Full Speed Ahead: EV Study Reveals Impacts of Fast Charging
recurrentauto.com
recurrentauto.com
https://www.reuters.com/legal/tesla-faces-california-class-a...
But, it makes me wonder if the other car companies will have similar levels of battery management or suffer from early death. Considering how large a proportion the battery is of the total cost, it makes sense to have some great management.
(Have supercharged my model s almost exclusively over 5 years and 110k miles and still only have 8% degradation, 100kw pack, n=1)
That's not saying much
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/new-images-and-video-conf...
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-placed-bottom-consumer-repor...
“This one weird trick.”
> They're the most heavily subsidized US company today outside of military contractors/weapons manufacturers
Without the American taxpayer doing more than their fair share to keep them solvent, they’d be selling at 30-40% more.
And they’re not selling. It’s why Musk started offering 84-month financing; to try and convince people to come buy them.
Subsides are good if you believe in climate change. The top 40% (by income) of Americans pay federal income tax, they can afford to provide EV subsides. If you don’t believe in climate change, there is no value in a conversation.
Tesla sells a large portion of vehicles in China where the margins are tiny compared to those in the US market. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/stella....
Tesla's customer service org still needs improvement. If I were the service manager and assuming engineering really signed off on the structure being OK as-is... I'd just have one of our welders patch up the cracks. Even if it doesn't affect the structure it would give the customer peace of mind.
If you think these kinds of issues are unique to Tesla prepare to be surprised. Traditional dealers deal with this crap on half the new cars they receive. When I bought an Infiniti a few years ago it came with a couple of flaws from the factory (lest you think the Japanese manufacturers are better) - the dealer issued me a "we owe" sheet with a promise to repair the issues which they did once parts arrived.
The lauded BMW sold me an M3 with defective journal bearings that grenaded the engine at 20k miles. At least a missing brake reservoir cap can be easily replaced! The replacement block alone was billed to BMW at $14k excluding other parts and labor. That same M3 ate its differential bearings not long after. The service tech's explanation to me was that "Hans must have come into work hung over that day".
My point is: if you go looking for problems you will find them. With every make and model. You can't point to one person's possible problem and say "ah-ha! That car maker produces garbage!"
They are
In the end both of us are just posting personal experiences and opinions here, not data.
The data is really easy to find. Here's two examples of CR results:
2011: https://www.nydailynews.com/autos/japanese-cars-reliable-sur...
2021: https://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2021/11/japanese-makers-dom...
If people are replacing their batteries every 8 years, we _REALLY_ need to optimize our grid and figure out a real solution to recycling EV batteries ASAP
We already have both figured out and have for quite some time, at this point it's just a combination of scaling up (for recycling), and political will for rapid expansion of renewables and bringing new nuclear plants online.
https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/29/redwood-materials-raises-1...
Modern solar panels are usually rated to 90%+ production at 20 years. Mine are rated for 92%. It turns out all the sturm und drang about having to replace solar panels and "oh-my-god manufacturing emissions will outstrip the benefits produced over their lifetime" ... was bunk. Rounded down: no one ever replaces their solar panels. In all likelyhood even 100 year old panels will still be producing >50% of their rated output. For the rare case where someone replaces panels the old panels are re-sold to a new user... they are very rarely junked.
Batteries don't last quite as long but they have similar characteristics. People forget about range anxiety and just drive the vehicle. It turns out most people don't see capacity reductions anywhere near the dire predictions. They often don't notice the capacity reduction nor care even when they do notice. Even when someone wrecks an EV the batteries are often not recycled - people buy and use them either as replacements for their own vehicles or for power backup systems. Fleet stats are in the early stages but so far even after driving for 10+ years most Tesla owners are on the original battery and happy with it.
mmmm hmmm
As interest in clean energy surges, used solar panels are going straight into landfill https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power
The Solar Boom Will Create Millions of Tons of Junk Panels https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-solar-boom-will-create-mill...
The Global South’s solar e-waste problem https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/10/03/the-global-souths-sol...
Rising power costs worsening solar panel e-waste crisis as people replace panels prematurely https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-08/rising-power-costs-wo...
Solar recycling is broken, but there’s a plan to fix it https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/29/22857157/solar-recycling...
Are solar panels the next e-waste? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/sep/03/solar-pa...
Are your other links relevant at all either?
The first link is not "speculative". It's projecting from the current (very high) rate of landfill waste to try to predict how much will be going to the landfill with the ongoing boom
> Using real U.S. data, we modeled the incentives affecting consumers’ decisions whether to replace under various scenarios
They model replacement, and assume that the replaced equipment is going into a landfill, which is exactly the OP's point that it won't. It's entirely speculative, and based on assumptions OP says aren't true. Why would you post that?
The rate of solar panel replacement is extremely low. Very few people replace their panels. Modern panels also don't degrade very quickly, often warrantied for less than 0.5%/year. Most people who do replacements are the much smaller number of early adopters.
These are just facts. The supposed "avalanche" of old panels has not appeared. In other words if you compare # of panels produced per year to # of panels being thrown away it is more favorable than most products. Not that any of the articles you posted even make an attempt to run those numbers.
I stand by my point: both solar panels and batteries have been steadily improving year after year. They last longer than people think and are not creating a tide of waste as the nay-sayers keep predicting in order to squash these technologies to promote burning fossil fuels.
Genuinely asking - 9% of what vs. 35% of what? Lifetime carbon emissions for each respective vehicle, or something else?
As for your second sentence, the entire point of this article was that that's not true.
1. It was not my claim, I was just clarifying OP's claim.
2. "That's not true" is an oversimplification. The article is basically saying that the software vehicles have to prevent damage from fast charging generally seems to work and minimal damage is occurred. But it still cautions against fast charging in high temperatures for example
ICE cars don't really lose range, but they do degrade faster in ways that EVs don't.
I understand ICE have more moving parts, but this doesn't really hold up. If you DON'T INCLUDE battery costs, then EVs begin to be cheaper in maintenance after ~3 years (in the first 3 months they cost ~2.3x more in maintenance and this figure gradually reduces). However, there have not been significant studies that go beyond this range which is when battery issues/replacements start to factor in. I wouldn't be surprised if after 10 years maintenance costs for EVs would again be higher than for ICE
https://s3-prod.autonews.com/2021-05/We%20Predict%20APA%20Pr...
This is my biggest hang up on EVs. They age like paper straws.
Yeah, for a Toyota that's owned by an expert car mechanic, who's hobby is doing full engine rebuilds every Tuesday.
Our BMW was a write-off after 12 years.
It's a weird attack angle for the anti-EV rhetoric. People talk about the longevity of an EV and somehow either don't realize or acknowledge its comparable to an ICE vehicle and then put this worried look on their face.
https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2022/02/how-old-are-cars/
If the data here is to be believed, then cars 2009 and prior make up 44% of of all cars on the road today, or or very roughly around 127 million cars.
There really isn't that much to be said about EV longevity because to be frank, they isn't really enough data right now. There's not enough that are not old enough.
There could be some phenomenal unprecedented cliff that defies the durability life cycle of all manufactured goods but the fundamental assumption here is they're going to behave like typical similar products for the rest of the cycle.
I'm certainly not a professional in the automobile waste stream but from what I've read, transmissions, which are the key difference here, have a failure rate that is far longer than the normal distribution of car lives.
That means the car gets junked mostly for other reasons, probably a compound of various reasons such as the style being outdated, the interior being worn, the body suffering various damages, parts of the drivetrain wearing, hard to replace sensors going bad, accidents, and multiples of these things
I spent the past 7 years of my life in telematics logistics and fleet operations of hybrids, hydrogen, CNG and EVs so I know some things but I can only personally speak for the couple hundred that I worked with and what I've read
In a model Y with 340 miles of rated range, you'd be down to ~310 miles of range. And what happens from there? This study shows the same effect that others do - range loss pretty much levels off at a certain point. 300 miles of range is more than sufficient for 90% of people, especially when they can wake up with a fully charged vehicle every morning if they are charging at home.
It's not hard to calculate the economics of batteries for residential solar (I've done it repeatedly), but I can save you some time: it's pointless. Because if it was viable, then it would cheaper and more efficient for utility companies to build their own grid batteries (which they do: but not for long-term energy storage, they use it for grid stability).
The price you pay for off-peak power, will always be slightly less the minimum cost of battery ownership. Because if batteries were cheaper to own, then you would get that price via your electricity bill anyway.
2. The grid mostly doesn’t care how far the battery is from the panel.
3. Lithium ion is an incredibly inefficient means of storing power that doesn’t have to be portable. Grid storage doesn’t use Li ion because it isn’t cost effective.
In summary the major misallocation of resources is using lithium batteries to store grid power at all. At home solar is the next Great Leap Forward for humanity. It's about as logical as making steel at home.
In case you didn't get the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
Mass, doesn't really matter unless we are over what single truck can deliver or can be installed at time. Meaning tens of tons.
Volume, some limits, but still I think few cubic meters is in reasonable space. Compare to oil and gas.
Cost per kwh and cycles is the important ones. They should result in less than grid costs.
Also I would consider safety to be important. Is there risk of fire? In event of fire does it keep burning? Does if off gas something toxic that stays also after? Etc.