Transport Evolved

[aminorjourney]

Chad,

Thanks for airing your views here, because I think you've inadvertedly expressed mine better than I can...

 

[Norbert]

My goal is to get people to switch away from petroleum and to electricity. Therefore, ...

Good, we have something in common.

You second two suggestions are not at all what I'm saying. Your first is closer, but still off the mark (I spend a lot of my time doing volunteer work on infrastructure; I obviously think it is important). In the US, about 25% of the market is second cars parked in garages. Which is where most of the sales are going. Given that production is only less than 1% of the market, we don't yet have to move beyond that market to sell every car being made available.

That's why I don't think it will help to "focus" on long trips--the cars are selling without them. Even though it will convince a few long-trip people, we won't sell more cars. But there are clearly some that just use it as a point of ridicule and make it worse. So there are good effects and bad effects, and I claim the net may be bad; so let's focus on something else instead that is clearly good. This is only about mainstream media focus; it has nothing to do with what we work on, or focused media.

I was careful to say that we shouldn't bury it either. It is "one more thing" that can push somebody sitting on the fence, even if they don't need it. My position (different from Nikki's, I know this gets confusing, especially with mine being nuanced) is basically that we shouldn't try to get mainstream press articles about trips like this. We should make the trips, we should talk about them in the EV community, and when reaching out to individuals that are considering a purchase, we should talk about them. Broadcasting them to the general public, where there are a lot of people that dislike EVs, is the only thing I am concerned about. Even there I agree some good comes of it; I'm just pointing out that there's bad too.

Instead of addressing various details, perhaps it is worth saying that I'm getting the impression that somehow there seems to be a concern that the case for (100%) EVs is fragile and needs protection. However I think the case for EVs is very strong and becomes even stronger with improvements such as those discussed here, they do deserve public discussion, and in my mind getting public attention for the progress proven to be possible is most helpful. Everyone knows that EV technology needs to address long trips. It is better to show that this is in the process of getting solved, and not inherent to the EV in principle, as many want us to believe.

 

[Norbert]

My intention with getting the HPCs in and doing a long range run with them is to highlight what will happen when those HPCs are 100kW rapid chargers. Then it's the end of the debate, as far as I am concerned.

Yep, and a good range combined with 50 kW, if well placed, will already come close. This may happen not very long after Nissan catches up with Leaf production.

So time it to coincide with lunch and you haven't lost anything.

I think it is an important point to have chargers at places where you can meaningfully spend some time, and plan the trip accordingly.

Of course with 100kW, it already gets to the point where necessary stops are so short that that long a rest is advisable in any case, during a long trip.

 

[JRP3]

I think this article is relevant and makes the case as to why we do need to publicize trips such as these and all things positive about EV's in general.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/201...sitioning-to-more-sustainable-transporta.html

It’s clearly time to break out of the simplistic, rational consumer model of behavior when it comes to policy design. Of course, price and information do matter, but social influence is extremely powerful and needs to be explicitly addressed.

Basically, tell people how great EV's are and they'll buy into it, just as detractors have been telling people how poor they are. The difference is we have facts and real world examples on our side.

 

[Norbert]

Hey folks,

Thanks for the feedback to the show. I think perhaps it's a good idea to put my two pence into this.

Yes, part of my role in the show was a devil's advocate, however, while I do my own long-distance EV trips I do them knowing full well what could happen if my own calculations go wrong.

[...]

But long-distance trips? For now, it's something we should reserve for personal experience not headline sales-pitches. That's what I was advising against.

Does that make sense, or have I just added more confusion?

Nikki.

Aside from "personal experience" and "sales-pitches", there is also the public discussion of EVs as a part of our future, specifically the somewhat political question of how much they might be able to replace ICEs (in the future), and the public technical understanding of their current state of development. The ability to do medium or long range trips is not a question of black and white, even though the mainstream media treats it mostly as "black".

Since the beginning, the mere existence of the Tesla Roadster contributed a lot to the discussion of the EV as a solution to global long-term problems. I see the demonstration of an HPC network as a valid part of that discussion, not as a sales-pitch for Leafs (or Volts), which are sold out in any case. It would be wrong to promise Leaf owners a flawless long trip experience today, but that is not what is happening here. What is shown is that the current technical possibilities go further than many assume, and implicitly that the Model S may already resolve most of the additional time requirements that a Roadster still demands on long trips even with a good HPC network. The Model S isn't that far away, speaking at the scale of the problems which EVs are meant to (potentially) solve.

In this sense, such trips and network demonstrations are not just for enthusiasts (referring to a recent tweet), but (also) a valid contribution to the public discussion about EV technology vs other technologies, which is a quite important discussion taking place at this very time, influencing decisions on many levels and in many areas.

Aside from the practical improvement for Roadster owners which has been realized, that is.

Establishing (fast-) charging networks will require some effort (unless you want to use gas stations for fast charging, as the Volt does), so I think it is really important to show (again and again) that the result will indeed be worth that effort.

 

[mpt]

Transport Evolved 53 - 24 Hour Party People

Join Nikki Gordon-Bloomfield from AllCarsElectric.com and Michael Thwaite from TeslaMotorsClub with guest John Voelcker from GreenCarReports as they discuss the week’s news in the world of electric vehicles, including 24 hours in a Nissan Leaf, federal electric vehicle tax rebates, emergency power backup and much more.

 

[Norbert]

As in Ep 53 there was a discussion of the question of how large the effect of 50 kW fast-charging is on the LEAF's battery, here two quotes from Mark Perry, Nissan director of product planning:

Will DC fast charging harm electric car batteries? | The Car Tech blog - CNET Reviews

The life expectancy of the Leaf's battery is about 70-80 percent of capacity after 10 years of normal use. Frequent fast chargers--more than once or twice per day--can expect performance on the lower end of that range, according to Perry.

Rockin Down the (Electric) Highway: It Could Happen Sooner Than You Think | BNET

Nissan’s Mark Perry told me it won’t be an issue unless cars are heavy users of fast-charge ports — more than once or twice a day. EV companies claim that built-in advanced battery management software would shut down the charging process before any damage can be done.

The best I can tell, this refers to more than once or twice per day... each day ! For 10 years !

 

[JRP3]

Yes it's better to get the facts rather than speculate using inaccurate parameters. The likely issue with fast charging would be damage from localized internal overheating which might cause some electrolyte breakdown and plating or clogging of the current collector surface, which over time will reduce capacity. To Micheal's point of staying between the 20% at each end there is indeed plenty of evidence that this greatly extends cell life, which is why Tesla recommends avoiding range mode. A123 has shown 10's of thousands of cycles by shallow cycling verses a few thousand cycles of full cycling.

 

[JRP3]

The LEAF ad was probably a direct reply to GM's earlier shots at the LEAF with "range anxiety" jabs and their current ad which states something like "it's better than a LEAF blower", emphasis mine.

 

[Doug_G]

A123 has shown 10's of thousands of cycles by shallow cycling verses a few thousand cycles of full cycling.

So that suggests that 1 range mode charge equals 10 standard mode charges... a gross oversimplification of course but maybe it puts things in rough perspective.

 

[Norbert]

This is from a Leaf owner on MyNissanLeaf (thanks to Kevin for the link) :

My Nissan Leaf Forum View topic - 80% Charging anytime, all the time

The other day I talked with Brendan Jones, Nissan VP of Sales, and he told me that charging to 100% EVERY day (topping off) will not degrade the battery pack. Also, he told me that using DC fast chargers less than 7 times a day will NOT degrade the pack. He said that these particular batteries have been extensively tested with a simulator that equals 8 years of use.

(See also above quotes from Mark Perry.)

This contradicts what was said in the show, something like "couple of times a week" and "certainly multiple times a day" (apparently referring to a single event) "not recommended". (Although it was then also suggested that those might be cautionary statements).

Since this is one of my favorite shows, and Nikki one of my favorite writers/hosts, and this is a rather important question, I hope we'll find out where the above statements come from, or even get Nissan to clarify the matter for us.

Of course, in any case, this likely varies between battery chemistries and may depend on the cooling system, so for example A123 batteries may have somewhat different properties.

 

[JRP3]

Indeed they do, higher C rates, higher cycle life, less prone to thermal runaway, but lower energy density than LiCo, however shallow cycling does seem to benefit all lithium chemistries from what I've seen, and from what manufacturers recommend.

 

[Norbert]

Indeed they do, higher C rates, higher cycle life, less prone to thermal runaway, but lower energy density than LiCo, however shallow cycling does seem to benefit all lithium chemistries from what I've seen, and from what manufacturers recommend.

I did read somewhere that the Leaf's battery isn't completely typical either, and don't know more than that. I'd think that Nissan's test results are the best information to go by, but it would be good if there was a way to make sure that they were passed on correctly. Generally speaking, shallow cycling is probably always a little better when one really doesn't need the range. But if one does, probably a safety margin at the low end is more important than one at the high end, and at the high end I'd go by what Nissan says. If there is contradicting information coming from Nissan itself, then customers should insist on getting valid information with those contradictions resolved, rather than start speculating on their own (unless there is reason or experience to doubt that information). [EDIT: As you yourself said above. ]

 

[JRP3]

The LEAF battery is LiMn, as opposed to Tesla's LiCo, and A123 is a LiFePO4 variant.

 

[mpt]

It took some digging: Green Car Congress: The Battery Pack for Mitsubishis i MiEV

Mitsubishi tested the cycle life of the pack under standard (50 A) and quick charge (120 A) conditions using the JC08 driving pattern and found that the pack retained 84% of capacity with quick charging and 83% with standard charging after 1,000 cycles.

JC08 driving pattern Test cycles

 

[mpt]

Another detailed article on Li-ion charging worth a read if you're new to charging tech: Charging Lithium-ion Battery University

 

[mpt]

Transport Evolved 54 - Spped Demons

Join*Nikki Gordon-Bloomfield from*AllCarsElectric.com and *Michael Thwaite from*TeslaMotorsClub with guests*Richard D. Titus and land-speed record holder Don Wales,*as they discuss the week’s news in the world of electric vehicles, including the Isle of Man TT Zero, rapid charging rescue trucks,**a new electric vehicle world land speed record attempt and much more.

 

[JRP3]

I don't quite understand the objection to the portable EV charge service. EV's will run out of charge, it's already happening. Showing an easy possible solution to the problem is logical. People don't avoid ICE vehicles because they know tow trucks exist. As to the efficiency of tow charging vs generator charging, generator charging has to be much better. Tow charging means losses in the ICE, the ICE drive train, the ICE aerodynamics, the EV aerodynamics, and losses in the EV regen system, which Tesla shows as 64% efficient, max.

 

[Norbert]

I don't quite understand the objection to the portable EV charge service.

Neither do I. It's not like "pure" EVs are only for extreme purists. They make sense on a very realistic level of understanding of what needs to happen on this planet.

 

[mpt]

I guess you caught our frustration with 'Range Anxiety'.

I'm frustrated over the automatic analogues to the ICE world; ICE cars run out of fuel so the Roadside Assistance folk carry a can of gas. EV's run out of juice so the immediate response is to build the equivalent of a can of gas... except it's a dedicated truck with a giant engine on the back.

I anticipate that there will be few of these machines relative to the area covered; they'll be expensive and a bit under used so, if I run out of 'leccy I'd prefer to be towed to the nearest charger or, to home, by a truck that'll be with me in minutes rather than wait for the special 'gas can' truck then, sit at the side of the highway whilst I charge up.