Even 900 Miles of Range is not Enough

101
3222
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

If an EV could go say 900 miles on a charge, as is supposedly in the works and just around the next corner, that would supposedly allay what is styled by those pushing EVs as “range anxiety” – the soft slur used to mock people who aren’t anxious about how not-very-far EVs can go; they just don’t want any part of such a car.

A very different thing.

The slurring is interesting in itself because it’s a variation on the argument ad hominem – the personal attack – which is the first (and last) resort of the person who has no facts or wishes to avoid dealing with them. You are “phobic” – that is, fearful – of men who dress and act like women and insist you pretend to believe they are women – as opposed to your objecting to the insisted upon malleability of objective reality.

“Range anxiety” is a softer version of the same; it is similar to “vaccine hesitancy” – both slurs implying the slurred person is timorous rather than prudent.

Anyhow, this “range anxiety” business may be ameliorated by the supposed long-range EV batteries that are (here we go, again) just around the corner. And maybe this time, they are. It will make no difference because it will not solve the problem.

The problems – plural.

Range isn’t the current problem, fundamentally. It is how long it takes to recharge an EV battery, even partially.

Range has never been a problem in the past – for vehicles powered by gas-burning engines, that is – because it takes almost no time at get more gas. Americans used to commonly drive enormous sedans and station wagons with V8 engines three times the size of the small fours in common service today. These land yachts of the ’70s often averaged less than 15 miles per gallon and on account of that – and even with a 25 gallon tankful of gas – they didn’t go appreciably farther than a typical brand-new EV does with a fully charged battery.

But you could refuel a V8 land yacht of the ’70s in five minutes or less, so its functional range was in fact much greater than the modern EV’s.

Even one with a putative 900 mile-range battery – because inevitably, that battery will need to be recharged – and it is going to take the same long time to do it that it does now.

Or longer, even.

It is true the owner of such a vehicle would not need to wait as often. But does that make a material difference? The putative 900 miles of range – and we’ll assume this is somehow not the usual, so-far case of the actual real-world driving range being 10-20 percent less than touted – would allow the owner to avoid having to stop more than once a week or even once every two weeks for a 30-minutes-or-so “fast” charge. But that’s still 30 minutes-or-so once every couple of weeks of sitting and waiting at a Sheetz or Wal Mart parking lot, something no one who owns a “gas guzzler” never has to do in the normal course of events.

The apologists will retort that you can plan around this. Precisely the problem. Well, another one of them.

It is a kind of psychosis, this apologizing for (and rationalization of) problems that we never used to have to deal with but are being pressured to accept because . . . why, again?

Oh, yes – that’s right. The “climate” is “changing.” How, precisely, is never specified. Only that is “changing” in some alarming way and on account of that, something must be done. That something not being conservation.

Rather, diminishment – a subject for another time.

So, half-an-hour or so once or twice a month or so, depending on how you plan things. Assuming you can afford one of these things. Assuming there is a sufficiency of electricity – and places to plug these things into – to recharge these things when there are a lot of these things in need of a charge.

What will it take to recharge a 900 mile battery? Probably 2-3 times as much power as it takes to recharge a current EV battery. That kind of power will not be available at home, certainly. It is doubtful it will be available anywhere else, either. Perhaps at a handful of industrial-grade facilities that have the power on tap to light up a small town. But that kind of power probably won’t be available in small towns or the ‘burbs either. That leaves the cities, where there is perhaps infrastructure to support the charging up of a 900 mile EV battery in 30 minutes or so.

But how about thousands of them, at the same time?

If you have the infrastructure – the heavy cabling, the power substations, etc. – you have the ability to convey the necessary power. But it must be produced before it can be conveyed. If there is not enough power to meet demand for it – and there isn’t –  it does not matter whether the EV can be recharged in 30 minutes, because it will not be charged at all if there is no power to charge it.

Then how long will you wait?

Maybe until the next “breakthrough,” which is surely right around the corner. . .

. . .

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

If you like items like the Keeeeeeev T shirt pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!

 

 

101 COMMENTS

  1. Solid state batteries are coming.

    Probably not until 2030, though.

    The question is whether they’ll be used to increase range.

    Or cut weight…less wear on the tires, which aren’t lasting very long on current EVs.

    Or drop the overall cost of the vehicle.

  2. 900 may be possible if the motors are “detuned” to have the power of a cheap 70’s Vega or Pinto, whathaveyou. Otherwise I doubt it can be done. I guess we’ll see. Personally, when they start up with this solid state battery stuff I let out a fairly large snort from my nose. I just hope that when I see it I don’t have a mouthful of beer.

    • It’s not the motors using too much power. It’s the weight of the vehicle hauling the heavy battery around. If you need to push 6000 lbs down the road at 75mph, that’s going to take a certain amount of energy.
      Smaller motors won’t help at all, except maybe they’ll weigh a little less themselves.

  3. The level of technical ignorance is astounding but what is even more astounding is that the people should and certainly do know better just pretend and go along with the whole scam.
    A bigger battery that holds 4x the energy simply requires 4x the energy to charge it, also 4x (or more) time to charge. Charging is all about amps and that is limited by the charge cable and connector as well as the source voltage. A compromises us or conductor would we a very unpleasant experience for someone trying to charge their car getting hit with high amp high voltage.

    • True, but if the idea is that you only charge it overnight for like 10 hours or something, then it isn’t a totally bad idea.
      I mean, as long as people don’t think they are going to fast charge a 300kwh (or whatever) battery in like 35 minutes.

  4. It is my humble opinion that us boomers are of the last generation who took science and technology seriously, with a hunger to know how and why things work as they do. Us boomers had electrical and mechanical systems that we could work on and improve ourselves. Basic scientific principles were taught in school and reinforced with hands-on experimentation.
    In today’s climate (and the climate of two previous generations) experimentation on the level of the 1950s and 1960s is seen as “too dangerous”. I can remember the chemistry sets of the day being sold with toxic compounds which could be used for nefarious (and fun) purposes. Such sets are banned today.
    Today’s prime example of the public’s scientific stupidity being pushed by political considerations is that of electric vehicles, most people (even supposedly “educated” types) enthusiastically jumping on the bandwagon despite the major deficiencies and problems these vehicles have.
    Let’s look at the technical side of electric vehicles vs. ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles. Range is a large factor in the desirability of ICE vehicles vs. today’s electric vehicles. One can fuel up an ICE vehicle in approximately five minutes and be on his way.
    Not so for electric vehicles. Quite often electric vehicle charging stations are few and far between, which contributes to “range anxiety”. For short hops and city driving, electric vehicles can be an ideal solution, but for extended “road trips” forget it.
    Electric vehicle batteries lose power even when the vehicle is not in use. (This is akin to a gasoline vehicle with a leaky gas tank). Add to that, cold weather and the use of accessories (air conditioning, heat, lights, etc) will reduce range considerably. Electric vehicles may be somewhat suitable for a California climate, but will fail in sub-zero Michigan winter snow and ice.
    Batteries can be charged only to 80% of full capacity as overcharging will reduce battery life considerably. “Fast charging” is also detrimental to battery life. It’s all about time and convenience vs. battery life.
    Gasoline and diesel fuel has an large energy content (density) in a small package, something that, in their present stages of development, electrical vehicles cannot achieve.
    Let’s make a comparison…gasoline contains approximately 33.7 kwh per gallon. A gallon of gasoline weighs approximately 6.1 lbs. The typical ICE vehicle can hold about 15 gallons of gasoline with a weight of approximately 90 lbs. total, with a total energy content of approximately 500 kwh.
    High-end electric vehicles have an energy capacity of approximately 120 kwh. This is equal to less than four gallons of gasoline. The typical electric vehicle has a 75 kwh battery pack, equivalent to approximately 2 ½ gallons of gasoline.
    Keep in mind that the battery pack weight is well over 2000 lbs (1 ton) and still has a limited energy capacity compared to gasoline. The typical electric vehicles weighs approximately 2 ½ tons (5000 lbs.), having to haul around a heavy battery pack. This also contributes to “wear and tear” on other automotive systems such as brakes and tires. (Yes, I am aware that regenerative braking exists and is a part of electric vehicle technology).
    From an environmental standpoint, lithium is nasty stuff, reacts with water violently and is much more volatile than gasoline. Electric vehicle accidents are much more hazardous than those of ICE vehicles. Water cannot be used to put out a lithium battery pack fire.
    Yes, gasoline is dangerous, but we have learned to control it and live with it successfully for over 100 years.
    Most of today’s generation do not understand scientific principles; hence the enthusiasm for electric vehicles which are “not yet ready for prime-time”. The inability of today’s generation to understand basic scientific engineering principles is responsible for their gullibility and ignorance.

    • You boomers are universally despised and one of the worst generations to ever be unveiled on society. Not -all- boomers fit that stereotype, obviously. But if you look at the people that have ran this country into the ground boomers comprise the vast majority.

      You are -hated- by younger generations for this in case you are not aware. So I wouldn’t get too lofty with that chest thumping. I realize this has little to do with the rest of your post but I’ve seen you cut and paste this text before and I let it slide the 1st time. Being a boomer is not really a point of pride I would lean too heavily into.

      You are right that younger generations are fairly useless and certainly do not know how to do as much. But the -elite- of your generation has caused tremendous civilizational damage. That needs to be acknowledged.

      • Interesting that on a libertarian website, assuming most of us view individuals as such rather than members of arbitrary groups, some folks ascribe value to labels like boomer, millennial etc. as a substitute for rational discourse. Just saying…..as to the damages caused by one’s generation, that can be lain at the feet of government of the empire persuasion…..it has repeated throughout human history. It’s just more obvious now because the double edged sword of technology provides both a tool for oppression and a tool for resistance. I don’t see much of a difference in percentage of brainwashed individuals between generations and I’ve been paying attention for a long, long time. What I do see, and have seen for many decades, is government performing horribly inhumane acts and getting away with it by dividing people over invented issues while laughing all the way to the bank.

      • “You boomers are universally despised and one of the worst generations to ever be unveiled on society.” and…

        “You are -hated- by younger generations for this in case you are not aware.”

        How, in any way, do those comments relate to his opinion that “boomers” have taken science and technology seriously? You may be guilty of both an Ad Hominem and a Red Herring.

        • Guilty as charged. But you are guilty of poor reading comprehension, let me repeat myself— ” I realize this has little to do with the rest of your post but I’ve seen you cut and paste this text before and I let it slide the 1st time. Being a boomer is not really a point of pride I would lean too heavily into.”

          This was what in dissident circles of younger people (i.e. none of the readers here) was known as Boomer posting. Humble brag, call it what you wish. I thought I would bring a little balance to the force since this is the 2nd time this has been posted here recently.

          • I read it and stand by my contention. How younger generations feel about “baby boomers” has nothing to do with the issue of science and technology. Also, he’s only addressing one aspect of “boomers” achievements and isn’t overly boastful of any other supposed accomplishments.

            In other words, “Lighten up, Francis “.

  5. I’ve had to do quite a few trips of 500+ miles lately. One thing I’ve noticed is that pumps seem to be getting slower. In many cases I’ve been able to count the hundredths of gallons being pumped. It took over 15 minutes to fill the F-150 on which the low fuel light dinged just prior to the exit ramp.

    I smell a rat…a muskrat.

    As far as the ad hominem insults, don’t forget “denier” for Klimat Change and the ever popular “hater” for everything else.

  6. Watched the “obsolete man” episode of The Twilight Zone this morning. Rod Serling’s closing seems particularly relevant today.

    The Chancellor, the late Chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshiped. Any state, any entity, any ideology which fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man…that state is obsolete. A case to be filed under “M” for “Mankind” – in The Twilight Zone.

  7. So many unknowns about Toyota’s promise.

    I guess I’ll believe it when I see it.

    Some problems will still remain.
    Available chargers, functional chargers, grid capacity, range at temperature, lifecycle of battery, battery cost, real time to charge.

    You can’t get something for nothing. 900 miles will take a certain amount of energy that has to be replaced. That’s fine, but we can’t pretend it will never be an inconvenience.

    As with the lithium battery, what are the unknowns in terms of environment, raw materials, replacement cost, battery life, etc? Vegetable oils were healthy until they weren’t.

  8. And speaking of conservation, Eric.
    Using the $100 billion wasted on making war in Ukraine in the past 2 years, I’d guess about 10 million old houses could have been retrofitted with good enough insulation to conserve more hydrocarbon fuel (and CO2) than all the EVs built and forced on the public by 2030.
    D.C. deserves an actual insurrection based on T. Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence.
    “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. … when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    • John, I agree with both your statements. The problem is that those of us who do not consent are a definite minority. Sure, everyone bitches about some aspect of our current government. Taxes, DMV hostility, foreign wars (for and against), the welfare state (too big or too small). But most people are enraptured by what the government does for them. State schools. (“Even as bad as they are, they keep my kids for me while I work”) Medicare, Social Security, and those great “stimulus” checks. “Who will build the roads?” “Who will protect me from criminals?” “Who will keep my neighbor from putting a chicken coop on his lot?” In a word: “I love Big Brother”.

    • Very good points senor Galt. Going further, had the hundreds of billions literally blown on making trouble with the Russians been spent making 10 million American houses more efficient, it would also have been spent on real American companies and people. Most of us despise Abraham Africanus, but he at least understood that if you import the railroad rails, you have to export money (gold/goods) but if you buy the railroad rails locally the local economy benefits repeatedly. Dogmatic free traders hate that but it makes a stronger, better civilization when the profits stay nearby.

  9. A discussion as to “what if” with respect to EV range is worthwhile as a technical issue. It’d be a matter of cost and practicality, especially with respect to battery and/or motor life, charge time and availability, and other maintenance and safety issues (would the higher capacity batteries be even more combustible than current EVs?).

    But all that fails to address the REAL problem: Government FORCE. That is, for over a half-century, partially in answer to that gay boi half-wit that’s never had a driver’s license, or a real JOB, for that matter, Ralph Nader, but also at the behest of Big Insurance, the Feds have essentially deemed themselves in charge of automotive design. At first, for S-a-a-a-a-f-t-e-e-e-e-e, then the “Environment”, then the supposed “Oil Crisis”, with the ridiculous CAFE standards, all of which added features the customer didn’t necessarily want! Oh sure, there’s been SOME useful innovations, but would there have been ANYWAY, due to simple competitive forces inherently at work in a FREE market? One could not lawfully produce a faithful replica of a 1960 VW Beetle nor a 1964 Dodge Dart, simply because they’d not meet “safety”, “emissions”, nor fuel economy standards. I’m not saying that’s what the motoring public wants, but I am saying the auto makers should be free to do their market research and figure out what their prospective buyers DO want…not what some bureaucratic ninnies nor scheming politicians deem what “good for them”!

    • Hi Douglas:

      My understanding is that manufactures of reproduction vehicles of less than 500 vehicles are exempt from fuel economy and safety standards. They do however have to meet current year emission standards. As not many people can afford to spend $250,000.00 on up for a reproduction; .gov doesn’t consider it a problem. In other words the elites get a reproduction 1968 Shelby GT500KR with a 710 HP Coyote V8 and the peasants if their good maybe a Fiat 500 EV. Life sucks…..

    • Sure, because they’re the “elite”, as least as they believes themselves to be, they can zip over “flyover country” in their Jet-A guzzling private jets, and be driven by a caravan of huge, ARMORED SUVs and accompanying “squid cars” and motorcycle cops, sirens blaring and “bubble-gum machines” all lit brightly up (To borrow from the many iterations of a famous Kliban cartoon, “Out of the way, Scum! An Elite Globalist is coming!”), while PRESUMING to lecture the “Great Unwashed” about how THEY must “sacrifice” and give up any notions of enjoying what technology they can purchase, or of having freedom of choice.

  10. Will the “new” battery designs still need their own heating and cooling systems to maintain “proper” temperatures? If so; they still won’t last 900 miles. But it won’t make a difference either way as you still have to recharge it and there won’t be the power available to do it.

    I just watched a YouTube video on an electric S10 GM built in the 90’s; range was only about 100 miles but it came with a diesel fueled heater!!! That might be a way of making EVs more practical though.

    Another thing I wonder about is why automakers didn’t make overdrive transmissions available as even an option. I’m pretty sure that wagon with a 455 and 2.73 gears could have got a lot better fuel economy with even a .70 overdrive.

    • Hi Landru,

      Yup – in re the overdrive. I added that to my ’76 Trans-Am and even with 3.90 gears in the rear, the engine is only turning about 2,200 RPM at 70 and I can get about 16 MPG out of it, which is about the same as new Challenger R/T averages.

      • Hi Eric, I never bothered to do that in my hot rods but then again I only run a tank or two all year in them.

        I’m too lazy to calculate it but what would the fuel economy be with one of those 8 speeds and a really deep overdrive?

        • Probably not as much as you might think. The issue which tend to limit transmission design, aside from cost, complexity, and maintainability, is what manner of engine is it backing up, paired with what final drive ratio? The idea is to match the torque curve of the engine with the desired operating speeds. Of course, said torque curve depends upon things like the air induction, carburetion or fuel injection, how the cam is ground, compression ratio and cylinder head design, and exhaust scavenging. Tuning an engine for the desired performance is a large and hotly-debated subject. Please also keep in mind of the vehicle’s rolling resistance, usually a constant over its expected speeds, given its weight and the internal friction of engine and drive train, and wind resistance, which depends upon the body design. As a general rule, wind resistance increases as the cube of the given speed, so a vehicle going 75 mph will require “aboot” three times the power as compared to when its going 50 mph.

          However, any drive train change that lowers the engine rpms will usually results in greater fuel economy and longer engine life, simply because the engine doesn’t have to work so hard.

          • Thanks Douglas: I’m guessing Eric put in the BOP 200-4R with a .67 overdrive ratio. The Chevrolet Supermatic 10L90-E 10 speed automatic with a .64 overdrive wouldn’t offer much of an improvement for the money. A Hone-O-Drive added to a 200-4R might really help if you’ve got enough torque to run it.

            • Hi Landru,

              Yep! The 2004R is a bolt on for old Pontiacs because of the “BOP” – Buick/Olds/Pontiac – bellhousing pattern. No electronics, either. Just a 12V connection for the lock-up converter.

      • That ’76 T/A was essentially designed for when “steel-belted” radials were a new thing, most driving was “in town”, and even the freeways were limited in most cases, at least as posted, to 70 mph (and Nixon’s 55 mph decree had just come out, but the T/A design was already in place). There simply was no perceived need for more than three forward gears in either automatics or “Standard Shift” (which was fairly much on its way out by ’76), and O/D, once an add-on via aftermarket, or, was offered with SOME makes, notably AMC vehicles that usually came with its staid inline six. Even Mopar got into the act, by reversing the gears on the counter-shaft of its New Process A833 four-speed, giving an 0.76 ratio in fourth gear, with 1.00 in third, of course. Most light trucks and/or A-body and F-body Mopars that came with the 4-speed (on the floor, of course) had a 3.23 final drive ratio, to give the vehicle more “snap” from a dead stop. In the case of your T/A’s 455 HO (I believe the “Super Duty” was dropped after 1974 by Pontiac), I think it actually came with the same “low end” cam that was used for when this engine was dropped into GMC medium trucks, as, again, most drivers wanted good acceleration and “around town” drivability rather than “top end”.

        Of course, one thing about those 70’s vintage, at least until the 1977 “downsizing” of all GM large cars and the elimination of most of the mid-sized lines, along with “corporate sharing” of various GM engines, which displeased many a long faithful buyer of Chief Pontiac’s offerings: they were FUN! Just look at any interior of those 1970-1976 “Blunt Noses”, with the wrap-around dash and center consoles, and at least one felt like he was in a car meant to be DRIVEN.

  11. It is true the owner of such a vehicle would not need to wait as often.

    In terms of average per-mile downtime, that is not necessarily true.

    In fact, the number one knee-jerk argument that EV proponents throw in our faces whenever we rightfully complain about charging time, is that we can deal with this by charging the EV while we sleep. This is a fallacious argument. First, the per-mile downtime will actually increase with a level 2 home charger compared to a level 3 charger at a charging station, and it makes no sense to suggest to someone who complains about the abysmal charging speed that it is better to use an even slower charger. Second, the act of sleeping has no impact whatsoever on the performance of a charger, hence it makes no difference to the charging speed or process whether you are asleep or awake. The charging time doesn’t go away when people literally close their eyes. It might make the waiting time more pleasant, though it also means that whether you wake up to a two-tonne brick or a working vehicle in the morning depends on the success of a process that happens while you are unconscious.

    The idea of charging the EV while we sleep, then, is simply a covert way of asking people to adapt to the hassles that EV ownership imposes, and is in no way, shape or form a solution to the charging time problem.

    • There’s also an ARROGANT presumption that folks would drive about on the SAME schedule. These “social planners” never can seem to get the notion that people will do whatever the hell they want, WHEN and WHERE they want, and none of their hare-brained ideas will change that.

  12. Why?

    Amiga Forever.

    Same crowd/thought process. This time the promise *must* be fulfilled, regardless of the cost to society advancing the “better” tech.

    Most of the public still believes that the current economic situation will pass and everyone will cruise to work at Ludicrous speed in their Cybertruck or Model S.

    Elon has successfully distracted with his recently-found Libertarianism. Well played, sir.

    Elon probably had an Amiga too.

  13. ‘Could YOU hold it for 900 miles?’ — MarkyMark

    Sure … using the device I designed to break Strom Thurmond’s record 24 hr 18 min filibuster, should I ever become a ‘Senator.’ It consists of a condom-like receptacle, with a plastic hose leading down a collection tank strapped to the ankle.

    Well-cranked on Adderall, I’d launch into my peroration, sipping from a water glass with no worries of having to abandon the floor. I’d quote the Bible, Shakespeare, Nabokov, country ‘n western lyrics, science fiction classics, ranting and gibbering into the purple dawn, and then on into the following sunset.

    Finally after 36 hours, my staffers would ease my hoarse, shaking form into a wheelchair to evacuate the chamber, even as I continue gamely shaking my fist at rainbowed leftist protesters in the gallery. What a night! Oh, and my collection bag is full …

    • Indeed, Jim!

      I did the cross-country thing (fueled on trucker speed) myself… and stopped only for fuel. I left the liter bottle full of “Mountain Dew” by the pump…

      • I’ve made the LA to GA trip many times in a Mazda MX5 at about 1000 miles a day, stopping every 330 miles or so to re-fuel, drain the dragon, and shake the ache off my hip. Two days (with nightly stop) and a couple of hours, using the a/c and heat when needed. Probably not happening in an ev.

      • Hilarious! I’ve used that trick myself when traveling through Southern California, usually on my way to visit family in Arizona. There’s damned little this old white boy wants to see of the Southland anymore, as its degraded into a “multi-cultural” hellhole, and also, especially on I-210 and/or I-10, there can be horrific traffic jams. Not much choice, as the east-west routes are somewhat limited. Having a wide-mouth juice bottle has kept me from having to get off the freeway in search of a “friendly” rest stop in decidedly UNFRIENDLY territory!

      • I was at a trade show where they were handing these things out as a solution for field workers who were on a long job away from an aroma booth. I told him he should put one in the glove box of his personal car. Then when his wife wants him to stop at a rest area just tell her to use it instead.

        He didn’t think she’d understand the humor…

  14. Indeed, many grids can barely, and often can’t, keep up with air conditioning. Why would anyone believe they can keep up with a few million more EVs? The answer of course is they don’t want us driving at all. Stationary targets are much easier to hit. The evidence of this is damning. There is no national effort to increase generating and grid capacity to nearly the extent needed to electrify our cars and trucks. Few people can afford an EV, and fewer still want one. I suspect this is why EVs are stacking up at dealers. Those that can afford one, and want one, already have one. I wonder, what will be the price tag on replacing that 900 mile battery, and how long will it last? If they somehow magically appear.

    • Not only do (((they))) not want us driving utilizing the freest form of transportation, having the ability to go when you want where you want, but (((they))) want to outlaw hydrocarbon energy sources because they can easily be turned into weapons.
      A “molotov cocktail” requires no more than a glass bottle, a rag, gasoline and a source of ignition.
      A larger “destructive device” (ANFO) requires only fuel oil, potassium nitrate fertilizer and an ignition source.
      Such devices are easily made as all components are readily available.
      Both types of devices are capable of wreaking considerable damage.
      This is a hidden reason for the “push” to EVs. The (((powers-that-be))) ARE afraid of us…

  15. Eric,

    To have that kind of range, the battery would have to be of the new solid state technology under development. Toyota is working on one that’ll promise 700 mile ranges, and it’ll be ready by 2028 or so. Solid state batteries not only promise better range; they promise quicker charging times, like 15 minutes vs. 30-40 now. Because the remove the liquid electrolyte in present Li-Ion batteries, they’re safer; the fire hazard is gone. Besides, at my age, I couldn’t HOLD IT for 900 miles! Could YOU hold it for 900 miles? I’d be ready to stop long before then for a bathroom break, a drink, and perhaps a meal. That would be more than enough time to recharge the battery and be on your way… 🙂

    • “By 2028, or so”? Which means certainly not sooner, and more likely longer. By then, we won’t be driving. But the Psychopaths In Charge will be, because they can, and will, exempt themselves from any regulation demanding EVs. There’s still that elephant in the room, called grid capacity.

    • Hi Mark,

      With respect – I just don’t get the apologizing for this stuff. “Only” a 15 minute wait? To do what I can do now in about 3 or so?

      And in re 700 miles: A Prius can go that far but does not require you to wait for “only” 15 minutes” to get going again.

      I despise EVs, regardless. They are soulless appliances. Driving one is like having a Fembot for a girlfriend. Charge her up and she’s ready to go! Insert tab B into Slot A . . .

      • “Only” a 15 minute wait? To do what I can do now in about 3 or so?

        Exactly! A 15-minute wait is ridiculously long, and is simply not good enough (no pun intended). It means that those who develop this technology are unable and/or unwilling to make it fit for the purpose of powering EVs.

        • Hi Stufo –

          Yup. And even the “15 minute” thing is a lie because it is not fully but partially charged in that time. I can fill the tank in my truck in about 3 minutes or so. The EV battery might be “fast” charged to 80 percent in 15 minutes or so. If you want a full charge, it’ll be at least 30 minutes and probably closer to an hour.

          At home, hours. Or even days.

          • Eric,

            80% of 700 is still more range than most people would need on a road trip. 0.8*700=560; even then, my bladder won’t last that long!

            • 80% of 700 is still more range than most people would need on a road trip.

              Pesky EV apologist attitude. I’m sure “most people” could probably adapt to the drastically reduced performance of a wildly inferior product. That is not to say that they would want to do so or that it would be reasonable to expect them to do so. In fact, one could make a similar argument that, say, “most” Ferrari drivers could probably have their transportation needs met by a Trabant (and yet still they choose to drive Ferraris instead of Trabants, how strange).

              even then, my bladder won’t last that long!

              I’m sure that’s more information than anyone here needs or wants to know…

              • Who da fook is that asshat to decide what I “need” for a road trip?

                (a) He greatly underestimates my endurance.
                (b) Who sez I’m driving ALONE?

                And there is such a thing as a REST STOP, or, where it’s dark and a bit lonely, taking a piss in the bushes. Pulling over for five minutes isn’t the issues, obviously there ain’t a charge station conveniently on US 50 somewhere in between Fallon and Ely.

        • Brought to you by FedGov, just as EVs are. If not for FedGov, there would not be enough market to justify mass production of EVs.

        • Hi Mark,

          A bit less, yes. They make sounds, for one. Not whirring sounds. And some are available with manual transmissions, too. Even with the automatic, there is feel that is absent from a battery-powered device.

          • But don’t tell me that the universal 2.0L engine has anything CLOSE to the soul of an old school, air cooled Porsche flat six or a Ferarri V12 singing their songs! AFAIAC, today’s ICEVs are devices too; today’s cars ain’t got the same soul (cue in Bob Seger)…

        • They are, in that, for all practical purposes, there may as well be ONE “Universal” 2.0 liter, DOHC, 16 valve, turbocharged, four-banger.

          The real “issue” is that automakers have gone out of their way to ensure that the proverbial “shade tree mechanic” can’t do anything with them.

      • Eric,

        The wait for a charge would only apply on road trips; in our daily lives, it would not. Also, how often do we do road trips? On a road trip, you’ll also be doing other things when you stop; you’ll do things like use the bathroom, drink, maybe eat. At least I do, so I could live with a quick charge EV on road trips; even with today’s charge times, the EV would be ready to roll before I am. Otherwise, you can charge at home and you don’t have to wait at all.

        Yes, I like EVs; yes, I’m biased. However, I’m not so biased that I think that EVs should be forced on anyone; that’s BS, and I agree with you there. For someone like me living near a small city and doing mostly local driving, an EV would work best for me; EVs are perfect for the stop & go nature of city driving. For someone living in Montana and whose closest neighbor is literally miles away, an EV won’t work; an ICEV is the only choice. I think that that choice should be preserved.

        Also, battery safety MUST be addressed! In the quest to extend range, the envelope has been pushed too far, too fast. There are safer battery chemistries that could be used, such as Li-Ion Phosphate. Until the fire hazard is properly addressed, I won’t have an EV in my garage; my garage is beneath my living room-’nuff said. I think that battery tech can be improved and be safer, but the gov’t must GTFO of the way.

        Even so, I like EVs; I thought the idea of them was cool since I was a kid. I remember seeing kit built EVs, like the Urba Tri Sport in Popular Mechanics back in the late 1970s; I thought that that car was so cool! Even now, the Tri Sport would look futuristic. The airplane style canopy was WAY COOL! The Tri Sport could be built with either a small gas engine or an EV powertrain. I thought it would be so cool if they had longer ranges and higher speeds then, speeds and ranges that modern EV tech and batteries would allow now. For me, this is an EXCITING time to be alive! The technology for EVs has progressed, big time, since the CitiCar of the 1970s.

        Also, I retired from a Tesla partner; I worked on and tested electronic equipment that we sent to them, equipment they use for R&D. The company owner and his sons have met Elon and other Tesla brass; that’s how close the relationship is. I knew of Tesla years before most people did, going back to the Raodster days of the mid-late ‘OOs. SO! I’ve followed Tesla with interest since then, and I still do.

        I like EVs. Like you, I’m biased, albeit the other way. However, I’m not so biased that I think that they should be forced on people. They don’t work for everyone; no “one size fits all” solution does. I’d like to see the gov’t get out of the way, and let things develop more organically, more naturally. You know, let the car companies decide what they want to work on, based on where they think the market is going. Whether it be an improved ICEV, FCEV, BEV, or some combination of all the above, let them decide; let them succeed or fail based on the decisions they make. Let the people decide what they want to buy; let the invisible hand of the market do its thing.

        Ideally, I’d like to see EV tech perfected on the race track, as is being done with the Formula E series. Much progress has been made in terms of battery capacity since the series started racing 10 years ago; the same size battery now packs 2x the kWh as they did when the series started. Power management software has been greatly improved too. The auto companies could use the series to develop and perfect the tech, and when ready, field EVs for sale-when they’re ready. I would like to see choice preserved, so people can get the ICEV or EV that best suits THEM, not Uncle Sam…

        • The wait for a charge would only apply on road trips; in our daily lives, it would not.

          That’s a BLATANT lie. There is no such thing as a wait-free charge.

          On a road trip, you’ll also be doing other things when you stop; you’ll do things like use the bathroom, drink, maybe eat.

          Activities like using the bathroom, drinking and eating have zero impact on charging time and performance, and the fact is that charging will take just as long whether you do those things or not. It therefore doesn’t matter how you choose to kill time during the absurdly long charging downtime, the downtime will not go away.

          Otherwise, you can charge at home and you don’t have to wait at all.

          That’s also a BLATANT lie, in fact the per-mile downtime on a level 2 charger is higher than on a level 3 charger at a charging station, so the wait at home is typically longer. And this waiting time does not somehow magically disappear if you close your eyes.

          • But during a travel stop, you’re doing other things, so you can kill two birds with one stone.

            Also, don’t you sleep at night while at home? Why can’t you charge your car while you sleep? Again, you can kill two birds with one stone.

            • Charging the car at home takes just as long when a person sleeps as when a person is awake, this means that whether someone sleeps or not during charging is of zero relevance, just like it is of zero relevance whether someone does X or not X during a stop at a charging station, whatever X might be.

              I do find that there’s a certain comedy to EV apologists’ neurotic insistence on volunteering suggestions on how to kill time during charging downtime, even as they often simultaneously insist that charging time is usually not a problem. I think it means that they’re mostly parroting words that are not their own, without reflecting on the actual meaning of those words.

              The idea of “killing two birds with one stone” is merely a different way of saying “adapt!”. This, it seems, stems from a troublesome attitude among EV apologists that it is car buyers who need to adapt to the inferior performance of EVs, instead of car manufacturers who need to adapt to the expectations of car buyers. Frankly, I’m not having any of it.

            • Assuming there is no line of EV pilots waiting for the few available chargers at the service station. If everyone is driving an EV, the lines will increase accordingly.

        • I’m hearing you, Marky, and I, for one, admire your courage in sticking around here to express your mind.

          “There are safer battery chemistries that could be used, such as Li-Ion Phosphate.”

          I just recently expressed this, myself.

          Now, I have no specific love for EVs, but no hatred for the concept either, as such. I’m for anything that could increase independence and self-reliance, however, and if such a vehicle could be charged off-grid, AND be durable, I might be interested.

          The Nanny-State bullshit has to go, however. That seems to be a problem for all new vehicles, though, not just EVs.

          And I agree about stopping on road-trips. I won’t be pissing in a bottle, and besides, I can’t stand to be seated for hours on end. I need to get up and walk around, and every 100 miles or so is ideal.

          I also get your point about charging overnight. It’s only 5 minutes at a gas station to refill, but zero minutes at a gas station if you’ve already recharged while you were going to do nothing else.

          • I won’t be pissing in a bottle, and besides, I can’t stand to be seated for hours on end. I need to get up and walk around, and every 100 miles or so is ideal.

            You don’t need a slow-charging EV to do that, in fact people driving ICE-powered vehicles have been stopping for toilet breaks for decades without problems, long before there was such a thing as a Tesla.

            And those with a really urgent need to go to the bathroom will prioritize that before they find the time to locate the charging point, rendering the “kill two birds with one stone” non-argument moot.

            It’s funny how so many EV apologists are fixated on their own bladder to the point they can’t help but write about it…

            I also get your point about charging overnight. It’s only 5 minutes at a gas station to refill, but zero minutes at a gas station if you’ve already recharged while you were going to do nothing else.

            No, that’s a lie. Charging at home takes several hours, not zero minutes. You’re resorting to the usual EV apologist sophistry of attributing to the charging process what should be attributed to your own circumstances. What you could have said was something along the lines of “since my personal circumstances allow me to be without my car for eight hours, I am able and willing to absorb the long charging times without it bothering me”, but instead you lie and say that it takes zero minutes.

            • Stufo,

              Firstly, I’m not citing my penchant for driving intermissions as a reason to purchase a Tesla or any EV.

              I didn’t say it takes zero minutes to charge an EV. I said you have to spend zero minutes at a gas station if you’re already charged from the night before. I’m saying I was going to sleep anyway, and for most humans out there, this is the case. Thus, USUALLY, people’s personal circumstances allow them to be without their car for 8 hours. During this period of sleep, if it takes 8 hours to charge the car, so what? It probably takes me 5 seconds to plug it in, and then my labor is over.

              Now, if you’re doing an overnight cross country trip, this does not apply to you. Also, if you’re staying at a hotel or something, with no charging station, this also doesn’t apply. But I’d say that most people, on most nights, go home for the night.

              I’m not apologizing for anything. I’m not recommending or purveying EVs. I was just telling Marky that I understand his point.

              • I didn’t say it takes zero minutes to charge an EV. I said you have to spend zero minutes at a gas station if you’re already charged from the night before.

                I predicted that you were going to backpedal using exactly this retort. The thing is, your initial statement didn’t make much sense if that was what you actually meant. It’s like saying that it takes you zero minutes for you to shower at work when you’ve already showered at home before you went there. So how long does it take you to shower? Certainly not zero minutes. And yet somehow you expect those several hours of overnight charging time that you dishonestly failed to mention in your initial post, not to count?! Don’t be daft.

                I’m saying I was going to sleep anyway, and for most humans out there, this is the case. Thus, USUALLY, people’s personal circumstances allow them to be without their car for 8 hours.

                The prevalence of circumstance is of no relevance here. The time it takes to charge an EV using a particular charger will be the same regardless of people’s circumstances. And there’s no good reason to assume that people should or would be willing to put up with it just because an EV apologist like you think they should be able to do so.

          • BaDnOn,

            I have to get up and walk around every 150-200 miles, or else my joints and muscles get stiff. Plus there are the bathroom stops to consider.

            I agree with you how all modern vehicles, regardless of propulsion, spy on you and phone home. Whether it’s an ICEV or EV, you’ll have Big Brother riding with you.

            I think that the idea of EVs is cool. I retired from a Tesla partner, so I follow them particular, and EVs in general, with interest.

            That said, I don’t think people should be forced into them; they should be free to buy whatever works best for them. I’ve never said that people shouldn’t have choice; they should, because one size fits all doesn’t work.

            For example, I have electric power equipment; I have a cordless snow blower and weed whacker, and I have a manual push mower. or my small property, they all work fine; for me, they were the best tools for the job. However, for my professional landscaper neighbor, they wouldn’t work; he needs gasoline powered equipment, because that’s the only way he can keep up with his workload. He couldn’t even do one large yard with electric power equipment, let alone multiple properties, in a day.

            • Marky,

              I gotcha, man. I’ll take a guess and bet that you like EVs due to the engineering involved and some of the unique performance capabilities.

              I love engineering marvels, myself. Though I fairly despise the Military-Industrial Complex, I can’t help but find myself in awe of many of its achievements. Tanks, fighter jets, missiles, directed energy weapons… All of it somehow turns me into a giddy school boy, though I loathe the horrors of the reality of their use.

              Eric puts forth loads of reasons why an EV isn’t a particularly bright purchase, and his points are valid. Before widespread acceptance, many technical and economic hurdles need to be conquered.

              I think it would take the average EV to be LESS expensive than the average ICE car, as well as it having a GREATER range. The auto-immolations also need to cease, and they need to be easily reparable.

              As I’ve told others, I think something like a rechargeable aluminum-air battery would be ideal, due to the relatively inexpensive materials and the possibility of colossal range:

              https://www.pocket-lint.com/cars/news/tesla/129419-electric-car-with-light-aluminium-air-battery-travels-1-100-miles-on-a-single-charge-take-note-tesla/

              The above system would have you just swap out the battery, as it isn’t rechargeable. I happen to have worked in a company that once put a couple hundred cycles on an experimental secondary aluminum-air ionic-liquid cell, so I think it’s possible to make such a system rechargeable.

              Yes, I’ll admit, I like the engineering challenge.

              There will always be issue of energy generation, and the time to recharge for EVs. But, if there were such a vehicle that could be charged with solar panels on my garage out here in the sticks, for example, and it met my other requirements, I might be persuaded to give it a shot.

              I’m sure you’ve heard of the Aptera. Ready Kilowatt posted a link in forum of their offering. Their airplane-fuselage-looking vehicle is covered in solar cells, and they say that can add 40 miles of range on an optimal day.

              People here will hate this, but I’ve thought, in my own diseased mind, of making something like a DeLorean, covered in solar cells, due to its flat, aerodynamic and yet high surface area design. Might give you even more charge per day. What say you?

              • BaDnOn,

                Yeah, that sums up my feelings towards EVs; I like, appreciate, and admire the engineering and technology involved. I feel the same way about fighter jets, tanks, etc. I especially LOVE fighter jets! As a lifelong aviation enthusiast, why wouldn’t I love and appreciate them?

                However, I don’t like the forever wars of the MIC. I don’t like how they distort R&D. I don’t like how they suck up so much money, when truly national defense could be done for a lot less. That said, they’ve come up with some neat things, things that I appreciate for the science, engineering etc. involved in their design and manufacture.

                And I agree, that in order for EVs to really gain traction, they’ll have to offer more than an ICEV presently does. No less than Alejandro Agag, founder of the Formula E race series to advance EV development, has said the same. He’s a hardcore EV advocate, yet he realizes that EVs will have to offer more for less vs. modern ICEVs.

                As I said in my previous comment, I got battery powered, cordless power equipment because they’re best for my needs. Do I feel good about being quiet, so as to not inconvenience or upset my neighbors? Do I feel good about not adding to air and noise pollution? Sure I do, but that’s not why I got them; I got them because, for me, they’re the best tools for the job. I don’t have to worry about changing oil, stabilizing gas, or servicing the things. All I have to do is dust ’em off once in a while, and throw the battery into a charger when I’m done using them. That’s it!

                EVs will have to offer something similar to car buyers; they’ll have to be the best transportation tool for car buyers for them to supplant ICEVs. Any honest EV advocate will say the same.

                • Marky,

                  Boy, rough with the debate club around here sometimes, isn’t it? 😉
                  And I absolutely understand the battery-tools vs. gas. I was just talking to my dad about my experiences with electric bicycles vs gas-powered. I built one of those 2-stroke kit jobs a few years ago. Pain in the ass, and noisy as hell, malodorous and required constant maintenance.
                  He, everyday, rides the bike built from the 1000 watt kit I gave him, and LOVES it. None of the bullshit that accompanied the 2-stroke. Now, for an actual motorcycle, the pros might not outweigh the cons, but I recommend to anyone, a DIY ebike done on the cheap. 🙂

        • At least you agree that EVs should not be FORCED upon the public.

          And if they’re not, nor SUBSIDIZED, they won’t be bought, and there won’t be a demand for these magical charging stations, will there?

          OH, WAIT…EVs are already piling up on “stealership” lots! No matter your wishing thinking, it’s obvious that most of the American motoring public is NOT sold on them!

      • If the Fembot looked like Liz Hurley ca. 1997 (also get a gander of the gal in 1994 in an episode of “Sharpe’s Rifles”, ol’ Sean Bean is one lucky SOB!) maybe “she” would look good! But in reality, EVs are a bit like someone trying to tell me that Kathy Bates is a good lay.

        Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate Ms. Bates’ acting skills, but I remember that hot tub scene from the 2002 film, “About Schmidt”. Yikes.

    • We were “promised” flying cars, cold fusion, safe and effective medical treatments and I was specifically told that if I liked my doctor I could keep my doctor. All of it bullshit.

      Never had a doubt in the beginning
      Never a doubt
      Trusted you true in the beginning
      I loved you right through

      Arm in arm we laughed like kids
      At all the silly things we did

      You made me promises, promises
      Knowing I’d believe
      Promises, promises
      You knew you’d never keep

      Promises, Promises by Naked Eyes

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYa9p5i_wyE&t=8s

      • Were we promised flying cars though? I remember “The Jetsons”, and thinking that such a vision of the future would be cool, but I don’t remember being promised that future.

        Flying cars have been researched, BTW; prototypes have been built and tested. That R&D showed that, as cool as the concept of flying cars is, they aren’t really practical. That’s just the way it is.

        There’s also the matter of flying; I know a thing or two about that, as I got my pilot’s license. Flying requires far more than driving ever would. For one, you’re moving in three dimensions, not two. For another, you’re moving through an environment that includes turbulence, wind shear, icing, and other hazards that aren’t the same on the ground. Finally, there are things like adverse yaw to deal with when turning a fixed wing aircraft. And let’s not even get into what’s involved with a rotary wing aircraft! That’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish…

        I must say you have good taste in music though-good song! Even though it’s 40 years old now, it still sounds good… 🙂

        • If we hadn’t wasted countless BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of hard-earned taxpayers on LBJ’s “War on Poverty”, useless Negroes, and various demented Joo-ish social engineering fantasies, we’d not only have our flying cars, at least one in every garage, we’d also be colonizing the Solar System and even sending interstellar probes.

          • You may be right. LBJ’s Great Society wasted trillions, and we have nothing to show for it. At the very least, we’d have smooth roads, safe bridges, a stronger dollar, and a better economy with more opportunities.

            • If we had not destroyed Germany TWICE and made the world safe for judeo- bolshevik communism and the Rothschild banksters, we would be traveling to the stars.
              Note that after WW2 both the USA and the Soviet Union snatched up German scientists which led up to the greatest scientific advances that the world has ever known.
              Fast forward to today. At the direction of these same judeo-bolsheviks, the USA, who is israel’s b!tch, is being goaded into a “war” with Iran at the behest of these same judeo-bolsheviks. Just who do American politicians work for? Hint: In ain’t the USA.
              It is interesting to note that Iran complies with all international atomic energy agency inspections while “poor little israel” complies with NONE. Now, who is the greater nuclear threat?
              Israel will not account for its nukes as they are already “in-place” in major cities around the world. No delivery systems are needed.
              If israel doesn’t get its way and is finally forced to give up Palestine, they will detonate a nuke (their Samson Option) in a major American or European city.
              Look to Rome, Paris, or Brussels to be European targets. (((They))) would LOVE to destroy Rome, their archnemesis headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church.
              In the USA, Chicago, Atlanta or Los Angeles will be targets. Jew York City is off-limits as it is the American headquarters for world jewry.

          • 100% truth. I am incredibly bitter by the sight of “what might have been” had we not lost our collective minds in 1965 with a little help from our tribal friends.

            • There are quite a few that believe that our “Tribal Friends” are the ones behind the regime change that occurred on November 22, 1963. Cui Bono?

              • Yes, JFK demanded that israel comply with International Atomic Energy Agency protocols regarding its fast breeder reactor at Dimona (an israeli state secret). Kennedy, unlike crypto-jew Lyndon Johnson (who was a first-class scumbag and who was (probably) in on the assassination) would not bow to israel’s demands. Kennedy also demanded that AIPAC and other jewish organizations register as “agents of a foreign government”.
                On the first day of office, Johnson repealed ALL of Kennedy’s executive orders regarding israel.
                We are living with our “bought and paid for by israel” congress (Knesset west) to this very day. It was sickening to see the Republican “debate” candidates slobber all over themselves with their first question pledging support for israel. Just who do the hell do they think that they are (supposed to be) working for? Hint: In ain’t the USA…

    • I bought a few shares of the company Solid Power (SLDP) after they announced their deal with Ford a few years back. I watched it climb a few points, a few more press releases about deals, but no announcements about ramping up production and no progress on getting their “breakthrough” technology to scale. Then I watched it drop back down. I got my stop loss in just in time.

      The promise is that, as you say, you’ll get a full charge in 15 minutes (no need to slow down the charge rate at 80%), much greater energy density, closer to the ideal in fact, far lighter and exponentially safer. While that’s all true the cost won’t come down until they can get production yields up to where they can scale. Given the turmoil in the boardroom over the last year I don’t think that’s happening.

      Hardware’s a tough business. Everyone who wishes it were like software better get their heads out of the clouds. It might look great in the lab, but you can’t distribute hardware with an App Store.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here