Quote:
Originally Posted by Equilibrandt
These are points I could absolutely agree with. It's known that supercharging/DC charging is way worse for the battery in the long term. Fast, hot charges are what kill usable storage quickly and deeply affect the resale value of the car.
And that's where I fall in line with y'all: range anxiety that's only alleviated by Level3 DC charging (which will incrementally degrade the battery), exacerbated by the fear of charging past 80% repeatedly at home, all to protect the value of a depreciating asset.
It's easy for me to consider a brand new EV, with a warranty, in sunny California where temperature doesn't have any effect on my supposed car. I could charge to 80% every night at home, nice and slow at 240V, for 24 cents a kWh.
But I can't imagine what I'd do if I was renting an apartment, still, and only had access to fast charging, which probably costs similar if not more than gas, while knowingly harming my car. Nor what I'd do if I were in Canada, watching my estimated range get nerfed for more than half the year. I don't hop in the Miata and romp on it until it's warmed up; can't expect the average consumer to not experience anxiety about knowingly (or blissfully ignoring) that they're slowly killing their capacity. All valid concerns. But we differ from where to go from there: I always think it makes more sense to continue to experience and see these issues as a form of progress; it's not a reason to stop here.
|
Back on page 361 I was chastised for stating I get my science information from science textbooks (written before the internet). The criticism was that the books are outdated and the science has advanced (meaning scientific understanding I guess Dan B was saying). My reply was not the fundamentals of science (which is what textbooks teach). That is relevant to your last sentence regarding progress. Some of the best engineering practice is to accept a level of advancement, meaning understanding what is "good enough".
Scale your battery charging observations (concerns) to the next level of automotive products, heavy trucks, construction, and mining equipment. These vehicles are single-purposed to perform heavy work. EV batteries do not scale well here. They can't be recharged while the operator sleeps at home all comfy in his bed. These vehicles are run constantly in some cases and operators are changed out. These vehicles use the same fuels as light-duty cars and pickup trucks. Taking away the gasoline fuel market for light-duty vehicles (where EV sort of works) effects the heavy-duty vehicle market because gasoline and diesel (and jet fuel) are refined at fixed ratios. That means diesel can't be produced without gasoline as an adjacent product of refining oil. These ratios are fixed by trillions of dollars of refinery hard infrastructure. So when you want to advance the state of the art of light-duty EV you are inadvertently creating a downstream effect on other parts of the economy that will raise the price of everyday items and limit the availability of products and services.
This is why I advocate to advance the more efficient combustion of gasoline and diesel. Batteries are limited and antiquated thinking.