Forums

Join The Community
RegisterLogin

Electric car drawbacks, the battery...

The thing holding back electric
cars is battery technology/price. Batteries are too expensive,
don't hold enough charge and don't charge fast enough. If
they came up with a cheaper better battery tomorrow,
No one would buy gasoline powered cars anymore. So in
five years and ten years how advanced will batteries be?

At 7%-8% per year improvements, they'll be twice as good in 10 years. So 500+ miles range or 1/2 the cost. Kick in economies of scale and those numbers get better. That's without breakthrough technology. I'd bet there will be a breakthrough. I'd guess 50% better in 5 years with improving existing technologies and scaling, breakthrough before 10 years that doubles numbers above.

One opinion.

www.teslamodels.wordpress.com

Sounds about right. High voltage power delivery tech is going to be interesting!

What I've been learning about the Model S buyers (planning on jumping boat from Model X reversation holder to Model S owner) is that if you buy a 85kWh battery option, then you cannot change the battery option in the future, even if you plan on upgrading. In other words, 8 years from now I will not be able to get a 150kWh battery for my current buy, assuming it exists. The reason for this is because the specific vehicle is built around a battery pack of that energy size (not physical size/dimensions, but kWh).

This was from a conversation I had with a Tesla personnel couple of days ago.

That said, he did mention that they do plan on software and other upgrades which will make the batteries more efficient over longer time. Also, if they change technologies, then you'd most likely be able to get the newer technology, but still at the 85kWh range.

Anyone else have these types of conversations or can refute or backup my understanding?

My understanding is that upgrading battery packs is not supported. However, it is something that is intriguing and MAY be a future option.
For the moment, I would plan on it not being an option and if it becomes an option later, it is icing on the cake.
For me, the battery technology of today is working just fine for me and providing me with a better drive than any other car:)

I can envision a work-around if more efficient cells are available: a segmented battery, with 1 segment that looks like a standard 85kWh pack to the system, and a supplement that, e.g., looks like a partly discharged 85 pack that you switch to after the first is depleted.

With a company name of Tesla you would think the car would have in internal Tesla coil charging system?

But first...

What about a solar rooftop charger for when the car is not in use? What about if you want a car to just go to the store once a week to get groceries? On a bright sunny week this could generate a green footprint of 0.

Now back to the charger...

I have given a lot of thought to how to create electricity fairly cheeply using the Tesla coil. What about a 2 cylinder two stroke engine? Wait a minute, don't say no just yet. First you have to throw a lot of conventional engine parts away. Remember, you only want to generate electricity and not turn a crank shaft so, thow out the crank shaft. Now, put the cylinders opposite each other and out a Tesla coil in between them. Now with a solid shaft, put a strong permanent magnet in the middle to be shuttled back and forth by the 2 cylinder two stroke engine. Don't forget the coil of wire in the middle surrounding the permanent magnet.

So now with out a crank shaft how do you start the engine? Well why not just use the Tesla coil and the magnet as a servo to get the pistons moving and start the generator.

This is just a thought. I think it probably merits some investigation.

Solar Panel on the Roof?
the Roof is flat wich is far from perfect for catching the sun. So most People think it's way better to put that solar Panel on the Roof of your house or in the garden where it actualy can be built in bigger quantities and in better positions.

As ofr that Tesla Coil Thing. Honestly I've no idea what your'e talking about. But Tesla wanted to build a car in a short amount of time wich is why they heavily relied on known tech and not super experimental stuff.

So feel free to build it and sell it if you think it'll work. maybe it's in a car in a few years.

ChristianG;
One of my favorites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgll-XTqcS4

Solar panels on the roof of the car have been discussed ad naseum here. Bottom line is that with current and near future solar panel efficiencies there's just not enough space on the the car (that's right, the WHOLE car) to generate enough electricity to charge the battery in any meaningful amount of time.

There is on the roof of your house though! Well, most houses anyway.

I have had my Model S for two weeks. I love it, but the infrastructure for charging outside of the major metro areas is dismal. I live in Santa Barbara and even with the 85 battery, it is a challenge to plan travel away from my own home charger--the chargers out there on the road are inefficient, and either in use or broken. This must be made a Tesla top priority. I strongly suggest that Tesla get the supercharger infrastructure up to snuff immediately--otherwise those 500 cars per week being produced are just going to clog the existing charging stations. I hope you folks are listening, Tesla.

@lalamothe

How far are you going?

How far do you want to go?

"Immediately" is not happening. ASAP is.

I wonder if regenerative breaking could be used to charge an ultra capacitor that might, in turn, extend the range of the lithium ion battery pack.

And I also wonder if a super charging station could be used to quickly charge an ultra capacitor (let's say 3 minutes) which would then slowly discharge into the lithium ion battery pack while driving.

These two things might go a long way toward unclogging the supercharging stations and explaining Elon's recent tweet re charging as quickly as filling a gas tank. The tweet might also relate to Tesla's patent application # 20110156661, which relates to quick charging

As long as the range matches the driving pattern well enough, today's batteries are just fine. As they get cheaper and better more people will be drawn into the market. As the charging infrastructure matures with multifamily residential, workplace charging, destination, hotel, and highway-side restaurant charging the market will expand. As more manufacturers come up with more creative ways to incorporate and market the advantages of electric drive, the market will expand. Of the entire national fleet of light duty vehicles of 250M or so, what percentage are actually driven more than 200 miles in a day in a year's time? How many drive that far more than a handful of times? Perception needs more improvement than batteries.

Ultracaps are large (like 20x batteries) and they lose energy quite fast. Unless you want to get braking power from them that actually rivals the friction brakes and replaces them (which requires very powerful hub-motors [*], and that's another no go) there is no benefit from using ultracaps compared to batteries for range.

Same thing for charging. You can charge ultracap in milliseconds, but energy that they can contain is tiny, so no help in charging.

There could be a benefit from using some smallish ultracap as buffer between battery and motor so that strain in batteries while doing very fast short accelerations or decelerations is less. That could in theory increase battery life a bit (no battery state change in short rapid speed changes). Note that this would not increase range, just battery long term life.

[*] hub motors, because heavy regen using traditional motor causes quite bad strain in joints and drivetrain axles. Motor would need to be in the wheel for that.

I really hate to be so stubborn without any real mechanical sound training as Tesla had. He had a very good technical education. Just so happened that this highly technically trained individual poscessed a wonderful sense of creativity and even instinct.

So I will just present my much battered and maligned concept that the anwer to a lot of this stuff could be in the dynacism of theturning wheels themselves. Think of them as turning turbos in a hydroelectic plant just figure out how to make them act as such with new technology and don't resort to redundant arguments about perpetual motion and basic laws of physics. To heck with all that, just figure out a way to make the wheels generate some energy back to a sorage place wihout interferring with all those perpetual motion concepts. A cd doest touch anything and produces soud. So try to think of mechanism that doesn't touch the wheel thus seemingly doesn't violate any pepetual motion limitations does it. Try to think of how to generate the enery and "jump it off" safely and jump it back into the storage system safely and not violate the basic laws of physics. Plese try to think beyond the perpetual motion arguments as we al know they can't be violated. Me for sure for the number of "techno beatdowns" I have endured. Cat't violate them but maybe just maybe can go around them with no friction, no drag, through the air energy transfer. Maybe enclose beams of some sort. Something wirless the energy can come of the wheel with. In other words the dynacism in the wheels is jumping off energy with no interference with its job or energy required for its basic job. Remember lightning travels tthrough the air and I have seen it literally explde an anciet oak as if you placed dynamite in it. Two bolts aprx three or four seconds apart in precisely the same location. So lightning so lightning wont twice in the same place is wrong (the lighnting was just sidebar stuff). It all might be sidebar stuff but something just keeps bugging me about those turning wheels and I am thinking turbines but I can't back it up with any real knowledge just an instinctive feeling about this.

Take your medicine itsmesearcher. There is no such thing as free lunch.

Your instincts are verry confused.

itsmesearcher ........ ROTFLMAO

I have made three replies tothe above comments, not being posted, whatgives. Of course you know they were polite and unsarcastic,LOL.
First back at you sudre whatever your comment was. No need for translation. Next BrianH your perogative and your privalige to hold whatever opinion you have for my instincts. In spite of my respect for your apparent technical expertise which I have openly acknowledged there may be aspects of your personality and motives that would tht I can can see right though and it might be more polite if I reserved these opinions. As for you Timo I have also openly acknowledged my respect for your apparent techical savvy. But lets make one thing clear I do do accept the proposition that this forum has been taken over by a handful of mutually supportive "technos" who may be absolutely correct on all counts but do not know how to keep things opwn and throw ideas around in a free and flowing manner without becoming a tight little band of "techno smart alecks" who know some stuff but probably not all the stuff. By no means do I intend to be intimidated because each of you know if you want to play "smartass" I can hold my own. I will take each of you own seperately or as a group. As I have hadyears experience of dealing with smart alecks and even developed my own "punk contingency factor" which is if you see you are dealing with a punk you just make sure youare a bigger punk than him. I devloped this theory from observing a particular supervisor in action. Woorked like a charm with him. Now get this down to. I do like you guys or Iwouldn't be here, rect your technical knowledge which I knowisway greater than mine butat the same time I in absolutely no way acceept your opinions as the "last word" nor will I ever. My messeges are often put out to get a discussion going not a bunch of conceited "put downs" as if your waord was the last word. Now take all this and "run under the bank" with it.

Having said this and remebering very little of my highschool physics I challenge anyone on the site to tell me why a system that considered the wheels as turbines and had the ability to in some way pull energy from these prapidly turning wheels without in any way interferring with the constraints associated with "perpetual motion" and draw this power to a sorage place in the car in the battery itself or where ever. A system running entirely on its own and not locked into the system of moving thecar forward in any respect other than providing energy if the car wants to use it. Were talking about two seperate systems so how could this interfer with the divine "pepetual motion" objections Timo. And dear BrianH my "instinct" tells me this is a doable. Maybe we will never know and maybe we will. So if anybody with equal tecno savvy as BrianH or Timo is on the site and sees what I am trying to get through to please help me out. As obviously I am outgunned here. Have a good one "chaps". This is just like past days. Totally engaging to me.

I find it incredible that Tesla isn't thinking "form factor" and that a Tesla car can't benefit, over its lifetime, from evolving battery technology.

What does it matter to the car systems if the battery is 85KWh or 150 KWh if the electrical output is the same? To the system it's the same battery.

The only difference to the car, the obvious difference, is weight -- assuming improved battery technology can't achieve more energy density in the same weight -- which will of course affect body stress and driving dynamics. But these variables can be factored into the structural design.

I should think it's imperative that Tesla batteries have a standard form factor, so that individual Teslas can benefit from improved battery performance during their lifetimes. This, and a robust build-out of supercharger stations, would make Teslas just about perfect.

Or is it that Elon, who is, after all, a businessman, is thinking of built-in obsolescence? Nah, he wouldn't, would he?

Actually what I was refering to in a previous post was the Farady principle and not the Tesla coil with is something totally different. Secondly, you need to think outside the box just like the company did in making the car. Did anyone say that the solar panel had to be flat against the roof? Did anyone say that it had to be deployed while driving? Think outside the box folks. If a car company can come up with something as impressive as the Gull Wing Doors I'm sure they can come up with a way of having a solar panel doployment and positioning system. Build up not on. I don't actually mean to step on anybodys foot but it is important when trying to go to new technology or reinventing old technology that you think outside of the box.

With drive by wire technology. Does it not become possible to simply change the drive plate and just drop the car body onto the new higher powered plate and have it work. Of course, I am assuming that there was the foresight to properly segment the drive and control systems so that the control system/drive system have a definable interface. To over simplify and Expand on what I thought I heard in the Model X Reveal presentation. With proper design, it could be possible to upgrade a, say, Model S with the drive system of a Model X and have a new car. Problem is how the motor vehicle registries are going to handle that as the car is now two separate pieces and is upgradable/interchangable. That's there problem.

Drawing energy from a car's turning wheels is called "braking". It causes slowness.

BrianH you don't have a clue of what I am talking about. Read my last post, key words are SOME WAY indicating way hasn't been found yet but come on gang don't be afraid to think in terms "could this posibly be done". Lets not call my "wonder if" concept "perpetual motion" because that is so easy to pigeon hole and then shoot down like a real big shot technical person. Rather lets call it "exponential energy effeciancy" which occurs probably almost daily in auto research labs. Get your nose out of your text books and "techno" manuals and strive to acess the creative aspects of your brain, don't limit yorself to cute little juvinile "one liners". Just because a mechanism or device doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't be. I present to you Mr Tesla himself.

Somehow the original point of this thread morphed into generating power with a Tesla coil...

What I have realized is that Tesla owners are truly "first adopters" in more ways than one. Not only are they buying into pioneering technology with the vehicle, but also are dependent upon a fledgling infrastructure. Not unlike the Model T! When Ford made cars affordable for the average person, he wasn't building gas stations or highways. Roads were, in many places, lousy, and you had no guarantee of a gas station near the end of your operating range. The difference, of course, was that you could carry a gas can with you that would greatly extend your vehicle's range, and refuel your vehicle in seconds.

So I looked at driving from Colorado to the East Coast in an EV. Even using Tesla's 250 mi. range, almost the entire state of Nebraska would have to be traversed before a charging station was located in Topeka. It's not totally bleak, you'd just have to limit your trip to about 4 hours driving a day (250 mi) and take a day to charge between runs @ 110v. It's even less attractive in a Leaf @ 60-80 mi. range.

I still want a Tesla, I'm just trying to get a realistic perspective as to its place in my transportation model. I love this forum, it gives great views of EV ownership.

@itsmesearcher, you can't generate more energy from car movement than what is used to make car move. This is simple basic physics and it is law of nature. Not suggestion of nature.

We can't create energy, and we can't destroy energy, we can only change the form of energy.

You can transfer energy to car (or to any object) wirelessly but then energy source for that has to be outside of the car. Easiest example (to understand) is solar panel in the car. The source of energy is Sun, not the car itself. You can use pretty much any EM radiation as energy source, difficulty in that is not the idea, it is the getting that done efficiently and safely enough that it is actually sane thing to do. Cars use a lot of energy to move. Car of Model S size use roughly 20kW just to maintain 60mph speed. 20kW is a lot to transfer wirelessly.

The decades-old question of driving a generator with a motor to produce more energy has been answered in this thread - you can't do it. The efficiency is less than zero.

There is a tremendous loss to convert mechanical energy into electrical energy (a generator). Then some loss to transmit that energy through relays, wires, electronics, etc. Then another tremendous loss to convert the energy back into mechanical (kinetic) energy (a motor). This is one of the reasons that you don't see electric cars with engines large enough to produce the energy required to drive the car - you'd be far better off just sending the mechanical energy of the generator to the wheels (i.e., an internal combustion engine with a transmission). The only mechanical energy loss in that situation is gear lash/wear. Likely 98% of the mechanical energy generated by a car's engine gets to the wheels in a manual transmission. I'm guessing less than 60% makes it using an engine to power a generator to drive a motor.

The idea is an old one, but the laws of physics stop you.

By the way, there *is* a device that generates more energy than is input. Any device creating more energy than input is called an over-unity device. The one I know of uses water friction/tension to create heat when it's shaft is driven turned inside a water jacket. It's been confirmed that it's an over-unity device. Interestingly, this is not the answer to our energy crisis. The reason is that any over-unity device must create more energy than the inefficiency of downstream devices to harness that energy. For example, turning 105% of the mechanical energy into heat isn't good enough - the heat capture/conversion devices used to harness that heat and turn it into either mechanical energy or electrical energy are so inefficient that you're still in loss mode.

Panoz, Just as a point of interesst, did you know Henry Fordwanted to use alcohol to power his first engines but there was such an abundance ofgasoline that is the way they went. Yes ,Panoz, I never knowingly had the onesystem typearrangement in mind to create more energy. Think I do remember enough high school physics not to go there.

Timo you seem to be getting into what I am talking about , two entirely different systems working semi independently of each other and I accept what you have said, sure every bit of it is absolutely true. But we seem to be getting on the same page anyway rather than just an outright declaration that my concept is "perpertual motion" and dismissing it outright. Now in light of what you did discuss lets go back to the key words I mentioned to BrianH "somehow" and is this not the kernal of many things that have been developed that were formerly though of as not doable. Thanks for a thoughtful and informative analysis.

Bollocks. The over-unity-ness is a bookkeeping error.


X Deutschland Site Besuchen