The Triumph of Bidenomics!

[rjs330]

The EV battery technology is still incredibly immature compared to ICE vehicles. I have no doubt it will continue to improve. But until such time that EVs provide comparable range and re-charge times at a comparable price to ICE vehicles, there will not be mass adoption.

You are correct. I purchase the new light bulbs now due to the cost advantage of longevity combined with current cost.

I suspect eventually EVs will come down to a reasonable level of cost and the longevity of the car and battery will increase. We will probably have faster and more charging stations which will add to the appeal.

Shoot, I'd buy an EV if I could afford one. I can't.

People don't just want and EV. They want a reliable affordable vehicle that satisfies their traveling needs. And EVs fail on that account right now. Maybe in another 10-15 years it will be much better. But by then it may be too late to save mother earth.

 

[probinson]

I find the last few posts about 100% charing interesting. On the one hand, you have people saying, sure, you can charge to 100% to gain that extra 20% of range. On the other hand, it takes nearly an hour if you choose to charge your Tesla to 100% vs. the 15 minutes that will add another 200 miles of range. So sure, you can charge to 100%, but it will take you 4x longer than the 15 minutes Tesla promises to get you to 80%.

So it's a bit of an academic discussion. No one is going to sit at a public charger for an extra 45 minutes to gain 20% more range. So again, the advertised ranges are overstated by about 20%, because even though you can do it, you're almost certainly not going to be recharging to 100% on a road trip. Maybe you'll start the trip with 100%, but you'll only be recharging to 80% while you're on the road, meaning you'll have 20% less range than advertised.

 

[probinson]

Not really no. And a lot has to do with the type of battery, what the Battery Management System (BMS) does to protect the battery and how effective it is, etc. For example, I can give you a recent quote where Tesla says it is ok to charge the battery to 100% daily; granted that is for an LFP (Lithium Iron) battery and not their longer range battery packs; plus the LFP battery packs also have less degradation. The disadvantage is they charge slower (at fast chargers) and are less energy dense.

Right. Which is why most people don't charge to 100%, and they set their charge limit to 80%, as Tesla recommends.

Yes, batteries are slower when charging the "top" of the battery.

MUCH slower.

Of course, if you checked out A Better Route Planner and the route we've talked about, you'll notice most of the time it doesn't even have you charge to 80%. Instead, it tries to have you get as quick a charge as possible and get back on the road to the next charger, coming in at a lower percentage so you can again charge quickly. It seems counter-intuitive, but shorter (maybe 150 miles) with extra charging stops is actually faster.

So the discussion of 100% charge is merely academic, since you're not going to be charging to 100% anyway.

Let's recap:

• Tesla recommends an 80% charge level for "daily driving" in their app.
• It's faster to NOT charge to 100% when on a road trip even if it requires extra charging stops.
• You can't take advantage of regenerative braking if you charge to 100%.

When exactly is it good to charge to 100%?

No, but it is the other 330+ days (or however many you are at home) per year.

So it's good for one use-case, but not so much for another. If only someone had said that at the beginning of this discussion...

They are oversimplified.

Thank goodness we have all of these experts here on the forum to correct all of the misinformation in these articles!

True, but on a daily basis you don't really miss that range. And, as he stated, if you need 100% on a particular day than you let your car charge to 100%.

Sure, as long as you're willing to take considerably longer to charge. All of the "quick" charge times fly right out the window if you need to charge to 100% while away from home.

It's also worth pointing out, the other reason why manufactures don't like 100% (as well as owners) is that regenerative braking doesn't work -- there is nowhere to store the energy created by regenerative braking when the battery is full -- so the car has to rely on the physical brake pads.

So again, you CAN charge to 100%, but you really shouldn't. There are a laundry list of reasons why. Which means that the advertised range of most EVs is effectively overstated by about 20%.

As your link suggests, the price of public charging can vary quite a bit, even in the same city.

Which is really mostly irrelevant on a road trip where you don't know where chargers are available, or you only have one choice. If you pull up to the charger and it says it's $0.50/kWh to charge and your car is at 5%, you really don't have a choice. It is quite feasible that you would pay more for electricity than gas on a road trip.

There are chargers in my city that are completely free to use, to include 50kW fast chargers. I think the cheapest Level 2 that have a charge, that I've seen are $0.15. Of course, I recall seeing one at a doctor's office where it charges by time, rather than kWh, and if you do the math it is very expensive, more than the fast chargers in the area.

So just like with gas stations, there are cheaper options than others. However, the idea that charging is absolutely less expensive than putting gas in an ICE vehicle is a myth. You have to be a savvy consumer and make sure that you're getting the best deal. You might actually have to drive further out of your way to get better rates, which may or may not be beneficial. You might choose, as I do, to pay extra money so that you save time.

 

[probinson]

It's not here yet. I can't say how long it is off; I don't claim to have a crystal ball or the gift of prophesy. I don't think it as far away as you think -- there are good reasons why most of those who have EVs (not to include those who dumped an EV because it wasn't just like their gas car) tend to love them and claim they won't go back to gas cars.

The people I know that have EVs do almost entirely local driving. Those people absolutely love them. If your driving generally keeps you within the radius of what your range allows to charge at home, then I agree they are great. It's when you want to go further than your at-home charge can take you that it starts to become an issue (if you even have a home where you can charge), and until that is resolved, mass adoption will remain elusive.

 

[rambot]

I find the last few posts about 100% charing interesting. On the one hand, you have people saying, sure, you can charge to 100% to gain that extra 20% of range. On the other hand, it takes nearly an hour if you choose to charge your Tesla to 100% vs. the 15 minutes that will add another 200 miles of range. So sure, you can charge to 100%, but it will take you 4x longer than the 15 minutes Tesla promises to get you to 80%.

So it's a bit of an academic discussion. No one is going to sit at a public charger for an extra 45 minutes to gain 20% more range. So again, the advertised ranges are overstated by about 20%, because even though you can do it, you're almost certainly not going to be recharging to 100% on a road trip. Maybe you'll start the trip with 100%, but you'll only be recharging to 80% while you're on the road, meaning you'll have 20% less range than advertised.

Well no. Most of the folks I know who have long distance travelled with their EV always charge it up to 100% (unless they only had a BIT to go to get to their destination).

These are the kinds of folks who will look for ANY excuse to take out a book and read and be totally content though.

 

[SimplyMe]

Right. Which is why most people don't charge to 100%, and they set their charge limit to 80%, as Tesla recommends.



MUCH slower.



So the discussion of 100% charge is merely academic, since you're not going to be charging to 100% anyway.

Let's recap:

• Tesla recommends an 80% charge level for "daily driving" in their app.
• It's faster to NOT charge to 100% when on a road trip even if it requires extra charging stops.
• You can't take advantage of regenerative braking if you charge to 100%.

When exactly is it good to charge to 100%?

You keep trying to act as if road trips are the only time you charge your car. When most people charge to 100% is at home, say like just before they leave on a road trip. There is no "longer charging time" going to 100% when charging at home, since you are "slow charging" anyway. Additionally, if you are stopping overnight, then if you find a hotel with charging you can again charge to 100% overnight.

So it's good for one use-case, but not so much for another. If only someone had said that at the beginning of this discussion...



Thank goodness we have all of these experts here on the forum to correct all of the misinformation in these articles!



Sure, as long as you're willing to take considerably longer to charge. All of the "quick" charge times fly right out the window if you need to charge to 100% while away from home.

Again, it is rare you'd even want to go to 100% when away from home. As I mentioned, on a road trip you often don't even want to go all the way to 80%, other than if you are stopping for longer.

So again, you CAN charge to 100%, but you really shouldn't. There are a laundry list of reasons why. Which means that the advertised range of most EVs is effectively overstated by about 20%.

No, you can charge to 100% -- again, there are clear instructions that I should charge to 100% once a month. What you typically don't want is to let the battery sit at 100%.

Which is really mostly irrelevant on a road trip where you don't know where chargers are available, or you only have one choice. If you pull up to the charger and it says it's $0.50/kWh to charge and your car is at 5%, you really don't have a choice. It is quite feasible that you would pay more for electricity than gas on a road trip.



So just like with gas stations, there are cheaper options than others. However, the idea that charging is absolutely less expensive than putting gas in an ICE vehicle is a myth. You have to be a savvy consumer and make sure that you're getting the best deal. You might actually have to drive further out of your way to get better rates, which may or may not be beneficial. You might choose, as I do, to pay extra money so that you save time.

Again, you are completely ignoring that, at least for most, they'll be charging at home most often -- so even if they pay a couple of dollars more on a road trip in electricity (which you do just to avoid a 5 minute line at a cheaper gas station) -- it is still far cheaper for all of the charging done in a year. And, yes, with a bit of planning, you can decrease the cost of charging on a road trip by trying to plan stops and stop at cheaper chargers (you can see the prices in advance); and that is something I've done in the past with gas stations on road trips in an ICE car.

 

[Paul Shunamon]

The supposedly-left-wing media seems to be doing a great job of discussing Biden's age, but not such a great job covering the stunning success of Bidenomics. Here are some numbers grudgingly reported by the right-wing media.

Inflation is receding and even reversing!

https://www.wsj.com/economy/goods-deflation-is-back-it-could-speed-inflations-return-to-2-c782d434?st=tyypnprf9k8adhu&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Prices for long-lasting items, known as durable goods, have fallen on a year-over-year basis for five straight months. In October, they were down 2.6% from their peak in September 2022, according to data released Thursday by the Commerce Department. That has helped bring down core inflation, which excludes the volatile food and energy categories, to 3.5% in October, from 5.5% in September 2022, as measured by the personal-consumption expenditures price index, the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge.

The economy is growing at the amazing pace of 5.2%!

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-jones-11-29-2023/card/economy-grew-faster-than-thought-in-q3-but-slowdown-expected-CivDqG8scwqDUnP0qZSh

The economy grew faster than previously estimated during the third quarter—at a blistering seasonally- and inflation-adjusted 5.2% annual rate—because there was more fixed investment as well as state and local government spending than initially thought, the Commerce Department said Wednesday.

Even with the UAW strike, job creation is solid. Fears of a recession are disappearing.

US labor market loosens as job gains slow, unemployment rate hits 3.9%​

• Nonfarm payrolls increase 150,000 in October
• Auto strikes reduce payrolls by 33,000 jobs
• Unemployment rate rises to 3.9% from 3.8%
• Average hourly earnings gain 0.2%; up 4.1% year-on-year

The economy added 101,000 fewer jobs in August and September than previously estimated, also suggesting slowing labor market momentum. The report strengthened financial market expectations that the Federal Reserve is done raising interest rates for the current cycle, and improved the chances of the U.S. central bank engineering a "soft-landing" for the economy rather than plunging it into recession as some economists had feared.

Manufacturing employment dropped 35,000, with the UAW strike at Ford Motor (F.N), General Motors (GM.N) and Chrysler parent Stellantis (STLAM.MI) factories as well as at Mack Trucks plants subtracting 33,000 jobs.


Seriously, there isn't much to complain about where the economy is concerned. But you have to go looking for the information.

Unemployment has been at a record low now for 25 months straight. No complaints here.

 

[rambot]

The people I know that have EVs do almost entirely local driving. Those people absolutely love them. If your driving generally keeps you within the radius of what your range allows to charge at home, then I agree they are great. It's when you want to go further than your at-home charge can take you that it starts to become an issue (if you even have a home where you can charge), and until that is resolved, mass adoption will remain elusive.

I ALSO know an EV user who rents an ICE car when they go on long trips.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not accurate. You can charge to 100% as necessary.

Ok.

As explained, the 80% rule means you don't leave it fully charged for long periods.

Fully charged being 100%?

So you can fully charge the battery....but you shouldn't keep it fully charged?

Nobody is saying you should never charge to 100%.

Just don't keep it at 100%??

There is a meme floating around social media combining fast charging prices, which are higher than level 2, but quoting level 2 charging times, which are much longer, and coming up with an outrageous amount of money and time for a charge.

I don't really follow EV memes....I doubt anyone else here does either.

They've deliberately used wrong information to disseminate a lie,

Hmmm.

which (as the saying goes), gets halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on.

You understand that's a statement about people not lies....right?

Your post here is leaning on that direction.

I think you're being overly cynical.

I'd love it if EVs would perform at the level and cost of ICEs....but they don't.

I'd like it if they existed, and everyone worldwide were going to adopt these superior EVs that don't yet exist....and it was going to prevent climate change....

But those are all lies....they don't yet outperform ICEs and they aren't so clean for the environment and even if they were.....it wouldn't prevent climate change.

The reason why lies travel so fast is because people want to believe them. Truth on the other hand, isn't as emotionally satisfying. Anyone who ever knew a hard-core vegan can see this principle in real time.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I find the last few posts about 100% charing interesting. On the one hand, you have people saying, sure, you can charge to 100% to gain that extra 20% of range. On the other hand, it takes nearly an hour if you choose to charge your Tesla to 100% vs. the 15 minutes that will add another 200 miles of range. So sure, you can charge to 100%, but it will take you 4x longer than the 15 minutes Tesla promises to get you to 80%.

So it's a bit of an academic discussion. No one is going to sit at a public charger for an extra 45 minutes to gain 20% more range. So again, the advertised ranges are overstated by about 20%, because even though you can do it, you're almost certainly not going to be recharging to 100% on a road trip. Maybe you'll start the trip with 100%, but you'll only be recharging to 80% while you're on the road, meaning you'll have 20% less range than advertised.

This was my understanding of the "fast-charging" stations as well. That despite whatever is advertised....people road testing these things for trips across or out of state don't seem to think very highly of them. The charge times I've seen are definitely in the 30 minute range....and it's not so much cheaper than gasoline that it's worth it to me. If it takes 6 times as long to fill my "tank" it needs to be 6 times cheaper or drive 3-4 times the distance imo.

Nobody points out that another factor is the passengers. If you drive around a family of 4 regularly....you're losing range. If you and your spouse weigh 400lbs....you're losing range.

EVs just aren't some great leap forward. I'm not telling anyone not to buy them....by all means, buy one if it seems like a good purchase. I'm all for free market competition.

This administration however, wants to remove ICEs from the marketplace and that will be like slamming the brakes on EV technological improvements.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You keep trying to act as if road trips are the only time you charge your car. When most people charge to 100% is at home, say like just before they leave on a road trip. There is no "longer charging time" going to 100% when charging at home, since you are "slow charging" anyway. Additionally, if you are stopping overnight, then if you find a hotel with charging you can again charge to 100% overnight.



Again, it is rare you'd even want to go to 100% when away from home. As I mentioned, on a road trip you often don't even want to go all the way to 80%, other than if you are stopping for longer.



No, you can charge to 100% -- again, there are clear instructions that I should charge to 100% once a month. What you typically don't want is to let the battery sit at 100%.



Again, you are completely ignoring that, at least for most, they'll be charging at home most often -- so even if they pay a couple of dollars more on a road trip in electricity (which you do just to avoid a 5 minute line at a cheaper gas station) -- it is still far cheaper for all of the charging done in a year. And, yes, with a bit of planning, you can decrease the cost of charging on a road trip by trying to plan stops and stop at cheaper chargers (you can see the prices in advance); and that is something I've done in the past with gas stations on road trips in an ICE car.

I understand that "charging at home" is cheaper....clearly.

Out of curiosity though, what sort of increase do you see in your electric bill from home charging? You don't have to break it down by day....I'm just curious about the monthly increase.

 

[MotoToTheMax]

I understand that "charging at home" is cheaper....clearly.

Out of curiosity though, what sort of increase do you see in your electric bill from home charging? You don't have to break it down by day....I'm just curious about the monthly increase.

Ours was about $20 a month, after we used up all our solar credit in the winter. Now we're over generating again so the bill is back to $10, the grid hookup fee.

 

[probinson]

You keep trying to act as if road trips are the only time you charge your car.

I've never even insinuated such a thing.

When most people charge to 100% is at home, say like just before they leave on a road trip.

Right. So they get the full range for the first leg of their trip, and then 80% range for the remaining stops.

There is no "longer charging time" going to 100% when charging at home, since you are "slow charging" anyway.

There is. It just doesn't matter because you're charging while doing other things.

Additionally, if you are stopping overnight, then if you find a hotel with charging you can again charge to 100% overnight.

Yes, IF you stop overnight and IF the hotel you choose has a charger available, you can once again choose to juice up to 100% for the first leg of your trip in the morning.

Again, it is rare you'd even want to go to 100% when away from home.

Agreed. Which is why I said that the ranges are effectively overstated by 20%.

No, you can charge to 100% -- again, there are clear instructions that I should charge to 100% once a month. What you typically don't want is to let the battery sit at 100%.

If you CAN charge to 100% but you SHOULDN'T under most circumstances, then your range is effectively 20% less than advertised.

Again, you are completely ignoring that, at least for most, they'll be charging at home most often

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm talking about road trips and you keep talking about local driving. I've already acknowledged multiple times that if your main use-case for a car is local driving, an EV makes perfect sense. But EVs present challenges and inconveniences for longer trips.

-- so even if they pay a couple of dollars more on a road trip in electricity (which you do just to avoid a 5 minute line at a cheaper gas station) -- it is still far cheaper for all of the charging done in a year.

Let's see how much...

My current home electricity rate is around $0.17/kWh. With a 77.4 kWh battery, that means it would cost me about $13.16 to fully charge. If I use Kia's advertised range of 252 miles for the EV6 AWD, it would effectively cost me $0.05/mile when charging at home.

My K5 has a 15.8 gallon gas tank. I just got gas Sunday and it was $3.25/gal. That means it would cost me $51.35 to fill up from completely empty. Obviously mileage varies, but the Kia typically reports that I can go about 450 miles on a tank. So it effectively costs $0.11/mile to put gas in my car.

So in my case at current prices, if I charged entirely at home and NEVER paid the higher prices at public chargers, I would save about $0.06/mile. Whether or not you consider that "far cheaper" would depend on how many miles you drive and what energy prices (both gas and electric) do. In the past 2 years, I've put 15k miles on my car each year. If I saved $0.06/mile, that would represent a savings of $900 annually. I think we've come to the agreement that most EVs cost a minimum of $10k more than their ICE counterparts. So if I save $900/year on gas, it would take me over 11 years to reach my break even point.

These numbers obviously are affected by a number of factors and are pretty basic, but the idea that it is "far cheaper" to own an EV is simply not the case for many people. The payback can be >10 years in gas savings.

 

[probinson]

I understand that "charging at home" is cheaper....clearly.

Out of curiosity though, what sort of increase do you see in your electric bill from home charging? You don't have to break it down by day....I'm just curious about the monthly increase.

You can easily estimate this. Just look at your electric bill and see what your current rate is. Then multiply that by the kWh of the EV battery, and that will tell you how much it would cost to charge your car from 0-100. Of course, you're almost NEVER going to be charging from 0, so you'd have to estimate how much charge you anticipate depleting each day.

Here's an article that says the typical American EV owner uses 336.9 kWh per month charging their vehicle. At my current electric rate of $0.17/kWh, that means my electric bill would increase $57.27/month.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just anecdotal, at the moment.

Let's just call our respective anecdotes a wash then....fair?

I'm sure you concede the possibility of relatively minor damage resulting in an expensive total battery replacement...and I'll concede these incidents are possibly as rare as an unarmed black man being shot and killed by the police.

For much the same thing it is in a gas vehicle;

Batteries are in gas vehicles because they don't have a big pile of stored electricity to run all the electrics lol.

It is also something of a safety feature,

A second battery is a safety feature?

that the traction battery does not have to be connected to the car when it is off -- at one point the traction battery was completely disconnected from the car when the car was off -- done to prevent the battery from catching fire or other issues when the car wasn't attended. Since the batteries have proven to not be a hazard, they do more or less "shut down" when the car is off but can be reconnected if the 12V battery needs to be recharged (since security systems, keyless entry, and other newer features run down the 12V while the car is off).

So it was implemented as something of a safety feature but now simply reduces the longer term battery wear by running a portion (or all) of the non-transport electrics?

Former conservative, currently a Centrist fed up with both major parties.

Hey former left leaning centrist here....fed up with essentially all parties, and political labels.

If anyone demands a label of me in political discussions so they can "have an idea where I'm coming from" (which is never why they demand a label) I tend to declare myself a radical pragmatist. This tends to get less glares than Radically Anthropogenic Pragmatically Egalitarian....ist.

I could probably give other arguments but just don't care, as I say, I tend to stay out of those debates. OTOH, an easy one from the Right is "election fraud;" all the claims currently are based on "feels" with no evidence.

Sure...

Not to say there aren't examples of fraud of course or that we catch it all....but no one on the right should still believe that the last presidential election would have had a different outcome if not for voter fraud.

It's a bit like the claim of "intergenerational trauma" on the left. Obviously I'm not referring to the legitimate concept of an alcoholic father beating his son which increases the son's likelihood of drinking and beating his own son....

But rather, the magical concept of "bad things happen to group A, and as a result, children and grandchildren of group A carry some DNA alteration which impacts their outcomes in society."

Again, the Democrats were merely asking for an investigation, and it would have been smarter to give it to them.

To my knowledge, it was given and concluded. No crimes were accused....they were essentially investigating the happenings of a party 30 years old. The conclusion was that Kavanaugh's accuser was the only one who could recall him being present.

After all, when the FBI comes back and say there was zero evidence -- that he didn't appear to even be at the party -- it shuts down all the arguments of rape and whatever else.

Again, if I remember correctly....that's basically what the FBI said. It did not do much for shutting down accusations. It's been a few years now, but if I recall correctly...the accusations then were directed at the FBI themselves for some lack of effort or something similar.

To be honest, it sounds like they were off-roading on something of a rough dirt/rock road. The top of the car was high enough as they went over the rock but, after the rock got over the battery pack, one (or both) of the front tires went into a hole (or off another rock) dropping the car onto the rock. I'd love to know the exact circumstances, how fast they were driving, etc -- it honestly seems like they were being idiots (driving fast enough that caused the force to allow the rock to penetrate the thick metal plate, and other materials, and get to the battery. I'd also state that most of the protection for the battery is going to be with side impacts -- where you would expect from collisions. The bottom is a thick metal, with typically a plastic container for the battery cells above -- which is designed to protect against common road hazards, not off-roading. As you pointed out, it is unlikely they drove over the rock on the road (would have damaged the front).

Possibly, I'll admit I didn't consider the possibility of someone taking the Tesla off road. I've seen dumber things though. As I said, I'm willing to concede it's possibly a super rare instance....if you're concede it's possible....since we both only have anecdotes that seems all we're likely to convince each other of.

Though I will state that it is possible EVs are totaled more often for a "lesser" (but still considerable) accident. One of the anecdotal claims I've heard -- and I can't even claim it is industry wide or just a particular insurance company -- is that if the price of the accident is close to where they might consider totaling the car, if it is an EV they will total it out of caution -- that even though the battery doesn't appear damaged, they fell it is safer in the long run to total the car than to risk having the car repaired and, only after spending thousands, find out the battery had been damaged. As I said, anecdotal but makes a certain amount of sense.

I agree...and could see that being an unspoken guideline/policy.

Regardless, I'd suggest that Comprehensive insurance is a great idea for an EV, particularly for the few dollars it costs. It solves the battery damaged by a rock issue.

I'll also state that battery repairs can be a lot cheaper. As noted, those traction batteries are typically made up of lots of cells, little batteries wired together. Typically when a battery fails, it is one (or a small group) that have failed -- so you can fix the battery pack just by replacing those few cells. They also "refurbish" the old cells that are remaining, making the entire battery close to new condition. I don't fully understand it but it is an interesting technology, and those types of businesses are just taking off (and prices will likely come down as they become more common).

Let's hope so.

Pretty sure the Tesla still has two batteries, just that the 12V is a lithium ion and still in roughly the same spot as the old 12V battery sat.

I checked....but it's not something I'm certain on anymore because "how many batteries" is turning up more results than I care to look over.

Hyundai is the first company that did something similar, that I'm aware of -- in their hybrid cars they left one of the cells for the hybrid battery unconnected from the rest of the battery, and used that cell as the 12V battery. Those Hyundai's have a button on the dashboard for when the car doesn't start -- the button recharges the 12V lithium cell so the car will start. Again, too many parts of a car are based on a 12V architecture, over the last 70 years, and don't make sense to make them 400v -- so EVs still have that same 12V architecture for lights, wipers, horn, computers, etc.



What most studies I've seen have found is that the battery will deteriorate faster for the fast year or two -- maybe 1 to 2% per year -- and after that the deterioration settles down.

That's interesting. Basically the opposite of the ten year study I linked?

By "settles down" I'm assuming you mean degrades at a relatively steady pace that's...low.

Tesla has done a couple of studies of their cars at 200,000 miles that show between a 10 and 12% degradation.

I'd be curious if Tesla is running those studies indoors.

 

[SimplyMe]

This was my understanding of the "fast-charging" stations as well. That despite whatever is advertised....people road testing these things for trips across or out of state don't seem to think very highly of them.

It is worth pointing out that most of the charging stations, that were not Tesla, were built by Electrify America. For those not aware, part of Volkswagen's punishment for "diesel gate" in the US was to invest a couple of billion dollars into charging stations. If you believe the "conspiracy theories," VW didn't care when they set up Electrify American, they basically used the money to put a bunch of fast chargers across the country but didn't care about how long they'd last, about repairing them when they broke, etc.

What I've seen, that seems somewhat more accurate, is that Electrify American was pioneering fast charging in the US in many ways -- at least in terms of CCS charging (which is what every but Tesla used to use). They also had a deadline to get the chargers built in order to meet the requirements of the VW settlement, so they did hurry and put most of their money in building out the network. It was this that led to many problems, including the fact that they built out the network when there were few EVs; so very little money was being made from people charging.

So, with little money to support the chargers, EA got behind on maintenance and was slow to fix broken chargers -- at least until they started to get more money. Additionally, they bought chargers from a few different companies, since they were on a "fast track" timeline, which complicates the issue of getting the units repaired, and they were often "cheaper" units that were more prone to failure -- but it added the complication of having technicians with the proper qualifications show up at the site based on which units that station had and doing it in a timely manner.

In some ways EA's issues were made better by their agreements with various car companies, where companies gave them upfront money to give "free charging" to customers who bought their cars. I know VW offered three years of free EA charging with the purchase of a new EV; Hyundai gave a couple of years free with the purchase of an EV, etc. So this gave EA cash it needed but, at the same time, put a large strain on their chargers as all these new EV owners were using their free charging. Since then Siemens has become a minority investor in EA, so EA finally got some added cash that could actually be used to "catch up," and many of those free charging deals are now expiring. At the same time, there are serious competitors to EA -- as mentioned in this thread EVgo, and then Ford has teamed up with Xcel Energy to install charging stations, Rivian is installing charging stations, Mercedes is building charging stations (including some located at Buc-ee's, I believe they've teamed with ChargePoint), Shell (the oil company), and others -- and the manufacturer charging stations are available for any EV to use.

Last, the Tesla charging standard, now called the North American Charging Standard (NACS) has become the accepted charging standard in the US and Tesla chargers, which have rarely ever had complaints, will largely be opened to all EVs; including current EVs with CCS plugs where they will use an adapter to use the Tesla chargers.

I know, likely far more than you wanted to know -- but the complaints have been about CCS and those seem to be improving, though it won't really matter as cars (and other charging companies) switch over to the NACS standard.

The charge times I've seen are definitely in the 30 minute range....and it's not so much cheaper than gasoline that it's worth it to me. If it takes 6 times as long to fill my "tank" it needs to be 6 times cheaper or drive 3-4 times the distance imo.

It depends on the car, there are definitely differences. Because of how the conversation seemed to have stated, with comparisons of how much less a Kia ICE sedan cost than their CUV EV -- much of the conversation has revolved around the Hyundai/Kia/Genesis cars based on their Electric Global Modular Platform (E-GMP) which can charge from around 10-80% in 18 minutes -- and that is an accurate time on a 300kW charger. The others that can do this on CCS tend to be "high end" cars -- such as the Porsche Taycan and (I believe) the German Luxury sedans. Current Teslas can also charge quickly, though they slow down more after about 50% of charge.

There are a lot of cars that charge in the 150 to 200kW range. GM's new Ultium platform (which all their current EVs are built on, and also the Honda Prologue, somewhat oddly) can charge at 200kW. I think Fords 2024 EVs can charge around 190kW, the VWs I believe are around 170kW -- basically most of the long range EVs can charge 150kW or faster. The one exception to this was the Chevy Bolt, which was limited to around 60kW; though it is sold out, not being built this year, and next year will be built on the Ultium platform.

I could get into "charging curves" -- which is how long a car will maintain its peak charging rate at a fast charger, and then how quickly it slows charging after 10-ish minutes of sustained peak charging but I think that is more information than you probably want. Suffice it to say, that peak speed isn't the only qualification for how fast a car charges, but also how long it stays near that top speed. The complaint about how long some EVs have taken to charge is often because they advertise a fast peak charging rate, but quickly ramp the speed downward, so the charge takes much longer than they expected.

Nobody points out that another factor is the passengers. If you drive around a family of 4 regularly....you're losing range. If you and your spouse weigh 400lbs....you're losing range.

Again, this is as true for gas engines as for EVs -- just that the gas tank is much larger. At the same time, I can't help but feel this is overrated; as pointed out, the EV is likely, at least, 4,000 lbs. Adding an extra 200 pounds to that is only adding 5% to the total weight. I could also point out that the weight of gasoline is over 6 lbs per gallon; so if the fuel tank holds 20 gallons, having a full tank is about like having an extra adult in the car.

EVs just aren't some great leap forward. I'm not telling anyone not to buy them....by all means, buy one if it seems like a good purchase. I'm all for free market competition.

This administration however, wants to remove ICEs from the marketplace and that will be like slamming the brakes on EV technological improvements.

Sorry, this makes no sense to me. How does removing ICE cars stop EV improvements? You don't think Toyota wants to make their EVs faster, cheaper, and lighter than Teslas? You don't think GM will invest in EV technology because they want their EVs to be better than Fords?

On top of this, in Japan (to include Toyota and Honda) is focusing on hydrogen powered cars. There are some issues to be solved, in large part because it currently tends to use more power to isolate hydrogen than the power you get from that hydrogen. And, you mentioned the issues with batteries, imagine the issue with a fuel tank filled with hydrogen (a potential bomb in your car). The Japanese believe they can make it work better, and before EVs are "perfected." So even if ICE cars are removed from the market, there will still be alternative technologies to push EV makers to drastically improve the technology.

 

[SimplyMe]

I've never even insinuated such a thing.

You have, repeatedly (though perhaps not intentionally), by focusing so much on how charging on a road trip wasn't any cheaper than gasoline -- and the clear implication that an EV doesn't save you any money.

Right. So they get the full range for the first leg of their trip, and then 80% range for the remaining stops.

As I stated, the best way is not to charge to 80% at a fast charger -- unless the next charger you want to go to is that far away; and if that is the case, you can still charge to 100% (though you will get the time penalty).

There is. It just doesn't matter because you're charging while doing other things.

No, at least not the way you've talked about 100% on a DC fast charger. The "charging curve" on pretty much all EVs drastically reduces the charging speed once you get above about 90% on a DC (fast) charger. On an AC (slow) charger, regardless of either a 110V or 220V, you are already charging substantially slower so the charging speed does not drastically go down -- it stays around the same speed right up to around 99%.

Yes, IF you stop overnight and IF the hotel you choose has a charger available, you can once again choose to juice up to 100% for the first leg of your trip in the morning.

Exactly.

Agreed. Which is why I said that the ranges are effectively overstated by 20%.

Yes, and no. My car, as of this morning, claimed a range of 265 miles at 80%; the amount of miles it claims it can go uses how efficiently you've been driving. I then drove slightly over 25 miles (maybe 26?) today. Unless I'm taking a trip, I never drive even 200 miles in a day. Now, if there was a day I did need to drive over 200 miles, then I could easily charge to 100% before leaving and I'd have my full range.

To use another analogy, think of your cell phone. I personally use the option to limit how much my phone will charge -- only to 80% -- because I want my battery to last, in case I decide to keep my phone for a few years (it doesn't seem like much improvement each year to phones now). OTOH, I know people who plan on replacing their phone next year -- just like they do every year -- and they think it is ludicrous that the option even exists.

You mentioned earlier that you thought it was stupid to lease an EV -- but that is one reason I've heard people lease. These same people that don't try to take care of the battery in their phone, because they'll buy a new one, want to charge their car to 100% every day -- so they lease the car so they can just turn it back in and not worry about the battery degrading. Of course, in some cases it isn't just about the battery, but the idea that EVs are still advancing quickly and, in three years, they expect a new EV will have more range, faster charging, etc; and this way they aren't stuck owning an outdated EV.

So, yes, if you follow recommendations, then you can argue that EV range is "effectively overstated by 20%." OTOH, just as we know you don't follow the recommendations of experts who claim you should take frequent breaks while traveling long distance, there are those who don't want the 80% limit in their car and ignore the recommendations. And, like me, for most people following the recommendations doesn't make a difference, since they only need the full range a few times a year.

If you CAN charge to 100% but you SHOULDN'T under most circumstances, then your range is effectively 20% less than advertised.



I'm not ignoring anything. I'm talking about road trips and you keep talking about local driving. I've already acknowledged multiple times that if your main use-case for a car is local driving, an EV makes perfect sense. But EVs present challenges and inconveniences for longer trips.

But, again, most people take one of two road trips a year -- and typically if it is close to a thousand miles they'll fly anyway (or many will). 95% of driving for most people is local. I suspect that even with you, 90% of the time you get up in the morning it is at your home.

Let's see how much...

My current home electricity rate is around $0.17/kWh. With a 77.4 kWh battery, that means it would cost me about $13.16 to fully charge. If I use Kia's advertised range of 252 miles for the EV6 AWD, it would effectively cost me $0.05/mile when charging at home.

My K5 has a 15.8 gallon gas tank. I just got gas Sunday and it was $3.25/gal. That means it would cost me $51.35 to fill up from completely empty. Obviously mileage varies, but the Kia typically reports that I can go about 450 miles on a tank. So it effectively costs $0.11/mile to put gas in my car.

So in my case at current prices, if I charged entirely at home and NEVER paid the higher prices at public chargers, I would save about $0.06/mile. Whether or not you consider that "far cheaper" would depend on how many miles you drive and what energy prices (both gas and electric) do. In the past 2 years, I've put 15k miles on my car each year. If I saved $0.06/mile, that would represent a savings of $900 annually. I think we've come to the agreement that most EVs cost a minimum of $10k more than their ICE counterparts. So if I save $900/year on gas, it would take me over 11 years to reach my break even point.

Nope, what we seem to have found -- if you actually compare equivalent cars -- the difference is as much as around $10K, not the minimum.

These numbers obviously are affected by a number of factors and are pretty basic, but the idea that it is "far cheaper" to own an EV is simply not the case for many people. The payback can be >10 years in gas savings.

I'm sorry, I didn't claim the EV was "far cheaper." I said the cost of "fueling" the car was far cheaper for the EV, over a year, than for a gas car -- though to keep you happy I'll add the caveat that you must have a place where you can charge the car each night. Please don't take my comments out of context.

 

[SimplyMe]

Let's just call our respective anecdotes a wash then....fair?

I'm sure you concede the possibility of relatively minor damage resulting in an expensive total battery replacement...and I'll concede these incidents are possibly as rare as an unarmed black man being shot and killed by the police.




Batteries are in gas vehicles because they don't have a big pile of stored electricity to run all the electrics lol.




A second battery is a safety feature?

It was, at one point, but also an efficiency feature. Again, it was much easier to keep a 12V electrical system that was developed for gas cars than to create a whole new set of accessories for a Hybrid, and for a Plug-In Hybrid, and for an EV -- and likely different ones for each of them. For example, a hybrid car typically has a battery of around 200V, for a PHEV it is likely about 400V, and for an EV they are typically running between 400 and 800V. Rather than create a 200V headlight, radio, windshield wiper, horn, instrument cluster, etc; plus then the same for 400V, and then possibly again for them to run on 800V -- it was far easier (and less dangerous than to have these high voltages running all over your car) to just use the 12V versions that are fairly standard, cheap, and easy to replace if needed (particularly with the lights). Not to mention, the 12V copies of those items run more efficiently than what a 400V likely would.

So it was implemented as something of a safety feature but now simply reduces the longer term battery wear by running a portion (or all) of the non-transport electrics?





Hey former left leaning centrist here....fed up with essentially all parties, and political labels.

If anyone demands a label of me in political discussions so they can "have an idea where I'm coming from" (which is never why they demand a label) I tend to declare myself a radical pragmatist. This tends to get less glares than Radically Anthropogenic Pragmatically Egalitarian....ist.



Sure...

Not to say there aren't examples of fraud of course or that we catch it all....but no one on the right should still believe that the last presidential election would have had a different outcome if not for voter fraud.

It's a bit like the claim of "intergenerational trauma" on the left. Obviously I'm not referring to the legitimate concept of an alcoholic father beating his son which increases the son's likelihood of drinking and beating his own son....

But rather, the magical concept of "bad things happen to group A, and as a result, children and grandchildren of group A carry some DNA alteration which impacts their outcomes in society."




To my knowledge, it was given and concluded. No crimes were accused....they were essentially investigating the happenings of a party 30 years old. The conclusion was that Kavanaugh's accuser was the only one who could recall him being present.




Again, if I remember correctly....that's basically what the FBI said. It did not do much for shutting down accusations. It's been a few years now, but if I recall correctly...the accusations then were directed at the FBI themselves for some lack of effort or something similar.



Possibly, I'll admit I didn't consider the possibility of someone taking the Tesla off road. I've seen dumber things though. As I said, I'm willing to concede it's possibly a super rare instance....if you're concede it's possible....since we both only have anecdotes that seems all we're likely to convince each other of.




I agree...and could see that being an unspoken guideline/policy.



Let's hope so.

I think the real question with batteries is how much better they will become over the next several years. For example, I heard a story today about a Chinese car company that has developed a new battery chemistry that will be about 10% more "energy dense" -- meaning the battery can be 10% lighter but still hold the same amount of power as the current battery.

I think I'd likely support a regulation to require battery packs in EV to be easily "serviceable," though there is likely a better way to say what I mean; and ultimately it really comes down to "right to repair" laws. The example, though, is that currently Tesla essentially uses an epoxy to glue the battery cells into the main battery -- making it difficult to take the battery apart to service it; though Tesla apparently has a proprietary method to remove the epoxy so that they can service it.

I checked....but it's not something I'm certain on anymore because "how many batteries" is turning up more results than I care to look over.





That's interesting. Basically the opposite of the ten year study I linked?

By "settles down" I'm assuming you mean degrades at a relatively steady pace that's...low.

Yes. This is Tesla's 2019 study that talked about battery degradation. There is a graph that shows the degradation and, while my reading of it might be slightly off, it appears after about 50,000 miles they are showing a battery degradation of about 3%, at about 100,000 miles they are showing about 6%, but shortly after 100,000 miles the curve flattens; so at 200,000 miles it is only about a 10% degradation.

The 2022 study is similar, though they are showing a 12% degradation at 200,000 miles; but the curve looks very similar -- the more miles the flatter the curve gets (the graph is on page 39).

And, to give you a source other than Tesla, cars.com has a page about degradation in EVs -- using information from Recurrent (who monitors degradation in used EVs). Their article quotes the Recurrent CEO, "Across all of the EV models that we track in the US, there is a noticeable S curve in the data, where cars lose a few percentage points of range from their original EPA estimate relatively quickly, generally in the first two years, then range loss levels off for the next several years as the battery stabilizes. After five years, it is common to see a 5-10% drop in range."

Again, from what I believe I'm seeing from what I've looked at, as EVs Battery Management Systems improve -- to include how well it can heat/cool the battery as needed -- the less degradation there is.

I'd be curious if Tesla is running those studies indoors.

It appears to be from customers vehicles. While one of the features Tesla uses as a selling point is the constantly updated software, at times even adding new features to older cars -- it also allows Tesla to "peek" under the hood of customer's cars and pull information such as this. To be fair, Tesla isn't the only car company doing this, just that they are likely the best at it. There is a reason that many (even most) new cars come with Telematics, that allow you to unlock your car, remote start it, set speed limits for a teen driver, etc; but also allows the manufacturer to get data from your car.

 

[NxNW]

Sure, if you want to shorten the life of your battery.

This is false.

There's a reason Tesla (and most other manufacturers) recommend you only charge your battery to 80%.

Except they're not saying that.

Are all of these articles wrong?

Either your articles are right-wing propaganda, or they don't say what you say they say.

If you charge your battery to 80%, you have 20% less range. It's not exactly rocket science.

Nobody is claiming otherwise.

Actually, they are.

No, they're really not.

In fact, most EVs allow you to set a charge limit so that your car NEVER charges above the limit you set. Bonus points if you can guess the percentage that most manufacturers you recommend as the percentage limit.

For daily driving. Nobody is saying to never charge to 100%. Nobody.

Tesla actually tells you directly in their app what the charging percentage recommendation is.

View attachment 345516

Note the word, "daily". As I keep saying, nobody is saying not to charge to 100%. Nobody. If you need full capacity for longer trips, you're free to use it as necessary. It has no effect on battery life as long as you don't leave it fully-charged for long periods.


I should also point out that you're completely missing the fact that an EV charges going downhill. One longer day trip I make a couple times a year involves charging to 100% overnight, and driving uphill for many miles to the destination. That uses up about 90% of the charge. But if I stay long enough to recharge to, say, 70%, the downhill return trip extends the range considerably. So again, I don't have to wait around to get back to 100%.

You may think you know things from reading owner's manuals or right-wing articles, but you really don't.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It is worth pointing out that most of the charging stations, that were not Tesla, were built by Electrify America. For those not aware, part of Volkswagen's punishment for "diesel gate" in the US was to invest a couple of billion dollars into charging stations. If you believe the "conspiracy theories," VW didn't care when they set up Electrify American, they basically used the money to put a bunch of fast chargers across the country but didn't care about how long they'd last, about repairing them when they broke, etc.

What I've seen, that seems somewhat more accurate, is that Electrify American was pioneering fast charging in the US in many ways -- at least in terms of CCS charging (which is what every but Tesla used to use). They also had a deadline to get the chargers built in order to meet the requirements of the VW settlement, so they did hurry and put most of their money in building out the network. It was this that led to many problems, including the fact that they built out the network when there were few EVs; so very little money was being made from people charging.

So, with little money to support the chargers, EA got behind on maintenance and was slow to fix broken chargers -- at least until they started to get more money. Additionally, they bought chargers from a few different companies, since they were on a "fast track" timeline, which complicates the issue of getting the units repaired, and they were often "cheaper" units that were more prone to failure -- but it added the complication of having technicians with the proper qualifications show up at the site based on which units that station had and doing it in a timely manner.

In some ways EA's issues were made better by their agreements with various car companies, where companies gave them upfront money to give "free charging" to customers who bought their cars. I know VW offered three years of free EA charging with the purchase of a new EV; Hyundai gave a couple of years free with the purchase of an EV, etc. So this gave EA cash it needed but, at the same time, put a large strain on their chargers as all these new EV owners were using their free charging. Since then Siemens has become a minority investor in EA, so EA finally got some added cash that could actually be used to "catch up," and many of those free charging deals are now expiring. At the same time, there are serious competitors to EA -- as mentioned in this thread EVgo, and then Ford has teamed up with Xcel Energy to install charging stations, Rivian is installing charging stations, Mercedes is building charging stations (including some located at Buc-ee's, I believe they've teamed with ChargePoint), Shell (the oil company), and others -- and the manufacturer charging stations are available for any EV to use.

Last, the Tesla charging standard, now called the North American Charging Standard (NACS) has become the accepted charging standard in the US and Tesla chargers, which have rarely ever had complaints, will largely be opened to all EVs; including current EVs with CCS plugs where they will use an adapter to use the Tesla chargers.

I know, likely far more than you wanted to know -- but the complaints have been about CCS and those seem to be improving, though it won't really matter as cars (and other charging companies) switch over to the NACS standard.



It depends on the car, there are definitely differences. Because of how the conversation seemed to have stated, with comparisons of how much less a Kia ICE sedan cost than their CUV EV -- much of the conversation has revolved around the Hyundai/Kia/Genesis cars based on their Electric Global Modular Platform (E-GMP) which can charge from around 10-80% in 18 minutes -- and that is an accurate time on a 300kW charger. The others that can do this on CCS tend to be "high end" cars -- such as the Porsche Taycan and (I believe) the German Luxury sedans. Current Teslas can also charge quickly, though they slow down more after about 50% of charge.

There are a lot of cars that charge in the 150 to 200kW range. GM's new Ultium platform (which all their current EVs are built on, and also the Honda Prologue, somewhat oddly) can charge at 200kW. I think Fords 2024 EVs can charge around 190kW, the VWs I believe are around 170kW -- basically most of the long range EVs can charge 150kW or faster. The one exception to this was the Chevy Bolt, which was limited to around 60kW; though it is sold out, not being built this year, and next year will be built on the Ultium platform.

I could get into "charging curves" -- which is how long a car will maintain its peak charging rate at a fast charger, and then how quickly it slows charging after 10-ish minutes of sustained peak charging but I think that is more information than you probably want. Suffice it to say, that peak speed isn't the only qualification for how fast a car charges, but also how long it stays near that top speed. The complaint about how long some EVs have taken to charge is often because they advertise a fast peak charging rate, but quickly ramp the speed downward, so the charge takes much longer than they expected.



Again, this is as true for gas engines as for EVs -- just that the gas tank is much larger. At the same time, I can't help but feel this is overrated; as pointed out, the EV is likely, at least, 4,000 lbs. Adding an extra 200 pounds to that is only adding 5% to the total weight. I could also point out that the weight of gasoline is over 6 lbs per gallon; so if the fuel tank holds 20 gallons, having a full tank is about like having an extra adult in the car.

I'm running off the assumption that the battery capacity wears down faster based on the weight it's moving. You're correct that mpg in ICE cars is similarly affected.....but capacity isn't.

Sorry, this makes no sense to me. How does removing ICE cars stop EV improvements?

Well let's put it this way....

Your advancements in EVs have largely been made because they're competing with a superior product.

Perhaps Toyota's entry level EV car is better than Chevy's entry level EV and Chevy will need to support advancements that allow it to compete with the Toyota.....but that's likely a much smaller gap than between either of them and an ICE car.

Consider the points we basically agreed on earlier....

1. EVs and similar sized ICEs are comparable in short range drives (with the main difference between the two being price, which is considerably higher).

2. ICEs outperform EVs on long range drives (a point repeatedly reinforced by posters here who have both bought an EV for short drives and bought or kept an ICE for long range drives).

If we want EVs to be adopted by the market they should outperform ICEs in every way....including range and price. By keeping them in competition with ICEs they'll make advancements much faster. On the flip side of that, a lot of advancements have been made in reducing emissions from ICEs and if we want to continue that advancement....we need to keep them in competition with EVs.

That last point is arguably the most important since any scenario wherein ICEs are banned in 1st world nations will result in a reduction in demand and new markets in poorer nations will be pursued with more and more people from places like Brazil and Angola buying their first cars which will inevitably be ICEs.

On top of this, in Japan (to include Toyota and Honda) is focusing on hydrogen powered cars.

No offense but I don't think we need to complicate this discussion anymore by adding hydrogen power.