Electric car drives for 100 hours non-stop. MAGAs panties getting moist.

[Into the Night]

This is called progress handjob. try to understand what it means:

Fascism and communism is not progress.
Wasting energy is not progress.
Constantly worrying about charging your car is not progress.
Requiring specially equipped shops to maintain the car is not progress.
Increased risk of fire is not progress.
Spending twice as much for the same sized car is not progress.

 

[floridafan]

Fascism and communism is not progress.
Wasting energy is not progress.
Constantly worrying about charging your car is not progress.
Requiring specially equipped shops to maintain the car is not progress.
Increased risk of fire is not progress.
Spending twice as much for the same sized car is not progress.

I knew you wouldn't read the links. You will always be a cunt living in the past. Now fuck off, my dear.

 

[Into the Night]

I knew you wouldn't read the links. You will always be a cunt living in the past. Now fuck off, my dear.

You are just describing yourself again. Telling people to fuck off is not going to get you anywhere.

 

[gfm7175]

The demand for electric is increasing rapidly. Prices will be lower,

You have just failed 'Economics 101'.

If the demand for electric is "increasing rapidly", and the supply for electric hasn't likewise "increased rapidly", then prices will actually be HIGHER, not lower.

batteries will last longer

They don't last any longer now than they did in the 80s... Has chemistry changed since the 80s?

and charging will be easier.

Okay.

As always, handjob, you live in the past and fear progress.

Nah, I live in today and am perfectly fine with progress, but fascism/communism isn't progress.

 

[floridafan]

You have just failed 'Economics 101'.

If the demand for electric is "increasing rapidly", and the supply for electric hasn't likewise "increased rapidly", then prices will actually be HIGHER, not lower.


They don't last any longer now than they did in the 80s... Has chemistry changed since the 80s?


Okay.


Nah, I live in today and am perfectly fine with progress, but fascism/communism isn't progress.

I posted 3 links which you failed to read. Each of them discussed new technology which will make batteries, lighter, stronger, and longer lasting. Your opinions mean shit.

 

[gfm7175]

I posted 3 links which you failed to read. Each of them discussed new technology which will make batteries, lighter, stronger, and longer lasting. Your opinions mean shit.

How do your three holy links change chemistry, might I ask?

 

[Trumpet]

When are all the roads going to be Wireless?

You are wired,

 

[floridafan]

How do your three holy links change chemistry, might I ask?

Maybe you should try to read them , sweetie. Your personal knowledge of chemistry is pretty limited.

 

[Trumpet]

How do your three holy links change chemistry, might I ask?

What's your problem dumb shit, can't you read????

 

[gfm7175]

Maybe you should try to read them , sweetie. Your personal knowledge of chemistry is pretty limited.

Your issue, not mine.

 

[gfm7175]

What's your problem dumb shit, can't you read????

So you're a science denier, dumb shit?

 

[Trumpet]

So you're a science denier, dumb shit?

Not me, but you are Dumb Fuck.

 

[gfm7175]

Not me, but you are Dumb Fuck.

Your issue, not mine, Dumb Fuck.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

This is called progress handjob. try to understand what it means:

https://www.wired.com/story/cell-to-chassis-batteries-electric-vehicles/

https://www.greencars.com/greencars-101/the-future-of-ev-batteries


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/10/221012132511.htm

No, the above is called "wishful thinking." In all three articles the authors discuss a series of 'what ifs' and possibilities being tossed about by engineers and scientists.

In the first article, it discusses ways to reduce battery weight by building the battery into the structure of the vehicle. The problem with that is the battery can no longer be swapped out when it inevitably dies. That means the vehicle becomes a one-shot deal and at the end of its battery life an unrecyclable mess. The article at its end even grudgingly admits these problems.

The next article is a series of what if's about possible future battery design that may or may not become reality any time soon, and possibly never. For example they mention nanotechnology and carbon nanotubes. While these exist experimentally, they are decades from being a reality that can be mass produced. Then it mentions recharging the battery via Wi Fi. That is a no go. Simple as that. Maxwell's well proven equations show that over air transmission of electrical charge drops as an exponential of range. This is why radio signals transmit at thousands of watts or more to be received at milliwatt or even microwatt levels miles away.

It's just a series of maybes and wishful thinking.

The last one is the same thing. Charge time is still a function of total energy to be transferred to the battery. If you need 100 KW in charge, and it takes 10 minutes, you have to push 10 KW per minute into the battery. It's that simple. Since power is a function of voltage x amperage, either you raise the voltage (which you really can't on the delivery to the battery even if you can do in on the line side of the charging station) or you raise the amperage. Since amperage determines the size of the conductor, more amperage equals a bigger conductor.
For a 90 VDC system delivering 10 KW per minute you need a #4 AWG conductor pair minimum. Weight and size become a problem here.

Your articles are better summarized as "Wishful thinking" than progress.

 

[Into the Night]

I posted 3 links which you failed to read. Each of them discussed new technology which will make batteries, lighter, stronger, and longer lasting. Your opinions mean shit.

Biased links are not a proof.
I am not talking about opinions.

The chemistry of Li-ion batteries is still the same. Lithium still weighs as much per mole. You still only get the same amp-hour rating per mole. Chemistry isn't 'opinions'.

 

[Into the Night]

Maybe you should try to read them , sweetie. Your personal knowledge of chemistry is pretty limited.

Biased links are NOT chemistry, twit. It is YOU ignoring chemistry.

 

[Into the Night]

What's your problem dumb shit, can't you read????

He reads just fine. So do I. NONE of your links change any theory of science in chemistry or change the chemistry around the Li-ion battery. Attempted proof by Holy Link.

 

[Into the Night]

So you're a science denier, dumb shit?

He always was. He thinks a magick Holy Gas can somehow warm the Earth too, ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

 

[Into the Night]

Not me, but you are Dumb Fuck.

Blatant lie.

You ignore the electron volt potential of lithium, and how to calculate the amp-hour rating of any battery. You ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. You ignore the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You think a magick gas can somehow warm the Earth by it's mere presence. You actually think of carbon dioxide as a 'pollutant'. You ignore the absolutely essential role this gas plays for life to exist on Earth. You also ignore ohm's law, the internal resistance, inductance, and capacitance inherent in all electrical and electronic components. You have ignored other theories of science too in the past.

 

[Into the Night]

No, the above is called "wishful thinking."

That's putting it extra nicely. The links just simply ignore science and engineering.

In all three articles the authors discuss a series of 'what ifs' and possibilities being tossed about by engineers and scientists.

Not even that.

In the first article, it discusses ways to reduce battery weight by building the battery into the structure of the vehicle.

Which does not decrease the weight of the battery. You still need the same weight of lithium to produce the same amp-hour rating of the battery.

The problem with that is the battery can no longer be swapped out when it inevitably dies. That means the vehicle becomes a one-shot deal and at the end of its battery life an unrecyclable mess. The article at its end even grudgingly admits these problems.

This is basically already true. The cost of replacing these suckers is so high it basically totals the car anyway.

The next article is a series of what if's about possible future battery design that may or may not become reality any time soon, and possibly never. For example they mention nanotechnology and carbon nanotubes. While these exist experimentally, they are decades from being a reality that can be mass produced.

Such a battery, using carbon, would be far heavier than lithium batteries.

Then it mentions recharging the battery via Wi Fi. That is a no go. Simple as that. Maxwell's well proven equations show that over air transmission of electrical charge drops as an exponential of range. This is why radio signals transmit at thousands of watts or more to be received at milliwatt or even microwatt levels miles away.

He ignores Maxwell's equations and anything Faraday did.

It's just a series of maybes and wishful thinking.

The last one is the same thing. Charge time is still a function of total energy to be transferred to the battery. If you need 100 KW in charge, and it takes 10 minutes, you have to push 10 KW per minute into the battery. It's that simple. Since power is a function of voltage x amperage, either you raise the voltage (which you really can't on the delivery to the battery even if you can do in on the line side of the charging station) or you raise the amperage. Since amperage determines the size of the conductor, more amperage equals a bigger conductor.
For a 90 VDC system delivering 10 KW per minute you need a #4 AWG conductor pair minimum. Weight and size become a problem here.

It's worse than that. To charge these batteries, you must move ions. That generates heat. You can only shove so much into one of these batteries in a given time before they overheat and begin thermal runaway (catching fire).

Your articles are better summarized as "Wishful thinking" than progress.

Like I said, that's putting it extra nicely.