Mercedes Says Synthetic Fuel Isn’t Viable For The Auto Industry

Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
8,815
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Originally Posted by Surestick
Originally Posted by Cujet
And yet we use Ethanol in large quantities. It may not qualify as a synthetic, but it certainly qualifies as way to transform "green energy" (sunlight) into liquid fuel. A liquid that pours into the tank in a minute or two, and delivers adequate overall performance, without the limitations of batteries. Before we argue over ethanol's EROI, remember that methods exist to achieve an EROI of 6+ with ethanol. Brazil does it. I really hope to see 800wh/kg specific energy in next decade's batteries, 3X+ better than today's best. Tomorrow, even Musk's best 200KWH battery Tesla pickup truck can't tow a conventional RV trailer for more than 100 miles. The truck also takes an hour or more to charge, and may not be chargeable at remote destinations. Mercedes and VW may believe that filling a battery with sunshine is the best choice. I don't agree. It takes real power to do real work. There is a distinct reason why electric airplanes don't exist, despite 2 decades of attempts.
That's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. Energy density and available power are two different things. Airplanes depend on the energy density of fossil fuels because range and low weight are high on the list of attributes. A car used for commuting, shopping runs, etc. in an urban area can afford to sacrifice range and time to "refuel" because range and weight are a lot lower down on the attributes that type of vehicle needs. Short drives, stop and go traffic, and long idle times between uses mean that an electric vehicle is probably a better option for many due to cheaper running costs, less pollution, performance, and available time to recharge between uses.
It also depends on the application. Way back in my days riding bicycles, I remember that a larger, more muscular rider might be better at cutting through the wind because power relative to surface area presented to the wind was higher. However, for climbing hills, smaller riders typically had a higher power to weight ratio where the aerodynamics has a much lower impact. There are many different applications, so specializing can be done. It's amazing how much empty space there can be in a bus. Sure one could double or triple the range of a public transit bus with a larger liquid fuel tank, but that's not needed when the bus already has an adequate range for a single day without refueling and it would add weight with little benefit. But when it's an electric bus (which are increasingly being used), placing in a larger set of batteries begins to make sense because then it provides the same range. There of course is going to be a weight penalty, but does it really matter when range in that application outweighs the weight penalty? I rather like electric (or hybrid) buses since they don't have that smelly exhaust (it's at least better with hybrids) and not as loud. The hydrogen fuel cell buses in my area have found ways to store more hydrogen in order to have adequate range for a day. They've even gone to storage on the roof.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
6,023
Location
Florida
Originally Posted by Cujet
Before we argue over ethanol's EROI, remember that methods exist to achieve an EROI of 6+ with ethanol. Brazil does it.
I thought we liked the rainforests?
 
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
12,960
Location
Jupiter, Florida
Originally Posted by y_p_w
But in many ways it's red herring because most people don't need a 500 mile range, Besides that, isn't the efficiency of an ICE really about 40% tops?
1) And yet the interstates are clogged with travelers who not only need adequate range, but need to avoid frequent long waits to "refuel/recharge". My F150 FL-PA-NY trip takes 19 hours, 2 fuel stops. A Model X takes 27 hours and 9-10 stops. 2) Yes! ICE peaks at about 44% (best case) with minor drivetrain losses . HOWEVER, EV's powered by the very best NG combined cycle power plant 64% eff, can at best achieve a 29% Fuel to Wheel efficiency. Reason: Powerplant is 54% at the plant's fence (some power is needed to run the plant, and transform the power to line voltage) then grid losses, charger losses, battery charging losses [not all the power pumped into a battery goes in] (some battery heating required up North too, not included) minor battery output losses over time [not all the power remains in the battery after some time] , drive circuitry losses and motor losses. Best case 29%, often much less if coal or oil is used. Before you think I don't like EV's, I love 'em and want one. But the it's time we understand the shortcomings clearly. I hope for an 800 wh/kg battery. As this would allow a great deal more EV practicality.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
12,960
Location
Jupiter, Florida
Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by Cujet
Before we argue over ethanol's EROI, remember that methods exist to achieve an EROI of 6+ with ethanol. Brazil does it.
I thought we liked the rainforests?
Yeah, I agree. But solar takes up room too, lots of room. A recent study indicated that for a typical interstate, a solar array would need to be at least 2 kilometers wide, along side the entire length of the interstate to provide enough power to run the vehicles. Remember even here in FL, the annualized sunshine is 4.7 hours per day (seasons/clouds/haze etc). That leaves more than 19 hours where the sun provides no significant energy. And if we are not powering our new fleet of EV vehicles with solar, what are we powering them with? Nuke-u-Ler seems the only viable method.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
12,960
Location
Jupiter, Florida
Originally Posted by Surestick
That's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. Energy density and available power are two different things.
I get your point, locally based vehicles can be EV's. However, I probably was not clear on my point. Automotive traffic uses only 16% of national energy consumption. A great deal of energy must come from somewhere to heat our homes, to power our industries and transport our goods. Battery storage falls woefully short. [img]https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/04/Energy_US_2019.png?resize=1536,903[/img]
 
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
8,815
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by y_p_w
But in many ways it's red herring because most people don't need a 500 mile range, Besides that, isn't the efficiency of an ICE really about 40% tops?
1) And yet the interstates are clogged with travelers who not only need adequate range, but need to avoid frequent long waits to "refuel/recharge". My F150 FL-PA-NY trip takes 19 hours, 2 fuel stops. A Model X takes 27 hours and 9-10 stops.
Well - if someone really needs the range, it's always possible to rent a vehicle.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
1,961
Location
USA
Originally Posted by y_p_w
Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by y_p_w
But in many ways it's red herring because most people don't need a 500 mile range, Besides that, isn't the efficiency of an ICE really about 40% tops?
1) And yet the interstates are clogged with travelers who not only need adequate range, but need to avoid frequent long waits to "refuel/recharge". My F150 FL-PA-NY trip takes 19 hours, 2 fuel stops. A Model X takes 27 hours and 9-10 stops.
Well - if someone really needs the range, it's always possible to rent a vehicle.
Why would anyone want to do that and incur more additional cost and time?
 
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
12,960
Location
Jupiter, Florida
Originally Posted by y_p_w
Well - if someone really needs the range, it's always possible to rent a vehicle.
During season, I rent 2 or 3 cars per week. Rarely can I get what I need. They are happy to stick me in a full size Sonata, Altima or Buick Envision. But 4 big men and 8 travel bags won't fit. Nor would it be comfortable for 5 hours. Same goes for a family. They tend to purchase SUV's or pickup trucks for the room and carrying capability. To pick the kids up after practice and to tow the boat.
 
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
8,815
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by y_p_w
Well - if someone really needs the range, it's always possible to rent a vehicle.
Why would anyone want to do that and incur more additional cost and time?
Because it makes sense? There are people who don't own their own cars, but have driver licenses and rent when they need it. Heck - some people make do just renting from car sharing services. Sometimes it makes sense to buy a car that serves 98% of someone's needs, but then rent a suitable vehicle for the other 2%. Heck - it's at the point when we go on a long road trip my wife would rather we rent a car rather than take our own car where we would be putting on a thousand or so miles.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
1,961
Location
USA
Originally Posted by y_p_w
Because it makes sense? There are people who don't own their own cars, but have driver licenses and rent when they need it. Heck - some people make do just renting from car sharing services. Sometimes it makes sense to buy a car that serves 98% of someone's needs, but then rent a suitable vehicle for the other 2%. Heck - it's at the point when we go on a long road trip my wife would rather we rent a car rather than take our own car where we would be putting on a thousand or so miles.
Nice try but another fail. Even though your answer at face value is very well reasoned and quite logical it is not in context with the series of comments you posted it to so its another deflection. Read all of post 5439247 in context with the discussion and points referenced. Nobody disputes the logic of renting a "special circumstance" vehicle- but that was not the underlying theme
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,260
Location
Suomi
jada jada ev....MB trying to be Political correct. I think HVO diesel and natural gas/hybrid is the future in EU. Its impossible for all countrys in EU to move to ev cars in the near future since infrastructure varies much per country.
 
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
8,815
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by y_p_w
Because it makes sense? There are people who don't own their own cars, but have driver licenses and rent when they need it. Heck - some people make do just renting from car sharing services. Sometimes it makes sense to buy a car that serves 98% of someone's needs, but then rent a suitable vehicle for the other 2%. Heck - it's at the point when we go on a long road trip my wife would rather we rent a car rather than take our own car where we would be putting on a thousand or so miles.
Nice try but another fail. Even though your answer at face value is very well reasoned and quite logical it is not in context with the series of comments you posted it to so its another deflection. Read all of post 5439247 in context with the discussion and points referenced. Nobody disputes the logic of renting a "special circumstance" vehicle- but that was not the underlying theme
I read it. The complaint was about how long a Model X might take to do a particular trip compared to an F150. I'm just saying that someone can legitimately believe that a Model X serves 98% of their needs. If more range is helpful, that someone can rent a conventional gasoline powered car when needed to make long trips. Heck - if I owned an F150 I wouldn't necessarily want to take it long distances. That poster never indicate what the purpose of the trip was, but that's certainly not the kind of vehicle I'd think was great unless one is hauling lots of stuff.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
1,961
Location
USA
Originally Posted by y_p_w
I read it. The complaint was about how long a Model X might take to do a particular trip compared to an F150. I'm just saying that someone can legitimately believe that a Model X serves 98% of their needs. If more range is helpful, that someone can rent a conventional gasoline powered car when needed to make long trips. Heck - if I owned an F150 I wouldn't necessarily want to take it long distances. That poster never indicate what the purpose of the trip was, but that's certainly not the kind of vehicle I'd think was great unless one is hauling lots of stuff.
On the bolded part, again, stating the obvious and I doubt few would disagree that is a very real situation where an individual judgment call is a good thing with no wrong answer based on the specific circumstances. The "purpose" of the trip is meaningless if the goal is keeping miles off of a car ( which had merit on American cars made in the 60s-70s that had a real finite life but doesn't have the same level of importance on a modern vehicle as several hundred k is now the norm) Also, people have those vehicles own them BECAUSE they haul lots of stuff ( granted there are some Urban Cowboys but not a large percentage) Lastly, remember those frequent fast charges and charge cycles SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE both the service factor/performance and overall life of that battery whereas a fuel stop doesn't damage a vehicle. Once again, lets keep it in context and present all relevant concerns
 
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
8,815
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by y_p_w
I read it. The complaint was about how long a Model X might take to do a particular trip compared to an F150. I'm just saying that someone can legitimately believe that a Model X serves 98% of their needs. If more range is helpful, that someone can rent a conventional gasoline powered car when needed to make long trips. Heck - if I owned an F150 I wouldn't necessarily want to take it long distances. That poster never indicate what the purpose of the trip was, but that's certainly not the kind of vehicle I'd think was great unless one is hauling lots of stuff.
On the bolded part, again, stating the obvious and I doubt few would disagree that is a very real situation where an individual judgment call is a good thing with no wrong answer based on the specific circumstances. The "purpose" of the trip is meaningless if the goal is keeping miles off of a car ( which had merit on American cars made in the 60s-70s that had a real finite life but doesn't have the same level of importance on a modern vehicle as several hundred k is now the norm) Also, people have those vehicles own them BECAUSE they haul lots of stuff ( granted there are some Urban Cowboys but not a large percentage) Lastly, remember those frequent fast charges and charge cycles SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE both the service factor/performance and overall life of that battery whereas a fuel stop doesn't damage a vehicle. Once again, lets keep it in context and present all relevant concerns
While there's theoretically more heat generated during faster charging, there isn't much demonstrable reduction in battery capacity as a matter of charging quickly versus slowly. All modern lithium rechargeable battery systems use charging profiles that can charge quickly and then back off as it gets closer to 100%. I get that you're trying to steer this discussion in ways that are favorable to your arguments. We all do that.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
1,961
Location
USA
Originally Posted by y_p_w
While there's theoretically more heat generated during faster charging, there isn't much demonstrable reduction in battery capacity as a matter of charging quickly versus slowly. All modern lithium rechargeable battery systems use charging profiles that can charge quickly and then back off as it gets closer to 100%. I get that you're trying to steer this discussion in ways that are favorable to your arguments. We all do that.
You clearly have no knowledge whatsoever on this subject and are just parroting words. Your statement not only violates the laws of physics but common sense as well. The more power you run through something, the more resistance and more energy = more heat. I recommend a basic sciences primer for you and maybe a course in electricity 100. You obviously know even less about wet celled battery's as well- batteries like everything else have to charge and normalize and not all the charge energy can be converted to discharge energy. That's why "slow charging" is recommended because it stresses the plates and heats less ( along with the chemical reaction) thus increasing overall service life. Yeah the tool batteries do and then look at their overall life and limitations compared to the actual batteries in question. I get that "you" are trying to create and promote your own laws of physics to support your worldview- you seem to follow that theme a lot. You can have your own facts comfortable inside your mind where they belong but in the real world the proven laws of physics rule. I'm steering straight down the road
 
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
8,815
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by y_p_w
While there's theoretically more heat generated during faster charging, there isn't much demonstrable reduction in battery capacity as a matter of charging quickly versus slowly. All modern lithium rechargeable battery systems use charging profiles that can charge quickly and then back off as it gets closer to 100%. I get that you're trying to steer this discussion in ways that are favorable to your arguments. We all do that.
You clearly have no knowledge whatsoever on this subject and are just parroting words. Your statement not only violates the laws of physics but common sense as well. The more power you run through something, the more resistance and more energy = more heat. I recommend a basic sciences primer for you and maybe a course in electricity 100. You obviously know even less about wet celled battery's as well- batteries like everything else have to charge and normalize and not all the charge energy can be converted to discharge energy. That's why "slow charging" is recommended because it stresses the plates and heats less ( along with the chemical reaction) thus increasing overall service life. Yeah the tool batteries do and then look at their overall life and limitations compared to the actual batteries in question. I get that "you" are trying to create and promote your own laws of physics to support your worldview- you seem to follow that theme a lot. You can have your own facts comfortable inside your mind where they belong but in the real world the proven laws of physics rule. I'm steering straight down the road
Uh - no. The vast majority of "fast charging" systems on lithium rechargeable batteries operate with a fast initial charge and then a reduced charge. Why did you change the subject to wet celled batteries? Modern lithium battery charging is done with most of the charging done quickly, then it backs off. It has to be since the heat generated goes up as the battery approaches full charge.There's really no evidence that current levels of fast charging will cause a battery to die faster save a minuscule loss, but the charge rate has to back off at a certain point or it will get hot (might even catch on fire). Most systems these days might (for example) charge from 0 to 80% in an hour, then spend the next 2 hours ramping down the charge current until it's full. [Linked Image from batteryuniversity.com] https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_lithium_ion_batteries The two biggest enemies of maintaining battery capacity are deep discharge and heat. Not to mention too much heat when a battery is near full might cause it to catch on fire. For long-distance driving, it's certainly possible to move from one point to another by charging up to before the saturation charge kicks in, then move on to the next charging station. It might take a little trial an error, but I've heard that some might just spend 30 minutes waiting for the battery to charge from 20% to 80% rather than waiting 90 minutes for the battery to charge from 20% to 100%. Some owners even purposely set the maximum charge on their batteries to hopefully extend the longevity. I can't figure out exactly what you think I said that's incorrect about fast charging. The middle of the charge range is ideal for faster charging, but it has to back off as it gets to a certain point. For many uses it makes sense to not wait for it to get to 100% charge.
Quote
https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/ultra_fast_charging To achieve fast charging and long driving ranges, the EV battery is being oversized, and the Tesla S 85 is such an example. Supercharging its 90kWh battery dumps about 90kW into the battery. This represents a charge C-rate of 1C for a time. As the battery fills, the C-rate falls to a more comfortable 0.8C, and then goes further down, avoiding harmful battery stress that is related to ultra-fast charging. People ask, "Why does an ultra-fast charger only charge a battery to 70 and 80 percent?" The simple answer is, charge acceptance is best in mid-range; battery stresses are also reduced in mid-range. When putting the battery on charge, the voltage shoots up. This behavior is similar to lifting a weight with a rubber band in which the weight, or charge, lags behind. Depending on charge times, Li-ion is about 70 percent charged when reaching 4.20V/cell, a voltage threshold that is common with Li-ion. At this phase, the current begins to taper and charge acceptance slows.
Tesla has this animation that shows 30 minutes to 80% then another 60 minutes to 100%. This is pretty typical. That's similar to how my iPhone charges with a powerful enough power supply. Theoretically finding a slower charging system for the first 80% will result in less capacity loss in the long run, but that's a tradeoff for the convenience. https://www.tesla.com/supercharger [Linked Image from media1.tenor.com]
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
1,961
Location
USA
Originally Posted by y_p_w
Uh - no. The vast majority of "fast charging" systems on lithium rechargeable batteries operate with a fast initial charge and then a reduced charge. Why did you change the subject to wet celled batteries? Modern lithium battery charging is done with most of the charging done quickly, then it backs off. It has to be since the heat generated goes up as the battery approaches full charge.There's really no evidence that current levels of fast charging will cause a battery to die faster save a minuscule loss, but the charge rate has to back off at a certain point or it will get hot (might even catch on fire). Most systems these days might (for example) charge from 0 to 80% in an hour, then spend the next 2 hours ramping down the charge current until it's full. The two biggest enemies of maintaining battery capacity are deep discharge and heat. Not to mention too much heat when a battery is near full might cause it to catch on fire. For long-distance driving, it's certainly possible to move from one point to another by charging up to before the saturation charge kicks in, then move on to the next charging station. It might take a little trial an error, but I've heard that some might just spend 30 minutes waiting for the battery to charge from 20% to 80% rather than waiting 90 minutes for the battery to charge from 20% to 100%. Some owners even purposely set the maximum charge on their batteries to hopefully extend the longevity. I can't figure out exactly what you think I said that's incorrect about fast charging. The middle of the charge range is ideal for faster charging, but it has to back off as it gets to a certain point. For many uses it makes sense to not wait for it to get to 100% charge.
Quote
https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/ultra_fast_charging To achieve fast charging and long driving ranges, the EV battery is being oversized, and the Tesla S 85 is such an example. Supercharging its 90kWh battery dumps about 90kW into the battery. This represents a charge C-rate of 1C for a time. As the battery fills, the C-rate falls to a more comfortable 0.8C, and then goes further down, avoiding harmful battery stress that is related to ultra-fast charging. People ask, "Why does an ultra-fast charger only charge a battery to 70 and 80 percent?" The simple answer is, charge acceptance is best in mid-range; battery stresses are also reduced in mid-range. When putting the battery on charge, the voltage shoots up. This behavior is similar to lifting a weight with a rubber band in which the weight, or charge, lags behind. Depending on charge times, Li-ion is about 70 percent charged when reaching 4.20V/cell, a voltage threshold that is common with Li-ion. At this phase, the current begins to taper and charge acceptance slows.
Tesla has this animation that shows 30 minutes to 80% then another 60 minutes to 100%. This is pretty typical. That's similar to how my iPhone charges with a powerful enough power supply. Theoretically finding a slower charging system for the first 80% will result in less capacity loss in the long run, but that's a tradeoff for the convenience.
Oh boy, I love it when people who know little to nothing quote articles about a science they don't understand. It's like reading a sentence and thinking you comprehend the book and are in the author's mind. Here are some more things for you to look up to understand that which you post. Discharge cycles, induced stress, run time, "harsh discharge", rising resistance, aging, discharge (cutoff) voltage, available and rock capacity- those all factor into this "alleged' lifecycle and performance Then when people talk about this alleged "EV" they test them on- notice what's not there. The vehicle loading and amp discharge (what really matters)- all of these tests are on a static vehicle on a baseline then they are "upscaled" to "represent" actual conditions ( like models for diseases and climate change- see how accurate they are too) There a REASON they don't answer these basic questions directly and completely- they facts tell a different story when directly applied to real world rather than controlled models. Keep reading, you blew it again.
 
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
12,960
Location
Jupiter, Florida
Originally Posted by y_p_w
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by y_p_w
Well - if someone really needs the range, it's always possible to rent a vehicle.
Why would anyone want to do that and incur more additional cost and time?
Because it makes sense?
Not if you want a large SUV for a two week driving vacation trip. Around here one could purchase a used vehicle for the cost of a two week full size SUV rental. Furthermore, the rental companies don't keep many in stock, because few business people rent them. People absolutely purchase a largeer than necessary vehicle for daily driving. "Daily Driving" is not what drives many purchases. It's the weekends, sports, dirt bikes, lumber or travel that drives that larger vehicle purchase. Again, I rarely get what I need with regard to rentals. AND renting is a royal pain, even with (now bankrupt) Hertz number 1 gold.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
8,815
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by y_p_w
Uh - no. The vast majority of "fast charging" systems on lithium rechargeable batteries operate with a fast initial charge and then a reduced charge. Why did you change the subject to wet celled batteries? Modern lithium battery charging is done with most of the charging done quickly, then it backs off. It has to be since the heat generated goes up as the battery approaches full charge.There's really no evidence that current levels of fast charging will cause a battery to die faster save a minuscule loss, but the charge rate has to back off at a certain point or it will get hot (might even catch on fire). Most systems these days might (for example) charge from 0 to 80% in an hour, then spend the next 2 hours ramping down the charge current until it's full. The two biggest enemies of maintaining battery capacity are deep discharge and heat. Not to mention too much heat when a battery is near full might cause it to catch on fire. For long-distance driving, it's certainly possible to move from one point to another by charging up to before the saturation charge kicks in, then move on to the next charging station. It might take a little trial an error, but I've heard that some might just spend 30 minutes waiting for the battery to charge from 20% to 80% rather than waiting 90 minutes for the battery to charge from 20% to 100%. Some owners even purposely set the maximum charge on their batteries to hopefully extend the longevity. I can't figure out exactly what you think I said that's incorrect about fast charging. The middle of the charge range is ideal for faster charging, but it has to back off as it gets to a certain point. For many uses it makes sense to not wait for it to get to 100% charge.
Quote
https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/ultra_fast_charging To achieve fast charging and long driving ranges, the EV battery is being oversized, and the Tesla S 85 is such an example. Supercharging its 90kWh battery dumps about 90kW into the battery. This represents a charge C-rate of 1C for a time. As the battery fills, the C-rate falls to a more comfortable 0.8C, and then goes further down, avoiding harmful battery stress that is related to ultra-fast charging. People ask, "Why does an ultra-fast charger only charge a battery to 70 and 80 percent?" The simple answer is, charge acceptance is best in mid-range; battery stresses are also reduced in mid-range. When putting the battery on charge, the voltage shoots up. This behavior is similar to lifting a weight with a rubber band in which the weight, or charge, lags behind. Depending on charge times, Li-ion is about 70 percent charged when reaching 4.20V/cell, a voltage threshold that is common with Li-ion. At this phase, the current begins to taper and charge acceptance slows.
Tesla has this animation that shows 30 minutes to 80% then another 60 minutes to 100%. This is pretty typical. That's similar to how my iPhone charges with a powerful enough power supply. Theoretically finding a slower charging system for the first 80% will result in less capacity loss in the long run, but that's a tradeoff for the convenience.
Oh boy, I love it when people who know little to nothing quote articles about a science they don't understand. It's like reading a sentence and thinking you comprehend the book and are in the author's mind. Here are some more things for you to look up to understand that which you post. Discharge cycles, induced stress, run time, "harsh discharge", rising resistance, aging, discharge (cutoff) voltage, available and rock capacity- those all factor into this "alleged' lifecycle and performance Then when people talk about this alleged "EV" they test them on- notice what's not there. The vehicle loading and amp discharge (what really matters)- all of these tests are on a static vehicle on a baseline then they are "upscaled" to "represent" actual conditions ( like models for diseases and climate change- see how accurate they are too) There a REASON they don't answer these basic questions directly and completely- they facts tell a different story when directly applied to real world rather than controlled models. Keep reading, you blew it again.
Exactly where did I refer to any vehicle tests? The discussion was about how high speed charging affects battery capacity. You're changing the subject again. Real world results are that the models for battery degradation are pretty reliable. Tesla expects that a Model 3 battery should last at least 300,000 miles before it's maybe down to 80% of the original capacity. I've heard of some owners that have set their max charge to 80% and expect that the battery will last a million miles. And if it fails it can be replaced under warranty or for maybe $5000. I certainly get that there are random failures, but that can happen with any technology. I've had a rear idler gear break necessitating an expensive transmission rebuild. Sometimes engines fail for random reasons. I expect with any vehicle there will be premature failures as well as. I fully expect that the drivetrain will be the most reliable part of an electric car, but the battery might actually fail. But real world results (at least with Tesla that liquid cools their batteries) seem to be that their batteries are pretty reliable.
 
Top