[HN Gopher] Tesla is shifting from nickel to iron cathode on sta...
___________________________________________________________________
Tesla is shifting from nickel to iron cathode on standard range
car's batteries
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 88 points
Date : 2021-02-26 13:44 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| ArkanExplorer wrote:
| A smaller, lighter, and slightly cheaper car (which presumably
| would need fewer batteries) would be a great match for Europe.
| Driving through and parking in these ancient cities is a real
| pain with a big car.
| microdrum wrote:
| Fun fact: you can get an LFP battery for your house,
| https://enphase.com/sites/default/files/downloads/support/En...
| edge17 wrote:
| Out of curiosity, are there any online courses that one can
| take/watch to learn more about battery chemistry and/or battery
| economics?
| guerby wrote:
| Youtube channel The Limiting Factor is going deep on battery
| technology and economics:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIFn7ONIJHyC-lMnb7Fm_jw
| levidavidmurray wrote:
| This looks fairly relevant:
|
| https://www.edx.org/course/batteries-fuel-cells-and-their-ro...
| guardiangod wrote:
| I was reading a Chinese EV review comparing BYD's Han to Tesla
| M3.
|
| https://tieba.baidu.com/p/7138577846
|
| The Han uses iron cathode whereas the Chinese-made M3 uses the
| nickel cathode.
|
| The Han is ~6000 USD cheaper, but gets slightly higher range than
| the M3 (Han has longer city driving range, but worse at high
| way). This is especially impressive when the Han is ~400KG
| heavier than the M3.
|
| Both cars have comparable charging speed (31%-100% for 1hr
| 15min).
|
| The reviewer concluded that the Han is a worthy competitor, but
| Tesla still has an edge at tuning and design. With Tesla
| switching to iron cathode, I think Tesla can eek out comparable
| battery performance while maintaining their edge in other areas.
| antattack wrote:
| Tesla is shifting nothing. Tesla is consuming all batteries that
| are available and, after starting operations in China they gained
| access to CATL who heavily invested in iron phosphate.
|
| Thanks to high efficacy of Tesla drive train, base models can
| have decent range, around 250miles EPA, with iron phosphate
| battery packs.
|
| However, iron phosphate battery volumetric density, at this time,
| does not allow for cars with what I would consider minimum for a
| single car family, in locations with real winters: 330miles EPA.
| arcticbull wrote:
| To be fair, Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries (LiFePO4) are
| really good technology. Incredibly safe - they don't catch fire
| in the same way that standard Lithium Ion batteries do -
| they're better for the environment, have crazy discharge rates,
| etc. The only thing they're worse at is energy density.
|
| They don't perform badly in winters, I characterized the cold-
| weather relative performance of LiFePO4 vs LiIon batteries for
| an aerospace engineering project I did in college.
|
| Frankly I thought those characteristics would outweigh density
| in automotive applications, but I was mistaken.
| mchusma wrote:
| Difference of opinion, I think 200 miles is plenty of range
| even for most 1 car families.
|
| That is basically 1 stop from LA to vegas, and 1-2 stops from
| LA to San Francisco.
|
| I'd like to see focus on lowering the base cost of Teslas, and
| the lower the range target the easier to get there.
| [deleted]
| koolba wrote:
| When the battery is also powering your car's heater the range
| drops significantly. Especially with short trips that need to
| repeatedly warm up from cooler winter temperatures.
| abfan1127 wrote:
| why not use a heat pump for heating given its >100%
| relative efficiency?
|
| Edit: apparently some VW models include a heat pump for
| this reason.[1] Edit 2: Apparently some Teslas have it too.
| [2]
|
| [1] https://www.speakev.com/threads/heat-pump-yes-or-
| no.16768/
|
| [2] https://electrek.co/2020/03/13/tesla-model-y-has-a-
| heat-pump...
| X6S1x6Okd1st wrote:
| Where are you pumping the heat from?
| abfan1127 wrote:
| outside, just like residential heat pumps.
| emkoemko wrote:
| yea but many places in winter heat pumps efficiency goes
| to basically a electric heater level and if works at all.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| I think in a real winter the battery would need to be
| heated even when the car is parked overnight, no? Or store
| it in a well-heated garage overnight.
| dmoy wrote:
| 200 miles is not 200 miles in real winter though.
| vkou wrote:
| If you frequently go on long road-trips, 200 miles is not
| sufficient in summer or winter.
|
| If you don't, 200 miles is more than sufficient, regardless
| of the season. If you absolutely _have to_ make a 190 mile
| trip in winter, consider stopping for a charge, or renting
| /borrowing an ICE car.
| cogman10 wrote:
| It's now closer than you might think (except in extreme
| conditions).
|
| The main driver of range loss for earlier tesla's was the
| fact that they used an resistivity heater for the
| cabin/battery. That changed fairly recently to a heat pump.
| The range loss now is far less than it used to be.
|
| Extreme temps will render the heat pumps useless, but
| that's not the common case. You've got to be in northern
| Candida and Alaska before you are starting to talk about a
| useless heatpump.
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| I think the recent experience in Texas shows that you
| have to plan for the worst case even if you don't think
| it will be necessary. Anecdotally, I know the manager of
| a car dealership here in Utah (we get real winters, at
| least sometimes and in parts of the state) who says he
| gets a lot of Tesla owners trading in their cars, and he
| implied it had to do with range issues.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Texas's winter was extreme for Texas, not extreme for
| what a heat pump will do.
|
| I live in Idaho and get "real" winters. Range hasn't been
| a problem for me with my 2018 Tesla (Even though it has
| the resistivity heater). I've even visited Utah a couple
| of times in the winter.
|
| And, no offense, but I don't really trust the manager of
| a car dealership to give me accurate information about
| what's going on with tesla trade ins. You wouldn't ask a
| Chevy dealer about a Ford.
| buran77 wrote:
| No extreme conditions are needed. When taking relatively
| short trips in winter you may have to heat up the whole
| interior and turn on the seat heating every time. And
| until the battery is warm enough you also sacrifice some
| of the quick charging, regeneration, and performance. The
| BEV owners in my family all reported 20-40+% lower range
| whenever they can't preheat everything while still
| plugged in, and that's at relatively decent temperatures
| (-6/-10C). Of course this can be partially mitigated
| (although freezing in a 60k+E car doesn't seem like a
| decent option to me) and might happen only for several
| weeks every year but even a penalty that's smaller than
| what the average ICE will see in winter is still a lot
| given the typical shorter range and longer "refill" times
| for EVs.
| cogman10 wrote:
| How short is short? Throughout the winter I'll do 20 or
| 30 mile trips around town with no problem. I don't even
| think about range in those cases. It's not until I'm
| doing 200 or 300 mile trips that I have to start prepping
| for things.
| [deleted]
| speed_spread wrote:
| I'm itching to heatpump across Northern Candida
| pedrocr wrote:
| 200 miles is not even 200 miles in summer when doing a road
| trip. Highway miles are less efficient than the average of
| the test cycle, and much less efficient if you drive on the
| faster side.
| m463 wrote:
| It's also not 200 miles anyway.
|
| You can't use 100% of your battery.
|
| Most people preserve their battery health, so will not
| charge to 100% or drain to 0%
|
| You can't (practically) supercharge to 100%. It will
| probably take as long to get from 80 to 100% as it does to
| get to 80%. In many cases it's not nice to hog the charger.
|
| And its really hard to get to 0% even if you tried. There
| probably won't be a located right where you hit 0% even if
| you risked it.
|
| So.. you really use the middle 60% of your battery, between
| 20% and 80%
| Shivetya wrote:
| Stop. Just stop.
|
| First off, brand ranges are rated at 100% capacity and many
| brands suggest to not charge to 100% most of the time if
| ever. Then throw in weather effects on range and this does
| not just mean winter but driving in rain can increase usage.
|
| However the top two reasons to push 300 more as the baseline
| is simply convenience. The convenience of not having to worry
| about your charge or need to charge frequently. That removes
| the negative comparisons many try to make showing that BEVs
| are not ready for prime time. Once technology catches up and
| you can fix that range in ten minutes; not going to happen;
| then a lower range might be okay.
|
| Second and more importantly the big automakers want you to
| buy into that idea so they can eek out small range
| improvements as a selling feature to get you into next year's
| car. Similar to how many of them still have heart failure of
| OTA in the definition Tesla uses it.
|
| Now can there be a type of car where ranges are aimed at
| commuting only? Sure, but as a whole replacement vehicles for
| ICE vehicles should out perform on all numbers.
|
| Don't let them sell you into an infinite cycle of range
| increases because they will. 250 is entry level now and 300
| should be the minimum for any semi luxury and higher priced
| EV.
|
| Hell look at the recently released Mini if you want an idea
| of where the industry hoped to be at but Tesla shot that idea
| full of holes and doubly so when the Bolt came along and now
| VW ID.* series.
| elif wrote:
| Minimum single families drive 200 miles per day? Is 'minimum
| single family' a family of 12 average commuters?
| lawnchair_larry wrote:
| Single-car family. As in, this has to serve the
| transportation needs of a family who relies on it as their
| only vehicle. That entails far more than their daily commute,
| and has to support a reasonable worst case, which is what his
| number represents. A car that only supports your average case
| is not very useful. And range is diminished in winter.
|
| In other words, if I'm living in Dallas and I have to choose
| 1 car to meet all of my use cases, I'm not going to pick one
| that precludes me from ever being able to take the wife and
| kids to visit relatives in Houston, even if I only make that
| trip occasionally.
| elif wrote:
| even with a 200 mile range, ignoring the actual 330, you
| are making it from Dallas to Houston with a 15 minute stop
| in corsicana or huntsville.
|
| I haven't downvoted you, because that doesn't make sense
| when you merely disagree with a person.
| et2o wrote:
| Tesla has superchargers exactly for situations like this.
| Lots of people do this trip (or longer ones) all the time
| in Teslas.
|
| Anticipating your next complaint ("It takes so much longer
| to recharge!") - You also save a lot of time by charging at
| home and never having to stop at a gas station. Overall, I
| think you save time because of this. It's not exactly 1:1
| equivalent because maybe long drive waits are more costly
| than frequent short gas stop visits and waits when you
| aren't on a long road trip , but it's really not the end of
| the world. Gives you some time to stretch your legs.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > Anticipating your next complaint ("It takes so much
| longer to recharge!") - You also save a lot of time by
| charging at home and never having to stop at a gas
| station.
|
| This is not really a valid argument. The point isn't how
| much time you spend refueling over a lifetime, but rather
| how many miles you can travel in a reasonable day for a
| long road trip (and how flexible your route can be). If
| long road trips are important to you and you only have
| one vehicle, of course you probably don't want it to be
| an EV.
|
| In my view, EVs are incredible, but they're still a hard
| sell for _most_ single-car households in America. But
| people should buy the car that matches their needs! No
| one is better off when fans of a particular type of car
| deliberately try to convince people to buy that type of
| car against their interests.
| et2o wrote:
| Did you read the rest of my comment? Quite an
| uncharitable response. I address exactly that...
|
| I still think EVs are okay for a family that does a lot
| of road trips. You are describing... me. I routinely make
| a ~12 hour drive. We take a bit of a break every few
| hours to walk around and play with the dog. The rest of
| the time, car drives itself.
|
| Hacker News is really getting worse. Taking me out of
| context by quoting the first line of my comment and
| ignoring the rest (where I specifically address your
| comment) is inappropriate. We are better than this.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I read the entire comment. I'm not talking about relative
| costs of waiting to refuel. I'm just talking about actual
| effective daily range for a road trip. Refuel times
| directly affect daily range.
| et2o wrote:
| It is obvious that "refuel times affect daily range." The
| question is whether slower "refuel" times on long trips
| are a net negative to ownership of an electric vehicle.
| Most people would say no.
|
| It's not exactly 1:1 equivalent because maybe long drive
| waits are more costly than frequent short gas stop visits
| and waits when you aren't on a long road trip
|
| As I said...
|
| > It's not exactly 1:1 equivalent because maybe long
| drive waits are more costly than frequent short gas stop
| visits and waits when you aren't on a long road trip
|
| Your comments have been quite low quality, I think kind
| of emblematic of how Hacker News has declined throughout
| the years. It's very easy to be contrarian if you can
| pick upon a thread, but as far as I remember HN
| guidelines discourage that.
|
| I'm sure you have not formally crossed Amy HN guidelines,
| but it kind of sucks just seeing the current state of
| discourse (eg you) here compared to what it used to be.
|
| Finally - I'd add that "refuel" times DO NOT affect daily
| range for an electric vehicle. You refuel at home, while
| you're asleep. It's irrelevant in those circumstances.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Okay. I'd prefer you discuss whether my comments are
| representative of HN's decline elsewhere. I'm not
| qualified to judge that.
| Tagbert wrote:
| It may be that, at this stage in the technology, EVs may
| not suit all families as a single car. But there are many
| families that do have 2 or more cars and it totally makes
| sense for one of those cars to be and EV. Eventually, as
| battery/charger tech matures it becomes easier to satisfy
| those single car families, too.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| For what it's worth, this is slowly changing. BattleBorn has
| certified their LifePo4 batteries to lower temperatures. _Been
| a while since I watched this_. [1] Just slower charge rates,
| but no longer unsafe due to charge controller changes. Previous
| versions would shut off the charge below 0C. So charging slowly
| over night may still be useful, but speed charging in cold
| weather would not.
|
| [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywn-vBjKblI
| unixhero wrote:
| -20C is not enough
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| Here's a map of the minimum yearly temperatures in the US:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/73h7eo/winter_low
| _...
|
| (note C vs F on the legend)
|
| As someone who lives in California, and likes snow sports,
| it looks like I could run into -20C conditions in the
| Sierras, and certainly the Rockies (although driving that
| far with an electric car would probably be too annoying to
| attempt).
|
| It's probably not a concern for the average Bay Area
| family.
| jcranmer wrote:
| I use a rough metric of 0degF as the lowest low to
| generally worry about (Fahrenheit is nice that the
| 0-100degF range is pretty close to the typical ambient
| temperature range in temperate zones). Despite living
| around the 5b/6a zone boundary (that's -10degF on the
| map), I have yet to see my car's temperature gauge report
| 0degF or below, so the conditions are a bit lower than
| I'd gauge as "lowest typical low."
|
| But that said, zones 6a/6b are definitely in the region
| of "yeah, I'd worry about 0degF overnight", and people in
| 7a will definitely worry about temperatures around 10degF
| if they're going to start their car. 6a-7a covers most of
| the population corridor in the NE US, about 1/3 the US
| population. Additionally, much of the Midwest is in the
| 0degF-is-possible territory, from St. Louis and Chicago
| straight through to Detroit and Pittsburgh.
|
| The general point is that starting in -20degC isn't some
| "well, sucks to live in Canada/Minnesota/North Dakota"
| concern, but rather "gee, a significant chunk of the US
| population has to do this on an annual basis."
| zeckalpha wrote:
| Two weeks ago I had -32C in MN and it didn't set any
| records.
| dmoy wrote:
| Also my family back there told me it didn't get _above_
| -20C for like a week or two in a row.
| thatfrenchguy wrote:
| Not a lot of people live in climates where it goes under
| -20C. Folks in Eastern Canada seem to be doing fine with
| 250 mile EVs as well.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| What are you talking about? It gets under -20C routinely
| each winter for a couple nights every year through the
| whole of the northeast; upstate New York, Vermont, Maine,
| New Hampshire, Ontario, Quebec.
|
| Toronto is the 3rd/4th most populous city in North
| America (depending on how you count it). Almost every
| winter there's a -25C overnight. Not for days on end like
| where I grew up in Alberta, and not every year, but it
| definitely happens. There's 7 million people in the
| Greater Toronto / Hamilton corridor alone. 2 million
| people in the Montreal area. Almost a million in Quebec
| City, 1.4 millionish people in the Ottawa/Gatineau area.
| Not to mention Detroit, Windsor, Buffalo, Albany,
| Syracuse, Burlington, etc. etc. etc. Oh, and I'm seeing a
| mean minimum of -19C in Chicago for January, too, so
| throw in a few more million people there because that's
| close enough.
|
| "Not a lot indeed." Only maybe a couple dozen million
| people.
|
| EDIT: Oh yeah, I hear the US has a "midwest", too. I hear
| there's people there, too.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Yeah, they are compensating with heating elements. This
| will of course use some of the capacity. Telsa is doing
| heating elements as well. Heating during overnight charging
| should be easier if you are on grid power. Charging
| batteries when they are cold can harm them. Discharging
| them when they are cold equates to more internal
| resistance, so you could lose up to 15% range without
| heating elements. No idea how much power the heating
| elements draw. I would bet that Tesla's battery acquisition
| Maxwell [1] could make some improvements in this area.
|
| [1] - https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/04/teslas-maxwell-
| acquisition...
| Robotbeat wrote:
| It's not as if internal combustion engines work great in
| -20C temperatures either. Often they won't even start,
| and diesels typically have an (plug-in electric!) engine
| block heater in such climates. So I just don't see this
| as a problem. Also, what proportion of the world lives in
| climates where it makes sense to optimize for -20C
| weather? Northern Europe, parts of North America... and
| that's pretty much it. So while Norway (which now buys
| mostly electric cars... and famously a LOT of Teslas)
| might use cold-optimized chemistries, it's not a major
| consideration for electrifying the world.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >It's not as if internal combustion engines work great in
| -20C temperatures either.
|
| Pretty much every ICE made in the last 40yr, save your
| $110 lawnmower that was made without a choke to save
| $0.38, is fine at -10 to -20f so long as it has some
| semblance of compression. If anything the biggest problem
| is that batteries don't work so well in the cold so
| they'll have a really tough time starting an old engine
| with poor compression (which will be even harder to start
| in the cold).
| nitrogen wrote:
| _Also, what proportion of the world lives in climates
| where it makes sense to optimize for -20C weather?_
|
| Dismissing problems or desires that don't affect people
| you know is pretty shortsighted.
|
| Also, skiing.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| If you drive an ICE car bought in say California to where
| it gets to -20c and park it outside it won't start either
| since most likely the dealership didn't include a block
| heater in your package.
| drcoopster wrote:
| Sure, maybe if the car is 40 years old. But every modern
| gas car (and all the diesels I've owned) will handle it
| just fine.
| emkoemko wrote:
| not true, i don't see anyone on my street plugging in and
| we get -30 or lower some days, though probably not good
| for the engine but yes they will start no problem.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| It's dissmissible if the comparable solution (internal
| combustion engines) already have to use the exact same
| intervention (engine block heater). I grew up in
| Minnesota (and visit regularly). If anything it affects
| me MORE than most people, and I've been stranded with a
| non-starting internal combustion engine car in the cold
| winter many times which is how I know the existing
| internal combustion engines already don't do well. It is
| not uncommon for parking lots (especially in the Northern
| parts) to be equipped with outlets for this precise
| reason (and people often leave their engines running
| while they go into the store on particularly cold nights
| so they won't be stranded). Makes electrification there
| actually easier in some ways as there's already
| widespread infrastructure for trickle charging.
|
| Concerns which are not that well-informed are, indeed,
| dismissible.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Not sure what it's being downvoted if you street park a
| car at -20 it ain't gonna start if it doesn't have engine
| block heating.
|
| If your car was sold in a region that gets that cold it
| was likely pre-installed if not you had to take care of
| that.
|
| The block heater heats up the oil which heats up the
| engine block it's usually electric that can run off the
| battery or an external outlet.
|
| If you buy a car which was intended for warm or moderate
| climates and drive it in Norway or Minnesota during peak
| winter you won't be starting it in the morning.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| This is why garages (including heated garages) are super
| common in Minnesota. It's not just an extravagance. And,
| conveniently, garages tend to have outlets in them, very
| often better than just 120V 15A, too!
| colechristensen wrote:
| This isn't true. Very few vehicles have engine block
| heaters and it's really more of a diesel thing because
| the fuel gels.
|
| My car happily starts at -40, if a tad reluctantly at
| times.
|
| If your car isn't old or diesel, it will probably start
| at any outside temperature.
|
| About the only difference is the engine coolant needs to
| be rated to expected low temperatures.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Eh? In Northern Europe new petrol cars are sold with
| block heaters, the recommendation is to plug in the car
| when if gets to -10-15c.
|
| Not only does it ensures your car can start but it also
| prevents damage to the engine.
|
| This is how outside parking in Northern Europe during the
| winter looks like:
| https://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-78137918/stock-photo-
| blo...
| colechristensen wrote:
| No such thing in the coldest metropolitan area in the US
| (Minneapolis/St. Paul, at least there are none which are
| larger and colder). Avg daily high/low of -5C/-13C in
| January over the last ten years. City streets are lined
| with cars, and only very rarely will you see an extension
| cord pulled to a street parked vehicle.
|
| Diesel at least was much more popular in Europe which
| would explain the prevalence of block heaters and the
| popularity of their use in gasoline/petrol engines, but
| that doesn't mean they are necessary.
|
| Growing up we had a block heater on our large diesel farm
| truck and on diesel tractors, I have never in my life
| used a block heater on a non-diesel vehicle having spent
| the first >25 years living in climates which regularly
| hit -30C.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| These are also quite common in Canada.
|
| Diesel is common in Europe but so is petrol.
|
| Plugs for block heaters are very common in Northern
| Europe, Finland is turning them into charging spots now
| https://insideevs.com/news/332283/finland-has-a-genius-
| charg...
|
| The heater also does plenty of other things including
| defrosting windows.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| It is a good idea, but there are lots of good ideas when
| it comes to cars. Do you ever start your car when parked
| on an incline? That can play havoc with oil delivery but
| we all do it. Park a car in the cold with a not-full gas
| tank? That isn't recommended either.
|
| Cold-starting engines 30 years ago was a big problem.
| They had lots of different metals that would flex against
| each other. Modern engines are built to tighter
| tolerances and that means metals that expand/contract at
| more similar rates. And our oils do not thicken as easily
| thanks to improved chemistry. A cold start really isn't
| going to destroy your engine. It will still probably
| outlive the rest of your car.
| to11mtm wrote:
| Partially agree, but...
|
| - Some of the manufacturers at times have moved back
| towards Iron-Block/Aluminum-head designs (rather than all
| aluminum.) Thankfully yes modern gasket technology and
| metallurgy has improved but there is still extra wear and
| tear as a result.
|
| - Depending on the way the ECU is set up, there may be
| other advantages to pre-warming the block. As an example,
| my WRX sometimes gets -really- cranky starting in cold
| temps. But it's not the start I'm worried about.
| - Below ~25F, the fluid in the clutch gets to the point
| where I can sometimes pull my leg off the clutch and wait
| at least a half-second before the pedal 'thunks' up. An
| engine block heater would probably help with that a bit.
| - The way the ECU is programmed, there is a -long- delay
| from when the car switches from open loop (just working
| off a MAP or MAF sensor) to closed loop (looking at the
| O2 sensor). In cold enough weather, If the temp gauge
| doesn't reach a certain point before I hit the highway,
| it -never- hits closed loop and my mileage is absolute
| trash. Not every car is set up like this, but more than
| you think. It's an emissions thing.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Most of your clutch's working fluid is nowhere near any
| block heater. It is in your clutch master cylinder right
| above your clutch pedal. It is essentially inside the
| cabin with you rather than under the hood with the
| engine. You might have a fluid reservoir under the hood
| but, warm or cold, that fluid isn't being used unless you
| have a leak.
|
| As for running temperatures, the standard trick is to
| reduce airflow across the radiator. Trucks put on "bras"
| or you can rig up something made of carboard in front of
| the radiator. Always cardboard because it is soft enough
| not to damage anything if it gets loose.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| 30yr ago was 1991. Pretty much anything with fuel
| injection (i.e. basically everything in 1991) will start
| just fine at low temperatures.
|
| The one OEM who's processes I have knowledge of with was
| doing their testing down to -40F in the late 1980s (which
| coincidentally is the temperature at which their
| electronics system starts throwing codes for misbehaving
| temperature sensors).
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Growing up in central Alberta (with routine -25C daytime
| temps) we always plugged in our cars, but now almost
| nobody does. There's no need anymore. Modern cars start
| fine.
|
| Even my diesel VW Jetta had no problem.
| goalieca wrote:
| It hits -20 all the time where I live and many/most
| people in the neighbourhood park outside. Modern cars
| with healthy batteries absolutely will start.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| So will an electric vehicle. Of course, it's recommended
| to let your internal combustion engine run a bit to warm
| up before highly stressing it to prevent damage.
|
| LiFePO4 batteries simply want to be warmed up before
| accepting a significant charge rate to prevent damage.
| That's comparable.
| war1025 wrote:
| > Of course, it's recommended to let your internal
| combustion engine run a bit to warm up before highly
| stressing it to prevent damage.
|
| I don't have a reference handy, but I read a decade or so
| ago that the best way to warm up and engine is actually
| just to drive in a reasonable fashion.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Yup, that would be fine. Driving carefully would be
| acceptable. Just don't gun it. (I have a lead foot, so
| I've had to watch myself...)
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Speaking as someone who's car is currently plugged in,
| and who just went through a couple weeks of below -40c
| mornings, this is bunk. Modern IC engines start reliably
| at -20 without preheating. Mine started fine this morning
| at -22c even though I had not plugged it in. It isn't a
| great idea for the engine/battery in the long term, I am
| kicking myself a little for not plugging it in, but I had
| no doubt it would start (honda civic). I've even cold
| started it at -36 in an emergency. I generally wait for
| my brake/clutch/PS fluid to warm up but they have nothing
| to do with starting.
|
| In a modern IC engine, the real issue isn't the block
| heat but the battery. A bad/old/tired battery won't
| provide the amps when cold. For all practical purposes,
| anyone worried about cold starts would be better served
| by a battery heater/blanket than a block heater.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| For gasoline vehicles, you're correct (although it
| certainly helps to have a block heater). Block heaters
| are essential for cold weather diesels. But all
| combustion engine vehicles need a way to start, and they
| rely either on muscle power (eg pull-start lawnmower) or
| a battery (okay, I have hill-started my car quite a few
| times...). In practicality it means internal combustion
| engines rely on batteries just as much for starting. And
| the chemistry they used (lead acid) wasn't terribly good
| in cold weather, either. Nowadays, they sell nice compact
| lithium chemistry battery jumpstart packs the size of a
| paperback novel which will start your car. Regardless,
| batteries are still the solution.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Just remember that modern car electronics stress the hell
| out of a car battery during car use and they don't last
| as long as they used to.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| If your engine is running, your battery won't even feel
| those electronics. Your alternator/rectifier is pumping
| 13.9v so long as the engine is turning. Your 12v battery
| definitely should not be drained by anything unless at a
| very low idle/off.
| [deleted]
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Diesels need plug-in electric engine block heaters at
| anything like those temperatures as well. This would be the
| same thing.
| YarickR2 wrote:
| No they do not. They need winterized diesel fuel
| (kerosene added), but that's it. -30C was a "nothing
| special" for BMW N47 engine to start. -37C is a pour
| point of 0w40 engine oil, but higher temps are fine in
| terms of cold engine startups
| audunw wrote:
| > does not allow for cars with what I would consider minimum
| for a single car family, in locations with real winters:
| 330miles EPA.
|
| * in the USA
|
| Our EV (our only car) has 100-150km real-world range
| (60-90miles). We have real winters. We can get everywhere we
| want to for daily driving. My grandparents has a cabin 2 hours
| away that we visit regularly in winter. We can get there one
| one fast-charge that takes less time than we use to buy
| groceries for the trip (fast-charger we use is next to a super-
| market).
|
| I've borrowed my moms ICE car and a friends Tesla Model S for a
| road-trip across the country a couple of times though.
|
| But Northern Europe does not have the same problem with
| suburban sprawl and lack of public transportation, people don't
| usually drive as far regularly, speed limits are lower (higher
| efficiency) and now there's fast-chargers everywhere.
| generalizations wrote:
| I think this is a fundamental difference between European and
| North American perspectives: everything is so much closer in
| Europe, and so much farther away in NA.
| ben_w wrote:
| That's certainly been my experience when I've visited the
| USA (I'm British and live in Berlin, have visited central
| and north CA, Nevada, Salt Lake City, NYC/Newark, Rhode
| Island and the Cambridge/Boston area).
| mr_cyborg wrote:
| For a point of comparison, in the state I live in in the US,
| you're looking at 2-4 hours to a lot of vacation
| destinations. Many of which don't have fast chargers along
| the way. In a normal pre-Covid year, I've driven upwards of
| 8-15 hours one way to go places, multiple times a year.
|
| Public transportation is available but far less convenient,
| and charging stations would add possibly hours on trips that
| length.
| post_break wrote:
| If I understand correctly then it will be lithium iron phosphate?
| If so that seems like the best chemistry in my limited
| understand. I've got a huge Lifep04 battery I use to run
| equipment and the cycle, power density, failure mode, etc are all
| amazing.
| turtlebits wrote:
| The only problem for vehicles is that LiFePO batteries are
| heavy. (IIRC ~60% the energy density of Lithium ion)
| cogman10 wrote:
| This is where Tesla's structural pack comes into play. They
| drop a bunch of weight by turning the pack into part of the
| car structure (rather than something it carries).
| nickik wrote:
| But that same technology is also available for nickel based
| batteries. So the relative performance doesn't change when
| comparing chemistry.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| LFP on standard range is not news, they stated it on battery day
| I think. Especially since allegedly CATL is making good gains to
| LFP density.
|
| LFP is cheaper, has insane cycle endurance, is safer, and has
| great temperature tolerance.
|
| LFP reaching the 200 mile range for a car is a watershed
| engineering moment for humanity. NMC and others can be dedicated
| to other tasks.
| msandford wrote:
| The tweet talks about swapping iron for nickel, not iron for
| lithium.
| giuliomagnifico wrote:
| from lithium-ion to iron-cathode
|
| Edit: article source was wrong
| https://www.carscoops.com/2021/02/tesla-shifting-battery-typ...
| I corrected the tile
| swimfar wrote:
| They aren't switching from lithium. In the tweet he even says
| there's plenty of lithium. They are switching from a nickel
| cathode to an iron cathode due to the scarcity/cost of
| nickel.
|
| The title should definitely be changed. It makes it sound
| like they are going to a completely different battery
| technology.
| giuliomagnifico wrote:
| Oh sorry, my mistake, I copied-pasted fromn this article:
| https://www.carscoops.com/2021/02/tesla-shifting-battery-
| typ...
|
| Edit: corrected the title
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Yup. In spite of the "lithium is the new oil" meme, lithium is
| actually super abundant and is often extracted from brines the
| same way as sea salt is. Lithium isn't where to focus
| replacement efforts on.
| pascalmahe wrote:
| Well, TIL. Though it might not be so clear cut:
| https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-
| environmen... (article from 2018).
| emkoemko wrote:
| here in Alberta E3 metals will extract it from old oil
| wells, direct extraction no ponds.
| nickik wrote:
| There is lots of lithium. But lithium is kind of a tricky,
| its almost more chemical then a base metal. Qualifying a
| new lithium extraction technology is tricky, and every
| brine is different.
|
| Lithium is not tricky to find, its trick to extract and
| purify and the it takes a while to qualify it with battery
| companies. Doing all that takes a while and doing it cheap
| is not easy.
|
| So lithium prices, might still go up because getting high
| quality supply into the supply chain is not easy.
|
| Check out:
|
| https://www.benchmarkminerals.com/
|
| The have a large number of videos, where many of the
| upcoming lithium producers present their projects.
|
| The economical ways currently are:
|
| - Spodumene (lithium in hard rock minerals)
|
| - Brine (lithium in a salty water underground pond)
|
| What is being developed for next generations:
|
| - Clay (sedentary deposits)
|
| - Deep Geothermal Brine (like Brine but much deeper down)
|
| What is being worked on is Direct Lithium extraction, that
| means to get lithium directly from the brine (or leached
| from the clay) rather then putting it into evaporation
| ponds.
|
| If you want real detail from an expert on lithium, check
| out:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfffip_4C80
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Well sure, even salt extraction can have an impact. Have
| you seen the salt extraction facilities at the Dead Sea?
| Someone could write an expose about how our demand for salt
| is a "big problem" illustrated with dramatic pictures. But
| we need some perspective here, and anecdotes are way too
| easy to cherry-pick. The amount of lithium needed is
| minuscule compared to the amount of oil. 5 kilograms of
| pure lithium for a Model 3 versus like 20000kg of gasoline
| for an equivalent fossil fuel car. And the lithium can be
| recycled at end of use. But what's 3 or 4 orders of
| magnitude between friends?
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I'm a big fan of the LiFePO4 chemistry. Super Cheap per kWh,
| abundant raw materials, extremely long cycle life (even without
| state of the art manufacturing), and usually a lot more stable
| and much less likely to start on fire. If you want to DIY a
| lithium battery pack, LiFePO4 is the least suicidal way to do it.
|
| I see LiFePO4 as enabling Africa to electrify quickly and
| cheaply. It's feasible to hook up solar panels to an
| inverter/charger, a cheap and/or DIYed LiFePO4 battery pack, and
| combine it with a backup generator to have affordable (less than
| 15C//kWh... potentially a LOT less) and (just as important)
| _consistent_ power without needing access to the grid and that's
| like 95% carbonfree.
| stetrain wrote:
| They are already using LFP chemistry on Standard Range Model 3
| sold in China and Europe. (Batteries produced by CATL I believe)
|
| They also called this out during their last battery tech
| presentation:
|
| https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/JvxPA/s3/2020-tesla-shareh...
| rkangel wrote:
| I find it interesting that a commercial truck is 'mass
| sensitive'. Presumably it's because they need a larger battery
| capacity due to the work needed to haul the load?
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Yeah. Consider that your whole truck is limited to 80,000
| pounds weight and a typical semi tractor might weigh 20,000
| pounds (less for a day cab). Anything above that 20,000
| pounds eats directly into your payload.
|
| Still, Tesla should be able to hit their 500 mile range
| figure with a full typical load and without exceeding the
| 80,000 pound total weight limit. Takes a lot of work to
| improve the efficiency of the drivetrain (low battery
| internal resistance, low power electronics losses, very high
| efficiency brushless motors, low gearbox and bearing
| resistance), improving aerodynamics (surprisingly many
| tractors still seem to have the aerodynamics of a barn),
| extremely low rolling resistance tires (while maintaining
| traction), and reducing weight of the tractor through
| improved and optimized materials, optimized design, etc.
| ...and then optimizing the battery to have both high specific
| energy and long cycle life (even while Megacharging).
|
| It's actually possible to do this, but it requires careful
| attention to inefficiency and mass throughout the entire
| vehicle. A lot like designing a reusable orbital rocket.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| It's mass sensitive because of regulation. Of course you have
| to haul your battery around and that impacts range,
| performance, charging, etc. but not wanting to waste money
| and time while the DOT writes you a ticket is the primary
| driver.
|
| The big problem with electric commercial trucks is that the
| local delivery stuff that is most readily electrified is also
| the stuff where weight regulations are your biggest thorn in
| side (for a variety of reasons).
|
| The step van that delivers bread would already be electric if
| it weren't for the fact that the extra 800lb would push them
| into a different more expensive regulatory class where they
| become unprofitable or displace so much cargo they become
| unprofitable.
| wolfram74 wrote:
| Don't forget road deterioration goes like something between
| the 3rd and 4th power of mass. If one of your concerns is
| environmental impact, then minimizing the amount of road
| being torn up is something you care about. Whether that's
| on the actual list of reasons is unknowable to us.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Minimizing environmental impact requires considering the
| vehicle count as well.
|
| Having a more light duty trucks zipping around because
| we've regulated fewer medium duty truck out of
| profitability for that use case is likely not
| environmentally efficient.
|
| When you're talking about roads expected to last X years
| with a certain % traffic of semi trucks in the 80k
| ballpark pretty much nothing you do in the 40k ballpark
| and below matters.
|
| Also, you have to differentiate between wear on the road
| surface and the road bed. The road surface doesn't care
| how much weight you have. It just cares about contact
| pressure. The road bed is going to care more about
| overall tonnage because by the time the force gets to the
| road bed it's spread over such an area the contact
| pressure is low regardless.
|
| It's hard to generalize these things because mother
| nature plays a large role what the depreciation curve of
| a road looks like and local wealth plays the deciding
| role in where in the depreciation curve you justify
| replacing it.
| myself248 wrote:
| > Having a more light duty trucks zipping around because
| we've regulated fewer medium duty truck out of
| profitability for that use case is likely not
| environmentally efficient.
|
| Really? I thought it was personnel-inefficient but pretty
| much ideal for the roads, for the aforementioned power-
| law reason. Lighter trucks are gentler on the roads even
| if there are more of them.
|
| Do I misunderstand?
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| There's carbon, particulate and road wear (and noise and
| traffic). You can prioritize whatever you want in
| whatever order you want to make whatever state you want
| seem like the best.
|
| If the road has to be built to handle X% semi trucks for
| 10yr and mother nature will destroy it in 20yr no matter
| what you do you lose nothing by driving a bunch of medium
| duty trucks on it.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Yeah, to the third or fourth power assuming the same
| width, diameter, and number of wheels. So there _are_
| ways around that from an engineering perspective. The
| Tesla Semi has baselined Super Singles (a single tire as
| wide as a double tire, more efficient with equivalent or
| better traction and lower overall weight), I believe,
| which should help a bit with this.
|
| But this is why road regulations limit weight and weight
| per axle.
| usrusr wrote:
| When you are all-in on electric, I wonder if it could
| make sense for a truck to accept the unsprung weight
| penalty of wheel motors and go for uniform, independently
| steerable, suspended, self-monitoring and motored wheel-
| units that are simply repeated under the vehicle as often
| as needed for the load/power requirements and controlled
| with clever software that takes care of driving dynamics
| etc. Like a lazy copy/paste design, like all post-Tesla
| EV batteries are designed. It would be terrible for
| center of gravity because all the room between where
| conventional designs have their wheels would be filled
| with more wheels (and the accompanying suspension) but it
| would be a one size fits all design that I'm sure could
| have many benefits beyond just reducing per wheel load if
| the controlling software is smart.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Tesla's Semi prototypes do use 4 BLDC motors (well, more
| complicated than straight BLDC) from the Model 3. But I
| think optimization is really key for making it
| economically viable for mass cargo transport. Lazy copy-
| paste is great for prototypes and really shows how
| awesome electric is for making new vehicle
| configurations, but you really HAVE to optimize to be
| competitive at scale. Tesla has succeeded over the last 9
| years against all comers BECAUSE they've optimized. Of
| course, manufacturability is one of the optimization
| constraints...
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Super singles are for rolling resistance.
|
| For pneumatic tires on highway speed vehicles your ground
| pressure is approximately your tire pressure. Super
| singles use pressures in the same ballpark as the duals
| they replace.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Well yes, reduced road wear is not the _primary_
| advantage of super singles. The contact area is slightly
| larger, which can help slightly (things such as total
| load and outside dimensions and speed being equal--if you
| like, it can allow a slightly lower tire pressure). It's
| still in the same ballpark, as you say, but it should
| slightly improve road wear characteristics.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Why not have a three-wheel axle, with two wheels at the
| edges like in conventional vehicles, and the third wheel
| riding in the middle of the lane? That would transfer
| ~30% of the load to a portion of the road which is not
| wearing down anyway.
| wcarron wrote:
| Stability. Roads very often have curvature built into
| them for rain/runoff/erosion mgmt. If your road surface
| is an arch, having a wheel at the apex is not gonna go
| well. You gon' tip over.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| How do Super Singles deal with punctured tires? I'd think
| one advantage of dual tires is that if one pops, there's
| a higher likelihood of the truck remaining drivable?
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >How do Super Singles deal with punctured tires?
|
| You sit on the side of the road waiting for the tire
| service to show up.
|
| >there's a higher likelihood of the truck remaining
| drivable?
|
| "DOT would like to know your location"
|
| You're technically not supposed to be operating with a
| blown tire. That said, driving to the nearest place you
| can reasonably get or wait for a replacement is the
| correct course of action.
| guerby wrote:
| My 16 272 Ah LFP cells arrived today (February 26) in France from
| China (shipped January 11 - 47 days ago).
|
| 13.9 kWh for $1248 + $416 shipping and tax, so just shy of
| $120/kWh delivered ($90/kWh before shipping).
|
| Will be used with an hybrid inverter and solar panels to reduce
| my electricity bill, UPS my home, and charge my Tesla Model 3 SR+
| (2019, USA built so not LFP).
| pedrocr wrote:
| The 3 to 5x difference between those cells and commercial
| offerings make me hopeful we'll see the market for home
| batteries take off relatively soon. LFP are ideal for the
| application and are already cheap. With the cost of rooftop
| solar continuing to dive, getting a house to be much more
| energy independent, or even fully off-grid will become almost
| easy in the next 5 years.
| guerby wrote:
| For a long time LFP prices stayed at $200-$300/kWh but
| mid-2020 new vendors with $100-$150/kWh delivered appeared.
|
| I don't know the story behind these cells but so far no bad
| experience reported on youtube or forums.
|
| Here is one of the first buyer who just measured his pack
| after 6 month of use:
|
| https://diysolarforum.com/threads/eve-280ah-6-months-
| later.1...
| guerby wrote:
| Before electric cars it was hard to really use solar PV
| produced energy.
|
| But with one or two electric cars and the appropriate amount
| of battery you'll get way higher PV production use by just
| charging after work and week-ends.
|
| If my 14 kWh pack does 4000 full cycles that's 56 MWh so 0.03
| USD/kWh out of the battery.
|
| $600-700 for a 5kW hybrid inverter (stackable)
|
| PV panels are about $0.4/Wpeak and depending on location, in
| France 1 Wp will produce about 1kWh/year.
|
| Which brings price under $0.10/kWh for a DIY solar + battery
| system of 4 kWp PV and 14 kWh battery.
| throwaway81523 wrote:
| Tesla apparently voids your battery warranty if you use the
| car as a stationary power source. That's mentioned in tiny
| print in the warranty documentation someplace. I haven't
| seen this myself, but people mentioned it during the recent
| Texas blackout where many people had the idea of using a
| BEV as a battery bank.
| pedrocr wrote:
| Not sure what you mean by needing an EV to use the energy.
| With an A/C system you can heat and cool the house with
| electricity efficiently. Since that works even if your car
| is away with you at work the battery size is reduced making
| that load a better business case. The same for heating
| water, which is a cheap battery in itself.
|
| If anything EVs seem particularly unsuited for home solar
| because the solar panels should instead be wherever the car
| spends its day so the car battery can be charged directly
| instead of needing another battery to buffer the energy for
| it.
| guerby wrote:
| In France you don't need heating/cooling for most of the
| year with a moderately insulated house.
|
| Thats's why electric car charging changes the equation.
|
| And about no heating/cooling at all with a Passive House
| :).
|
| I agree about charging during the day when the sun shine
| is way better but it's under the control of your employer
| which may or may not provide chargers, and might not
| install solar PV at all for various reasons.
|
| PV and battery at home, you can do it right now.
| colordrops wrote:
| Where did you order them?
| ableal wrote:
| Maybe this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26278184
|
| Haven't looked yet.
| guerby wrote:
| There are a few known good vendors based on feedback from
| https://diysolarforum.com
|
| I chose this one:
|
| https://diysolarforum.com/threads/introducing-the-new-
| improv...
| drran wrote:
| Did you validate capacity? $90/kWh looks great.
| guerby wrote:
| Not yet, will do in the coming days.
| nabilhat wrote:
| That's great news! Lithium iron is a much safer chemistry, can
| handle high discharge rates very well, and has a much greater
| cycle life. Hopefully, the higher demand will bring the same
| benefits as with lithium cobalt batteries, improving energy
| density and bringing prices down.
| myself248 wrote:
| Seriously! I'd be more likely to buy a LiFePO4 car because I
| know the pack will last basically forever. I don't need
| incredible range, especially since the supercharger network
| exists, so that's a pretty sweet deal.
|
| Be nice if it was an option you could order, but whatever.
|
| Be even nicer if some non-Tesla cars would offer it.
| Animats wrote:
| BYD, the world's largest electric car maker, offers it.
| nabilhat wrote:
| I confess I'm more excited for the hobby market getting
| access to hobbyist-friendlier secondhand batteries with tons
| of life left. Handling the electricity's just as risky as any
| other high capacity pack (electrocution and dropped wrenches
| exploding into plasma when they short the pack and so forth)
| but at least making a battery management mistake or
| accidentally drilling a hole in a cell isn't automatically an
| unstoppable fireworks show in your garage.
| [deleted]
| Animats wrote:
| Yes. Lithium iron phosphate batteries can pass the "nail
| test"[1] and ordinary water sprinklers will extinguish
| fires.[2] Unlike ordinary lithium ion batteries.[3]
|
| I'll bet Tesla omits the titanium skid plate under the battery
| for those.
|
| Lithium iron phosphate also makes sense for fixed applications.
| BYD says they've been able to get the energy density per liter
| up near regular lithium-ion by improved packaging, but lithium
| iron phosphate is still about 2x heavier.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/rb_J2QQ0k-4
|
| [2] https://youtu.be/NeaK9V69Xks
|
| [3] https://youtu.be/f30fBFitkSM
| nickik wrote:
| The advantage in BYD packaging you can also get to the same
| extend with other batteries. As Tesla does with their next
| generation platform.
|
| So that argument doesn't really make sense.
| throwaway81523 wrote:
| Retail LFP in the US quite a bit more expensive per KWH than
| LNC though apparently not in China or if you order from
| there. I wonder why that is.
|
| FWIW I'm a one-car "family" and I wouldn't be bothered by a
| BEV with 200 mile range if I had a way to charge it on normal
| nights. I can deal with an occasional car rental or a few
| stops if I go on a trip. The main thing putting me off BEV
| right now is that I live in a city without good access to
| daily charging facilities. If I were in the burbs the
| satisfaction of charging it from solar panels instead of
| paying for fuel would make up for quite a few occasional
| range inconveniences.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-26 23:02 UTC)