   Elon Muck bought the German company that was doing that.  So between better batteries  and contactless  charging.  Range  anxiety, the final obstacle  to EV's, will be gone. 

LOL @ Elon Muck!  I'm curious how the US will implement contactless charging when we can't keep potholes filled and bridges in repair.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

frenchyd said:

STM317 said:

Keith Tanner said:

In reply to STM317 :

Is industry looking at hydrogen combustion or fuel cells?

Both. The plans that I've seen and read about have hydrogen combustion coming to market first in ~3-5 years (depending on location/government incentives). And then the hope is that adoption of hydrogen combustion can accelerate viability of fuel cells via increased infrastructure, etc. Seems like most current estimates put that in the 2040-2050 ballpark.

Thank you for that explanation.  I assumed it was like our race car fuel cells. 
   By 2040 we should have contactless charging on some of the major highways.   There are already sections in Sweden and Germany with that.  
   Elon Muck bought the German company that was doing that.  So between better batteries  and contactless  charging.  Range  anxiety, the final obstacle  to EV's, will be gone. 

LOL @ Elon Muck!  I'm curious how the US will implement contactless charging when we can't keep potholes filled and bridges in repair.

yeah... We can't make bridge expansion joints not be mini ramps.... but we will have contactless charging in 16 years. Yeah.... If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you.

In reply to bobzilla :

Then I wonder how Sweden and Germany are already  doing it.