News Electric vehicles to pay for detroit bailout?

[drankin]

Not for all roles (yet).
But the majority of journeys are short at low speed in built up areas.
Adverts aside, you do not need a V8 truck to take a single 5year old 3miles to school.

You can already buy natural gas powered cars - but in the long term it isn't much of a solution to swap reliance on scarce middle eastern oil for reliance on scarce Russian methane!

According to Mr Pickens, we have a lot of natural gas in the US. Also, our land fills create an enormous amount of unnaturally accurring methane that we simply let burn away day and night thru large vent chimneys (I forget the proper term for them). There are projects going on right now to capture those gases that come from our own garbage.

What I'm getting at is that should be our focus. We have the fuels here in the states. Electric cars aren't practical. Especially if you consider where a good portion of our electricity comes from in the US... burning fossil fuels.

 

[mheslep]

I just want to point out that a strictly electric car will never replace a fuel burning vehicle. It may work as an inner city commuting vehicle for some but it will always be more expensive than a fuel burning vehicle.

Never? Major problem is energy density in the batteries and charge time. In near every other way electric has the advantage: efficiency, maintenance, complexity, energy transmission. Stick around.

We should start with natural gas and work are way to hydrogen.

Forget H2.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
and in general:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=251887"

 

[drankin]

Never? Major problem is energy density in the batteries and charge time. In near every other way electric has the advantage: efficiency, maintenance, complexity, energy transmission. Stick around.

Forget H2.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
and in general:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=251887"

Looking at it energy vs energy out you are correct. I propose we make nuclear power plants dedicated to H2 recovery. Nuclear hydrogen refineries. And I'm thinking we bottle and burn it as apposed to fuel cells.

Batteries will not power a semi or trains or planes (basically, our shipping industry) or cars for winter driving in our northern states. And it's not practical for distance travel. Fuels need to be burned to get that kind of energy. Batteries have theoretical limits. Pound per pound there is more energy in fuels.

 

[mheslep]

According to Mr Pickens, we have a lot of natural gas in the US. Also, our land fills create an enormous amount of unnaturally accurring methane that we simply let burn away day and night thru large vent chimneys (I forget the proper term for them). There are projects going on right now to capture those gases that come from our own garbage.

If all landfill methane was captured (650,000 million cubic ft) it amounts to 1/35th of US consumption (23,000,000 million cubic ft/yr)

What I'm getting at is that should be our focus. We have the fuels here in the states. Electric cars aren't practical. Especially if you consider where a good portion of our electricity comes from in the US... burning fossil fuels.

Yes, but ~all of ground vehicle transportation comes from ... burning fossil fuels, and less efficiently in the car than at the power plant. I like Picken's idea at the moment - switch to natural gas in the cars now; then I favor slowly switching to PHEVs.

 

[drankin]

If all landfill methane was captured (650,000 million cubic ft) it amounts to 1/35th of US consumption (23,000,000 million cubic ft/yr)

Yes, but ~all of ground vehicle transportation comes from ... burning fossil fuels, and less efficiently in the car than at the power plant. I like Picken's idea at the moment - switch to natural gas in the cars now; then I favor slowly switching to PHEVs.

Maybe they could dedicate gov't vehicles to using methane from landfills (they can use our garbage .

Looking at a purely energy standpoint cars don't efficiently burn the fuel. But with burning H2 there is no consequence. But how much of that wasted energy is heat? That is always a useful byproduct in a vehicle. Electric cars cannot afford to create heat for the passengers (or AC). Growing up in cold winters makes me an unbeliever in the electric vehicle. And those in the southern states would be partial to having lots of AC available in their commuting.

 

[mheslep]

...Batteries will not power a semi or trains or planes (basically, our shipping industry) or cars for winter driving in our northern states. And it's not practical for distance travel. Fuels need to be burned to get that kind of energy. ...

About 30 percent of all oil use in the US goes into commuting short distances in cars: 70% of oil goes to transportation, of that ~66% goes to cars, and of the total car miles 60-70% goes into short distances. (And obviously scratch electric trains from the can't do list.)

 

[mheslep]

Maybe they could dedicate gov't vehicles to using methane from landfills (they can use our garbage .

Yes that's Picken's plan: mandate only the fleets, everyone else will follow on their own.

Looking at a purely energy standpoint cars don't efficiently burn the fuel. But with burning H2 there is no consequence. But how much of that wasted energy is heat? That is always a useful byproduct in a vehicle. Electric cars cannot afford to create heat for the passengers (or AC). Growing up in cold winters makes me an unbeliever in the electric vehicle. And those in the southern states would be partial to having lots of AC available in their commuting.

Drankin, c'mon, it is not a matter of what you believe, go look at the numbers. Nobody is saying you have to go drive around in a golf cart today, but generally speaking as energy storage technology improves it makes sense to electrify transportation as much as economically possible.

 

[drankin]

About 30 percent of all oil use in the US goes into commuting short distances in cars: 70% of oil goes to transportation, of that ~66% goes to cars, and of the total car miles 60-70% goes into short distances. (And obviously scratch electric trains from the can't do list.)

But what we need is an all encompassing solution in order for it to be economical. Please post a link for those stats, I want to read that (I believe your numbers I just want to see what else they have on the subject).

Electrical vehicles will work for short distances. No question about it. But, will families now have two vehicles? One for short commutes and another for long? That's where it won't work for the masses. And the masses need a complete solution in order to buy into it in order to get the costs down. We need a progressive answer so that won't slow our country down while the rest of the world, that doesn't have our ecological concerns, industrially overruns us.

 

[mheslep]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1784408&postcount=47

US Oil for transportation, yr 2007: 69% and rising as oil is no longer preferred for E power generation. http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/diagram2.html
Transportation breakdown, yr 2002: light duty vehicles 61%, commercial light trucks 2.2%, 14.3% heavy trucks, 10% airplanes.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo04/pdf/appa.pdf , table A7
Both gas and diesel can use plug-in technology, indeed electric/diesel should be preferred for efficiency reasons over gasoline/electric. I believe plug-in charged over night by solar (cheap enough solar) makes sense for all ground transportation, it is just that it can't support but a fraction of the longer hauls... .69 transportation x ~.64 gnd transport x 2/3 short distance = ~30% or only half of imported US oil; not quite there w/ plug-in cars alone.

And here's the driving pattern breakdown, page 4. Forty miles covers near 70% of all driving.
http://www.calcars.org/epri-driving-solution-1012885_PHEV.pdf

 

[mheslep]

...Electrical vehicles will work for short distances. No question about it. But, will families now have two vehicles? One for short commutes and another for long? That's where it won't work for the masses. And the masses need a complete solution in order to buy into it in order to get the costs down. We need a progressive answer so that won't slow our country down while the rest of the world, that doesn't have our ecological concerns, industrially overruns us.

Hybrids. Plugin hybrids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHEV

One hybrid to rule them all, one hybrid to find them, one hybrid to bring them all, and in the Obama administration bind them.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree. However, there are some valid considerations likely pushing the Volt design into its current class. The Volt batteries alone will probably be $10-12k of the cost of the five-door Volt as of the 2010 release date. Yes downsizing to a two-door would also shrink the battery size/cost some, but not as linear percentage of the cost of the car. That is, it would be harder to hide the battery cost in a two-door for the moment, and in that car class cost really is everything with tight profit margins. One might then claim that the battery technology is not quite there yet, but the cost has been coming down significantly with innovation. Similarly, when Toyota first came out with its non plug-in hybrid it sold at a loss, but Toyota captured market share in the interim, the Prius is profitable now, and Toyota gained 'green' and technical prestige in the public eye. I speculate GM feels it has to make a play now to risk losing that position forever, rather than wait another five years for batter tech. to come in range.

That's a good point, but it basically means that plug-in hybrids are not currently viable and car companies are just hoping they will be in the future. That's a surprising thing to see from GM (good to see them thinking ahead and betting on technology), but it's a much tougher gamble than conventional hybrids. It requires much more in the way of [economic] technological advancement.

 

[russ_watters]

Never? Major problem is energy density in the batteries and charge time. In near every other way electric has the advantage: efficiency, maintenance, complexity, energy transmission. Stick around.

The energy density and charging time (and don't forget cost) problems are fundamental, so I think the hope for a pure electric is overly optomistic.

Drankin, c'mon, it is not a matter of what you believe, go look at the numbers.

There are other relevant numbers that you aren't looking at, though: such as the cost, weight, and energy density of batteries. For example, the energy density of gas is 46 MJ/kG. The energy density of a lithium battery is .75. Assuming that only 1/3 of the gas's energy makes it to the wheels of the car (and this includes the inefficiency of sitting in traffic), we need to do about 20x better than lithium batteries to power our cars. That's a lot - it's not something that should be expected to be technologically possible.

 

[mgb_phys]

You don't need to reach anything like the energy density of gasoline if you aren't building a formula one car. Most trips are short and slow.
Even if the electricity is generated from fossil fuels it's easier to desulpher flue gases at a few powerstations than a million tailpipes at street level.
It also helps you regulate baseline load - in the US most baseload is coal fired which is difficult to adjust and peak demand is during the day (for AC and offices). Charging the vehicles at night on cheap rate electricity is good for consumer and supplier.

The cost of batteries is high because of supply and demand, exactly the same arguments were made about catalysts 20years ago - it would add $10K to the price of a car, it would be impossible to scrap them becase of heavy metals etc. There is no shortage of Lithium, even Ni doesn't cost that much in mass production

The main problem is the public perception of small quiet gren electric vehicles - the obvious solution is to fit them with Van def Graff generators so you can sit atthe lights reving the engine and shooting 20 foot sparks into the air.

 

[drankin]

You don't need to reach anything like the energy density of gasoline if you aren't building a formula one car. Most trips are short and slow.
Even if the electricity is generated from fossil fuels it's easier to desulpher flue gases at a few powerstations than a million tailpipes at street level.
It also helps you regulate baseline load - in the US most baseload is coal fired which is difficult to adjust and peak demand is during the day (for AC and offices). Charging the vehicles at night on cheap rate electricity is good for consumer and supplier.

The cost of batteries is high because of supply and demand, exactly the same arguments were made about catalysts 20years ago - it would add $10K to the price of a car, it would be impossible to scrap them becase of heavy metals etc. There is no shortage of Lithium, even Ni doesn't cost that much in mass production

The main problem is the public perception of small quiet gren electric vehicles - the obvious solution is to fit them with Van def Graff generators so you can sit atthe lights reving the engine and shooting 20 foot sparks into the air.

What you need to do is convince people to turn in their current vehicles for a short range, small, expensive, unusual to maintain, electric vehicle. Compare your new electric bill to your old gas bill (provided gas doesn't go through the roof again), and your initial cost never eclipses the cost of fuel. And after your batteries go out, you need spend a fortune for new ones. Hybrids work but the cost savings aren't there. Think of the used car industry. A used electric car or even a hybrid wouldn't be worth buying because the batteries will most likely need to be replaced for thousands of dollars. If you just need a ride from a to b, most people buy an inexpensive $2000-$3000 beater. And what is the ecological impact of all these dead batteries? Too expensive to be practical. We have to burn fuel. So if we are going to burn fuel, let's focus on the best fuels to burn for our environment and are plentiful in our country.

 

[russ_watters]

You don't need to reach anything like the energy density of gasoline if you aren't building a formula one car. Most trips are short and slow.

We need to keep clear that we are talking about two different things here:

1. Electric cars as a limited performance (ie, 30 mi each way) replacement for, say, 50% of gas powered cars.
2. Electric cars as a general/total replacement for gas powered cars.

I believe everyone is in agreement that electric cars could be viable for scenario 1. Where we seem to disagree is if electric cars are ever going to be capable of fulfilling scenario 2.

Keep in mind, my percentage for scenario 1 (50%) was lower than yours (60-70%), but someone who mostly drives his/her car <30 miles to work during the week may still want to drive >30 miles to grandma's house on the weekend. So the actual number of people who would not feel much of an adverse effect of buying a car capable of scenario 1 is probably very, very small.

The cost of batteries is high because of supply and demand, exactly the same arguments were made about catalysts 20years ago - it would add $10K to the price of a car, it would be impossible to scrap them becase of heavy metals etc. There is no shortage of Lithium, even Ni doesn't cost that much in mass production

There are millions of laptop computers out there and currently a manageable growth rate, yet the market has yet to make the batteries inexpensive. I don't know why you would think a vast increase in demand would cause the prices to drop.

 

[mheslep]

I believe everyone is in agreement that electric cars could be viable for scenario 1. Where we seem to disagree is if electric cars are ever going to be capable of fulfilling scenario 2.

Yes, and I am continuing on the scenario 2 line below here, in the interest of exploring how much research electric energy storage technology warrants versus other lines.

The energy density and charging time (and don't forget cost) problems are fundamental, so I think the hope for a pure electric is overly optomistic.

These are limitations with the current state of the art, but to say they are fundamental(?) is a bold statement, or I'm uninformed of the relevant physics. For traditional electrolyte battery technology, there probably is indeed some energy density limit far short of the several eV per molecule obtained from burning a hydrocarbon fuel, but I'm guessing we are far short of that yet - chemists feel free to jump in here. And I was careful above to say electrical energy storage, not just chemical batteries, and that includes ultracapacitors and who knows what else. Ultracaps already have the charging time problem solved - they can accept and discharge energy as fast as you can pump gasoline into your tank.

There are other relevant numbers that you aren't looking at, though: such as the cost, weight, and energy density of batteries. For example, the energy density of gas is 46 MJ/kG. The energy density of a lithium battery is .75. Assuming that only 1/3 of the gas's energy makes it to the wheels of the car (and this includes the inefficiency of sitting in traffic), we need to do about 20x better than lithium batteries to power our cars. That's a lot - it's not something that should be expected to be technologically possible.

I agree there's no technology on the table today that will grant such an improvement on a timetable, but if you are informed of the physics of why it is indeed impossible to store charge in any kind of matter at 20x greater density than is currently possible, other than via chemical bonds, then please share.

Tangent: There's another avenue of attack on the 20x shortfall - vehicle mass, instead of attending to the motive force, attend to its mass. Most of the energy goes into moving the 3000 lbs of car down the road, when the object is simply to move a couple of people.

 

[russ_watters]

These are limitations with the current state of the art, but to say they are fundamental(?) is a bold statement, or I'm uninformed of the relevant physics. For traditional electrolyte battery technology, there probably is indeed some energy density limit far short of the several eV per molecule obtained from burning a hydrocarbon fuel, but I'm guessing we are far short of that yet - chemists feel free to jump in here.

I'll admit to being a little thin on the chemistry too. I base my opinion on where batteries were 100 years ago vs where they are today. Lead acid batteries have been around at least that long and have energy densities of 1/10th of lithium batteries. With all of the advances in science and technology in that time, batteries have not advanced all that far. I think that is a chemistry problem. This isn't a Moore's law where we can expect consistent progress like a doubling every 2 or even 10 or 20 years. What is needed is a breakthrough like nothing that's never happened before with batteries.

And I was careful above to say electrical energy storage, not just chemical batteries, and that includes ultracapacitors and who knows what else. Ultracaps already have the charging time problem solved - they can accept and discharge energy as fast as you can pump gasoline into your tank.

Ultracaps are also limited by chemistry: it's about the number of electrons (at what energy) you can pack onto a surface.

I agree there's no technology on the table today that will grant such an improvement on a timetable, but if you are informed of the physics of why it is indeed impossible to store charge in any kind of matter at 20x higher density than is currently possible, other than via chemical bonds, then please share.

Like I said, I'll admit to being a little thin on the chemistry. My opinion is that the rate of advancement implies fundamental limits. I see no reason to expect a sudden breakthrough that changes everything. Moreover, no prudent investor uses the Lottery as an investment strategy. You must use history as your guide. In this case, betting on the necessary breakthrough in battery technology is playing a lottery where the only thing you know about the odds is that no one has ever won.

Tangent: There's another avenue of attack on the 20x shortfall - vehicle mass, instead of attending to the motive force, attend to its mass. Most of the energy goes into moving the 3000 lbs of car down the road, when the object is simply to move a couple of people.

When your 3,000 lb car weighs 5,000 lb due to the 2,000 lb of batteries you are carrying, you are severely limited in your ability to make cars lighter. It is a catch-22: you can't make the cars lighter unless you make the batteries lighter.

[edit] What we can safely say about the chemistry is that the main reason for the energy density improvement of lithium batteries is that the metal used is lithium, which has an extremely low density. About 1/20th of lead. There is no metal that is another 1/20th of that density.

 

[mheslep]

That's a good point, but it basically means that plug-in hybrids are not currently viable and car companies are just hoping they will be in the future...

I agree its a marginal bet, but again Toyota's hybrid was not quite viable when it first appeared.

 

[mheslep]

... Ultracaps are also limited by chemistry: it's about the number of electrons (at what energy) you can pack onto a surface.

Well I know this much: ultracaps to do not involve chemistry in the sense that there is any requirement for covalent or ionic bonds. Capacitance is dependent only on the surface area, the distance between the surfaces, and the dielectric constant of the intervening material, nothing more. The recent advances in ultracaps are due to big increases in surface area for a given device mass and volume (via nanotech for instance).

When your 3,000 lb car weighs 5,000 lb due to the 2,000 lb of batteries you are carrying, you are severely limited in your ability to make cars lighter. It is a catch-22: you can't make the cars lighter unless you make the batteries lighter.

Good point.

[edit] What we can safely say about the chemistry is that the main reason for the energy density improvement of lithium batteries is that the metal used is lithium, which has an extremely low density. About 1/20th of lead. There is no metal that is another 1/20th of that density.

Good point, for electrolyte based energy storage.

 

[russ_watters]

Well I know this much: ultracaps to do not involve chemistry in the sense that there is any requirement for covalent or ionic bonds. Capacitance is dependent only on the surface area, the distance between the surfaces, and the dielectric constant of the intervening material, nothing more. The recent advances in ultracaps are due to big increases in surface area for a given device mass and volume (via nanotech for instance).

Ehh, chemistry, physics, whatever. Sometimes I don't know where one starts and the other stops. Either way, atoms have a finite physical size and QM tells us that electrons can jump around. Those present a hard limit to how tight you can pack surfaces on a capacitor.

 

[mheslep]

Looks like Misubishi is going to be the first large quantity production EV only on the market, coming out in Japan only to start, perhaps in the US later. It's a super compact at 2300 lbs, 4 seats, 100 mi range, 60hp, 7 hr charge on 220VAC. But: the price is $37k.
http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/12/mitsibishi-prices-the-imiev-close-to-the-expected-price-of-the-chevy-volt/
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/0...with-gs-yuasa-to-build-lithium-ion-batteries/
One would have to drive a comparable sized $25k mini cooper ~150,000 miles on $2.50/g gas to break even.

 

[RonL]

I'll admit to being a little thin on the chemistry too. I base my opinion on where batteries were 100 years ago vs where they are today. Lead acid batteries have been around at least that long and have energy densities of 1/10th of lithium batteries. With all of the advances in science and technology in that time, batteries have not advanced all that far. I think that is a chemistry problem. This isn't a Moore's law where we can expect consistent progress like a doubling every 2 or even 10 or 20 years. What is needed is a breakthrough like nothing that's never happened before with batteries. Ultracaps are also limited by chemistry: it's about the number of electrons (at what energy) you can pack onto a surface. Like I said, I'll admit to being a little thin on the chemistry. My opinion is that the rate of advancement implies fundamental limits. I see no reason to expect a sudden breakthrough that changes everything. Moreover, no prudent investor uses the Lottery as an investment strategy. You must use history as your guide. In this case, betting on the necessary breakthrough in battery technology is playing a lottery where the only thing you know about the odds is that no one has ever won.
When your 3,000 lb car weighs 5,000 lb due to the 2,000 lb of batteries you are carrying, you are severely limited in your ability to make cars lighter. It is a catch-22: you can't make the cars lighter unless you make the batteries lighter.

[edit] What we can safely say about the chemistry is that the main reason for the energy density improvement of lithium batteries is that the metal used is lithium, which has an extremely low density. About 1/20th of lead. There is no metal that is another 1/20th of that density.

A break through like nothing that's ever happened to the lead acid battery ? Without saying too much, the following link can give an idea of lead battery capacity.

http://www.sbsbattery.com/PDFs/Cat'05 OSP info.pdf

Look at the OSP-3000 8hour amp rating. Six of these will be very heavy @ 3,000 pounds and will produce a total vehicle weight of 5,000- 6,000 pounds. (12 volts and look at the amp rating)

Now to build a battery (of this general size) that can be charged and discharged at a greater rate, maintain it's purity for life and be regenerated at regular intervals, requires moving away from static only, and involve mechanical qualities.

I'm sure that a workable design is at hand.:shy: Just not sure how or when to say what. Another project that has me distracted

Heavy lead is not the problem, if it can meet the needs of the average driver and I think it can.

Ron

I do have a little more I can share, about the vechicle I'm considering, if anyone is interested.

 

[russ_watters]

A break through like nothing that's ever happened to the lead acid battery ? Without saying too much, the following link can give an idea of lead battery capacity.

http://www.sbsbattery.com/PDFs/Cat'05 OSP info.pdf

By my calculation, that's an energy density of .10, which is pretty good for a lead acid battery, but still 1/5 that of a lithium battery and 1/450th that of gas.

Look at the OSP-3000 8hour amp rating. Six of these will be very heavy @ 3,000 pounds and will produce a total vehicle weight of 5,000- 6,000 pounds. (12 volts and look at the amp rating)

In other words, assuming 3x the efficiency of gas (90% efficiency for electric, 30% efficiency for gas), those 3,000 lb of batteries could replace 19.4 lb (about 2.5 gallons) of gas.

 

[OmCheeto]

By my calculation, that's an energy density of .10, which is pretty good for a lead acid battery, but still 1/5 that of a lithium battery and 1/450th that of gas. In other words, assuming 3x the efficiency of gas (90% efficiency for electric, 30% efficiency for gas), those 3,000 lb of batteries could replace 19.4 lb (about 2.5 gallons) of gas.

So what is your energy consumption per day Russ?

I consume 1 gallon of gas per day getting back and forth from work every day.

I'm pretty sure that I could consume 1/10 that amount of energy per day, given my latest calculations.(If those bastard electric vehicle owner numbers are of any worth...)

 

[RonL]

A break through like nothing that's ever happened to the lead acid battery ? Without saying too much, the following link can give an idea of lead battery capacity.

http://www.sbsbattery.com/PDFs/Cat'05 OSP info.pdf

Look at the OSP-3000 8hour amp rating. Six of these will be very heavy @ 3,000 pounds and will produce a total vehicle weight of 5,000- 6,000 pounds. (12 volts and look at the amp rating)

Now to build a battery (of this general size) that can be charged and discharged at a greater rate, maintain it's purity for life and be regenerated at regular intervals, requires moving away from static only, and involve mechanical qualities.

I'm sure that a workable design is at hand.:shy: Just not sure how or when to say what. Another project that has me distracted

Heavy lead is not the problem, if it can meet the needs of the average driver and I think it can.

Ron

I do have a little more I can share, about the vehicle I'm considering, if anyone is interested.

Had trouble sleeping last night so I was up doing some calculating:zzz: after looking back at the 12 100AH batteries I have now, it all works out to about the same except for price and warranty (compared to cost of batteries in the link above)
36 deep cycle marine batteries would give a few more amp hours, a little less weight, and five to six times less cost.
All in all energy per pound can't be changed, so the focus needs to be life of a battery, and how fast can they be charged and discharged.

So as I mentioned a mechanical function added to the chemical process, keep it clean & keep it cool. Lead acid can be a solution especially considering the cost, and recycle values.

 

[mheslep]

Had trouble sleeping last night so I was up doing some calculating:zzz: after looking back at the 12 100AH batteries I have now, it all works out to about the same except for price and warranty (compared to cost of batteries in the link above)
36 deep cycle marine batteries would give a few more amp hours, a little less weight, and five to six times less cost.
All in all energy per pound can't be changed, so the focus needs to be life of a battery, and how fast can they be charged and discharged.

So as I mentioned a mechanical function added to the chemical process, keep it clean & keep it cool. Lead acid can be a solution especially considering the cost, and recycle values.

Here's a graph from Cambridge physicist MacKay's tomb on energy, that clearly shows the problem with too heavy batteries like lead acid. Any such design has an exponentially increasing marginal energy cost to adding more batteries. Assumptions: electric drive train eff. 85%, rolling resistance 0.01, drag-area 0.8m^2, some stop and go in the driving pattern, constant vehicle mass w/out batteries 740kg (very optimistic, as the non battery structure mass must also increase w/ battery mass). MacKay's starting assumptions are arguable IMO but the scaling holds true. Blue=lead acid, red=Li ion

 

[RonL]

Here's a graph from Cambridge physicist MacKay's tomb on energy, that clearly shows the problem with too heavy batteries like lead acid. Any such design has an exponentially increasing marginal energy cost to adding more batteries. Assumptions: electric drive train eff. 85%, rolling resistance 0.01, drag-area 0.8m^2, some stop and go in the driving pattern, constant vehicle mass w/out batteries 740kg (very optimistic, as the non battery structure mass must also increase w/ battery mass). MacKay's starting assumptions are arguable IMO but the scaling holds true. Blue=lead acid, red=Li ion

I think the chart reflects a correct picture, and for the lead acid to become the battery of choice, it's application will need to be very specific and in line with the accepted average commute.
A range of 150-200 miles would be great, and the two things that can make this a reality would be a battery that can keep it's like new chemical conditions, and a battery that can be held in an ideal thermal state while being fed a much higher rate of charge than is now possible. (a full coverage no charge replacement for the life of the vehicle)

These two things would be the break through Russ mentioned.

Designing the battery's mass as a source of energy storage during braking, as well as it's chemical functions let's it serve as a multi-purpose device. (a flywheel as well as battery)

There are a few other things but more than a forum can handle, the battery needs to be much more than a static dead weight.

I can't believe that anything so important to our everyday lives has gone so long with so little change, I don't know if electric can help Detroit out at this time, it has been almost 100 years (AFAIK 1913) Packards were sold as all electric until 1926, don't remember the company name. Never too late to get to work.

 

[mheslep]

...I can't believe that anything so important to our everyday lives has gone so long with so little change, I don't know if electric can help Detroit out at this time, it has been almost 100 years (AFAIK 1913) Packards were sold as all electric until 1926, don't remember the company name. Never too late to get to work.

There has been substantial change and progress on electric vehicle technology.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1721692&postcount=62
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1679112&postcount=128
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1585492&postcount=23

 

[RonL]

There has been substantial change and progress on electric vehicle technology.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1721692&postcount=62
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1679112&postcount=128
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1585492&postcount=23

I didn't make a clear statement, I was referring to the lead acid battery for the most part being so little changed. What I see is something that can be totally recycled within it's own case, and a continual basis as it is being used.
The Tesla car is a wonderful example of what electric can produce, but for general use a lot less is needed, and battery life more than cost, is the heart of the problem.

 

[mheslep]

I didn't make a clear statement, I was referring to the lead acid battery for the most part being so little changed. What I see is something that can be totally recycled within it's own case, and a continual basis as it is being used.
The Tesla car is a wonderful example of what electric can produce, but for general use a lot less is needed, and battery life more than cost, is the heart of the problem.

No, battery life is not the problem w/ the new hybrids and EVs. Its cost w/ Li Ion, and weight w/ Lead.