Volvo EX30 Dual motor ER or RAV4 PHEV GR Sport?

[Strangely Brown]

19 hours ago, Nick72 said:

1. Combustion efficiency is very poor plus mechanical transmission losses.

2. No huge and heavy engine and ancillary systems. Power 'density' and specific power in electric motors is tripling over the next 10 years and down to nothing more than configuration changes and manufacturing improvements. Nothing exotic. So very small but powerful electric motors.

3. Specific energy of battery tech is tripling over the next 10 years. Nothing exotic factored here. Breakthroughs could make it a factor of 5.

4. The mass of the fuel, tankage, pumps, pipework for ICE.

5. New vehicle design freedoms. Less complexity.

But, new problems also still arise despite us getting to say a 700 mile range vehicle in the next 4 or 5 years. On a 7.4kW home wall box that's probably going to take a full day to charge so planning and non contiguous long trips required.

1. Agreed, but ICE is improving all the time.
2. Really?
3. Yeah, right. There is no magic Battery technology "just around the corner". Everyone is working with the same periodic table and incremental gains are not going to produce 300-500% improvements.
4. Yeah, great. You don't have all that heavy old ICE and gearbox and all the supporting stuff. But what you do have instead is a hossing great Battery, the cooling system for the Battery, a big ol' inverter, you still need a transmission, the pumps and lubrication system for all of that and more... and then you see that in pretty much every case where it is possible to compare ICE and BEV models of the same car the BEV is heavier, and by some margin.
5. All subject to vehicle safety standards. Just changing the power source is not going to produce radically different vehicles if they still to be driven by humans and carry passengers.

Your last point is the elephant in the room and is the killer for long range cars. There is no point in having huge batteries if you can't charge them in a reasonable enough time to keep them practical. As things stand it just doesn't scale.

For me, there is no point in a BEV until such times as I can charge it, reliably, on public infrastructure, in no more time than it takes to fill a petrol tank, and for no more than it costs for E5.

A BEV costs more, weighs more, has less range and is far more inconvenient.

Why would I spend a ton of money for a retrograde alternative.

[Cyker]

5 hours ago, TonyHSD said:

The ev that the car market needs but haven’t got yet is the upcoming vw id2. This car if turns out as presented recently will demolish all brands and models especially in the smaller car segment. This could easily kill not only Yaris like cars but also Corolla hatchback size too., that good it is on paper.
I am not holding my breath as I did have a high hopes for Honda e as it was promising on paper too but later to be killed by their own price and ultra short range. , plus the screen stupidity that recently seems to consume the manufacturers and owners., nobody need that. 

What an ev needs to be the best car is : -  small size, a round steering wheel, one screen only either middle or behind steering, not above. A battery under floor without sacrificing the leg comfort, because most ev has ultra uncomfortable rear seats including Tesla and Toyota, enough space for 4, no frunk definitely, it’s a stupid US idea too, just a boot enough for a weekly shopping or 4 small suitcases. Modern and clean design inside and out without unnecessary design elements, exactly how vw id2 looks.
And no one needs a range of crazy miles, if the car can do 200 miles real world it would be perfectly fine for most people, perhaps very few drive more than that in one day or one go. Why do you need to drag with you a heavy battery. The cars needs to be as light as possible to handle well and being efficient. This ex Volvo seems to have a lot common with the id2 although in different car territory and that’s why I really like it , at least on the tv what I have seen to date. And because it’s Chinese made it does not matter, many goods are made in china and they are of a high quality and standards, China and Korea are the new Japan since long ago 👌

Ya this has been one of the frustrating things for me - The announcement of a new model promises much, but when it comes to market it's usually a big disappointment.

I feel we should be much further ahead than we are - I've long said the Kona/Niro EVs gave me a lot of hope, as they are so close to what I want, but every vehicle that's come out since then has been worse - Heavier, larger, less efficient, shorter real world range, more expensive.

I feel I shouldn't even have the Mk4 at this point considering how long I've been saving for an EV, but progress has been stalled by the lack of Battery progress and manufacturers are floundering to make EVs that appeal to normal people, and just seem to be doing the typical manufacturer thing of throwing bling and weird concept designs at them, but you can only fool so many people with that without the underlying utility.

IMHO, the minimum that people will accept is 300 miles of worst-case real-world range; 200 is too little except maybe for people who can charge at home or don't drive much, and that's been shown by the slow uptake.

My absolute minimum has always been something the size of a Yaris (Preferably a Mk2 but I'd stretch to a Mk4) with 300 miles of range in winter at 70mph. I'd much prefer 400 as a minimum, but I can't see them cramming that amount of kW into a Yaris-sized EV any time soon, Toyota's new magic batteries notwithstanding.

The fly in the ointment is that, now that I have the Mk4, even if someone made such a vehicle, it's very unlikely I'd buy it as the Mk4 is just so good - The biggest draw EVs had for me was the instant response, and the Mk4 gives me that, as well as excellent handling and comparable running costs to an EV; Why would I pay more for an EV that will be objectively worse?

I've always said that an EV has to be better on its own merit for me to even consider one - I don't buy into the environmental or economy BS reasons (I've always said, if those are high priority factors to someone, that someone shouldn't even own a car) - and that's now more true than it's ever been.

I skipped the earlier hybrids because my Mk1 D4D was objectively better, and it's only 20 years later someone made something objectively better in the form of the Mk4, so I'm definitely not going to rush into EVs for the same reasons.

[TonyHSD]

Agreed with the last two posts. With one exception that Toyota has nailed  the hybrid technology a little bit earlier, perhaps since 2010 with gen 3 Prius. Obviously the latest ones are well improved particularly weight reduction and Battery tech but in general they have both a lot in common. In fact Toyota uses these drive trains in many models up to 2020., 10 years of service. There are many cars from that era still on the road and in daily use and they continue to deliver great mpg, respectful performance and unbeatable reliability. If we compare one Toyota hybrid from 2011 with the first Nissan Leaf , the hybrid would have had the same range even now where the leaf will only have the half if not even less. Something to think about when buying with long term ownership in mind or as used old cars. 

[philip42h]

Nick's post in this thread poses the question as to whether, if buying a new car within the next couple of years, one should go PHEV or BEV. And the answer will depend very much on individual needs and tastes - as evidenced by many of the responses ... 🙂

I've been thinking about what would tempt me to switch to an EV - knowing that sooner or later we are probably going to have to.

The first consideration is range and while the WLTP figures are useful in being able to compare the various EV models they are a truly useless indication of how far you can actually go on a full charge. I use the EV Database as a source of reasonably consistent and independent data. One of the measures they give is a Highway - Cold Weather range estimate  - that is how far the vehicle will go at 70mph at -10°C with use of heating (so a reasonably worst case figure). And this is typically around half of the WLTP figure (that tells us how far the car will go in a lab at 23°C at an average of 50kph).

I would switch tomorrow (ish) if I could find an EV that had the range to fully cover my motoring needs - or even if I could adjust my motoring needs to match the capabilities of an affordable EV. In this case I would simply charge the car at home, drive to my destination by the end of the day (typically home again) and recharge the car overnight ready for the next day. So, for example, if I never wanted to be able to go more than 100 miles a day I could get a Fiat 500e and that would be fine.

But I still want, occasionally, to be able to go 300, 400, 500 or even 600 miles in a single day and that means that I need to be able to recharge on route.

They recommend when taking longer journeys that we take a break (of 15 minutes or more) every two hours. And at 75mph I could cover 150 miles in two hours - or, more realistically, 150 miles in two and a half hours at an average speed of 60mph. I would be quite prepared / have to stop for up to 30 minutes to recharge the Battery. And I guess that I could live with that - it would mean that I could cover 150 miles in three hours (so average 50mph) and could manage a 600 mile run in twelve hours if that is what I wanted to do. So, I am now looking for a car that has an operational range between rapid charges of 150 miles.

The operational range is my made-up term for how far the car will go between rapid charges from 15% to 75% where such charge should be obtainable in no more than 30 minutes. In practice I'd expect to stop to recharge when the Battery state of charge is anywhere between 10% and 20% depending on the availability of charging stations and according charge to anywhere between 70% and 80% since rapid charging beyond 80% becomes tediously slow at best. So, I'm looking at an operational range of 60% of the Highway - Cold Weather range - which in turn requires a Highway - Cold Weather range of 250 miles.

And I've found one! 🙂 The Tesla Model S Dual Motor has a Highway - Cold Weather range of 260 miles and thus an operational range of 156 miles. And a price tag of a tad over £100k ... 😞

The Model 3 can only manage an operational range of 129 miles, and, to be fair, that would probably be workable since I could probably avoid excessively long journeys in excessive cold weather. The ID.4 comes in at 108 miles, the bZ4X at 84 miles and my Fiat 500e a mere 60 miles ... The current range of Kia and Hyundai EVs can manage around 100 miles which would limit daily journeys to around 400 miles with rather a lot of "sitting around" time entailed.

And that, of course, assumes that the charging infrastructure is in place. Ignoring 'minor inconveniences' such as generation capacity, grid capacity and grid connections that means a dependable charging station positioned every 25 miles along my route - i.e. every 10% of the Highway - Cold Weather range of 250 miles so that I can rely on stopping when the Battery state of charge is anywhere between 10% and 20%. And I really don't think we are nearly there yet by any means ...

[Nick72]

7 hours ago, Strangely Brown said:

1. Agreed, but ICE is improving all the time.
2. Really?
3. Yeah, right. There is no magic battery technology "just around the corner". Everyone is working with the same periodic table and incremental gains are not going to produce 300-500% improvements.
4. Yeah, great. You don't have all that heavy old ICE and gearbox and all the supporting stuff. But what you do have instead is a hossing great battery, the cooling system for the battery, a big ol' inverter, you still need a transmission, the pumps and lubrication system for all of that and more... and then you see that in pretty much every case where it is possible to compare ICE and BEV models of the same car the BEV is heavier, and by some margin.
5. All subject to vehicle safety standards. Just changing the power source is not going to produce radically different vehicles if they still to be driven by humans and carry passengers.

Your last point is the elephant in the room and is the killer for long range cars. There is no point in having huge batteries if you can't charge them in a reasonable enough time to keep them practical. As things stand it just doesn't scale.

For me, there is no point in a BEV until such times as I can charge it, reliably, on public infrastructure, in no more time than it takes to fill a petrol tank, and for no more than it costs for E5.

A BEV costs more, weighs more, has less range and is far more inconvenient.

Why would I spend a ton of money for a retrograde alternative.

The performance gains and periodic table? Please explain how this relates to current Li Battery Technology progress and specific energy. I'd like to hear your expert opinions? I already have an expert opinion so know the answer but I'm intrigued.

Clue... They're in the design and construction of the batteries. Still lithium based. I do this sort of thing for a living. You can find plenty of references to what I've said online. Both peer reviewed journal output to mid TRL demonstrated developments. I think we may have had this conversation before. 

I think you've missed the earlier points. When specific energy doubles in the next several years you can either go twice as far or have a Battery that weighs half as much and go the same distance. And so on as specific energy improves. And electric motors weighing half as much to boot. Like it or not this is happening now. Costs are falling as demonstrated by the forthcoming Volvo and if it's a company car your paying a few % tax rather than 40 or 45%. I'm paying I think about 8% on the R4P. It was nearly 40% on the Merc ICE.

On the point about charging, yes, you're right. It is the elephant in the room but this is a barrier dependent upon user context. Depends upon their driving spectra. Range of the journeys and frequency of them.  Horses for courses. For me, once I can get c. 210 miles on a charge in winter motorway heavy foot driving it works for all my trips with only one charge coming back on the longest business trip. And it costs me less (energy per mile and in terms of acquisition costs). For some folks this won't work and their target might be 300 or 400 miles in the situation mentioned. But that's just around the corner.

It's all inevitable I'm afraid. But I also don't expect majority market penetration and share from EVs. Not before 2035. 

[Nick72]

6 hours ago, philip42h said:

Nick's post in this thread poses the question as to whether, if buying a new car within the next couple of years, one should go PHEV or BEV. And the answer will depend very much on individual needs and tastes - as evidenced by many of the responses ... 🙂

I've been thinking about what would tempt me to switch to an EV - knowing that sooner or later we are probably going to have to.

The first consideration is range and while the WLTP figures are useful in being able to compare the various EV models they are a truly useless indication of how far you can actually go on a full charge. I use the EV Database as a source of reasonably consistent and independent data. One of the measures they give is a Highway - Cold Weather range estimate  - that is how far the vehicle will go at 70mph at -10°C with use of heating (so a reasonably worst case figure). And this is typically around half of the WLTP figure (that tells us how far the car will go in a lab at 23°C at an average of 50kph).

I would switch tomorrow (ish) if I could find an EV that had the range to fully cover my motoring needs - or even if I could adjust my motoring needs to match the capabilities of an affordable EV. In this case I would simply charge the car at home, drive to my destination by the end of the day (typically home again) and recharge the car overnight ready for the next day. So, for example, if I never wanted to be able to go more than 100 miles a day I could get a Fiat 500e and that would be fine.

But I still want, occasionally, to be able to go 300, 400, 500 or even 600 miles in a single day and that means that I need to be able to recharge on route.

They recommend when taking longer journeys that we take a break (of 15 minutes or more) every two hours. And at 75mph I could cover 150 miles in two hours - or, more realistically, 150 miles in two and a half hours at an average speed of 60mph. I would be quite prepared / have to stop for up to 30 minutes to recharge the battery. And I guess that I could live with that - it would mean that I could cover 150 miles in three hours (so average 50mph) and could manage a 600 mile run in twelve hours if that is what I wanted to do. So, I am now looking for a car that has an operational range between rapid charges of 150 miles.

The operational range is my made-up term for how far the car will go between rapid charges from 15% to 75% where such charge should be obtainable in no more than 30 minutes. In practice I'd expect to stop to recharge when the battery state of charge is anywhere between 10% and 20% depending on the availability of charging stations and according charge to anywhere between 70% and 80% since rapid charging beyond 80% becomes tediously slow at best. So, I'm looking at an operational range of 60% of the Highway - Cold Weather range - which in turn requires a Highway - Cold Weather range of 250 miles.

And I've found one! 🙂 The Tesla Model S Dual Motor has a Highway - Cold Weather range of 260 miles and thus an operational range of 156 miles. And a price tag of a tad over £100k ... 😞

The Model 3 can only manage an operational range of 129 miles, and, to be fair, that would probably be workable since I could probably avoid excessively long journeys in excessive cold weather. The ID.4 comes in at 108 miles, the bZ4X at 84 miles and my Fiat 500e a mere 60 miles ... The current range of Kia and Hyundai EVs can manage around 100 miles which would limit daily journeys to around 400 miles with rather a lot of "sitting around" time entailed.

And that, of course, assumes that the charging infrastructure is in place. Ignoring 'minor inconveniences' such as generation capacity, grid capacity and grid connections that means a dependable charging station positioned every 25 miles along my route - i.e. every 10% of the Highway - Cold Weather range of 250 miles so that I can rely on stopping when the battery state of charge is anywhere between 10% and 20%. And I really don't think we are nearly there yet by any means ...

I think you've nailed the sentiment of the question posed Phillip. Spot on.

For most folks the current higher end EV ranges need to double and prices need to fall to sub 55k I'd argue. Noting that many of us probably spent towards that on a R4P one way or another. 

This is however occurring for reasons I've mentioned. We already know about Toyota's efforts on SS batteries but..

Others following this standard...

500 mile range...

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42408752/lightyear-2-solar-powered-ev-revealed/

And this is the rest in the 370 to 450 mile bracket. Costly but costs falling.

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars-vans/108345/top-10-longest-range-electric-cars#:~:text=1.,Mercedes EQS - 453 miles&text=The longest-range electric car,in the EQS 450%2B model.

 

[Nick72]

22 hours ago, Cyker said:

I already talked about 1, and 3 is an I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it thing (I've been waiting over a decade for a major battery improvement, but so far it's only been very incremental, and often just by cutting safety margins). 5 was something I'd hoped for, but has been scuttled by safety mandates, limiting the creative freedoms available (At least I assume that's why all EVs are still minimally different to ICE cars in terms of design, shape, positioning, packaging etc.)

But I call BS on 2 and 4 - I believed that too at first, and yes electric motors are smaller than engines, but you have to ask yourself why do EVs, esp. at the smaller end of the scale, have so much worse space than ICE cars when they have this huge space advantage for their components?

All the EVs they like to use to demonstrate this 'extra space' in, e.g. front and back 'trunks', are gigantic, usually around 5m or more long. Most EVs have a tiny 'frunk', or none at all. The closest EV competitor to a Yaris is still probably a Zoe, and the space in that is awful - It's closer to an Aygo inside than it is a Yaris - Where'd all this claimed space go?

And that is because it's not just the size of the motors - The people that talk about that as one of EV's big advantages conveniently leave out all the supporting electronics and ancillaries, which take up a surprisingly large amount of space, particularly the inverter and speed controllers; These bring the total volume of 'engine' components up to the same level as a small ICE, and while they could relocate them to different parts of the car, they never do, so this supposed 'engine size' advantage is basically a lie. There is also nearly as much cabling and pipework for various coolant loops, hydraulics, AC and all the extra pumps needed etc. so there is pretty much no advantage there either.

And I haven't even mentioned the battery yet...

The fact is, if you factor in everything except the fuel tank and battery, EVs have only a slight advantage on the volume needed to dedicate to the drive train and supporting components, and if you include the fuel tank vs battery then EVs are always going to loose (At least until this long awaited battery breakthrough comes to market...!).

 

But specific energy has been improving by a factor of 3 over any rolling 10 year period. You can find most of the charts online for this. I have detailed proprietary charts I can't share unfortunately. Day job related. Same goes for electric motor Specific power and power density.

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/19/bloombergnef-lithium-ion-battery-cell-densities-have-almost-tripled-since-2010/amp/

You can find similar forecasts and demonstrators showing a continuation of the trend over the next 10 years with introducing graphene supercapacitors and other exotics. Working with a number of Profs and aerospace industry on this.

Plenty of papers also on this on Researchgate. Proof of the pudding though is in vehicle range improvement over the past 10 years for similarly sized vehicles. Mostly holds. 

Worth also looking here at the longer range EVs that have appeared in the last couple of years or about to start production... Price will fall.

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars-vans/108345/top-10-longest-range-electric-cars#:~:text=1.,Mercedes EQS - 453 miles&text=The longest-range electric car,in the EQS 450%2B model.

 

 

[Strangely Brown]

Re: Battery technology: There have been new miracle batteries coming for years. They're always just around the corner so you'll have to forgive my scepticism on the 300-500% improvements. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You may have had this conversation before but it wasn't with me.

Yes, charging speed is going to be a huge thing that either allows or prevents a massive proportion of potential owners making the switch. But that is matched in importance by the reliable availability of high speed public chargers. They will have to be at least as geographically ubiquitous as petrol stations are now. People are not going to have the sort of "spare" mileage available to travel long distances out of their way in order to sit and wait for a charger to become free, if it is working at all.

Maybe you're right about the technology but I am far convinced. When I see cars that cost the same, weigh the same and go as far as conventional ICE for the same amount of wait time at a public refilling point then it will be time for me to start looking more seriously.

Cheers.

[Nick72]

10 hours ago, Flatcoat said:

😡Who are you to dictate what range people should have? The bandwidth use of cars outside of Islington goes beyond city dwellers telling everyone else how they should live. I like travelling by car. Our annual driving holidays cover 800 mile trips to Scotland, Cornwall and 2500 mile Austria/Italy/CZ and so on. They entail driving over 300 miles in a day, towing a caravan. My day job can often entail a 200+ round trip. Does anyone ever drive to the seaside on a bank holiday? Imagine all those thousands of cars all trying to recharge before they can return home?! The sooner there is a public uprising and revolution against all this one size fits all dictatorial legislation that is going to make us all much poorer and allegedly in the name of climate change, the better. 

I think it all comes down to a histogram of frequency versus range. If a user makes many (frequent) long trips of the ranges you've mentioned and they don't want to take the lottery ticket of the public charging networks (although this is improving slowly and will improve significantly when Tesla opens up their network, as they're planning to do) then it may be 10 to 15 years before there's an EV for that at a price point similar to an ICE equivalent. And you may not be able to charge it in time for the next long trip from a 7.4kW home wallbox. It might be charging for a day or two.

However, what I expect will happen is the emergence of a 100kW DC wallbox which will trickle charge at 7.4kW from the home mains (so no new grid and home electrical infrastructure is required) to what is an equivalently sized home Battery or supercapacitor. That will dump it's charge to the car alongside the existing 7.4kW off the mains. This will be an expensive home purchase bolted onto the outside of the house and not one I'd ever go for. But some will. IMHO this is likely to happen. Musk didn't just make his home Battery because he wanted to increase Battery cell volume sales and thus reduce costs by amortisation. It is part of a long game. As he has demonstrated on everything else.

Meanwhile most folk (based on driver stats) will be in the sub 50 mile per day category with occasional longer trips in the couple hundred mile or lower bracket. In which case it probably works for the majority provided the car is affordable and they've got a home wallbox. This is what the industry is banking upon. Catering to the majority. Probably why Tesla has sold so many cars. That and they have a good reliable charger network.

If I did my own stats, which I should probably do properly, it will look something like this per annum... Round trip distances... All approximate.

 

250 off sub 8 miles (personal)

100 off 25 to 40 miles (work... nominal place of work)

20 off 160 miles (personal holiday home)

10 off 340 miles (work... Business trip)

5 off 380 miles (work... Business trip)

So my long but infrequent trips are work related. I claim the fuel or energy cost back for those. So a 210 mile real winter motorway range probably means I need to take the infrastructure lottery ticket about 15 times a year (for the long business trips). This may be tolerable but if I can get an EV with real range around 400 miles then I've cracked it all and a mid PM and long overnight charge from the 7.4kW wallbox will work since consecutive long business trips are very, very unlikely. I wouldn't do them irrespective of car type. 

Need to understand the distribution of users in terms of frequency and round trip range. There will always be high mileage frequently driven for a small minority. In which case EVs don't work for a long while.

[Nick72]

38 minutes ago, Strangely Brown said:

Re: battery technology: There have been new miracle batteries coming for years. They're always just around the corner so you'll have to forgive my scepticism on the 300-500% improvements. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You may have had this conversation before but it wasn't with me.

Yes, charging speed is going to be a huge thing that either allows or prevents a massive proportion of potential owners making the switch. But that is matched in importance by the reliable availability of high speed public chargers. They will have to be at least as geographically ubiquitous as petrol stations are now. People are not going to have the sort of "spare" mileage available to travel long distances out of their way in order to sit and wait for a charger to become free, if it is working at all.

Maybe you're right about the technology but I am far convinced. When I see cars that cost the same, weigh the same and go as far as conventional ICE for the same amount of wait time at a public refilling point then it will be time for me to start looking more seriously.

Cheers.

Apologies. Had similar conversations here about the tech trends.

In one of the links I've posted in this thread you can see that Battery tech 'has' increased 3 fold in specific energy terms (kWhr per kg) over the last 10 years. Well documented and implemented. Forecast looks similar and is all tangible. This can also be seen by plotting for similar vehicle class EV range increments. This is the thing about exponentials. We only notice small increments but step back and weigh up over a decade and it's a different picture. Often doesn't feel like it!

User context is everything as to whether EVs work. I'd argue they currently work for a good number of folk (based on their mileage histograms) but acquisition cost is the main barrier - although this is falling.  

The R4P works great for me because I needed something SUV sized for work and driving up mountains for pleasure (AWD helps) and most of my mileage is in EV mode plus a good proportion of other trips. But the occasional long business trips I can get there and back on petrol without filling the car up or worrying about it (or charging if it were an EV). Works great. Even make a profit on the fuel cost reimbursement because of a daft claim system we have (which categorises my car as a 2 litre plus petrol - I've raised this by the way to be told, you win some, you lose some, just the way it is).

So if I can get an EV with similar AWD SUV-like capability, similar internal volume for carriage, greater performance, more tech, costs me less (BiK tax mainly) whilst still being reliable and minimise the lottery ticket public network charging based on my trip frequency and range then it's happy days. We are almost on the verge of that for me and I bet I drive further than the average in the driver distribution.

[Cyker]

1 hour ago, Nick72 said:

But specific energy has been improving by a factor of 3 over any rolling 10 year period. You can find most of the charts online for this. I have detailed proprietary charts I can't share unfortunately. Day job related. Same goes for electric motor Specific power and power density.

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/19/bloombergnef-lithium-ion-battery-cell-densities-have-almost-tripled-since-2010/amp/

You can find similar forecasts and demonstrators showing a continuation of the trend over the next 10 years with introducing graphene supercapacitors and other exotics. Working with a number of Profs and aerospace industry on this.

Plenty of papers also on this on Researchgate. Proof of the pudding though is in vehicle range improvement over the past 10 years for similarly sized vehicles. Mostly holds. 

Worth also looking here at the longer range EVs that have appeared in the last couple of years or about to start production... Price will fall.

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars-vans/108345/top-10-longest-range-electric-cars#:~:text=1.,Mercedes EQS - 453 miles&text=The longest-range electric car,in the EQS 450%2B model.

 

 

You have to be very careful with 'studies' like that as they are full of half-truths and are very misleading.

In reality, lithium packs haven't gotten anywhere near this 3x energy density they claim:

The reason for weight reduction has been overwhelmingly due to the reduction of safety margins and advances in packaging - Thinner casings, less structural support, lighter materials etc.

The actual performance of the active stuff, i.e. the 'black mass' has IIRC been maybe 20-30% over that period, which is fine, but it's not going to get me a 120kWh pack for my Yaris any time soon.

One of the big advantages of solid-state cells is they require even less safety margin so they can pack them in and maybe not even bother with a coolant loop which will save a lot of weight and volume.

Graphene double-walled super-capacitors are old hat at this point and they haven't been able to make them get anywhere near the capacity of lithium, and they're also too fragile for automotive use (Vibrations damaging the fine nano structures). I believe Tesla bought one of the main manufacturers/developers of them, and then later sold them off again because the energy density just wasn't there.

As for increased vehicle ranges, I think they've just been stuffing bigger and bigger batteries in and hoping for the best, which is why they're getting bigger on the outside and smaller on the inside, and why virtually all EVs are SUV or 4x4 bodied.

I'm very skeptical at the moment as I've heard a lot of these promises when I started saving for an EV, so I'm very much at the waiting to see it happen stage. In hybrid terms, I reckon we're at Mk2 Prius stage - We have working vehicles but they are a bit niche and don't have any strong advantages over existing ones. We got a while before they get to Mk4 Yaris stage!

 

[Nick72]

13 minutes ago, Cyker said:

You have to be very careful with 'studies' like that as they are full of half-truths and are very misleading.

In reality, lithium packs haven't gotten anywhere near this 3x energy density they claim:

The reason for weight reduction has been overwhelmingly due to the reduction of safety margins and advances in packaging - Thinner casings, less structural support, lighter materials etc.

The actual performance of the active stuff, i.e. the 'black mass' has IIRC been maybe 20-30% over that period, which is fine, but it's not going to get me a 120kWh pack for my Yaris any time soon.

One of the big advantages of solid-state cells is they require even less safety margin so they can pack them in and maybe not even bother with a coolant loop which will save a lot of weight and volume.

Graphene double-walled super-capacitors are old hat at this point and they haven't been able to make them get anywhere near the capacity of lithium, and they're also too fragile for automotive use (Vibrations damaging the fine nano structures). I believe Tesla bought one of the main manufacturers/developers of them, and then later sold them off again because the energy density just wasn't there.

As for increased vehicle ranges, I think they've just been stuffing bigger and bigger batteries in and hoping for the best, which is why they're getting bigger on the outside and smaller on the inside, and why virtually all EVs are SUV or 4x4 bodied.

I'm very skeptical at the moment as I've heard a lot of these promises when I started saving for an EV, so I'm very much at the waiting to see it happen stage. In hybrid terms, I reckon we're at Mk2 Prius stage - We have working vehicles but they are a bit niche and don't have any strong advantages over existing ones. We got a while before they get to Mk4 Yaris stage!

 

It's a 3 fold increase in the Battery chemistry. Specific energy. That's not installation mass. That would be the holistic installation performance per unit mass. Studies are backed off peer reviewed. Doesn't get better than that. It's good enough for medical research including treatment regimes.

[Cyker]

We must be reading different articles, that one mostly talks about packs from what I could see... unless you mean the graph? Which I also find misleading, since some of those chemistries are the fiery ones we're moving away from...!

[Strangely Brown]

The arguments about use profile and mileage histograms etc are all very good and they help greatly in finding what people need. Unfortunately that misses a rather important point: what people want.

I did not buy a RAV4 because I needed a RAV4. I bought it because I wanted it. I could very easily have kept my diesel Saab and saved a bunch of money. In general, people will buy a car that suits their needs but more importantly they buy it because they want it. If necessity were the only deciding factor there would be maybe only a handful of different vehicle types and they would all look the same. Thankfully, the last time I looked we still live in a free(ish, for now) country and I can drive whatever I can afford.

I appreciate there is a little more nuance than that but that's basically true. If you ask people why they bought a particular car they may come up with a whole raft of reasons to justify their purchase (confirmation bias, me too) and many of them will be perfectly valid, but they could almost certainly have bought something else that would do the same job or maybe even kept what they already had. When you dig down you can usually get to, "I wanted that one". And that is really great.

On the original topic of this thread, having seen a RAV4 GR Sport parked in the village a few days ago and with the other option being a Chinese electric car it would be a no brainer for me. I also have a deep aversion to cheap Chinese electronics. Volvo are not just made in China, they are Chinese owned and, IMO at least, that makes a big difference.

Whatever you choose, I hope you enjoy it as much as your RAV.

[TonyFR]

This has been a great thread to follow. The knowledge and willingness to share it makes this forum far more worthwhile than I had expected when I joined over a year ago. I offer my own rather simple contribution to what is essentially a debate on the future of EV.  When I bought my RAV4 PHEV it was a reluctant compromise. I had wanted full EV but we needed an AWD SUV (replacing previous X Trails), suitable for our frequent winter trips to an Alpine location. The only contender with range and internal capacity was the Tesla X with a way-out price tag. I selected the RAV4 (my first Toyota) because it had at the time the longest EV range for a PHEV, and known reliability. The vast majority of our trips are local outings so I drive 95% of occasions fully electric, which I love.  I have found since that the PHEV is truly a brilliant compromise because (mountains apart) when we drive really long distances (like to the UK at c.1000km) I do not have to worry about charging. It's absolutely not the the idea of charging that bugs me, it's the fact that that there's no guarantee that a charger will be available at the (French) motorway stations - I make a habit of looking as I head to the petrol pump (!) and often they are out of action or all being used. In Switzerland I have seen that they are installing fast chargers at the non-catering motorway stops which may be smart but I don't see anyone actually using them....The more I think about it, the more I like idea of hydrogen (if it can be produced cleanly...), but this may be a case where Betamax has beaten VHS, and Toyota has - I think - thrown in the towel. Anyway, PHEV still has a lot of life left in it.

[Cyker]

Hydrogen is a tricky one for me; It seems like the only non-carbon alternative with anywhere near the energy density of oil-based fuels and I can't see the haulage industry being able to use anything else if diesel and bunker fuel are outlawed, but there are so many downsides and the range of current fuel-cell EVs hasn't been mind-blowing.

I actually think carbon-neutral petrol/diesel would be a far better option if that were to be allowed; The costs and emissions to manufacture it would be similar but at least we wouldn't need to build a bazillion new cars and all their associated costs and emissions as well, which we would with hydrogen.

I want an EV but it's all down to Battery research at the moment as to whether I get one - It's the one thing holding it back for me right now.

[Nick72]

On 6/18/2023 at 11:59 PM, Cyker said:

We must be reading different articles, that one mostly talks about packs from what I could see... unless you mean the graph? Which I also find misleading, since some of those chemistries are the fiery ones we're moving away from...!

https://newatlas.com/energy/highest-density-lithium-battery/

Long list. Best bet is Google scholar and what the Battery manufacturers themselves are saying. Nothing remotely exotic going on. Still just lithium based chemistry.

 

[Nick72]

On 6/19/2023 at 7:01 AM, Strangely Brown said:

The arguments about use profile and mileage histograms etc are all very good and they help greatly in finding what people need. Unfortunately that misses a rather important point: what people want.

I did not buy a RAV4 because I needed a RAV4. I bought it because I wanted it. I could very easily have kept my diesel Saab and saved a bunch of money. In general, people will buy a car that suits their needs but more importantly they buy it because they want it. If necessity were the only deciding factor there would be maybe only a handful of different vehicle types and they would all look the same. Thankfully, the last time I looked we still live in a free(ish, for now) country and I can drive whatever I can afford.

I appreciate there is a little more nuance than that but that's basically true. If you ask people why they bought a particular car they may come up with a whole raft of reasons to justify their purchase (confirmation bias, me too) and many of them will be perfectly valid, but they could almost certainly have bought something else that would do the same job or maybe even kept what they already had. When you dig down you can usually get to, "I wanted that one". And that is really great.

On the original topic of this thread, having seen a RAV4 GR Sport parked in the village a few days ago and with the other option being a Chinese electric car it would be a no brainer for me. I also have a deep aversion to cheap Chinese electronics. Volvo are not just made in China, they are Chinese owned and, IMO at least, that makes a big difference.

Whatever you choose, I hope you enjoy it as much as your RAV.

I think that's my point, whether it's a scientific analysis or a guy feel, it's still about fulfillment of a need. Sone folks will value the practicalities more than others. Sone folks will still want to drive around in a 30 year old 4.2 litre jaguar. All personal choice as you say.

I'm more of a functional requirements and cost person. If it's better performance in some respects, similar reliability, and lower cost, and looks reasonable then that's the answer. 

Not a big fan of Chinese manufacturing to be honest but Volvo do have a lot to do with it in terms of engineering oversight and QA. 

EVs are never going to be the whole answer for some.

At present I'm still on the fence but I don't need to decide until early next year. GR Sport looks great, extra tech widgets, improved road handling, and updated dash and infotainment versus the one I've got. And a reversing cam which isnt like something from 1984 on long play VHS. 🤣 I miss my Merc for that. High Res crystal clear night or day.

[Nick72]

On 6/19/2023 at 9:07 AM, TonyFR said:

This has been a great thread to follow. The knowledge and willingness to share it makes this forum far more worthwhile than I had expected when I joined over a year ago. I offer my own rather simple contribution to what is essentially a debate on the future of EV.  When I bought my RAV4 PHEV it was a reluctant compromise. I had wanted full EV but we needed an AWD SUV (replacing previous X Trails), suitable for our frequent winter trips to an Alpine location. The only contender with range and internal capacity was the Tesla X with a way-out price tag. I selected the RAV4 (my first Toyota) because it had at the time the longest EV range for a PHEV, and known reliability. The vast majority of our trips are local outings so I drive 95% of occasions fully electric, which I love.  I have found since that the PHEV is truly a brilliant compromise because (mountains apart) when we drive really long distances (like to the UK at c.1000km) I do not have to worry about charging. It's absolutely not the the idea of charging that bugs me, it's the fact that that there's no guarantee that a charger will be available at the (French) motorway stations - I make a habit of looking as I head to the petrol pump (!) and often they are out of action or all being used. In Switzerland I have seen that they are installing fast chargers at the non-catering motorway stops which may be smart but I don't see anyone actually using them....The more I think about it, the more I like idea of hydrogen (if it can be produced cleanly...), but this may be a case where Betamax has beaten VHS, and Toyota has - I think - thrown in the towel. Anyway, PHEV still has a lot of life left in it.

Similar boat Tony. And whilst I don't agree with some folk based on the tech and industry data I have access to, I still appreciate their perspective. I think a combination of increased range and more reliable charger geographical density will solve the problems. The former is happening and 400 miles real range will be common for an affordable SUV in the next 4 years. 

Similarly I've been doing a recce every business trip and I've seen similar to you. Either broken or there's a queue of 2 or 3 vehicles (which I assume at least an hour and a half). I could probably handle that once per trip at the low frequency of very long trips I make but only if I was getting another benefit like, it was costing me less, I still have AWD, better tech, good reliability, better acceleration, and a good ground clearance for lakes and mountain light off road trips. That kind of thing.

My dream is a 300+ real world winter range EV. We are almost there.

[Nick72]

22 hours ago, Cyker said:

Hydrogen is a tricky one for me; It seems like the only non-carbon alternative with anywhere near the energy density of oil-based fuels and I can't see the haulage industry being able to use anything else if diesel and bunker fuel are outlawed, but there are so many downsides and the range of current fuel-cell EVs hasn't been mind-blowing.

I actually think carbon-neutral petrol/diesel would be a far better option if that were to be allowed; The costs and emissions to manufacture it would be similar but at least we wouldn't need to build a bazillion new cars and all their associated costs and emissions as well, which we would with hydrogen.

I want an EV but it's all down to battery research at the moment as to whether I get one - It's the one thing holding it back for me right now.

Hydrogen is wonderful on paper. Potential for very long ranges but another fuel station dependency. Whilst the specific energy is 4 times that of kerosene (jet engine fuel) it is 4 times more voluminous. Fuel cell or combustion doesn't offer many gains over petrol when all things considered apart from it being much more sustainable and zero emissions. Great at first glance for the environment.

Unfortunately most hydrogen is generated by the Texaco process which fractures hydrocarbons (like the same ones you burn in an ICE) to create the hydrogen. This is currently the only high volume, high rate production mechanism albeit developments are occuring in electrolysis with precious metal catalysts. It's expensive and lots of  energy is needed for the process. It's highly inefficient so if you go renewables route you need a lot of solar panels and wind turbines.

Hydrogen is notoriously difficult to store so it's not the sort of thing you can just transport around effectively. It's leaky and there's hydrogen embrittlement which destroys most containerisation materials. 

Now we are producing quantities of hydrogen inefficiently, with non-green processes, having to transport it around in what are fossil fuelled combustion trucks, needing 4 times the volume underground of existing fuel stations, needing to upgrade and repair the underground containerisation frequently, and so on. 

It doesn't work. Similar to synthetic fuels as the aviation industry is discovering. It's very expensive as an alternative.

Electric is the best bet but subject to several incremental developments. We are almost there but not quite.

[Flatcoat]

55 minutes ago, Nick72 said:

Hydrogen is wonderful on paper. Potential for very long ranges but another fuel station dependency. Whilst the specific energy is 4 times that of kerosene (jet engine fuel) it is 4 times more voluminous. Fuel cell or combustion doesn't offer many gains over petrol when all things considered apart from it being much more sustainable and zero emissions. Great at first glance for the environment.

Unfortunately most hydrogen is generated by the Texaco process which fractures hydrocarbons (like the same ones you burn in an ICE) to create the hydrogen. This is currently the only high volume, high rate production mechanism albeit developments are occuring in electrolysis with precious metal catalysts. It's expensive and lots of  energy is needed for the process. It's highly inefficient so if you go renewables route you need a lot of solar panels and wind turbines.

Hydrogen is notoriously difficult to store so it's not the sort of thing you can just transport around effectively. It's leaky and there's hydrogen embrittlement which destroys most containerisation materials. 

Now we are producing quantities of hydrogen inefficiently, with non-green processes, having to transport it around in what are fossil fuelled combustion trucks, needing 4 times the volume underground of existing fuel stations, needing to upgrade and repair the underground containerisation frequently, and so on. 

It doesn't work. Similar to synthetic fuels as the aviation industry is discovering. It's very expensive as an alternative.

Electric is the best bet but subject to several incremental developments. We are almost there but not quite.

I think Toyota might disagree re Hydrogen! As for the earlier comments from various posts, the forecast improvements in Battery and motor efficacy (almost there….yep…..ooops there goes another flying pig on its way to recharge) are like politicians jam tomorrow promises before an election. Largely Fictional with barely a passing resemblance to the truth. However more than anything else, when people have had access to cheap personal flexible ICE powered transport forcibly taken away from them by making its BEV replacement unaffordable and less flexible, politicians are playing with fire. 

[Cyker]

6 hours ago, Nick72 said:

https://newatlas.com/energy/highest-density-lithium-battery/

Long list. Best bet is Google scholar and what the battery manufacturers themselves are saying. Nothing remotely exotic going on. Still just lithium based chemistry.

 

That article is exactly the sort of misleading half-truth that annoys me - That 700Wh/kg cell is the Battery equivalent of those people who overclock their processors to 7bazillion GHz - It's a fun experiment under lab conditions, but has zero real-world application because it would survive maybe a handful of charge-cycles, and doesn't actually advance the science any - It's just a publicity stunt.

I suspect we're already 70-80% done with conventional lithium Battery tech - I honestly don't think there's much left to drag out of the actual chemistry as it's a very old technology now and there are only so many chemical combinations they can try. You never know tho'!

I'm more hopeful for things like sodium ion, if they can stabilize it (It cracks me up that sugar, the current most reviled substance second only to diesel, might be the solution  ), or if they can think of novel ways to package solid-state cells that allow them to pack more in.

Fluorine-based cells may also be a possibility, but I'm even more scared of fluorine than I am of hydrogen so I'm in two minds about that one!   

 

47 minutes ago, Nick72 said:

Hydrogen is wonderful on paper. Potential for very long ranges but another fuel station dependency. Whilst the specific energy is 4 times that of kerosene (jet engine fuel) it is 4 times more voluminous. Fuel cell or combustion doesn't offer many gains over petrol when all things considered apart from it being much more sustainable and zero emissions. Great at first glance for the environment.

Unfortunately most hydrogen is generated by the Texaco process which fractures hydrocarbons (like the same ones you burn in an ICE) to create the hydrogen. This is currently the only high volume, high rate production mechanism albeit developments are occuring in electrolysis with precious metal catalysts. It's expensive and lots of  energy is needed for the process. It's highly inefficient so if you go renewables route you need a lot of solar panels and wind turbines.

Hydrogen is notoriously difficult to store so it's not the sort of thing you can just transport around effectively. It's leaky and there's hydrogen embrittlement which destroys most containerisation materials. 

Now we are producing quantities of hydrogen inefficiently, with non-green processes, having to transport it around in what are fossil fuelled combustion trucks, needing 4 times the volume underground of existing fuel stations, needing to upgrade and repair the underground containerisation frequently, and so on. 

It doesn't work. Similar to synthetic fuels as the aviation industry is discovering. It's very expensive as an alternative.

Electric is the best bet but subject to several incremental developments. We are almost there but not quite.

You're absolutely right, for both it's current 'dirtiness', and it's difficulty to handle. I'm hoping they start looking at alternative ways of packaging it, chemically.

Like, some years ago, someone invented a way to 'gel' jet fuel in such a way that it would be even harder to set alight than diesel (So in the event of a plane crash it wouldn't explode - In a test they dragged a tank full of it along the ground at 70mph and despite the fuel pod wearing through and sparking the fuel didn't ignite!) but required only minor modifications to make it work in conventional aircraft. It was scuppered by politicking in the end, but I do wonder if they could do something with hydrogen; Pair it with other elements in such a way that it can be removed with some sort of catalyst reaction but remain stable and (preferably) liquid until then.

Ironically, most of the ways we can do that currently involve carbon, which sortof defeats the point.

One thing I'm surprised nobody seems to have tried is Peroxide - H2O2 - It has no carbon and is a shedload easier to deal with than pure hydrogen. The only problem is you'd need an extra unit in the car to decompose it into H2 and O2 without it turning into water (Is that even possible?!)

 

[displaced]

On 6/18/2023 at 7:49 AM, TonyHSD said:

This car if turns out as presented recently will demolish all brands and models especially in the smaller car segment.

I remember someone telling me that about the e-Golf - going to be a game changer, no other EV (or car for that matter) will be able to compete. Didn't happen.

[displaced]

Rav4 still showing as sold out at Toyota.co.uk. I think it's been like that since December.

Maybe it'll be sorted by your deadline next year - but I worry there's a UK specific problem that Toyota can't/don't want to get around.

Annoys me that it still gets industry prizes like "Autoexpress UK Dog Owners Car if the year 2023" when there's not a single UK Dog owner been able to purchase one in 2023.

[Strangely Brown]

6 hours ago, displaced said:

Rav4 still showing as sold out at Toyota.co.uk. I think it's been like that since December.

Maybe it'll be sorted by your deadline next year - but I worry there's a UK specific problem that Toyota can't/don't want to get around.

Annoys me that it still gets industry prizes like "Autoexpress UK Dog Owners Car if the year 2023" when there's not a single UK Dog owner been able to purchase one in 2023.

They have been able to purchase one, just not a new one unless it was ordered in early 2022. The wait for a new one was 13 months in September 2022 when I bought mine used.