You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Smaller battery packs, less range and more charging stations, it's an idea.
Did we forget about the charging curve?Smaller battery packs, less range and more charging stations, it's an idea.
Did you read the article?So is ICE cars with small engines, almost no horsepower, and really high MPG (same idea). Those only sell to desperate people, or people who are buying a car just to run around town.
There is no real reason, with the max speed limits in most of the US being no higher than 70 MPH, to have a car that goes much faster than that, or accelerates quickly... right?
This type of thing (slow, efficient cars) has been an idea forever, and only very specific people buy them. There is almost no chance that "smaller, battery, slower, fill up more often" is going to be a thing that anyone who has ANY choice will desire, no matter what any "hit generation piece" says.
Did you read the article?
Smaller battery packs, less range and more charging stations, it's an idea.
IMO it’s the ONLY idea that gets us to sustainable broad market EV adoption.Smaller battery packs, less range and more charging stations, it's an idea.
If efficiency were the only or the main parameter for car market, there would be no space for SUVs, big engines, etc etc, which on the opposite are the main driver of the car market.IMO it’s the ONLY idea that gets us to sustainable broad market EV adoption.
Absent a major generational breakthrough in energy density, it’s simply not practical to electrify our entire transportation sector with current technology and materials availability.
Everyone driving around in 5,000 to 7,000 pound EVs with one or two thousand pounds of lithium, iron, and nickel in them is not a scalable solution for any definition of scalable.
Smaller, lighter packs with more favorable charging characteristics appears to be more achievable at the moment than dramatic energy density improvements.
A hypothetical “150 mile” EV battery that could be charged at home or while at rest most of the time and refilled on the road in 5 minutes when needed would meet the vast majority of peoples’ needs and be an acceptable compromise to most (especially if/when the price of fossil fuels continues to rise or is assessed a carbon tax that brings the market price in line with the true societal cost).
You are confusing efficiency with range and cost. They aren’t the same thing.If efficiency were the only or the main parameter for car market, there would be no space for SUVs, big engines, etc etc, which on the opposite are the main driver of the car market.
Personally I find that notion insane. Ever-bigger batteries at an ever-higher cost at the very top of the market only serves to pacify the demand of the very rich at the expense of raw materials availability for mass-market adoption. On the contrary, there are credible studies that suggest environmentally speaking we’d be better off in the near term using our available resources to make ~50 mile plug-in hybrids vs pure BEVs using the same materials.To say more: I am convinced that environmentally speaking, larger batteries are better because more people who are reluctant to convert their ICE into an EV will be convinced to take the step.
That’s Theory.You are confusing efficiency with range and cost. They aren’t the same thing.
Personally I find that notion insane. Ever-bigger batteries at an ever-higher cost at the very top of the market only serves to pacify the demand of the very rich at the expense of raw materials availability for mass-market adoption. On the contrary, there are credible studies that suggest environmentally speaking we’d be better off in the near term using our available resources to make ~50 mile plug-in hybrids vs pure BEVs using the same materials.
The problem with the EV market right now is not convincing skeptics, it’s producing enough batteries to come anywhere close to satisfying demand.
The market doesn’t have any idea what it actually wants.That’s Theory.
My experience talking to people using ICE cars is that they will switch once range increases by 30%, more or less.
Larger batteries will last more and/or will always offer to market a consistent range even when partially degraded.
This stressed attention to efficiency is not what market is looking at, otherwise as I said above, no ICE vehicles with over 2.000 cc would exist. Instead, specially in the US market, the large majority of vehicles are gas guzzlers!
How can we really F*** things up?Lithium is going to get more expensive in California. That could raise the cost of the battery packs
California Gov. Signs Lithium Per-Ton Tax Into Law - Calexico Chronicle
Legislators approved a contentious proposal to tax lithium production on a tiered, per-ton basis despite objections from industry executives.calexicochronicle.com
I.m not confusing them. I guess you are misunderstanding what I am saying.You are confusing efficiency with range and cost. They aren’t the same thing.
Personally I find that notion insane. Ever-bigger batteries at an ever-higher cost at the very top of the market only serves to pacify the demand of the very rich at the expense of raw materials availability for mass-market adoption. On the contrary, there are credible studies that suggest environmentally speaking we’d be better off in the near term using our available resources to make ~50 mile plug-in hybrids vs pure BEVs using the same materials.
The problem with the EV market right now is not convincing skeptics, it’s producing enough batteries to come anywhere close to satisfying demand.
So is ICE cars with small engines, almost no horsepower, and really high MPG (same idea). Those only sell to desperate people, or people who are buying a car just to run around town.