Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

michaels

JKenH said:

2nd_time_buyer said:

JKenH said:

orrery said:

JKenH said:

Battery manufacturing is very CO2 intensive...

But bear in mind that it doesn't need to be CO2 intensive. Mining uses equipment powered by fossil fuels, but it doesn't need to. The high temperatures required to refine the materials use FF, but it can't be beyond the wit of man to move these over to renewables.

The CO2 intensive bit is only during the transition to a fully renewable future - which is why we are making the batteries in the first place. As we move forwards, the amount of CO2 in these processes will also reduce.

There can't be an argument that says we're not allowed to emit CO2 in building a future that doesn't emit CO2.

The problem is that the majority of battery manufacturing is done in China which is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels and likely to be for some time yet. 

Probably better they are making batteries and BEVs than ICE vehicles. 

But surely it would be better for CO2 levels if instead of making 25% more batteries to keep as exchange units they made 25% more EVs with those batteries.We would displace 25% more  ICEvs. Battery production is constrained. Putting 20% of battery manufacture to one side instead of using them in EVs is not good for CO2.

Perhaps the availability of rapid swap means that people are willing to accept 25% smaller packs than they would insist on if they knew charging would take 30 mins rather than 3?

JKenH

michaels said:

JKenH said:

2nd_time_buyer said:

JKenH said:

orrery said:

JKenH said:

Battery manufacturing is very CO2 intensive...

But bear in mind that it doesn't need to be CO2 intensive. Mining uses equipment powered by fossil fuels, but it doesn't need to. The high temperatures required to refine the materials use FF, but it can't be beyond the wit of man to move these over to renewables.

The CO2 intensive bit is only during the transition to a fully renewable future - which is why we are making the batteries in the first place. As we move forwards, the amount of CO2 in these processes will also reduce.

There can't be an argument that says we're not allowed to emit CO2 in building a future that doesn't emit CO2.

The problem is that the majority of battery manufacturing is done in China which is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels and likely to be for some time yet. 

Probably better they are making batteries and BEVs than ICE vehicles. 

But surely it would be better for CO2 levels if instead of making 25% more batteries to keep as exchange units they made 25% more EVs with those batteries.We would displace 25% more  ICEvs. Battery production is constrained. Putting 20% of battery manufacture to one side instead of using them in EVs is not good for CO2.

Perhaps the availability of rapid swap means that people are willing to accept 25% smaller packs than they would insist on if they knew charging would take 30 mins rather than 3?

Would you, say, be happy with a 225 mile range car rather than 300, which is what I will be looking for in my next EV? Would Mart or Nick be prepared to trade down from their 300 mile Teslas to a 225 mile range with the ability to swap batteries quickly?

It’s not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely interested to know.

Exiled_Tyke

JKenH said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

2nd_time_buyer said:

JKenH said:

orrery said:

JKenH said:

Battery manufacturing is very CO2 intensive...

But bear in mind that it doesn't need to be CO2 intensive. Mining uses equipment powered by fossil fuels, but it doesn't need to. The high temperatures required to refine the materials use FF, but it can't be beyond the wit of man to move these over to renewables.

The CO2 intensive bit is only during the transition to a fully renewable future - which is why we are making the batteries in the first place. As we move forwards, the amount of CO2 in these processes will also reduce.

There can't be an argument that says we're not allowed to emit CO2 in building a future that doesn't emit CO2.

The problem is that the majority of battery manufacturing is done in China which is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels and likely to be for some time yet. 

Probably better they are making batteries and BEVs than ICE vehicles. 

But surely it would be better for CO2 levels if instead of making 25% more batteries to keep as exchange units they made 25% more EVs with those batteries.We would displace 25% more  ICEvs. Battery production is constrained. Putting 20% of battery manufacture to one side instead of using them in EVs is not good for CO2.

Perhaps the availability of rapid swap means that people are willing to accept 25% smaller packs than they would insist on if they knew charging would take 30 mins rather than 3?

Would you, say, be happy with a 225 mile range car rather than 300, which is what I will be looking for in my next EV? Would Mart or Nick be prepared to trade down from their 300 mile Teslas to a 225 mile range with the ability to swap batteries quickly?

It’s not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely interested to know.

Simply put. Yes.  I would easily swap 75 miles range for a pretty instant swap rather than have to wait for a charger to come free and then charge. 

shinytop

Exiled_Tyke said:

JKenH said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

2nd_time_buyer said:

JKenH said:

orrery said:

JKenH said:

Battery manufacturing is very CO2 intensive...

But bear in mind that it doesn't need to be CO2 intensive. Mining uses equipment powered by fossil fuels, but it doesn't need to. The high temperatures required to refine the materials use FF, but it can't be beyond the wit of man to move these over to renewables.

The CO2 intensive bit is only during the transition to a fully renewable future - which is why we are making the batteries in the first place. As we move forwards, the amount of CO2 in these processes will also reduce.

There can't be an argument that says we're not allowed to emit CO2 in building a future that doesn't emit CO2.

The problem is that the majority of battery manufacturing is done in China which is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels and likely to be for some time yet. 

Probably better they are making batteries and BEVs than ICE vehicles. 

But surely it would be better for CO2 levels if instead of making 25% more batteries to keep as exchange units they made 25% more EVs with those batteries.We would displace 25% more  ICEvs. Battery production is constrained. Putting 20% of battery manufacture to one side instead of using them in EVs is not good for CO2.

Perhaps the availability of rapid swap means that people are willing to accept 25% smaller packs than they would insist on if they knew charging would take 30 mins rather than 3?

Would you, say, be happy with a 225 mile range car rather than 300, which is what I will be looking for in my next EV? Would Mart or Nick be prepared to trade down from their 300 mile Teslas to a 225 mile range with the ability to swap batteries quickly?

It’s not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely interested to know.

Simply put. Yes.  I would easily swap 75 miles range for a pretty instant swap rather than have to wait for a charger to come free and then charge. 

If I could buy a 150 mile range EV for less than £25k that could charge/swap reliably (and I mean reliably) anywhere in the UK I would.

shinytop

JKenH said:

2nd_time_buyer said:

JKenH said:

orrery said:

JKenH said:

Battery manufacturing is very CO2 intensive...

But bear in mind that it doesn't need to be CO2 intensive. Mining uses equipment powered by fossil fuels, but it doesn't need to. The high temperatures required to refine the materials use FF, but it can't be beyond the wit of man to move these over to renewables.

The CO2 intensive bit is only during the transition to a fully renewable future - which is why we are making the batteries in the first place. As we move forwards, the amount of CO2 in these processes will also reduce.

There can't be an argument that says we're not allowed to emit CO2 in building a future that doesn't emit CO2.

The problem is that the majority of battery manufacturing is done in China which is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels and likely to be for some time yet. 

Probably better they are making batteries and BEVs than ICE vehicles. 

But surely it would be better for CO2 levels if instead of making 25% more batteries to keep as exchange units they made 25% more EVs with those batteries.We would displace 25% more  ICEvs. Battery production is constrained. Putting 20% of battery manufacture to one side instead of using them in EVs is not good for CO2.

Or instead of making X million cars with 300 mile ranges, make 2X million cars with 150 mile ranges.  Because nobody really needs a 300 mile range, do they?  <insert normal safe driving hours/bladder capacity/you can stop for a nice cup of tea/90% of journeys are less than 10 miles arguments>

michaels

JKenH said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

2nd_time_buyer said:

JKenH said:

orrery said:

JKenH said:

Battery manufacturing is very CO2 intensive...

But bear in mind that it doesn't need to be CO2 intensive. Mining uses equipment powered by fossil fuels, but it doesn't need to. The high temperatures required to refine the materials use FF, but it can't be beyond the wit of man to move these over to renewables.

The CO2 intensive bit is only during the transition to a fully renewable future - which is why we are making the batteries in the first place. As we move forwards, the amount of CO2 in these processes will also reduce.

There can't be an argument that says we're not allowed to emit CO2 in building a future that doesn't emit CO2.

The problem is that the majority of battery manufacturing is done in China which is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels and likely to be for some time yet. 

Probably better they are making batteries and BEVs than ICE vehicles. 

But surely it would be better for CO2 levels if instead of making 25% more batteries to keep as exchange units they made 25% more EVs with those batteries.We would displace 25% more  ICEvs. Battery production is constrained. Putting 20% of battery manufacture to one side instead of using them in EVs is not good for CO2.

Perhaps the availability of rapid swap means that people are willing to accept 25% smaller packs than they would insist on if they knew charging would take 30 mins rather than 3?

Would you, say, be happy with a 225 mile range car rather than 300, which is what I will be looking for in my next EV? Would Mart or Nick be prepared to trade down from their 300 mile Teslas to a 225 mile range with the ability to swap batteries quickly?

It’s not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely interested to know.

It is a good question but I think the battery swap trumps it because it gives more flexibility - just because you have a 300 mile car doesn't mean you can make a long journey at the drop of a hat because often it may only be 20% full when you suddenly need to go and visit elderly parents or whatever emergency whereas a battery swap vehicle you just stop for a three minute fill up as you would do for a spur of the moment ICE journey.

2nd_time_buyer

I suspect the battery-swap ship has sailed. 

Mobile phones had swappable batteries when their battery life was measured in weeks. Ther main reason they now have fixed batteries is that it places far fewer restrictions on the design. Fast chargers and battery packs help - but most people still charge over night when the speed is irrelevant.

Similarly, the weight and volume penalties of having swappable packs in a car is lthe fly in the ointment. The battery box and its enclosure would have to be structurally sound. And the access to it unimpeded. 

As with phones, I expect we will become accustomed to charging over night and fast charging when in a pinch.

shinytop

A good analogy.  I think you can take it further in that maybe (as Mart has pointed out) battery swops for plant/agricultural use might become the norm, a bit like power tools.  And electric scooters, simply because the size makes it convenient, not just for on the road swops, but to carry the battery into your house/flat to charge.   

Martyn1981

Lots of info on the Global PEV situation. One small note, the tiny Wuling Mini is still selling great, but not as well as before. That's not a negative, it seems that loads of companies are making similar vehicles now, so the demand for that segment isn't shrinking.

Electric Car Sales: Global Top 20

Global plugin vehicle registrations were up 55% in May 2022 compared to May 2021. With the China covid lockdown effects easing, sales have recovered most of their previous pace, reaching 699,000 registrations last month. That represents 12% share of the overall auto market (8.6% BEV share). Considering the steep drops in the overall market, and that plugless hybrids (HEVs) were down for the second month in a row, that should be considered an amazing result. Peak HEVs may be upon us in 2022, with 2023 being the start of downhill sales for this kind of powertrain. We’ll see.

In May, BEVs (+65% YoY) grew faster than PHEVs (+37%), with the latter powertrain suffering from sales drops in Europe. Year to date, the plugin share remained stable at 11% (8.1% BEV). All of which is great, but the internet loves lists, so here you go. The top 20 electric car sales leaders!

Martyn1981

2nd_time_buyer said:

I suspect the battery-swap ship has sailed. 

LOL, that's gone and set me off again!

There are also battery swap ships being developed, shorter distance / coastal container ships, which have batts in a container or two, that can be swapped when loading/unloading.

Battery swapping for Dutch container ships

With their newly founded joint venture Zero Emission Services (ZES), a Dutch consortium has taken up the cause of zero-emission inland container shipping. The initiators want to put the first electric ship into operation this year.

In concrete terms, the ZES business model envisages leasing exchangeable battery containers, so-called ZES packs, to shipping companies. Around this core idea, the company is putting together a service package with charging stations, green electricity, technical support and a payment concept for ship owners. Depending on the current, size and draught of the ship, two ZES-packs can cover 50 to 100 kilometres, according to a statement by the Dutch consortium.

Fleetzero develops battery-swapping for ships

The US start-up Fleetzero has developed an interesting concept for the electrification of shipping. Electric ships are to receive batteries stowed in freight containers and make more stops at smaller ports, where the empty batteries are handed in and only so many new ones are picked up to take the electric ships to their next destination.

With FleetZero’s concept, smaller ports will effectively act as charging stations and exchange points. The company’s container and battery-swapping solution is aimed at shipping between closer marine ports and inland waterways.

So far, FleetZero has raised 3.5 million US dollars and wants to start converting ships in 2025. The company aims to convert existing diesel ships to battery-electric while developing the MVE7, an electric ship designed for trans-pacific cargo delivery.