The NY International Auto Show debuts a new EV Pickup, whispers of the newest vehicle design from Tesla, and the Maasai Wilderness Conservation Trust unveils its fleet.
Using elevators to generate electricity is a non-starter. Elevators are counter-balanced such that almost all the energy they consume is due to friction. If you remove the counterbalance, then they become energy hogs on the way up and can't generate enough on the way down to make it up.
(Edited for clarity) Thanks for your comment! I appreciate your thoughts, although your assertion that using elevators as gravity batteries would be a "nonstarter" is incorrect. I'll explain why.
Firstly, gravity batteries like EV1 by EnergyVault are *already* commercially operational and prove out the efficiencies of the concept north of 80% for the stored energy. This by the way, is merely one form factor of gravity battery. EV1 is designed to be economically deployed with storage capacity that ranges from 20 MWh to 80 MWh, with 35MWh as a current standard configuration. There's no question of theoretical viability if an operational system already exists.
Secondly, the elevators are not meant to generate electricity, they store what goes in from the grid or localized generation source. The units will maximally store potential energy when they are sent to and held at the top floor using the electricity going into the building or produced by it. Being an "energy hog" during the energy uptake phase is not only not a problem, it's the whole point. You release that previously stored potential energy on the way down losing less than 20% your input, then converting it back into electricity using regenerative braking from electric motors at the top of the shaft. The key to making this kind of converted system worthwhile would be to use them primarily to absorb excess power from renewables and act as short-term storage (rated power output for ≤10 hours). EV1 standalone is probably more useful for long-term storage (≥10 hours). More than anything, it could be useful for balancing the grid during peak demand hours.
Thirdly, the idea of converting elevators to grav-batteries (or designing them for this purpose) is already being explored by many different firms, like ThyssenKrupp. The system is made even more efficient (up to 92% in some cases with next gen PM motors) when you factor in their rope-less elevator designs that use magnets instead (no counterweights at all). As I stated towards the end of the section, to actually convert every single elevator in any city would certainly not be practical. Some buildings would be excellent use cases while others would really inefficient. It really depends on the individual building, it's actual electrical system, the cost of installation for the given building/system, and what energy sources are powering it. The thought experiment was just a fun exercise to introduce a fascinating type of energy storage system that could be useful for all sorts of contexts. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I hope you have a wonderful rest of your night.
My comments that using elevators as batteries wouldn't work was directed at the idea that existing elevators could be harnessed for that purpose. Certainly, you could build a special-purpose elevator that was not counter-balanced to act as an energy storage device, but it would need to be cheaper than an equivalent amount of stationary storage
batteries and I don't see a design that meets that basic cost criteria.
Using building elevators is a non-starter because when someone wants to use the elevator to go up, they want to use it when they need it, not wait for the time of day in which the utility has a surplus of power. Similarly, when people want to go down, they don't want to wait for the time when power is the most valuable. In other words, elevator usage is essentially random and continuous, and thus would add no storage value to a grid system.
To explain a bit further, sure, the elevators counterweights could be ditched so any lifting required the full amount of energy (plus friction losses) to be input in the form of electricity. Then elevators descending could generate electricity back into the grid (minus friction losses). But this is not the kind of energy storage the grid needs because the grid operators cannot dictate when they need the elevators to rise (full of people), and when they need the elevators to descend (full of people). People come and go all day long.
Interesting, so I guess the point is that you don't think this would ever be as cost-effective as other competing energy storage options. That's a fair point. It may probably better technology for improving the efficiency of extremely tall commercial buildings at night or maybe simply a better design for newer buildings altogether. Given the unbelievable free fall of commercial real estate in NYC recently, i'm wondering at what point they may consider using them as giant thermal storage units by just filling the offices with bricks.
The title of your article, "Hyundai Ioniq 6, True Rival to the Model 3" provided hope to me that legacy automakers were stepping up to the plate and were finally ready to help Tesla drive EV adoption numbers higher than I expected. However, when I visited the Hyundai USA website to check on availability of the 2023 Ioniq 6, the first statement I read was, "Available in extremely limited quantities and at select dealers in select states only.".
Extremely limited quantities? That's the first indication that Hyundai is selling the Ioniq 6 below cost in order to gain enough emissions credits to continue selling millions of polluting gas-powered vehicles without paying for the excessive emissions. That means the Ioniq 6 cannot compete with Tesla's Model 3 considering that Tesla has margins on the Model 3 that make other automakers envious. It also means, if Hyundai did decide at a future date to produce the Ioniq 6 at in high numbers, it could not compete favorably with the low price of the Model 3, even at breakeven prices for Hyundai. And no automaker can produce money losing cars at high volume.
In any case, in light of the "extremely limited quantities" of the Ioniq 6 that Hyundai says they are making available, and completely ignoring the non-competitive pricing, how can you consider it the "true rival to the Model 3"? That's not a rival, it's a compliance car that can't even hope to dent Model 3 sales.
Thanks again for your thoughts on Hyundai, but in regards to this specific model we completely disagree. Given what you've written, the implication is that you have not driven it yet. It may be that it is not available where you live and I'm very sorry if that is the case. That absolutely sucks and Hyundai should know. Unfortunately, this is not particularly relevant to the individual product which I personally tested... intensely.
Ioniq 6 is absolutely not a compliance car by any definition. It's a clean sheet designed vehicle on a BEV only platform called E-GMP that doesn't even fully comply with the IRA in the first place. Compliance cars tend to have the benefit of being designed for, well, compliance. It's serious attempt at a sedan competitor to the Model 3 and Model S for people that may be looking for electric transport that does not make a statement or requires much tech understanding. The car had a LOT of strengths and a few glaring weaknesses that were addressed as best I could in the article. It's pricing is very competitive given the range and charging speeds that all trims are capable of. While my writing could always be improved upon, but my opinion of the car is simply my opinion. It's informed by having test driven the Ioniq 6 myself and comparing it to my experience as a Tesla product expert, my ownership experience of a Model 3 Performance for over 45k miles, and many dozens of cross country trips and demos I've done in multiple different EVs. The Ioniq 6 won the World Car of the Year 2023 for a reason, probably a lot of the same reasons I called it a true rival to the Model 3, and I do hope you get the opportunity to try it yourself one day soon. Cars are in some ways subjective so you may have new ideas to add when you try.
I am happy to accept criticism of any OEM or my writing any time and I look forward to improving through it, please continue as I enjoy discussions!
My point is not that the Ionic 6 is not a smashing good car, it's that it can't be built and sold profitably. And that means it can't be built in large volumes. That's what makes it a compliance car, they will only build enough of them to satisfy fleet emissions, the true definition of "compliance car". While it's true that compliance cars were previously only built on ICE platforms, that kind of awful engineering is not going to fly today, even for a compliance car.
It's true that most new car buyers do not care if the manufacturer is selling at a profit or loss but it is very important for an auto industry analyst to understand the implications. Specifically, a car sold at a loss cannot be produced at high volume without running the companies finances into the ground. We need EV's that can be built sustainably, over many years and in high volumes. Ad, if the car cannot be produced in high volumes, the last thing it is is a "true rival" to Tesla's Model 3. A low volume car cannot rise to the status of "rival". No, the competition is STILL not coming. That's not tesla's fault, it's actually to their credit. They can build great EV's at prices no other company can match. That matters because new car buyers demand good value for their hard-earned money. Selling low volumes of EV's at a loss does not move the needle and does not constitute real competition.
In your article titled "Whispers of a New Low-cost Tesla Model", you state, "For context, Tesla’s goal is to produce and deliver 2 million vehicles by the end of 2023."
What is your source for this guidance? The only guidance I know of was relatively recently and was for only 1.8 million vehicles for 2023. There is a huge difference between 1.8 million and 2 million vehicles manufactured!
A very fair correction! Their guidance for 2 million vehicles was their targeted run rate for 2023, but forecast back in 2022. They've recently updated their guidance to 1.8 million as you said, but it seems I was confused in my research by Musk reiterating that they could still hit 2 million in 2023 absent any external disruptions. Best to stick to the official guidance. Thank you for your comment!
Using elevators to generate electricity is a non-starter. Elevators are counter-balanced such that almost all the energy they consume is due to friction. If you remove the counterbalance, then they become energy hogs on the way up and can't generate enough on the way down to make it up.
Hey Marc,
(Edited for clarity) Thanks for your comment! I appreciate your thoughts, although your assertion that using elevators as gravity batteries would be a "nonstarter" is incorrect. I'll explain why.
Firstly, gravity batteries like EV1 by EnergyVault are *already* commercially operational and prove out the efficiencies of the concept north of 80% for the stored energy. This by the way, is merely one form factor of gravity battery. EV1 is designed to be economically deployed with storage capacity that ranges from 20 MWh to 80 MWh, with 35MWh as a current standard configuration. There's no question of theoretical viability if an operational system already exists.
Secondly, the elevators are not meant to generate electricity, they store what goes in from the grid or localized generation source. The units will maximally store potential energy when they are sent to and held at the top floor using the electricity going into the building or produced by it. Being an "energy hog" during the energy uptake phase is not only not a problem, it's the whole point. You release that previously stored potential energy on the way down losing less than 20% your input, then converting it back into electricity using regenerative braking from electric motors at the top of the shaft. The key to making this kind of converted system worthwhile would be to use them primarily to absorb excess power from renewables and act as short-term storage (rated power output for ≤10 hours). EV1 standalone is probably more useful for long-term storage (≥10 hours). More than anything, it could be useful for balancing the grid during peak demand hours.
Thirdly, the idea of converting elevators to grav-batteries (or designing them for this purpose) is already being explored by many different firms, like ThyssenKrupp. The system is made even more efficient (up to 92% in some cases with next gen PM motors) when you factor in their rope-less elevator designs that use magnets instead (no counterweights at all). As I stated towards the end of the section, to actually convert every single elevator in any city would certainly not be practical. Some buildings would be excellent use cases while others would really inefficient. It really depends on the individual building, it's actual electrical system, the cost of installation for the given building/system, and what energy sources are powering it. The thought experiment was just a fun exercise to introduce a fascinating type of energy storage system that could be useful for all sorts of contexts. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I hope you have a wonderful rest of your night.
With love and gratitude,
Renato
Further reading and sources:
- https://www.tkelevator.com/global-en/products-and-service/multi/
- https://newatlas.com/energy/gravitricity-gravity-renewable-energy-storage-system/?itm_source=newatlas&itm_medium=article-body
- https://newatlas.com/energy/lift-energy-skyscraper-batteries/
- https://iiasa.ac.at/news/may-2022/turning-high-rise-buildings-into-batteries
My comments that using elevators as batteries wouldn't work was directed at the idea that existing elevators could be harnessed for that purpose. Certainly, you could build a special-purpose elevator that was not counter-balanced to act as an energy storage device, but it would need to be cheaper than an equivalent amount of stationary storage
batteries and I don't see a design that meets that basic cost criteria.
Using building elevators is a non-starter because when someone wants to use the elevator to go up, they want to use it when they need it, not wait for the time of day in which the utility has a surplus of power. Similarly, when people want to go down, they don't want to wait for the time when power is the most valuable. In other words, elevator usage is essentially random and continuous, and thus would add no storage value to a grid system.
To explain a bit further, sure, the elevators counterweights could be ditched so any lifting required the full amount of energy (plus friction losses) to be input in the form of electricity. Then elevators descending could generate electricity back into the grid (minus friction losses). But this is not the kind of energy storage the grid needs because the grid operators cannot dictate when they need the elevators to rise (full of people), and when they need the elevators to descend (full of people). People come and go all day long.
Interesting, so I guess the point is that you don't think this would ever be as cost-effective as other competing energy storage options. That's a fair point. It may probably better technology for improving the efficiency of extremely tall commercial buildings at night or maybe simply a better design for newer buildings altogether. Given the unbelievable free fall of commercial real estate in NYC recently, i'm wondering at what point they may consider using them as giant thermal storage units by just filling the offices with bricks.
The title of your article, "Hyundai Ioniq 6, True Rival to the Model 3" provided hope to me that legacy automakers were stepping up to the plate and were finally ready to help Tesla drive EV adoption numbers higher than I expected. However, when I visited the Hyundai USA website to check on availability of the 2023 Ioniq 6, the first statement I read was, "Available in extremely limited quantities and at select dealers in select states only.".
Extremely limited quantities? That's the first indication that Hyundai is selling the Ioniq 6 below cost in order to gain enough emissions credits to continue selling millions of polluting gas-powered vehicles without paying for the excessive emissions. That means the Ioniq 6 cannot compete with Tesla's Model 3 considering that Tesla has margins on the Model 3 that make other automakers envious. It also means, if Hyundai did decide at a future date to produce the Ioniq 6 at in high numbers, it could not compete favorably with the low price of the Model 3, even at breakeven prices for Hyundai. And no automaker can produce money losing cars at high volume.
In any case, in light of the "extremely limited quantities" of the Ioniq 6 that Hyundai says they are making available, and completely ignoring the non-competitive pricing, how can you consider it the "true rival to the Model 3"? That's not a rival, it's a compliance car that can't even hope to dent Model 3 sales.
Hey Marc,
Thanks again for your thoughts on Hyundai, but in regards to this specific model we completely disagree. Given what you've written, the implication is that you have not driven it yet. It may be that it is not available where you live and I'm very sorry if that is the case. That absolutely sucks and Hyundai should know. Unfortunately, this is not particularly relevant to the individual product which I personally tested... intensely.
Ioniq 6 is absolutely not a compliance car by any definition. It's a clean sheet designed vehicle on a BEV only platform called E-GMP that doesn't even fully comply with the IRA in the first place. Compliance cars tend to have the benefit of being designed for, well, compliance. It's serious attempt at a sedan competitor to the Model 3 and Model S for people that may be looking for electric transport that does not make a statement or requires much tech understanding. The car had a LOT of strengths and a few glaring weaknesses that were addressed as best I could in the article. It's pricing is very competitive given the range and charging speeds that all trims are capable of. While my writing could always be improved upon, but my opinion of the car is simply my opinion. It's informed by having test driven the Ioniq 6 myself and comparing it to my experience as a Tesla product expert, my ownership experience of a Model 3 Performance for over 45k miles, and many dozens of cross country trips and demos I've done in multiple different EVs. The Ioniq 6 won the World Car of the Year 2023 for a reason, probably a lot of the same reasons I called it a true rival to the Model 3, and I do hope you get the opportunity to try it yourself one day soon. Cars are in some ways subjective so you may have new ideas to add when you try.
I am happy to accept criticism of any OEM or my writing any time and I look forward to improving through it, please continue as I enjoy discussions!
My point is not that the Ionic 6 is not a smashing good car, it's that it can't be built and sold profitably. And that means it can't be built in large volumes. That's what makes it a compliance car, they will only build enough of them to satisfy fleet emissions, the true definition of "compliance car". While it's true that compliance cars were previously only built on ICE platforms, that kind of awful engineering is not going to fly today, even for a compliance car.
It's true that most new car buyers do not care if the manufacturer is selling at a profit or loss but it is very important for an auto industry analyst to understand the implications. Specifically, a car sold at a loss cannot be produced at high volume without running the companies finances into the ground. We need EV's that can be built sustainably, over many years and in high volumes. Ad, if the car cannot be produced in high volumes, the last thing it is is a "true rival" to Tesla's Model 3. A low volume car cannot rise to the status of "rival". No, the competition is STILL not coming. That's not tesla's fault, it's actually to their credit. They can build great EV's at prices no other company can match. That matters because new car buyers demand good value for their hard-earned money. Selling low volumes of EV's at a loss does not move the needle and does not constitute real competition.
In your article titled "Whispers of a New Low-cost Tesla Model", you state, "For context, Tesla’s goal is to produce and deliver 2 million vehicles by the end of 2023."
What is your source for this guidance? The only guidance I know of was relatively recently and was for only 1.8 million vehicles for 2023. There is a huge difference between 1.8 million and 2 million vehicles manufactured!
A very fair correction! Their guidance for 2 million vehicles was their targeted run rate for 2023, but forecast back in 2022. They've recently updated their guidance to 1.8 million as you said, but it seems I was confused in my research by Musk reiterating that they could still hit 2 million in 2023 absent any external disruptions. Best to stick to the official guidance. Thank you for your comment!