-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/ev-battery-makers-its-go-small-or-go-home-2022-07-11/
- Thread starter RSpanner
- Start date
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 we forget about the charging curve?
A 400 mile-rated battery is going to charge to 200 miles significantly faster than a 200 mile-rated battery is going to charge to 200 miles.
No. I was commenting on the thread title and your quote in the first post:
Anything suggesting that people want smaller batteries and more charging is a hit piece in my opinion.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
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).
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.
Any consumer will make his choice: some will prefer small batteries for a small price, some others will prefer larger batteries for a higher price.
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.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
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.
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!
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
The market doesn’t have any idea what it actually wants.
Again, we aren’t actually talking about efficiency. The US vehicle market as it exists right now is completely unsustainable, gas guzzling ICE OR 6,000 pound long range EV. This is where governments need to step in to alter the economics of both.
Brando
Active Member
Every BEV made gets sold (perhaps not the Bolts nor Leafs?) So no need to worry about demand. Makers want to sell you that BEV.
Lithium is going to get more expensive in California. That could raise the cost of the battery packs
calexicochronicle.com
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
Brando
Active Member
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.
- tax things you want less of.
- tax raw materials you don't want so no matter what they are used for, sold to, exported to - the government can waste "their fare share"
- find ways to give China more of an advantage - like taxing Lithium and anything else you can think of, especially to do with electrification.
I.m not confusing them. I guess you are misunderstanding what I am saying.
I am not saying that bigger range car is more efficient that lower range car.
I am saying that if the range increases, more and more people would convert into EV - otherwise they will still buy ICE cars.
Out of 10 people not driving EV, 9 tell me that they will convert once offered range increases. I have not the courage to tell them: "hey, you are mistaken. The best for you and for all of us is a 20kW EV battery car".
See for example the flop of the Mercedes EQC...
Environmentally, it is always better a longer range EV car rather than an ICE car.
In addition to this, I have also another argument: why many people here are guessing about the lower efficiency of a long range car, while the same "efficiency" argument is not discussed with reference to:
- performance versions (which are less efficient than long range versions)
- 21" tires (which are less efficient than 18" or 19" ones)
- SUV versions (3 and S are more efficient than Y and X).
If we want to maximize efficiency, we should set limits on tires, engine power, car height, etc etc...
Otherwise, and I am part of the "otherwisers", let the consumers make their choice.
Let me contraddict that bigger batteries serve only the very top of the market.
It is true that this is the thought of most car producers: longer ranges are offered in very luxury cars such as Lucid and EQS.
But the need (or the desire) of longer range is not an exclusive of reach people.
If there were a standard non-luxury version of EQS or Lucid (say "passat" level) with the same range I'd buy it immediately...
Let's see what will happen with NIO, which is offering an interesting solution: you can buy a 70 kW battery car, but optionally you can switch to a 100 or 150 kw battery when you need it (a logner trip for example), and then come back to the 70 kW size.
Finally, I disagree on your last point. Yes, it is a matter of time, but the reason why producers are not producing enough battery is due to their lack of "vision". Once production site will be restructured, we will come to the standard point where producers will fight to get the last client...
What a ridiculously ignorant statement. Most of the world, e.g. China, India, etc., aren't driving around in YUUUGE HP vehicles and probably wouldn't even if they could. All of those Civics bought of pure desperation!
And you didn't even read the article.
Similar threads
