A company called Blink Charging has found a solution to the problem of electric cars running out of electricity.
It is called gasoline.
The Miami-based company has built a “mobile charger” – which generates up to (the usual advertorial weasel wording) 9.6 kilowatts of juice by burning dead dinosaur (or algae bloom or abiotic, whatever you like) liquid juice. At peak output, it can instill up to a whole mile of range into an EV in a minute.
And it only costs $6,500!
As opposed to $3 for a gallon of gas – that instills 20-plus miles of range.
It is almost certain that Blink – the company – is the recipient of taxpayola in some form – perhaps “infrastructure” manna, raining from the heavens after being filched from the pockets of those who may not have an EV themselves but are certainly going to help fund (and recharge) them.
Even if not, someone will be charged – because no one “invests” $6,500 of their own money into a charger unless they expect to be able to charge for it, sufficiently so as to recoup their investment and then some – else it’s not an investment at all. And in that case, it cannot last because there is only so much loss that can be absorbed. A restaurant that doesn’t charge what it costs to serve the food it puts on the table will eventually not be able to put food on the table.
Putting electricity in an EV works on the same principle.
Why not just cut out the middle man? Put the $3 gallon of gas directly into the car – and forget the electricity altogether?
Because the electric car must be coddled and rationalized and supported by any means necessary, however absurd and however expensive.
Because electric cars are “the future,” as decreed by those who stand to profit from them, in terms of money forcibly extracted by government and handed over to those who manufacture EVs and their peripherals, such as gas-burning portable chargers to keep get them moving again (briefly) when they stop moving.
And actually decreed, by law. By the government, which also stands to profit from their confected existing – via the control it acquires over people’s decreased freedom of mobility, which EVs reduce.
As well as limit.
And THAT is the real point of the whole sorry scam, of course. Every time, in every instance, you don’t have to look too far or too hard to figure what the barely-hidden goal is with these festering carbuncles, as opposed to what they claim it is. Because every time, in every instance, it’s always the same: power, and control.
Hey, geez. I’ve got your less expensive solution. Just call me and I’ll give you a system that you can carry in the trunk, with up to 13 killowats, all for 22% of the price quoted above. Just fill the built in tank with gas and you’re ready for the electric apocalypse.
Send me a $100 for the tip and we’ll all be happy.
I had one moron try to convince me they can drive 100 miles in a Tesla, get out at a charging station and recharge it in 10 minutes to full.
Even Musk would not make such a fantastic claim.
When they have to Lie to win an argument, it’s probably even worse than the claims of the manufacturer.
In the real world does anyone get the gas mileage they advertise after running tests in ideal conditions in a temperature controlled rooms on a machine? Of course not.
I imagine EVs are even worse in the real world.
Maybe. With the tesla claimed distance, at 100 easy ones the “tank” might only be down a quarter, shortening the recharge time to full. The linked chart that gives the distance for 15 minutes of recharge at a recharge station shows a minimum of 145 miles.
OTOH, the charge goes fastest when the battery is between about 25 and 75% charged. It slows down as it hits peak charge.
If they claim 15 it’s probably more like 1/2 an hour.
He said he could drive from FL to Indy for a race by driving 100 miles, stopping and recharging 10 minutes, then going 100 miles and repeat.
But really, the whole problem with switching to all EVs is what the Toyota person notes. That would be 30x as many electric cars on the road than today, and that would increase total electricity usage from baseline today to 3-4x as much.
Adding any electric generation capacity is problematic these days. Still, even doubling our electricity generating capacity would still end up with prices 4x as high as now. That is for ALL applications, not just EVs. So your home electricity bills would go up 4x. Schools and businesses would have their electricity bills go up 4x.
It’s all inflationary and the idea we could double our generating capacity any time soon is doubtful. It’s quite possible we would see 10x rise in electricity prices.
This all in a time frame of 10 years?
Just another way the Greens will bankrupt US with their fever dreams.
You also need enough charging points for all those hypothetical EVs to plug in. At a highly optimistic 15-20 minutes per car, you can’t just retro-fit existing gas stations. Not nearly enough room. Plus you need something for people to do while their EVs are charging: someplace with bathrooms, AC/heating as appropriate, places to sit or shop, TVs to watch, etc.
Hmmmm, I think I see a new opportunity for all the malls that are going bankrupt….
I’m not endorsing a wholesale changeover to electric vehicles. It cannot be done in less than 25 years and then only if we create the Marshall plan of nuclear power plant construction*. Add the distribution and revamping Haz’s malls 🙂 and it’s another layer of not going to happen. It’s a simple engineering problem and the solution isn’t going to be fast.
The ability to move to electric vehicles in mass requires battery technology we do not yet have. Give me a 600 mile battery that can be charged overnight, another story. Now you can go 95% of the places you go without requiring roadside charge. But you still need the power stations. Of course, the red interior greens purpose has nothing to do with logic. They simply want control of your travel just like they want guns out of your hands. Solar and wind replacing oil energy, don’t make me laugh.
*Assuming battery technology plods along at the current pace, which is not an assumption I would bet on,
While you’re at it, I’d like a pony.
Hey, it’s right there, under the rainbow.
Oh. So that’s where all that horseshit came from!
Probably a 200-250 mile battery would be enough for a large fraction of the population. Even 150, if it was really good for 150 under normal use and not carefully optimized test conditions with no AC or heat, etc. But battery tech just is not there yet, and is not likely to be any time soon without some kind of currently unexpected breakthrough. Incremental improvements are not likely to be enough from the current level.
Another issue with the battery tech is that anything storing that much energy is potentially volatile/dangerous. When damaged in an accident, you have to wrorry about it catching fire, melting down, or discharging somehow. Gasoline certainly has its dangerous side, but we have many decades of experience in dealing with those issues. Outside of Hollywood films, gas tanks do not tend to go kaboom without some serious effort (or serious applied stupidity). Lithium fires can be quite nasty to deal with, and there have been numerous cases of damaged EV batteries re-igniting after supposedly having been put out. While these issues will likely be solved over time, I have no desire to be an alpha tester for something that could end up roasting me alive.
250 is fine for every day, but then you need a 2nd vehicle with an ICE to travel on the longer trips. 400 is getting close, but even then a substantial number of people drive further. 10 hours at 60mph average = 600, which is why I choose that number as making electric vehicles usable. No need for charging in 99.9% of the travel people do by car.
Electric vehicles have substantial advantages over ICE vehicles including reduced drive train complication, true two wheel or four wheel drive, and regenerative braking recapturing energy and making the friction brakes last the life of the vehicle. Add in the nearly zero maintenance of the drive train, the instant full torque at zero speed, high torque without reduced efficiency when not using it, and it’s a far better package except for two things, electric capacity of the grid (if you can mostly charge at night with the extended range, not much need for more power generation) and the size/life of the battery. The battery will get better, how much and how fast is the question.
I use a battery in my race car that is 2 inches wide and 6 inches long by about 4 inches tall. It is a total loss system, meaning no alternator, I have to keep the battery charged. That little battery will last a whole weekend should I really need it but I charge it at the end of each day. Phenomenal, weighs about a pound and replaced the original 30 pound lead acid battery.
A fair point on range. Most of my day to day driving I could get by with 100 mile range, or even 75 mile range. (I don’t have to travel very far most days.) But at least once a month I need to go 500 miles. Having two vehicles or paying to rent an ICE vehicle for the longer trips is not practical, so EVs are not an option for me.
Overnight charging is also a potential issue for a lot of people. If you do not have a dedicated parking space/garage spot for a charger, EVs do not make sense.
You do need a dedicated outlet to charge an electric vehicle. That can be in a garage or outside. Cost involved since most people have to pay an electrician. You can charge with a standard 120 outlet but only get a 25-30 mile charge in 8 hours with that because of the low watt output. The installation cost is made up pretty quickly by the lower operating and fuel cost.
Just note: I don’t make any greenie claims because they are all bogus. Electric motors are a better power plant for a car, particularly when you get it down to two – four motors located at each wheel. Battery’s and charging them are the issue, and range will fix the charging issue IMO. We have excess capacity at night. Peak demand is around 6-7pm, then begins dropping to at least 2/3rds of peak. In most US locations that allows for charging at night without a major infrastructure investment IMO. 240 volts at 30 amps will yield a 200+ mile charge over 8 hours.
Excess capacity at night only exists because EVs on the road are only 3% of the total. Doubly that and charging at night and a LOT of excess capacity at night disappears. With immediate cost effect on EVs when the Electric Companies remove discounts for charging at night. Or any other electricity usage at night.
EVs fail at about 10% of total cars on the road. Which is the point the head of Toyota is making.
“EVs fail at about 10% of total cars on the road. Which is the point the head of Toyota is making.”
That is based on current tech, and I’m speaking of battery improvements that allow for the mentioned 600 mile range to reduce the need for charging stations all over the place.
Toyota has gotten back into the electric vehicles in a big way, because they see the writing on the wall regardless of the fact they don’t say so. Look at what they do not what they say.
30 amps is not a killer at night and would accommodate more than 10% of total cars on the road. 7500 watts worst case.
We’re going to have electric cars because they are a better power train in every way for personal automobiles.
Sure, if you decide to calculate based upon 300 million electric vehicles (we have something like that in total vehicles) you’re going to need more power, but that’s not happening overnight regardless of the GM/Ford statements that play to the greenies. They just lie.
Let me see if I can provide a further trigger…
They’ll all be self driving cars.
Heh heh. You rabble-rouser, stirring up trouble!
Self-driving vehicles are another area where the tech just is not ready yet for general use by the public. It is improving stteadily, but the people pushing it have (mostly) over-promised and over-hyped what it is currently capable of doing. Calling the current tech “auto pilot” or “full self driving” gives too many people the impression they can switch it on and then go to sleep or stare at their phone, etc. This just endangers everyone on the road near them.
EVs are (for the moment) in the same position: over-promising and under-delivering. The tech needs to improve before it will make sense for the average person. And the green lunatics will need to be slapped with a clue-by-four until they admit that more reliable baseload power generation is going to be required to get anywhere near their dreams of banning the ICE.
That the leftists are trying to force both of these technologies by government edict is enough by itself to tell me they are not ready for prime time. Once the tech is good enough, you won’t have to force people to switch. Convenience and economics will get people using the new tech over time, with the transition likely taking a couple decades to turn over the existing infrastructure and stock of vehicles. The people who want a hard ban by a set date, with trillions in existing investments being outlawed, are not pushing that for the good of the average person.
I agree, self drivers not yet ready. My best guess time frame was 10 years and that was a year ago I think, maybe 2. It is going to happen as the economy is there. Truck drivers can now make a 100K because there is a driver shortage and it’s a tough job.
Electric will happen, it’s just a matter of time and battery technology. The Tesla motors are out of this world, flat out amazing.
The only question is when.
I abhor the government subsidy and market manipulation. Electric and self driving would happen without any government intervention.
Can someone explain why it is inevitable that the tech improve? What if they have taken the tech as far as they can?
Otherwise why wouldn’t they just go.fartber now?
Isn’t Moore’s Law starting to break down in chips/computers.
Maybe there is simply a limit that will never be exceeded.
It’s not inevitable. I don’t know where Barry gets his “electric will happen, it’s just a matter of time”.
As long as practical electric depends on breakthroughs that are “just around the corner”, it’s going to remain in the realm of AI: Just ten more years, honest.
LP and LNG vehicles already deliver the supposed advantages of EV; without the disadvantages of EV of pushing the petrochemical use upstream and the toxic waste disposal problems of EV batteries.
Electric vehicles are a solution in search of a problem and always will be.
Electric vehicles are inevitable because they are better in every way except energy density storage. The electric motor with the modern drives are the perfect propulsion device for an automobile. Full torque at zero speed. Wide 100% torque range. Simple mechanically. It has the ICE beat by a wide margin.
Once we reach the energy density magic number at a competitive cost it’s what consumers will purchase. I peg that as 600 miles between charges because that carry’s 99.9% where they want to go without charging. Not needing a charge during your trip reduces the infrastructure requirement by a lot.
What’s that, ten years away?
And if they can never improve energy density storage they will never be workable.
Which is why they failed in 1900.
It’s 121 years later.
Energy density has been steadily improving.
“LP and LNG vehicles already deliver the supposed advantages of EV…”
My basis for what I am telling you is not some environmental crap, it’s what works best,
LP and LNG vehicles have less range than electric vehicles, a lot less. The energy density of the gas is way lower than that of gasoline or batteries unless you go to very high pressure storage with another set of problems.
Electric is far superior if you can get the battery storage up and battery cost down.
That’s good, because pushing the fuel source upstream and adding in the toxic waste effects of battery disposal renders the environmentalist arguments into crap.
LP and LNG have less range, but the refueling infrastructure is easier to build, and the refueling time is significantly less than EV. Not an insignificant advantage.
That’s *if* the goal is cleaner burning propulsion rather than elimination of gasoline vehicles, which isn’t the case.
The old programmers joke: “Step 3: And then a miracle happens.”
Remember, my entire discussion about the merits of electric motor cars has nothing, zero, nada, to do with fake environmental concerns. It’s all about the value of electric Vs ICE. Step 3 occurred a long time ago. Tesla now has EPA rated cars at 400 miles. Granted I have said that is probably a real value of 300 or so. But that’s getting much closer and battery tech continues to show improvement. How long to the 600 mile range in a 4 passenger 2500-3000 pound car? I don’t know but I think the car companies are all telling us it’s coming. They may be pretending they are just all green but they are betting too big for it to just be an ad campaign. They know there are no charging stations distributed around.
30 years ago the battery technology for my race car required a 30+ pound battery, now it is a pound. Quite a change.
You would admit the end has never yet been reached to technological improvement.
The better question is why do you think it is reaching its conclusion now?
I remember a friend of mine, masters degree in physics and a very smart and capable engineer, told me some 30 years ago that man had probably reached his intellectual peak as there was just nothing left to learn. As I laughed I asked how many universes are there?
My own opinion is we haven’t gotten to 1% yet. We don’t even understand why there is gravity.
I think the tech will continue to improve because that has been the long-time trend, and I do not see any reason for that trend to suddenly stop as long as there are human beings around to continue thinking. While the left would like to exterminate 95+% of humanity in the name of their dark god Gaia, I do not think they will succeed world wide. Even if western European civ (including the US offshoot of same) destroys itself and enters a new dark age, others will continue. Maybe not as effectively in terms of tech for cultural reasons, but it is hard to say. The Japanese, Koreans, portions of non-commie Chinese scattered around the world have shown plenty of ability and desire to innovate.
The green lunatics love to talk about how infinite growth is impossible in a finite world, but they are lying (as they do about everything). This planet is far bigger than the average intentionally mis-educated American understands. The solar system makes this planet look tiny, and contains enough potential resources and energy to boggle the mind. And then there are other star systems….
Most of the “limits to growth” types live in the big urban hives, and have never visited the great plains or Alaska or even rural areas in the relatively densely populated northeastern USA. (Flying over and maybe peeking out the window occasionally does not count.) They really believe the world is crowded shoulder to shoulder, no more room, etc. because that is all their tiny minds are familiar with. There is more out there still to be discovered than they will ever comprehend.
“The green lunatics love to talk about how infinite growth is impossible in a finite world, but they are lying (as they do about everything).”
Yep, liars all. I like to use South Carolina and Bangladesh as a comparison. Bangladesh is larger at 60k sq/miles and SC at 32K sq/miles. However, Bangladesh has a lot of swamp, more than is officially measured. So the difference in area is not double. SC has 5 million people. Bangladesh has 160 million.
Limited growth, I don’t think so. Not within the earth’s lifespan anyway.
Ships with sails reached their peak performance. As humans we didn’t just continue to try to push sails technology. We found an alternative.
Individual technologies have limits. Maybe batteries hit their limit. Why are you sure they are not like sails with a limit?
“Maybe batteries hit their limit. Why are you sure they are not like sails with a limit?”
There is an obvious answer. It requires some knowledge of the state of battery technology and how rapidly it has been changing. I have never come close to stating they have no limit. I expect they will continue to improve based on the current trajectory. Wishing otherwise will not change that. I have no clue why anyone would be opposed to a better battery. And especially when a better vehicle is the result.
Me, I’d like nuclear power.
I’m not opposed to a better battery. I’m just saying that perhaps we will never get there. Past progress doesn’t mean they are guaranteed to keep progressing. Otherwise they would have already progressed.
One can never assume that past advances continue on the same trajectory.
And that’s STILL not answering my “where is the electricity generation capacity increases going to come from” question. I still haven’t heard anything that says the Toyota guy is wrong and the VW guy is right. Toyota builds EVs because the governments seem hell bent on forcing that transition and so they need to have the capability to build them. It doesn’t mean they believe in them.
I’ve answered your question several times. Increased battery capacity will substantially reduce the infrastructure requirement. So now your going to tell me the Japanese are bending over to Biden? Come on, you don’t believe that.
By the way, 200-250 is already here in several vehicles. Tesla EPA ratings are up to 400 now, but I discount them by 25%.
“festering carbuncles”… heh. Had to look that one up.
OK, that comment thread is getting screwy…
Battery’s are just the bridge to nuclear power. Car never need to stop for fuel…
Nuclear generator for your house and cars. New world.
Now that makes sense, except why bridge with EVs. Just go straight to nuclear.
They’ll never allow nukes.
Btw When was the last time the Left really.cared about the Environment OR efficient cars? I would say the answer is “Never”.
So there has to be an ulterior motive for their push for “sustainable” Electric Vehicles or whatever BS they’re peddling.
The usual motives are they are really the worst possible options to choose, will harm America more, and end up forcing people to.gkve.up cars and/or electricity by sending prices skyrocketing. Then they can push us into Mass Transit and their Trains to Nowhere Boondoggles that provide ample opportunity for Graft and Corruption.
So the fact that Leftists love EVs makes me extremely skeptical. Even though I respect your thoughts on them, they may be great in some ways, but I don’t see that it is inevitable that they overcome their serious drawbacks. If they don’t they will never be competitive.
I’d like to talk to someone who actually has an EV and isn’t a serious Leftist. Where I live the Tesla Virtue Signaling Leftists are all I have, so it’s a waste.
I don’t give a flying fuck what the left wants. It doesn’t change the equation, the electric powered car is far superior to an ICE powered car. The drawback now is price and energy density, both which will be overcome IMO. My opinion is based on the facts however. I could be wrong but one only need look at the development path of other technology to see why it appears to be correct.
The left doesn’t want you in any vehicle as it provides freedom.
Not all Tesla owners are left wing kooks.
Well you admit they aren’t equal in battery tech range but can’t explain how that gets remedied. You just assert it will.
So, buy a Tesla then. Let us know how well you get from Charlotte to the coast.
I swear, not wanting an EV in my future is like telling a religious person I don’t believe in God. I get similar reactions.
Actually Kenny, you’re the religious one here. I don’t give a flying fuck about the religious greenie scams. Your ignoring reality and insisting something cannot be better because of what?
I’ve said, about a thousand times it seems, that the battery has to get better. I think it will because it has been getting better and BILLIONS are being spent on making them better. Better battery’s reduce the infrastructure requirements, plain and simple. Everything you have to say is to insist it can’t, because reasons.
Perhaps we’ve got all we’ll get. Perhaps you are right. Toyota is not betting on that. It’s a poor bet IMO. I hope you are wrong because the electric motors are far superior in every way to gasoline engines.
Try not to cry
I really don’t care if you like them or not. If you buy one or not. I just don’t want to be forced into buying one.
So how is that a religious zealot position. It sounds like Freedom to me.
I don’t insist something cannot be better. I am saying that it is not inevitable that something will get better.
We still don’t have nuke fusion either. Which clearly would be better. I’d love for that to happen. People have been trying forever to get there. Nada.
Sometimes some things are not possible.
So I merely point out that the possibility that batteries never get better is not 0.
Where have I suggested you should be forced to buy anything?
And saying it’s not a certainty that batteries will improve further is true, but likely wrong. It’s not a good way to go about looking at your options.
All I’m doing is pointing out that electric motors are a fundamentally better power system for cars, by 10:1. All they need is the right battery at the right price and you will decide to buy it because it is better. But I don’t care what you buy, at all. Just being reflexively opposed because some other bunch is lying doesn’t change the advantage electric has over gas.
By the way, it is thought by many electric power systems engineers that charging cars in the evening will help reduce the cost of electricity per Kw because you get to use some of the unused capacity, making it much more dollar efficient.
When the number of cars in the world doubles (india/china) the pressure on gasoline will be immense. Another reason why electric is viable.