Yes you could give a 100kwh battery a full charge from home in 45 minutes.
I don't think you would need to top up 75kwh over 300 miles but I don't know the numbers.
**Tesla Model S** The first nail in the internal combustions engines coffin?
- Thread starter jigger
- Start date
Yes you could give a 100kwh battery a full charge from home in 45 minutes.
I don't think you would need to top up 75kwh over 300 miles but I don't know the numbers.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,080
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Not today you couldn't we is the point. No idea what your 240v comment had to do with anything.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 11,428
- Location
- Derbyshire
As a nerdy manufacturing engineer, I have to say that whatever the future brings is both exciting and interesting, as the way we live must change since we started to abuse the planet since the industrial revolution started 
.
.Not sure why you think its not possible, but it is.
Until they come up with something with a better range than 300 mile per charge, internal combustion engines aren't going anywhere.
It sounds like a long range, but its not really, especially when you have to stop for 45 mins every 300 miles.
It sounds like a long range, but its not really, especially when you have to stop for 45 mins every 300 miles.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 11,428
- Location
- Derbyshire
The medium-term solution is electric cars with a petrol motor that acts as a 'range extender', so the vehicle can do trips on just electricity for something like 50 miles and the engine only kicks in (to charge the batteries, not drive the wheels directly iirc) when the batteries get low on charge.
This could work as most people could use their cars for trips that run purely on electricity from the mains.
Whatever comes in the future, cars will be more expensive due to their complexity and resource price increases.
They will be expensive to maintain as lots to go wrong, most of which is 'new technology' (we have been making petrol cars for over 100 years now).
Last edited:
Ah, now I understand. You're replying without reading the posts you're replying to, so you're using different numbers and talking about different things. Things that you admit you don't know about.
You are now claiming that you can sustain a supply of at least 145KW to a battery at home. I'd like to see you support that claim, bearing in mind that mains is 3KW and the wiring itself is rated for 23KW to the entire house. So you're up to 15.9% of your requirements if you don't use any electricity for anything else. Where's the rest coming from, to your house without any lighting, fridge, freezer, etc?
That's already been addressed.
You need to use stations to refuel an ICEV.
You could use stations to swap batteries on an EV.
Swapping a battery could be done in a similar amount of time as refueling an ICEV.
You could also have the additional option of recharging at home, which would certainly be possible over a few hours with a light industrial standard power supply wired into a garage.
You don't have the option of refueling an ICEV at home.
lol.
I'm not sure if you cant read or need this explaining to you a few more times but as your numbers have just been pulled out of thin air I don't see the point
I read that the car was good for 320 miles and the battery was 80kwh. So if we take your "Numbers" of a 75% cycle that's 60kwh for 320 miles.
I never said you could pull anything from the wall on demand! Go back and get some context.
Electric cars aren't viable for most people right now. But all new technology has to start somewhere, and in a few decades electric cars will be perfectly viable for the majority of people. Just look at petrol cars, when they were first invented they were expensive, slow, no infrastructure, low mileage and very few people had one, but now everyone who wants one has one, and all the original problems have been solved.
Last edited:
Oh go on, I'll bite.
State these numbers that you claim I pulled out of thin air. I'll show that they're either numbers you made up and pretended came from me or numbers that I can source.
There's an example of you making up numbers and pretending they came from me. You just made up "75% cycle" and "60kwh for 320 miles". The former has nothing to do with anything I've written and the latter directly contradicts what I've written (and is provably wrong - you won't get 5.3r miles per KWh out of a normal car).
You said, repeatedly and with ever-growing numbers, that very high amounts of power were available at home. Initially, you stated that enough charge to drive a car 300 miles could be taken from a home supply in 45 minutes. I explained why that would be more than 100KW and asked you to support your assertion. You replied with some irrelevant stuff you made up and pretended I'd written. You later increased your unsubstantiated and implausible claims by stating that a battery could be charged to 100KWh in 45 minutes at home - that would require a supply at home of at least 145KW (133KW for the actual charge stored, plus some lost in charging inefficiencies).
Go back and read your own posts. Then read mine. Then maybe you'll be able to make a post that's true and relevant.
Or just make some more stuff up. Just please stop pretending I wrote it.
Last edited:
There's a big flaw in your comparison:
When petrol cars were invented, they were new technology. The bodies were based on carts pulled by horses, but pretty much all of the technology was fundamentally new. Hence the huge scope for improvements initially.
Electric cars are nowhere near as new. Batteries - not a new technology. Electric motor - not a new technology. The rest of the car - not new technology (it's mostly the same as ICE cars).
Your numbers.
Although I have misread your >100KW(*) as 100kwh hence 75% cycle rate as you don't normally take Li packs to the brink. A cut off point of 30% -40% seems a usual safety ballpark figure on large packs hence my doubt in needing to deep cycle the pack as your example shows. Its all conjecture anyway as we don't have the numbers and couldn't take the variables into account even if we did.
No, I said that you could set-up a fast charging station at home that would supply the 45 minute fast charge. I specifically said you can't draw this power on demand.
Last edited:
When petrol cars were invented the main difference between them and horse drawn carts was the drivetrain, the main difference between a modern electric car and a modern petrol car is the drivetrain.
While batterys and electric motors are not new technology, they haven't been developed particularly quickly, but this is changing now with more electric cars in production. So while they're not new, the current/near future rate of development is similar to a new technology.
Probably not...but there's an outside chance that the research phase went better than expected and they're keeping quiet about it because it's close to going commercial.
Either that or Big Oil / Illuminati / New World Order / Aliens / <insert conspiracy group here> have acquired the rights and are supressing it!
I disagree.
Early cars very quickly developed all aspects of the car from those of horse drawn carts, by necessity because of the higher speeds. Tires, suspension, aerodynamics, brakes...everything. That doesn't apply to development from ICEVs to EVs, so the future rate of development is unlikely to be similarly fast.
Electric motors have already been developed to more than adequate levels of power. Cars can already be fitted with electric motors powerful enough for racing, let alone normal use. 0-60 times are under 2s. There's an electric Beetle that can do a quarter mile in 9.5s and an electric dragster with more budget that can do it in under 8s. The power of available electric motors is not a restriction for normal car use - there is far more than enough power. The first internal combustion engines were far from being as developed, so the future rate of development is unlikely to be as fast for electric motors today as it was for the first internal combustion engines.
Electric motors have already been developed to very high levels of efficiency - in excess of 90%. That is far higher than the efficiency of the first internal combustion engines. It isn't possible, let alone likely, for near future development of electric motors to improve their efficiency by anything like the rate of development in efficiency in the first years of the internal combustion engine.
I think it is impossible, not just unlikely but impossible, for the rate of development of EVs in the near future to be anything like that of ICEVs in the early years. I think it is inaccurate to describe EVs as new technology and that doing so leads to unreasonable expectations of the rate of improvement. I think that it's counter-productive to advocate for EVs in that way, because the expectations created by doing so will not be met and that will tarnish the idea of EVs.
Batteries are the only area where there is some possibility of improvements in EVs as large and as rapid as those of the early days of ICEVs. That would be enough to go a long way towards making EVs genuinely viable for mass use, if it happens. But it's far from the certainty of rapid development of new technology - the technology simply isn't new.
So how would someone store ~110KWh in their home in such a way that they can draw ~145KW from it for 45 minutes, using existing technology?
EDIT: Another battery for the car could do the job, but it would be silly to use one battery to charge another battery rather than just putting the charged battery in the car. You can't be talking about doing that, it's too silly.
You didn't say that you can't draw that power on demand. You said you couldn't do it at 240V from a mains socket. Which was an irrelevant comment, as nobody was claiming that you could do so.
Last edited:
I would phone Rolls and order a set of batteries. Why is that silly? it would be a hell of a lot better than having a three phase supply brought to my house.
Lots of info on new battery tech here.
http://www.evdriven.com/
Lots of info on new battery tech here.
http://www.evdriven.com/
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,080
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Thats only one attribute, leaps and strides are being made with regard to automotive requirements : Weight and size. The YASA motor that is 13kg for 50kW is progress aswell as the engineering of EV Tractions motors that are not reliant on rare earth elements. Protean in wheel hub motor with the integrated inverter & cooling system aswell did not exist in a mature state 5 years ago either.
Jigger Im not sure why you are suggesting a seperate large buffer battery? That just doubles the evil of an EV, the battery cost and life, it will hit you twice.
Its a way to get a low cost long life deep cycle battery that will supply the 45 minute charge most people seem to need. This would cost a fraction the price of buying a secondary car pack and save the problems that would come with swapping everything over.
Yes it will cost some K's but it will save you the cost of a buying a secondary Li Ion pack or having a three phase supply set-up at home.