-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
More anti-ev gibberish
- Thread starter qwk
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
It's over 600 comments so far, may be the most commented ABG article ever. Trolls in full force.
It sure looks like the paid trolls are out in force on that article. Up to 750 comments now, and all are negative. I suspect it's because the article is tagged with "barack obama" and "democratic party".
The battery pack is really bolted onto the chassis. Therefore a battery swap is possible.
The construction does however raise some serious questions. The high voltage battery is protected by a steel case which serves as the underbody of the car. So they bolt a steel cage on an alu chassis at the floor of the car. Welcome to galvanic corrosion paradise. I don’t write more than that, but everyone with basic understanding about electrochemical processes might raise a few eyebrows here.
Back to the battery cost.
So let’s assume that Tesla has indeed very low costs since they are using a modified NCA cell, being nearly identical in its chemistry than an ordinary laptop cell.
If that is true such a battery construction with that kind of capacity and power demand will have severe thermal problems. In fact any constant power demand will create excessive heat. So the only way Tesla can address this is with the help of a very severe thermal management system, which restricts the power under multi full load.
Browsing this forum, there is evidence that this is actually the case. The car seems incapable of one single lap on a track at full power. Furthermore top speed is restricted to 210kph. Even in Germany Tesla does not offer a longer ratio so even here Top Speed is limited. That clearly underlines the theory of thermal problems under full load.
In the US with speed limits below the 70 mph mark such a construction might work for a few customers. In Europe however this clearly limits the car’s talents. Most M5 owners for example order the 300 km/h package because 250 is cruising speed for this car. Even aGolf GTI is doing 250 and of course it will do that all day, no matter if you go on the Autobahn, over your favourite road across the mountains or on the Nordschleife. A standard 300hp/650NM Audi A6 V6 Diesel will also do 250 at a range well above 1000km. And it costs no more than 60.000 Euros.
The construction does however raise some serious questions. The high voltage battery is protected by a steel case which serves as the underbody of the car. So they bolt a steel cage on an alu chassis at the floor of the car. Welcome to galvanic corrosion paradise. I don’t write more than that, but everyone with basic understanding about electrochemical processes might raise a few eyebrows here.
Back to the battery cost.
So let’s assume that Tesla has indeed very low costs since they are using a modified NCA cell, being nearly identical in its chemistry than an ordinary laptop cell.
If that is true such a battery construction with that kind of capacity and power demand will have severe thermal problems. In fact any constant power demand will create excessive heat. So the only way Tesla can address this is with the help of a very severe thermal management system, which restricts the power under multi full load.
Browsing this forum, there is evidence that this is actually the case. The car seems incapable of one single lap on a track at full power. Furthermore top speed is restricted to 210kph. Even in Germany Tesla does not offer a longer ratio so even here Top Speed is limited. That clearly underlines the theory of thermal problems under full load.
In the US with speed limits below the 70 mph mark such a construction might work for a few customers. In Europe however this clearly limits the car’s talents. Most M5 owners for example order the 300 km/h package because 250 is cruising speed for this car. Even aGolf GTI is doing 250 and of course it will do that all day, no matter if you go on the Autobahn, over your favourite road across the mountains or on the Nordschleife. A standard 300hp/650NM Audi A6 V6 Diesel will also do 250 at a range well above 1000km. And it costs no more than 60.000 Euros.
Last edited:
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
PLEASE do not respond to this guy. I'd really like to see this thread back on its original well thought out discussion of the technology.
Duckjybe
Member
From the Globe:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/green-driving/news-and-notes/why-audi-pulled-the-plug-on-its-all-electric-supercar/article12694520/
In this article, The Globe and Michael Vaughan have stooped to a new low by referencing a bogus, misleadingly long article by a biased short seller on Seeking Alpha. Still no love for Tesla from the Globe.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/green-driving/news-and-notes/why-audi-pulled-the-plug-on-its-all-electric-supercar/article12694520/
In this article, The Globe and Michael Vaughan have stooped to a new low by referencing a bogus, misleadingly long article by a biased short seller on Seeking Alpha. Still no love for Tesla from the Globe.
From the report:
By basing their information on an easily refuted and widely discredited paper, pretty much everything that the report discusses with respect to manufacturing emissions and energy is invalid. Even a cursory examination of the Hawkins paper should ring warning bells of any expert in the field. Seriously. The GHG emissions uses the Argonne National Labs GREET model data and should be much closer to reality. It does make a good point about cleaning up the grid. It does not discuss the effects of night time charging and instead simplifies their discussion using the 24 hour cycle averages which is unfortunate.
With all the credentials that the three authors, Daniel Yawitz, Alyson Kenward, PhD, and Eric D. Larson, PhD, possess, I frankly expected a better report.
It's widely accepted that current EVs take more energy (and thus CO2) to manufacture, but on just about all grids except nearly exclusively coal powered areas the EV will end up emitting less CO2 over it's lifetime.
It would be interesting to get a good analysis of the Model S though - most of the studies I've seen have been comparing 100 mile EVs with compact to mid-size vehicles.
Depending on your grid, night-time charging can be either worse or better than charging during the day. In many areas charging during the day - while more expensive - is less carbon intensive since it's typically gas-fired turbines that spin up during the day to make up additional load, while in some areas coal plants simply spin up to make up for it.
It's definitely not cut and dry - and for sure we need to clean up our grid regardless of whether or not we're plugging cars in to it.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
They also use a less energy dense battery pack, which means more materials used per wh, which of course makes the CO2 deficit worse.
If you drive a "100 mile" EV 150,000 miles and a "300 mile" EV 150,000 miles, your energy/CO2 per mile will be better with the "100 mile" EV unless your "100 mile" batteries have the same manufacturing footprint as the "300 mile" batteries. So while the Model S battery pack is very energy dense compared to other EVs (probably 30-40% better in terms of energy per pound), it's pack still weighs at least 2x more than a "100 mile" EV and thus to get the same environmental footprint out of it you probably need to get about twice as many miles out of the pack.
Well, that may not actually be true. It depends on how the materials are mined and refined. For example copper, nickel and cobalt are mined together. Manganese is not.
Also look at the end of life uses. If the Ev battery for the 100 mile one has 50% of its life as an EV battery and the rest as storage vs the 300 mile battery which may have 10% of its life as an EV battery and the rest as grid storage.
Just for giggles, i calculated that the 300 mile battery after the car is sent to the scrap yard, the batteries can be used for grid storage to store 36 times more energy than the 100 mile one before the batteries are considered "shot"
Now you see how the life outside of the car can play a rather significant role in carbon avoidance, specifically if hooked into solar or wind power ( these are non dispatch able energy sources and occur when they are sometimes not needed)
So for the 100 miler the after use may be insignificant, the end use for the 300 miler is quite significant.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
The one study that Petersen used to calculate the Model S pack impact used 75wh/kg pack level, when the S is 150wh/kg, twice as good. Plus the larger S pack will provide many more miles than the smaller pack, at least twice as many, from the same number of cycles. Also, the S pack is using 250wh/kg cells so the other 100wh/kg of weight comes from presumably less expensive, less exotic, and less CO2 intensive materials than what actually goes into the cells. My assumption is that the other lower specific energy cells take less of a hit going from cell to pack level. For example the i3 is 96wh/kg at the pack level and I doubt they are using 200wh/kg or so cells, since I'm not sure what they would be outside of the 18650 LiCo variants.
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Sprinkled with some anti-Tesla Gibberish.
Why No One Wants to Buy an Electric Car - Yahoo Finance
It really is Yahoo Finance.
Why No One Wants to Buy an Electric Car - Yahoo Finance
It really is Yahoo Finance.
Last edited:
rolosrevenge
Dr. EVS
The author misses the correct conclusion from the data. People don't want to buy plug-in hybrids or crappy electric cars, but are more than willing to pay for a quality car like a Tesla.
Duckjybe
Member
Similar threads
