EV batteries

STS-134

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,667
Reaction score
14,304
Location
Saratoga, CA
Wow, I guess no matter what I post, the two of you are on the opposite side of it. So I guess the two of you are against an aluminum graphite battery that holds 3 times the charge of a lithium battery while allowing a 10 minute recharge? Because if you remember, that was MY post that started this thread, which I stated was a game changer for making the EV attractive to the masses. Must be, since both of you are making the argument that charging too fast is a problem.
Not opposed to it, just saying that it's not necessary to make EVs attractive to the masses. We can make attractive EVs for the masses even before this technology makes it to the mass market. If you can get 250-500 kW DC fast chargers in every parking lot, the 10 minute recharge doesn't matter as much. But if you can get this aluminum graphite battery technology to market in the future as well, that's great, and it'll be another nail in the coffin of ICE cars, but it's not really necessary. If I was forced to choose between 10 minute recharges all the way to 100% that I had to do at dedicated charging stations/special stops or 250-500 kW DC fast chargers that taper after 40-60% SoC like today's superchargers do in every parking lot, I'd probably pick the latter. Of course if this technology becomes a reality, there's no reason why we can't have both.
 

Deacon

TXCTG
VIP
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
15,786
Reaction score
22,900
Location
Hill Country, TX
Wow, I guess no matter what I post, the two of you are on the opposite side of it. So I guess the two of you are against an aluminum graphene battery that holds 3 times the charge of a lithium battery while allowing a 10 minute recharge, without being affected by temperature extremes? Because if you remember, my post that started this thread was showing this as a positive, which I stated was a game changer for making the EV attractive to the masses. Must be, since both of you are making the argument that charging too fast is a problem. I guess everyone's supposed to be satisfied with the tech as it exists this minute, since the two of you are happy with it. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. So far as California banning all gasoline, they may not have done it, but I can see them doing it. It's only hyperbole if it's unlikely and for California, it's very possible.
Ok, first, come back after you’ve hopped down off your cotton pony. Second, whether your or anyone else says a thing doesn’t really impact whether that thing is valid. Third, imagine if the gas pumps charged by how long you’re parked at it rather than how much gas you’ve pumped, and you can start to understand how people who so often park at a pump and go inside without ever actually lifting the handle or who take their sweet time inside while the pump has long since clicked off would be annoyed about that. Fourth, yes, as has been stated here repeatedly by pretty much all of us, more capacity (without increasing weight or volume) is good for many reasons beyond simple and often irrational range anxiety, and charging speed able to be faster if and when appropriate is obviously a good thing as well.

There’s a ton of irrationality and misinformation out there about EVs. I don’t own one and probably won’t for a while, as I’ve said and shared why. EVs today, especially Teslas, are good enough that most of the "but sometimes" objections are either invalid, obsolete, or wildly exaggerated. The guy from the Technology Connections YouTube channel touched on this concept (not the specific topic of EVs in this case). In a video on LED stoplights vs incandescents, he says the following:

"This is the danger of 'But sometimes'. It goes a little something like this: The LED stoplight is more energy efficient, costs less to operate, requires less maintenance, can allow for a feasible battery backup solution, lasts longer, are brighter and easier to see (particularly in direct sunlight) BUT SOMETIMES snow and ice builds up on them, so clearly they are bad... When there’s a new innovation which changes how we do things for the better, its benefits are obvious... However, when the 'But Sometimes' rears its ugly head, people tend to freak out. Suddenly, all those benefits go away.

"But when discussing these problems, we need to look at them from all sides. Just how bad is the problem, really? How often does it occur? What would we be giving up if we abandoned our efforts, and should we abandon them? What can we do to combat the problem? Does the problem need a technical fix, or do we need to re-educate people and adjust their behavior? Perhaps the problem isn’t so much a problem, rather it’s a need for change elsewhere... Sometimes this change brings new issues to light, and may bring inconveniences from time to time."

This very much applies to EVs. The EV is far more energy efficient, costs less to operate, requires less maintenance, requires fewer stops to top off or even requires none at all. Like the LED stoplight that has defrost elements across it that only ever need to be used on the fairly rare occasion that it's so bad they could ice over might make them not 10x as efficient ALL the time, it still is NEARLY all the time. The entire valid argument against EV's currently is just a "but sometimes" complaint about recharging on occasional roadtrips. It might not save you time and hassle on rare occasion, but it still does so NEARLY all the the time. And for those who say I never think about my gas tank when running around town and just stop when the light comes on, fine, a very small tiny little bitty change in your behavior--plug your car in at night just like you do your phone--eliminates that concern forever.

Like I've said repeatedly, like everyone's said, increasing capacity and decreasing charge time is great. It's not necessary for them to be good and even superior in nearly every way to ICE cars. It just means the stubborn “but sometimes” is now a never.
 
Last edited:

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
527
Reaction score
729
Not opposed to it, just saying that it's not necessary to make EVs attractive to the masses. We can make attractive EVs for the masses even before this technology makes it to the mass market. If you can get 250-500 kW DC fast chargers in every parking lot, the 10 minute recharge doesn't matter as much. But if you can get this aluminum graphite battery technology to market in the future as well, that's great, and it'll be another nail in the coffin of ICE cars, but it's not really necessary.
People are creatures of habit and they aren't going to want to give up the convenience of not worrying about refueling when empty and not worrying about it otherwise. The AL battery solves that argument. It also has other significant advantages over Li, like not overheating either in use or during charging, you can use the full capacity as opposed to Li that doesn't like over 80 or under 20 (I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong on this,) and more importantly doesn't lose capacity over time. Li loses, what, 10ish percent after 1000 charges? Testing on the AL battery shows a negligible loss of capacity after 7000 charges. Then there's 3 times the density per pound of AL over Li, so if the battery pack is the same size there's 3 times the range, or a third of the weight, plus the ability to use 100 percent over 60 percent so add in that additional range. All of these benefits will win over even the most die-hard petrol-head, and ICE vehicles will lose sales to the point that they're no longer profitable before any government mandates shut them down.
If I was forced to choose between 10 minute recharges all the way to 100% that I had to do at dedicated charging stations/special stops or 250-500 kW DC fast chargers that taper after 40-60% SoC like today's superchargers do in every parking lot, I'd probably pick the latter. Of course if this technology becomes a reality, there's no reason why we can't have both.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you're in the minority here. I can't see anyone saying that they'd prefer 30 minutes up to an hour partial charge over a quick under-10 full charge. Topping off in under 10 minutes doesn't stop you from taking 30 minutes at the rest stop, but taking 30 minutes to charge does stop you from quickly getting back on the road.
Post automatically merged:

Ok, first, come back after you’ve hopped down off your cotton pony.
I stopped reading your post after this. So, whatever your point was, was wasted.
 
Last edited:

STS-134

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,667
Reaction score
14,304
Location
Saratoga, CA
People are creatures of habit and they aren't going to want to give up the convenience of not worrying about refueling when empty and not worrying about it otherwise. The AL battery solves that argument. It also has other significant advantages over Li, like not overheating either in use or during charging, you can use the full capacity as opposed to Li that doesn't like over 80 or under 20 (I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong on this,) and more importantly doesn't lose capacity over time. Li loses, what, 10ish percent after 1000 charges? Testing on the AL battery shows a negligible loss of capacity after 7000 charges. Then there's 3 times the density per pound of AL over Li, so if the battery pack is the same size there's 3 times the range, or a third of the weight, plus the ability to use 100 percent over 60 percent so add in that additional range. All of these benefits will win over even the most die-hard petrol-head, and ICE vehicles will lose sales to the point that they're no longer profitable before any government mandates shut them down.
It's definitely exciting technology, even if it only does half of what they claim it'll be able to do.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you're in the minority here. I can't see anyone saying that they'd prefer 30 minutes up to an hour partial charge over a quick under-10 full charge. Topping off in under 10 minutes doesn't stop you from taking 30 minutes at the rest stop, but taking 30 minutes to charge does stop you from quickly getting back on the road.
It's not 30 minutes up to an hour for a partial charge (with today's technology). It's more like 10-15 minutes for a partial charge and 30 minutes gets me close enough to a full charge that it's just about as good.

10 minutes on a 250 kW supercharger gets me all the way to around 45% and 15 minutes gets me to around 60%. 30 minutes would get me close to 85-90%. It's that last 10-15% that would take another 30 minutes and I wouldn't ever wait around for it unless I was preoccupied doing something else, like having a meal. And honestly, if it was a charge up and go type of stop, I'd bail at around 12 minutes with 50% SoC and just go to the next charging station. But you've got to remember that, after leaving home with 100% SoC, stopping for ~12 minutes and getting another 50% SoC, by the time I'm running low again, I've already gone 400-450 miles. So at that time, it's at least time to stop for meal and bathroom break, and definitely longer than 12 minutes.
 
Last edited:

Deacon

TXCTG
VIP
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
15,786
Reaction score
22,900
Location
Hill Country, TX
This video from February outlines many of the points already covered here and more besides. His main conclusion is that the the main limiting factor today when it comes to EV adoption isn't so much range or cost but the lack of consistent, widely available charging infrastructure. He has two primary complaints, and they seem to be highly consistent with most other EV owners and enthusiasts:

1) Tesla still seems to be hanging onto its own proprietary connector in the US, despite having moved to the CCS standard back in 2018 in Europe due to simple governmental regulations ensuring everyone's on the same page. The lack of standardization in the US creates a major deficit in current charging infrastructure that's already limited. Getting Tesla to get on board with collecting charging fees from everyone else by standardizing on CCS would be a massive help in this regard.

2) The US federal government appears to be incentivizing individual vehicle purchases, which is fine but maybe even unnecessary. What they really should be doing is instead is investing in and incentivizing the implementation of far broader infrastructure. If the feds continue to refuse to establish a universal standard charging connector, they can at least incentivize the CCS1 or CCS2 standard (presumably CCS2 for more global consistency and looking to the future). If infrastructure is their responsibility, rolling out chargers is fundamental to that.

Personally I generally agree with these two items. Format wars are not about what's best for the consumer and hold back broader adoption. It seems like everyone other than Tesla is frustrated and annoyed that Tesla continues to try to push their own plug. Tesla does a lot of things well, and I think if they were to actually get behind and contribute to efforts establish a standard, it would go a very long way to smoothing out the way forward.

 

STS-134

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,667
Reaction score
14,304
Location
Saratoga, CA
This video from February outlines many of the points already covered here and more besides. His main conclusion is that the the main limiting factor today when it comes to EV adoption isn't so much range or cost but the lack of consistent, widely available charging infrastructure. He has two primary complaints, and they seem to be highly consistent with most other EV owners and enthusiasts:

1) Tesla still seems to be hanging onto its own proprietary connector in the US, despite having moved to the CCS standard back in 2018 in Europe due to simple governmental regulations ensuring everyone's on the same page. The lack of standardization in the US creates a major deficit in current charging infrastructure that's already limited. Getting Tesla to get on board with collecting charging fees from everyone else by standardizing on CCS would be a massive help in this regard.
Standards are good for getting interoperability, but they can hold back progress. At the time Tesla rolled out supercharging, there was no standard that charged that fast. So Tesla would have had to wait around for CCS to get standardized before rolling out the superchargers. Nowadays, that's less of an issue, but I still don't think CCS1 can do > 600A @ 400V, which is what the V3 superchargers do. CCS can do up to 400 kW, but that's 400A @ 1kV, and Porsche's Taycan can charge at 350 kW, but requires an 800V charger to do it (which is close to 400A; I believe the voltage of the charger goes above 800V which is what gets you to 350 kW).

I'm not sure if Tesla is pushing the CCS2 plugs beyond their rated limit in Europe for the V3 superchargers (which use CCS2 plugs). Seems like they might be: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/cn8ibk
2) The US federal government appears to be incentivizing individual vehicle purchases, which is fine but maybe even unnecessary. What they really should be doing is instead is investing in and incentivizing the implementation of far broader infrastructure. If the feds continue to refuse to establish a universal standard charging connector, they can at least incentivize the CCS1 or CCS2 standard (presumably CCS2 for more global consistency and looking to the future). If infrastructure is their responsibility, rolling out chargers is fundamental to that.
Standardizing on CCS2 would mean ripping the J-1772 plug out of every existing EV in the US (except for Teslas). The CCS standard has two large pins on the bottom. Those are used for the high voltage direct current. The top plug is used for signaling, and is the same plug used for AC charging. North America uses the J-1772 plug, as mentioned previously, so CCS1 is simply a J-1772 plug with the CCS pins on the bottom. Europe uses IEC 62196 connectors on the other hand, so their CCS2 plugs combine that connector with the high voltage pins on the bottom.

But even if we got the US and Europe to agree, we still wouldn't have a universal charging standard. Japan is still pushing CHAdeMO (at least locally) even though Nissan put CHAdeMO out of its misery and will switch to CCS1 for the new Ariya, so the US is down to CCS1 and Tesla. And don't even get me started about GB/T 20234.2-2015.
Personally I generally agree with these two items. Format wars are not about what's best for the consumer and hold back broader adoption. It seems like everyone other than Tesla is frustrated and annoyed that Tesla continues to try to push their own plug. Tesla does a lot of things well, and I think if they were to actually get behind and contribute to efforts establish a standard, it would go a very long way to smoothing out the way forward.

Wow, the editors need to go back and correct a huge mistake. The Chevy Volt is a plug-in hybrid (and is discontinued). Chevy's pure EV is called the Bolt. Also, they mentioned the Tesla CCS2 adapter at 13:33-13:37, but they didn't even show a picture of the proper adapter. The CCS2 adapter looks like this. However they showed a photo of the CHAdeMO adapter instead.

I hate proprietary stuff, but Tesla has done one more thing well: all of its plugs have a button on them and if you press the button while the handle is within about 2-3 feet of your car's charging port, the charging port opens. And the guy making this video left out one important fact: if you plug the charging handle into the charge port (so the car detects it) and then remove it, the door will close automatically about 3-5 seconds after you remove the handle. It really doesn't get much easier than this.


If my wife had to fumble around with a J-1772 adapter and open and close that door manually, I'm not sure if she'd plug it in every day. But with a Tesla Wall Connector, it takes her about 2-3 seconds to plug in and 2-3 seconds to unplug. 4-6 seconds/day to refuel a car.
 
Last edited:

Deacon

TXCTG
VIP
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
15,786
Reaction score
22,900
Location
Hill Country, TX
At the time Tesla rolled out supercharging, there was no standard that charged that fast. So Tesla would have had to wait around for CCS to get standardized before rolling out the superchargers.
To my knowledge there was no concerted effort by Tesla to work with the SAE or anyone else to create a forward-looking standard that would make sense for everyone.

Edit to add: I've never had a problem with any vehicle at the fuel pump. It works no matter what the brand. Granted, it's simpler, but we're not talking about massively complex needs or devices here, either. The only possible mix-up is putting gasoline into a diesel tank, and you don't even have that with EV charging.

I hate proprietary stuff, but Tesla has done one more thing well: all of its plugs have a button on them and if you press the button while the handle is within about 2-3 feet of your car's charging port, the charging port opens. And the guy making this video left out one important fact: if you plug the charging handle into the charge port (so the car detects it) and then remove it, the door will close automatically about 3-5 seconds after you remove the handle. It really doesn't get much easier than this.

If my wife had to fumble around with a J-1772 adapter and open and close that door manually, I'm not sure if she'd plug it in every day. But with a Tesla Wall Connector, it takes her about 2-3 seconds to plug in and 2-3 seconds to unplug. 4-6 seconds/day to refuel a car.
It's difficult to tell if you're serious. Of all the makes and models of vehicles I've ever owned or driven or even seen, opening the fuel door manually is required to refuel. The only time it's ever presented a challenge is in an unfamiliar car that has one of those locking fuel doors that you have to find the right lever to pull inside to pop it open. Pull to open, push to pop out, whatever it is, I can't imagine this incredibly minor novelty being anywhere near the top of anyone's list of must haves, much less a deciding factor or dealbreaker.
 
Last edited:

Boozehound

Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 7, 2016
Messages
2,610
Reaction score
8,564
@Fireball are you angry? You don't seem angry to me but if I missed it please share.

I don’t own one and probably won’t for a while, as I’ve said and shared why.
Your objections are "invalid, obsolete, or wildly exaggerated." You're just "poking holes."

@STS-134 thank you for the plug primer. I also like standards but not to the point of holding back progress. I've never owned an iPhone for this reason. I won't carry extra cords for them. If Apple's proprietary stuff holds an advantage over USB-C, please school me.

The number of > 500 mile drives in a single day I've ever done I can count on one hand.
The number of > 500 mile drives in a single day I've done this year I'll need both hands and feet to count. Might even have to unzip.

Range anxiety isn't exclusive to EVs. I've run cars down to a half gallon or so a few times and that came with some anxiety. But I wasn't interested in paying 40 or 50 cents more per gallon. Of course if I ran it out of fuel it isn't that tough to fix that. Trying to run an EV's battery down to 5% sounds like a lot of nail biting to me. First you have to plan this and then you hope no one has the charger tied up. You and @Deacon have a point that maybe that discomfort stems from unfamiliarity.

EV's need to compete without subsidies. They already have much going for them especially for city use. Or maybe a third vehicle. Straight acceleration is already there. But how do they handle? How do they ride? My Toyota's need little maintenance and I do most of it. One of my friend's Teslas has had a lot of problems. I only know one place to take a Tesla for repairs. Maybe owners can speak to alternatives.

I'm not sure why some people feel the need to trash talk others for not seeing the EV light. It doesn't work for me yet. But it is promising. If the improvements continue at the same pace it won't be long.

The grid is another matter entirely. Look at the numbers being tossed around here. 72, 100, 250KW! Think about this for a moment. Typical homes are rarely consuming more than about 15KW. Maybe if the A/C is on, someone is cooking with electric appliances and the laundry is being done. A 4 ton A/C needs about 4KW. Twenty years ago it was no problem but since we've lost so many coal plants we are frequently asked to turn up our thermostats in the Summer here in TX. Maybe Al Gore's 20K square foot mansion needs 72KW to cool but think about adding a few hundred thousand of those on the grid! And that's the "small" version. It's great to be able to plug your car in and have it set to charge after 10PM but is that really going to work for everyone? For places like the People's Republic of Kali this isn't going to help your grid problems at all. But then Kali has had super majority rule for a loooong time. I can't imagine why it isn't Utopia by now. Ditto for NYC. And Chicago.
 

STS-134

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,667
Reaction score
14,304
Location
Saratoga, CA
It's difficult to tell if you're serious. Of all the makes and models of vehicles I've ever owned or driven or even seen, opening the fuel door manually is required to refuel.
Yes but you probably don't open that door every single day.
The only time it's ever presented a challenge is in an unfamiliar car that has one of those locking fuel doors that you have to find the right lever to pull inside to pop it open. Pull to open, push to pop out, whatever it is, I can't imagine this incredibly minor novelty being anywhere near the top of anyone's list of must haves, much less a deciding factor or dealbreaker.
It's not bad if you're using a J-1772 socket and connector. But that Tesla to J-1772 adapter just feels clunky, and I found it annoying to fumble around with every day. 2:14-2:42 in the video: https://www.tesla.com/support/meet-your-tesla/model-3#charging The part of the procedure I find annoying is what he describes at 2:32-2:38. For some reason the adapter sometimes sticks in the charge port as I pull on the plug and the two don't come out together. Furthermore, my home charging station has a place to put the plug when it's not in use and the plug will not fit into the slot with the adapter attached, so I can't just leave the adapter on the end. I have to put it back in the vehicle every time (and I keep it in the compartment below the trunk). It's a very minor annoyance but for daily use, it's just so much easier to use the Tesla wall connector.

@STS-134 thank you for the plug primer. I also like standards but not to the point of holding back progress. I've never owned an iPhone for this reason. I won't carry extra cords for them. If Apple's proprietary stuff holds an advantage over USB-C, please school me.
Lightning? Much worse than USB-C. I've never used any devices that have Lightning cables.
The number of > 500 mile drives in a single day I've done this year I'll need both hands and feet to count. Might even have to unzip.

Range anxiety isn't exclusive to EVs. I've run cars down to a half gallon or so a few times and that came with some anxiety. But I wasn't interested in paying 40 or 50 cents more per gallon. Of course if I ran it out of fuel it isn't that tough to fix that. Trying to run an EV's battery down to 5% sounds like a lot of nail biting to me. First you have to plan this and then you hope no one has the charger tied up. You and @Deacon have a point that maybe that discomfort stems from unfamiliarity.
It's not, if you pick the right charging site. Ideally, one that the computer tells you that you should be able to get to with between 10-20% left. Then it's a game to see how little you can arrive with (which you can easily do by driving as fast as possible). Since the extra usage comes off the "bottom" of the battery, which fills up at 250 kW, there's almost no penalty in charging time. It takes about 2 minutes, 20 seconds to go from 0% to 10%, for example.
EV's need to compete without subsidies. They already have much going for them especially for city use. Or maybe a third vehicle. Straight acceleration is already there. But how do they handle? How do they ride?
At least as good as ICE vehicles. The batteries give these cars a very low center of gravity. My BEV handles better than any ICE vehicle I've ever owned (although it's the first performance car I've ever bought, so I'm really not doing a fair comparison here).
My Toyota's need little maintenance and I do most of it. One of my friend's Teslas has had a lot of problems. I only know one place to take a Tesla for repairs. Maybe owners can speak to alternatives.

I'm not sure why some people feel the need to trash talk others for not seeing the EV light. It doesn't work for me yet. But it is promising. If the improvements continue at the same pace it won't be long.
I'm not sure why people have this idea that every car has to do everything. If you want a good racing vehicle that you can off-road in, you're not going to find it. You should get two different vehicles, each of which does what you got it for well. EVs are good for around town driving. They're not as good for road trips. So get one car for driving within 200 miles of home, and another for road trips. The EV can do road trips if you really want it to, but if you want to stop at random places in the middle of nowhere, it won't be ideal. Still, I can do trips up to around 130 miles from home (for a full 260 mile roundtrip) without even stopping to charge at all. Extending this distance by an additional 150 miles, for well over 350 miles roundtrip, would require just a 10-12 minute stop if I do it at the right battery charge level. Since such a trip would likely require at least one refueling stop in a gas car, that's a difference in stopping time of only about 5-7 minutes.
The grid is another matter entirely. Look at the numbers being tossed around here. 72, 100, 250KW! Think about this for a moment. Typical homes are rarely consuming more than about 15KW. Maybe if the A/C is on, someone is cooking with electric appliances and the laundry is being done. A 4 ton A/C needs about 4KW. Twenty years ago it was no problem but since we've lost so many coal plants we are frequently asked to turn up our thermostats in the Summer here in TX. Maybe Al Gore's 20K square foot mansion needs 72KW to cool but think about adding a few hundred thousand of those on the grid! And that's the "small" version. It's great to be able to plug your car in and have it set to charge after 10PM but is that really going to work for everyone? For places like the People's Republic of Kali this isn't going to help your grid problems at all. But then Kali has had super majority rule for a loooong time. I can't imagine why it isn't Utopia by now. Ditto for NYC. And Chicago.
The peak usage really doesn't matter. To charge your battery by about 25%, you can consume 10 kW for 2 hours, or 5 kW for 4 hours, or 250 kW for 4.8 minutes. You're never going to have all vehicles consuming 250 kW all night long because that's just not possible. For one thing, their batteries would be full in just 20 minutes if they were able to charge at that speed from 0% all the way to 100%. The total usage gets smoothed out because it's averaged over a large number of vehicles, and most of those vehicles will be charging when electricity is cheapest -- during the middle of the day and late at night.

Focusing on the peak charge power is kind of like asking "Aren't we in trouble if everyone's thermostat happens to turn on the AC at the same time and everyone decides to cook dinner at exactly the same time too?". First of all, the answer to that question is yes. But I guarantee you that the utility company doesn't worry about that either, also due to the central limit theorem. It's possible for it to happen, but it would likely take longer than the age of the universe for something like this to happen via independent events.
 
Last edited:

Deacon

TXCTG
VIP
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
15,786
Reaction score
22,900
Location
Hill Country, TX
I'm not sure why some people feel the need to trash talk others for not seeing the EV light.
I'm not sure why some people feel the need to misconstrue the correction of dismissive myths and misconceptions tossed around casually for "trash talking" anyone. Fireball got himself all hotted up because every time he would throw stuff out there about the grid or having to stop for an hour every time you want to charge, or whatever else, his points were corrected. In my case I've already stated that an EV is an unlikely purchase in the foreseeable future for me and why. None of it depended on invalid, obsolete, or wildly exaggerated "hyperbole" (his word) to be sensible.

The grid is another matter entirely.
A matter long since addressed repeatedly.
 

Deacon

TXCTG
VIP
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
15,786
Reaction score
22,900
Location
Hill Country, TX
Yes but you probably don't open that door every single day.
That's often true, though sometimes multiple times in a day. I just can't imagine it even showing up as a blip on the radar that the opener has to be on the cord itself.

I found it annoying to fumble around with every day... Furthermore, my home charging station has a place to put the plug when it's not in use and the plug will not fit into the slot with the adapter attached, so I can't just leave the adapter on the end.
Concerns about deteriorating dexterity aside (;)) why would you fumble around with it every day? I didn't think you even had the ability to attach it to your home charger at all. With your native Tesla wall charger in your home, I thought you would only ever get out an adapter when it was actually needed in the field. Even better if an adapter wasn't required, but still.


Speaking of which, I think that's one of the most often overlooked parts of the whole infrastructure and charging discussion. Electricity is already everywhere. Gasoline and diesel only exist in tanks buried in the ground at fuel stations. That parking lot at the grocery store or mall or hardware store or gas station or office building or restaurant, all of them with the lighting every so often? Electricity. Maybe not ready for installing superchargers at them, but the point is EV fuel is already there if they wanted to expose a plug. An EVSE is a relatively inexpensive device, basically just a plastic weatherproof box with a contactor and a couple of LEDs (and maybe a card reader and cellular modem for commercial implementation) and would be fairly easy to get distributed in such scenarios. Every RV camping place is already ready to go. You head up to spend the night with some extended family? Even in the absolute worst case scenario they have a regularly old 15A plug somewhere nearby to get you to a supercharger.

I guess what I'm saying is that if we really wanted to, we wouldn't have to worry about trying to install massive V3 DC fast-charging infrastructure everywhere we turn. Park under a light at Costco, hook up to even a measly low-grade L2 7.5kW charger, and you can pump in at least an extra 25-ish miles of range while you're wandering around in there for 45 minutes. Without even improving battery chemistry. When you leave the movie theater after enjoying the latest blockbuster and overpriced popcorn? An extra 50 or 75 miles, depending on if you're the kind of person who watches the credits. Just by bolting a box to the pole that cost a few hundred bucks and should last a good 5 years or more.


I'm not sure why people have this idea that every car has to do everything.
The "But Sometimes" effect. It's like someone who's got a boa as a pet constantly escaping, killing their other pets, attacking them and gnawing on their hands, and as they're trying to pull it off their face where it's clamping down they respond, "Yeah, I see your point that a loyal companion dog might be a better option, but sometimes I heard they can fart where you actually smell it." Like, OK, maybe they're not literally perfect in every way at all times, but that thing making oil spots on your driveway may be even less perfect in all ways but one or two. Obviously that's only hyperbole ;)

Lightning? Much worse than USB-C. I've never used any devices that have Lightning cables.
Lightning came out a couple of years before USB-C because Apple got tired of waiting around for USB-C. In fact, Apple actually contributed quite a bit to the USB-C standard and have switched over to making heavy use of it throughout their product lines other than with the iPhone essentially. But the Lightning connector is also smaller, allowing for slimmer devices and generally more design flexibility, it has its primary inherent failure points the tabs on the cable side rather than the device port so that should damage occur you can simple replace the cable (durability is theoretically better), and they were free to do a whole lot more with it than any standard USB for a few years.

Personally, I was annoyed when the iPhone 12 came out and still used a Lightning connector, as I was hoping they'd finally get this last holdout of their line over to USB-C. Alas, it was not to be. I guess too much inertia behind the Lightning connector ecosystem for handheld devices and accessories, maybe. Regardless, the industry speculation consensus seems to be that the Lightning connector will be a part of the iPhone until it goes full wireless/portless. Maybe this year, maybe 5 years from now, who knows?
 
Last edited:

STS-134

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,667
Reaction score
14,304
Location
Saratoga, CA
Concerns about deteriorating dexterity aside (;)) why would you fumble around with it every day? I didn't think you even had the ability to attach it to your home charger at all. With your native Tesla wall charger in your home, I thought you would only ever get out an adapter when it was actually needed in the field. Even better if an adapter wasn't required, but still.
When I got the car, I only had one EVSE in the garage, and it has a J-1772 plug on it. So for the first 2 weeks, I charged by pulling the cord across two garage spaces and using the adapter. That's why I upgraded my electrical panel and installed a wall connector: so I only have to use the adapters when I need to charge outside my house (which isn't too often -- I haven't done this in over a month).
Speaking of which, I think that's one of the most often overlooked parts of the whole infrastructure and charging discussion. Electricity is already everywhere. Gasoline and diesel only exist in tanks buried in the ground at fuel stations. That parking lot at the grocery store or mall or hardware store or gas station or office building or restaurant, all of them with the lighting every so often? Electricity. Maybe not ready for installing superchargers at them, but the point is EV fuel is already there if they wanted to expose a plug. An EVSE is a relatively inexpensive device, basically just a plastic weatherproof box with a contactor and a couple of LEDs (and maybe a card reader and cellular modem for commercial implementation) and would be fairly easy to get distributed in such scenarios. Every RV camping place is already ready to go. You head up to spend the night with some extended family? Even in the absolute worst case scenario they have a regularly old 15A plug somewhere nearby to get you to a supercharger.
And most of the time, they'll likely have a dryer outlet you can plug into and that'll get you around 5.5 kW, which is around 20-25 miles of range/hour.
 

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
527
Reaction score
729
It's definitely exciting technology, even if it only does half of what they claim it'll be able to do.
Yup. I really hope it isn't all hype. 7000 charges tested and no deterioration, we're talking 3.5 million miles on a single battery pack with 500 miles of range. A person could potentially buy a battery pack on their 16th birthday and pass it on to their kids and grandkids, because an average of 20K miles per year means 175 years of use with no degradation. Can't see them actually lasting that long though, but they'd definitely be a "life of the car" thing and not a wear item.
It's not 30 minutes up to an hour for a partial charge (with today's technology). It's more like 10-15 minutes for a partial charge and 30 minutes gets me close enough to a full charge that it's just about as good.

10 minutes on a 250 kW supercharger gets me all the way to around 45% and 15 minutes gets me to around 60%. 30 minutes would get me close to 85-90%. It's that last 10-15% that would take another 30 minutes and I wouldn't ever wait around for it unless I was preoccupied doing something else, like having a meal. And honestly, if it was a charge up and go type of stop, I'd bail at around 12 minutes with 50% SoC and just go to the next charging station. But you've got to remember that, after leaving home with 100% SoC, stopping for ~12 minutes and getting another 50% SoC, by the time I'm running low again, I've already gone 400-450 miles. So at that time, it's at least time to stop for meal and bathroom break, and definitely longer than 12 minutes.
Yes, but why settle for a partial charge when the same amount of time gets you a full charge, and not having to worry about getting a charge at the next stop?
 

STS-134

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,667
Reaction score
14,304
Location
Saratoga, CA
Yup. I really hope it isn't all hype. 7000 charges tested and no deterioration, we're talking 3.5 million miles on a single battery pack with 500 miles of range. A person could potentially buy a battery pack on their 16th birthday and pass it on to their kids and grandkids, because an average of 20K miles per year means 175 years of use with no degradation. Can't see them actually lasting that long though, but they'd definitely be a "life of the car" thing and not a wear item.
I highly doubt you're going to see zero degradation, and I highly doubt anyone's going to be passing battery packs to their grandkids. Batteries always undergo stress testing for degradation but some degradation happens due to time alone -- even if the batteries are never used.
Yes, but why settle for a partial charge when the same amount of time gets you a full charge, and not having to worry about getting a charge at the next stop?
Well...because this technology doesn't exist yet, so until we find a way to do it, we make do with the technology we have. When I do the rough back of the envelope calculations for the Tesla, the operating costs for the energy to power it come to about half of what it costs to operate a 25-30 mpg gasoline car. That's all the motivation I need to drive that car whenever it isn't too terribly inconvenient to do so.
 

STS-134

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,667
Reaction score
14,304
Location
Saratoga, CA
@Fireball Your quotes, taken from the other thread:
I guess to answer that we'd need to know how your Tesla handles the same hill
The Tesla handles it just fine. It has enough battery capacity to go up the entire hill at 90 mph and doing so would probably only take ~10% of the battery.
, and your PHEV as well, to get an idea on how the differing technologies handle it.
As long as a vehicle has enough battery capacity to tackle the tallest mountain, it'll do fine. But that's not the case with the BMW i3 REx once the range extender comes on. Of course, the i3 REx *does* have the battery capacity to tackle the highest mountain...but it has to start from something way above charge-sustaining mode at the bottom of the climb. That's a big issue, since people buy the i3 REx (as opposed to just the plain i3) so they won't have to stop and charge on a roadtrip. Except now they are forced to stop and connect to a fast charger because they don't want to become a sitting duck in the middle of the freeway doing 40-50 mph up an incline with a 70 mph PSL. Oops.
I did say an engineer would have to determine the optimal battery to generator ratio. The nice thing about the serial hybrid is the engine is not connected to the wheels, so it can run at its sweet spot all the time.
I'm pretty sure the engineers didn't design the i3 REx this way. In fact, the i3 REx in Europe is a more similar to a PHEV, and can use its ICE to charge its batteries. The user is allowed to select Charge mode, an option that is not available on the US model. On the European model, the user can switch on the ICE to preserve battery power (or charge the battery) if he/she anticipates climbing a mountain.

So what happened? Well, the idiot politicians in California created this category of vehicle called the BEVx, which as I mentioned upthread, stands for "Battery Electric Vehicle with eXtender". There are several requirements, and the main ones are (1) That the ICE is not allowed to the battery until it has reached the charge-sustaining lower limit; (2) That the APU range has to be less than or equal to the all-electric range; (3) Minimum 75 miles all-electric range. Such vehicles are treated like pure EVs for tax credit purposes, so they get bigger rebates, the companies that produce them get more carbon credits, etc. Oh, and in case you didn't notice yet from those requirements, the i3 REx sucks as a gasoline car too, because of the 2.4 gallon gas tank; due requirement (2), you're stopping for gas every < 97 miles.

Now the problem is that although the battery stores enough energy to travel 97 miles, and when it reaches the charge-sustaining lower limit, there's very little energy left before the computer has to throttle back the power if the ICE cannot keep up. You'd think that the politicians and the people on the California Air Resources Board would be a little bit smarter given that this state actually has fairly big mountains, and they'd have been able to figure out that they were actually imposing requirements that would make a vehicle dangerous to drive on mountain freeways, but nope, these people are idiots. I could have told them about this problem before they even left the meeting at which this was first discussed -- and I'm not even an automotive engineer.
I do find it amusing, that you're suddenly concerned about battery discharging and batter life just because an ICE is on board generating power, like you're always going up mountains at 85MPH. Done correctly, the batteries should not be discharged nearly as many times, or nearly as quickly, as they are on EV-only cars, because the generator is supplying the power to the drive motor. The batteries will only be asked to fill in what the generator doesn't, and will immediately be charged back as soon as the generator overtakes the load. They aren't being asked to do a large discharges followed by a large recharge, but treated more like a reserve tank. So yes, if you're climbing a mountain the batteries will be asked to discharge, but not at the same rate as they would on a battery-powered EV because the generator is still carrying the heavy part of the load. A smaller battery pack supplemented by a generator should be just as capable as a battery-only EV.
Yes, so long as the battery has enough capacity for the car to make it up the highest mountain without running out of power, and the user is smart enough to charge the batteries before attempting the climb. My PHEV can easily tackle the Grapevine on I-5 if I actually start with at least 50% SoC. But whether it makes sense to lug around batteries that big that might not ever be used to their full capacity (I can't imagine that someone who only drives around Oklahoma is going to be climbing mountains that often, for example) is another matter. The other options are to make the vehicle a PHEV instead of just a serial hybrid, so that this extra battery capacity can also be used to take grid power and keep the vehicle in EV mode most of the time (which is what the Chevy Volt is) or to just make the ICE bigger and allow it to directly power the wheels when necessary (which is what is done in almost every hybrid vehicle).

I believe it is for these reasons that we have not seen any non plug-in series hybrids. ICE optimized to run a generator at one power level means you need a big battery. And once you install a big battery in a car with an ICE, you might as well just make it a PHEV.

I agree, and even asked them to move it to the battery thread I started. I'm not going to respond to them any more on this thread, if they want to continue the discussion they can move it to the appropriate thread.
Well, I'm moving the conversation here. Regardless of whether the other messages get moved.
 
Last edited:

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
527
Reaction score
729
IF the two of you want to continue the serial hybrid discussion, we can have it here. We're hijacking that other thread pretty hard.
I highly doubt you're going to see zero degradation, and I highly doubt anyone's going to be passing battery packs to their grandkids. Batteries always undergo stress testing for degradation but some degradation happens due to time alone -- even if the batteries are never used.
So, we're in complete agreement again.
Well...because this technology doesn't exist yet, so until we find a way to do it, we make do with the technology we have. When I do the rough back of the envelope calculations for the Tesla, the operating costs for the energy to power it come to about half of what it costs to operate a 25-30 mpg gasoline car. That's all the motivation I need to drive that car whenever it isn't too terribly inconvenient to do so.
Except apparently it does exist, and is about to go into manufacturing. Patiently waiting to see if the AL batteries do pan out, in the meantime I'm preparing for a conversion from ICE to EV.
Post automatically merged:

@Fireball Your quotes, taken from the other thread:

The Tesla handles it just fine. It has enough battery capacity to go up the entire hill at 90 mph and doing so would probably only take ~10% of the battery.
Non-issue then. An EV would have the same limitation as a serial hybrid in the same situation.
As long as a vehicle has enough battery capacity to tackle the tallest mountain, it'll do fine. But that's not the case with the BMW i3 REx once the range extender comes on. Of course, the i3 REx *does* have the battery capacity to tackle the highest mountain...but it has to start from something way above charge-sustaining mode at the bottom of the climb. That's a big issue, since people buy the i3 REx (as opposed to just the plain i3) so they won't have to stop and charge on a roadtrip. Except now they are forced to stop and connect to a fast charger because they don't want to become a sitting duck in the middle of the freeway doing 40-50 mph up an incline with a 70 mph PSL. Oops.

I'm pretty sure the engineers didn't design the i3 REx this way. In fact, the i3 REx in Europe is a more similar to a PHEV, and can use its ICE to charge its batteries. The user is allowed to select Charge mode, an option that is not available on the US model. On the European model, the user can switch on the ICE to preserve battery power (or charge the battery) if he/she anticipates climbing a mountain.

So what happened? Well, the idiot politicians in California created this category of vehicle called the BEVx, which as I mentioned upthread, stands for "Battery Electric Vehicle with eXtender". There are several requirements, and the main ones are (1) That the ICE is not allowed to the battery until it has reached the charge-sustaining lower limit; (2) That the APU range has to be less than or equal to the all-electric range; (3) Minimum 75 miles all-electric range. Such vehicles are treated like pure EVs for tax credit purposes, so they get bigger rebates, the companies that produce them get more carbon credits, etc. Oh, and in case you didn't notice yet from those requirements, the i3 REx sucks as a gasoline car too, because of the 2.4 gallon gas tank; due requirement (2), you're stopping for gas every < 97 miles.

Now the problem is that although the battery stores enough energy to travel 97 miles, and when it reaches the charge-sustaining lower limit, there's very little energy left before the computer has to throttle back the power if the ICE cannot keep up. You'd think that the politicians and the people on the California Air Resources Board would be a little bit smarter given that this state actually has fairly big mountains, and they'd have been able to figure out that they were actually imposing requirements that would make a vehicle dangerous to drive on mountain freeways, but nope, these people are idiots. I could have told them about this problem before they even left the meeting at which this was first discussed -- and I'm not even an automotive engineer.
So what you're saying is the gummit of California is getting in the way of a greener tomorrow because they can't accept that intermediate steps can also be a positive force.
Yes, so long as the battery has enough capacity for the car to make it up the highest mountain without running out of power, and the user is smart enough to charge the batteries before attempting the climb. My PHEV can easily tackle the Grapevine on I-5 if I actually start with at least 50% SoC. But whether it makes sense to lug around batteries that big that might not ever be used to their full capacity (I can't imagine that someone who only drives around Oklahoma is going to be climbing mountains that often, for example) is another matter. The other options are to make the vehicle a PHEV instead of just a serial hybrid, so that this extra battery capacity can also be used to take grid power and keep the vehicle in EV mode most of the time (which is what the Chevy Volt is) or to just make the ICE bigger and allow it to directly power the wheels when necessary (which is what is done in almost every hybrid vehicle).

I believe it is for these reasons that we have not seen any non plug-in series hybrids. ICE optimized to run a generator at one power level means you need a big battery. And once you install a big battery in a car with an ICE, you might as well just make it a PHEV.
I think the reason we've not seen serial hybrids is the OEMs have had a vested interest in the status quo, which is why EVs have been outlandish looking piles of crap with poor performance until very, very recently. A GM engineer actually tried to get GM to build the EV-1 as a serial hybrid during development. GM requires all cars they put on the market to run a 24 hour endurance test on a racetrack, and of course the car only had about a hundred mile range, so they modified it to pull a generator on a trailer so the car could last for the entire test. Been years since I read the links, but said engineer thought it would be a marketable product back then. GM wouldn't go for it. The EV-1s could only be had via lease, and when the lease was up they were all crushed.

Shortly after, Tesla came along and proved that an EV didn't have to be an ugly slug, and now the OEMs are being forced to compete with them. But, if certain groups would have just accepted 20 years ago that a serial hybrid could bridge the gap between ICE and EV, saving millions of gallons of gas from being burned in the meantime, we'd likely all be driving serial hybrids and seeing upwards to 100MPG today.
Well, I'm moving the conversation here. Regardless of whether the other messages get moved.
:waycool:
Post automatically merged:

Just noted a minor error on my post - meant to say PRACTICALLY no degradation on the AL batteries, as I'd posted before. Supposedly there's less degradation after 7000 charge cycles on an AL battery than there is on an Li battery after 1000 charge cycles.
Post automatically merged:

@Fireball are you angry? You don't seem angry to me but if I missed it please share.
Me, angry? I rarely if ever get angry. Life's too short to get angry about nothing.
The number of > 500 mile drives in a single day I've done this year I'll need both hands and feet to count. Might even have to unzip.
The number of times I've done it this year I'd have to do that twice, and I have a lot more of those runs to make.
EV's need to compete without subsidies. They already have much going for them especially for city use. Or maybe a third vehicle. Straight acceleration is already there. But how do they handle? How do they ride? My Toyota's need little maintenance and I do most of it. One of my friend's Teslas has had a lot of problems. I only know one place to take a Tesla for repairs. Maybe owners can speak to alternatives.
I can't see ride or handling being affected by propulsion. If anything, an EV's biggest weight item is the battery pack, and the battery pack does not need to be of a uniform size or form, so an EV can be set up for a 50/50 front to rear weight balance a lot easier than an ICE can be and this makes for better handling. EVs are really not much heavier than a comparable ICE, and the OEMs have a handle on ride comfort up to 3 tons for passenger vehicles.
The grid is another matter entirely. Look at the numbers being tossed around here. 72, 100, 250KW! Think about this for a moment. Typical homes are rarely consuming more than about 15KW. Maybe if the A/C is on, someone is cooking with electric appliances and the laundry is being done. A 4 ton A/C needs about 4KW. Twenty years ago it was no problem but since we've lost so many coal plants we are frequently asked to turn up our thermostats in the Summer here in TX. Maybe Al Gore's 20K square foot mansion needs 72KW to cool but think about adding a few hundred thousand of those on the grid! And that's the "small" version. It's great to be able to plug your car in and have it set to charge after 10PM but is that really going to work for everyone? For places like the People's Republic of Kali this isn't going to help your grid problems at all. But then Kali has had super majority rule for a loooong time. I can't imagine why it isn't Utopia by now. Ditto for NYC. And Chicago.
I think you're hitting the nail on the head here, and a lot of folks are looking at the grid being able to handle it without taking human nature into account while doing exactly what every other human would do.
 
Last edited:

STS-134

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,667
Reaction score
14,304
Location
Saratoga, CA
Non-issue then. An EV would have the same limitation as a serial hybrid in the same situation.
Provided that the series hybrid has a large enough battery AND it's sufficiently charged at the beginning of the climb, both would behave similarly. The key is making sure that the battery is big enough. But if you're going to do that, you might as well make it a plug-in series hybrid.
So what you're saying is the gummit of California is getting in the way of a greener tomorrow because they can't accept that intermediate steps can also be a positive force.
No, I'm saying that politicians (and lawyers in general, since a lot of politicians are lawyers) suck at several things, and among them are:
1. In what ways will the laws they're writing give people incentives to do things that they didn't intend?
2. What ways are there to get around the laws they passed? For example if they pass a law that taxes one activity and gives tax credits for another, are there creative ways to claim the tax credits that are legal but they didn't intend?
3. Are there any corner cases that these laws didn't take into account that can cause things to break in ways they didn't anticipate?

For example, take this stupid law that was passed by the Kansas legislature: "When two trains approach each other at a crossing, both shall come to a full stop and neither shall start up again until the other has gone."

Who the hell signs off on stuff like this? Anyone with a bit of common sense should be able to see that this will cause a deadlock and neither train will be able to legally move, ever. If they put actual engineers in charge of writing regulations with respect to technology, stuff like this would be far less likely to happen. For one thing, engineers are trained to deal with corner cases. Engineers don't want stuff to break because of a rare but possible input (i.e. someone sends a malformed packet to a router and parsing the fields causes the router to crash). Engineers also are aware that people will try to maliciously vary their input in order to take advantage of flaws in the implementation (i.e. deliberately crafting a malformed packet to get an operating system to give you access to something it shouldn't). Which is why if actual engineers crafted the EPA emissions tests, I don't think VW would have been able to cheat with its diesel vehicles, because this would have been anticipated and the design of the tests would have made it impossible.

For example, if I were asked to design the test, I would approach this from a computer/software security perspective. The test procedure would not be known to VW (or any other manufacturer) prior to the day of the test. The testing would involve disconnecting the GPS chip from the car and attaching a device that injects (and spoofs) the desired GPS data based on the actual speed and direction of the vehicle (prevents manufacturers from cheating based on the vehicle's location being the location of the test site). Some vehicles would be randomly selected to be tested at any time over the next 1-2 years (prevents manufacturers from cheating based on the car's clock). And of course, there would be real tests on public roads at unannounced times and locations, on vehicles either at dealerships, or even from volunteers who would be paid for the use of their vehicles (prevents manufacturers from setting a 'SOLD' flag in the car's software and disabling the cheat software), with portable emissions meters attached to their tailpipes. Etc.

The first thing you should be thinking about when making regulations is whether there's any way people can take advantage of them, and close those loopholes. Then you think about whether there's any corner cases you haven't taken into account that could cause unintended consequences (like BEVx vehicles not being allowed to charge their batteries with the ICE; what happens when you are climbing a mountain?).
Just noted a minor error on my post - meant to say PRACTICALLY no degradation on the AL batteries, as I'd posted before. Supposedly there's less degradation after 7000 charge cycles on an AL battery than there is on an Li battery after 1000 charge cycles.
Yeah, that's exciting if it's true, but I wonder what type of storage requirements are needed to get to that level of degradation. Remember that Li-ion batteries can suffer from severe degradation (or not) depending on what temperature they're kept at, etc.
I think you're hitting the nail on the head here, and a lot of folks are looking at the grid being able to handle it without taking human nature into account while doing exactly what every other human would do.
Human nature is to not want to pay any more than you have to in order to fuel your car. All they've gotta do is adjust the pricing of electricity so that it's less expensive at times they want people to charge, and the vast majority of people will charge at those times. Right now, I only have motivation not to charge between 5pm and 8pm on weekdays. But if they made electricity cheapest between 10am and 2pm or 1am and 5am, I'd charge almost exclusively at those times.
 
Last edited:

Boozehound

Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 7, 2016
Messages
2,610
Reaction score
8,564
A matter long since addressed repeatedly.
It has not been addressed. Period. End of story.


Here we go again right here in TX. If you think the matter has been addressed just imagine what converting just 2% of ICE vehicles in TX to EVs and charging just 10% of those at (and let's be conservative) 30KW would do to the grid right now. Right here. In TX. We're not talking about "not in by backyard" Kalifornia foolishness. No, we're talking about our state that just a few short years ago had a 20% excess generation capacity. But it barely keeps up with today's demand without a bunch more EVs.

You guys are saying that adding tens of thousands of loads larger than any other load in your house isn't going to be a problem at a time when we're being asked to back our air conditioners that typically pull less than 5KW down to 78 degrees. I don't want my house at 78 degrees.

There are some amazing EVs available right here, right now. But they are neither affordable nor do we have the grid to support a bunch more of them. It amazes me that people actually try to argue that a grid that isn't terribly reliable with our current demand can just suck it up and handle tens or even hundreds of thousands of EVs charging because you don't think people will charge them during peak hours. And no one puts gas in their cars during these hours either, right? And of those that just might it just isn't necessary for them to do it then, right? Just making sure I understand.
 

STS-134

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,667
Reaction score
14,304
Location
Saratoga, CA
It has not been addressed. Period. End of story.


Here we go again right here in TX. If you think the matter has been addressed just imagine what converting just 2% of ICE vehicles in TX to EVs and charging just 10% of those at (and let's be conservative) 30KW would do to the grid right now.
Okay, 30 kW would be 125A @ 240V. First of all, that just won't happen because J-1772 only goes up to 80A, and only some old Tesla Model S vehicles with dual OBCs can even charge at 80A, which is 19.2 kW. Unless you are suggesting that enough vehicles will be sitting on DC fast chargers to do the equivalent of charging 10% of the vehicles at 30 kW...but if we assume that the average charge rate on a DC fast charger is 150 kW, that means that we've got 2% of all EVs fast charging at any given point of time, which isn't too likely either. Also, the average charge rate on a DC fast charger isn't 150 kW because it tapers below that point before it gets to 45% SoC.

But okay, let's just go with 10% of all vehicles charging at 30 kW at any given point in time. This is basically the same thing as each vehicle, on average, charging for 10% of the day at 30 kW (or 20% of the day at 15 kW, or 40% of the day at 7.5 kW, etc.) There are 24 hours in a day. 10% of the day is 2.4 hours. Putting 30 kW into a vehicle for 2.4 hours means you consumed 72 kWh. At 250 Wh/mile, you've basically assumed that I'm going to drive 288 miles/day, every day. 105,120 miles a year.

Did you even do the back of the envelope calculations before you threw out these numbers? Because they're honestly absurd. My vehicle charges for about 40 to 60 minutes each day, between 7 and 8 am, at 11 kW. You know, when nobody's AC unit is running because it's early in the morning. Although the utility company doesn't really give me motivation to not charge at any specific time of the day except to stay away from doing it between 5pm and 8pm. If the utility company dropped the price further between say 1am and 5am, I'd charge exclusively at those times, which is all they have to do to get me to change when I set the vehicle to charge.
Right here. In TX. We're not talking about "not in by backyard" Kalifornia foolishness. No, we're talking about our state that just a few short years ago had a 20% excess generation capacity. But it barely keeps up with today's demand without a bunch more EVs.
Talk to the TX legislature about the idiotic incentives they've given private companies to not properly size their generation capacity for peak demand and not properly protect their equipment against extreme weather.
You guys are saying that adding tens of thousands of loads larger than any other load in your house isn't going to be a problem at a time when we're being asked to back our air conditioners that typically pull less than 5KW down to 78 degrees. I don't want my house at 78 degrees.
You're not charging the car at the same time you're cooling the house. If you are, then the utility company isn't setting the prices properly. There's almost no reason for most of the large battery vehicles (the Teslas, Mustang Mach-Es, etc.) to ever charge during times of peak demand unless they're being used on a roadtrip, and there aren't enough of those doing roadtrips at any given time to really make a difference on the total load on the grid compared to millions of AC units running at the same time. The vehicles that might charge during times of peak demand are the small battery ones, mainly the PHEVs, with battery capacities of 20 kWh or less. And those aren't going to be charging at 80A/19.2kW because nobody puts a 80A or even a 50A OBC into a small battery vehicle.
 
Last edited:

Discord Server

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Threads
99,038
Messages
1,504,186
Members
25,139
Latest member
sliferth
Top