The battery in your phone and my phone is not a solid state battery. If it was the battery would last days at a time and charge to full in under an hour.


The battery used in all Teslas is an 18650 battery. They have a liquid electrolyte, they are not solid state batteries. I'm not aware of any consumer product that use solid state batteries. Teslas next battery they're going to use in their vehicles are 4680 cells, they too have a liquid electrolyte, but due to technological advances they are more dense than the 18650 cells. Solid state batteries are substantially more dense and charge substantially faster than both, and Tesla has the best battery pack/fastest charge rates among all of the electric vehicles.

You don't know what you're talking about.

My company has thousands of diesel vehicles and we've been converting them to electric for many years, mainly for emission compliance purposes. But the electric ones are much more economical and now preferred by our employees. I've seen the electric revolution up close and think it's just a matter of time before the technology is affordable and capable for families and commuters. I also like the idea of electric vehicles powering your home during emergencies.

nortex97 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

About coal being used more at night

---

Look it up. Seriously.

Couple more free tidbits. Total energy production by type hasn't shifted much globally;



The total electrical grid, in the US, hasn't changed as much as folks/propagandists think;



When the sun goes down, winds also decrease. Ipso facto, more comes from both natural gas and coal. Celebrate coal's decrease at the hands of natural gas the past 20 years, fine, but it's not really a big deal, and China's production/use has way more than offset it (as has India's).

Further, to the extent some electric car owners think that 'green energy' is what will power their vehicles in the future, let's consider a handful of inconvenient truths;

Quote:

---

As Mills points out, among the reality of "green energy" are:

• Building wind turbines and solar panels to generate electricity, as well as batteries to fuel electric vehicles, requires, on average, more than 10 times the quantity of materials, compared with building machines using hydrocarbons to deliver the same amount of energy to society.
• A single electric car contains more cobalt than 1,000 smartphone batteries; the blades on a single wind turbine have more plastic than 5 million smartphones; and a solar array that can power one data center uses more glass than 50 million phones.
• Replacing hydrocarbons with green machines under current plansnever mind aspirations for far greater expansionwill vastly increase the mining of various critical minerals around the world. For example, a single electric car battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of materials. Averaged over a battery's life, each mile of driving an electric car "consumes" five pounds of earth. Using an internal combustion engine consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.
• Oil, natural gas, and coal are needed to produce the concrete, steel, plastics, and purified minerals used to build green machines. The energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil is used in the processes to fabricate a single battery that can store the equivalent of one barrel of oil.
• By 2050, with current plans, the quantity of worn-out solar panelsmuch of it nonrecyclablewill constitute double the tonnage of all today's global plastic waste, along with over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades. By 2030, more than 10 million tons per year of batteries will become garbage.

---

If one accepts AGW dogma/theology, then best case scenario one's electric car is powered by nuclear, but typically they are charged at night and nuclear hasn't been growing in share in the US, so more likely it's coal/natural gas, generally.

However, moving to 'renewable' sources is actually not just expensive, but also (a) incredibly environmentally damaging, as per the 500,000-2,000,000 pounds of raw materials mining that goes into a 3,000 pound electric car, and (b) involves slave labor/disgusting practices from a moral/humanitarian perspective no matter how much confidence one gives 'conflict zone' policies from companies like Tesla which are meaningless/vacuous crap.

MORE batteries to store massive amounts of solar/wind power to charge cars overnight sometime in the future? Let's not even go there. It's an economic impossibility even a leftist who thinks with their feelings couldn't be confused by.

---

That's a whole lot to argue against points I haven't made. I said it's silly to call EV's coal powered when coal is a small fraction of electricity generation here where we live. IDGAS about China having coal power.

And somehow you still didn't address coal being used more at night.

GAC06 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

About coal being used more at night

---

Look it up. Seriously.

Couple more free tidbits. Total energy production by type hasn't shifted much globally;



The total electrical grid, in the US, hasn't changed as much as folks/propagandists think;



When the sun goes down, winds also decrease. Ipso facto, more comes from both natural gas and coal. Celebrate coal's decrease at the hands of natural gas the past 20 years, fine, but it's not really a big deal, and China's production/use has way more than offset it (as has India's).

Further, to the extent some electric car owners think that 'green energy' is what will power their vehicles in the future, let's consider a handful of inconvenient truths;

Quote:

---

As Mills points out, among the reality of "green energy" are:

• Building wind turbines and solar panels to generate electricity, as well as batteries to fuel electric vehicles, requires, on average, more than 10 times the quantity of materials, compared with building machines using hydrocarbons to deliver the same amount of energy to society.
• A single electric car contains more cobalt than 1,000 smartphone batteries; the blades on a single wind turbine have more plastic than 5 million smartphones; and a solar array that can power one data center uses more glass than 50 million phones.
• Replacing hydrocarbons with green machines under current plansnever mind aspirations for far greater expansionwill vastly increase the mining of various critical minerals around the world. For example, a single electric car battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of materials. Averaged over a battery's life, each mile of driving an electric car "consumes" five pounds of earth. Using an internal combustion engine consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.
• Oil, natural gas, and coal are needed to produce the concrete, steel, plastics, and purified minerals used to build green machines. The energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil is used in the processes to fabricate a single battery that can store the equivalent of one barrel of oil.
• By 2050, with current plans, the quantity of worn-out solar panelsmuch of it nonrecyclablewill constitute double the tonnage of all today's global plastic waste, along with over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades. By 2030, more than 10 million tons per year of batteries will become garbage.

---

If one accepts AGW dogma/theology, then best case scenario one's electric car is powered by nuclear, but typically they are charged at night and nuclear hasn't been growing in share in the US, so more likely it's coal/natural gas, generally.

However, moving to 'renewable' sources is actually not just expensive, but also (a) incredibly environmentally damaging, as per the 500,000-2,000,000 pounds of raw materials mining that goes into a 3,000 pound electric car, and (b) involves slave labor/disgusting practices from a moral/humanitarian perspective no matter how much confidence one gives 'conflict zone' policies from companies like Tesla which are meaningless/vacuous crap.

MORE batteries to store massive amounts of solar/wind power to charge cars overnight sometime in the future? Let's not even go there. It's an economic impossibility even a leftist who thinks with their feelings couldn't be confused by.

---

That's a whole lot to argue against points I haven't made. I said it's silly to call EV's coal powered when coal is a small fraction of electricity generation here where we live. IDGAS about China having coal power.

And somehow you still didn't address coal being used more at night.

---

First, coal is not a small fraction, particularly at night, as I've demonstrated/linked. Anything under 100 percent is a 'fraction' but you are just being obstinate otherwise. I appreciate that you are not the brightest bulb, but it was also addressed by another poster. I bolded it for you here. Feel free to keep trying.

More to the point, if you believe in anthropogenic global warming, which is the reason electric cars are demanded by the left, then you logically believe China's usage of coal matters. If you don't get the connection to the planet's environment, that's fine but don't pretend it is irrelevant as to why some places (aka California and Europe) are mandating electric cars to be the only consumer vehicles in 20 or 30 years. It's just disingenuous or ignorant (or both).

BusterAg said:

---

ChemEAg08 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

I fully expect that, sometime soon, there is going to be a pretty awesome electric truck that is launched with like a 500 mile range, and towing capacity that far outclasses the top of the line diesel truck.

Some enterprising young man is going to come out with a truck toolbox that includes a storage tank for LNG or diesel and a generator that can extend the range of the truck.

Even if you are limited to driving something like 6 hours a day, you could stop overnight and have a total re-charge, buy some diesel, and keep on truckin' without a charging station.

---

Sounds awesome bro. But wouldn't hold your breath

---

Motors just beat the crap out of ICE when it comes to torque.

It's all about battery capacity.

How do you think trains run?

---

Trains run with a diesel engine turning an electric motor.

Still relies on the diesel internal combustion to spin the motor shaft to generate the electricity to turn the individual drive motors.

A hybrid. Which is why they are as efficient as they are in pulling massive weight over long distances. That and sheer mass.

Electric vehicles are a great idea, and for some folks they are ideal. But if you think that percentage of the population that they are ideal for is anything other than a small percentage, you are outright lying to yourself.

And arguing that even electric cars aren't ultimately fossil fuel driven is silly, because by in large they simply are. Until we get to Star Wars technology where magic crystals can provide clean unlimited power...that will always be the case. Wind isn't going to be the main power generator ever. Nuclear could be, but politics and ignorance won't allow it. Hydro is extremely limited in scope. That leaves fossil fuels (natgas, coal, diesel, gasoline, etc.).

When the sun goes down demand in general is lower. So no, you haven't proven anything. Sorry this is getting you upset. If you really want you can keep saying EV's are coal powered, you'll just sound ignorant. Keep up the personal attacks though, that might convince someone that 16% is a large fraction.

GAC06 said:

---

When the sun goes down demand in general is lower. So no, you haven't proven anything. Sorry this is getting you upset. If you really want you can keep saying EV's are coal powered, you'll just sound ignorant. Keep up the personal attacks though, that might convince someone that 16% is a large fraction.

---

You are holding onto this claw and tooth, simply because.....?


I mean, you do realize saying "coal" powered or "oil" doesn't necessarily specifically mean that one and only form of fuel, right? You do realize that in most common useage, those are all interchangeable mediums for any type of fossil fuels, right?

Or is this "i'm going to split hairs because no way in hell will I ever admit to anything other than my own narrow opinion" mentality?

You're slower than the average leftist/greenie. LOL.

My entire point is that saying EV's are coal powered is inaccurate and silly. For some reason that got nortex seriously rustled and here he is ranting, insulting, and generally tearing down an army of straw men. Quite bizarre actually.

DrAg93 said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

the failure of your argument though. It is not inconvenient to own an electric vehicle if you need and use a vehicle exactly like I do, and live in the area I do.

---

You have the failed argument.

But I fixed it for you.

---

Just wait for an extended power outage and el doctor will be sitting in his garage.

---

.

Or a pipeline to be hacked like a few weeks ago? Bet those EV users were all driving by those gas station lines feeling envious. How about when the dens jack up your gas tax to pay for infrastructure?

---

You think the government won't add a milage tax on EVs someday? Think again.

That said, enjoy your EV, if that's what you like.

Regardless. Batteries will never have the energy storage density or charge times to compete with a combustion reaction.

I would never say never. There are technologies that would allow charging to occur faster than filling a gas tank, they're just dangerous and not practical for long term storage, melding those technologies with current battery storage is not an impossibility, just not a near term opportunity.

Electric vehicles are about 3x as efficient at converting stored energy into miles traveled, unless you're talking hybrid vehicles. So they don't need to store near as much energy as a combustion vehicle to get the same amount of range. As energy density goes up on an electric vehicle, the range goes up along with it, even for the same amount of storage (less weight means more range).

As for refueling. The estimates are that a solid state battery would allow zero to full battery in about 10 minutes. With more charging stations at each individual "refueling" station you could easily match the throughput, especially when you consider every home owner has the opportunity to install a refueling station at their home for around $1000.

You say it's worse right now, I say in about 5-7 years it will be a more convenient mode of transportation than a combustion vehicle. The only time you'd absolutely have to charge at a supercharger, provided you have a 240v charger at home, would be on road trips. I don't know about you, but after driving 6-7 hours straight I could use a 10 minute rest.

Think they can scale SS batteries past pacemakers and toll tags?

How much heat does a charge cycle give off? How does that scale? How does that figure into mi/kWh?

Yes, there are several companies working on solid state batteries, most of them expect to have some level of production up and running by 2025. The last major hurdles from a technology standpoint for solid state batteries was for them to solve expansion/contraction when charging and limit dendrite formation, both of which limited the useful life of the battery. That's been figured out, and now it's figuring out how to mass produce them. Expectations now are that they've got them to where they can survive for 400,000 to a million miles without significant degradation.

My understanding is that solid state batteries generate less heat than liquid electrolyte batteries while charging, have somewhere around 2.5x the density, and charge 4-5 times faster. They are also far less likely to catch fire, because they do not have thermal runaway when punctured.

As far as heat generated while charging at those rates, battery electric vehicles have active cooling to keep the temperature of the battery at a safe range while both charging and operating the vehicle. Fairly sure that Tesla actually operates their thermal system for their batteries during extreme temperatures as well to maintain their lifespan.


I don't think by 2025 you'll see a massive amount of vehicles built with solid state batteries, because they will probably still be fairly expensive, but as with pretty much everything the more you build it the more efficient you become/the cheaper they get. It's not a material cost issue, it's a manufacturing issue. I think you'll see high end Porsche/Audi/Lexus vehicles with them first. Tesla not so much, as their goal is to drive the cost of electric vehicles down/increase the quantity as fast as possible, and that means using established technology that has been optimized, not new technology that's the future.

shall we compare that expected timeline to the expected SDV timeline?

TLDR: don't hold your breath.

Thought solid state batteries were already at scale in all of these phones.

hph6203 said:

---

Thought solid state batteries were already at scale in all of these phones.

---

I didn't realize unvented gel wasn't considered solid.

My mistake.

Sounds like a capacitor

Medaggie said:

---

I don't get why educated people make this a ICE vs electric, green vs fake green, label someone for buying electric vs ice. I don't even get how virtual signaling has anything to do with this.

Some people like to bike alot and bike to work. Some people like to take their car down a block to check the mail. I don't label either group. Do what you want.

Why does buying an electric car trigger people so much?

Everyone I know that has a Tesla just talks about how they like the convenience, drive performance, technology. NONE of them ever talk about how they are saving the earth. Most educated people know that Electric cars damage the earth in their own way just as Oil does. If you pay 2x going to whole foods vs HEB, I don't label you a food nut or fake foody just b/c u spend twice on essentially the same food. Maybe you like that the place is clean or customer service is great. Who knows and who cares.

I have owned a 60K X5 and can tell you my 60K Model Y is by far the better car in almost every aspect. From driving experience to technology to convenience to maintenance to cargo space. If you think your toyota Camry is a better driving experience, great.

I have put 30K in the first year. I drive 2 hr round trips regularly from Austin to CS/SA and have used a supercharge twice the whole time for a GRAND Total of 30 min. I have a 60amp charger at work and home (cost me 500 to install). 30K miles costs me about $700 in electricity ($500 if you account for free work charging) vs $3200 for my old X5. I am not even taking into account the $100 regular oil changes. 30K miles would have me pour gas 100 times avg 10 min is 16 hrs of not standing in the Texas heat/waiting on a pump. This may seem like a small matter to some but not pouring gas is a life changer. When my daughter starts to drive, she will be getting my Model Y or a Model 3. I do not want my 16 yr old daughter to have to find a gas station at night b/c she forgot to pour gas. Again a small matter for some, but a huge matter to me.

My 300mi Tesla range is more than I need for my daily drive. Anything more than 2 hrs away, I take our ICE car. Any road trips is the ICE car.

This thread is just silly. It would be like a Tesla owner starting a thread when colonial created long Gas lines. Gas prices are going up and if I am saving 3000/yr is gas/oil change, then my Tesla is cheaper today than if I bought a 60k X5.

---

This is exactly the point I was trying to make.