- cross-posted to:
- automotive@discuss.tchncs.de
- technews@radiation.party
Japanese firm believes it could make a solid-state battery with a range of 745 miles that charges in 10 minutes
Japanese firm believes it could make a solid-state battery with a range of 745 miles that charges in 10 minutes
I’ve got the 2021 Kona EV and while you do lose range in the winter, it’s more like 100km/450km. That’s with intense grip heavy winter tires and the heater running. In Ontario, so regularly ran it with -35c temps. It’s cold and you lose some range, but not 400miles out of a 700mile range
In general Li ion batteries lose about 40% charge efficiency in normal cold weather. It’s up to the car’s systems to keep the batteries heated to reduce that, at the cost of constant power draw. In our experience with similar weather it’s not far off, and for safety reasons we just assume half the battery is lost during winter driving. Mountains add into that, but aren’t ultimately super extreme.
Yes, but the power draw of those systems are less than the 40% figure you cited. Anyone who lives somewhere cold and doesn’t get a heat pump on their battery is stupid, and not a fair comparison. As I mentioned, the battery life is closer to losing 10% than 40% in real life tests of the vehicles, and that lines up with my experiences.
Source
Ultimately depends on the car and the engineering. You’ll note that I am speaking in favor of safety. Nonetheless I didn’t come here to argue about individual car specs, I came here to point out that getting up to 700 miles of range is a huge benefit, and that many parts of the US and many people in the US need cars with larger ranges than 300 mi.
Yes some cars dont lose very much range in the winter, some lose as much as 30% from real testing. There’s no magic generalization here, I used 40% as a safety factor.
From your own source that 40% is wildly inaccurate. Even if it was accurate a 40% range loss from 700 miles is 420 miles.
Safety factor based on what though? There is nothing to support that most cars would lose 40% of their range, but you added 10% to real world data and called it a “safety factor” to try to legitimize what you said.
Yes that’s… what a safety factor is. You add a margin on the worst case scenario to cover what you didn’t foresee. When discussing something online, especially off the cuff, adding in safety factors especially when it’s something you’re biased towards is just good practice.
For example, things that add into that safety factor are things you’d want to include when doing the same discussion on ICE cars, where the HVAC can impact fuel economy substantially. Something that isn’t included in the analysis from above.