Researchers are trialing using wood in lithium ion batteries.
A Chinese Electric Vehicle manufacturer will be releasing a relatively cost equal electric version to fossil fuelled versions of powered SUV vehicles in Australia, through their partner Nexport Mobility. The expected date for sales is the 2nd quarter of 2022 but they will have an experience centre open here in Sydney this year. The company called BYD (Build Your Dreams) has previously had a news release here about building electric powered Utes here (again through Nexport Mobility). They, at the time of the ute article, had 70 electric taxis here as a test scenario and via Nexport also supply electric powered buses to NSW. The SUV (considered small to mid-range in size) they are releasing has a range of around 500 km and will cost about $43,000 including on road costs.
The Ute article
Chinese company BYD wants to build electric utes in Australia | news.com.au
The article on the SUV release follows
BYDâs affordable range of electric cars to go on sale in 2021 | news.com.au
Now that is one serious EV order.
1 Like
SA legislates a mileage tax on electric vehicles.
A mere pittance in comparison to the current fuel excise and taxes, and it does not even commence until around 2027.
Tesla announced last year a new battery package as part of itâs way forward. The 4680 is a massive 46mm in diameter and 80mm tall. IE Nearly the size of my coffee cup.
The most significant benefit expected is a drop in cost of the battery packs with lower costs to manufacture each unit and fewer cells per pack. A single 4680 cell can replace 5 of the current 2170 size cells. Tesla had a history of reducing costs through simplification and economies scale to leverage the most out of existing technology.
Large scale production is not expected until late 2022. Itâs a two year lag from the original announcement, for what is an established battery technology. A quoted cost of production of the cells equivalent to US$50 per kWh stored capacity has been suggested.
Note:
Nominal capacity of each cell (speculative) is 25Ah using Teslaâs long running preference for NCA chemistry, (Lithium - Nickel - Cobalt - Aluminium). Itâs a higher energy density option when compared with LFP (Lithium - Iron - Phosphate) or other low cost technologies.
Surprise! Tesla is responding to supply constraints for Nickel and Cobalt, and the resulting increasing cost of these raw materials. A larger portion of itâs vehicles (standard range) will be moving to cells using LFP chemistry.
2 Likes
You need a bigger cup. Mine is 85mm W x 80mm H.
LFP also are less likely to catch on fire than the NCA ones making for safer cells and batteries from a user perspective. So less energy density but greater safety. I think I opt for safer 
1 Like
This sounds promising.
Like a politician kissing a baby?
F1 is also saying it intends to be carbon neutral by 2030. Itâs suggesting itâs engine technology is the most energy efficient and will further develop itâs hybrid turbo engine systems to run on 100% green fuel.
Kissing something other than a baby?
Why is the interest so great in perpetuating the way their vehicles are powered?
As reported in the Reuterâs news item that quoted Toyota.
Converting internal combustion engines to green fuels such as hydrogen is technologically difficult, but doing so would allow the companies to support decades-old existing supply chains employing hundreds of thousands of workers that they may otherwise have to drop as they switch to building electric vehicles (EV).
IE
Abandoning ICE technology will put too many people out of jobs, aka destroy the value of businesses invested in ICE technology.
There is nothing new in running an ICE on pure hydrogen, or synthesising hydrocarbon fuel using green hydrogen and captured carbon. There is substantial complexity in ICEâs and the technology involved with the fuel options. Read âexpenseâ compared to the electric power options. The alternatives are not genuinely energy efficient compared with electric energy storage and recovery.
If there is any promise in the plan, itâs likely to make future ICEâs more expensive. The alternative considering the cost of electric vehicles can only continue to decrease.
1 Like
Four car makers have said they are starting a project. What is promising about that? We have no idea at all what the pollution might be, whether any solution would reduce GHG emissions or what it would cost.
Next we will be saying announcement of fusion power experiments is promising.
1 Like
It is that or engaging the best engineered .wav and arrays of speakers on the vehicle to perpetuate their aura of excitement. I lost interest years ago when it became a parade of cacophonic noise whereby every car followed the same optimal track and shifted within a few cm of placement. Yonks since it has been âracingâ in the classical sense and evolved into the one who got pole and lasted the distance usually won.
1 Like
This is very easy to do and has been available for some time. There have been vehicles which have some and gone which can run on up to 100% alcohols or others which can run on 100% non-fossil fuels (such as biodiesel or other synthesized fuels). The downside is the source materials used to create these fuels compete with food for agriculture or result in deforestation (such as in Brazil to meet alcohol production from cane sugar or Borneo for palm oil production).
Any technology has impacts, and as a global community we need to ensure that technologies adopted donât place us in a worse place in the rush to remove GHG emissions from the transport industry.
By a worse place that would be by not acting now to reduce transport emissions. The costs and consequences of not acting need to be considered. Itâs good business practice.
Tasmania has already committed to hit net zero GHG emissions by 2030, the ACT 65-75% below 1990 levels, while NSW, SA and Vic have set targets at or near 50% reductions.
Reducing transport emissions which assumes increasing up take of BEVs is part of getting to these targets. The National Plan includes similar, with increased uptake of renewables for electricity and BEVâs for transport the two most significant areas of change.
Victoria and NSW are targeting 50% of new light passenger vehicle sales to be EVâs by 2030/31. Thatâs the largest market in Australia.
This isnât helping.
Itâs a view that seeks further support. One NSW insider has said similar.
Mr Kean, who is a high-ranking member of the NSW Liberal Party, said the federal government should be investing far more heavily in electric vehicle charging infrastructure around the country.
He said it could use tax incentives and waivers to make electric vehicles more affordable for families and businesses.
âThere are huge advantages to moving towards electric vehicles,â he said.
âTheyâre fun to drive, theyâre cheaper to run and theyâre great for the environment. So we should be embracing this new technology and ensuring that everyone who wants one is able to access them at an affordable rate.â
Thereâs certainly part of a promise pre-election with funding charging infrastructure, which is targeting BEV ahead of FCEV.
Score some more brownie points if you think âthey are fun to drive, theyâre cheaper to run and âŠ.â.
1 Like
There are far more environmental impacts as a consequence of changing technologies. Each technology has similar and differing impacts. Focusing solely to reduce GHG at any cost may have long term unintended consequences if the wrong technology is pursued.
Replacing the existing transport fleet (from cars, to trucks, ships to aircraft) wonât come without significant other environmental impacts.
In a ideal world, private transport would be fully replaced with public, and public changed to the most sustainable and lowest impact forms.
Edit: While not directly on topic, but has a major effect on future transportation, COP 26 missed invaluable opportunities such as pushing for public transport over private, controlling the world population, stopping urban expansion (including unsustainable development such as living on acreage, new housing in urban fringe development or urban expansion into valuable agricultural land) and encouraging population densification, moving back to making decisions in the community interests (rather than what happens today with individual ârightsâ overriding good decision making) and the list goes on. Some of the planned shift in transport technologies favour developed nations over developing nations. New technology impacts, which have been raised elsewhere, will be irreversible and and consequential impacts. The elephants in the room is being ignored and there was an opportunity to âdriveâ the world towards holistic, broader and more sustainable outcomes.
An interesting article regarding the future of servos.
It reminded me of an interview with the then Saudi oil minister when the world was obsessed with âpeak oilâ around 2000.
In response to a question regarding global oil reserves being exhausted, he said one of the wisest things that I have ever heard.
âThe stone age did not end because they ran out of rocks and the oil age will not end because we ran out of oilâ.
Oil will simply become obsolete, just like the servos that fail to plan for the future.
Meanwhile, back at Big Oil.
It would be more informative if either side to this article had some facts with the news item.
On one side of the line InsideEVs refers to sponsorship of the article by a TESLA supplier.
Itâs as much a promotion for Tesla as a lament we still need and use fossil fuels.
Such poorly presented content does little to promote a broader discussion, IMO. We are left the lesser for it. For those in Australia looking to alternate vehicle fuels the local market cannot even meet the current demand for new BEVs. Current forecasts for 2021 are new BEVs might pass 1% of all sales. Certainly the annual growth rate for sales is encouraging. Even the Federal Government is planning on 30% of sales being BEV by 2030. Supply dependent? Hence those users stuck with petrol vehicles and those with the dirtier and more environmentally damaging diesel fueled vehicles will still be depending on Shell and others to be in business.
Does Shell really have a plan and what is it?
The Guardian offered a more informative assessment, independent of any vested interest.
Rather than spay on a few emotive points The Guardian has considered the shareholder relationships and regulatory obligations.
While a big corporate such as Shell may be an easy target, isnât the real future for alternate fuels going to be determined by Government action or inaction?
Governments control access to all mineral resources. Governments make decisions everyday that influence the decisions consumers and businesses make. The only difference between Governments globally may be how much attention they pay to either cause. A government can favour one form of energy over another.
2 Likes
Totally agree, especially about energy efficiency.
Internal combustion engines have large number of parts and high maintenance compared to electric motors.
EVs reduce the number of parts (and maintenance) even further compared to ICE vehicles because they only need a single ratio âgear boxâ, an open simple differential, and have much less wearânâtear on brakes.
4 Likes
Lithium Sulphur batteries promise up to 5 times the energy storage capacity compared to current Lithium-ion technology.
All new technology needs to find solutions to make it effective and reliable. Itâs not uncommon to see competing alternatives evolve at the same time. Sometimes first to market wins. Sometimes as for the Sony Beta vs VHS video tape saga, first or best does not always succeed.
The following is not the only research claiming to have the answer. It does show just how intense the research is to deliver the next breakthrough in rechargeable battery performance.
Curiosity corner?
The next step is turning that knowledge into manufactured product, at a cost that makes it attractive compared to the alternatives. More than just a $2 âGo Fund Meâ project.
2 Likes
