The Slow Death of the Internal Combustion Engine

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Taylor95

I did not know that you can repair batteries. I wonder if that is feasible to do yourself.

Jehu Garcia: Battery Talk
(181 videos)

[Taylor95]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

ICE may always (next 50 years anyhow) be better for long distance travel.

There's no reason to build an EV with a 700 mile range because it's dumb to pay for more battery than you need. It's the single largest expense, and one of the heaviest items on the car. You want to carry the smallest battery that gets 95% of the job done. Nobody drives for 700 miles straight anyhow.

The real money is in faster charging speed. If an EV can be charged relatively quickly, then it doesn't really matter what range it has. I mean, given equal charging capabilities, a car with shorter range will add miles of range at the same rate as a car with a higher range. However, larger batteries do tend to allow higher rates of charging, as the charge limit is based on a % of battery capacity.
someone's ICE car. It solves no problems better than alternatives.

How long does it take to charge an EV normally at a charging station? If they could get it down to like 10 minutes, that would make EVs a lot more convenient. That would probably be a huge feat to accomplish though, and expensive.

Having a huge battery capacity like that just seems nice to have too. If charging times don't improve, then it would be nice for people that do have to travel long distance on a regular basis. Companies can market that along with cars that only have a 100 mile range for those that stay in the city.

Originally Posted by JSH

1. Who would want an EV with "only" 150 miles range?

I would. That is double the range of my current EV that works fine for 95% of my needs. (My Spark is good for 60 miles in the winter / 90 miles in the Summer and the range is down about 10% in 3 years) My question would be "Why should I pay more for range I will hardly every use?"

I guess one good thing about EVs is that you can get a cheaper version with less range and it will suit your needs perfectly. If you need more range you can get a more expensive version. Seems like that would be a nice system.

[redpoint5]

Sure, there's a market for a 700 mile range EV, but it's tiny. There is diminishing returns on range, as with all things.

We are estimating 626 miles per hour charging speeds on Gen 3 Superchargers for the first half of the charge. In a previous article, we reported that current Model 3 owners are getting Supercharging speeds of around 460-480 miles per hour on Gen 2 Superchargers.

So the Model 3 might be capable of 150 miles of range in 15 minutes of charging.

I'm not sure charging will get much faster than that, as that amount of power puts a tremendous load on the infrastructure.

A single EV charging can represent several hundred homes suddenly appearing on the grid. Power generation must match demand at all times, so cars hopping on and off the grid can really be tricky to manage.

[oil pan 4]

Not likely.
Tesla didn't seem too keen on charing faster than current 100 to 120kw charging during a musk interview in January.

[RedDevil]

When a long range Model 3 hooked up to a 175 kW FastNed charger it charged at 125 kW for about 13 minutes, then gradually the rate dropped. That would be about 500 miles per hour, or 125 miles in a quarter of an hour.

[oil pan 4]

So not much of a point in building chargers faster than the current 120kw units.
At what point do you stop building the battery for the car and start building the entire car, battery and charger around how fast it can be fast charged, because that's kind of where it's going.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

So not much of a point in building chargers faster than the current 120kw units.
At what point do you stop building the battery for the car and start building the entire car, battery and charger around how fast it can be fast charged, because that's kind of where it's going.

Agreed. Current DC fast charging is more then enough. The reality is most people are going to charge their EV at home. It doesn't make economic sense to pay the outrageous rates charged for fast charging.

Not mentioned here is that the car isn't the future of transportation. It doesn't matter if we drive gas cars or EVs, there isn't enough space in cities to accommodate them. Traffic is already horrible and there is no space for new roads or parking lots to accommodate the millions of people moving to cities. In Seattle 40% of the city land mass is dedicated to car parking. (That doesn't include roads, just parking). There are 5 parking spots for every household in the city.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90202222...ste-on-parking

[Taylor95]

Originally Posted by JSH

Agreed. Current DC fast charging is more then enough. The reality is most people are going to charge their EV at home. It doesn't make economic sense to pay the outrageous rates charged for fast charging.

Not mentioned here is that the car isn't the future of transportation. It doesn't matter if we drive gas cars or EVs, there isn't enough space in cities to accommodate them. Traffic is already horrible and there is no space for new roads or parking lots to accommodate the millions of people moving to cities. In Seattle 40% of the city land mass is dedicated to car parking. (That doesn't include roads, just parking). There are 5 parking spots for every household in the city.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90202222...ste-on-parking

I doubt that. Someone will come up with an ingenious solution, such as this:
https://www.businessinsider.com/japa...r-park-2015-11

Or cities can utilize underground parking more, like Salt Lake City.

I suspect that traffic will get better in the likely event that automation takes over many jobs in the next 30 years. People will start working from home more or a socialist will implement UBI.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Taylor95

I doubt that. Someone will come up with an ingenious solution, such as this:
https://www.businessinsider.com/japa...r-park-2015-11

Or cities can utilize underground parking more, like Salt Lake City.

I suspect that traffic will get better in the likely event that automation takes over many jobs in the next 30 years. People will start working from home more or a socialist will implement UBI.

57% of trips in Tokyo are on public transportation and their streets are still gridlock. (A lot of the remaining trips are local deliveries)

I used to work for a Japanese company. The factory in Osaka that I visited employed more than 1000 people but had 12 parking spots. Osaka's streets were also gridlock.


There is no room for new roads is most major US cities.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by JSH

57% of trips in Tokyo are on public transportation and their streets are still gridlock. (A lot of the remaining trips are local deliveries)

I used to work for a Japanese company. The factory in Osaka that I visited employed more than 1000 people but had 12 parking spots. Osaka's streets were also gridlock.


There is no room for new roads is most major US cities.

Japan is 85% mountainous, and the remaining flatland is needed hard for agriculture. Towns booming where there wasn't space for that. It is a peculiar situation.
US cities are different. But even so they are congested.

We do not only need EVs but also tunnels to move them.
If only someone took that serious.