BMW Group announces next steps in electrification strategy

[ron_jeremy]

look to Germany, after Fukushima, they totally changed their power plans.

About 1.5 million photovoltaic systems are installed all over the country, ranging from small rooftop systems, to medium commercial and large utility-scale solar parks, that altogether contributed 35.2 terawatt-hours (TWh), or about 6.9 percent in 2014 (preliminary estimate).[2]:5 This brings the country's share of renewable electricity to about 31 percent, and in line with the official governmental goal of reaching 35 percent by the end of the decade.[

[JorgenM]

Originally Posted by antzcrashing

15-25 percent sounds realistic. Step out of the tesla, California, and sweden fantasyland.

Sweden? What?
Surely you mean Norway. And it's not just fantasy. It's real.

With UK and France now planning bans on fossil cars in the future, the message to the auto makers is very clear.

[snaketh]

I'd be down with EVs if it was an organic growth. The projected bans on gas cars and the current plethora of EV options from various manufacturers are a result of government interference. All of these regulations don't really mean much with a world population of 7.5bn and climbing. 30 years ago it was almost half that.

[David70]

Originally Posted by snaketh

I'd be down with EVs if it was an organic growth. The projected bans on gas cars and the current plethora of EV options from various manufacturers are a result of government interference. All of these regulations don't really mean much with a world population of 7.5bn and climbing. 30 years ago it was almost half that.

Less than 10% of the world's population owns a car (depends on who you believe but around there) so this helps the problem, then there a bunch of people that own cars and don't regularly drive them.

I agree this is being driven by the world's governments, much like most other environmental regulation and I can understand the irritation by some to spending our money this way (not sure if I agree with it or not).

There wasn't a huge public demand to go out and buy cars with catalytic converters when they came out either but I think it turned out to be the right thing to do.

[midwest 340xi 6sp]

Originally Posted by ORIGIN M.

Agreed.

They are doing the same as Audi and Mercedes, go figure.

///M & ///M Light.

And ///M Sprinkles on everything.

[IB M]

Good points on present state ... but technology will progress and wind and solar will be an increasing percentage of the power mix. Solar panels are cheaper and more efficient every month and popping up on rooftops every where - disturbed power. Wind farms only 10 years old are being retrofitted with larger turbines and gear boxes to generate more power from the same foundation. Off shore wind power is just getting traction in the US and will add substantial power in the next 10 years. Nukes are being sunset. Natural gas is on a tear now but fracking issues loom large. Fossil fuels may never be fully replaced but they will decrease over the long haul with a slight uptick as Nukes are sunset. In 100 years solar, wind and other renewables will be a major major component of the mix.

[IB M]

Originally Posted by 3rdcoast228i

Wind and solar will never replace fossil fuels. The load on the Texas grid right at this moment is 45k megawatts (and that's a low load because it's still morning and its not hot out yet), only 5k megawatts of that is from wind generation. Each wind turbine only puts out about 3 mw. The are about 10,700 wind turbines in Texas, with a rated total theoretical capacity of about 20k mw. In reality I've never seen wind generation above 11k mw.

Long story short is you already have 10700 wind turbines that only cover a fraction of the load, how many do you think it would take to cover the full grid load? It's just not feasible. Solar is not much better. And neither are pretty to look at. One doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow, also has a nasty habit of killing birds, and the other doesn't work after the sun goes down.

See above

[Stu Pedasho]

Electric "M"? Then when they make a M250iE we can light up the boards with comments like....That is NOT a real electric M car but my M2E is! ?

[Tallest]

Originally Posted by evolution80

the beginning of the end...

like in that VW add where they suggest how cool it is to have speed limit info with auto brake function, next thing you know your car enforces the speed limit, doesnt let you overtake etc.


my incoming f80 will probably be the last car i spend my money on - all the joy and freedom that comes with driving will be taken away - all the while the media and corporations tell you how cool that is...

sad really


that said - electric drivetrain could be a good thing - i just mean all the autonomous driving stuff that will come with it...

Dunno how true as Im not the demographic but I hear that people born like in mid 1990s early 2000s aspire to car ownership much less, like its not so important, they like the electric thing very much - and if by default their first car drives with governors, wont overtake etc - they dont know any better.

they accept it as canon and move on. for us itll be like what the hell, idiots around you dont even hold the steering wheel but... may be its ok that all the idiots are just driven by robots anyway. as long as they dont ban normal cars because its very hard to do - i mean city driving is one thing but country side? much harder to enforce.

[3rdcoast228i]

Originally Posted by IB M

Good points on present state ... but technology will progress and wind and solar will be an increasing percentage of the power mix. Solar panels are cheaper and more efficient every month and popping up on rooftops every where - disturbed power. Wind farms only 10 years old are being retrofitted with larger turbines and gear boxes to generate more power from the same foundation. Off shore wind power is just getting traction in the US and will add substantial power in the next 10 years. Nukes are being sunset. Natural gas is on a tear now but fracking issues loom large. Fossil fuels may never be fully replaced but they will decrease over the long haul with a slight uptick as Nukes are sunset. In 100 years solar, wind and other renewables will be a major major component of the mix.

Using the word "never" was a strong word to use. Obviously fossil fuel use will decrease over time. I don't think current tech is the answer but that's just my opinion.

[David70]

Originally Posted by JorgenM

Sweden? What?
Surely you mean Norway. And it's not just fantasy. It's real.

With UK and France now planning bans on fossil cars in the future, the message to the auto makers is very clear.

An electric car in Norway get a massive government subsidy and these "bans" are so far away they are meaningless (except for helping get them reelected at the next election). Most of them will be dead and virtually none of them working when their planned ban takes effect.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by JRobUSC

what about the 48V architecture that Audi and Benz are already starting to implement?

Audi and MB's 48V architectures are a stop-gap measure. Don't expect to see them around for more than a few years. They're a very inexpensive means to add energy-recovery and light electric-assist for cars that were never intended to be EV, or even hybrid.

The intention of these 48V architectures is entirely different than the goals BMW have outlined here. For example, a 48V light-hybrid isn't designed to operate under EV power alone. It's goals are to recover some energy during deceleration, and deploy that as an assist under acceleration. The gains in efficiency are modest: 5% - 10%.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by 3rdcoast228i

Wind and solar will never replace fossil fuels. The load on the Texas grid right at this moment is 45k megawatts (and that's a low load because it's still morning and its not hot out yet), only 5k megawatts of that is from wind generation. Each wind turbine only puts out about 3 mw. The are about 10,700 wind turbines in Texas, with a rated total theoretical capacity of about 20k mw. In reality I've never seen wind generation above 11k mw.

Long story short is you already have 10700 wind turbines that only cover a fraction of the load, how many do you think it would take to cover the full grid load? It's just not feasible. Solar is not much better. And neither are pretty to look at. One doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow, also has a nasty habit of killing birds, and the other doesn't work after the sun goes down.

Laptops will never replace desktops.

Cell phones will never replace land lines.

Streaming will never replace television.

All of the above are true... So far. People still use desktop computers, land lines, and watch television, but for how long? And in what proportions?

It's easy to prognosticate when you hide behind an absolutes. I would point out that never is a long time though. Do you think we'll be using fossil fuels in the year 2,775?

The viability of renewables is increasing dramatically. "OMG but what about base load!?!?" is not a new argument. Ever heard of pumped hydro? I know, it sounds crazy, but when you look at an electric utility from a business standpoint, it starts to make sense.

When you build your utility on fossil fuels, you expose yourself to some pretty nasty externalities. Your profitability hinges upon the consistent price of the commodity that drives your turbines. History shows us that this is a bad bed. It wouldn't be so bad if the utilities could simply pass the cost fluctuations on to consumers, but regulatory issues make that difficult. Many electrical utilities run at a loss for quarters, if not years, when markets make a turn against them.

Electrical utilities, if given the choice, will absolutely invest in power generation facilities that put them in more direct control of their costs, not because it benefits the environment, but because it makes sense for their business.

All of this is a tangential argument. It's the same old bullshit that gets trotted out every time the subject of EVs come up. Barring some sort of calamity on the order of a worldwide epidemic or nuclear war, technology will continue to march forward, just as it has for hundreds of years. The fossil fuel age is no different than the bronze age, or the steam era, or any other era of dominance by a particular technology. It will go away. Whether it is in your time, my time, or our children's time, I'm not certain. But I do know the time of fossil fuels is near its end.

[Im1]

Is the planet affected any less by the intense mining required to make all these batteries ?

[David70]

Originally Posted by Im1

Is the planet affected any less by the intense mining required to make all these batteries ?

If handled correctly I say we are better off mining for batteries. You are also only looking at one piece of the electric car and not the system as a whole.

Drill for oil (pumping chemicals into the ground and hoping to never see or taste them in our water), transport the oil to the refineries (many times by truck to rail), turn the oil into gas, transport it to the tank yards somewhat close to where you use it, truck it to the gas station (all of this transportation burning the same fuel), burn it in your car and produce exhaust which includes a lot of unwanted things in the air, one of which is CO2.

Compare the above to a natural gas powered power plant where the overall system is simpler and cleaner.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by Im1

Is the planet affected any less by the intense mining required to make all these batteries ?

Valid question. An honest assessment of this question would be very complicated, but consider the following:

Tie: Petroleum has to be extracted from the earth and refined as well, so it's not as if the mining of battery elementals is unique in this regard.

Advantage Battery: The the advent of fracking, the extraction of petroleum has seen an increase in environmental impact.

Advantage Battery: Petroleum products that are extracted and refined can only be used once. When you burn petrol to create heat to drive an engine, it is immediately used up. Battery elementals are cycled over and over. There is degradation, of course, but what they lack in energy density, they make up for in their ability to store and release energy over time.

Tie: Battery elementals are not an energy source; they are a storage medium. This means that in addition to the environmental impact of mining the elementals, we must consider the production of energy that will be stored in the battery. This varies greatly from country-to-country, and requires broader strategic planning than simply expecting consumers to buy EVs. In countries like France, the win easily goes to batteries. In the U.S., it's a different story.

Ultimately, there is no single answer to your question. The mining of elementals is only a small part of the overall picture. The most important aspect remains energy production. With a petrol powered ICE, the actual production of energy occurs at the moment of combustion. With an EV, the production of energy occurs at a power plant.

An ICE achieves a maximum thermodynamic efficiency of around 40%, and that is in a car like the Prius, which uses an Atkinson cycle engine. Most car engines are doing well if they achieve >35%. Note that this thermodynamic efficiency is not affected by the hybrid aspect of a car. I'm speaking strictly of converting heat in to motion. An efficient power plant can achieve thermodynamic efficiency of around 60%, so there's a 20% gain on the table by moving energy production to a power plant.

However, that energy has to be transmitted and stored in your battery. Fortunately, the losses involved are low. Transmission systems (6% - 8% losses) are highly optimized for efficiency, because even small gains in efficiency can result in millions of dollars saved for the electric utility company. The energy cycle of a battery is also very efficient. It can be as high as 99%, but as low as 90%, depending upon charging rate and state of charge.

So the 20% gain in efficiency by using a power plant doesn't translate directly to an EV. It can be whittled away by transmission and charging losses, resulting in an effective efficiency of 2% to 12%.

We still have further down the rabbit hole to go though, because this only considers energy efficiency. It doesn't speak to the full environmental impact of both, because not all power generation technologies have the same emissions.

The key thing to understand is that this is a major technological shift. I put the shift to renewables on the same plane as the shift to solid state circuitry. I really do believe the impact of this shift will be just as great, of not greater, than the transition to solid state electronics. I don't think the timelines will be at all similar, but the impact will absolutely be just as great.

It is a goal worth pursuing, but you are right to be skeptical. Just be sure not to decide the answer before you ask the question. Be genuinely curious.