|
|
Post by EVangelist on Mar 6, 2016 10:42:33 GMT 11
This interesting article in IEEE Spectrum talks about a possible new battery tehnology that will roughly triple the energy density of LiIon and make 800 km driving range feasible in EVs. I think that's one of the things that many people just don't get with the EV debate. The technology leaps required here are, on technology terms, fairly modest. We're used to technology developments in processing power, computing, storage, data transmission, wireless technology etc doubling capability and halving costs every 2 years or so. To in effect completely solve EVs as a transport solution, we are at best only needing to double or triple battery capacity. Not 10x or 100x, just 2-3x. In historical technology terms, that is almost nothing. A good analogy is jet airplane flight. Once a jet airplane can travel half-way around the world on a single tank of fuel, there is no need to develop a longer range plane. It can go anywhere on the planet without stopping and refuel once it gets there. That's it - problem solved. There is no point being able to go once or twice around the planet on one tank. So with EVs, if you can go 800-1000km on one charge, there is no need to ever develop a longer range battery. You shouldn't ever drive a longer distance in one day (if not for your own safety, but for the safety of everyone else on the road!!) hence you will always have enough time at the end of the day to recharge it. This means that recharge time (something EV-haters bang on about) becomes irrelevant, it doesn't matter that it takes a few hours, you need your sleep. |
|
|
|
Post by antigas on Mar 6, 2016 12:25:36 GMT 11
This interesting article in IEEE Spectrum talks about a possible new battery tehnology that will roughly triple the energy density of LiIon and make 800 km driving range feasible in EVs. I think that's one of the things that many people just don't get with the EV debate. The technology leaps required here are, on technology terms, fairly modest. We're used to technology developments in processing power, computing, storage, data transmission, wireless technology etc doubling capability and halving costs every 2 years or so. To in effect completely solve EVs as a transport solution, we are at best only needing to double or triple battery capacity. Not 10x or 100x, just 2-3x. In historical technology terms, that is almost nothing. A good analogy is jet airplane flight. Once a jet airplane can travel half-way around the world on a single tank of fuel, there is no need to develop a longer range plane. It can go anywhere on the planet without stopping and refuel once it gets there. That's it - problem solved. There is no point being able to go once or twice around the planet on one tank. So with EVs, if you can go 800-1000km on one charge, there is no need to ever develop a longer range battery. You shouldn't ever drive a longer distance in one day (if not for your own safety, but for the safety of everyone else on the road!!) hence you will always have enough time at the end of the day to recharge it. This means that recharge time (something EV-haters bang on about) becomes irrelevant, it doesn't matter that it takes a few hours, you need your sleep. Man that would be the dream. How good would an 800km range be! I know personally I hardly ever go more than 100km in a day but everything you said rings true. Bring on the next 10yrs of battery development. Just like phones, I think we will look back in about 10yrs and go wow. |
|
|
|
Post by hieronymous on Mar 6, 2016 15:56:16 GMT 11
This interesting article in IEEE Spectrum talks about a possible new battery tehnology that will roughly triple the energy density of LiIon and make 800 km driving range feasible in EVs. ... So with EVs, if you can go 800-1000km on one charge, there is no need to ever develop a longer range battery. You shouldn't ever drive a longer distance in one day (if not for your own safety, but for the safety of everyone else on the road!!) hence you will always have enough time at the end of the day to recharge it. This means that recharge time (something EV-haters bang on about) becomes irrelevant, it doesn't matter that it takes a few hours, you need your sleep. Nice, but you would need a quick charger at home to charge that quickly. A Tesla requires about 70 hours charging at 2.4KWh, and we are talking about double that. Tesla's High Power home chargers cost several thousand dollars, but if you can afford a Tesla.... In a mature EV market, everyone would have to pay for their energy, just as they do now at the petrol station, and they would have to pay much more for practical charging solutions. No one is mentioning just how much it costs to quick charge a Tesla now at commercial rates. The technology will come, but not at an affordable price for most of us for a much longer period... |
|
|
|
Post by gabzimiev on Mar 8, 2016 9:39:32 GMT 11
A Tesla requires about 70 hours charging at 2.4KWh, and we are talking about double that. Tesla's High Power home chargers cost several thousand dollars, but if you can afford a Tesla.... huh ? they are $900 +install and maybe $1500 |
|
|
|
Post by hieronymous on Mar 8, 2016 10:23:50 GMT 11
A Tesla requires about 70 hours charging at 2.4KWh, and we are talking about double that. Tesla's High Power home chargers cost several thousand dollars, but if you can afford a Tesla.... huh ? they are $900 +install and maybe $1500 Tesla advise that (in the States), installation can range from $500-$5000+. |
|
|
|
Post by jacky on Mar 8, 2016 22:19:18 GMT 11
huh ? they are $900 +install and maybe $1500 Tesla advise that (in the States), installation can range from $500-$5000+. Charge at 2.4KWh? What do you mean? kWh is the unit of energy not unit of the power. You meant 2.4kW? If you meant charging at 2.4kW, it took 70 hours to charge the car?! Energy = Power * Time Energy of charging at 2.4kW for 70 hours = 168kWh. The biggest option of a Tesla is only 90kWh and you can't use all 90kWh. There are at least 78kWh differences in charging a Tesla 90kWh from absolutely 0% to 100%. Where are the energy gone (law of conservation of energy)? All I can see is the energy are converted to heat during the charging and that possibly cause the car and the house to burn to ashes. The HPWC can take a maximum of 220v 80A for a Tesla with dual charger. In US, you need a 100A circuit and supply to provide continuous power for HPWC @ 80A. If the supply of your house cannot support it, you need to upgrade it and it will cost you thousands of dollar. However, for a single charger, it only use at most 40A and the installation of the HPWC is just the 40A wiring from the main switch to the charge location which can be done without upgrading the supply and thus cost only a few hundred dollar. Therefore, gabzimiev is possibly right. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffjl on Mar 14, 2016 16:47:23 GMT 11
Charge at 2.4KWh? What do you mean? kWh is the unit of energy not unit of the power. You meant 2.4kW? If you meant charging at 2.4kW, it took 70 hours to charge the car?! Energy = Power * Time Energy of charging at 2.4kW for 70 hours = 168kWh. The biggest option of a Tesla is only 90kWh and you can't use all 90kWh. There are at least 78kWh differences in charging a Tesla 90kWh from absolutely 0% to 100%. Where are the energy gone (law of conservation of energy)? All I can see is the energy are converted to heat during the charging and that possibly cause the car and the house to burn to ashes. The HPWC can take a maximum of 220v 80A for a Tesla with dual charger. In US, you need a 100A circuit and supply to provide continuous power for HPWC @ 80A. If the supply of your house cannot support it, you need to upgrade it and it will cost you thousands of dollar. However, for a single charger, it only use at most 40A and the installation of the HPWC is just the 40A wiring from the main switch to the charge location which can be done without upgrading the supply and thus cost only a few hundred dollar. Therefore, gabzimiev is possibly right. Perhaps the 70 hours refers to the 110V AC the US has. Quite clearly not true with 2.4kW (or 3.6 with 15A). |
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Mar 16, 2016 21:37:29 GMT 11
Interesting to hear about an 8x better battery, but you can bet the range wont be increased 8x....instead they will take the opportunity to carry 8x less weight in batteries.
These are heavy hatchbacks.....
|
|
