# Whyfore ethanol? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 8, 2007, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whyfore-ethanol/410940 "2007-07-08T04:02:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2007, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whyfore-ethanol/410940/81 "2007-08-07T05:16:52Z")
How do you figure that you generate a credit of 1,000 annually by using it for ethanol production? Please note, we are not talking relative to gas production, we are talking just plain CO2 produced. Sugar cane is not a net sink; it recaptures most of the carbon that’s been released in using it to produce energy. (Probably a bit less than that when you add in the carbon released in its production.) At best you can consider that you are constantly spending and recollecting that thousand forever. -100,000 +1,000 - 1,000 + 1,000 - 1,000 … ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2007, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whyfore-ethanol/410940/82 "2007-08-07T07:15:00Z")
[QUOTE=DSeid] Please note, we are not talking relative to gas production, [/QUOTE] That is the only thing that anyone other than you _has_ been talking about. That was the discussion we were having, that is what you quoted from. We have always and exclusively been talking about carbon emmission relative to gas production. I assumed that since was the post that you quoted that you two were talking about this. You have completely misunderstood this entire thread if you think we were ever discussing anything other than carbon emmissions relative to gas production. Go back and re-read the thread carefully. You will note that nobody has ever been discussing anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2007, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whyfore-ethanol/410940/83 "2007-08-07T08:03:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Not even remotely true. If I wanted to I could drop most modern motors into a Model T right now with only minor modifications to the transmission or drive train depending on where I connected the new system to the old. I might need to gear down the engine so I didn’t damage the vehicle, but that is a limitation of the old vehicle, not the improved engine. > > Batteries would be even easier than this because there is no solid connection to the vehicle. The only connection is two spring contacts, that’s it. As battery technology becomes better it would only require that the terminals remain in the same location, that’s it. You might have noticed that vehicles from the 1940s and probably even earlier run perfectly using modern batteries precisely because electrical connections are so easy to make universal and upgradable. But that’s missing the main point. It would be possible to put high-grade equipment in your car but nobody would do so. Because the equipment is only yours until the first time you go to a service station for a “swap”. Then you end up with whatever cheap generic battery (or engine) the service station supplies to everyone else. I’ll grant that many stations might offer high-grade batteries as an option the same way they offer high-grade gas. But, like gas, most people will choose the standard. So the high-grade batteries will be more likely to have the problems associated with long term storage. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2007, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whyfore-ethanol/410940/84 "2007-08-07T08:16:31Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] But that’s missing the main point. It would be possible to put high-grade equipment in your car but nobody would do so. Because the equipment is only yours until the first time you go to a service station for a “swap”. Then you end up with whatever cheap generic battery (or engine) the service station supplies to everyone else. [/QUOTE] I don’t think it is missing the point that it adresses. Your point however is quite interesting in its own right. And you’re qute correct, it will have that effect, but in that sense it wil be no different at all to the way we use and always have used fossil fuels. The standard has been set because the fuel supply has to be universal, and only government action has been able to prompt producers to stop using ethyl lead, or stop using benzene, or to add ethanol, or remove sulfur and so forth. This problem isn’t somehow unique to batteries, it is and must be, common to all energy sources. If anything it seems the problem should be less of an issue with batteries. Once a gas station can stock high performance batteries for the same price as superceded models then they will do so as a marketing tool, just as any gas station that could sell premium gas today at the same price as regular would do so. Government “incentives” of the sort that saw the transition from leaded to lead free gas would accelerate that if needed. By simply making it illegal to manufacture obsolete batteries gas stations would switch over to new technology through aprocess of attrition and replacement. This is analogous to the way that it became illegal to manufacture vehicles that could only run on leaded gasoline. Every ten years the EPA does a review and if needed upgrades the standards required of battery manufacturers. As old batteries are retired they are replaced with new units. As a result the entire stockpile will upgrade faster than the vehicle fleet. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2007, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whyfore-ethanol/410940/85 "2007-08-07T12:16:40Z")
**Blake** I won’t belabour the point but this particular point was addressing your claim that clearing forests “doesn’t matter” and was made as part of your telling us why, allegedly, sugar cane is better than corn. (“Sugarcane is a better source of ethanol simply because it produces far more sugar per hectare than grain crops.”) That was the comparison being made at the time, not sugar cane to gas, but sugar cane to corn for ethanol. And since I started this op I think I can be very aware of the discussion being had and the question that was asked from the start. I’d suggest you reread the thread including your own statements that you are defending. You don’t even have to it especially “carefully” … ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2007, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whyfore-ethanol/410940/86 "2007-08-07T17:15:31Z")
[QUOTE=Blake] Not even remotely true. If I wanted to I could drop most modern motors into a Model T right now with only minor modifications to the transmission or drive train depending on where I connected the new system to the old. I might need to gear down the engine so I didn’t damage the vehicle, but that is a limitation of the old vehicle, not the improved engine. [/QUOTE] I was talking about the other way around: standardizing on the the Model T engine while the cars, vans, and trucks built around it evolve. By standardizing battery and motor technology in 2007 and building a national infrastructure around those standards you greatly reduce incentive to improve those technologies. > [@](#): > > Batteries would be even easier than this because there is no solid connection to the vehicle. And when ten years from now a new battery is invented that fits ten times the charge in one tenth the size and weight cars will either be designed for the new battery, meaning service stations will need to stock the new batteries, too, or else the new battery will need to be put in a package the same size and _weight_ of the old packs so car handling is not disrupted. > [@](#): > > 1. It already costs many millions of dollars to build a gas station, between the building itself, the pits for the tanks and the cost of filling those tanks, so several million dollars is an expected outlay even with today’s technology. Except that money has already been spent over the past 100 years. Your system would have to go national in just a few years in order to provide the carbon savings that are needed now. > [@](#): > > 1. Why would it cost several million dollars to stock enough batteries for a dozen electric cars? Let’s say it takes an hour to process and charge a battery pack and that each battery pack, using today’s technology, is good for 100 miles in a subcompact whose gas equivalent gets 33 miles per gallon, so that charge equals three gallons of gasoline. Do you think a service station can survive selling a dozen times three gallons, or 36 gallons of gasoline, per hour, especially when each of those battery packs will likely be worn out and need replacing in a few months? > [@](#): > > And of course if you are servicing several thousand cars then the economy already exists to support this system. Oh? Prithee, where? > [@](#): > > Its; not like anyone is going to need to build a 10, 00 car station tomorrow, any more than someone in 1910 had to build a gas station with 100megalitre storage tanks. If your system is going to work on a national scale–and anything less would not help the global warming problem–yes, a massive infrastructure would need to be built as soon as possible because nobody will buy a car with swappable battery packs unless they can get their packs swapped close to their homes, at their multiple destinations (a car can go anywhere), and at useful intervals in-between. > [@](#): > > Can I ask what these figures are based on. IOW: Cite! As the guy designing your service station so that there is sufficient throughput while minimizing the investment I have a mental picture of the process of swapping out a battery pack. Call it “making it up,” if you wish, but it’s also called “engineering.” > [@](#): > > I know that an electric forklift in an automated exchange unit can swap a standard truck battery battery in less than a minute. Why would it take _more_ time for a battery custom built for speed of exchange? You are talking about a single bay replacing a battery that is hanging off the back of the truck, which is about as “custom-built for speed of exchange” as you can get. I could probably get my times down but it still takes time to make sure the car is located correctly, open the hatch, remove the old battery, place it on a conveyor to the charging area, remove a new battery from storage, make sure the car’s still there, insert the battery, and close the hatch. Then repeat for as many packs as the vehicle uses, and have multiple bays to service a profitable number of cars. And, since we can assume that those service stations would operate on as thin of margins as gasoline stations always have, where the real money is made in ancillary service (the repair bay in the old stations and the mini-mart in the modern stations), battery packs will need to be placed so egress is not impeded and the driver can get out to buy a pack of smokes and an overpriced Coke. > [@](#): > > And why do you believe it is impossible to exchange two packs simultaneously? Not impossible. Just not economical. A changing unit that can change two would need to be to be twice as strong and would likely be considerably larger, which is likely to not work well with one pack. > [@](#): > > Can you explain what your logic is here? When I exchange my LP gas cylinder I get credit on the weight of any remaining gas. That credit is taken off the price of the new cylinder. Why can you not apply this simple system to batteries? The expense is not in the charge but in the infrastructure. Electricity is cheap so it would cost the station nearly as much to swap out a “full” battery as an “empty” one. The pack would also need to go through the same maintenence procedures, which would probably include a deep cycling, so its initial charge would be irrelevant. The resulting price to the customer would be the same. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what sort of abuse you are imagining here. General wear and tear. Driving down a perfectly smooth road on a sunny, 72F degree day wouldn’t abuse the system much, but that environment is far more the exception than the rule, and bad weather and potholes are murder on car parts. > [@](#): > > Why do you think we would have less stringent QC for batteries than we have for gasoline? Gasoline is not tested at the service station, much less every time somebody buys some. The batteries would need to be tested every time they are traded in. Now that I think about it, the service station owner would also need some means of redress when a customer sticks him with a battery the customer trashed driving over a speedbump at 60mph. > [@](#): > > I’m not au fair enough with electronics to comment on this, but my understanding is that an automated diagnostic run during charge will tell you the state of the battery. That’s what I was thinking of before, but I’m thinking now that some sort of quick inspection, looking for cracks and broken connections between cells would be needed while the customer is still buying his cigarettes. Thanks–you just added another minute to the swap time! 😃 > [@](#): > > Why would they sit on the shelf in summer? If a battery store has a turnover 12 hours in winter, then worst case scenario that might reduces down to a turnover of 72 hours in summer. Why would any battery need to sit on the shelf all summer? That makes no sense at all. A battery pack that is charged and ready to go is not making the station owner any money, and in a competitive business with enormous startup and high overhead “not making money” is close enough to “losing money” to be irrelevant. Given your numbers, he’s making one sixth as much in the summer as in the winter. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2007, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whyfore-ethanol/410940/87 "2007-08-07T18:22:42Z")
> [@](#): > > And you’re qute correct, it will have that effect, but in that sense it wil be no different at all to the way we use and always have used fossil fuels. But the difference is that with fossil fuels, you won the car and you own the gas you put into the car. So if you pay more money for better quality you receive the benefit. But with the battery/engine swap system that’s being described, if you paid for higher quality you’d just be passing it off to some other random customer. Look at how people treat rental cars versus their own vehicles. They might decide to treat their personal car well in hopes of extending its use. But nobody puts high-grade gas or decides to change the oil in a rental - doing so might benefit the vehicle but the odds are overwhelming that you’ll never drive that vehicle again. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2007, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whyfore-ethanol/410940/88 "2007-08-08T01:51:40Z")
[QUOTE=dropzone] By standardizing battery and motor technology in 2007 and building a national infrastructure around those standards you greatly reduce incentive to improve those technologies. [/quote] But I’ve just explained that we haven’t standardised either battery or motor technology. > [@](#): > > And when ten years from now a new battery is invented that fits ten times the charge in one tenth the size and weight cars will either be designed for the new battery, meaning service stations will need to stock the new batteries, too, or else the new battery will need to be put in a package the same size and _weight_ of the old packs so car handling is not disrupted. Yes that’s right. Old cars will have their batteries fitted inside a dummy shell to mimic the size and weight of the new battery. What do you think that will cost? Maybe an extra 2 cents per fill? > [@](#): > > Your system would have to go national in just a few years in order to provide the carbon savings that are needed now. No, I haven’t mentioned any timeframe at all. > [@](#): > > . Do you think a service station can survive selling a dozen times three gallons, or 36 gallons of gasoline, per hour, especially when each of those battery packs will likely be worn out and need replacing in a few months? Of course it can. Many remote area gas stations seel less than that now. That’s why the gas pumps are part of the local general store. Do you really think that gas stations sprung up as fully functional modern units in 1900? If you don’t think that then how do you think people obtained gasoline in 1900? > [@](#): > > Oh? Prithee, where? Wherever it exists. > [@](#): > > If your system is going to work on a national scale–and anything less would not help the global warming problem–yes, a massive infrastructure would need to be built as soon as possible because nobody will buy a car with swappable battery packs unless they can get their packs swapped close to their homes, at their multiple destinations (a car can go anywhere), and at useful intervals in-between. By this argument gasoline powered cars were not sold in 1900 because because nobody would have bought a car with gasoline engines unless they can get their engine refilled close to their homes, at their multiple destinations (a car can go anywhere), and at useful intervals in-between. Of course people did by gasoline powered cars in 1900 so the argument makes no sense. > [@](#): > > Call it “making it up,” if you wish, but it’s also called “engineering.” No, it’s just called making it up. You stated this as a fact, I asked for a reference, you can’t provide. That’s enough for the SDMB. If this is engineering then show us the engineers reports that support your claim. If you can’t do so then it ain’t engineering. > [@](#): > > ou are talking about a single bay replacing a battery that is hanging off the back of the truck, which is about as “custom-built for speed of exchange” as you can get. Have you ever seen an [electric forklift](http://www.germes-online.com/direct/dbimage/50200939/Electric_Forklift.jpg)? The batteries are never hanging off the back in any model I have ever seen. That would be extremely hazardous. Nor are we talking about single bays, the dairy where I saw the system in operation had two bays, but there is no reason why you couldn’t have 20 bays operating simultaneously if you wished. > [@](#): > > I could probably get my times down but it still takes time to make sure the car is located correctly, open the hatch, remove the old battery, place it on a conveyor to the charging area, remove a new battery from storage, make sure the car’s still there, insert the battery, and close the hatch. It doesn’t take any more time to get the car located than it does when pumping gas. Opening the hatch takes less time than opening a gas cap. Removing the battery takes literally 2 seconds. It just drops out and the arms grab it. Placing the old battery on the conveyer takes no time at all for the customer. If it is still being completed 20 minutes after the customer leaves it won’t make a lick of difference so this is a total irrelevance. Making sure the car’s still there takes no time at all. If the car moves then the contact with the refill station is broken. That doesn’t take time any more than the automatic cutoff in a gas nozzle takes time. It’s a failsafe cut off, not something that takes time. Inserting the battery takes literally 10 seconds. The same lift arrangement that removes the old battery already has the new battery in position. A soon as the old battery is in position the new one slides across and is pushed into the vehicle. Look this isn’t futuristic technology, it is being used worldwide for forklifts as we speak. It’s totally automated and takes less than minute to exchange batteries. You can’t just pretend that it takes time that it doesn’t take, much less by demanding it do things that it doesn’t need to do. I think I’m starting to see why engineers so frequently over-design systems. > [@](#): > > .. battery packs will need to be placed so egress is not impeded and the driver can get out to buy a pack of smokes and an overpriced Coke. Not impossible. Just not economical. Cite? Logically the battery packs would be accessed via the floor, which minimises lifting. Alternatively they would be located where the gas refill is on gasoline vehicles. I can’t think of anywhere else they would logically be placed. Neither would impede people from exiting the vehicle and neither would cost one red cent more then any other position. > [@](#): > > A changing unit that can change two would need to be to be twice as strong and would likely be considerably larger.. Ahh, no. With forklifts the exact same unit can change one, two or three batteries. Imagine a [manlift](http://www.humphrey-manlift.com/images/features2.gif) arrangement. When the vehicle is driven in the top “step’ is empty and the dead battery is slid onto it. The next step carries the new battery and when it is emptied the next dead battery can be dropped onto it. The entire system is very elegant and efficient and requires only enough power to lift half a battery since the counterweight of the dead batteries does the rest. I really don’t know why you think it would need to be any stronger unless you are thinking of doing simultaneous exchange of all batteries. That makes no sense. Vehicles with large gasoline tanks don’t fill up from two pumps simultaneously. Having a larger tank customers expect to take a little longer to fill. > [@](#): > > The expense is not in the charge but in the infrastructure. Electricity is cheap so it would cost the station nearly as much to swap out a “full” battery as an “empty” one. So what? Your point was that customers would be paying for a full charge despite exchanging a half full battery. Now you are saying that it is the exchange _service_ they are paying for, not the charge. I honestly don’t see what your point is here. How is this any different from any other _service_ provided by a gas station? If I pay for a full lube service I pay a flat rate regardless of whether I last had the job done 3 days ago and need no new grease or 3 years ago and need a gallon of grease. That’s because the expense is not in the grease but in the infrastructure and labour. Grease is cheap so it would cost the station nearly as much to do a “full” lube service as an “empty” one. Never stopped anyone getting a lube service. > [@](#): > > Driving down a perfectly smooth road on a sunny, 72F degree day wouldn’t abuse the system much, but that environment is far more the exception than the rule, and bad weather and potholes are murder on car parts. That’s true, but provided the battery is tested I don’t quite see the problem. > [@](#): > > Gasoline is not tested at the service station, much less every time somebody buys some. Gasoline is tested when it leaves the ship, when it leaves the depot and when it leaves the truck. It is also tested on a regular basis at the gas station. > [@](#): > > The batteries would need to be tested every time they are traded in. They would be tested automatically as part of the charging process. > [@](#): > > Now that I think about it, the service station owner would also need some means of redress when a customer sticks him with a battery the customer trashed driving over a speedbump at 60mph. Of course they would, just as a service station owner has redress for when a customer sticks him with a cylinder the customer trashed driving over a speedbump at 60mph. This is no difference tot the gas cylinder exchange service most service stations offer right now. > [@](#): > > That’s what I was thinking of before, but I’m thinking now that some sort of quick inspection, looking for cracks and broken connections between cells would be needed while the customer is still buying his cigarettes. Thanks–you just added another minute to the swap time! 😃 It would cost approximately nothing to have a basic diagnostics alarm built into the battery itself. I can buy a matchbox sized self contained voltage and motion _logger_ right now for less than $100. For a system that only acts as an alarm without logging that is integrated into a battery mass production would probably make the cost less than $20. A soon as the battery is unloaded the alarm would identify whether the parameters have gone awry and refuse service. This wouldn’t add a minute, it might add 10 seconds. > [@](#): > > A battery pack that is charged and ready to go is not making the station owner any money, and in a competitive business with enormous startup and high overhead “not making money” is close enough to “losing money” to be irrelevant. Given your numbers, he’s making one sixth as much in the summer as in the winter. No, this has no basis in reality whatsoever. You aren’t making 1/6 the money just because you have six tomes the assets. You are at worst making (1/6 \* current interest rate) less money. That might not be trivial but all businesses have to deal with capital that is tied up as real assets. It’s just stock in trader. Just as gasoline sitting in a tank is stock in trade. There is no difference between building petroleum storage tanks that have to cope with peak demand that are just dead space the rest of the time, and building battery storage bays that have to cope with peak demand that are just dead space the rest of the time. All markets fluctuate and all businesses have to cope with peak demand. It’s capital outlay, it’s not an expense. Secondly your point was that the batteries would somehow be damaged by sitting idle. You still haven’t explained how sitting idle for 3 days rather than 12 hours is going to damage a battery. Honestly it seems like you are manufacturing problems here that don’t exist. Of course there will be unique problems associated with battery exchange but it also eliminates the problems associated with storing and selling a highly flammable liquid. With modern technology none of these problems is insurmountable or even particularly challenging. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2007, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whyfore-ethanol/410940/89 "2007-08-08T02:02:06Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] But the difference is that with fossil fuels, you won the car and you own the gas you put into the car. So if you pay more money for better quality you receive the benefit. But with the battery/engine swap system that’s being described, if you paid for higher quality you’d just be passing it off to some other random customer. [/quote] No more than if you buy premium gasoline rather than regular surely? Gas stations currently have at least 3 different bowsers: standard, premium, diesel and they have done for the past 40 years in one form or another. People who want premium pay for premium, those who want standard pay for standard and so forth. Why would an electric system be any different? People who want to swap a premium battery will fill up at the premium bay. Those who want to swap a standard will fill up at the standard bay. Either I am incredibly dense or people are trying to make this more difficult than it actually is. I honestly don’t see any difference between gasoline and batteries in this regard. You get what you pay for. Nobody is going to force you to trade your premium battery for a standard or a diesel. > [@](#): > > Look at how people treat rental cars versus their own vehicles. They might decide to treat their personal car well in hopes of extending its use. But nobody puts high-grade gas or decides to change the oil in a rental - doing so might benefit the vehicle but the odds are overwhelming that you’ll never drive that vehicle again. The difference is that you will be driving the vehicle that the battery goes into. You are changing the battery, not the vehicle. If you put a standard battery into your brand new car it probably won’t even run, it certainly won’t perform to capacity. So why would you not pay for a premium battery? Once again I think I’m missing something. How is this any different to someone in 1970 paying a higher price to put premium rather than standard into their brand new car? ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2007, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whyfore-ethanol/410940/90 "2007-08-08T19:38:10Z")
[QUOTE=Blake] But I’ve just explained that we haven’t standardised either battery or motor technology. [/quote] But in order to make your plan of interchangeable batteries a reality they would need to be, er, _interchangeable._ Y’know, _standardized._ > [@](#): > > Yes that’s right. Old cars will have their batteries fitted inside a dummy shell to mimic the size and weight of the new battery. What do you think that will cost? Maybe an extra 2 cents per fill? I do not believe you have much familiarity with manufacturing costs. > [@](#): > > No, I haven’t mentioned any timeframe at all. No, but I did. The whole point of this thread was expanded to discussing means of reducing global warming, something that needs to be done soon. > [@](#): > > Of course it can. Many remote area gas stations seel less than that now. That’s why the gas pumps are part of the local general store. So you are suggesting Goober, down by Wally’s Filling Station, should drop a couple million on a battery replacement unit as a loss leader to draw in the rubes to buy his overpriced chaw and Nehi? The gasoline tank is already there and Goober hasn’t dug it up to expand the store because he’s afraid of what the EPA will find. > [@](#): > > If you don’t think that then how do you think people obtained gasoline in 1900? It was a popular cleaning fluid and drivers had to hope Sam Drucker carried enough to get them from Hooterville to Mayberry. In 1900 driving anywhere was an adventure and driving between towns was moreso. In 2007 people aren’t looking for adventure in their basic travel. This was one of our exchanges: > [@Blake](#): > > And of course if you are servicing several thousand cars then the economy already exists to support this system. > [@dropzone](#): > > Oh? Prithee, where? > [@Blake](#): > > Wherever it exists. That response was a non sequitur. I was asking where this economy exists. At this time, nowhere. Currently (heh heh) the infrastructure exists to recharge an electric car at ones home, at your destination if your host is real nice, and possibly, if the boss doesn’t catch you, at work. This is the same point electric cars were at 100 years ago and is the equivalent to picking up a gallon of cleaning fluid at Drucker’s Store. Your imagined network of multi-million-dollar battery-exchange stations would need to come into being alongside the vehicles it would service. That’s how it worked when cars and gas stations started their symbiotic relationship. The difference here is in the investment required. In 1900 Sam Drucker started stocking a few more gallon jars of gasoline for the occasional motorist who happened by. By 1910 there were enough of them that he mounted a gas tank on an angle-iron frame at a cost of $50. In 1925 he signed with Standard Oil and dug his first underground tank, which he topped with a Red Crown pump. This totalled what, about $1500? Expensive, but it brought people into the store and, especially now that he had Gomer’s dad wrenching in a shack alongside the store, Sam was making money. Along the way from then until now Sam’s kids and grandkids have put in more tanks and pumps, built and torn down a few buildings, and what was, in 1900, Drucker’s Store is now a BP Amoco (Sam Drucker III, proprietor) with a car wash and mini-mart, but no mechanic. My point is that none of that was done at once. It was a process that started slowly and, though Gomer’s nephew (because we all know about Gomer, nudge-nudge, wink-wink) opened a Shell station across the street a few years back, with all the attendant startup costs coming at once, he built it on a business economy with its start back when old Sam Drucker and Henry Ford were just feeling their way. Where Sam’s initial investment was just a couple dollars on something he was likely to sell, eventually, for another purpose you are proposing businesses–quite a few businesses, if it’s to work–risk a lot of money hoping this pans out. Your idea would work, the same way that almost anything can be done if your throw enough money at it. An automobile manufacturer, which knows production and distribution of individual items, would need to work with a company that understands fast delivery of a standard product, be it gasoline or hamburgers, to develop the system while another manufacturer works with another distributor to create a different and incompatible system. That is the messy way Capitalism gets things done and the road from 1900 to 2007 is littered with hundreds of automobile manufacturers and automotive technologies that, for one reason or another, didn’t survive. > [@](#): > > By this argument gasoline powered cars were not sold in 1900 because because nobody would have bought a car with gasoline engines unless they can get their engine refilled close to their homes, at their multiple destinations (a car can go anywhere), and at useful intervals in-between. Yep. > [@](#): > > Of course people did by gasoline powered cars in 1900 so the argument makes no sense. Actually, they didn’t buy cars. The cars of 1900 were toys. Growth of the automotive industry happened alongside the fuel distribution and road improvement and all grew slowly but synergistically. > [@](#): > > No, it’s just called making it up. You stated this as a fact, I asked for a reference, you can’t provide. That’s enough for the SDMB. If this is engineering then show us the engineers reports that support your claim. If you can’t do so then it ain’t engineering. I’m an engineer. What comes before the reports is the initial design based on the customer’s needs, budget, and the demands of reality, and that happens in the engineers head. THAT is engineering. The rest is clerical work. > [@](#): > > The batteries are never hanging off the back in any model I have ever seen. That would be extremely hazardous. (chuckling paternally) Then you are younger than I am. We LAUGHED at job hazards, and I have the ribs that ache when the weather changes to prove it. 😃 > [@](#): > > Nor are we talking about single bays, the dairy where I saw the system in operation had two bays, but there is no reason why you couldn’t have 20 bays operating simultaneously if you wished. Only one reason: money. It would have to be indoors to keep out snow and water, while owners of modern gas stations think they’re nice if they put a partial roof over the pumps. The storage area would need to be heated in winter and cooled in summer because batteries and machinery prefer a constant temperature. And it would require an expensive repairman, either on-site or on-call. Gas pumps are simple and reliable beasts. Robots, not so much. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t take any more time to get the car located than it does when pumping gas. At a gas pump an ostensibly intelligent being need only get the gas cap into a semicircle with a radius of a meter and then he takes the nozzle the last distance. In your bay he would park his car in a specific location (watch the guy waving in cars at Jiffy Lube to see what a production that can be) and the robot would still need to locate the battery hatch on your specific car. > [@](#): > > Placing the old battery on the conveyer takes no time at all for the customer. If it is still being completed 20 minutes after the customer leaves it won’t make a lick of difference so this is a total irrelevance. No, the same arms would be putting it on the conveyor as removed the old battery and picked up and installed the new battery. (thinking) You could have the removal robot come in from the left while the installer robot came in from the right. That would cut way down on the time. (In engineering we are “brainstorming,” another process that happens mostly inside people’s heads.) > [@](#): > > You can’t just pretend that it takes time that it doesn’t take, much less by demanding it do things that it doesn’t need to do. EVERYTHING takes time. Just not always a lot of it. 😉 > [@](#): > > I think I’m starting to see why engineers so frequently over-design systems. That doesn’t happen when the sort of give and take we are doing happens upfront. It happens when the customer is too busy with other things to carefully define and discuss his needs and the engineers have to make sure the product can handle every possible eventuality. Since eventualities are what engineers are supposed to plan for, the more amorphous the requirements the more over-engineered the product. > [@](#): > > Logically the battery packs would be accessed via the floor, which minimises lifting. Alternatively they would be located where the gas refill is on gasoline vehicles. I can’t think of anywhere else they would logically be placed. Neither would impede people from exiting the vehicle and neither would cost one red cent more then any other position. I was thinking of side access, which would eliminate the need for the bay and the swap could even be done outdoors in more salubrious climates. It could even be done manually with something like a pallet truck doing the heavy lifting. > [@](#): > > Ahh, no. With forklifts the exact same unit can change one, two or three batteries. I was trying to keep the costs down. With a unit that can handle one or two batteries it would take twice as long to do the swap for a SUV with four, but SUV drivers deserve the added misery. 😉 > [@](#): > > So what? Your point was that customers would be paying for a full charge despite exchanging a half full battery. Now you are saying that it is the exchange _service_ they are paying for, not the charge. Yes, that main cost to the dealer would be in the swap, not the electricity. Like with your oil ‘n’ lube example. Except people would need to be retrained mentally because all their lives, and the lives of their parents and grandparents, if they only needed a gallon of gas they could buy only a gallon of gas. People are cheap, and if they were told that a fillup would now cost the same, no matter how much fuel they bought, they would shy away from the new technology or else keep driving until the “tank” was “dry” and risk running out in the middle of nowhere. Since the available energy in a battery depends on the ambient temperature, that might be sooner than they expected. > [@](#): > > It (gasoline) is also tested on a regular basis at the gas station. It is? Beyond, “Did water leak into the tank?” > [@](#): > > They would be tested automatically as part of the charging process. As I said. > [@](#): > > It would cost approximately nothing to have a basic diagnostics alarm built into the battery itself. That could work. > [@](#): > > No, this has no basis in reality whatsoever. Hmmm, he has no social skills at all. Maybe he COULD be an engineer. 😃 > [@](#): > > You aren’t making 1/6 the money just because you have six tomes the assets. You are at worst making (1/6 \* current interest rate) less money. ¿Qué? I have six battery packs that I rent out (not really–it’s more like I have six charger/storage locations and I fed six battery packs into the national system, but this is simpler) for $10 three times a day during the winter, which brings in $180 per day. During the summer demand is cut by five sixths and my revenue is reduced to $30 while my expenses remain roughly the same. I could swear that means I’m making less money. Am I doing the arithmetic wrong? > [@](#): > > That might not be trivial but all businesses have to deal with capital that is tied up as real assets. It’s just stock in trader. Just as gasoline sitting in a tank is stock in trade. There is no difference between building petroleum storage tanks that have to cope with peak demand that are just dead space the rest of the time, and building battery storage bays that have to cope with peak demand that are just dead space the rest of the time. All markets fluctuate and all businesses have to cope with peak demand. It’s capital outlay, it’s not an expense. Except most gas stations are marginal businesses, at best, while oil companies can afford to carry stock for a little longer. Goober needs those battery packs or gallons of gas going out as quickly as they can if he is to have any hope of staying in business and cutting the revenue in the summer–or being understocked in the winter–is bad business. > [@](#): > > Secondly your point was that the batteries would somehow be damaged by sitting idle. You still haven’t explained how sitting idle for 3 days rather than 12 hours is going to damage a battery. Batteries do deteriorate over time and with no use and a bunch of three day–or 12 hour–pauses will add up. Goober will need to track useage of the packs in his care at any moment so First In, First Out keeps everything moving. > [@](#): > > Honestly it seems like you are manufacturing problems here that don’t exist. You have dismissed some very real problems. Think of me as the Devil’s Advocate, trying to prick every bubble you blow. Be happier with the bubbles I can’t prick rather than angry with the ones I do. > [@](#): > > Of course there will be unique problems associated with battery exchange but it also eliminates the problems associated with storing and selling a highly flammable liquid. With modern technology none of these problems is insurmountable or even particularly challenging. Except the money part. Somebody will have to drop many billions into this to make it work. Unfortunately, liquid hydrocarbons are an extremely effective way to transport a lot of energy and the infrastructure exists to transport it and transfer it to individual vehicles. The best we can hope to do in the immediate future, when we still have a chance to minimize the effects of global warming, is to make all of the systems that process and use hydrocarbons more efficient. So, back to the topic of this thread and my earlier question: **If the main energy cost of ethanol production is separating the ethanol from the water, how could that be done more efficiently?** ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2007, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whyfore-ethanol/410940/91 "2007-08-10T01:55:21Z")
Can’t say I get this discusiion about battery swapping. The major battery players are all talking about 10 minute recharge options. Sure, they may mean with special charging stations, but that’s a relatively low cost item. Most BEV discussions envision that the charge will be ample to provide most drivers with a solid day plus of commuting, so most drivers can charge at home. Some may have to hope for a city sponsored lot option or a corporate sponsored one. But for the vast majority of drivers on the road recharges are only pertinent for cross country drives. And charging stations at rest stops is an easy infrastructure fix that even a small volume business would make cost-effective. So why mess with battery swaps? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whyfore-ethanol/410940.md?page=4)