Hybrid Electric Vehicles

[FJAG]

I guess that I continue to be one of those dinosaurs.

In the general automotive industry my issue with battery powered vehicles is the environmental cost of producing batteries and then the end-of life disposal/recycle of batteries. At this point the cost of batteries and their production/disposal/recycle is far too high both in money and environmental impact.

To this point as well, there is the high cost/impact of energy generation to charge those batteries in the quantities needed (and anticipated). Much as the Pollyannas of the world ignore these issues in the belief that wind and solar power will look after that I tend to wonder about the life cycles and environmental effects of creating and disposing of those turbines and solar cells at the scale needed to generate the power needed. I'm a nuclear fan but that seems to be anathema to many of those pushing electrification.

It's not that we dinosaurs don't have concerns about carbon based fuels - their effect on the environment and their finite quantities - but to this point in time we do not see a comprehensive, all-encompassing electric model that is truly a net benefit on the scale required and not just a wet dream.

As for for the military. Sure. It's easy to see where the lack of noise and low heat signature is a massive advantage - but - what about the vulnerability and energy release that will invariably happen when batteries are damaged through inevitable rough handling or combat damage. More importantly, if you think that the logistical issues with providing liquid fuels to the end point users is a challenge, just wait until you try to provide electric power to thousands of widely distributed vehicles on a battlefield where power transmission lines have ceased to exist. I have yet to see a viable plan for that that doesn't include hybrid vehicles and large numbers of liquid fuel powered generators.

Talk down to us again when Doctor Emmett Brown's Mr Fusion becomes a reality.

 

[McG]

if you think that the logistical issues with providing liquid fuels to the end point users is a challenge, just wait until you try to provide electric power to thousands of widely distributed vehicles on a battlefield where …

I just finished commenting that hybrid and electric are not the same thing. We are discussing hybrid and here you attacking a strawman of pure electric vehicles. You are better than such intellectually dishonest arguments.

 

[Good2Golf]

I guess that I continue to be one of those dinosaurs.

In the general automotive industry my issue with battery powered vehicles is the environmental cost of producing batteries and then the end-of life disposal/recycle of batteries. At this point the cost of batteries and their production/disposal/recycle is far too high both in money and environmental impact.

To this point as well, there is the high cost/impact of energy generation to charge those batteries in the quantities needed (and anticipated). Much as the Pollyannas of the world ignore these issues in the belief that wind and solar power will look after that I tend to wonder about the life cycles and environmental effects of creating and disposing of those turbines and solar cells at the scale needed to generate the power needed. I'm a nuclear fan but that seems to be anathema to many of those pushing electrification.

It's not that we dinosaurs don't have concerns about carbon based fuels - their effect on the environment and their finite quantities - but to this point in time we do not see a comprehensive, all-encompassing electric model that is truly a net benefit on the scale required and not just a wet dream.

As for for the military. Sure. It's easy to see where the lack of noise and low heat signature is a massive advantage - but - what about the vulnerability and energy release that will invariably happen when batteries are damaged through inevitable rough handling or combat damage. More importantly, if you think that the logistical issues with providing liquid fuels to the end point users is a challenge, just wait until you try to provide electric power to thousands of widely distributed vehicles on a battlefield where power transmission lines have ceased to exist. I have yet to see a viable plan for that that doesn't include hybrid vehicles and large numbers of liquid fuel powered generators.

Talk down to us again when Doctor Emmett Brown's Mr Fusion becomes a reality.

The main factors vary depending on the use, but will always be some balance of:

• Power source availability
• Power source cost
• Manufacture cost
• Manufacture cleanliness
• Power use cleanliness
• Power use safety
• Power density
• Endurance
• Employment Safety
• Employment Survivability
• Maintainability
• Repower time

EVs do well on maintainability and power use cleanliness……

 

[FJAG]

I just finished commenting that hybrid and electric are not the same thing. We are discussing hybrid and here you attacking a strawman of pure electric vehicles. You are better than such intellectually dishonest arguments.

Boy, that's flying over my head there.

The thread was discussing the world-wide trend slowing down on EVs and then there was a veer to hybrid. I don't think that that limited the thread to just hybrid. The first part of my comments related to EVs in general and my own dinosaur position in that IMHO, the world isn't ready for EV at scale.

My subsequent comments go to both military EV and hybrid systems (and believe me that I know the difference between the two - I've always wondered why the diesel-electric concept (that has been in effect in railroads and ships for well over half a century) never matured in the auto/truck market. That said, regardless of whether its hybrid or EV in military use, I have the same concerns about batteries in military use that I stated above where even a minor mine, IED or projectile strike could result in a catastrophic energy release. So don't consider it a dishonest discussion on your part of the thread but one that reaches a wider question focusing on the battery rather than the pure EV v hybrid discussion.

The question as to your part of the discussion is: whether or not the advantages of a hybrid system in public use translate well into military use. The emphasis above was on logistics, specifically fuel. I'm not so sure that the 20-35% seen in public use will actually translate into those figures in military usage and whether that offsets the issues that large-scale batteries have in a combat environment. While hybrids should result in a better power pack group when it comes to operation and maintenance, the life cycle issues relating to the required batteries operating under military conditions is still, IMHO, an unknown experimental factor. Add to that that the primary components to their manufacture coming from outside North America makes them a strategic weak point. I'd love to see a diesel electric M1A3 as much as the next guy, but ... everything that I see at this time is in experimental phases with brochure-level advertising of the anticipated benefits rather than hard statistics.

I'm not a naysayer on hybrids - or even EVs - in military use; I'm just from Missouri and waiting for someone to show me the facts and figures of large-scale battery usage impact on both military logistics and human combat survival.

 

[Good2Golf]

My subsequent comments go to both military EV and hybrid systems (and believe me that I know the difference between the two - I've always wondered why the diesel-electric concept (that has been in effect in railroads and ships for well over half a century) never matured in the auto/truck market in North America. That said, regardless of whether its hybrid or EV in military use, I have the same concerns about batteries in military use that I stated above where even a minor mine, IED or projectile strike could result in a catastrophic energy release. So don't consider it a dishonest discussion on your part of the thread but one that reaches a wider question focusing on the battery rather than the pure EV v hybrid discussion.

I’d horse trade my NA-spec ICE GLE350d for a DEU-spec GLE350de PHEV in a heartbeat.

A Diesel-hybrid PHEV or something like that would have decent characteristics on my previous factors list, for military use…

 

[ytz]

You know people might actually listen to you if you don't come off as a douche bag??

Not needing to be listened to, let's me be a douchebag. You should try it. Being less needy is liberating.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not needing to be listened to, let's me be a douchebag. You should try it. Being less needy is liberating.

So allow me to assist in your liberation by not listening to you ....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Tesla trying to move away from Lithium.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ambrose is one of the major boosters of the Green Economy. He never saw a windmill he didn't like. Nor an electric vehicle.

But, every now and then I detect some realism enters his world.

Europe has already lost the battery race

Failure of Brussels’ plan for industrial rearmament leaves the bloc facing difficult choices

www.telegraph.co.uk

Europe’s battery strategy is disintegrating, a prime exhibit of hubris and inflated rhetoric.

Its flagship Northvolt gigafactory in northern Sweden has run out of money and is talking solemnly to creditors. The Swedish press reports that it may seek bankruptcy protection within days.

More than half of the EU’s big battery projects face delay or cancellation. Europe still relies almost entirely on China, Korea and Japan for cathode and anode material, electrolytes and polyolefin separators, the real value in the lithium-ion supply chain.

Northvolt tried to produce its own cathode chemicals in the frozen wastes of Skellefteå but the task proved harder than it looked. The company closed the cathode plant in September, switching the supply contract to Korea’s Samsung SDI.

Europe’s semiconductor renaissance is scarcely in better shape and its make-believe hydrogen strategy will soon deflate too. Ursula von der Leyen’s grand plan for industrial and technological rearmament is mostly stuck on the drawing board.

....

Meanwhile batteries use lots of graphite, or carbon and graphite comes from fossil fuels with no replacements in sight.

• Graphite supply is largely dependent on fossil fuel extraction while being key to the electrification of transportation.
• Scenarios with net zero emissions in 2050 show large discrepancies between modeled anticipated graphite demand and supply.
• Graphite supply constraints could delay the entire electrification of transportation.
• The transition to fossil-free transportation requires rapid advances in graphite recycling combined with reduced vehicle ownership and size.
• Graphite alternatives and graphite recycling technologies are immature to lower the risk of supply disruptions.

Limits to graphite supply in a transition to a post-fossil society

Transitioning to electric vehicles (EVs) powered by lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) aims at reducing emissions in the transportation sector, thereby decr…

www.sciencedirect.com

....

And finally

Putin is breaking a fragile energy supply chain – threatening havoc in the West

Russia appears to be reaching for an energy weapon it has previously been reluctant to use

www.telegraph.co.uk

Now, however, Russia may be reaching for an energy weapon it has previously been reluctant to use – nuclear fuel that keeps the lights on in millions of US households.

On Friday, the Kremlin said it was imposing temporary restrictions on exports of enriched uranium to the US. The exact timing and duration of the measures was not made immediately clear.

US nuclear power plant operators rely on Russia for more than a quarter of their supplies – a legacy of the post-Cold War “megatons to megawatts” programme that saw Moscow agree to convert large parts of its vast nuclear weapons stockpile into fuel.

Industry sources stressed that the impact of Russia’s export ban will not be felt immediately because orders are placed well in advance.

Still, the move has the potential to cause havoc in the relatively fragile global uranium supply chain. Russia is the world’s sixth biggest uranium producer and controls about 44pc of global enrichment capacity, making it a key international player.

This is why the country’s state nuclear company, Rosatom, for so long escaped Western sanctions related to the Ukraine conflict. Thanks to this, Russia still generates about $3.1bn (£2.4bn) a year from nuclear exports, including $905m from exports to the US, according to trade data first reported by Tortoise.

American law makers took a first step to remedy the situation in May, when they passed a bill requiring imports of Russian uranium to stop from August. However, the bill included significant exemptions that allow US utilities to carry on importing the Russian supplies until 2027 to avoid supply shortages.

Experts say the decree announced by Moscow on Friday at the very least appears to mirror those restrictions, suggesting that exports to the US could still continue. Earlier this month, on the eve of the Russian ban, US nuclear giant Westinghouse received a shipment of enriched uranium via an ARRC Line tanker, according to Russian media.

But

An agreement was struck by Britain, the US, Canada, Japan and France to work together on civil nuclear fuel production in December 2023 but progress to increase enrichment capacity has been particularly slow.

And

Canada-based Cameco, one of the world’s biggest uranium miners, said: “To break the dependence on Russia and other state-owned enterprises, coordinated Western responses are required.”

All of which kind of flavour these news items

President Biden met today with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on the margins of the G20 Leaders’ Summit. President Biden thanked Prime Minister Trudeau for Canada’s strong partnership as weaddress the main challenges of our time, including creating jobs and opportunities for the middle class, combating climate change, managing migration, strengthening our alliances including NATO, and addressing humanitarian needs in Haiti and globally. President Biden reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to the shared goal of continental and Arctic defense, and underscored the importance of Canadian defense investment and the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty. The two leaders agreed that strengthening democracy and rule of law were essential to the prosperity and success of North America.

Readout of President Joe Biden’s Meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada | The White House

President Biden met today with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on the margins of the G20 Leaders’ Summit. President

www.whitehouse.gov

Trudeau promotes Canadian nuclear reactors at APEC summit in response to increased global demand for electricity

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is using meetings with Asia-Pacific leaders in Peru to promote Canadian nuclear reactors as a response to expected increases in global demand for electricity.

montreal.citynews.ca

And previously

Canada’s National Statement: Nuclear Energy Summit (2024)

Canada’s National Statement Nuclear Energy Summit Brussels, Belgium March 21, 2024

natural-resources.canada.ca

...

Apparently nuclear is now green after all.

....

If people didn't think energy, trade and defence were all related...

 

[Kirkhill]

I look forwards to an "all of the above" policy environment.

 

[Good2Golf]

Apparently nuclear is now green after all.

It always was green….unless looked through rose-colored glasses…

Are we raining bets on when the Feds and various Provinces throttle back on EV battery investment?

 

[Kirkhill]

It always was green….unless looked through rose-colored glasses…

Are we raining bets on when the Feds and various Provinces throttle back on EV battery investment?

Well, Trudeau goes and Doug Ford is left carrying the bag. I doubt if he will be turning off the natural gas supply anytime soon...

Towards Developing a Natural Gas (and Energy Transition) Policy for Ontario | Power Advisory LLC

www.poweradvisoryllc.com

If I were betting I would be betting on hydro and nuclear for base notes and a continuation of natural gas.

I would also be betting on natural gas co-generation - suburbs and high rises with their own gas powered generators providing both power and heat, and maybe refrigeration as well (tri-generation). That will increase the energy efficiency of natural gas from 30% or so to over 70%. (Summer and winter if tri-generation is adopted).

Finally I would be betting on potentiating, or enriching, natural gas with additional hydrogen. That would increase the GJs carried by the existing infrastructure and allow for hydrogen production and transmission technologies to mature.

Even Alberta and Saskatchewan could benefit from hydro and nuclear power if that Western Energy Corridor became funded policy.

Western Energy Corridor

Western Energy Corridor is designed for long-distance pipelines and high-voltage DC powerlines, allowing for expansion of Canada’s energy resources in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Moving natural gas and / or oil provides an economic base with large-scale hydro power and other renewables movi

www.westernenergycorridor.ca

...

PS Way back in the 60s, when natural gas was new in Ontario and replacing oil and coal furnaces and water heaters, Ontario Hydro was promoting all-electric houses. We had a couple at the end of the street in our new subdivision. The feedback from the owners was that they wished they had natural gas because their heating bills were that much higher over the winter.