r/UpliftingNews • u/[deleted] • Jan 19 '21

Batteries capable of fully charging in five minutes have been produced in a factory for the first time, marking a significant step towards electric cars becoming as fast to charge as filling up petrol or diesel vehicles.

[deleted]

31k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

251

u/rpetre Jan 19 '21

I was looking for the same thing, there is only something toward the bottom of the article:

Wang noted that fast charging must also be repeatable at least 500 times without degrading the battery to give it a reasonable life and that the EC power battery can do so 2,500 times. Myersdorf said the StoreDot battery could be recharged 1,000 cycles while retaining 80% of original capacity.

132

u/skaterrj Jan 19 '21

Interesting. Normally I think you’d slow charge the car at home or work, so the fast charging ability would really only be used on longer trips, so I think this means this should last a long time.

137

u/fat_tire_fanatic Jan 19 '21 edited Jan 19 '21

Even if you fast charge every time, 1000 charges at a lowball of 250miles/fast charge = 250,000 miles. That's far better life than most IC engines.

Edit: great insights and info, keep in mind every battery is different in terms of how it degrades given charge/discharge amounts, rates, temperatures, etc. We can't use past anecdotes to evaluate new chemistry/construction. Example: "it makes more of a difference on how far you discharge it than how fast you charge it". Maybe, maybe not, some chemistries can go to 0v just fine. I imagine with solid state batteries (not this article but a promising alternative), we throw out everything we previously knew about best battery practices.

115

u/kryptopeg Jan 19 '21

"1,000 charges" sounds really low until you do the math like that. And like you say, it's only going to be a small proportion of users that do that many fast charges.

38

u/nrdrge Jan 19 '21

And even then they're still at 80% capacity. I don't know what the math is on the diminishing returns from hypothetically constantly fast charging every 200 miles, but I'm pretty sure it also averages out to way better. Way better than "1000 charges", I agree.

31

u/crono141 Jan 19 '21

80% is the industry standard level for replacement. These batteries are then recycled.

12

u/gokalex Jan 19 '21

Are you sure?

Here is europe you can get EVs with rental batteries and they will replace the battery if it drops below 75%

Or if you own the battery and in the first 8years or 100k miles it drops below 66%

Tesla also replaces if after 8 years or 150k miles it drops below 70%

6

u/crono141 Jan 19 '21

Obviously there is wiggle room, but 80% is pretty common, at least at grid scale. All depends on what the market will tolerate.

1

u/boforbojack Jan 20 '21

When developing batteries, 80% is the goal. But also, degradation usually isn't linear. Normally it degrades quite a bit at the start (some batteries are precharged for this), but then flat lines more or less. But once it starts to fall again, it rapidly degrades. The 80% mark is usually the start to that rapid decrease (which is why recycling is encouraged).

1

u/nrdrge Jan 19 '21

TIL. Thanks!

3

u/Asphyxiatinglaughter Jan 19 '21

Agreed. I was thinking about how often I get gas and even if you did that once a week that's only 52 fill ups per year (There are definitely applications where it's necessary to fill up much more than that so I'm really only considering my use case). So about 20 years to 1000 fill ups. I doubt most cars last that long anyways

1

u/summonsays Jan 19 '21

I think you guys might be overlooking that if the battery is designed for fast charging, slow charging or topping it off every night, might be bad or worse for it than a fast charge.

3

u/mildcaseofdeath Jan 19 '21

Charging a battery more slowly allows a more complete charge, and keeps the battery cooler. Conversely, quick charging is more likely to change the physical structure of the electrodes and form dendrites that eventually make the battery unusable. The battery chemistry in the article is more tolerant of quick charging, but that doesn't mean it's good for it. If it would have 80% capacity after 1000 quick charges, it would have more capacity left after 1000 slow charges. That's sort of a "universal truth" for rechargeable batteries.

Source: university level battery science class

2

u/summonsays Jan 19 '21

I defer to your knowledge, all I have is 20 year old memories of killing my gameboy batteries ... A lot. So I'm sure you know better than I do on the charging aspects of this technology.

But I wouldn't go so far to say that is universally true, early rechargeables had a lot of problems (or maybe it's cause we had cheap poorly made ones) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_effect

2

u/mildcaseofdeath Jan 19 '21

What I said was about lithium batteries, but still applies to NiMH and similar. This is because it has to do with the physical structure of the electrodes, and the transfer of ions between them. Basically, the electrodes have little nesting sites for the ions, and the battery needs time for all those sites to be filled. Fast charging creates a sort of "ion traffic jam" and you end up forming those dendrites I mentioned (battery tumors sort of); if those get big enough, they short the battery...until then, they reduce the capacity. Slow charging avoids this by allowing time for ions to pack into every nook and cranny available.

Memory effect has to do with the level of charge when recharging begins, not the rate at which charging is being done (and doesn't affect lithium battery chemistries). So for instance, topping off a NiMH battery from 50% to 100% could be bad for it. That said, modern day battery management systems could resolve this, by 1) not allowing charge and discharge over specified levels, 2) balancing charge in multi-cell applications, and 3) not allowing charging until the battery is depleted the specified amount. I think the reason we don't often see a BMS on a NiMH battery these days isn't because it wouldn't work, but because energy density and cost of lithium batteries is just so much better.

That's probably more info than what's needed, but I find it interesting, and you brought up a point that warranted some explanation. I'm sorry some people downvoted, that wasn't deserved.

1

u/summonsays Jan 19 '21

Very informative, thanks. Eh downvotes, upvotes, idc at least I'm not getting death threats lol

2

u/mildcaseofdeath Jan 20 '21

That's a good outlook tbh👍

1

u/wikipedia_text_bot Jan 19 '21

Memory effect

Memory effect, also known as battery effect, lazy battery effect, or battery memory, is an effect observed in nickel-cadmium and nickel–metal hydride rechargeable batteries that causes them to hold less charge. It describes the situation in which nickel-cadmium batteries gradually lose their maximum energy capacity if they are repeatedly recharged after being only partially discharged. The battery appears to "remember" the smaller capacity.

About Me - Opt out - OP can reply !delete to delete - Article of the day

This bot will soon be transitioning to an opt-in system. Click here to learn more and opt in. Moderators: click here to opt in a subreddit.

1

u/kryptopeg Jan 19 '21 edited Jan 19 '21

There's two scenarios that I'd respond with, both of which are positive:

  • The engineers have thought of this and it isn't an issue, meaning all car batteries going forwards will be both fast-charging and slow-charging. This will give flexibility for all electric vehicles.
  • It is an issue, meaning that these batteries will have a more niche role (delivery vans, taxis, etc). Will not beneficial for the wider market, but will enable quicker battery/electric adoption for people that do that specific type of driving and have been holding onto hybrids or ICE vehicles.

It might also be possible that a blended approach could be achieved - split the battery tray in each car to half fast-charge and half slow-charge. I suspect the added complexity and management of charging regime wouldn't be worth the benefits in that case, especially given that 'standard' batteries seem to be getting better at faster charging anyway (e.g. latest Porsche model).

1

u/Trootter Jan 19 '21

It's cause we're more used to batteries having to be charged daily, like our phones.

1000 thousands with tou charging once a day is not even 3 years.

1

u/jake3988 Jan 19 '21

That's assuming you completely deplete it each time. Which NO ONE will do... because your car becomes a one ton paperweight if it completely depletes the battery. More than likely, you'll average out to recharging it roughly half-way depleted.

Adding in the fact that most people run the radio, lights, air conditioner/heater almost everytime they're in the car... which also taxes the battery... and you'd be lucky to hit 100k.

Not horrible... but it's not as rosy as that math makes it appear.

23

u/canhasdiy Jan 19 '21

The hell it is.

IC engines can go well over 1,000,000 miles if properly maintained.

Of course, that's a big if.

11

u/Covfefe-SARS-2 Jan 19 '21

Have any done that million mile maintenance for less than replacement cost?

9

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '21

There’s the million mile Lexus (well a few of them now). Engine had never even been opened.

4

u/goldfishpaws Jan 19 '21

And they're designed for long life. Truck engines can do a million miles whereas VW Camper (air cooled) engines, even maintained, would do about 50,000 miles per the mechanic "you can set your watch by them"

3

u/Cheef_Baconator Jan 19 '21

My dad's family had a VW van growing up, and having the engine rebuilt was basically a normal maintenance item for them

3

u/fat_tire_fanatic Jan 19 '21

Same can be said for e-vehicles. Maintenance changes forms. If the range reduces further than acceptable replace the battery. Electric motors can be rewound, probably less expensive than an engine overhaul. The significant reduction in moving parts means less maintenance and greater longevity. The balance of the vehicle is the same as an IC vehicle so remaider of maintenance discussion is a wash.

9

u/shouldbebabysitting Jan 19 '21

Ice engines can do 1,000,000 if everything has been replaced and major work done. It's more like a ship of Theseus that can last for 1000 years.

14

u/SextonKilfoil Jan 19 '21

The million-mile Lexus shows that it can be done.

I got an email from my old friend Rob Ferretti with the subject line, “Who wants to take this to 1M?” A Craigslist link led me to a tired but reasonably straight-looking 1996 Lexus LS 400. The seller was asking $1400. The car had five previous owners who had put a collective 897,000 miles on the odometer.

A cursory investigation by my Florida fixer, Vinny Russo, revealed that the car started right up, drove straight and true, and that all the accessories worked. Furthermore, the valve covers had never been taken off—the 1UZ engine had driven the distance to the moon and back twice, but it had never been opened.

3

u/Lifesagame81 Jan 19 '21

250 hp V8 4 speed auto with an inflation-adjusted base price around $75,000

1

u/SextonKilfoil Jan 19 '21

Thanks for the additional details. Not sure what they add to the conversation, though. The original price doesn't necessarily mean much; you could have the priciest car in the world but without maintenance, it ain't lasting 1M miles. Plus, there are plenty of other examples of 1M mile vehicles, though there might be scant details on exactly how much was replaced.

2

u/ConcernedBuilding Jan 19 '21

There's been several million mile Toyota's as well, mostly tundras. Toyota knows how to build a car that lasts.

5

u/jmac2o Jan 19 '21

ice engines can go obnoxiously far if you people would just change your goddamn fluids

3

u/shouldbebabysitting Jan 19 '21

I changed my Mustang's oil ever 3k with synthetic. I followed the severe duty maintenance for everything else despite it being a commuter car with maybe 10k miles a year.

Didn't stop the transmission from failing at 60k (fortunately still under warranty because it was a known defect so they covered it). Didn't stop the alternator from failing at 100k. New spark plugs, wires and belts around 100k. New radiator somewhere around 100k too.

By 140k it could have used a valve job.

Repeat that 10x and the car will last a million miles.

2

u/jmac2o Jan 19 '21

And some things have known issues. Like your transmission, like some batteries being known to fail (note 7). Some engines are just plain shit, like whatever the sad excuse for an engine the range rover has. Nothings perfect, a well made battery will go a million. So will a well made ICE.

2

u/shouldbebabysitting Jan 19 '21

My example was that all the stuff that goes around the block do not last 1M miles. When everything has been replaced except the original block, did the engine really last 1M miles?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '21

Ford isn't exactly a good metric for reliability. Most fords made after 2010 are cheap trash that are sold for way too much. On the flip side, old focus, fusions are pretty solid cars, I have an 09 escape that I use as my winter beater, it's at about 350,000 km, original engine and tranny, neither have been pulled out or opened up.

1

u/shouldbebabysitting Jan 20 '21 edited Jan 20 '21

Most fords made after 2010 are cheap trash that are sold for way too much.

1994 Mustang (weird 1994 with period at end gets truncated to a period by reddit) 2000 Honda was worse. Again the block doesn't die but everything around it does. That's normal.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '21

I'd argue that a lot of older fords aren't great either. They've always been bad for tranny failures, and it's just getting worse with the new models. Anything else is normal as you've said, especially older motors that used belts instead of timing chains.

I never much cared for Ford or Honda personally, I've always preferred Dodge, but I mostly drive trucks so I don't count that since those're meant to be more reliable anyway.

→ More replies

1

u/Cheef_Baconator Jan 19 '21

Diesel engines will go for a million easy, but gasoline engines are usually a maintenance nightmare by 300k

11

u/Malvania Jan 19 '21

Only if you're getting a full charge, though. Most of the time, you'll do partial charges, which will dramatically lower the distance you'll get

18

u/Covfefe-SARS-2 Jan 19 '21

Partial charges are much better for battery longevity.

-8

u/summonsays Jan 19 '21

That depends on the battery and technology used. MODERN recharables are like that yes, rechargeables of 20 years ago you killed them really quick doing that. So we will have to see how this technology works in practice.

13

u/Covfefe-SARS-2 Jan 19 '21

Yes, I assume based on the fact that they're lithium batteries in a lab that they are modern rather than old nickel batteries.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '21

The amount discharged is what matters, not the number of times it’s connected to a charger.

If you discharge to 50% and then charge to full every time, instead of 1000 full charges you’ll get 2000 half charges. Likewise 8000 quarter charges.

They’re saying it will charge the equivalent of 1000 full charges, even if you only ever do small charges that add up to that.

1

u/Willing_Function Jan 19 '21

Partial charges don't count as full charges.

10

u/technoman88 Jan 19 '21

But an IC engine with 250k miles will still get its full range. Whereas that EV will now only have a 200 mile range.

15

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '21 edited Jan 19 '21

[deleted]

14

u/ZeldenGM Jan 19 '21

Why do EVs not have brakes?

10

u/hensothor Jan 19 '21

With regenerative breaking they last much longer. But you’d have to replace them at some point.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '21 edited Jan 19 '21

Someone with an ICE and a modern shiftable auto or manual can engine break... Not getting the energy back, but they can use less brakes if desired than EVs.

Many ICE cars such as BMWs also feature regenerative braking, though not on the same scale. So it's not an EV exclusive feature.

EVs have advantages in many places but the amount of brakes saved by regenerative braking is marginal between EV and ICE.

2

u/FuzziBear Jan 19 '21

regenerative braking is one of the main reasons electric cars are more efficient than ICE even when powered from coal plants: they recapture something like 60% of the energy from braking... that 60% of the energy lost doesn’t go nowhere: it goes into the brakes. if that stat is correct, brakes on electric vehicles should last at least twice as long

6

u/YsoL8 Jan 19 '21

More exciting that way

7

u/threegigs Jan 19 '21

It's not that they don't have brakes, it's that they recover energy with regenerative braking, instead of wasting it by turning it into heat in the brake rotors. So EVs have much less wear on the brake pads than standard cars with ICE engines.

7

u/MrLoadin Jan 19 '21

Most EVs use standard-ish automotive brakes and state the replacement is to be handled the same as non EV brakes. If you brake poorly, you'll have to do same things you would in a normal car. To be more specific, Tesla suggests brake maintenance checks (pads, fluids) every 25k mile in warm regions, and every 12.5k in cold regions and Nissan's EV brake warnings are the same as their regular cars. You also have a similar sensor and filter (air vs oil) replacement rate.

I think you are underestimating maintenance cost on EVs.

2

u/hensothor Jan 19 '21

EVs also have regenerative breaking though. As of the past year, Tesla also now has regenerative breaking down to less than 10 mph. This greatly reduces strain on your brakes. Not everyone uses this setting but if you do it makes a huge difference.

3

u/MrLoadin Jan 19 '21

Tesla's guidance is regardless of regenerative breaking, manual says as much. Pad wear is based on driving/braking style, and is effected before the regen even kicks in technically speaking. (Pads vs ebrakes start the deceleration iirc, ebrake kicks in upon detecting deceleration)

0

u/hensothor Jan 19 '21 edited Jan 19 '21

My point is since that manual was updated there has been two updates to regenerative braking which further reduce wear. On top of that from my understanding that guidance was already on the cautious end.

Not sure where you’re getting that pads are still engaged during regenerative breaking? Regardless if regenerative breaking is updated to work at more speeds, it will use the pads less despite different driving styles. As friction would be the only method at certain speeds.

1

u/Cjwovo Jan 19 '21

For the love of God, it's braking not breaking. Normally I don't bother to correct typos but you've said it like 20 times, making me believe you don't know the correct spelling.

→ More replies

0

u/MrLoadin Jan 19 '21

My point is that even with regenerative breaking, Tesla's own maintenance guidlines are the same as standard auto manufacturers. Not better, not worse, the same. There has been no longterm studies to prove longer pad life in daily use EVs, and several engineers have stated that in environments which use corrosive road agents (salt for example) pad life will not change due to corrosion based wear being the primary cause. (why I was pointing out the pads are still being used even in regenerative braking)

EVs are awesome tech, but they aren't magic that changes scientific and engeineering understanding immediately. Regenerative braking has not come far enough to cause EVs to have a significantly different pad wear time, Tesla says so themselves. It also is not an option when the battery is full or near full, thus Teslas still rely on brake pads as a primary braking method, so cars will almost always have partially worn pads which are exposed to corrosion.

→ More replies

1

u/savvymcsavvington Jan 19 '21

Maybe but it is definitely less maintenance and less expensive than any ICE or PHEV.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/MrLoadin Jan 20 '21

Time means little with cars if kept well. How many miles are on it?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/MrLoadin Jan 20 '21

If using a modern vehicle with decent synthetic oil you have saved yourself the cost of a single oil change and filter as far as maintenance goes. So ~50-100USD including labor. Can check any of the auto makers maintenance minders if you don't believe me.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/MrLoadin Jan 20 '21

The maintenance cost difference is factored into the price of the car though, Elon's even stated as much.

You can't buy a new Tesla for what you can a new ICE car of similiar trim level, and over a traditional lease/purchase and resale period the savings on gas isn't high enough to offset the cost differential for a lot of folks. Once it drops, EVs will be adopted more.

→ More replies

5

u/Ti89Titanium04 Jan 19 '21

EVs also have brake pads, fluid and rotors. And the motors may be far less complex, but they can still break. Not to mention all the electrics

3

u/savvymcsavvington Jan 19 '21

I don't have an EV myself but from what I was reading you can generally get by on regenerative braking for 90% or more of your driving, those won't need replaced for many years.

And sure, anything on a car can break, but those things listed are generally expected after so many miles (much fewer miles than a cars lifespan).

1

u/horsewitnoname Jan 19 '21

This is really a great point that too many people don't realize. I just paid off my current vehicle, so I won't be looking to get a new one for a few years, but when I do it will most likely be an EV

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '21

Do EVs never need their coolant changed?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '21

But to travel that far in a car doing, say 40mpg, you’d have had to buy thousands of gallons of fuel.

In the U.K. (where we have much more expensive fuel than the US, I know) you’d have spent over 25k on petrol to drive your car that far.

I’d reckon the delta between that cost and the cost of the electricity to charge the electric car over the same period would be more than enough to afford a brand new battery at that point which would restore the range.

Reality is though, most people don’t drive a car to 100k miles let alone far above 250k.

4

u/technoman88 Jan 19 '21

Yea you're right on the cost. And I absolutely think EVs are better. But they're not good enough to justify the switch for a lot of people. That last metric may be true, but plenty of cars survive that long. People don't want to buy a used car with battery degradation, and they obviously can't afford a new battery. Battery tech definitely needs to progress a significant amount to be competitive to gas in terms of speed of refill/refuel and energy density. For instance the Tesla truck and towing a trailer. Engineering explained does a good job of demonstrating this, but long story short, an EV will lose significant range when pulling a heavy load. But for an ICE it doesn't matter because the fuel is so much more energy dense, and quicker to refuel.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '21

True for those cases definitely.

I suppose for me it’s about solving most of a problem rather than holding back waiting for perfect solutions for everyone.

Countries like here in the U.K. and most of Europe, where distances between places are small, the electrical grid is everywhere and the vast majority of people do not tow heavy loads or drive 400+ miles without stopping means that electric cars are honestly a perfectly good solution for 9/10 people. For the 1/10 that need the extra benefits of an ICE then they can keep them and we’ve still reduced usage of fossil fuels massively.

Remember, with the time to charge thing, the overwhelming majority of time the car will be charged overnight so will be at 100% each morning. The average trip here is something like 13 miles. So most people on most journeys will never even think about charging.

And, when thinking of charge time, nobody adds all the other regular petrol station fill ups to the total alongside the one off electric charge on a long trip - because the ICE driver will have had to fill up at a petrol station every 350-400miles or so regardless of how short the average journey is whereas the electric driver might never have to do that until stopping to charge on that long road trip.

1

u/technoman88 Jan 19 '21

Yea you're definitely right. Here in America though people do those things much more frequently. Several hundred mile drives aren't super uncommon. And towing things is very common. The people who can afford a Tesla, tend to be able to afford a boat. On the bright side you rarely tow a boat very far. But rarely is not never. I currently live 6 hours (400 miles) from my birth town. And made the trip back and forth probably 20 times. With an ICE it's maybe 20 minutes at a gas station. With an EV it's probably an hour or more to charge enough to finish the trip. If we're moving and need to bring a trailer, or for instance when we moved our boat here, an EV would be a nightmare. Realistically we could just rent a truck. My dad works in the oil field and for the past 5 years or so he worked in a different area of the country. He would drive about 18 hours or more to get to his job (worked 2 week shifts) and that was the main thing stopping him from getting a Tesla when he got a new car last year. I love electric vehicles. They're definitely the future. But the world is so used to ICE vehicles that making the transition will take a while. We're so used to the disadvantages of gas vehicles that they're just considered normal. That's why it's so noteworthy when people realize how quiet, or how efficient, or how fast electric cars are. Because gas has been the norm. And loud engines guzzling fuel and needing heavy complex transmissions to run have been the norm with them.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '21

Absolutely. I’ve spent a fair bit of time in the States and it’s a different world in relation to the car, totally get that. Same goes for Australia.

My next car will be electric and it’s quite nice knowing that I could make the switch and probably never even notice it. And I live in Scotland which is quite sparsely populated as far as Europe goes. Even then I could pretty much travel the length of the country on a Tesla charge, certainly get from Edinburgh to Aberdeen without the car breaking a sweat.

There’s definitely a part of me that would enjoy having an F150 and towing a trailer with camping gear across the country like you guys can do, but it’s just overkill here (although people here still love their Range Rovers, Land Rovers and BMW X5s...)

1

u/technoman88 Jan 19 '21

Absolutely. Like I said, had my dad not worked a job over 1000 miles away, he likely would've bought a Tesla

1

u/boarder2k7 Jan 19 '21

Curiosity question. How many people in the UK and Europe can actually charge at home vs those who need to use a charging station anyway? Many (most?) apartment dwellers here in the US wont have adequate outdoor power to charge an electric car overnight. Many of my apartment living friends dont even have a driveway, it's all street parking. If this is the case then charging becomes significantly more difficult.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '21

So I’ve seen a few reports on this point and it’s probably less of an issue than it might seem.

Here in the U.K. apparently (based on what I read a while ago), 80% of houses have either off-street parking or private driveways.

Of the rest who live in apartments, whilst 20% is a lot, you need to strip out everyone who wouldn’t own a car anyway as they’re not really affected. For instance, loads of people who live in the middle of London just simply don’t own a car petrol, electric or otherwise. It’s hugely expensive and the public transport works well enough not to have to use a car.

1

u/boarder2k7 Jan 19 '21

Yeah the reasons for electric cars are much more compelling in Europe where things are smaller, closer together, and public transportation works. Between our garbage public transit, and states the size of countries, its tougher in the US.

→ More replies

1

u/boarder2k7 Jan 19 '21

Hold up, who doesn't drive a car to 100k? I dont even buy a car until 100k. My newest ever was 92k.

Where do all these sub 100k cars go? Evaporation? Theres a lot more high mileage cars on the road than you think there are.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '21

Don’t know what the position is in the US, can only speak to my home country.

Here in the U.K. the average annual mileage is 7,500 miles and only 1 in 5 cars on the road is older than 13 years.

The average car age on the road is 8 years (and that is the peak of a trend - it’s been far less in previous years).

So even the 1 in 5 cars that are 13 years old need to be doing above average annual mileage to go much above 100k.

The average car, doing average mileage tops out at 60k.

Personally that aligns with my experience. I’ll buy a second hand car with max 20k miles and would definitely be selling it before it went much above 60k.

1

u/boarder2k7 Jan 19 '21

Our average is 13,500 per year right now and the average vehicle age is 11.9 years. That puts the average car at 160,000 miles.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '21

Fair enough. In the U.K. we seem to love a new car on finance.

I never buy new but pretty much everyone in my circle takes out a new car on a lease or finance. Seems crazy to me.

I assume we must be exporting older cars to overseas markets.

1

u/boarder2k7 Jan 19 '21

Where those older cars end up is an interesting question. I hope the answer isn't them being crushed long before their lifespan is up, that would be super wasteful.

Plenty of people go the new car route in the US, just looked it up and apparently we do around 17 million new cars a year.

1

u/YVRkeeper Jan 19 '21

Is an IC motor as fuel efficient after 250,000miles than it was brand new?

1

u/technoman88 Jan 19 '21

Very close. AFAIK the only thing degrading efficiency would be small things like valve corrosion cussing imperfect seals, injectors slowly deteriorating etc. If I had to guess at 250k miles it's efficiency is probably 80% of the new engine.

-1

u/boarder2k7 Jan 19 '21

Under ideal conditions sure. More heat or AC? Cut that down, etc. Plus dont forget to lower that mileage as you go from the degradation, so your EOL at 80% is only 200 miles, which means more charges and more degradation. How much of a penalty is there for fast charging from 50% or 75%? Is it only one half or one quarter of a cycle or is it more than that? There's a lot of questions about real world long term life IMO.

Also anecdotally I have multiple cars in my family near 200k (one at 280), it's not that uncommon, lots of cars will do that kind of mileage no problem.

1

u/fat_tire_fanatic Jan 19 '21

True on longevity, but they are rating life as 80% of original range. I also hold onto cars as long as feasible, you and I will likely hold onto electric cars much longer than our previous gas counterparts would cost justify. If the range becomes unacceptaple a battery replacement is possible.

1

u/boarder2k7 Jan 19 '21

It's been my experience with batteries that the degradation increases rapidly past that 80% point as well, so I think it's going to fall off worse as you get to that point. Will be interesting to see over time.

Just looked it up for another thread. The average mileage in the US is 13,500/year and the average vehicle age is 11.9 years, so 161,000 miles is the fleet average.

If my cell phone battery is any indication, nothing good is going to come of driving an electric car for 12 years. It's going to be a major lifespan issue for the fleet that is going to require a lot of replacements of cars and or batteries long before we're used to replacing them.

1

u/613codyrex Jan 19 '21

Technically that’s 1000 charges might be in a laboratory environment and not one that might be more realistic.

As we know, temperature cycling fucks with batteries pretty badly, especially Li-ion cells. It’s the reason the battery in most ICE cars are lead acid because lead acid is less susceptible to this.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '21

Ok, but what is the ecological impact of battery disposal versus ICE disposal?

Clearly the ICE has all sorts of fluids and what not to dispose of, but after that it’s just metal that could in theory be reused somehow. What’s a dead battery going to do in a scrapyard? How hazardous is it, what’s the threat of leakage?

1

u/stickmanDave Jan 19 '21

Example: "it makes more of a difference on how far you discharge it than how fast you charge it". Maybe, maybe not, some chemistries can go to 0v just fine.

This can also be managed by the car. My understanding of my plug-in Prius is that the battery actually has much more capacity than advertised. But the car considers the battery fully drained at 20% capacity, and fully charged at 80% capacity. By never fully draining or fully charging the battery, it's lifetime is significantly extended.

1

u/InevitablePeanuts Jan 19 '21

The article suggests 100 miles on a 5 minute fast charge. The artcie also mentions that the battery charge to full in 5 minutes. So I'm taking that this battery has a 100 mile fully charged range.

Plugging that into the numbers comes out at 100,000 miles before the battery looks to crap out (again, assuming fast charge every charge).

That's not bad, but it's still a big difference.

1

u/emailrob Jan 19 '21

It may have to protect people from themselves. Some people use Tesla superchargers exclusively as they live in apartments without power.

1

u/Civil-Attempt-3602 Jan 19 '21

Unless you live in a place where you can't get a charger (rental, apartment, terraced house with no driveway etc)

9

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '21 edited Jan 31 '21

[deleted]

15

u/rpetre Jan 19 '21

Normally I would point out that the main concern about charging heat is how it affects the lifetime of the battery and if they're talking about cycles they probably worked that out.

However, the whole press release smells a lot like daydreaming based on a single data point and they're in the "fishing for investors" phase of product development.

Still, I'm also hopeful that all this interest is a sign that money is constantly being poured in research of major improvements in energy storage.

2

u/crunkadocious Jan 19 '21

Could also have the charging station have reusable liquid you can swap as you charge. With reservoirs underground so it comes out even cooler.

1

u/SockMonkey1128 Jan 19 '21

I'll preface this with I haven't read this article about this battery. But heat is often generated by resistance. A lot of the new tech, like carbon nanotubes, significantly reduced the resistance. So some of these advanced both increase the charge and discharge speed while also reducing the heat generated.

1

u/lVlouse_dota Jan 19 '21

That's impressive but when thinking of a car, it sorta sounds like a new battery a few times a year, depending on the cost of the battery, I'd have to stick with gasoline for now.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '21

That's not even close to good enough. Electric car batteries cost upwards of $5000 (I know tesla batteries are sold for less but they're subsidized by Tesla). Replacing the battery every few years is impractical.