Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[hUirEYExbN]

Youtuber Big Clive has some thoughts on the tablessness:

[djos]

I like Big Clive and watch him frequently, however, I think he's well wide of the mark in his theories as he entirely failed to address the spiral tabless design that Tesla showed off.

[strad]

This might explain better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1ppM22EQFs

[Brake Horse Power]

Beside the technical part.. I think it's really impressive to see one company just seriously plan and calculate what it takes to change the world. The vision this guy has is unrivaled. For me that's the best thing of this battery day, they go big! That's what matters

[Greg Locock]

The new contacts give increased contact area and shorter path lengths compared with tabs. It may be making a virtue of necessity - otherwise the bigger diameter would be a backward step for path length, but none the less it is a good move.

[djos]

The new contacts give increased contact area and shorter path lengths compared with tabs. It may be making a virtue of necessity - otherwise the bigger diameter would be a backward step for path length, but none the less it is a good move.

One of the things Tesla mentioned in the presentation was that without the tabless design, the larger cell would not be possible at all.

[Andres125sx]

This might explain better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1ppM22EQFs

Indeed, very good explanation, upvoted


IMO Musk has proven business and ethics can go togheter. I don´t think he´s an altruist, don´t get me wrong, he´s a business man over anything else, but he´s managed to do it in a sustainable way

Also this has explained the reason battery packs are manufactured with small cells, something I asked myself in this thread some time ago, as I didn´t understand the reason big battery packs were manufactured with thousands of small cells instead of using bigger cells to simplify manufacturing and posssible failure points

[rscsr]

This might explain better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1ppM22EQFs

Indeed, very good explanation, upvoted


IMO Musk has proven business and ethics can go togheter. I don´t think he´s an altruist, don´t get me wrong, he´s a business man over anything else, but he´s managed to do it in a sustainable way

Also this has explained the reason battery packs are manufactured with small cells, something I asked myself in this thread some time ago, as I didn´t understand the reason big battery packs were manufactured with thousands of small cells instead of using bigger cells to simplify manufacturing and posssible failure points

tbh that didn't change my mind that all the stuff is just for the sake of hype generation.
They wanted to make a bigger battery because they wanted more capacity per battery? Why would anyone care? You still have the same packing density for the entire battery. And why would it even be cheaper to produce? What is actually the cost of assembling the battery vs the material cost?
And now they cast the entire rear in one piece? That is such a stupid thing to do imho. From an engineering standpoint and from a business standpoint. But it generates hype. And that seems to be all that matters.

[Andres125sx]

This might explain better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1ppM22EQFs

Indeed, very good explanation, upvoted


IMO Musk has proven business and ethics can go togheter. I don´t think he´s an altruist, don´t get me wrong, he´s a business man over anything else, but he´s managed to do it in a sustainable way

Also this has explained the reason battery packs are manufactured with small cells, something I asked myself in this thread some time ago, as I didn´t understand the reason big battery packs were manufactured with thousands of small cells instead of using bigger cells to simplify manufacturing and posssible failure points

tbh that didn't change my mind that all the stuff is just for the sake of hype generation.
They wanted to make a bigger battery because they wanted more capacity per battery? Why would anyone care? You still have the same packing density for the entire battery. And why would it even be cheaper to produce? What is actually the cost of assembling the battery vs the material cost?
And now they cast the entire rear in one piece? That is such a stupid thing to do imho. From an engineering standpoint and from a business standpoint. But it generates hype. And that seems to be all that matters.

tbh I´m shocked by your post. 16% increase in range is noticeable, specially when we talk about the brand wich provides highest range in the market. Better thermal control is very important both to be able to aply full power for longer periods, and for battery lifespan. And a 40% bigger cell means 40% less soldering points aka potential failure points, and obviously faster and cheaper manufacturing process of the battery pack.

Not a game changer, but surely a step forward

[strad]

All very good points Andres. I especially like the idea of 16% increase in range.

[Scorpaguy]

Re the title of this thread...the answer is "now". The economics of motors vs engines is quite dynamic, however viability is already here...and that does not mean engines are no longer viable. Rather, neither set of economics OR sustainability is a simple linear equation whose balance can be definitively determined. Rather the construct and operation of both modes of propulsion is a complex web of both fixed resource costs and variable policy direction algorithms.

If one seeks to answer the question of this thread's title re abject cost effectiveness and sustainability, neither tech passes the test. The laws of thermodynamics assure us that eventually both modes of travel ( and their corresponding support infrastructures) will push their equations out of balance. Thus, although we can enjoy and utilize both modes now, eventually, the required natural resources will be depleted and the monetary compensation required to pay for such will be uncompetitive.

Today, my garage contains a BMW i3 and a Porsche MacanS. Both are great cars and quite viable...the Macan faster and the i3 cheaper.

[djos]

Re the title of this thread...the answer is "now". The economics of motors vs engines is quite dynamic, however viability is already here...and that does not mean engines are no longer viable. Rather, neither set of economics OR sustainability is a simple linear equation whose balance can be definitively determined. Rather the construct and operation of both modes of propulsion is a complex web of both fixed resource costs and variable policy direction algorithms.

If one seeks to answer the question of this thread's title re abject cost effectiveness and sustainability, neither tech passes the test. The laws of thermodynamics assure us that eventually both modes of travel ( and their corresponding support infrastructures) will push their equations out of balance. Thus, although we can enjoy and utilize both modes now, eventually, the required natural resources will be depleted and the monetary compensation required to pay for such will be uncompetitive.

Today, my garage contains a BMW i3 and a Porsche MacanS. Both are great cars and quite viable...the Macan faster and the i3 cheaper.

From a mainstream point of view they still dont stack up across the board. They really only compete with luxury cars on price.

[Scorpaguy]

Re the title of this thread...the answer is "now". The economics of motors vs engines is quite dynamic, however viability is already here...and that does not mean engines are no longer viable. Rather, neither set of economics OR sustainability is a simple linear equation whose balance can be definitively determined. Rather the construct and operation of both modes of propulsion is a complex web of both fixed resource costs and variable policy direction algorithms.

If one seeks to answer the question of this thread's title re abject cost effectiveness and sustainability, neither tech passes the test. The laws of thermodynamics assure us that eventually both modes of travel ( and their corresponding support infrastructures) will push their equations out of balance. Thus, although we can enjoy and utilize both modes now, eventually, the required natural resources will be depleted and the monetary compensation required to pay for such will be uncompetitive.

Today, my garage contains a BMW i3 and a Porsche MacanS. Both are great cars and quite viable...the Macan faster and the i3 cheaper.

From a mainstream point of view they still dont stack up across the board. They really only compete with luxury cars on price.

...not sure what is considered the threshold of "luxury", but my new i3 out the door price of 27.5 K (and 19.5K for my employer's Nissan Leafs) seems comparable to me. Granted both prices include 7.5K fed tax credits, but I reckon the governments of the world have applied a commensurate amt of support to the petrol industry over the last 100 or so years.

[djos]

From a mainstream point of view they still dont stack up across the board. They really only compete with luxury cars on price.

...not sure what is considered the threshold of "luxury", but my new i3 out the door price of 27.5 K (and 19.5K for my employer's Nissan Leafs) seems comparable to me. Granted both prices include 7.5K fed tax credits, but I reckon the governments of the world have applied a commensurate amt of support to the petrol industry over the last 100 or so years.

Here in Aus there are no BEV Subsidies so here are some true examples of what the cars really cost (base models) in AUD inc taxes and on-road costs:

Hyundai Ionic Electric $46,000 AUD
Nissan leaf $51,000 AUD
Tesla Model 3 $78,000 AUD

compared to the following cars

Lexus CT $43,000
Lexus IS $62,000

So yeah, BEV's are expensive still (not including TCO). I could also buy a fully loaded hot hatch like the Hyundai i30N for a little less money than the Ionic BEV.

and then there are cars like my 2019 Kia Rio GT-Line, it's a bit smaller than the Leaf but cost $24,000 on the road.

[djos]

This might explain better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1ppM22EQFs

and here's a great video from an Electronic Engineer: