Life and Death of Li Ion batteries
Discussion
CubanPete said:
I've got a three year old Sony Xperia running android.
I still get two days easily, with reasonable use from a single charge. or one day if we do a long day nav journey, or my daughter watched a film or two on it. Not noticed any degradation.
Maybe ED leaves his phone on charge all the time. I still get two days easily, with reasonable use from a single charge. or one day if we do a long day nav journey, or my daughter watched a film or two on it. Not noticed any degradation.
Intersting article.
First section below and complete article in link.
'The Argonne National Laboratory in the US has essentially cracked the battery technology for electric vehicles, discovering a way to raise the future driving range of standard EVs to a thousand miles or more. It promises to do so cheaply without exhausting the global supply of critical minerals in the process.
The joint project with the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) has achieved a radical jump in the energy density of battery cells. The typical lithium-ion battery used in the car industry today stores about 200 watt-hours per kilo (Wh/kg). Their lab experiment has already reached 675 Wh/kg with a lithium-air variant.
This is a high enough density to power trucks, trains, and arguably mid-haul aircraft, long thought to be beyond the reach of electrification. The team believes it can reach 1,200 Wh/kg. If so, almost all global transport can be decarbonised more easily than we thought, and probably at a negative net cost compared to continuation of the hydrocarbon status quo. '
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/07/co...
First section below and complete article in link.
'The Argonne National Laboratory in the US has essentially cracked the battery technology for electric vehicles, discovering a way to raise the future driving range of standard EVs to a thousand miles or more. It promises to do so cheaply without exhausting the global supply of critical minerals in the process.
The joint project with the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) has achieved a radical jump in the energy density of battery cells. The typical lithium-ion battery used in the car industry today stores about 200 watt-hours per kilo (Wh/kg). Their lab experiment has already reached 675 Wh/kg with a lithium-air variant.
This is a high enough density to power trucks, trains, and arguably mid-haul aircraft, long thought to be beyond the reach of electrification. The team believes it can reach 1,200 Wh/kg. If so, almost all global transport can be decarbonised more easily than we thought, and probably at a negative net cost compared to continuation of the hydrocarbon status quo. '
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/07/co...
Battery Life article suggesting a further 15 Years can be added.
Headline:
'An innovative polymer coating pioneered by researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has been demonstrated to boost electric car battery life by up to 15 years.'
https://www.innovationnewsnetwork.com/electric-car...
Headline:
'An innovative polymer coating pioneered by researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has been demonstrated to boost electric car battery life by up to 15 years.'
https://www.innovationnewsnetwork.com/electric-car...
Nomme de Plum said:
Intersting article.
First section below and complete article in link.
'The Argonne National Laboratory in the US has essentially cracked the battery technology for electric vehicles, discovering a way to raise the future driving range of standard EVs to a thousand miles or more. It promises to do so cheaply without exhausting the global supply of critical minerals in the process.
The joint project with the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) has achieved a radical jump in the energy density of battery cells. The typical lithium-ion battery used in the car industry today stores about 200 watt-hours per kilo (Wh/kg). Their lab experiment has already reached 675 Wh/kg with a lithium-air variant.
This is a high enough density to power trucks, trains, and arguably mid-haul aircraft, long thought to be beyond the reach of electrification. The team believes it can reach 1,200 Wh/kg. If so, almost all global transport can be decarbonised more easily than we thought, and probably at a negative net cost compared to continuation of the hydrocarbon status quo. '
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/07/co...
They’re going to fill the batteries with diesel, I mean use sulphur? I like this:First section below and complete article in link.
'The Argonne National Laboratory in the US has essentially cracked the battery technology for electric vehicles, discovering a way to raise the future driving range of standard EVs to a thousand miles or more. It promises to do so cheaply without exhausting the global supply of critical minerals in the process.
The joint project with the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) has achieved a radical jump in the energy density of battery cells. The typical lithium-ion battery used in the car industry today stores about 200 watt-hours per kilo (Wh/kg). Their lab experiment has already reached 675 Wh/kg with a lithium-air variant.
This is a high enough density to power trucks, trains, and arguably mid-haul aircraft, long thought to be beyond the reach of electrification. The team believes it can reach 1,200 Wh/kg. If so, almost all global transport can be decarbonised more easily than we thought, and probably at a negative net cost compared to continuation of the hydrocarbon status quo. '
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/07/co...
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/promise-lithium-s...
"Sulfur is unruly. Lithium is unruly. When you put these two elements together you get a chemistry that is really difficult to work with," said Mikolajczak at the BNEF summit. "There’s a reason this chemistry hasn’t been exploited for a long time."
I think Sodium-ion batteries are more likely.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 10th March 14:21
This will likely improve
Euro 7 is basically going to ask that BEVs subscribe to a 90% SOH or better at 10 years as part of in service conformity testing. So at 10 years (and presumably there'll be some caveat on average miles per year) you'll still have at least 90% of the battery health left.
I think that is sufficient.
Euro 7 is basically going to ask that BEVs subscribe to a 90% SOH or better at 10 years as part of in service conformity testing. So at 10 years (and presumably there'll be some caveat on average miles per year) you'll still have at least 90% of the battery health left.
I think that is sufficient.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/recycle...
get your old battery recycle it and it comes back better... weill color me surprised, the batteries improve when recycled....
get your old battery recycle it and it comes back better... weill color me surprised, the batteries improve when recycled....
Otispunkmeyer said:
This will likely improve
Euro 7 is basically going to ask that BEVs subscribe to a 90% SOH or better at 10 years as part of in service conformity testing. So at 10 years (and presumably there'll be some caveat on average miles per year) you'll still have at least 90% of the battery health left.
I think that is sufficient.
Going to be interesting to see how they provide that?Euro 7 is basically going to ask that BEVs subscribe to a 90% SOH or better at 10 years as part of in service conformity testing. So at 10 years (and presumably there'll be some caveat on average miles per year) you'll still have at least 90% of the battery health left.
I think that is sufficient.
Battery recharge cycles? At what charging speed? At what temperature range?
Does time not affect battery efficiency? If it does how do they simulate that?
If it's not at 90% after 10 years what is the penalty? How is it confirmed and enforced? Does the owner get compensated?
Seems a ridiculous rule that's there purely to try and bolster confidence for the buying public who have concerns like those discussed at length in this thread? Posturing basically.
Edited by SWoll on Friday 10th March 19:37
SWoll said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
This will likely improve
Euro 7 is basically going to ask that BEVs subscribe to a 90% SOH or better at 10 years as part of in service conformity testing. So at 10 years (and presumably there'll be some caveat on average miles per year) you'll still have at least 90% of the battery health left.
I think that is sufficient.
Going to be interesting to see how they provide that?Euro 7 is basically going to ask that BEVs subscribe to a 90% SOH or better at 10 years as part of in service conformity testing. So at 10 years (and presumably there'll be some caveat on average miles per year) you'll still have at least 90% of the battery health left.
I think that is sufficient.
Battery recharge cycles? At what charging speed? At what temperature range?
Does time not affect battery efficiency? If it does how do they simulate that?
If it's not at 90% after 10 years what is the penalty? How is it confirmed and enforced? Does the owner get compensated?
Seems a ridiculous rule that's there purely to try and bolster confidence for the buying public who have concerns like those discussed at length in this thread? Posturing basically.
Edited by SWoll on Friday 10th March 19:37
For many things we would up the temperature because chemical processes often double in speed with 10degC temperature increase.
Not sure that's valid for batteries.
A 10 year old car is going to be a banger anyway, but on the other hand we have millions of older IC cars which people are using every day.
The concern is that Euro 7 compliance might exclude affordable cars from the market. BMW/VW/Steel-itis are probably quite keen to do that.
Euroland is the new iron curtain, wanting to exclude good from other continents.
Will the UK follow euro 7 with £30k cars while the commonwealth are tooling around in £10k asian city cars?
OutInTheShed said:
SWoll said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
This will likely improve
Euro 7 is basically going to ask that BEVs subscribe to a 90% SOH or better at 10 years as part of in service conformity testing. So at 10 years (and presumably there'll be some caveat on average miles per year) you'll still have at least 90% of the battery health left.
I think that is sufficient.
Going to be interesting to see how they provide that?Euro 7 is basically going to ask that BEVs subscribe to a 90% SOH or better at 10 years as part of in service conformity testing. So at 10 years (and presumably there'll be some caveat on average miles per year) you'll still have at least 90% of the battery health left.
I think that is sufficient.
Battery recharge cycles? At what charging speed? At what temperature range?
Does time not affect battery efficiency? If it does how do they simulate that?
If it's not at 90% after 10 years what is the penalty? How is it confirmed and enforced? Does the owner get compensated?
Seems a ridiculous rule that's there purely to try and bolster confidence for the buying public who have concerns like those discussed at length in this thread? Posturing basically.
Edited by SWoll on Friday 10th March 19:37
For many things we would up the temperature because chemical processes often double in speed with 10degC temperature increase.
Not sure that's valid for batteries.
A 10 year old car is going to be a banger anyway, but on the other hand we have millions of older IC cars which people are using every day.
As for the requirement to be 90% SoC/battery health, that seems entirely reasonable. Most ten year old ICE cars are basically cars bought and run on a budget and I bet as result of that, most are 90% or less efficient compared to 'at new'. People on a budget that buy a ten year old car tend to visit a garage only when something has gone wrong, they're not popping in every 18 months for a preventive service and health check...
You buy a decade old ICE car, you spend a relatively small amount of money and accept it's not quite as good of a car as a brand new car, but that's fine - you paid 10-15% of the original price, you still get basically the same car. It's going to be the same with a ten year old Model 3 Performance - it's going to have lost a bit of range, it'll be a little tired in a few places, but it's still a hugely capable and useful car.
It's all the same deal because manufacturers design and build cars to reliable 'enough' to allay concerns about longevity and reliability. They also price cars to be affordable for their target demographic. It actually doesn't matter what cars are powered with, the people making and selling them will target what you want and make the car just good enough to meet your requirements.
If any car can do 10 years/100k miles then it's good enough. New car buyers will never listen to the complaints of used car buyers, buying in at ten years plus, about which cars have aged less well than others.. Because it's just not relevant to a new/nearly new car buyer. New and approved used buyer expectations are the only voice the industry will ever pay attention to - and in both cases, ICE and EV can easily be more than good enough to keep those buyers satisfied these days.
TheDeuce said:
There are obviously endless variables in 'real life' use for both EV and ICE, but they will formulate a test cycle and if the car manages it, it's Euro 7 compliant.
As for the requirement to be 90% SoC/battery health, that seems entirely reasonable. Most ten year old ICE cars are basically cars bought and run on a budget and I bet as result of that, most are 90% or less efficient compared to 'at new'. People on a budget that buy a ten year old car tend to visit a garage only when something has gone wrong, they're not popping in every 18 months for a preventive service and health check...
You buy a decade old ICE car, you spend a relatively small amount of money and accept it's not quite as good of a car as a brand new car, but that's fine - you paid 10-15% of the original price, you still get basically the same car. It's going to be the same with a ten year old Model 3 Performance - it's going to have lost a bit of range, it'll be a little tired in a few places, but it's still a hugely capable and useful car.
It's all the same deal because manufacturers design and build cars to reliable 'enough' to allay concerns about longevity and reliability. They also price cars to be affordable for their target demographic. It actually doesn't matter what cars are powered with, the people making and selling them will target what you want and make the car just good enough to meet your requirements.
If any car can do 10 years/100k miles then it's good enough. New car buyers will never listen to the complaints of used car buyers, buying in at ten years plus, about which cars have aged less well than others.. Because it's just not relevant to a new/nearly new car buyer. New and approved used buyer expectations are the only voice the industry will ever pay attention to - and in both cases, ICE and EV can easily be more than good enough to keep those buyers satisfied these days.
Exactly. Given the power, refinement, tax perks (100% capital allowance in my case), cheap running costs (no VED, cheaper servicing, 200 mpg equivalent) if I had to give my EV back when the battery warranty expires I would still choose it - and be quids in. As for the requirement to be 90% SoC/battery health, that seems entirely reasonable. Most ten year old ICE cars are basically cars bought and run on a budget and I bet as result of that, most are 90% or less efficient compared to 'at new'. People on a budget that buy a ten year old car tend to visit a garage only when something has gone wrong, they're not popping in every 18 months for a preventive service and health check...
You buy a decade old ICE car, you spend a relatively small amount of money and accept it's not quite as good of a car as a brand new car, but that's fine - you paid 10-15% of the original price, you still get basically the same car. It's going to be the same with a ten year old Model 3 Performance - it's going to have lost a bit of range, it'll be a little tired in a few places, but it's still a hugely capable and useful car.
It's all the same deal because manufacturers design and build cars to reliable 'enough' to allay concerns about longevity and reliability. They also price cars to be affordable for their target demographic. It actually doesn't matter what cars are powered with, the people making and selling them will target what you want and make the car just good enough to meet your requirements.
If any car can do 10 years/100k miles then it's good enough. New car buyers will never listen to the complaints of used car buyers, buying in at ten years plus, about which cars have aged less well than others.. Because it's just not relevant to a new/nearly new car buyer. New and approved used buyer expectations are the only voice the industry will ever pay attention to - and in both cases, ICE and EV can easily be more than good enough to keep those buyers satisfied these days.
Which leaves me a bigger budget to spend on rebuilding an exciting old ICE.
Discombobulate said:
TheDeuce said:
There are obviously endless variables in 'real life' use for both EV and ICE, but they will formulate a test cycle and if the car manages it, it's Euro 7 compliant.
As for the requirement to be 90% SoC/battery health, that seems entirely reasonable. Most ten year old ICE cars are basically cars bought and run on a budget and I bet as result of that, most are 90% or less efficient compared to 'at new'. People on a budget that buy a ten year old car tend to visit a garage only when something has gone wrong, they're not popping in every 18 months for a preventive service and health check...
You buy a decade old ICE car, you spend a relatively small amount of money and accept it's not quite as good of a car as a brand new car, but that's fine - you paid 10-15% of the original price, you still get basically the same car. It's going to be the same with a ten year old Model 3 Performance - it's going to have lost a bit of range, it'll be a little tired in a few places, but it's still a hugely capable and useful car.
It's all the same deal because manufacturers design and build cars to reliable 'enough' to allay concerns about longevity and reliability. They also price cars to be affordable for their target demographic. It actually doesn't matter what cars are powered with, the people making and selling them will target what you want and make the car just good enough to meet your requirements.
If any car can do 10 years/100k miles then it's good enough. New car buyers will never listen to the complaints of used car buyers, buying in at ten years plus, about which cars have aged less well than others.. Because it's just not relevant to a new/nearly new car buyer. New and approved used buyer expectations are the only voice the industry will ever pay attention to - and in both cases, ICE and EV can easily be more than good enough to keep those buyers satisfied these days.
Exactly. Given the power, refinement, tax perks (100% capital allowance in my case), cheap running costs (no VED, cheaper servicing, 200 mpg equivalent) if I had to give my EV back when the battery warranty expires I would still choose it - and be quids in. As for the requirement to be 90% SoC/battery health, that seems entirely reasonable. Most ten year old ICE cars are basically cars bought and run on a budget and I bet as result of that, most are 90% or less efficient compared to 'at new'. People on a budget that buy a ten year old car tend to visit a garage only when something has gone wrong, they're not popping in every 18 months for a preventive service and health check...
You buy a decade old ICE car, you spend a relatively small amount of money and accept it's not quite as good of a car as a brand new car, but that's fine - you paid 10-15% of the original price, you still get basically the same car. It's going to be the same with a ten year old Model 3 Performance - it's going to have lost a bit of range, it'll be a little tired in a few places, but it's still a hugely capable and useful car.
It's all the same deal because manufacturers design and build cars to reliable 'enough' to allay concerns about longevity and reliability. They also price cars to be affordable for their target demographic. It actually doesn't matter what cars are powered with, the people making and selling them will target what you want and make the car just good enough to meet your requirements.
If any car can do 10 years/100k miles then it's good enough. New car buyers will never listen to the complaints of used car buyers, buying in at ten years plus, about which cars have aged less well than others.. Because it's just not relevant to a new/nearly new car buyer. New and approved used buyer expectations are the only voice the industry will ever pay attention to - and in both cases, ICE and EV can easily be more than good enough to keep those buyers satisfied these days.
Which leaves me a bigger budget to spend on rebuilding an exciting old ICE.
Also agree that having a very sensible daily EV solution on the drive leaves a lot of resource for the car you really love in the garage
- in my case, soon to be a V8 M3 I hope. I'll show off my passion on Sundays on the b-roads, the rest of the week I'm very happy to show off my common sense in a lovely Jag SUV on the daily trips. It's comfortable, practical, good looking and supremely cheap to run. Also has 400hp and over 700nm torque, which is a nice to hace which doesn't typically come under the practical and cheap to run banner in ICE terms...wormus said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Intersting article.
First section below and complete article in link.
'The Argonne National Laboratory in the US has essentially cracked the battery technology for electric vehicles, discovering a way to raise the future driving range of standard EVs to a thousand miles or more. It promises to do so cheaply without exhausting the global supply of critical minerals in the process.
The joint project with the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) has achieved a radical jump in the energy density of battery cells. The typical lithium-ion battery used in the car industry today stores about 200 watt-hours per kilo (Wh/kg). Their lab experiment has already reached 675 Wh/kg with a lithium-air variant.
This is a high enough density to power trucks, trains, and arguably mid-haul aircraft, long thought to be beyond the reach of electrification. The team believes it can reach 1,200 Wh/kg. If so, almost all global transport can be decarbonised more easily than we thought, and probably at a negative net cost compared to continuation of the hydrocarbon status quo. '
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/07/co...
They’re going to fill the batteries with diesel, I mean use sulphur? I like this:First section below and complete article in link.
'The Argonne National Laboratory in the US has essentially cracked the battery technology for electric vehicles, discovering a way to raise the future driving range of standard EVs to a thousand miles or more. It promises to do so cheaply without exhausting the global supply of critical minerals in the process.
The joint project with the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) has achieved a radical jump in the energy density of battery cells. The typical lithium-ion battery used in the car industry today stores about 200 watt-hours per kilo (Wh/kg). Their lab experiment has already reached 675 Wh/kg with a lithium-air variant.
This is a high enough density to power trucks, trains, and arguably mid-haul aircraft, long thought to be beyond the reach of electrification. The team believes it can reach 1,200 Wh/kg. If so, almost all global transport can be decarbonised more easily than we thought, and probably at a negative net cost compared to continuation of the hydrocarbon status quo. '
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/07/co...
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/promise-lithium-s...
"Sulfur is unruly. Lithium is unruly. When you put these two elements together you get a chemistry that is really difficult to work with," said Mikolajczak at the BNEF summit. "There’s a reason this chemistry hasn’t been exploited for a long time."
I think Sodium-ion batteries are more likely.
The Argonne lab was working on Lithium-Sulphur 45 years ago:
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/7257367/
Seems like it didn't work out.
Sulphur is plentiful at the moment. According to Statista: " Byproduct elemental sulfur recovered from natural gas and petroleum is the main source of sulfur worldwide." Moving away from oil and gas will reduce the availability of sulphur - along with many other products, of course.
wormus said:
If EVs are going to replace ICEs, they need to be just as good at the basics: longevity, easy and affordable to repair & run, decent resale values, as well as range and ease of charging. There's no point looking at the future of motoring through the lens of the high earning people who can afford to buy them new. Too many blinkered people on this thread who'd do well to look at the whole system.
When cars replaced horses, were they as reliable as the horse, were they easy to fix and were they affordable? I bet if PH was around at the time, there'd be the same sorts of dismissive posts. Unreliable, not cheap enough, fuelling network is terrible, it'll never take off, blah blah blah.TheBinarySheep said:
wormus said:
If EVs are going to replace ICEs, they need to be just as good at the basics: longevity, easy and affordable to repair & run, decent resale values, as well as range and ease of charging. There's no point looking at the future of motoring through the lens of the high earning people who can afford to buy them new. Too many blinkered people on this thread who'd do well to look at the whole system.
When cars replaced horses, were they as reliable as the horse, were they easy to fix and were they affordable? I bet if PH was around at the time, there'd be the same sorts of dismissive posts. Unreliable, not cheap enough, fuelling network is terrible, it'll never take off, blah blah blah.TheBinarySheep said:
When cars replaced horses, were they as reliable as the horse, were they easy to fix and were they affordable? I bet if PH was around at the time, there'd be the same sorts of dismissive posts. Unreliable, not cheap enough, fuelling network is terrible, it'll never take off, blah blah blah.
the process of cars replacing horses was very different.There was no coercion, no looming ban on buying a new horse.
Also to some extent cars didn't directly preplace horses, most of what cars are used for was never done by horses.
If anything, mass car ownership was more about replacing trains, trams and buses.
It was also a slow process.
Still going on really. An awful lot of people are still involved in riding horses for leisure and sport.
Possibly more than are actually involved with motor sport?
The horse racing industry will likely outlive much of IC motor sport.
OutInTheShed said:
the process of cars replacing horses was very different.
There was no coercion, no looming ban on buying a new horse.
Also to some extent cars didn't directly preplace horses, most of what cars are used for was never done by horses.
If anything, mass car ownership was more about replacing trains, trams and buses.
It was also a slow process.
Still going on really. An awful lot of people are still involved in riding horses for leisure and sport.
Possibly more than are actually involved with motor sport?
The horse racing industry will likely outlive much of IC motor sport.
That’s the point I made in an earlier post - to be adopted, new technology needs to offer something, in terms of utility, that doesn’t already exist. Cars were superior to Horses. Electric cars do nothing better in terms of utility than ICE cars. They’re more expensive, more difficult to fuel, and more expensive and they don’t go as far. Take away the P11D benefit and they don’t have a market. Government won’t force people into them as they care too much about votes and getting people into work. So either the manufacturers solve these problems or today’s EVs will be tomorrow’s Betamax video player.There was no coercion, no looming ban on buying a new horse.
Also to some extent cars didn't directly preplace horses, most of what cars are used for was never done by horses.
If anything, mass car ownership was more about replacing trains, trams and buses.
It was also a slow process.
Still going on really. An awful lot of people are still involved in riding horses for leisure and sport.
Possibly more than are actually involved with motor sport?
The horse racing industry will likely outlive much of IC motor sport.
OutInTheShed said:
A little study shows Tesla battery capacity typically heading for the 80% watershed around 10 years:
https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/study-real-life-tesla...
Some science about Lithium batteries:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1149/1945-71...
Summary for shed drivers:
Once a battery is getting down to ~80% of new performance, failure mechanisms are accelerating and it's rapidly downhill.
That mileage one doesn't bode well.for St. elon's "million mile" claims.. Unless you hook up a pantograph and only drive in Blackpool?https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/study-real-life-tesla...
Some science about Lithium batteries:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1149/1945-71...
Summary for shed drivers:
Once a battery is getting down to ~80% of new performance, failure mechanisms are accelerating and it's rapidly downhill.
OutInTheShed said:
the process of cars replacing horses was very different.
There was no coercion, no looming ban on buying a new horse.
Also to some extent cars didn't directly preplace horses, most of what cars are used for was never done by horses.
If anything, mass car ownership was more about replacing trains, trams and buses.
This is a tragic attempt at rewriting history There was no coercion, no looming ban on buying a new horse.
Also to some extent cars didn't directly preplace horses, most of what cars are used for was never done by horses.
If anything, mass car ownership was more about replacing trains, trams and buses.
Horses were massively replaced by cars in the urban environment.https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBri...
It's illegal to ride a horse on the pavement, and also increasingly dangerous to ride them in the road. Horses are also forbidden from being ridden on the motorway network, and the concrete and tarmac surface of modern roads has replaced the cushioning of dirt.
https://www.equesure.co.uk/contact-us/news-events/...
Some Gump said:
OutInTheShed said:
A little study shows Tesla battery capacity typically heading for the 80% watershed around 10 years:
https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/study-real-life-tesla...
Some science about Lithium batteries:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1149/1945-71...
Summary for shed drivers:
Once a battery is getting down to ~80% of new performance, failure mechanisms are accelerating and it's rapidly downhill.
That mileage one doesn't bode well.for St. elon's "million mile" claims.. Unless you hook up a pantograph and only drive in Blackpool?https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/study-real-life-tesla...
Some science about Lithium batteries:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1149/1945-71...
Summary for shed drivers:
Once a battery is getting down to ~80% of new performance, failure mechanisms are accelerating and it's rapidly downhill.
wormus said:
That’s the point I made in an earlier post - to be adopted, new technology needs to offer something, in terms of utility, that doesn’t already exist. Cars were superior to Horses. Electric cars do nothing better in terms of utility than ICE cars. They’re more expensive, more difficult to fuel, and more expensive and they don’t go as far. Take away the P11D benefit and they don’t have a market. Government won’t force people into them as they care too much about votes and getting people into work. So either the manufacturers solve these problems or today’s EVs will be tomorrow’s Betamax video player.
I think you are quite wrong on a few points.The government has signed up to carbon neutrality. There is no direct link between votes and unpopular policies, because a lot of those policies stay the same whoever is elected, and people just vote tribally anyway. You only have to look at the London ULEZ to understand the futility of the IC motorist arguing with the inertia of the machine.
The current EVs are a bit Betamax, in that the current crop of IC cars are a bit VHS, they sell well now, but the world will soon change and nobody will want either.
The thing about the VHS/Betamax era is that people only had to buy a few tapes and pay their TV licence. Now, those who can afford it are paying out every month for broadband, fibre, subscriptions to this that and the other. It hasn't got any cheaper!
But the masses suck it up.
I think we will see a lot of changes over the next 10 years or so, or, to some extent, we'll realise things have already changed and there's no going back.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff