It's listed right in the paper, the main monetary contributors were the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program & Stanford Chevron Fellowship in Energy. So the federal government and Chevron.
Stanford research: EV batteries may last 40% longer than we previously thought?
- Thread starter JeffKeryk
- Start date
I'm expecting 150-200k miles out of my ev6 GT battery, which is similar to what I'd expect out if an S58, at a similar repair/replacement cost, so I'm good with it.
Correct. Kia, Tesla, etc all have test cars that have hundreds of thousands of miles on them in t&e.
I think it is fair, no it is important, to objectively challenge Scientific findings. Better science always trumps current science. Everything changes, right? However just because you don't like something is poor cause to denigrate someone's integrity. Without data, it's just an opinion.
For those questioning her integrity: Here is Dr. Onori's Profile.
My takeaway from the article is, there are always various test scenarios just as there are various EV use cases.
This study attemps to model the typical use case of people who own EVs for everyday commuting in order to predict the life expectancy of EV batteries.
For those questioning her integrity: Here is Dr. Onori's Profile.
My takeaway from the article is, there are always various test scenarios just as there are various EV use cases.
This study attemps to model the typical use case of people who own EVs for everyday commuting in order to predict the life expectancy of EV batteries.
Last edited:
Here's a recent article using Tesla data. Tesla captures tons of data; they are a technology company.
Curious... In what ways would EV manufacturers data make this study inaccurate?
My personal opinion is, EVs as mass produced and used vehicles are in their infancy. There will continue be incremental gains going forward. Heck, we used to think a '65 VW getting 25 mpg was about as good as it gets, right?
I am not sure academics are always behind. It is fair to say technology, which is applied science often to make money, is different than science for science's sake.
Last edited:
Could be... Can you cite a credible study in support of your statement?
Here's one article you may find interesting.
Last edited:
Here we go again... Similar narrative was about 100+ years ago: “[Motor cars] have the appearance of a fad, and an extremely dirty, dusty, inconvenient fad… These crude impracticable machines are unlikely for many years to displace in the Englishman's affection a fine trotting horse and a smart trap.” So wrote an anonymous equestrian to the syndicated press in 1901.
Get over it, vehicles with electric motors and batteries are here to stay, and they will only get better every year.(with some possibility of batteries being replaced by capacitors at some point, and/or internal combustion engines with some hydrogen power plants to to serve as generators in phev like vehicles).
Get over it, vehicles with electric motors and batteries are here to stay, and they will only get better every year.(with some possibility of batteries being replaced by capacitors at some point, and/or internal combustion engines with some hydrogen power plants to to serve as generators in phev like vehicles).
The EV curve is on the way up.
The Ice curve is on the way down, the cars are getting worse.
They are more complex and expensive than ever, and are about to get even worse with GPF coming to the US.
We've got dual injection systems in some to overcome buildup on the intake side when running DI.
If you live in California you cant modify or upgrade anything, and in some cases even get stranded for parts, and have to pay non ending series of checks with smog stations and (get this) "master" smog stations - to insure compliance.
The Ev lets me flip the bird to these clowns.
The Ice curve is on the way down, the cars are getting worse.
They are more complex and expensive than ever, and are about to get even worse with GPF coming to the US.
We've got dual injection systems in some to overcome buildup on the intake side when running DI.
If you live in California you cant modify or upgrade anything, and in some cases even get stranded for parts, and have to pay non ending series of checks with smog stations and (get this) "master" smog stations - to insure compliance.
The Ev lets me flip the bird to these clowns.
I guess this makes sense for those who use a vehicle in this specific manner. Wouldn't this be expected?
I don’t understand why it says “real driving”
Are other types of driving not real?
Actually after reading the story I think the OP has a mis-quote and created a wrong impression (in my mind)
This quote below I think more accurate (since this also states highway driving.)
“The batteries of electric vehicles subject to the normal use of real-world drivers – like heavy traffic, long highway trips, short city trips, and mostly being parked – could last about a third longer than researchers have generally forecast, according to a new study by scientists working in the SLAC-Stanford Battery Center, a joint center between Stanford University’s Precourt Institute for Energy and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. ”
Now the only question I would ask is what exactly have researchers generally forecast for battery life?
Also this is just research as it is not defined in fact (yet) since is used the word “could last one third longer” not will last one third longer
So it begs the question of what was originally expected? I assume the auto manufacturers already know how long a battery will last.
Under the right conditions and care I suspect some batteries will beat the averages by 1/3 too. I think I’m doing that with my iPhone right now
Just shy of 3 years of heavy use battery life is 89% far exceeded my expectations but just ordered a new one yesterday, just because I don’t know why, bored I guess and like buying stuff on good deals
For me I slow charge with cable at 12 watts 80% of the time so not to heat the battery. I suspect doing something similar for EVs has been stated already by not constantly using the highest charge rate.
… and don’t ask me why I brought a cell phone battery into this discussion, it’s Christmas Eve, 4am and need to go back to sleep, Merry Christmas
Last edited:
Those are mostly symptoms of the California curve being on the way down. In many states it's the opposite. State and federal EV subsidies are being phased out. EV-only road use taxes have been implemented in many states. EV efficiency has reached a plateau. Battery tech improvements have been minimal, if any, lately. Solid state batteries are still a pipe dream. EV serviceability and parts availability/cost are atrocious.
I will agree that ICE vehicle quality and durability are declining due to crazy regs but overall, ICE still dominates EVs in total cost of ownership, practicality and range in most scenarios. I really want to add one EV to my fleet (commuter/short trips) but every time I crunch the numbers it comes out as a completely irrational move, financially. Most rational consumers agree, as evidenced by the ongoing EV sales slowdown. Also, ask Hertz how EV adoption worked out for them.
Since you asked, I'll check in.
Like so many tests, studies, etc. especially with agenda driven things like the EV push I take the findings with a grain of salt. Time will ultimately tell. In any event Merry Christmas Bitog!! I hope that's something we all can agree on.
I said it wasn't completely accurate - ie they lack all the data. They speculate that their "data" will make batteries last longer. My experience is the OEM's already know everything in their data and then some from 10's of thousands of real world use cases, and have already implemented it. Probably not to make the battery last longer, but to make the same battery length cheaper. Which is good, the entry cost of these things needs to be lower and a replacement battery needs to be viable.
As usual the academics don't understand knowledge management. They don't know what they don't know, and don't take account for it.
Science for the sake of science is fine - hey there is likely a planet past Pluto. OK, cool. But whenever they delve into studying products that are already commercially available, the academics are almost always behind the curve. Seen it my entire career.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 394
Seems completely reasonable to me. Consider the different design/steps. Battery cell, battery pack, vehicle integration, end use case estimation. At each step there is some safety factor built in and estimations occurring. Looks like the estimates and safety factors were conservative.
Testing is time consuming, you have to get a sellable product and make some revenue as fast as possible. My opinion is the companies have SOME data but testing only gets you so far and you have to just go for it then let the real world results come in.
Testing is time consuming, you have to get a sellable product and make some revenue as fast as possible. My opinion is the companies have SOME data but testing only gets you so far and you have to just go for it then let the real world results come in.
In the academic world (meaning at a university, like Stanford) you start with a lot of education and an interest, read what other researchers are doing in your area of interest ("the literature"), do your own research, then write reports (papers) on progress or interesting findings based on the literature and your own research. Your report is closely reviewed by other researchers in the same field and after (peer) review may be published. You attend conferences to report on your findings for discussion, suggestions, questions and comment by your peers.
In an academic setting you're paid by the university. Grants to cover the costs of your research come from various sources - the university itself, government, granting foundations, individuals and industry. Industry support must be disclosed.
You publish what you find, for better or for worse. Being forced to withdraw a paper (because no-one can replicate your purported findings) severely wounds and probably finishes your academic career. But because of the peer review process that hardly ever happens.
That's not to say one piece of research is the final word on any subject. But it is an honest effort.
"For example, the study showed a correlation between sharp, short EV accelerations and slower degradation. This was contrary to long-held assumptions of battery researchers, including this study’s team, that acceleration peaks are bad for EV batteries. Pressing the pedal with your foot hard does not speed up aging. If anything, it slows it down..."
“For consumers using their EVs to get to work, pick up their kids, go to the grocery store, but mostly not using them or even charging them, time becomes the predominant cause of aging over cycling.”
This is really good information. My wife and I have always used a light foot for our EVs. One area they did not study is the effect intense heat, cold, and varying temperatures have on battery longevity.
Hopefully they will be able to dig deeper into that area. I also hope that the OEMs can better disclose that as well.
“For consumers using their EVs to get to work, pick up their kids, go to the grocery store, but mostly not using them or even charging them, time becomes the predominant cause of aging over cycling.”
This is really good information. My wife and I have always used a light foot for our EVs. One area they did not study is the effect intense heat, cold, and varying temperatures have on battery longevity.
Hopefully they will be able to dig deeper into that area. I also hope that the OEMs can better disclose that as well.
Last edited:
Agree and disagree.
US cars are built to the California standard, so one cannot avoid the architecture built around emissions regardless of where one lives.
It's true that some states allow some amount of mods where california basically chains the hood shut.
The cars are going to peak at around 5 MPKW efficiency wise. the latest model 3 is about as efficient as an EV can be made.
The battery tech is improving and getting cheaper, not by leaps and bounds, but iteratively.
I agree solid state batteries are as of now a pipe dream, but I disagree they matter enough to hobble, or even slowdown the industry.
Im not sure they are always harder to fix, I had a buddy wait 3 weeks for an F150 window.
On EV sales slowing down - If you mean they arent growing at the rate they were a year ago, thats probably true.
At the same time I believe last data showed EV were still the fastest growing auto sector so a " slowdown" is relative.
IF (well find out by year end) EV's are still growing the fastest then one could say more new car buyers find it works better for them than the other.
Most people that buy them charge at home.
On Hertz - there arent a lot of people that thought an EV would make a particularly compelling rental vehicle especially in a time constrained environment where charging infrastructure might be limited. Many questioned their decision on this.
EV's arent a bad idea because they dont work for Hertz anymore than the cheap stripper malibus they rent are great because they do.
Kestas
Staff member
This fall I met up with students in materials engineering at the University of Michigan. There is a lot of work being done to improve battery technology.
Similar threads
