The problem with using use cases to identify where PHEV will be superior to BEV is that it ignores scale. If only a few percent of the car market perceive PHEV as the preferred choice, it will price itself out of market, perhaps even before stricter regulations add to its value burden.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Are PHEVs a transitional technology? Or a long lasting use case?
- Thread starter WetEV
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
GRA
Well-known member
WetEV said:PHEVs are a more expensive technology.
One or both of the following statements is true, depending on the relative cost of ICE and batteries. A PHEV is:
More expensive than ICE, as needs a battery, inverter and electric motor. (Subsidies are higher on a percentage basis)
More expensive than BEV, as needs gasoline engine, transmission and such. More maintenance. And it pollutes.
So why would anyone want own one?
Third try at this; the previous two got timed out on two separate days. PHEVs using fossil-fueled ICEs are obviously a transitional tech, as fossil-fuels will ultimately be banned. What will determine if PHEVs are a long-lasting option are the relative improvements of batteries, FCs/H2, syn/biofuels and their support infrastructure in the areas of price, capability, volume & weight, longevity/durability, reliability, and complexity. Complexity by itself is rarely enough to eliminate a given tech - if it were, BEVs would have been the product of choice over ICEs for the last century +, and we'd still be doing trans-oceanic trips in sailing ships instead of jet airliners. And if we were able to provide the necessary volumes of syn/biofuels at affordable prices to use in current ICEs, almost no one would care about BEVs.
WetEV said:Infrastructure.
In 2010, GM drove a Volt across the USA. This would have been difficult and much slower for an EV at that time. There was almost no public charging.
The same route would be easy for many EVs today. Yes, a little slower. But not much. Not all routes would be, however.
Look forward to the 12 year or so life of a car bought today. Twelve years from now the following is likely:
As BEVs will be cheaper and nicer than both PHEVs and ICEs, BEVs will be the majority of cars sold.
A DCQC station with low utilization can't hope be profitable due to fixed costs including demand charges. As the number of EVs on the road increases, the utilization increases. As the utilization of DCQC stations improve, they become profitable. Major routes, big cities first, then spreading out.
The issue with QC is demand charges, and that won't be solved until cheap energy storage is available. Economies of scale probably benefit H2 storage more, as doubling the capacity of a tank doesn't double the surface area of that tank. So I wouldn't be surprised if we see H2/FCs being used to reduce demand charges at QCs and/or provide H2 fueling, if the lower storage costs are enough to overcome the higher round-trip efficiency of a battery. For now, this is all too immature to say.
WetEV said:The question then is "will PHEVs continue"?
Yes, for some in the past a PHEV is a was better choice, assuming they could live in the limitations of the few choices. As such, it was a worthwhile transitional technology then, and for some even now. That's not the question, please stay on topic.
Capability and convenience matter, as does price. As all three of the above techs but especially the latter two are early in their development curves, we don't know where they'll end up, so speculation on the ultimate future of PHEVs is kind of pointless. In five years we should be able to make a better guess, and in ten years have a high likelihood of being correct.
WetEV
Well-known member
GRA said:The issue with QC is demand charges, and that won't be solved until cheap energy storage is available.
John McCarthy said:He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense
GRA
Well-known member
WetEV said:GRA said:The issue with QC is demand charges, and that won't be solved until cheap energy storage is available.
John McCarthy said:He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense
Uh huh, and he who does arithmetic and reaches conclusions while having no idea what the actual values will be in the future is talking even more nonsense.
WetEV
Well-known member
Use today's numbers.GRA said:WetEV said:GRA said:The issue with QC is demand charges, and that won't be solved until cheap energy storage is available.
John McCarthy said:He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense
Uh huh, and he who does arithmetic and reaches conclusions while having no idea what the actual values will be in the future is talking even more nonsense.
GRA
Well-known member
WetEV said:Use today's numbers.GRA said:
Uh huh, and he who does arithmetic and reaches conclusions while having no idea what the actual values will be in the future is talking even more nonsense.
Which would only tell us what the situation is today, and we already know the answer to that; that's not the question being asked. The future numbers are projections or predictions, with no certainty as to the timeframe or even if this or that improvement will even happen. Some are more likely than others, being further along the RD&D curve, but they're not guaranteed, so GIGO applies for now.
WetEV
Well-known member
GRA said:we already know the answer to that
Only if we have done the math.
GRA
Well-known member
WetEV said:GRA said:we already know the answer to that
Only if we have done the math.
Which we have done repeatedly for the current situation, in this and other topics.
WetEV
Well-known member
GRA said:WetEV said:GRA said:we already know the answer to that
Only if we have done the math.
Which we have done repeatedly for the current situation, in this and other topics.
Oh? Where?
The issue with QC is demand charges, and that won't be solved until cheap energy storage is available.
Demand charges are significant for locations with very little traffic. Not for busy locations.
Batteries are cheap energy storage available now. Far cheaper than demand charges for underutilized locations.
Show the math on either, if you disagree.
GRA
Well-known member
WetEV said:GRA said:WetEV said:Only if we have done the math.
Which we have done repeatedly for the current situation, in this and other topics.
Oh? Where?
The issue with QC is demand charges, and that won't be solved until cheap energy storage is available.
Demand charges are significant for locations with very little traffic. Not for busy locations.
Batteries are cheap energy storage available now. Far cheaper than demand charges for underutilized locations.
Show the math on either, if you disagree.
Why repeat what's already been done numerous times? Refueling or recharging demand is sporadic, with wide variations by the hour and day, unlike say industrial processes where the demand is continuous. Do you think Tesla could make a profit off their 20-stallard stations on say I-5 in the San Joaquin Valley, when they're overwhelmed by holiday traffic and then see very little traffic the rest of the time? According to Tesla, they must be losing money on SCs even though they're supposed to be non-profit, because they tried to raise SC prices even more but had to lower them after customer outcry. Either that, or they're simply lying about them being non-profit. Everyone else (other than EA in California and a few other states) is charging more during peak hours, well over what gas costs. Why do you suppose that is?
Remote areas may be better or worse, because while they may be extremely sporadic, they're also often at a much lower usage, allowing a smaller battery pack and a week or more to recharge. But we still don't see anyone making a profit off QCs yet, or anyone building them sans subsidies. Why do you think that is? As we shift more and more supply to VR, cheap long-term storage becomes even more critical - see
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...e73d053/1607440419530/LDES_CA_12.08.2020.pdfLong Duration Energy Storage for
California’s Clean, Reliable Grid
What's true for the grid is even more true fordedicated on-site storage.
WetEV
Well-known member
GRA said:Why repeat what's already been done numerous times?WetEV said:The issue with QC is demand charges, and that won't be solved until cheap energy storage is available.
Demand charges are significant for locations with very little traffic. Not for busy locations.
Batteries are cheap energy storage available now. Far cheaper than demand charges for underutilized locations.
Show the math on either, if you disagree.
The answer in 2011 was rather different than today's answer. Every site will be at least somewhat different as well. Getting back to the future of PHEVs, will the current market for PHEVs persist? Answer isn't knowable with current data, as far as I can see.
Hand waving isn't math.
rmay635703
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2011
- Messages
- 628
In 2030 California’s gas free future still allows PHEVs considering large swaths of the country still won’t have proper infrastructure it’s possible there will be a demand without product scenario
goldbrick
Well-known member
I'm picking up my Rav4 Prime this weekend. It may be the last car I ever buy, so to me that is a long lasting use case.
And as any engineer knows, the first 90% of the solution to many problems takes 10% of the effort while the last 1% can take 50%. Ie, things are often asymptotic. Trying to get to 100.0% EV usage isn't going to happen in the next 50 years IMHO and if the US can get to even 50% EV miles traveled in 10 years I'd be surprised. I'm not advocating to keep ICE cars on the road but I don't see any plausible path for them to disappear anytime soon. If the (battery) charging rate, capacity, cost, ease of material procurement, etc all improve by a factor of 10x - 100x then that could happen but I wouldn't bet on that.
And as any engineer knows, the first 90% of the solution to many problems takes 10% of the effort while the last 1% can take 50%. Ie, things are often asymptotic. Trying to get to 100.0% EV usage isn't going to happen in the next 50 years IMHO and if the US can get to even 50% EV miles traveled in 10 years I'd be surprised. I'm not advocating to keep ICE cars on the road but I don't see any plausible path for them to disappear anytime soon. If the (battery) charging rate, capacity, cost, ease of material procurement, etc all improve by a factor of 10x - 100x then that could happen but I wouldn't bet on that.
GRA
Well-known member
WetEV said:GRA said:Why repeat what's already been done numerous times?WetEV said:Demand charges are significant for locations with very little traffic. Not for busy locations.
Batteries are cheap energy storage available now. Far cheaper than demand charges for underutilized locations.
Show the math on either, if you disagree.
The answer in 2011 was rather different than today's answer.
The only person talking about 2011 is you, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.
WetEV said:Every site will be at least somewhat different as well. Getting back to the future of PHEVs, will the current market for PHEVs persist? Answer isn't knowable with current data, as far as I can see.
Hand waving isn't math.
Which is what I said several posts back at more length, so it seems we agree that there's no point in discussing it further, until there are much firmer numbers available for each of the various options as to costs, timescales, efficiency etc. Right now it's just guesswork.
WetEV
Well-known member
GRA said:WetEV said:GRA said:Why repeat what's already been done numerous times?
The answer in 2011 was rather different than today's answer.
The only person talking about 2011 is you, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.
The world keeps changing. 2011 was 10 years ago. In 2011 the case for PHEVs was a lot better than now. To adjust to changing conditions, the calculations need to be revisited.
I view the EV transition through the lens of a consumer product, like mobile phones, or streaming audio, or e-books. The change follows an S-curve because of commodity pricing and economies of scale. When you rely on individual use cases to inform yourself of future developments you miss the snowball heading downhill.goldbrick said:And as any engineer knows, the first 90% of the solution to many problems takes 10% of the effort while the last 1% can take 50%. Ie, things are often asymptotic. Trying to get to 100.0% EV usage isn't going to happen in the next 50 years IMHO and if the US can get to even 50% EV miles traveled in 10 years I'd be surprised. I'm not advocating to keep ICE cars on the road but I don't see any plausible path for them to disappear anytime soon. If the (battery) charging rate, capacity, cost, ease of material procurement, etc all improve by a factor of 10x - 100x then that could happen but I wouldn't bet on that.
Let me phrase it this way: what fraction of bookstores have closed in the past 5 years despite there still being a large base of people who prefer paper over screen ? Why did it happen ?
Or Norway: despite ICE being the overwhelming car on the roads, refueling stations are closing and in 5 years they are going to be hard to find. Why ?
goldbrick
Well-known member
If only the rest of the world, not to mention the good ol' USA, had its act together as much as Norway :!: . Of course, having the oil they do, the hydro potential and the homogenous population they have is nice although Norway was a very poor country 130 years ago when my ancestors crossed the ocean in search of a better life.
GRA
Well-known member
WetEV said:GRA said:WetEV said:The answer in 2011 was rather different than today's answer.
The only person talking about 2011 is you, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.
The world keeps changing. 2011 was 10 years ago. In 2011 the case for PHEVs was a lot better than now. To adjust to changing conditions, the calculations need to be revisited.
And in 5 to 10 years they'll be worth re-visiting, when we have much more solid numbers for the various options. You appear to have agreed with this, writing
Answer isn't knowable with current data, as far as I can see.
WetEV
Well-known member
On a different subject. Not on today's calculations on the costs of QC with and without storage.GRA said:WetEV said:GRA said:The only person talking about 2011 is you, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.
The world keeps changing. 2011 was 10 years ago. In 2011 the case for PHEVs was a lot better than now. To adjust to changing conditions, the calculations need to be revisited.
And in 5 to 10 years they'll be worth re-visiting, when we have much more solid numbers for the various options. You appear to have agreed with this, writingAnswer isn't knowable with current data, as far as I can see.
GRA said:The issue with QC is demand charges, and that won't be solved until cheap energy storage is available.
John McCarthy said:He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense
GRA
Well-known member
WetEV said:GRA said:WetEV said:The world keeps changing. 2011 was 10 years ago. In 2011 the case for PHEVs was a lot better than now. To adjust to changing conditions, the calculations need to be revisited.
And in 5 to 10 years they'll be worth re-visiting, when we have much more solid numbers for the various options. You appear to have agreed with this, writingAnswer isn't knowable with current data, as far as I can see.
On a different subject. Not on today's calculations on the costs of QC with and without storage.
You were the one saying we should stay on topic. Which is it?
GRA said:The issue with QC is demand charges, and that won't be solved until cheap energy storage is available.
John McCarthy said:He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense
Here's an example of demand charges in his area provided by dgpcolorado a couple of months back:
The three phase demand rate is $47.25/month + 7.09¢/kWh + $17/kW demand charge (based on the maximum draw in any fifteen minute period in a month). This is likely the tariff that would be used for the DCFC station.
I expect that 800V+ packs will become the norm, which means the typical QC will be averaging say 200kW over a 15 minute period, with say 3-4 hours of near-continuous use during peak-demand. Now put 5 or 10 of them at a single road-trip site used simultaneously, to reflect Friday night or Sunday/Monday afternoon demand, with limited use the rest of the week. How much battery storage will you need, assuming you charge the pack off-peak the rest of the week? Assume $100/kWh Capex for the pack, and a five-year replacement cycle. Add BoS, construction, O&M, interest, overhead, profit, recycling costs etc. to taste, and show that you can sell charging for equal or less than the price of gas, something which, AFAICT, no charging network is able to do yet, at least if they have to build these stations with their own/borrowed money instead of government subsidies.
Oh, and most of these numbers will likely change a fair amount over the next few years, making any current guesstimate vague in the extreme, especially lacking proprietary info; as I said, GIGO applies.
Feel free to waste your time doing the math; I'm not about to waste mine. I did enough of that sort of calc when I was designing systems, and I was working with actual cost data of current equipment then, not projections/guesses for how things might be after X years.
Even then, I erred on the side of conservatism, as I had a much larger margin to work with than a commercial system intended to be profitable could have - 5¢/kWh either way was rarely an issue given that these systems were way off-grid; sometimes 25¢/kWh either way was no big deal. A commercial op may have to worry about costs to the nearest 0.1¢, if not the nearest mil, to be profitable. Do you think we're anywhere near being that close to being commercially viable yet in a scenario such as I've outlined above, when it comes to storage costs?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 375
- Replies
- 80
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 2K