Will the Chevy Bolt EV be a 'game changer'?

[oilerlord]

should I keep going on?

No, you should probably stop.

Instead of supporting your baseless prediction about the relatively sudden disappearance of gas stations ("watch what happens"), you straw man the discussion about TV's and cell phones.

We've had electric cars in our culture since the release of the EV-1 in 1996. Twenty years later, 99.4% of new cars sold still use fossil fuels. Clearly, you consider yourself a futurist, but aren't able to explain the catalysts or events that need to happen that, in my lifetime, makes it difficult for me to find a gas station.

 

[oilerlord]

game chang·er
noun
an event, idea, or procedure that effects a significant shift in the current manner of doing or thinking about something.

I guess "Game Changer" depends on how you define the "Game"

No, by your definition "a significant shift in the current manner of doing or thinking", it isn't about defining the "game", but about the key words "significant", "doing", and "thinking".

We've beat this to death. If you and others really want to believe that if (huge IF) the number of EV's sold next year goes up from 0.6% to 1.2% is significant as part of the big picture (i.e. "game"), then fill your boots. It's comparable to pouring a bottle of water in a pool, then pouring in another bottle and saying the volume of bottled water in the pool went up by 100%, so now that pool water is safe to drink.

To me, "doing" and "thinking" are much more powerful motivators behind a game changer. The iPod changed our thinking, and the doing killed the Sony Walkman. When it comes to "game changers", some of us dare to dream bigger. "Game Changer" is a tired phrase just as "revolutionary" has become. Both get tossed around by marketing departments in the attempt to sell minor improvements as innovations. Let's leave it at that.

 

[devbolt]

While we've seen some amazing technological developments over the last 30 or 40 years (computers replacing typewriters, large flatscreen TV sets replacing CRT TV sets, cell phones replacing landlines, smart-phones replacing flip phones, etc) there's a big difference between those examples and that of Electric Vehicles: Cost. Cost of the EV, and the cost to build out the infrastructure to support the EV. The price of an EV is at least an order of magnitude or more than a smart phone, flatscreen, or computer, and are designed to last for at least a decade or longer. Most computers are obsolete after a few years, a cell phone is good for maybe 3 or 4 years (battery life degrading seems to be a major reason). A good flatscreen can last a decade (I have one that old), if you don't feel the need to go beyond basic HD goodness (3D, Ultra 4K, curved screen, etc).

Gas stations will eventually go away, but probably not for decades. Not unless the source of fuel for them dries up before the demand for gas-powered vehicles dries up.

I don't know if the Bolt is a game changer for the car industry. It's certainly a major step forward. A game changer would be 400+ miles of range, charging stations that are as plentiful as gas stations, and less than 10 minutes to go from empty to full because that is what most people are used to with their traditional ICE vehicles. Eventually we'll get there because we have to, but it's gonna take a while.

 

[Robaroni]

should I keep going on?

No, you should probably stop.

Instead of supporting your baseless prediction about the relatively sudden disappearance of gas stations ("watch what happens"), you straw man the discussion about TV's and cell phones.

We've had electric cars in our culture since the release of the EV-1 in 1996. Twenty years later, 99.4% of new cars sold still use fossil fuels. Clearly, you consider yourself a futurist, but aren't able to explain the catalysts or events that need to happen that, in my lifetime, makes it difficult for me to find a gas station.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/sweden-combats-climate-change-aiming-be-fossil-fuel-free-nation/

Sweden Plans To Become World's First Fossil Fuel-Free Nation

Recently, there seems to be an uptick in small nations or islands setting their sights on becoming increasingly, or completely, powered by non-fossil fuel energy sources, particularly renewables such as solar, wind and hydroelectric power. This is welcomed news in a world that – despite recent advances in tackling climate change by the U.S. and China – remains relatively paralyzed in its ability to make substantial changes to how it deals with climate change.

Earlier this year, Costa Rica met the entirety of its national power demand using renewable energy for 75 days straight. Shortly afterwards, the U.S. state of Hawaii passed legislature decreeing that, by 2045, the entire island will be powered by renewable, sustainable energy sources. Denmark, one spectacularly windy day in July, generated 140% of the nation’s electricity demand through wind power alone, as reported by the Guardian. Remarkably, much of the excess was given to Germany, Norway and Sweden.


TVs,cell phones, LEDs, etc. weren't "straw men" they show how rapidly technology can change human actions. No one though LEDs would be the force in lighting it is today for example and while no one has a crystal ball fossil fuel's poor technological outlook will very likely meet the same fate as Edison's DC power grid.

Rudolf Diesel invented the engine named after him in 1886, 100+ years later it still gets below 40% efficiency and still pollutes the planet, that's what you're driving.

 

[Robaroni]

While we've seen some amazing technological developments over the last 30 or 40 years (computers replacing typewriters, large flatscreen TV sets replacing CRT TV sets, cell phones replacing landlines, smart-phones replacing flip phones, etc) there's a big difference between those examples and that of Electric Vehicles: Cost. Cost of the EV, and the cost to build out the infrastructure to support the EV. The price of an EV is at least an order of magnitude or more than a smart phone, flatscreen, or computer, and are designed to last for at least a decade or longer. Most computers are obsolete after a few years, a cell phone is good for maybe 3 or 4 years (battery life degrading seems to be a major reason). A good flatscreen can last a decade (I have one that old), if you don't feel the need to go beyond basic HD goodness (3D, Ultra 4K, curved screen, etc).

Gas stations will eventually go away, but probably not for decades. Not unless the source of fuel for them dries up before the demand for gas-powered vehicles dries up.

I don't know if the Bolt is a game changer for the car industry. It's certainly a major step forward. A game changer would be 400+ miles of range, charging stations that are as plentiful as gas stations, and less than 10 minutes to go from empty to full because that is what most people are used to with their traditional ICE vehicles. Eventually we'll get there because we have to, but it's gonna take a while.

No, it's exactly the same thing. First, do you know that if the sun shines on an LED current will flow? People said the same things about PV modules, their price has dropped to 1/5 of ten years ago.

Let's understand how this works. The reason we don't use VCRs today is because they have a lot of mechanical parts, now we use MP3 players with no moving parts. ICE automobiles are a production and pollution nightmare. They require machining, pistons, connecting rods, assembly, complex transmissions and massive smelting and refining. An electric motor has TWO moving parts, the armature and the bearings. Elon Musk says his bearing will last one million miles. Lithium is the third most abundant element on the planet, like the MP3 player and the LED their price can only go down. ICE driven vehicles can only go up.

Every time the piston reaches top dead center in an ICE it reverses direction. You can't beat Newton's laws of motion, reversing direction thousands of times a minute means you'll never have great efficiency or a uniformly flat torque curve, that's why they need a variable speed gear box, to compensate for their limited torque band. The hypothesis that EVs are never going to be cheap is actually the problem with ICE vehicles!

Now let's look at the fossil fuel vs EV infrastructure. Fossil fuels absolutely need a place to go to fill up. Very, very few people have gas pumps in their garages. EVs need an outlet. That means that everyone with access to an outlet can charge his EV. Day night, at work, whenever and wherever. There's already an infrastructure in place, it's called the grid! No, tanks in the ground, trucks delivering fuel, off shore oil spills, wars to defend corporate interests and no terrorism from making our enemies rich. Fossil fuels may last another 30 years, maybe not. The sun will shine for the next couple of billion years. The sun shinning on the earth for one hour produces all the energy everyone on the planet needs for one year. (source DOE)

So what do you think the future will most likely hold, fossil fuel and the ICE or EVs and the sun? That's rhetorical! How long will it take? I'm betting not long at all.

 

[SeanNelson]

So what do you think the future will most likely hold, fossil fuel and the ICE or EVs and the sun? That's rhetorical! How long will it take? I'm betting not long at all.

I don't think anyone is seriously disagreeing with the premise, only with the time frame. And that time frame is dependent on how quickly battery technology improves and on what OPEC (or what's left of it) does to maintain their market share. Since both of those are quite difficult to predict, none of us really knows for sure. All we can really say is: probably more than 10 years and probably less than 50.

My bet is on EVs becoming half of annual sales in about 10-20 years. But remember that even when that happens there will still be a large majority of ICE vehicles on the road - it will take another several years for them to start to die off before gas stations will really start to decline.

 

[oilerlord]

should I keep going on?

No, you should probably stop.

Instead of supporting your baseless prediction about the relatively sudden disappearance of gas stations ("watch what happens"), you straw man the discussion about TV's and cell phones.

We've had electric cars in our culture since the release of the EV-1 in 1996. Twenty years later, 99.4% of new cars sold still use fossil fuels. Clearly, you consider yourself a futurist, but aren't able to explain the catalysts or events that need to happen that, in my lifetime, makes it difficult for me to find a gas station.

Sweden Plans To Become World's First Fossil Fuel-Free Nation

Recently, there seems to be an uptick in small nations or islands setting their sights on becoming increasingly, or completely, powered by non-fossil fuel energy sources, particularly renewables such as solar, wind and hydroelectric power. This is welcomed news in a world that – despite recent advances in tackling climate change by the U.S. and China – remains relatively paralyzed in its ability to make substantial changes to how it deals with climate change.

Earlier this year, Costa Rica met the entirety of its national power demand using renewable energy for 75 days straight. Shortly afterwards, the U.S. state of Hawaii passed legislature decreeing that, by 2045, the entire island will be powered by renewable, sustainable energy sources. Denmark, one spectacularly windy day in July, generated 140% of the nation’s electricity demand through wind power alone, as reported by the Guardian. Remarkably, much of the excess was given to Germany, Norway and Sweden.


TVs,cell phones, LEDs, etc. weren't "straw men" they show how rapidly technology can change human actions. No one though LEDs would be the force in lighting it is today for example and while no one has a crystal ball fossil fuel's poor technological outlook will very likely meet the same fate as Edison's DC power grid.

Rudolf Diesel invented the engine named after him in 1886, 100+ years later it still gets below 40% efficiency and still pollutes the planet, that's what you're driving.

I asked for clarity in your prediction about the sudden disappearance of gas stations in our lifetimes, but you instead reply with a copy & paste about a windy day in Denmark. Clearly, you can't back up that ridiculous statement, so I'll just assume that your unbridled enthusiasm for electric vehicles simply got the best of you. No worries.

Since you brought it up, I also own a diesel, but haven't driven it since June because (as I've mentioned before) my B250e is the perfect car for 95% of our needs. The other 5%, we make longer highway trips, including the 2000 mile trip from Alberta to Arizona with the TDI, and only have to fill up the tank 4 times - with each fill only taking a couple of minutes.

It's so ironic that those outdated, polluting diesels are keeping you alive. Trucks with those nasty diesel engines transport nearly all the necessities of life to you and your city. Thank you, Rudolf Diesel. Even after 100+ years, your marvelous engine still has an integral place in our society.

 

[Aidan]

Interesting article: 'Increased mileage on a charge for electric cars is all well and good, but the real “game changer” won’t come until a way is found to recharge the battery that renders the process equivalent in time to filling up a tank with gasoline.'

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-bolt-20160916-snap-story.html

Excellent perspective however night charging at home will beat the cost n time to fill up ...for convenience anyways

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Interesting article: 'Increased mileage on a charge for electric cars is all well and good, but the real “game changer” won’t come until a way is found to recharge the battery that renders the process equivalent in time to filling up a tank with gasoline.'

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-bolt-20160916-snap-story.html

Excellent perspective however night charging at home will beat the cost n time to fill up ...for convenience anyways

It seems that this discussion of fueling has two sides, which rarely get discussed in the same breath.

One the one hand, the holdouts are shouting that they will not - no, cannot switch to EV until QC is as fast as filling a tank with gasoline.

On the other hand, the enthusiasts are countering that most fueling is done at home, and is far more convenient, today, than gasoline.

The truth is, DCQC is absolutely necessary for EVs to go mainstream. But, IMHO, they don't need to match gasoline for fueling times to have a net increase in convenience. Tesla is already there today - the daily home refueling + supercharging network gives most owners more convenience than a weekly trip to the gas station + 10 minute fueling stops when traveling. The thing is, nobody seems to realize this except current owners. So how do you convince others to try it for themselves?

IMO, ~250kW is where we need to get for passenger vehicles. At this rate, in 15 minutes the chargers can nominally push 250kW * 0.25h = 62.5kWh into a battery (assuming the battery can handle it). That would take an EV an extra 200+ miles. I think I could convince a lot more people to try an EV if the story is a 15 minute stop every 200 miles. Compare that to the Bolt - a 30 minute stop every 90 miles (per GM's marketing). That's a harder pill to swallow for the uninitiated. For me? That's perfectly fine. With a single 30 minute stop, I can travel 238 + 90 = 328 miles? Perfect! That's basically the farthest I ever drive anyway.

 

[Robaroni]

No, you should probably stop.

Instead of supporting your baseless prediction about the relatively sudden disappearance of gas stations ("watch what happens"), you straw man the discussion about TV's and cell phones.

We've had electric cars in our culture since the release of the EV-1 in 1996. Twenty years later, 99.4% of new cars sold still use fossil fuels. Clearly, you consider yourself a futurist, but aren't able to explain the catalysts or events that need to happen that, in my lifetime, makes it difficult for me to find a gas station.

Sweden Plans To Become World's First Fossil Fuel-Free Nation

Recently, there seems to be an uptick in small nations or islands setting their sights on becoming increasingly, or completely, powered by non-fossil fuel energy sources, particularly renewables such as solar, wind and hydroelectric power. This is welcomed news in a world that – despite recent advances in tackling climate change by the U.S. and China – remains relatively paralyzed in its ability to make substantial changes to how it deals with climate change.

Earlier this year, Costa Rica met the entirety of its national power demand using renewable energy for 75 days straight. Shortly afterwards, the U.S. state of Hawaii passed legislature decreeing that, by 2045, the entire island will be powered by renewable, sustainable energy sources. Denmark, one spectacularly windy day in July, generated 140% of the nation’s electricity demand through wind power alone, as reported by the Guardian. Remarkably, much of the excess was given to Germany, Norway and Sweden.


TVs,cell phones, LEDs, etc. weren't "straw men" they show how rapidly technology can change human actions. No one though LEDs would be the force in lighting it is today for example and while no one has a crystal ball fossil fuel's poor technological outlook will very likely meet the same fate as Edison's DC power grid.

Rudolf Diesel invented the engine named after him in 1886, 100+ years later it still gets below 40% efficiency and still pollutes the planet, that's what you're driving.

I asked for clarity in your prediction about the sudden disappearance of gas stations in our lifetimes, but you instead reply with a copy & paste about a windy day in Denmark. Clearly, you can't back up that ridiculous statement, so I'll just assume that your unbridled enthusiasm for electric vehicles simply got the best of you. No worries.

Since you brought it up, I also own a diesel, but haven't driven it since June because (as I've mentioned before) my B250e is the perfect car for 95% of our needs. The other 5%, we make longer highway trips, including the 2000 mile trip from Alberta to Arizona with the TDI, and only have to fill up the tank 4 times - with each fill only taking a couple of minutes.

It's so ironic that those outdated, polluting diesels are keeping you alive. Trucks with those nasty diesel engines transport nearly all the necessities of life to you and your city. Thank you, Rudolf Diesel. Even after 100+ years, your marvelous engine still has in integral place in our society.

I didn't say "sudden". This is what I said:

"there will be a time when you have to plan your trips plotting gas station locations". I didn't say in 20 or 30 years either, along with "sudden" those were your assumptions. "see what happens" means that I predict it will happen. A 30 year old person living to 80 would have 50 years for it to "happen". You said you have "at least 30 years" before it occurs. Truth is neither of us know what will happen in the next 30 years, again 15 years ago no one saw LED lighting being the force it is today. I gave you clarity through past technology, they are facts, in order for you to challenge my premise you must show facts as to why it is not possible for gas stations to be greatly reduced or disappear in the future. Show me the technology supporting your premise. Prove to me we won't run out of fossil fuel in the next 30 years.

The link I posted , "Sweden Plans To Become World's First Fossil Fuel-Free Nation" shows the direction and thinking of countries as we move towards a fossil free planet, the link supports my premise. Germany has already had days when it produced 74% of its energy from alternatives.

You're BMW is not the "perfect car" for the planet, it's a major part of the problem. That's the exact singular thinking that has this planet in trouble.

Let's look at diesels:

"Researchers estimate that, nationwide, tens of thousands of people die prematurely each year as a result of particulate pollution. Diesel engines contribute to the problem by releasing particulates directly into the air and by emitting nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides, which transform into "secondary" particulates in the atmosphere."

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/why-clean-cars/air-pollution-and-health/trucks-buses-and-other-commercial-vehicles/diesel-engines-and-public.html#.V_ecZ_krJhE

" A typical diesel car emits around 10 times more nitrogen
oxides than an equivalent gasoline car."

https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2015_09_Five_facts_about_diesel_FINAL.pdf

Diesels aren't saving us , they're killing us! Is this the best we can do in the 21st Century? Let's hope not, I vote for electric trains powered by alternatives brought to hubs then short distance trucking (electric) to final destinations.

 

[Robaroni]

Interesting article: 'Increased mileage on a charge for electric cars is all well and good, but the real “game changer” won’t come until a way is found to recharge the battery that renders the process equivalent in time to filling up a tank with gasoline.'

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-bolt-20160916-snap-story.html

Excellent perspective however night charging at home will beat the cost n time to fill up ...for convenience anyways

It seems that this discussion of fueling has two sides, which rarely get discussed in the same breath.

One the one hand, the holdouts are shouting that they will not - no, cannot switch to EV until QC is as fast as filling a tank with gasoline.

On the other hand, the enthusiasts are countering that most fueling is done at home, and is far more convenient, today, than gasoline.

The truth is, DCQC is absolutely necessary for EVs to go mainstream. But, IMHO, they don't need to match gasoline for fueling times to have a net increase in convenience. Tesla is already there today - the daily home refueling + supercharging network gives most owners more convenience than a weekly trip to the gas station + 10 minute fueling stops when traveling. The thing is, nobody seems to realize this except current owners. So how do you convince others to try it for themselves?

IMO, ~250kW is where we need to get for passenger vehicles. At this rate, in 15 minutes the chargers can nominally push 250kW * 0.25h = 62.5kWh into a battery (assuming the battery can handle it). That would take an EV an extra 200+ miles. I think I could convince a lot more people to try an EV if the story is a 15 minute stop every 200 miles. Compare that to the Bolt - a 30 minute stop every 90 miles (per GM's marketing). That's a harder pill to swallow for the uninitiated. For me? That's perfectly fine. With a single 30 minute stop, I can travel 238 + 90 = 328 miles? Perfect! That's basically the farthest I ever drive anyway.

There's another solution, EVs today are very much overpowered. The Tesla is the fastest sedan in the world, my contention is that it doesn't have to be. Slowing down the EV means increasing distance and reducing batteries which means lighter cars and faster charges. Does the Bolt have to get to 60 mph in under 7 seconds? Of course not, 10 or 12 seconds will still make it equal to gas cars but with all the benefits I cited above.

How many DCQC's will we need when EVs go 4 or 5 hundred miles on a charge? So maybe the answer is to reduce the power of EVs.

 

[DucRider]

There's another solution, EVs today are very much overpowered. The Tesla is the fastest sedan in the world, my contention is that it doesn't have to be. Slowing down the EV means increasing distance and reducing batteries which means lighter cars and faster charges. Does the Bolt have to get to 60 mph in under 7 seconds? Of course not, 10 or 12 seconds will still make it equal to gas cars but with all the benefits I cited above.

How many DCQC's will we need when EVs go 4 or 5 hundred miles on a charge? So maybe the answer is to reduce the power of EVs.

I disagree, as EV's suffer virtually no penalty for having a more powerful motor when driven "normally". Using cruise control, or a judicious right foot results in the same range, Dropping the Bolt by 75% to 50 HP would not give you anywhere near the gains you are talking about. And it flat out would not sell with that lack of performance.
The exception to this might be your Tesla example, primarily on the their "P" and "L" versions. But the crop of sub $50K EV's would see very little range gain by cutting motor HP. Have you ever driven a smart fortwo ED? Or a Mitsubishi i - MiEV? Borderline OK for around town, but would never consider either of those if my commute involved freeway.

 

[fromport]

There's another solution, EVs today are very much overpowered. The Tesla is the fastest sedan in the world, my contention is that it doesn't have to be. Slowing down the EV means increasing distance and reducing batteries which means lighter cars and faster charges. Does the Bolt have to get to 60 mph in under 7 seconds? Of course not, 10 or 12 seconds will still make it equal to gas cars but with all the benefits I cited above.

How many DCQC's will we need when EVs go 4 or 5 hundred miles on a charge? So maybe the answer is to reduce the power of EVs.

For an ICE to go faster you need a bigger engine: 4 cyl -> 6 or even 8 which adds a lot more weight and space.
An electric motor is really so much smaller even with more power.
The range is determined by the amount of kWh of the batteries, which have a related amount of drain/charging current without being penalized.
A 65 kWh battery pack like the Bolt has no problem supplying some serious energy to accelerate.
Plus the fact that an electric motor has the same torque over the whole rpm range.
There is no tradeoff for any EV to be faster than a conventional ICE
A smaller motor will hardly take any weight of the Bolt, you still need the same amount of batteries to have the 238 miles range.
No win to be made there (IMO)

 

[GetOffYourGas]

There's another solution, EVs today are very much overpowered. The Tesla is the fastest sedan in the world, my contention is that it doesn't have to be. Slowing down the EV means increasing distance and reducing batteries which means lighter cars and faster charges. Does the Bolt have to get to 60 mph in under 7 seconds? Of course not, 10 or 12 seconds will still make it equal to gas cars but with all the benefits I cited above.

How many DCQC's will we need when EVs go 4 or 5 hundred miles on a charge? So maybe the answer is to reduce the power of EVs.

I disagree, as EV's suffer virtually no penalty for having a more powerful motor when driven "normally". Using cruise control, or a judicious right foot results in the same range, Dropping the Bolt by 75% to 50 HP would not give you anywhere near the gains you are talking about. And it flat out would not sell with that lack of performance.
The exception to this might be your Tesla example, primarily on the their "P" and "L" versions. But the crop of sub $50K EV's would see very little range gain by cutting motor HP. Have you ever driven a smart fortwo ED? Or a Mitsubishi i - MiEV? Borderline OK for around town, but would never consider either of those if my commute involved freeway.

I agree with DucRider. In short, change the driver, not the car.

Here's what I mean by that. A Bolt with a 50kW motor will not be noticeably more efficient than the 200kW Bolt, never pushed beyond 50kW. Many people have figured this out, and "hypermile" their cars already. But, like DucRider said, the 50kW Bolt will never sell. Instead we are left with a 238-mile car which a hypermiler can probably push over 300 miles.

My 80kW Leaf (0-60 in ~11 seconds) is adequate, sure. But it is actually less efficient than the 200kW Bolt.

 

[Breezy]

I don't think it's a game changer. But the Bolt/Ampera-e can't be ignored either. Everyone, including strong players Nissan-Renault and Tesla will be adjusting their previous plans based on the Bolt. That's significant.

If Tesla gets the Model 3 out in reasonable time, and I hope they do, that will be in part because of competitive pressure from GM. There are already examples of people who have altered their Model 3 purchase plans because they expect the Bolt to be available, reliable and/or affordable, while the Model 3 still has large question marks beside those factors.

 

[devbolt]

While we've seen some amazing technological developments over the last 30 or 40 years (computers replacing typewriters, large flatscreen TV sets replacing CRT TV sets, cell phones replacing landlines, smart-phones replacing flip phones, etc) there's a big difference between those examples and that of Electric Vehicles: Cost. Cost of the EV, and the cost to build out the infrastructure to support the EV. The price of an EV is at least an order of magnitude or more than a smart phone, flatscreen, or computer, and are designed to last for at least a decade or longer. Most computers are obsolete after a few years, a cell phone is good for maybe 3 or 4 years (battery life degrading seems to be a major reason). A good flatscreen can last a decade (I have one that old), if you don't feel the need to go beyond basic HD goodness (3D, Ultra 4K, curved screen, etc).

Gas stations will eventually go away, but probably not for decades. Not unless the source of fuel for them dries up before the demand for gas-powered vehicles dries up.

I don't know if the Bolt is a game changer for the car industry. It's certainly a major step forward. A game changer would be 400+ miles of range, charging stations that are as plentiful as gas stations, and less than 10 minutes to go from empty to full because that is what most people are used to with their traditional ICE vehicles. Eventually we'll get there because we have to, but it's gonna take a while.

No, it's exactly the same thing. First, do you know that if the sun shines on an LED current will flow? People said the same things about PV modules, their price has dropped to 1/5 of ten years ago.

Let's understand how this works. The reason we don't use VCRs today is because they have a lot of mechanical parts, now we use MP3 players with no moving parts. ICE automobiles are a production and pollution nightmare. They require machining, pistons, connecting rods, assembly, complex transmissions and massive smelting and refining. An electric motor has TWO moving parts, the armature and the bearings. Elon Musk says his bearing will last one million miles. Lithium is the third most abundant element on the planet, like the MP3 player and the LED their price can only go down. ICE driven vehicles can only go up.

Every time the piston reaches top dead center in an ICE it reverses direction. You can't beat Newton's laws of motion, reversing direction thousands of times a minute means you'll never have great efficiency or a uniformly flat torque curve, that's why they need a variable speed gear box, to compensate for their limited torque band. The hypothesis that EVs are never going to be cheap is actually the problem with ICE vehicles!

Now let's look at the fossil fuel vs EV infrastructure. Fossil fuels absolutely need a place to go to fill up. Very, very few people have gas pumps in their garages. EVs need an outlet. That means that everyone with access to an outlet can charge his EV. Day night, at work, whenever and wherever. There's already an infrastructure in place, it's called the grid! No, tanks in the ground, trucks delivering fuel, off shore oil spills, wars to defend corporate interests and no terrorism from making our enemies rich. Fossil fuels may last another 30 years, maybe not. The sun will shine for the next couple of billion years. The sun shinning on the earth for one hour produces all the energy everyone on the planet needs for one year. (source DOE)

So what do you think the future will most likely hold, fossil fuel and the ICE or EVs and the sun? That's rhetorical! How long will it take? I'm betting not long at all.

The reason we don't use VCRs these days is not due to the mechanical nature of them. It's due to the fact that something better came along (several things, in fact). The fact that that replacement technology doesn't use mechanical parts (for the most part) is irrelevant. Same for MP3 players versus a walkman, or a cd player.

I never meant to imply that EV's would never be cheap enough to replace equivalent ICE vehicles. What I meant was that the inherent big-ticket cost of an ICE or EV is a barrier to the rapid adoption of EVs. You don't replace a perfectly functioning $35K ICE vehicle on a whim. If you've spent that much money on a vehicle, you want to get as much use of it as possible before plunking down another $35K. The cheapest car to own is the one you already have that is also already paid for.

While the Sun can provide a lot of energy just by shining on the earth for an hour, efficient capture and storage of that energy remains elusive. Don't get me wrong, I love rooftop solar. I've had it on my roof for 4 years now. But I recognize the limitations of it.

 

[oilerlord]

I agree with DucRider. In short, change the driver, not the car.

Here's what I mean by that. A Bolt with a 50kW motor will not be noticeably more efficient than the 200kW Bolt, never pushed beyond 50kW. Many people have figured this out, and "hypermile" their cars already.

I think "many" people with EV's hypermile out of necessity, but only a few with ICE do. I hypermile my TDI mostly because it's fun to see just how far it will go on a tank, and how much I can beat the EPA's 32MPG rating. My record is just over 700 miles, and my combined FE is ~40MPG.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/volkswagen/jetta/2012/oilerlord/200092

During the energy crisis, the government tried to "change the driver" years ago with the national 55MPH speed limit. We all know driving at 55 is much more fuel efficient than 75, but the general public revolted and the government caved.

Generally speaking, I don't think the public wants to know, or cares about kW, kWh, CCS, EVSE's, or any of the other dozen acronyms we find so interesting on this forum. People have a tough time figuring out their electricity bill much less figuring out the difference between L2 and DCFS. They don't want to do the math about how long it takes before they can drive their car again...or deal with the BS compromises that owner's of EV's have come to accept.

So, as much as it's a nice thought for driver's habits to change, we can expect to see dozens of "what's wrong with my Bolt's range" threads on this forum. They will read the hypermiler's "my car gets 300 miles" posts, and assume they should too. This is no different than the TDI guys that drive like maniacs, and then complain they cant break 30MPG. Their first thought is something is wrong with the car, not the way they drive it.

When Bolt drivers can't break 190 miles with their 238 mile cars, we'll be happy to explain how EV's don't do well at 80MPH, tell them to turn off their A/C in the middle of summer, and turn off their heat in the middle of winter. This what we do.

For those reasons, the car has to change to fit the driver - not the other way around. It's disappointing that GM didn't put 250kW fast charging into the car, and it looks like they limited Level 2 to only 6.6kW. My car is a dinosaur in comparison, but I can charge it a nearly 10kW. Not a really a big deal, but GM could have done so much better. I suppose there is only so much you can do with a sub $38,000 EV that is already a money loser in return for ZEV credits.

To start, a "real" 300 mile car is required for public acceptance. Not one that requires hypermiling, or otherwise having to drive like grandpa to achieve that 300. It needs to get 300 miles in 100 degree Arizona heat at 80MPH with A/C blasting, and 300 miles in -10F Minnesota cold with the heater blasting. This amazing EV at 50% battery needs to charge to full in 10 minutes or less, pretty much everywhere. Real world stuff that everyone takes for granted. It's fun to dream about all things that would make an amazing EV - even though a cheap Toyota Corolla has been doing those "amazing" things for decades.

 

[michael]

In general, a car with a bigger electric motor will be MORE efficient than the same car with a smaller electric motor. This is of course different than the situation with gas engines.

The reason is that the bigger motor has less resistance (needs to be, to be capable of delivering high power) and therefore wastes less energy when operated at some lower power level than a motor which is straining to operate at that level.

Same idea with batteries...a large battery pack weighs more than a small one, but it's much better...less heating loss due to lower ESR, longer battery life, shallower depth of discharge.

Tesla got it right with big motors and batteries. Nissan got it wrong with small motors and batteries. Bolt is a significant step in the right direction.

 

[Robaroni]

While we've seen some amazing technological developments over the last 30 or 40 years (computers replacing typewriters, large flatscreen TV sets replacing CRT TV sets, cell phones replacing landlines, smart-phones replacing flip phones, etc) there's a big difference between those examples and that of Electric Vehicles: Cost. Cost of the EV, and the cost to build out the infrastructure to support the EV. The price of an EV is at least an order of magnitude or more than a smart phone, flatscreen, or computer, and are designed to last for at least a decade or longer. Most computers are obsolete after a few years, a cell phone is good for maybe 3 or 4 years (battery life degrading seems to be a major reason). A good flatscreen can last a decade (I have one that old), if you don't feel the need to go beyond basic HD goodness (3D, Ultra 4K, curved screen, etc).

Gas stations will eventually go away, but probably not for decades. Not unless the source of fuel for them dries up before the demand for gas-powered vehicles dries up.

I don't know if the Bolt is a game changer for the car industry. It's certainly a major step forward. A game changer would be 400+ miles of range, charging stations that are as plentiful as gas stations, and less than 10 minutes to go from empty to full because that is what most people are used to with their traditional ICE vehicles. Eventually we'll get there because we have to, but it's gonna take a while.

No, it's exactly the same thing. First, do you know that if the sun shines on an LED current will flow? People said the same things about PV modules, their price has dropped to 1/5 of ten years ago.

Let's understand how this works. The reason we don't use VCRs today is because they have a lot of mechanical parts, now we use MP3 players with no moving parts. ICE automobiles are a production and pollution nightmare. They require machining, pistons, connecting rods, assembly, complex transmissions and massive smelting and refining. An electric motor has TWO moving parts, the armature and the bearings. Elon Musk says his bearing will last one million miles. Lithium is the third most abundant element on the planet, like the MP3 player and the LED their price can only go down. ICE driven vehicles can only go up.

Every time the piston reaches top dead center in an ICE it reverses direction. You can't beat Newton's laws of motion, reversing direction thousands of times a minute means you'll never have great efficiency or a uniformly flat torque curve, that's why they need a variable speed gear box, to compensate for their limited torque band. The hypothesis that EVs are never going to be cheap is actually the problem with ICE vehicles!

Now let's look at the fossil fuel vs EV infrastructure. Fossil fuels absolutely need a place to go to fill up. Very, very few people have gas pumps in their garages. EVs need an outlet. That means that everyone with access to an outlet can charge his EV. Day night, at work, whenever and wherever. There's already an infrastructure in place, it's called the grid! No, tanks in the ground, trucks delivering fuel, off shore oil spills, wars to defend corporate interests and no terrorism from making our enemies rich. Fossil fuels may last another 30 years, maybe not. The sun will shine for the next couple of billion years. The sun shinning on the earth for one hour produces all the energy everyone on the planet needs for one year. (source DOE)

So what do you think the future will most likely hold, fossil fuel and the ICE or EVs and the sun? That's rhetorical! How long will it take? I'm betting not long at all.

The reason we don't use VCRs these days is not due to the mechanical nature of them. It's due to the fact that something better came along (several things, in fact). The fact that that replacement technology doesn't use mechanical parts (for the most part) is irrelevant. Same for MP3 players versus a walkman, or a cd player.

I never meant to imply that EV's would never be cheap enough to replace equivalent ICE vehicles. What I meant was that the inherent big-ticket cost of an ICE or EV is a barrier to the rapid adoption of EVs. You don't replace a perfectly functioning $35K ICE vehicle on a whim. If you've spent that much money on a vehicle, you want to get as much use of it as possible before plunking down another $35K. The cheapest car to own is the one you already have that is also already paid for.

While the Sun can provide a lot of energy just by shining on the earth for an hour, efficient capture and storage of that energy remains elusive. Don't get me wrong, I love rooftop solar. I've had it on my roof for 4 years now. But I recognize the limitations of it.

VCRs were a nightmare. Belts going bad, spinning heads wearing out, tapes jamming, motors and gears, etc. MP3 is no better a sound reproducer than CDs and there are people who will argue that the LP sounds better than all of them. The CD and LP are both mechanical machines and just like an ICE engine (another nightmare) they fail and wear out. The electric motor is far superior to the ICE in many ways. Think about a 3mm piston ring going up and down thousands of times a minute in a cast iron sleeve, about the water pump, the the injectors opening and closing, the fuel pump, coolant hoses, air cleaners, oil changes and spark plugs. That's not "insignificant", that's a substantial difference. Machines break down because machines can't avoid something electronic components can - friction.

"While the Sun can provide a lot of energy just by shining on the earth for an hour, efficient capture and storage of that energy remains elusive. Don't get me wrong, I love rooftop solar. I've had it on my roof for 4 years now. But I recognize the limitations of it."

Actually alternatives are very dependable as a grid source. If you added wind and microhydro to your system (something the grid is capable of) you would find they compliment each other. Wind and PV work well together. Actually within the next year I will have all three in place. (right now I have 10.Kw of PV (10 years). At that point the only fossil fuel i will use is my car and when I get an EV that will end.

"The cheapest car to own is the one you already have that is also already paid for. "

For me it's more than what I personal save. It's about a planet in trouble that I can do things, in my own small way, to change that. The money I lose selling and ICE vehicle and purchasing and EV is worth it.

 

[Robaroni]

In general, a car with a bigger electric motor will be MORE efficient than the same car with a smaller electric motor. This is of course different than the situation with gas engines.

The reason is that the bigger motor has less resistance (needs to be, to be capable of delivering high power) and therefore wastes less energy when operated at some lower power level than a motor which is straining to operate at that level.

Same idea with batteries...a large battery pack weighs more than a small one, but it's much better...less heating loss due to lower ESR, longer battery life, shallower depth of discharge.

Tesla got it right with big motors and batteries. Nissan got it wrong with small motors and batteries. Bolt is a significant step in the right direction.

Small motors can have the same internal resistance as large ones. Larger motors due to their size use longer wire runs. Power and efficiency are not mutually exclusive, you can have small motors with better efficiency than large ones. A 100 hp motor will use more energy than a 10 hp motor regardless whether it has 10% more efficiency or not. One HP = 746 watts. Period! A 100 HP motor with 80% efficiency uses about 89,000 watts. A 10 HP motor with 70% efficiency uses ~ 9,700 watts. You can't get something from nothing!

A large battery pack doesn't have a lower ESR than a smaller one necessarily. ESR is an aspect of several factors including internal battery resistance and string dynamics.

However, a larger battery with a smaller motor will, by simple physics go further on a charge. Balance the battery and the motor to give longer range with smaller but adequate motors. That's what I'm saying.