1) It has 80.5 according to [Spoiler Alert + Mild Speculation] Tesla has created a monster! . And that's almost 9% more than what was claimed before. Which means it has 18.2 Wh per cell, which compared to the 12.4 Wh of the 18650 in a S/X, means it has a bit more energy per volume.
2) Arguments? Arguments? I know the feeling, they are sometimes hard to find...
3)Thanks!
And thankfully they also prove my point. Anode materials, for example. They claim Graphite is more energy dense than LTO and cheaper. So more energy density doesn't mean the material needs to be more expensive.
But even better, take a look at the Anode materials. And here I want to quote you again:
The paper clearly says NCA is more expensive than LFP, LMO, LCO and like NMC it's cost is categorized as "High". Now take a look at any new EV, what do they use? Mostly NCA and NMC. LFP which would be much cheaper just has a too low energy density to compete when we look at the $/kWh cell cost.
But since the paper heavily focuses on silicon based batteries, here is the last gem:
"The main impact however comes from the higher energy density explaining a significantly lower cost of silicon based batteries compared top NMC. "
They even admit that the cost of the anode will be higher with the silicon alloy, compared to graphene, but the energy density offsets those extra costs.
Maybe not too many fundamental principles have changed since 2012 after all...
Last edited:
I believe that there's some question as to if that's because of the amount of stuff integrated in to the pack of the Model 3, that are separate on the S/X:
- Chargers
- HV junction box
- DC-DC converter
- HV controller (I suspect this is part of DC-DC on Model S)
- Fuse block for HV systems
- Several additional connectors (3 phase in, charge port, LV DC, 2nd drive unit)
- Wiring for all of the above
Having removed a single 40A charger from my Model S, I can tell you that the charger alone is HEAVY (likely optimized for model 3, but likely not light). Add the rest of the above items together, and you have a not-inconsequential amount of mass contributing to the overall pack bottom line for weight, and thus affecting the pack energy density.
I'd honestly be surprised if cell energy density was lesser for the new 2170's...
The responder's guide show's the cut loops. One is under frunk lid near driver's side firewall and can be cut with snips. The other is under the passenger-rear window, and responders are directed to cut through that sheet metal area switch a saw or power shears (jaws of life, etc).
These are low voltage loops that form part of the high-voltage interlock loop that de-energize the contactors in the pack if interrupted.
Right, I'm aware of the first responder interlock loop. I was specifically referring to HV cables.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Will the Model 3 battery be able to charge to 90% in 7 minutes? Watching the Semi and Roadster release last night I think they said the 200kWh battery will charge to 90% in 30 minutes with a Megacharger. Please correct me if I am wrong as the stream was not working very well. Would that mean that the tiny 50kWh battery in the Model 3 will charge in 7 to 10 minutes? I also found it interesting that they can fit a 200kWh battery + 3 motors + storage in a roadster.
Last edited:
Zaphod
Galaxy President (former)
Think you are getting your units messed up. 200kWh, not 200mWh. Bolded and italicized for emphasis.
Charge rate stays constant, if you change the pack size. A smaller pack will get to a certain percentage as quickly as a bigger pack, assuming you have enough power.
So I'm rather sure that maybe 90% in 30 minutes will come, too, but not 7 minutes.
Edit: I double checked and 400 miles is just 80% of 500 miles, so 80% in 30 minutes. That would still be better than the current Model 3 stats though.
Did I miss something? I didn't hear anything about how fast the Roadster would charge at all. And certainly nothing about it being able to use a Megacharger.
On the other hand they said the Tesla Semi could use a Megacharger to add 400 miles of range (80%) in 30 minutes. Which would be a charge rate of almost 1.6Mw. (or 1600kW) That is more than 12 times faster than the current 135kW Superchargers.
Are you sure about this? I did notice that they did say this for the Semi, but I can't recall that they said anything about charging for the Roadster. I think the Megachargers are an Semi only charger, or may be for the Semi's and other big rigs or buses.
But I do think there is an upgraded Supercharger waiting to be announced with something like 180-200kW charging. That will be able to charge the Roadster from 0-80% in about an hour, and will match what Tesla told EPA that the Model 3 battery will be able to charge.
That would be pretty great - 100 miles in 10 minutes is enough to go a few days of regular driving (for the urban chargers).
We're definitely getting the LR battery as we have ~240 range in our Model S right now, and run a little short of our destinations in the winter. We'd also like to be able to go a long drive and come part way back on one charge, which the LR will allow us to do.
Oh, the trips we would take with the new Roadster's range
ElecFan
Member
The Roadster has a 200 kWh battery while it seems in size about a model 3. I faintly remember Elon stating that he couldn't get a 100 kWh battery in a model 3. Then how they get the 200 kWh battery in the Roadster?
People are thinking Tesla has two stacks of batteries in the Roadster. Also, we don’t know how much if any of a trunk space it has.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
My guess is it doesn't have 200kWh yet, but probably has 2 double stacked 80kWh Model 3 packs. The floor in the Roadster is very high, especially for a sports car, so it looks as if they double stacked two packs.
smorgasbord
Active Member
Naw, the 27kWh/100mi figure is wall-to-wheel and includes charging losses with typical AC Level 2 charging. It’s useful for predicting charging costs but not battery capacity.
Similar threads
