Is the 200 mile afordable battery on it way?

[jeffand]

Well Tesla and LG Chem think so. The Tesla model 3 should go into production in 2017. LG Chem battery cells are used in the FFE battery. It could be that these new cells could first be seen in the new 2015 Volt.
http://www.autonews.com/article/201...ies-with-range-of-more-than-200-miles-in-2016
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/18/lg-chem-batteries-idUSL4N0PT25U20140718
http://online.wsj.com/articles/lg-chem-working-on-battery-to-rival-teslas-range-1407776312

 

[EVA]

Jeffand - the article requires a log in to read.

Wouldn't that be awesome if companies could make an affordable 200 mile range car? Wow, that would be great. I'm thinking, the more companies that can do it the better. Let's get to electric cars faster.

 

[Snowball 14]

Jeffand - the article requires a log in to read.

Wouldn't that be awesome if companies could make an affordable 200 mile range car? Wow, that would be great. I'm thinking, the more companies that can do it the better. Let's get to electric cars faster.

I agree 110%!

 

[hybridbear]

Jeffand - the article requires a log in to read.

Wouldn't that be awesome if companies could make an affordable 200 mile range car? Wow, that would be great. I'm thinking, the more companies that can do it the better. Let's get to electric cars faster.

Jeffand - the article requires a log in to read.

Wouldn't that be awesome if companies could make an affordable 200 mile range car? Wow, that would be great. I'm thinking, the more companies that can do it the better. Let's get to electric cars faster.

I agree 110%!

Me too!

 

[cpwl]

Yes too bad we can’t readily access the article as it might be quite interesting and enlightening. Any development which helps facilitate EV adoption has to be a positive step and like each of you I offer my enthusiastic support, but …

Perhaps the article has a lot more detail that answers the “but”, however there are some substantial questions about this LG Chem battery that immediately spring to mind. The most salient being what is the energy density and hence battery capacity as well as what is the form factor? Most of the non-tesla BEVs seem to have an energy consumption of about 260 Watts/mile which would require 52KWhr of accessible battery capacity to provide a 200 mile range. Even if we were optimistic and said energy consumption will average only 230W/mile highway, such a battery would still have to provide 46 KWh of accessible capacity. If the form factor is such that this battery is sufficiently close in volume and weight to enable it’s installation into the current FFE chassis, either capacity number is a huge technical breakthrough (about 2.5 times current energy densities). Without adopting a skateboard architecture and vehicle wheelbase/track width similar to Tesla’s Model S this is the level of energy density breakthrough that is required to make the FFE, Leaf, MB B-Class ED, Kia Soul EV etc into 200 mile BEVs. Technical breakthroughs that can offer an advantage of 2-3 times the current practise are rare and usually very expensive for the early adopters! I’d really like to see it but engineering pragmatism leaves me quite suspect of such claims.

Assuming that the energy density and form factors can be solved in the alleged 2-3 year timeframe, once such batteries become available they would immediately renders the FFE a 200 mile range BEV and invoke the next big issue which is fast recharging. A reliable 200 mile battery range in the current FFE, for arguments sake, would entice people to undertake intercity travel which is only practical when fast DC recharging is available. The only current options for that are the CHAdeMO and Tesla Supercharger networks. Right now CHAdeMO is quite localized in the West and there seems to be little activity to expand that network significantly within the foreseeable future. Alternatively Tesla’s supercharger network is growing rapidly but it is, to date, manufacturer exclusive! The recent release of Tesla’s patents could allow other manufacturers access to that network but so far none have indicated a desire to avail themselves of the opportunity, be it for technical or business model reasons. As far as I see it this is another of the “big issues” that need to be resolved before BEVs gain widespread acceptance. The fledgling BEV industry cannot afford becoming embroiled in a charging standards war analagous to what was seen, albeit on a much smaller value scale, in the Beta-VHS wars and yet that seems to be the path on which a number of manufactures are travelling. Even beyond the basic fast charging networks, between Supercharging, CHAdeMO and the “FrankenPlug” (combination SAE J1772 and DC fast Charging) the industry already has 3 power-to-vehicle interface standards and the likelihood of each being available at every recharging station is zero. None of this facilitates easy, worry free intercity travel in a BEV and let’s be honest, few people will give up their ICE if BEV travel will involve not only the inconvenience of trip planning because of range limitations but checking each prospective charging station for interface compatibility.

So while on the surface of it this LG Chem announcement is positive, there are many other factors yet to be resolved before we can say BEVs present a viable, let alone convenient, alternative to ICE for the vast majority of the driving public.

Bring on the battery energy density improvements and cost reductions but also let’s get together to develop a coherent and manufacturer-integrated infrastructure.

Thanks and Cheers

Carl

 

[hybridbear]

Yes too bad we can’t readily access the article as it might be quite interesting and enlightening. Any development which helps facilitate EV adoption has to be a positive step and like each of you I offer my enthusiastic support, but …

Perhaps the article has a lot more detail that answers the “but”, however there are some substantial questions about this LG Chem battery that immediately spring to mind. The most salient being what is the energy density and hence battery capacity as well as what is the form factor? Most of the non-tesla BEVs seem to have an energy consumption of about 260 Watts/mile which would require 52KWhr of accessible battery capacity to provide a 200 mile range. Even if we were optimistic and said energy consumption will average only 230W/mile highway, such a battery would still have to provide 46 KWh of accessible capacity. If the form factor is such that this battery is sufficiently close in volume and weight to enable it’s installation into the current FFE chassis, either capacity number is a huge technical breakthrough (about 2.5 times current energy densities). Without adopting a skateboard architecture and vehicle wheelbase/track width similar to Tesla’s Model S this is the level of energy density breakthrough that is required to make the FFE, Leaf, MB B-Class ED, Kia Soul EV etc into 200 mile BEVs. Technical breakthroughs that can offer an advantage of 2-3 times the current practise are rare and usually very expensive for the early adopters! I’d really like to see it but engineering pragmatism leaves me quite suspect of such claims.

Assuming that the energy density and form factors can be solved in the alleged 2-3 year timeframe, once such batteries become available they would immediately renders the FFE a 200 mile range BEV and invoke the next big issue which is fast recharging. A reliable 200 mile battery range in the current FFE, for arguments sake, would entice people to undertake intercity travel which is only practical when fast DC recharging is available. The only current options for that are the CHAdeMO and Tesla Supercharger networks. Right now CHAdeMO is quite localized in the West and there seems to be little activity to expand that network significantly within the foreseeable future. Alternatively Tesla’s supercharger network is growing rapidly but it is, to date, manufacturer exclusive! The recent release of Tesla’s patents could allow other manufacturers access to that network but so far none have indicated a desire to avail themselves of the opportunity, be it for technical or business model reasons. As far as I see it this is another of the “big issues” that need to be resolved before BEVs gain widespread acceptance. The fledgling BEV industry cannot afford becoming embroiled in a charging standards war analagous to what was seen, albeit on a much smaller value scale, in the Beta-VHS wars and yet that seems to be the path on which a number of manufactures are travelling. Even beyond the basic fast charging networks, between Supercharging, CHAdeMO and the “FrankenPlug” (combination SAE J1772 and DC fast Charging) the industry already has 3 power-to-vehicle interface standards and the likelihood of each being available at every recharging station is zero. None of this facilitates easy, worry free intercity travel in a BEV and let’s be honest, few people will give up their ICE if BEV travel will involve not only the inconvenience of trip planning because of range limitations but checking each prospective charging station for interface compatibility.

So while on the surface of it this LG Chem announcement is positive, there are many other factors yet to be resolved before we can say BEVs present a viable, let alone convenient, alternative to ICE for the vast majority of the driving public.

Bring on the battery energy density improvements and cost reductions but also let’s get together to develop a coherent and manufacturer-integrated infrastructure.

Thanks and Cheers

Carl

I agree on the "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude. I think Tesla will be the first to produce a 200 mile BEV that's more affordable. Since they'll design the ~50 kWh battery required into the chassis they'll do better than a company like Ford trying to convert an existing model. While Tesla has publicized that they'll make a 200 mile BEV for $35k before tax incentives, I feel like reality might be a 150 mile BEV for $35k after tax incentives.

 

[jmueller065]

A few points:

• Ford has already publicly committed to supporting the J1772 CCS ("Frankenplug") standard thus they won't go in any other direction
  I agree that Tesla will successfully produce the Model 3 but its timing is such that I also think that there will be a very close competitor from an existing auto manufacturer (leading contenders: BMW, Nissan, and distant 3rd/4th: Ford, and GM)
  This article is just one of the many that have come out recently showing improvements in battery technology--they seem to pop up weekly now with some looking more promising than others

We shall see... (Personally I'd like to see an FFE that gets 100 EPA rated miles instead of the current 70 miles when my lease is up. That would be enough to open up many more travel options for me.)

 

[ElSupreme]

While Tesla has publicized that they'll make a 200 mile BEV for $35k before tax incentives, I feel like reality might be a 150 mile BEV for $35k after tax incentives.

Well I think they'll produce a $35,000 before tax incentives '200' mile car. But like the Model S designed to hit their $50k mark it won't be in the initial offering, will be phased out quickly, and will lack some 'basic' amenities found in cars in that price range. And that will be in 2013 dollars, so probably $39,999 when it hits the streets in 2019 or so. Also note that Tesla will probably be close to the 200,000 vehicles shipped in the USA at that point, and the Federal Tax Credit will be phasing out about the time the Model 3 ships in significant volume. They can't rely on a $7,500 deduct in purchase price.

The 40kWh model S lacked a 'tech package' which was a de facto $4000 price increase. And had extras which are now part of the base price of the vehicle.

I think the new base model will have '200' miles of range like the current 85kWh version gets '300' miles of range, called 'ideal miles'. Which would equate to 140-150 of EPA miles.

I think within 12 months of offering the base model they will discontinue it. The base price of the Model 3 will be in the mid $40ks, and they will come with 200 miles of real world range. Much like the 60kWh vehicle now. But a $40k EV is about the same 5 year TCO as an $32k ICE. So right in line with a 'mass market' priced vehicle.

Tesla is good about meeting some of their thresholds on technicalities. And they have pumped up the Model S price. I see the same going forward in the immediate future. But give them 10-15 years to drive the cost of Li-Ion cells down and I think a $30k (current dollar) 200 real mile EV is possible.

 

[EVA]

ElSupreme - I just noticed you also have a green model S (one of two very rare colors). Both of us have FFEs - what are the chances?

I'm going with the idea that there are no real revolutions in energy density for batteries now or in the near future. If I've understood the gigafactory correctly, the idea is to make the battery form factor better for cars and manufacture them at the lowest cost possible. That will drive the Model 3 to a more affordable price. There is no need for a higher energy density battery.

 

[hybridbear]

ElSupreme - I just noticed you also have a green model S (one of two very rare colors). Both of us have FFEs - what are the chances?

I'm going with the idea that there are no real revolutions in energy density for batteries now or in the near future. If I've understood the gigafactory correctly, the idea is to make the battery form factor better for cars and manufacture them at the lowest cost possible. That will drive the Model 3 to a more affordable price. There is no need for a higher energy density battery.

That's my understanding as well. The gigafactory will drive down costs for Tesla to allow them to make a 200 mile EV for an affordable price.

 

[unplugged]

The only current options for that are the CHAdeMO and Tesla Supercharger networks. Right now CHAdeMO is quite localized in the West and there seems to be little activity to expand that network significantly within the foreseeable future. * * * Even beyond the basic fast charging networks, between Supercharging, CHAdeMO and the “FrankenPlug” (combination SAE J1772 and DC fast Charging) the industry already has 3 power-to-vehicle interface standards and the likelihood of each being available at every recharging station is zero.

There are quite a few stations (two in my city) that offer dual CHAdeMO and CCS ("Frankenplug" is an outdated and silly term) charging cables at DC fast charge stations. I don't see this as an impediment to EV adoption. Since the Japanese manufacturers insist on CHAdeMO and the U.S. and European automakers like CCS, the dual standard is here to stay, unfortunately.

As for the Tesla charging standard; it would be great if everyone adopted it, because it is the most "elegant" of solutions. Again, automakers are a stubborn lot, and I don't see any one of them accepting a change to Tesla.

 

[michael]

My friends just picked up a RAV 4 EV. It has 150 mile range on extended charge, 120 on standard charge. It cost them 499/mo including tax with zero driveaway and unlimited mileage. So it is affordable.

I am totally envious of the additional flexibility that range gives them. This weekend they are making a round trip from LA to Santa Barbara and back, (160 miles) never worrying about charge, and just adding some juice at a public charging station in Ventura while stopping there for dinner. This trip would have been a big challenge in my FFE.

My point is that a 150 mile affordable battery is here now, and it makes a huge improvement in EV acceptability compared to our 80 mile batteries. Yesterday I tried to make my daily commute (80 miles round trip, usually charge at work) without charging to see if I could. Nope! Needed to stop for 15 minutes at a public station to safely make it over the Sepulveda pass.

 

[unplugged]

My friends just picked up a RAV 4 EV. It has 150 mile range on extended charge, 120 on standard charge. It cost them 499/mo including tax with zero driveaway and unlimited mileage. So it is affordable. * * * My point is that a 150 mile affordable battery is here now, and it makes a huge improvement in EV acceptability compared to our 80 mile batteries.

The RAV4 EV was an attempt by Toyota to comply with CARB credit mandates. The car was sold and leased at a significant loss to Toyota. The drivetrain was provided by Tesla. The EPA range on the RAV4 is 103 miles, not 150 or 120 miles. The EPA range on the FFE is 76 miles.

The RAV4 MSRP was $50,000. Toyota took major discounts off this price, but the price still exceeded the FFE by around $10,000. I'm not really sure 25 miles of additional range is worth $10,000. The lease price your friend pays is about $200 (or more) a month of an increase over what is available for the FFE. Again, that is a steep price for 25 miles, but some may think it is affordable.

But in the end, the RAV4 is (or soon will be) no longer available in the one state it was sold. Toyota built 2600 of them for California compliance. The RAV4 EV body was the previous generation when the car was first sold. So it was already an older model the day it came out. It was a scam to gain CARB credits, and then move to a fuel cell vehicle that gets even more CARB credits. Toyota will no longer offer any EV. And the one plug-in Toyota sells is a joke. Ten miles (if lucky) of electric range.

 

[michael]

I know the EPA range is like you said, but I can tell you for a fact that the real range is much, much more. 110 easily achievable on standard charge, 120 with a little care. 140-150 extended. We are not talking 25 extra miles, but 50 or more.

My lease is 370 including tax for 19.5 K miles (I know you can do better now, but that was pretty good at the time) My FFE would simply not do the job for them...they have a 110 mile round trip over the mountains commute without possibility of charging at work. Due to the elevation gain, I don't think the FFE would even make it the 60 miles to their work, never mind back. And in fact a 19.5K mile lease wouldn't work for them either, since they drive around 30K miles/year. So I would say that $130/month extra to be able to drive electric, avoid $400/month gas bills, etc. was well worth it.

 

[ElSupreme]

I think his point is the Rav4EV isn't a good indicator of an 200 mile affordable battery. As it was sold at a loss, and then heavily discounted past that. and is really still only halfway there.

Not saying it wasn't a decent EV.

 

[michael]

Haven't we been saying here the FFE is sold at a loss as well? If not for that and the government money, no EV would be affordable.

All I'm saying is that it's about $120/month more than the FFE and goes 120-150 miles.