BEVs deals and information
Options
Comments
-
If you read my actual words, the two things were in different sentences. I said that aging amongst other things degrades batteries. I then said battery degradation accelerates after a certain time/level. I was talking about battery degradation, Id already stated in an earlier post a lot of the contributory factors.
But, again, that seems to fly in the face of what Tesla results are showing, with degradation actually slowing down after an initial (and early degradation).
So, as I said before, you seem to be going in circles trying to defend a position of quite extreme degradation, possibly based on older technology, whilst ignoring actual data and results we are seeing today, or if not ignoring the results, then claiming they defy the laws of physics.
As older Tesla batts are already performing far better than your figures for battery degradation, and their later tech is performing even better, then it seems you may have adopted an overly negative position on this matter. And to repeat what I've said before, I'd assume/hope that all manufacturers will be able to at least match Tesla's current technology in 5yrs or so.Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW). Two A2A units for cleaner heating.
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
Martyn1981 wrote: »So, as I said before, you seem to be going in circles trying to defend a position of quite extreme degradation, possibly based on older technology, whilst ignoring actual data and results we are seeing today, or if not ignoring the results, then claiming they defy the laws of physics.
OK Martyn, I had fully intended not to post again but go on then, send me a link to the technical results and papers and I'll have a look at them.0 -
OK Martyn, I had fully intended not to post again but go on then, send me a link to the technical results and papers and I'll have a look at them.
As I mentioned, Teslanomics a year or so back, and Bloomberg recently. But tbh, I think you'll find that GIYF and any news/articles/reports will contradict your position which seems to be based on older/worst case scenarios.
Have fun, but don't waste too much time, as you say, we'll get the info going forward, and it's all looking very promising, better than expected, dare I say.
Edit - Actually, Teslanomics 'old' video might be of interest to everyone, and it's older than I remembered, so solid, good news from over two years ago:
Tesla Batteries Last Forever (Basically)
Article and vid on 50k mile TM3 here (spoiler - 2% degradation), and fun coincidence, it also mentions Ben Sullins Teslanomics vid on battery degradtion, but in fairness it was massive news at the time:
How Much Range Does A Tesla Model 3 Have After 50,000 Miles?Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW). Two A2A units for cleaner heating.
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
Martyn1981 wrote: »
I thought you might mention the teslanomics video which was produced before the model 3 came out and using different technology.
The original data came with the caveat 'This chart and data are not provided by Tesla, Inc. and should not be used as true fact. Rather this is user generated content for infotainment purposes.'
The original teslanomics data display is at
https://www.teslarati.com/how-long-will-tesla-battery-last-degradation/
Its based on the dataset of dutch tesla forum owners by Maarten Steinbuch from 2015 https://www.daglievemensen.nl/tesla/maxrange.htm
No harm to anyone but thats a shocking number of early cars that had their batteries replaced.
Maarten did a series of charts and removed the automatically generated polynomial red lines (the data had some turning up after 50k km which really would change the laws of physics).
https://steinbuch.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/pluginamericadatakm1.jpg just has the data and if you take out the outliers then the chart is down as would be expected.
The data itself doesnt include SOC or any other measure, thats calculated later, just mileage displayed every time you fill up to 100% compared to rated mileage at 100% for the model.
Like working out mpg the better calculations would have been to compare maximum possible kwh charged at various intervals and use those relative values.
If we ignore the caveat it shows that earlier made tesla model S in particular had better capacity batteries and the newer made ones drop off a lot quicker. Look at the clusters, bad form to draw a line through any extremities. Particularly as looking at the original data a lot of people did the first year one and then didnt bother in subsequent years which makes the dataset a bit useless for the type of comparisons we are interested in.
The dataset is also corrupted by people filling the forms in yearly, some monthly, some random yet all being used as discrete points in the above video rather than charting the use per car.
Its based around forum participation so people have read about it years later so say come in with year 3 and 4 data but no original or year 1 data to compare it to (hence the reason for comparison to published figures rather than actual).
Lies, damn lies and statistics only works with complete statistics or a consistent dataset. I'll take the original entries word for it although theres no verification (although why would people lie in this sort of form? - would have been better being anonymous though).
The data does show what weve been talking about, if you want to maximise longevity then dont use superchargers daily and dont charge to 100%.
It also shows its pot luck about what the range is of your individual car is compared to the model. Saying that though the scant data for the model 3s I saw showed a consistent 4% drop in the first year, although again that could be someone putting it in 4 times as all the delivery dates were the same day (which is believeable).
Also try duck duck go, less confirmation bias searching than google.... you'll also find technical papers a lot quicker (like we used to back in the day before google decided to just show you stuff it thinks you will like - but I digress onto a different subject again!).
So yeah, a complete accurate, verified data set would be nice to analyse but Tesla are the only ones with that and arent going to release it.0 -
Mart/Joe, please excuse my lack of technical knowledge but I was wondering to what extent the reality of battery degradation was masked by oversizing and making more of the battery available as it degrades. Are your discussions taking this into account?
Please see below
The secret of longevity in the EV battery is oversizing and only operating in mid-range with plenty of “grace capacity” as spare in the upper and lower bands. Partial use reduces battery stress, but leaves valuable energy storage under-utilized. Oversizing also adds cost and weight, but this spare capacity will eventually get used when the capacity fades.
Charging the battery to only 80% and discharging to 20%, as is typically done on a new EV battery, only utilizes 60% of the capacity. As charge acceptance fades with use and time, the onboard BMS demands a higher charge and a lower discharge to meet the driving range. This adjustment remains unnoticed by the driver until a reduction in driving range is noticed. This occurs when the “grace capacity” is consumed.
https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/bu_1003a_battery_aging_in_an_electric_vehicle_evNorthern Lincolnshire. 7.8 kWp system, (4.2 kw west facing panels , 3.6 kw east facing), Solis inverters, Solar IBoost water heater, Mitsubishi SRK35ZS-S and SRK20ZS-S Wall Mounted Inverter Heat Pumps, ex Nissan Leaf owner)0 -
I thought you might mention the teslanomics video which was produced before the model 3 came out and using different technology.
The original data came with the caveat 'This chart and data are not provided by Tesla, Inc. and should not be used as true fact. Rather this is user generated content for infotainment purposes.'
The original teslanomics data display is at
https://www.teslarati.com/how-long-will-tesla-battery-last-degradation/
Its based on the dataset of dutch tesla forum owners by Maarten Steinbuch from 2015 https://www.daglievemensen.nl/tesla/maxrange.htm
No harm to anyone but thats a shocking number of early cars that had their batteries replaced.
Maarten did a series of charts and removed the automatically generated polynomial red lines (the data had some turning up after 50k km which really would change the laws of physics).
https://steinbuch.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/pluginamericadatakm1.jpg just has the data and if you take out the outliers then the chart is down as would be expected.
The data itself doesnt include SOC or any other measure, thats calculated later, just mileage displayed every time you fill up to 100% compared to rated mileage at 100% for the model.
Like working out mpg the better calculations would have been to compare maximum possible kwh charged at various intervals and use those relative values.
If we ignore the caveat it shows that earlier made tesla model S in particular had better capacity batteries and the newer made ones drop off a lot quicker. Look at the clusters, bad form to draw a line through any extremities. Particularly as looking at the original data a lot of people did the first year one and then didnt bother in subsequent years which makes the dataset a bit useless for the type of comparisons we are interested in.
The dataset is also corrupted by people filling the forms in yearly, some monthly, some random yet all being used as discrete points in the above video rather than charting the use per car.
Its based around forum participation so people have read about it years later so say come in with year 3 and 4 data but no original or year 1 data to compare it to (hence the reason for comparison to published figures rather than actual).
Lies, damn lies and statistics only works with complete statistics or a consistent dataset. I'll take the original entries word for it although theres no verification (although why would people lie in this sort of form? - would have been better being anonymous though).
The data does show what weve been talking about, if you want to maximise longevity then dont use superchargers daily and dont charge to 100%.
It also shows its pot luck about what the range is of your individual car is compared to the model. Saying that though the scant data for the model 3s I saw showed a consistent 4% drop in the first year, although again that could be someone putting it in 4 times as all the delivery dates were the same day (which is believeable).
Also try duck duck go, less confirmation bias searching than google.... you'll also find technical papers a lot quicker (like we used to back in the day before google decided to just show you stuff it thinks you will like - but I digress onto a different subject again!).
So yeah, a complete accurate, verified data set would be nice to analyse but Tesla are the only ones with that and arent going to release it.
A typical car only needs to do 150,000 miles in its entire life if it has 200 mile range that is 750 full cycles or about 1,500 half cycles. The technology is already there. Sure there will be capacity loss but the ranges are acceptable enough especially for urban areas. Maybe in a few years time you will even be able to add top up batteries to recover the range of the range is critical for you.
It's not range or power or capacity it's really just cost at this stage
They cost too much but prices will go down as there is a pathway to potentially get battery cell density to double what it is today.
As more BEVs are produced more investment in R&D for both battery technology but also battery manufacturing lines and robots will improve driving costs down.
Will BEVs get close enough to ICEs in cost?
In the premium and upper middle yes
In the lowest end no not anytime soon
As always regulation will play a huge part
BEVs are heavily subsidised in some places to the tune of >$10,000 per car
In the UK the 0% BIK and grant and no fuel taxes could be worth as much as £40,000 for a model X0 -
Mart/Joe, please excuse my lack of technical knowledge but I was wondering to what extent the reality of battery degradation was masked by oversizing and making more of the battery available as it degrades. Are your discussions taking this into account?
Please see below
The secret of longevity in the EV battery is oversizing and only operating in mid-range with plenty of “grace capacity” as spare in the upper and lower bands. Partial use reduces battery stress, but leaves valuable energy storage under-utilized. Oversizing also adds cost and weight, but this spare capacity will eventually get used when the capacity fades.
Charging the battery to only 80% and discharging to 20%, as is typically done on a new EV battery, only utilizes 60% of the capacity. As charge acceptance fades with use and time, the onboard BMS demands a higher charge and a lower discharge to meet the driving range. This adjustment remains unnoticed by the driver until a reduction in driving range is noticed. This occurs when the “grace capacity” is consumed.
https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/bu_1003a_battery_aging_in_an_electric_vehicle_ev
It's all about the cost per useable KWh
Everything else is acceptable or good at this point but will improve further
A 250 mile model 3 even if it lost 30% of its capacity eight years down the line is a very useable 175 mile range BEV
The second hand market can allocate these cars to their use case
So an e golf with 100 mile range down to 70 miles capacity eight years later could be purchased by a urban drivr who does 5,000 miles a year and doesn't leave London or as one of the second cars for a dual car family.
Costs need to improve and they will as there is a technical pathway to almost double energy density which can reduce mass by as much as 50% and costs perhaps 50% or more than 50%
Even with a 50% cost reduction BEV drivetrains would cost more than ICE drivetrain but this can be offset by cheaper electricity per mile Vs petrol per mile.
At least for the short to medium term BEVs have government purse on their side
Upto £40,000 tax breaks for a model S/X buyer0 -
So yeah, a complete accurate, verified data set would be nice to analyse but Tesla are the only ones with that and arent going to release it.
5,000 TM3 owners not enough for you?
So, less than 1% degradation per 10,000 miles.
Half the degradation of the TMS at 40k miles (approx 97.5% remaining v's 95.5%).
A leveling off of degradation around 25k miles.
Are you still confident about your 60% and accelerating degradation with time, claims?
Edit - @ Ken. I am taking account of size, so to speak, in that I'm assuming bigger batts going forward than the early Leaf's (for example). That's one of the reasons why I'm talking about today's Tesla's as a guide for 5yrs down the line. We can already see that many manufacturers seem to be aiming for around 60kWh batts (including the Leaf), which will naturally require less charging cycles for any given distance than a smaller battery.
Also, a bigger battery naturally lends itself to operating within the 20-80% range far more often.
Hopefully I'm not cheating by basing my responses on a forward looking position since the discussion/argument about BEV's and their viability going forward, should be a forward looking discussion, and whilst we should be aware of older and smaller tech, those results are important when reviewing yesterday, but largely irrelevant when considering tomorrow.
**Waffle warning** My position here reminds me of an old discussion we had on these threads when a poster claimed that PV panel output would degrade around 2%pa. But when I read the referenced study I found that the 2% figure was a catchall figure for all technologies and all ages. The report was very detailed, and they also gave a breakdown by technology and by 'pre' or 'post' 2000. The results for post 2000 mono silicon PV was 0.36%pa.Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW). Two A2A units for cleaner heating.
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
Martyn1981 wrote: »5,000 TM3 owners not enough for you?
So, less than 1% degradation per 10,000 miles.
Half the degradation of the TMS at 40k miles (approx 97.5% remaining v's 95.5%).
A leveling off of degradation around 25k miles.
Are you still confident about your 60% and accelerating degradation with time, claims?
Edit - @ Ken. I am taking account of size, so to speak, in that I'm assuming bigger batts going forward than the early Leaf's (for example). That's one of the reasons why I'm talking about today's Tesla's as a guide for 5yrs down the line. We can already see that many manufacturers seem to be aiming for around 60kWh batts (including the Leaf), which will naturally require less charging cycles for any given distance than a smaller battery.
Also, a bigger battery naturally lends itself to operating within the 20-80% range far more often.
Hopefully I'm not cheating by basing my responses on a forward looking position since the discussion/argument about BEV's and their viability going forward, should be a forward looking discussion, and whilst we should be aware of older and smaller tech, those results are important when reviewing yesterday, but largely irrelevant when considering tomorrow.
**Waffle warning** My position here reminds me of an old discussion we had on these threads when a poster claimed that PV panel output would degrade around 2%pa. But when I read the referenced study I found that the 2% figure was a catchall figure for all technologies and all ages. The report was very detailed, and they also gave a breakdown by technology and by 'pre' or 'post' 2000. The results for post 2000 mono silicon PV was 0.36%pa.
Thanks Mart. I don’t know if you had chance to have a read of the link I attached to my last post. If I understood it correctly, I think what it was suggesting is that the batteries installed by EV manufacturers (I don’t know if that includes Tesla) actually are capable of more range than one would see on the battery display. So when the battery on a new car is showing as charged to 100% it may only actually be charged to 80% but still gives the range anticipated. Something similar is happening with discharging when a new car may show 0% but still have charge left.
As the battery degrades the BMS makes more of the hidden battery available so the customer still gets similar or slightly reduced range. This goes on until the whole capacity of the battery is in use after which the customer will start to see a more rapid reduction in range. This not only gives the customer comfort that after say 3 years he has 97% of his battery remaining but enables the BMS to operate the battery in the optimum 20-80% range early in its life which is good for long term battery health.
Apologies if I have misunderstood that but I think we touched on something similar on the domestic battery thread.Northern Lincolnshire. 7.8 kWp system, (4.2 kw west facing panels , 3.6 kw east facing), Solis inverters, Solar IBoost water heater, Mitsubishi SRK35ZS-S and SRK20ZS-S Wall Mounted Inverter Heat Pumps, ex Nissan Leaf owner)0 -
The TM3 uses the 2170 cell which (allegedly) has a capacity of 17.3Wh
Std range (50kWh): 2976 x 17.3Wh = 51.5kWh
Long range (75kWh): 4416 x 17.3Wh = 76.4kWh4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141°) - 30° pitch - North LincsInstalled June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus & 3 x US2000C Batteries - 19.2kWh0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards