this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
374 points (93.1% liked)
Technology
60101 readers
1860 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I stopped reading the article there.
Either the author is voluntarily misleading or he has no idea of what he is talking about.
Here is the map all the fast charging stations (>100kW) along the way between Paris and the Mont St Michel.
The Tesla model 3 in Europe uses the standard combo CCS plug so it can use all of these stations.
I did not count them but at a first glance the number of charger is higher than "none"
Edit: OK I read the article after all but I really don't see what problem battery swapping would solve.
I could see a use case for public transport that has to go a specific road and need to run non stop every days but even then I suspect that having overhead cable on a short section to charge the battery while running would be more appropriate than battery swapping.
The article is talking about the lack of charging station but battery swapping just make the problem way way worse. A battery charger is just a parking spot and a high voltage AC - DC transformer connected to the grid. It's relatively cheap and easy to install, does not take much space and work for all electric cars compared to a battery swapping station that can only work for one specific brand (specific model too ?) need robotics and plenty of storage. Its much harder and expensive to install and you need one charging station per brand. This means less stations overall.
Finally there is the speed of charging, this is true that battery swapping is probably faster than fast charging but honestly I don't find charging an electric car that inconvenient.
On long highway trips I need to stop around 20 minutes every 2 hours, a 20 minutes break every 2 hours is not that bad, just enough time for a toilet break, a quick coffee before going back on the road.
The cost to install stations would dramatically reduce if you had one stations that could supply 20 parking lots instead of one station for each two lots.
It also shuts up all the complaints about batteries going dead and the cost of replacing them.
I do agree ice vehicles are already very convenient and most people complaining are mostly just parroting oil propoganda, but making them even more convenient isn't a bad thing.
I don't think many run their batteries to the ground but it's nice to know someone can just bring you a spare if you do.
I'm complaining about the battery station model, not about the EV in general.
I have a few points to point out:
Actually, I'm not a fan of ICEV nor EV. ICEV pollutes when they run, EV pollutes when they need to be disassemble and recycle. It is simply not happening in front of your eyes doesn't mean it is not. We all need to look at the overall carbon footprint (I can't think of another better word), from manufacturing to the end of life. For EV and its battery, starts from mining rare earth elements.
I'm more on to the Hydrogen Vehicle, especially fuel cells. IMO the development in this low, and small (at least I don't see much news about it).
Hydrogen is a dead end. The only company left trying to chase that particular dragon is Toyota, and I predict eventually they'll be forced to admit that it'll never work en masse for private vehicles. Ordinary consumers can already barely be trusted with gasoline, which is neither under high pressure nor requires industrial grade refrigeration to keep it in liquid form, and is a lot harder to ignite... The delivery systems for hydrogen are extremely complex and must maintain an absolute 0% failure rate or else somebody will either get blown up or frozen to a pump. Gasoline is at least a liquid and behaves predictably when spilled, and doesn't phase change instantly when it leaves containment. And a mechanical failure in the delivery system can be mitigated by simply shutting off the pump. You poke a hole in a hydrogen filling system and you're going to have a very interesting time. Current systems have redundancies on top of safety devices on top of redundancies for this reason which makes them fantastically expensive.
Hydrogen also has crap for energy density (around 8 kJ/liter in liquid form, compared to 32 kJ/liter for gasoline) and even if you're producing it via electrolysis or something is a wildly inefficient way to store and transport energy. If you're going to use electricity to create and compress hydrogen to transport it and create electricity with it later, it is monumentally more efficient to take the electricity and put it in batteries. So you may as well just to that.
The thing with battery swapping is that it will absolutely require strong government regulation to ensure standardization and fair treatment of owners. Replaceable batteries in consumer devices obviously aren't a new concept, and before proprietary lithium packs took over everything, every single consumer device was powered by AAA, AA, C, or D batteries which were very well understood by everybody and were -- and are -- completely interchangeable commodity items that are readily available to this day. That's the only way it'll work. Manufacturers will have to be forced to standardize on a set of pack sizes because without oversight they'll inevitably try to turn everything into a subscription-only walled garden pretty much exactly as you have predicted. But if there is a thing as an equivalent of an AAA vehicle battery (for motorcycles and scooters), AA vehicle battery (for city microcars, NEV's, golf carts, etc.) and C vehicle battery (full size passenger cars) and D vehicle battery (light trucks) etc., and nobody is allowed to try to make up their own bullshit, then no one will have to give a rat's ass about battery health, the dealership, lock-in, or anything else. If you buy a used vehicle with a knackered pack in it or your battery gets cacked, you could just bop down to your local AutoZone or whatever and buy a new one. Or push your car to the nearest swap station. You'll turn in your old one for the core charge. Exactly like how 12v vehicle batteries work now.
We'll have to get people used to the notion that, yes, these things will be kind of a battery lottery and you may get swapped in a pack that's in slightly worse condition than your last one if you go around pack-swapping all the time. But you know, the next time you swap you'll get a different one again. And you can play already this game right now if you want to -- just go buy some fuel in a third world country.
I still have faith in hydrogen vehicles. I have read somewhere I forgot that using fuel cell is the better way of using hydrogen, instead of burning it. It does have difficulties but maybe in next 5 yrs scientist and engineers may come up something breakthrough. But if none invest now, that won't happen in the future.
And about regulation on standard battery, I fully support, but I can already see how those companies lobby and whine about how regulations will "limit innovations" and "slow development." Then some politicans take some under table deals just like how the petro industary does today.
FYI, there is no "better" way to use hydrogen that will result in extracting more energy from it than it physically contains and can be released via oxidation. This is not a matter of "development" or "breakthroughs." It is physically impossible. The standard enthalpy change of combustion of hydrogen is 141.83 MJ/kg. Period. That's it. That's all you can ever get out of it, provided you achieve perfect efficiency (which currently we don't). Ongoing research is surely working on getting is closer to 100% efficiency, but it will never get past it. You can't defy the laws of physics.
Insofar as I am aware all current hydrogen vehicles already use fuel cells to generate electricity and use that to drive electric motors for motive power. No one is burning hydrogen in a combustion engine in vehicular applications. There are some power plants that are doing it, though, mostly as a mechanism for storing and later reusing excess energy generated from other sources. You can go cross-eyed reading up on it here, if you are so inclined.
There is the notion of the "hydrogen economy" floating around, that is the use of hydrogen as an energy storage and carrying medium -- not, notably, as a fuel for actual generation of energy -- but it's pretty certain that outside of some limited applications this will always be a worse deal than just taking the energy in the form of electricity and putting it in a wire.
OK. I understand we can't get more energy out of it. But maybe something without high pressure tank or industrial freezer to keep it in liquid form? I know I'm in a state of denial but I have a gut feeling that EV, at least with lithium batteries, shouldn't be the way forward.
If hydrogen is really a dead end, maybe solid state batteries that doesn't be a fire hazard and full charge in 5 minutes? Standardization of EV batteries are the way to go but I can see lots of resistance on the path.
Probably one platform (used for several models, sometimes shared between brands. For instance VW Polo, Audi A1, Seat Ibiza and Skoda Fabia are all based on the same platform).
Unless you have cars with modular battery packs, which do not exist right now.