How EVs Could Kill Gasoline Cars Starting In The 2020s

[aneekr]

Unicorn farts and pixie dust.

 

Those are next big "alternative energy" sources that politicians will be promoting.

[jpd80]

Not quite unicorn farts and pixie dust but in other parts of the world, we now have solar plants that use reflective mirrors

to heat molten sodium and create electricity, the plants also have up to 10 hours battery storage capacity...

 

Not perfect by any means but technology keeps moving on..

[blazerdude20]

Electricity doesn't come from "magic". What powers the plants?

The east coast is still heavily reliant on coal plants. West coast and specifically the NW use primarily hydro power with a small percentage from wind turbines.

 

One is dirty and the other is pretty clean.

[AGR]

Electricity doesn't come from "magic". What powers the plants?

As of 2015:

31% natural gas

30% coal

20% nuclear

9% renewable

8% hydroelectric

2% other

[jpd80]

As of 2015:

31% natural gas

30% coal

20% nuclear

9% renewable

8% hydroelectric

2% other

Australia has 44% of the worlds known resources of Uranium,

let's make a deal on nuclear power plants and cut out all the others....

Edited March 2, 2016 by jpd80

[fordmantpw]

Australia has 44% of the worlds known resources of Uranium,

let's make a deal on nuclear power plants and cut out all the others....

 

The problem with nuclear is the terrorists. The cost of security, regulations, and construction are the only things that keep it from being a viable power source for the future (well, that and the idiots that don't think it is 'green'). I've got a nuke plant almost in my back yard (I've done work for them in the past, and still do work for the parent company), and they recently cancelled their plans to add a second reactor on the same site due to the costs of the above. I've long been a proponent of nuclear power, but sadly, I don't look for any new nuke plants in the US.

[aneekr]

I've got a nuke plant almost in my back yard (I've done work for them in the past, and still do work for the parent company), and they recently cancelled their plans to add a second reactor on the same site due to the costs of the above. I've long been a proponent of nuclear power, but sadly, I don't look for any new nuke plants in the US.

 

Ameren's Callaway Nuclear Generating Station by any chance? That's one of the best run nuclear power generating facilities in the USA.

 

You're absolutely correct about the prospects for growth in the U.S. nuclear power generation industry - they're grim. My nephew once worked as an engineer supporting nuclear power plants at Exelon Corp., primarily the Clinton and LaSalle County stations in northern Illinois. He left in 2012 and pursued employment in a different industry altogether.

[fordmantpw]

 

Ameren's Callaway Nuclear Generating Station by any chance? That's one of the best run nuclear power generating facilities in the USA.

 

You're absolutely correct about the prospects for growth in the U.S. nuclear power generation industry - they're grim. My nephew once worked as an engineer supporting nuclear power plants at Exelon Corp., primarily the Clinton and LaSalle County stations in northern Illinois. He left in 2012 and pursued employment in a different industry altogether.

 

Good guess! I guess my location kinda gives it away, with Callaway being the only nuke plant in the state.

 

And yes, Callaway is very well run and is a source of pride for Ameren and many in the area. I like to think that is because I have written many of the software applications they use ( not really). It reliably provides 1300 MW of power to the area, and jobs for close to 1000 people.

[RichardJensen]

The only thing EVs really cut out of the assembly process as it relates to ICEs is the engine line.

 

This exactly.

 

Electric motor or gas engine these are still incredibly complex machines that have to function in as wide a range of circumstances as anything else--and to function for at least 10 years without a major failure.

 

Anyone who believes that there are major efficiencies to be extracted from an industry this complex and competitive..............

[Biker16]

 

This exactly.

 

Electric motor or gas engine these are still incredibly complex machines that have to function in as wide a range of circumstances as anything else--and to function for at least 10 years without a major failure.

 

Anyone who believes that there are major efficiencies to be extracted from an industry this complex and competitive..............

Richard when directly speaking to the Assembly process, EV are Simpler to assemble, especially when they are not retrofits of ICE cars.

 

An EV powerpack consists of the motor, voltage controller, and battery. and Ice consist of a motor, Transmission, Fuel tank

 

in an assembly plants, stations for Filling the Fuel tank, engine and transmission fluids are Not needed battery plants and Electric motor assembly require less labor and a smaller footprint facilities.

 

Forgive GM and their complex Drawing.

 

Bolt EV

 

S-max

 

Focus electric (Note the Focus EV uses two batteries not one) require battery in the trunk as well as one under the floor.

 

Tesla Model S

[RichardJensen]

Forgive GM and their complex Drawing.

 

 

 

No, I don't think I'm going to forgive GM's "complex" drawing.

 

Which items on that drawing are imaginary, and therefore not items that have to be engineered and assembled into a car with an expected 10 year lifespan?

 

Further, in what ways will electric vehicles not need the incredibly expensive tooling required to stamp the part of the car that is actually a car, as opposed to an engine and transmission? Will they not need the incredibly expensive robots that weld the car together? Will they not need paint booths? Will they be sold with fewer options or in fewer configurations?

Edited March 3, 2016 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

Will electric vehicles not need interiors? Will they not need trunks and door latches and lights and air conditioners and ducts and wiring harnesses and glass and hinges and so on and so forth?

[630land]

In a few years, then the click bait headlines will say "Hydrogen powered passenger pods will kill off EV's" or "Nuclear Reactor cars will kill off blah, blah"

 

Predictions from 1980 were that "we all are going to be driving sub-compact FWD cars by 1988, since gas will be $7/gallon". So most "We will be like the Jetson's" type predictions rarely come true

Edited March 3, 2016 by 630land

[mustang_sallad]

In a few years, then the click bait headlines will say "Hydrogen powered passenger pods will kill off EV's" or "Nuclear Reactor cars will kill off blah, blah"

 

Predictions from 1980 were that "we all are going to be driving sub-compact FWD cars by 1988, since gas will be $7/gallon". So most "We will be like the Jetson's" type predictions rarely come true

 

 

Difference being that EVs are already selling at over 500,000 copies a year worldwide, with 60% year over year growth from 2014 to 2015 despite falling oil prices.

[jpd80]

Will electric vehicles not need interiors? Will they not need trunks and door latches and lights and air conditioners and ducts and wiring harnesses and glass and hinges and so on and so forth?

Agree 100%

I don't see that much disruptive technology, the same assembly stations are used

ICE based power plant and fuel system gets replaced by electric equivalents,

the fuel tank (batteries) going below the floorpan to preserve present space.

Apart from that, the EV is assembled with just as many parts as a conventional.

 

Why is Tesla continually needing to sell more stock to stay in front of costs?

Because EVs cannot pay their way in terms of funding next gen platform costs.

Edited March 4, 2016 by jpd80

[Biker16]

No, I don't think I'm going to forgive GM's "complex" drawing.

 

Which items on that drawing are imaginary, and therefore not items that have to be engineered and assembled into a car with an expected 10 year lifespan?

 

Further, in what ways will electric vehicles not need the incredibly expensive tooling required to stamp the part of the car that is actually a car, as opposed to an engine and transmission? Will they not need the incredibly expensive robots that weld the car together? Will they not need paint booths? Will they be sold with fewer options or in fewer configurations?

how about this?

 

 

things that people forget about Modern ICE's how many parts fine parts are in an engine

 

 

and transmission

 

these parts are machined parts, that require alot of specialized Equipment.

 

the EV motor by contrast is simple

 

We also forget about the Evaporative emmissons system in ICE vehicles which is maze of Wires, tubing and sensors.

 

 

In closing simplicity is a battery, motor, single speed Transmission, Power controller.

 

Agree 100%

I don't see that much disruptive technology, the same assembly stations are used

ICE based power plant and fuel system gets replaced by electric equivalents,

the fuel tank (batteries) going below the floorpan to preserve present space.

Apart from that, the EV is assembled with just as many parts as a conventional.

 

Why is Tesla continually needing to sell more stock to stay in front of costs?

Because EVs cannot pay their way in terms of funding next gen platform costs.

since No one believes any word I say, I will Quote others

 

http://www.theenergycollective.com/ed-dodge/1966621/case-electric-vehicles-part-2-ev-costs

 

 

 

EV’s are much simpler mechanically than ICE vehicles with far fewer parts and requiring less maintenance. The perceived expense of EV’s is almost entirely in the cost of batteries and as battery prices come down with expanding production, then overall EV costs will come down as well. Electricity is much less expensive than gasoline or diesel so powering an EV is much cheaper than filling up an ICE vehicle.[/size]

 

 

The Tesla Model S has remarkably few mechanical parts, while combustion vehicles have thousands of discrete parts that make up the engine, fuel system, transmission, drive train and exhaust. Tesla displays a stripped down Model S in their stores with just the mechanical parts installed, for anyone accustomed to complex mechanical aspects of cars it is a surprising contrast. Despite the sophistication of the engineering, the final package is remarkably simple and implies that costs can be reduced as manufacturing expands and matures.

The electric motor is not much bigger than a watermelon and is matched up with the DC-AC inverter and single-speed gearbox in a very compact space between the rear wheels. This setup provides direct power to the rear wheels and also handles the regenerative braking. The battery is wide and flat and covers the entire bottom of the frame between the four wheels. The battery and inverter are liquid cooled with a reservoir and pump. Under the front side of the car are the rest of the mechanical components: vacuum pump for air suspension, ABS compressor, steering motor, AC compressor and double wishbone suspension. Along with conventional brakes and wheels, those are effectively all the parts that make the car go. There are large trunks for storage in both the front and back of the car and the interior is very roomy with comfortable seating for 5.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Biker16

[akirby]

Good grief - nobody said it wasn't simpler. All that was said is that it is still a complex process to assemble a car on the assembly line. Paint, body, suspension, wheels, tires, axles, seats, brakes, steering, dash, entertainment, speakers, spare tire, glass, etc. etc. etc, And you still have to install motors and batteries instead of an engine and transmission.

 

There are fewer moving parts but the assembly process is virtually the same.

[RichardJensen]

 

and transmission

 

these parts are machined parts, that require alot of specialized Equipment.

 

the EV motor by contrast is simple

 

 

Interesting cherry-picked illustrations.

 

I like how you chose exploded diagrams that show all the parts of the engine and transmission, but a simplified schematic of the GM motor.

 

Combustion engines and their corresponding transmissions are indeed more complex, mechanically, than electric motors--but the difference is nowhere near as significant as your exaggerated choice of pictures suggest. Further, broad adoption of electric motors just means fewer union jobs in assembly. It is not a paradigm shift in what constitutes an automobile.

Edited March 4, 2016 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

Also, as with FWD, as soon as it becomes less expensive to do EVs than ICEs, the industry's going to shift to EVs from the bottom up.

 

Rather than use the paradigm of tech--and especially software--where barriers to entry are practically nonexistent, it may be more instructive to look at telecom.

 

The government actively encouraged small player 'disruptions' to established telecom carriers by lowering the barriers to entry--in fact they broke up AT&T into regional carriers that effectively lost the ability to coordinate R&D.

 

What's happened?

 

Major players in telecom in the 1970s were MCI, AT&T, Sprint and GTE.

 

AT&T > Bell Atlantic + GTE + MCI = Verizon

 

AT&T > Southwestern Bell + BellSouth > SBC > bought out the remainder of AT&T = AT&T

 

Sprint

 

Combine those with Deutche Telecom's wireless unit, and you've got something like 97% of the US market that is controlled by successors to dominant old-school communications companies. Something like 75% of the mobile market is controlled by Verizon and AT&T, which consist of an amalgam of 1970s AT&T, GTE and MCI.

 

The point being: Innovation was co-opted by established industry players that enjoyed significant structural advantages due to exceptionally high barriers to entry.

Edited March 4, 2016 by RichardJensen

[Biker16]

Good grief - nobody said it wasn't simpler. All that was said is that it is still a complex process to assemble a car on the assembly line. Paint, body, suspension, wheels, tires, axles, seats, brakes, steering, dash, entertainment, speakers, spare tire, glass, etc. etc. etc, And you still have to install motors and batteries instead of an engine and transmission.

 

There are fewer moving parts but the assembly process is virtually the same.

Fair enough.

 

 

 

Interesting cherry-picked illustrations.

 

I like how you chose exploded diagrams that show all the parts of the engine and transmission, but a simplified schematic of the GM motor.

 

Combustion engines and their corresponding transmissions are indeed more complex, mechanically, than electric motors--but the difference is nowhere near as significant as your exaggerated choice of pictures suggest. Further, broad adoption of electric motors just means fewer union jobs in assembly. It is not a paradigm shift in what constitutes an automobile.

 

OK, remember my original Comment

 

Also, as with FWD, as soon as it becomes less expensive to do EVs than ICEs, the industry's going to shift to EVs from the bottom up.

 

Rather than use the paradigm of tech--and especially software--where barriers to entry are practically nonexistent, it may be more instructive to look at telecom.

 

The government actively encouraged small player 'disruptions' to established telecom carriers by lowering the barriers to entry--in fact they broke up AT&T into regional carriers that effectively lost the ability to coordinate R&D.

 

What's happened?

 

Major players in telecom in the 1970s were MCI, AT&T, Sprint and GTE.

 

AT&T > Bell Atlantic + GTE + MCI = Verizon

 

AT&T > Southwestern Bell + BellSouth > SBC > bought out the remainder of AT&T = AT&T

 

Sprint

 

Combine those with Deutche Telecom's wireless unit, and you've got something like 97% of the US market that is controlled by successors to dominant old-school communications companies. Something like 75% of the mobile market is controlled by Verizon and AT&T, which consist of an amalgam of 1970s AT&T, GTE and MCI.

 

The point being: Innovation was co-opted by established industry players that enjoyed significant structural advantages due to exceptionally high barriers to entry.

 

Not here to argue with you on this.

 

 

It is a dark road that ends with threads being closed.

 

Cheers!

Edited March 4, 2016 by Biker16

[jpd80]

Biker, we all understand that substituting electric power train and batteries simplifies construction

by eliminating the ICE and transmission - that's not what we're disputing.

 

What's being said is that all the other constructional and assembly stations have to remain,

you're not eliminating body shop, paint and all the other off line sub assembly points.

 

The two major stumbling points still remain:

1. The cost of batteries is still too high - Early adopters will bring down the cost for next gen adopters.

2. Battery power density is still too low - they are still too big and too heavy for the intended range.

 

The technology for an affordable EV is still not mature enough to be cost effective,

the way you make that happen is by continuing hybrids and growing PHEVs

and when that range and power density reaches critical mass, then do EVs

on a broader scale.

 

In all things, take the balanced view and give a measured response

and for goodness sake Ford, we need hybrid and PHEV Escape yesterday.

Edited March 4, 2016 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

And I'm convinced that when EVs powertrains become cheap enough with wide enough range, it will be existing manufacturers that will rapidly expand production because 1) they've got the capacity to build millions of cars and 2) when the numbers make it more profitable, they're not likely to leave money on the table.

[jpd80]

And I'm convinced that when EVs powertrains become cheap enough with wide enough range, it will be existing manufacturers that will rapidly expand production because 1) they've got the capacity to build millions of cars and 2) when the numbers make it more profitable, they're not likely to leave money on the table.

I wonder how many early adopters / start ups have crashed and burned because of costs due to insufficient

scales of economy only to see major corporations take full advantage of that earlier essential work.

[RichardJensen]

I wonder how many early adopters / start ups have crashed and burned because of costs due to insufficient

scales of economy only to see major corporations take full advantage of that earlier essential work.

 

Telecom is a great example. A lot of companies that pioneered technology were bought up by established players.

 

Even in tech, you see instances like Oracle, MS & IBM absorbing innovative database/enterprise platforms (classic example: MySQL--now part of Oracle)

[Biker16]

Biker, we all understand that substituting electric power train and batteries simplifies construction

by eliminating the ICE and transmission - that's not what we're disputing.

 

What's being said is that all the other constructional and assembly stations have to remain,

you're not eliminating body shop, paint and all the other off line sub assembly points.

 

The two major stumbling points still remain:

1. The cost of batteries is still too high - Early adopters will bring down the cost for next gen adopters.

2. Battery power density is still too low - they are still too big and too heavy for the intended range.

 

The technology for an affordable EV is still not mature enough to be cost effective,

the way you make that happen is by continuing hybrids and growing PHEVs

and when that range and power density reaches critical mass, then do EVs

on a broader scale.

 

In all things, take the balanced view and give a measured response

and for goodness sake Ford, we need hybrid and PHEV Escape yesterday.

 

 

And I'm convinced that when EVs powertrains become cheap enough with wide enough range, it will be existing manufacturers that will rapidly expand production because 1) they've got the capacity to build millions of cars and 2) when the numbers make it more profitable, they're not likely to leave money on the table.

you right, thus the Title of the thread is.

EVs Could Kill Gasoline Cars Starting In The 2020s

It isn't EVs Could Kill Gasoline Cars Starting tomorrow.

 

You simply cannot deny the progress that has been made in 5 years. a 40k EV in 2011 went 80 miles and took 8 hours to charge while today a 40k EV takes you 200 miles and takes 30 minutes to reach 80% charge.

 

the first manufacture to take full advantage of the simplicity of EV assembly will be able to mainstream EVs for good.

 

with EVs he complexity is in the Code not the manufacturing.