Not sure what numbers you’re looking at, but that isn’t right.
Consider the Model 3 LR AWD 18" aero. Rated range is 310 mi. Range at 80 mph is 254 mi. That’s 18% off the rating.
You could compare to the 65 mph numbers, but that actually gives better than nameplate and is still only a 23% loss.
You could also compare against 55 mph, but that gives much better than the rated range and is still only 35%. I’ve done this, pretty much just as a test–driving at 55 mph with the semis to see what kind of range I get. And I can confirm that it is a significant benefit, though I wouldn’t do this unless I’m desperate to squeeze out a few more miles (hasn’t happened yet). The car did once tell me to keep it under 70 to reach my destination, which I did.
The difference is almost entirely due to air drag. EVs are so much more efficient in other ways that this ends up being the dominant remaining factor. Because air drag goes up with the square of velocity, going even from 65 to 80 is pretty significant.
Yep, I’m bad a reading tables. I pulled the EPA highway dyno test at 48 mph as the base line rather than the advertised EPA rated range which would make for easy comparisons.
Cold impacts the chemistry of the battery - ICE vehicles don’t really have an equivalent. Essentially, ICE vehicles waste energy 100% of the time in the form of heat, but EVs lose energy sometimes when it’s cold. But yes, EVs maintain better performance when they don’t have to deal with cold.
Every car loses efficiency at high speed. It’s aerodynamics. EVs are not different in that respect, but that’s where the refueling/recharging equation comes into play.
My understanding is that once you get going, joule hearing is sufficient to maintain cell temperature. And that cold is more an issue for sitting around and startup. Anytime know?
It’s certainly true that the initial warmup of the cabin eats a lot of juice. So for short trips (just a couple of miles), it’s not that efficient.
Also, at least on Teslas, the heater is resistive whereas the AC is (since there’s no other choice) a heat pump. That means that per degree difference from comfortable, the heater is much less efficient than AC. Plus it tends to get colder than it does hotter: 110 F is freakishly hot but only 40 F hotter than 70 F, whereas 0 F isn’t particularly unusual in cold places, but is 70 F down.
That said, you can pre-warm your EV even while plugged in and avoid the loss from the initial heating (and also have a toasty warm car to arrive at).
Leafs have used a heat pump for heat as well as AC for the last couple of years. It is way more efficient than my last EV that used resistive heating. I expect that will become standard on all EVs soon.
So I drive a PHEV, not a pure EV, so I can quantify this in actual mileage. I got 3400 miles on my last 12-gallon tank of gas over the summer. Come winter, I’m lucky to get 1200. It doesn’t get all that cold here (maybe 30 F at the low end), but the (IC) engine comes on immediately if the car is less than about 60 degrees when it starts.
Once the cabin gets within 5-10 degrees of the set temp, the (IC) engine turns off and won’t come on again for heating purposes. PHEV to EV is apples to apple-like fruits, but at least for this I notice the cold a lot.
(For the record, the car can supposedly drive 540 miles on a tank of gas if it uses no EV at all. I’ve never gotten more than about 480 out of it on long gas-only trips.)
What I am concerned about is the effect on the electrical grid if there are more of these. I am not a civil engineer though but it seems like in many areas they are having trouble keeping up with the need for more electricity as the population grows and they want to move from coal to windmills and solar.
Hybrids though, are actually rather good (and have few of the drawbacks of a pure EV).
The 2019/2020 Prius Two Eco gets 56 combined MPG. At $2.70 a gallon (5 year average), over 100k miles it would cost $4821 in fuel.
The Telsa model 3 is 26 kWh per 100 miles…but there’s charging losses between 7-17%. Taking the average, and the national average of 0.12 cents per kWh, the Tesla costs 3545 to drive 100k miles.
And that’s the problem. The cost savings do not compensate for the increased maintenance costs. A Prius is Toyota’s most reliable car, and Toyota is (statistically) the world’s most reliable automaker. Unfortunately, Teslas are from a new automaker that makes lots of mistakes, and have substantial maintenance costs as the parts are hard to obtain, the skills to work on them are not common, and Tesla’s own service centers are pricey. (once a car is out of warranty).
It’s not a knock on EVs. Just, right now, you’ll get more cost savings with a hybrid. That Prius Two Eco is 24k new MSRP, and you can get a used one for less than half that.
Your problem is trivial. With 200 amp service you have tons of available juice. All you do to free up slots is the electrician can combine two 120 circuits or two 240 circuits with what are called tandem breakers. These are UL listed and will be specific to your panel. You’d just need to free up a single slot, so just 1 tandem breaker would be sufficient.
Now, getting the wire to the garage can be trickier. Or trivial, depending upon the location of the garage with respect to the electric panel.
It’s hard to image but there was once a day when homes were being retrofit for electricity or retrofit for enough capacity for major appliances like clothes dryers and electric ovens.
You seem to be claiming that EV’s have higher maintenance costs than Plug in Hybrids, that have both a gas engine that needs maintenance as well as an electric system.
OR at least, you are claiming that Toyotas need less maintenance than Teslas, and then extrapolating this to the entire Plug in versus pure EV car field. I don’t think this is logically sound.
What about comparing a Nissan LEAF EV maintenance costs to that of Karmen Revero plug in hybrid? Will your comparison still hold?
Most energy companies would disagree with you. Mostly, EV’s are charged at night when demand is off peak. The increase in EV numbers is predictable and manageable; we’re not going to go to 70% EV cars in a year. This predictability is built into most energy company plans.
In terms of “keeping up with the need for more electricity”, I will point out that recent cuts to the grid in California were related to a company not upgrading their lines, so that they blow down and cause fires. This is why power was shut off to people, not because there was a lack of power.
Apples to apples, with present battery technology and present engine technology, yes, I am claiming hybrids are more reliable than pure EVs. The battery in an EV is a more expensive component to swap than the gasoline engine, and has less available service miles. (and the hybrid battery is far cheaper, especially in common hybrids)
I am saying if Toyota made a pure EV as well as their hybrids, the hybrid would be cheaper in the long term to maintain, with present-day batteries.
As for Toyota vs Tesla, sure, obviously Toyota wins.
No, obviously some random small-production volume plug in hybrid from a random manufacturer may not be as reliable as a random EV.
Here’s an article that covers a study that was done comparing apples to apples. They compared total cost of ownership of:
The study found
And
I notice you are now saying “I am claiming that hybrids are more reliable than pure EVs” Are we talking about cost savings, as in your post #309, or reliability now? These seem to be two different things.
I am talking about reliability and TCO minus depreciation. If you look at the paper you linked, PHEVs and BEVs are shown as costing virtually the same, with the PHEVs being slightly cheaper and actually the cheapest option except in the UK. Depreciation - which is a market opinion based upon factors outside the fundamental merits of a given drivetrain - is the reason for the claimed cost differences.
Depreciation can lead to spikes in the numbers outside the merits of something. For example, in 2010 the Prius was so popular that it had negative depreciation for a brief time, where dealerships would offer to buy cars back for more than they sold them for.
Yes, but not every car suffers issues with range due to temperature or speed. I just drove 400 miles on a day trip starting with 1/4 tank of gas. At some random point I pulled over for fuel. It took less than 5 minutes to exit the highway and return with a full tank of fuel. After my trip I immediately drove another 30 miles for errands. I have no idea how much “range” I have left in the car and I don’t care because it’s never more than 5 minutes away from fueling a 350 mile trip at 80 mph.
The planning for my trip consisted of speaking the destination into my phone as I put on my seat-belt.
All this talk of a future infrastructure to support charging Li’s is unrealistic. It’s not practical to wire up every origin/destination parking space. It’s far more practical to upgrade the battery to one isn’t tethered to time and location.
The future is electric vehicles. It is not Li batteries.
My wife recently did a similar day trip in our EV. Planning consisted of spending 5 seconds plugging the car in the night before, which is something we do anyway. The day of the trip, she spent 16 minutes supercharging on the way home from her destination. That 16 minutes was concurrent with buying a drink and snacks for the drive home, so maybe 10 minutes of it was “wasted” time. The car still had plenty of range when she got back. We plugged in that evening, and the car was full and ready to go the next day.
Total cost of electricity for the trip would have been about $10 if we had to pay for supercharging, but because we were using free miles it ended up being $4 for the home charging. Using our gas car would have cost about $60. So, she made a 300 mile trip for less than the cost of two gallons of gas. If it had been a 400 mile round trip, the only difference would have been spending another 12 minutes or so at the supercharger.
The “infrastructure” part of it is going someplace that had a supercharger conveniently located near the destination. Us EV advocates will readily admit that there are lots of places that don’t have them. When we talk about the build out of infrastructure, that’s what you mean. Sure, Grandpa’s farm in the middle of rural Nebraska won’t have a supercharger, but lots of places that other people want to go will have them. No need for every parking spot to have a charger. That is the kind of hyperbole that the OP is directed at.
Why do I not worry about finding a place to refuel my ICE car? Because plenty of people have found it profitable to operate gas stations. I expect the same thing to occur as EVs are more common; there will be charging stations for a fee, or perhaps at a discount, when attached to restaurants or stores. And if you are at Grandpa’s farm in the middle of rural Nebraska, you could just plug your car into a 110V outlet to recharge, albeit slowly.
The video contents: 60% of new vehicles in Norway are pure EVs. (and 18% more are hybrids). So EV chargers are commonplace. In the video, the author is at a Circle K convenience store, which has a number of EV chargers (in a previous video he was at IKEA, chargers are quite common). Even though there presently several incompatible charging standards, each charger has two cables, one for each standard. 3 of the chargers are 50 kW and the one he’s on is 150 kW. 350 kW chargers exist though not at this station.
EVs need about 1 kWh per mile, so you can roughly work out the charging ratio. At 150 kW, in an hour you gain 450 miles of driving range, or about 7 hours of driving at 65 mph. Or a maximum stop time of about 30 minutes with real battery capacities. At 350 kW, you get that much range in under 10 minutes.
At 350 kW, you’re basically at gas pump speeds. No real difference. It’ll be a few more years before EVs that can reliably accept those kinds of charging rates are common, but they are coming.