Electric Cars Not Yet Viable

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:37:06 +0100, Andy Bennet <andyb@andy.com>
wrote:

On 24/06/2019 06:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:41:49 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
curd@notformail.com> wrote:


And if there is no quantum leap in battery technology, they may never be
viable.


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-23/inconvenient-truth-electric-cars

A gasoline pump moves about 10 GPM, which is equivalent to around 20
megawatts electrical. A car can fill up with gasoline in a few
minutes. Mine typically takes a minute or so.

If it takes an hour to fast-charge an electric car, the stall is
occupied for an hour. Or more if the owner doesn't immediately move
the car when it's charged. That's going to take some serious real
estate, and some serious waiting times.

Having more electric cars, even 25%, is going to need some major
logistics.



An EV can take as long as it likes to charge as long as it is ready when
I am.
It takes less than 30 SECONDS OF MY TIME to charge my EV.

Not if you're on a long trip, or away from home.

I park on the street, home and work. I couldn't easily charge. I can
easily fill up my gas tank in a few minutes every couple of weeks. SF
to Truckee, in a snowstorm with the heater and lights running, can be
done nonstop on one tank of gas. When chain controls are in effect,
2WD cars have issues. I don't see many Teslas up there in the winter.

I don't think I have ever seen a Tesla with a ski rack.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 08:36:14 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 24/06/19 06:17, Rick C wrote:
According to Bill, cars spend 95% of their time sitting. So there is a lot
of time available to charge cars.

EVs use parking spaces when they charge, existing parking spaces. Gas pumps
are made so you can pull through so lots of wasted space. Turn a 16 pump
Sheets into an EV charging point and I bet you can get 30 or 40 charging
spaces. I think Tesla actually has a station with 40 chargers.

They install nearly all Superchargers in existing parking decks and parking
lots. No additional real estate needed! So maybe those gas stations can be
blown up and turned into parks! Wouldn't that be awesome?

In the UK car parks cost Ł5-Ł10 per hour in central London,
Ł3-Ł5 per hour in other cities.

I, and many other people, loathe paying for parking and prefer
to walk a few hundred yards.

San Francisco is very hilly, and most people don't want to hike, so
it's possible to part in most neighborhoods if you are willing to do a
bit of healthy work. Not downtown of course, it's dense and flat.
People mostly take public transit to downtown, BART and MUNI, both
mostly underground. Lots of UBER and LYFT lately too.

SF used to have private, informal shuttle vans for commuting, like the
NYC "gypsy cabs" but the city didn't want them competing with MUNI so
outlawed them. Big mistake.

I park a couple hundred vertical feet from work, no problems.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9eci8g24lynbgys/Crossover.JPG?raw=1

That walkway crosses over the US101 freeway, and it's steep uphill on
the other side in all directions to the places where one can park.
Nice workout after clicking a mouse all day.

My house is similarly a few blocks from a BART station, but way
uphill, so lazy commuters don't park on our street. And it's a very
nice walk.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 08:29:06 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 24/06/19 06:17, Rick C wrote:
EVS DON'T NEED CHARGING STATIONS WHEN PEOPLE CAN CHARGE AT HOME!!!

Did that get through?

MANY CAN'T!!!

Did that get through?

He probably lives in a ranch-style house with a lawn and a carport and
a swimming pool in the burbs somewhere. Not everybody does.

I park on the street. I couldn't run an extension cord to my car, not
that I'd want an electric car.

There's an article in today's newspaper about a bunch of people who
ride electric unicycles. Enthusiasts. Same idea.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:11:55 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:49:00 AM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:qnm0he9eco3tvkoa5qambgeotdd7gf6qvt@4ax.com:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 04:34:43 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:686b0b30-c6fa-4a03-b58e-9994002a7bd8@googlegroups.com:

If you actually were interested in information rather than BS,
you would read the article with a critical mind.

In the seventies there was not even a single thought about an
electric powered RC helicopter, much less multi-motor quad
copters.

Now, they are talking about mass producing a pilotless whirly
bird
taxi srvice.

Folks are already buying up rooftop landing pad space leases.

High-end battery-powered drones can stay in the air about 20
minutes, with no payload except a small camera. A weatherproof,
enclosed drone with passengers and luggage isn't going to make it
very far.



Have you seen the units in the news recently? They fly forward at
about 100 knots.

Other countries will advance faster than America will. We are too
regulatory prone.

It's not that the US is particularly enhtusiastic about regulation, but rather that the US lobbying system is designed to leave people who are making a lot of money out of a particular market free to set up regulations that make it difficult for innovative competitors to get into the markets that are making the current generation of fat cats all that money.

Sure, says the arm chair expert from Kangaroo Land. Yet we've done a
splendid job in leading the world in almost every market. Show us some
specific examples where regulations were set up to keep out innovative
competitors. Did it happen with the PC? MSFT? Apple? Cell phones?
Electric cars?

 

[John Larkin]

On 24 Jun 2019 02:26:28 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote...

A weatherproof, enclosed drone with passengers
and luggage isn't going to make it very far.

An item like that will be an airplane, not a drone.

It will have the same dronish vertical takeoff/land props, so has the
same energy and reliability issues. And many of the proposed shuttle
things have no pilot, which I might call "drone."

Cape Air is adding a few dozen all-electric planes
to its fleet, for its short-haul passenger routes.
They expect to save $400 in aviation fuel per trip,
compared to $10 for the electricity fillups. With
many trips/day the E-planes will pay for themselves.

I was talking about downtown rooftop to airport shuttles. Electric
winged planes might well make sense for short trips, like SFO to the
Oakland airport maybe. Recharge time will be an issue.

An electric powered sailplane would be cool, to avoid the tow.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[John Larkin]

On 24 Jun 2019 09:29:01 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote...

Winfield Hill wrote:

Cape Air is adding a few dozen all-electric planes
to its fleet, for its short-haul passenger routes.
They expect to save $400 in aviation fuel per trip,
compared to $10 for the electricity fillups. With
many trips/day the E-planes will pay for themselves.

Recharge time will be an issue.

I'm assuming they'll plug in for rapid charge
while passengers are unloading and loading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_CityAirbus

The numbers don't look great there. It weighs 4850 lbs to haul 4
passengers and has 20 minute endurance.

We'd need seriously better batteries to make this sort of thing
practical. It would need more energy per kg and very fast recharge
times to be economical.

Some sort of tiltrotor would be more efficient but probably not very
safe.

A lot of people have been working on this sort of thing for a while
now.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Winfield Hill]

John Larkin wrote...

Winfield Hill wrote:

Cape Air is adding a few dozen all-electric planes
to its fleet, for its short-haul passenger routes.
They expect to save $400 in aviation fuel per trip,
compared to $10 for the electricity fillups. With
many trips/day the E-planes will pay for themselves.

Recharge time will be an issue.

I'm assuming they'll plug in for rapid charge
while passengers are unloading and loading.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 12:38:16 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On 24 Jun 2019 09:29:01 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote...

Winfield Hill wrote:

Cape Air is adding a few dozen all-electric planes
to its fleet, for its short-haul passenger routes.
They expect to save $400 in aviation fuel per trip,
compared to $10 for the electricity fillups. With
many trips/day the E-planes will pay for themselves.

Recharge time will be an issue.

I'm assuming they'll plug in for rapid charge
while passengers are unloading and loading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_CityAirbus

The numbers don't look great there. It weighs 4850 lbs to haul 4
passengers and has 20 minute endurance.

They showed one on the news last night, in OR I think, at a testing
facility. It held a few people, had a range of 35 miles. It could
still be fine for a commuting service, ie to get commuters into and
out of NYC, but there would have to be a big field somewhere for them
to go to, land, sit and recharge.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 4:57:43 PM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:11:55 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:49:00 AM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:qnm0he9eco3tvkoa5qambgeotdd7gf6qvt@4ax.com:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 04:34:43 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:686b0b30-c6fa-4a03-b58e-9994002a7bd8@googlegroups.com:

If you actually were interested in information rather than BS,
you would read the article with a critical mind.

In the seventies there was not even a single thought about an
electric powered RC helicopter, much less multi-motor quad
copters.

Now, they are talking about mass producing a pilotless whirly
bird
taxi srvice.

Folks are already buying up rooftop landing pad space leases.

High-end battery-powered drones can stay in the air about 20
minutes, with no payload except a small camera. A weatherproof,
enclosed drone with passengers and luggage isn't going to make it
very far.



Have you seen the units in the news recently? They fly forward at
about 100 knots.

Other countries will advance faster than America will. We are too
regulatory prone.

It's not that the US is particularly enhtusiastic about regulation, but rather that the US lobbying system is designed to leave people who are making a lot of money out of a particular market free to set up regulations that make it difficult for innovative competitors to get into the markets that are making the current generation of fat cats all that money.

Sure, says the arm chair expert from Kangaroo Land. Yet we've done a
splendid job in leading the world in almost every market.

And an even better job of telling everybody that you lead the world in almost everything. My experience was that US products were rushed to market too fast, and never properly thought out, but that was in a couple of smal and specialised areas.

Airbus outsold Boeing two to one at the most recent Paris Air Show, and ASML in the Netherlands now dominates the semiconductor lithography machine market.

> Show us some specific examples where regulations were set up to keep out innovative competitors. Did it happen with the PC? MSFT? Apple? Cell phones? Electric cars?

Haven't run into any specific examples since IBM messed up the local area network standards to try keep their internal standard looking competitive.

The Underwriters Laboratory system is a non-tariff barrier to trade. It took a while for Europeans and the Japansese to work out work-arounds.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 12:52:23 -0700 (PDT), omnilobe@gmail.com wrote:

A battery exchange station will replace the gas station.
It is faster to remove a battery block and put a fresh
block in than it is to fill a tank with gasoline. It is
safer than a self-driving auto-pilot tesla.

Is anyone doing that?

Gasoline has enormous weight advantages over batteries. Half of the
chemical inputs don't need to be loaded into the car, and none of the
used reactants need to be schlepped around.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 3:52:27 PM UTC-4, omni...@gmail.com wrote:

A battery exchange station will replace the gas station.
It is faster to remove a battery block and put a fresh
block in than it is to fill a tank with gasoline. It is
safer than a self-driving auto-pilot tesla.

Sure, go through the math on the size of the facilities needed to
house all those big batteries.

 

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 12:45:14 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 4:57:43 PM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:11:55 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:49:00 AM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:qnm0he9eco3tvkoa5qambgeotdd7gf6qvt@4ax.com:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 04:34:43 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:686b0b30-c6fa-4a03-b58e-9994002a7bd8@googlegroups.com:

If you actually were interested in information rather than BS,
you would read the article with a critical mind.

In the seventies there was not even a single thought about an
electric powered RC helicopter, much less multi-motor quad
copters.

Now, they are talking about mass producing a pilotless whirly
bird
taxi srvice.

Folks are already buying up rooftop landing pad space leases.

High-end battery-powered drones can stay in the air about 20
minutes, with no payload except a small camera. A weatherproof,
enclosed drone with passengers and luggage isn't going to make it
very far.



Have you seen the units in the news recently? They fly forward at
about 100 knots.

Other countries will advance faster than America will. We are too
regulatory prone.

It's not that the US is particularly enhtusiastic about regulation, but rather that the US lobbying system is designed to leave people who are making a lot of money out of a particular market free to set up regulations that make it difficult for innovative competitors to get into the markets that are making the current generation of fat cats all that money.

Sure, says the arm chair expert from Kangaroo Land. Yet we've done a
splendid job in leading the world in almost every market.

And an even better job of telling everybody that you lead the world in almost everything. My experience was that US products were rushed to market too fast, and never properly thought out, but that was in a couple of smal and specialised areas.

Airbus outsold Boeing two to one at the most recent Paris Air Show,

Like the orders at that show determine everything? Figures you'd choose
the socialist company over the private one. Airbus just had a spectacular
fail with the A380, which is headed to the scrap yard fast. Boeing sure
had that right. Airbus bet 15 years ago on a huge plane for a hub model
future. Boeing said, no the future is more long, direct flights. They
bet their future on the 777 and 787 and they were right.



and ASML in the Netherlands now dominates the semiconductor lithography machine market.

Well whooptie dooh! And WTF does Australia dominate? Kangaroos?

Show us some specific examples where regulations were set up to keep out innovative competitors. Did it happen with the PC? MSFT? Apple? Cell phones? Electric cars?

Haven't run into any specific examples since IBM messed up the local area network standards to try keep their internal standard looking competitive.

Nuff said.

The Underwriters Laboratory system is a non-tariff barrier to trade. It took a while for Europeans and the Japansese to work out work-arounds.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

What's the problem? You Aussies can't make shit that doesn't catch fire
or shock people?

 

A battery exchange station will replace the gas station.
It is faster to remove a battery block and put a fresh
block in than it is to fill a tank with gasoline. It is
safer than a self-driving auto-pilot tesla.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 24/06/19 16:04, John Larkin wrote:

There's an article in today's newspaper about a bunch of people who
ride electric unicycles. Enthusiasts. Same idea.

When I was in HP Labs, a co-worker (who I bumped into
last week!) was learning to ride a unicycle.

The characteristic sound was "whoosh ... crump", as he
whistled along the aisles between cubicles, but couldn't
manage a right-angled turn at the end.

Also had someone that laid out his parachute on the
floor, when repacking it.

Fun day.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 24/06/19 20:52, omnilobe@gmail.com wrote:

A battery exchange station will replace the gas station.
It is faster to remove a battery block and put a fresh
block in than it is to fill a tank with gasoline. It is
safer than a self-driving auto-pilot tesla.

And be given a battery with, ahem, variable remaining
capacity, so you don't know its range until after
you have set off.

 

[bitrex]

On 6/24/19 5:59 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

mandag den 24. juni 2019 kl. 22.28.24 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 12:52:23 -0700 (PDT), omnilobe@gmail.com wrote:

A battery exchange station will replace the gas station.
It is faster to remove a battery block and put a fresh
block in than it is to fill a tank with gasoline. It is
safer than a self-driving auto-pilot tesla.

Is anyone doing that?

there was Israeli "Better place" but they went bankrupt


Gasoline has enormous weight advantages over batteries. Half of the
chemical inputs don't need to be loaded into the car, and none of the
used reactants need to be schlepped around.


something like 44MJ/kg vs. 1MJ/kg but electric probably 5 times more efficent that a combustion engine even more in Stop-and-go traffic

as far as I can tell JL neither believes that there are environmental
consequences to burning fossil fuels, or that the supply of fossil fuels
is in any way practically limited in other than a theoretical sense.

There's little point I guess to arguing for efficiency concerns with
someone who believes in a religious way that the thermodynamic
efficiency of motorized conveyances is of no practical concern.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 22:04:12 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
<always.look@message.header> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote

If you actually were interested in information rather than BS,
you would read the article with a critical mind.

In the seventies there was not even a single thought about an
electric powered RC helicopter, much less multi-motor quad
copters.

Now, they are talking about mass producing a pilotless whirly
bird taxi srvice.

Folks are already buying up rooftop landing pad space leases.

Electric powered vehicles excel at short trips.

But so do gas vehicles. And they are better than electrics for long
trips.

High-end battery-powered drones can stay in the air about 20
minutes, with no payload except a small camera. A weatherproof,
enclosed drone with passengers and luggage isn't going to make
it very far.

Have you seen the units in the news recently? They fly forward
at about 100 knots.

Other countries will advance faster than America will. We are
too regulatory prone.

There are LOTS of ultralight aircraft that require no FAA license.

The personal helicopter idea has been around for ages. I don't
think it's practical, especially using batteries. The hazards are
too many, the cost too high.

Not using batteries, but see YouTube for (Mosquito helicopter). It's
a popular personal helicopter. Autorotation helps reduce the risk.
Also, there are many gas powered paragliders and hang gliders
nowadays (that do not require a license).

Youtube has some great(awful) helicopter crashes. One of my favorite
people died in a helicopter crash.

Imagine downtown rooftop to airport vertical-lift shuttles. Envision
noise. Envision the things falling out of the sky over downtown.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[bitrex]

On 6/24/19 4:25 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 12:52:23 -0700 (PDT), omnilobe@gmail.com wrote:

A battery exchange station will replace the gas station.
It is faster to remove a battery block and put a fresh
block in than it is to fill a tank with gasoline. It is
safer than a self-driving auto-pilot tesla.

Is anyone doing that?

Gasoline has enormous weight advantages over batteries. Half of the
chemical inputs don't need to be loaded into the car, and none of the
used reactants need to be schlepped around.

The well-to-wheel efficiency of an ICE engine is optimistically 8%

The well-to-wheel efficiency of an electric car, powered by charging up
from e.g. natural gas fired thermal power plant is about 40-60%.

Gasoline is enormously energy dense, only to waste most of the energy as
heat that never does any useful work. that's why ICE cars have those
enormous active cooling systems and radiators - to efficiently eject
your money into space as waste heat.

It's analogous to lugging around a thermonuclear bomb to use as the
motive force to drive an artillery shell

 

[John Doe]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote...

A weatherproof, enclosed drone with passengers and luggage isn't
going to make it very far.

An item like that will be an airplane, not a drone.

It will have the same dronish vertical takeoff/land props, so has
the same energy and reliability issues. And many of the proposed
shuttle things have no pilot, which I might call "drone."

Cape Air is adding a few dozen all-electric planes to its fleet,
for its short-haul passenger routes. They expect to save $400 in
aviation fuel per trip, compared to $10 for the electricity
fillups. With many trips/day the E-planes will pay for
themselves.

I was talking about downtown rooftop to airport shuttles. Electric
winged planes might well make sense for short trips, like SFO to
the Oakland airport maybe. Recharge time will be an issue.

Use spare batteries or spare aircraft.

> An electric powered sailplane would be cool, to avoid the tow.

Battery weight is the issue. Maybe if you can eject the battery
after reaching a desired altitude. See YouTube for lots of gas powered
ultralight aircraft, like powered paragliding and powered hang gliding.

 

[John Doe]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Rick C wrote:

EVS DON'T NEED CHARGING STATIONS WHEN PEOPLE CAN CHARGE AT HOME!!!

Did that get through?

MANY CAN'T!!!

Did that get through?

He probably lives in a ranch-style house with a lawn and a carport and
a swimming pool in the burbs somewhere. Not everybody does.

I park on the street. I couldn't run an extension cord to my car, not
that I'd want an electric car.

There's an article in today's newspaper about a bunch of people who
ride electric unicycles. Enthusiasts. Same idea.

Me having experience with an electric unicycle (the experience is what I
bought it for) I can tell you that is apples and oranges. It's for fun
unless you can go without carrying anything. Not comparable to most
electric vehicles. And, currently they are probably inefficient, besides
requiring a full set of protective gear.