|
Collateral Damage posted:Barring some new discovery in battery/charging technology that allows you to charge a 100kWh battery pack in less than 10 minutes, I believe more in standardizing battery packs and building infrastructure based on automatic quick-swap stations. Tesla already gave up on quick swap because they found out people used it once as a gimmick and then never again. There is also the issue with possibly having to pay quite a bit of money if you swap out a 85% capacity battery pack and they swap in a newer 97% pack. Is anyone still working on quick swap batteries?
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
Quick swap is dead because it takes too long and not all packs are the same quality as already noted. Personally hydrogen fuel cell looks like the most practical if we are going to build out a new infrastructure, but if you want to be rational just make every car run natural gas the infrastructure is mostly built. All of this is irrelevant though as $2 gas has sent SUV sales through the roof again and the oil glut has no end in sight, especially since the sight of most people is 4 days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Tesla already gave up on quick swap because they found out people used it once as a gimmick and then never again. There is also the issue with possibly having to pay quite a bit of money if you swap out a 85% capacity battery pack and they swap in a newer 97% pack. I wrote an effortpost on the topic a while ago. Basically the way to do quick swap is that you own your vehicle but you don't own a specific battery pack. Instead you pay annually for a "power service contract" which gives you usage right of the battery pack currently in your car and gives you access to both supercharging and quick swap. (If Tesla gains a significant market share I don't think free supercharging for everyone will continue to be viable for them.) So when you drive onto the quick swap station, your usage right of the battery that you drop off ceases and is transferred to the battery that you receive. The station then automatically conditions and tests the battery that gets dropped off and determines if it's good enough to stay in circulation. If it's good, it gets recharged and put in the station's magazine. If it fails the test, it gets put aside and the service provider gets alerted that there's a battery pack in need of repair. The whole thing is collectively funded by the cost of the service contracts, which could still be considerably cheaper than a year's worth of gas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Tesla already gave up on quick swap because they found out people used it once as a gimmick and then never again. There is also the issue with possibly having to pay quite a bit of money if you swap out a 85% capacity battery pack and they swap in a newer 97% pack. Actually they gave up on it when California stopped requiring it as a condition for their special programs Elephanthead posted:Quick swap is dead because it takes too long and not all packs are the same quality as already noted. Personally hydrogen fuel cell looks like the most practical if we are going to build out a new infrastructure, but if you want to be rational just make every car run natural gas the infrastructure is mostly built. All of this is irrelevant though as $2 gas has sent SUV sales through the roof again and the oil glut has no end in sight, especially since the sight of most people is 4 days. Actually hydrogen storage and transport is a technical nightmare. It's really, really hard to seal that stuff in - the molecules are too small.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
I don't see how this is a bigger problem then transporting charged electrons all over hell and trying to store them, other then the fact we already have spent a ton of money building the infrastructure and setting up a billing system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Elephanthead posted:I don't see how this is a bigger problem then transporting charged electrons all over hell and trying to store them, other then the fact we already have spent a ton of money building the infrastructure and setting up a billing system. We can store "charged electrons" (a bad description, but we'll use it) easily in chemical form. Batteries aren't boxes full of electrons, they're full of chemicals that react and cause electrons to flow. A capacitor stores the elections directly, but it's got far less capacity overall. Similarly, we could bind up hydrogen chemically and see if that makes it easier to transport. It binds pretty well with carbon. If you stick enough carbons andv hydrogens together, you get an easily transportable liquid. Hmmm...
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Hydrocarbon fueled transport, surely you jest. Why don't you just strap a bomb to the bottom of the car!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Why don't you just strap a bomb to the bottom of the car! Hmmm what kind of mileage would I get between bombs?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Ola posted:I don't have the possibility for home charging now, so owning an EV is out of the question even for a fanboy like me. Hunting around for electricity like some green Mad Max is a very unattractive idea - it's worse than gas stations because you have to spend longer time there, if there's a queue it takes much longer still and so far the non-Tesla fast DC chargers have a bit of a poor uptime reputation. As ilkhan said, destination charging like home and work changes all that, because then it charges while you are doing something else and not while you are waiting for it. This makes it much easier to live with, but also means that a comfortable EV life is only available to middle class people who own their own parking spot and whose work places owns parking spots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Ranter posted:Hmmm what kind of mileage would I get between bombs? Project Orion: The Sedan
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:So when you drive onto the quick swap station, your usage right of the battery that you drop off ceases and is transferred to the battery that you receive. The station then automatically conditions and tests the battery that gets dropped off and determines if it's good enough to stay in circulation. If it's good, it gets recharged and put in the station's magazine. If it fails the test, it gets put aside and the service provider gets alerted that there's a battery pack in need of repair. I like this idea - guarantee some minimum usable kWh of capacity that's at like 80% of the battery's actual capacity. MrYenko posted:Project Orion: The Sedan  in car form.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:We can store "charged electrons" (a bad description, but we'll use it) easily in chemical form. Batteries aren't boxes full of electrons, they're full of chemicals that react and cause electrons to flow. A capacitor stores the elections directly, but it's got far less capacity overall. This is genius! Since hydrogen and carbon bond so readily, I wonder if there's anyplace on earth with vast stores of the stuff? We could just pump it out and skip all this nonsense. But how would be separate the hydrogen to burn it? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Mange Mite posted:Actually hydrogen storage and transport is a technical nightmare. It's really, really hard to seal that stuff in - the molecules are too small. Plus the fuel cells used for cars require a pretty complicated system of supporting hardware (pumps, valves, heat exchangers, sensors, and such) to operate. It shouldn't be any worse than an internal combustion engine, but it may not be that much better either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Guys, what if instead of having the reaction take place in an expensive fuel cell, we put it in some kind of confined space and harness the energy of the expanding gases? We could mechanically link several of these chambers to increase power and deliver it more smoothly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Wow, that's genius -- in that case we might not even need the electric motor at all. You could use a mechanism to turn the expansion of the gas directly into motion. Goddamn,.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:I wrote an effortpost on the topic a while ago. Basically the way to do quick swap is that you own your vehicle but you don't own a specific battery pack. Instead you pay annually for a "power service contract" which gives you usage right of the battery pack currently in your car and gives you access to both supercharging and quick swap. (If Tesla gains a significant market share I don't think free supercharging for everyone will continue to be viable for them.) Renault has a system like this where the car (Fluence, Zoe) is pretty cheap but you have a battery lease on top of it. I'm not sure i would be ok with this. You just know that in 5 or 6 years they are going to say "The 412-b-X battery pack is being retired, please buy a vehicle compatible with our battery packs". I personally would never buy a vehicle where i could not own the battery pack unless it was literally the only vehicle available.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:
It solves one of the main issues that utilities have with solar - it provides more capacity when it is least needed. Expecting for the grid to pick up everyone plugging in when they get home, when peak load is already hitting, is more of an issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Wait, peak load is evenings? Where?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
In a lot of places, though it varies depending on the month, location (climate) and isn't always the case: https://www.entsoe.eu/db-query/consumption/mhlv-all-countries-every-3rd-wednesday-of-a-specific-year
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Peak varies by region and season, but here is a graphic that illustrates what I'm talking about. Generally you have a peak in the morning hours and a bigger one in the evening when people come home and turn everything on, cook dinner etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
angryrobots posted:I've brought up this before, but day charging at work or whatever could actually benefit the grid, especially as solar keeps getting added. You are talking capacity at the power station, I'm talking about local delivery. We would likely have to rework things on the distribution end to make that much power delivery feasible since the density would be so high.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
angryrobots posted:Peak varies by region and season, but here is a graphic that illustrates what I'm talking about. Generally you have a peak in the morning hours and a bigger one in the evening when people come home and turn everything on, cook dinner etc. Doesn't that show that overnight charging is what you want? Most EVs let you select when to charge, so you don't have to start it as soon as you get home.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:You are talking capacity at the power station, I'm talking about local delivery. We would likely have to rework things on the distribution end to make that much power delivery feasible since the density would be so high. Also "reworking things" on the distribution end, is a massive undertaking that you are summing up in two words. Not to mention, we are "reworking things" for a model (daytime solar and night EV charging) that is not profitable at standard electric rates, so what exactly is our incentive to install bigger substation transformers, pull in bigger conductors, etc? We're a co-op, should our membership be expected to pick up the tab, especially when only a portion of them are the reason for the upgrades? Subjunctive posted:Doesn't that show that overnight charging is what you want? Most EVs let you select when to charge, so you don't have to start it as soon as you get home. One caveat to night charging, is that here in The South, we mostly heat with electric, both HVAC and water heaters. So on the occasional very cold night, our load is absolutely singing, and there are associated outages, for various technical reasons related to the nature of protection devices. Adding large scale EV charging on top of that, is going to mean more outages. Being that solar is here and growing, and daytime load is not growing nearly as fast, EV charging is an obvious place to stick all that capacity, until a real world large scale storage solution is available.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
angryrobots posted:Also "reworking things" on the distribution end, is a massive undertaking that you are summing up in two words. Not to mention, we are "reworking things" for a model (daytime solar and night EV charging) that is not profitable at standard electric rates, so what exactly is our incentive to install bigger substation transformers, pull in bigger conductors, etc? We're a co-op, should our membership be expected to pick up the tab, especially when only a portion of them are the reason for the upgrades? I'm not really sure what point you are arguing now. I first said that work charging on a large scale was going to hard to pull off with the grid that we have. You said it would benefit the grid since the power demand would batter match renewable generation patterns. I point out that the distribution likely wouldn't be able to handle that large amount of power and would likely have to be redesigned (which is huge and costly undertaking.) And you responded by saying I was trying to trivialize the undertaking. We have two issues here. Charging during the day aligns better with things like solar. But where those cars are during the day likely won't be able to service their power requirements due to inadequate infrastructure. The density will be too high. Meanwhile, charging cars at night while everyone is sleeping doesn't help us make better use solar, but it's a lot easier on our distribution infrastructure which isn't likely to be upgraded anytime soon. Household solar with Tesla like battery packs at the home seem like the best way to collect power during the day that you can then use to charge your car at night. But that's not going to help range anxiety. It seems if we are going to want to push car charging into higher density areas, the best course of action will be to reduce the power requirements in those areas with power savings at the building level. That way we can trade load on the grid from powering buildings to charging cars without having to make infrastructure changes. But that's going to be slow coming as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
No I think we mostly agree, I'm just picturing an ideal scenario where these areas that have large scale daytime charging, also have local solar capacity available (rooftop solar is going up everywhere), so the power isn't having to travel long distances to meet the demand, reducing infrastructure upgrades. Of course, that doesn't account for cloudy days. I'm not really arguing for or against anything, I just like talking about the realities of implementing these changes we are facing. And you are absolutely right about making buildings more efficient. Our horrible wastefulness is part of why we're kinda in the poo poo on making all this work. I talked to a member last week who was complaining about their power bill. We've been telling them they need to have an electrician figure out what's using so much power (probably heat strips stuck on), and they maintain that no, it's our fault they are using almost 300 kWh -every day-. That kind of inefficiency is everywhere, not to mention lack of building insulation - standards for new construction should have been raised years before they were, and are still not high enough IMO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:I'm not sure i would be ok with this. You just know that in 5 or 6 years they are going to say "The 412-b-X battery pack is being retired, please buy a vehicle compatible with our battery packs". I guess you could always have the option of outright buying battery packs, if the battery-lease model isn't for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Tesla has 'confirmed' that the model 3 will be $35k before those government incentives kick in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Ranter posted:Tesla has 'confirmed' that the model 3 will be $35k before those government incentives kick in. I'm going through another bad bout of Model S lust. This isn't helping.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Unveiling time confirmed. http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ABEA-4CW8X0/1490591419x0x874449/945B9CF5-86DA-4C35-B03C-4892824F058D/Q4_15_Tesla_Update_Letter.pdf quote:For 2016, we are planning for even faster delivery growth than last
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Ola posted:Unveiling time confirmed.  to charity that March 31st means March 31st 2017 or the price starts in the mid to high $50s.vvv Political campaigns aren't charities vvv Gynocentric Regime fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Mulva posted::tenbux: to charity that...the price starts in the mid to high $50s. to Bernie thx
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
They've committed to the date in a shareholder letter, so they're definitely unveiling something on March 31st, if only a render. So far not even a napkin drawing has leaked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Mulva posted:
Please donate $10 to BBBS of America, or Bernie Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Ranter posted:Please donate $10 to BBBS of America That's a good charity, I'll probably just roll it into my monthly to PPGNW for April. It's just too bad it won't happen cause they need the money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Ola posted:They've committed to the date in a shareholder letter, so they're definitely unveiling something on March 31st, if only a render. So far not even a napkin drawing has leaked. stoked for it to look roughly the same as the Bolt
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Just seen a bit on the news that Ontario is increasing incentives for new EVs. Bonuses for 5 seats, higher range/capacity. Still too expensive. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Definitely excited to see the Model 3. I'm not sure if $35k before incentives is doable for me. That's a huge chunk of my current salary, still not really understanding how people with average incomes justify the total financed cost of new cars. My state has only a handful of superchargers with really none outside my major city within range for a road trip. Hope we see something in terms of design by March of this year! It's going to shape how the industry responds with vehicles a few years down the line. Michael Scott fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Michael Scott posted:Definitely excited to see the Model 3. I'm not sure if $35k before incentives is doable for me. That's a huge chunk of my current salary, still not really understanding how people with average incomes justify the total financed cost of new cars. Add up your gas monies and average yearly maintenance and then lease it. No gas, no maintenance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:Add up your gas monies and average yearly maintenance and then lease it. No gas, no maintenance. Gas cost of $100 per month and $500 in yearly maintenance = $1,700 per year. Lease payment on car that is $30,000 after incentives, estimated at Edmunds with average rates and $20k residual = $4,380 per year. Michael Scott fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
And is your current car free?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 06:57
|
|