Altelium’s Post

The EVSE-TOP. An automated test solution purpose-built for the production of EV Chargers. https://lnkd.in/gj9CEjXj #evse #testandmeasurement #evcharger #electricvehicle #automatedtesting #singlephase #threephase #type2 #type1 #nacs

some reading in readiness for the C&G 2921-31 EV charging course next week.

Do you want to see how to take out heat in your EV battery? Watch Tom Kelly and John McElroy consider the All-in-1 concept from Celanese a game changer for OEMs and Tier 1s when designing their battery platforms. Interested in learning more? Watch our full proof of concept video on how to improve EV Battery production: http://spr.ly/6043biBet #AdvancedMobility #EVs #ElectricVehicles #EngineeredMaterials

A recent article in the WSJ dealt with the softening demand for EVs. See: https://lnkd.in/eDkbTxsd. The article leaves out some important points. Overlooked in this discussion is the utility industry. For electric cars to replace gasoline powered cars, there must be sufficient infrastructure to do so. Not only aren’t there enough charging stations: up to 20% of them aren’t working at a given point in time due largely to software issues. The larger problem is where does the electricity to charge these cars come from and how does it get into the car’s battery?  The traditional utility solution here would be to add wires and generation- probably gas turbines as that’s what they’re comfortable with, but even with solar or wind generation that still leaves a problem- the high power demand of charging EVs in a hurry. Consider that the average EV has a 65 kW-hr battery pack. Here in CT, the average home uses 23 kW-hr- per DAY! If we run this charger for an hour (we’d charge 4 cars), we’re going to be going through enough electricity to power 1 home for 11 DAYS! Utilities are happy installing wires and generation to handle peak demand. If we try to use that approach here, there are three problems: 1). The cost of the infrastructure goes through the roof. 2). The reduction in CO2 from switching to EVs is greatly reduced due to the increased CO2 from construction of wires and generation. 3). The time needed to build out all this infrastructure will mean that we won’t meet any of our climate targets. What is desperately needed is electricity storage at the site where it’s going to be used. Charging stations will have highly variable demand and will need storage to even this out. This is a distributed energy network (often abbreviated DER- distributed energy resources). Utilities do not like this model, which means that there’s a need for regulation to push it. If we allow the utilities to handle this, we’re going to wind up with an expensive, dangerous system as utilities are currently using lithium ion batteries for storage. Using the NASA mantra of: good, fast, cheap- pick two, we can do something similar with batteries: high energy (duration), high power (fast charging), or cheap. Lithium ion batteries combine both high energy and high power, but they are not cheap at between $100-150/kw-hr. Plus, the fires and limited cycle life increase expense. Stationary batteries can be designed for either longer duration and be cheaper or higher power and be cheaper- just not both. We need two types of batteries and there are probably several chemistries that might succeed which will be less expensive than lithium ion when manufactured at scale. When lifecycle costs are included- costs will be far lower. EVs don’t become practical without an inexpensive, safe, stationary battery for charging and that’s not in the hands of the car makers. That’s what the WSJ story left out….

Incorrect. Yes, competition is good. And we should be sensible about it. But it is incorrect to say that “switching to electric cars will cost consumers billions more than driving gas powered vehicles”. The data cited reflect only the costs, not the net savings compared to conventional engines. Partisans - of both the political and energy varieties - often cast the #EV discussion as about the inherent qualities of petroleum vs electricity. That’s misleading: it is as much - even more - about the motor technology as it is about the fuel technology. Simply put, EVs are inherently more energy-efficient than ICE vehicles. Because: Electric motors consume significantly less energy than do internal combustion engines to travel the same distance. Internal combustion engines are highly energy-inefficient, with 70% to 80% of their energy wasted, mostly in the form of the intense engine heat which requires cooling (basically radiated away via water circulation, radiator and fan). ICE vehicles also expend “parasitic energy” on the array of fuel, oil, transmission and water pumps that are not required in EVs. Consequently, only about 25% of the energy consumed in an ICE vehicle actually translates into mobility. Whereas, about 75% of the energy used in an EV actually moves the vehicle forward. In addition, about three-quarters of #EV charging is done at home, and usually at off-peak evening or overnight times when the electricity grid is lightly taxed (and rates are often lower). In other words, electric vehicles do not require anywhere near as much electricity grid expansion as simplistic extrapolations of vehicles x kilometres x recharging KWh suggest. Recharging done off-peak can require local distribution expansion, but relatively little expansion of actual electricity generation or transmission. Lower energy use, lower fuel cost, lower emissions: win, win, win. Read more: https://lnkd.in/eewH7d5C https://lnkd.in/e8yJxD-9. #cdnpoli

This is a little disingenuous. Of course. No surprise there. A home consumes 1.25kW just existing. It doesn’t move though it has moving parts. That’s your TV, your dryer, your phone charger, your lights. It’s connected up to a GigaWatt or TeraWatt network. That’s orders of magnitude larger than what’s being talked about here. Let’s pick a car. Maybe a Tesla as they have the biggest batteries usually. Their batteries are 75 kW. Not 350. The car uses this energy from the 75kW to move around which is how you get a couple of hundred miles of range. The energy to move over a TON of metal and plastic at high speeds - powered by a 75kW battery. So what is the person in the video talking about. He’s talking about the pipe to charge the battery. It would take 1 hour for a 75kW charger to charge a 75kW battery. But we can do better. 350kW to charge a 75kW battery means it’s done in a fraction of an hour. (Around 15 mins). Measure like for like. If you’re really concerned about this, don’t buy big EVs. Buy a Light EV - like the immensely cool 4 seat pedelecs. So you’re not trying to move a ton of metal. But the video? Well. It’s misleading at best.

EV Charging Realities … https://lnkd.in/g5GMg5d5 #EV #evcharging #electricitygrid #grid #sustainability #energy #batteryenergystorage #batteries

But zero emissions means moving the pollution away from the humans. That’s a good thing, right? Overall energy consumption is down to physics. Move less mass less far at lower accelerations and lower speeds and that’s where your energy saving comes from.

On the hunt for your perfect hot hatch to go electric with? You should consider the MG4 XPOWER. How does it fare against EV rivals? Don't miss our brand-new review to find out 👉 buff.ly/3KCUWOU #mg4xpower #MG4Electric #mg4 #electriccar #ev #carreview