Uhm, no, you’re going there for some length of time already, and the charging will be incidental. Also you never really have to take longer than you need or charge up to 100% – some battery chemistries last longer if they’re only charged to ~80-90% of capacity. And you can get to that level faster, since charging power drops at the last 10-20%, which means the final stretch takes a lot longer than the first. I expect total charging time to continue to decrease in the future also, so that’ll help.
I don’t know yet, cause I don’t actually know how it works. Who is paying for these charging stations? My guess is the manufacturers and the government (via incentives) have something to do with it, because it’s clearly a selling point. I’d also guess that business at this point want to attract EV owners, so it’s probably profitable. Of course I would prefer to charge at home if that’s the most affordable option, but commercial energy rates are often lower than residential, so I could see it being cheaper to charge at Fuddruckers (for example) than at home. And Fuddruckers has a parking lot they could cover with solar panels and batteries, so it’d be even cheaper.
So my daily errands must include time consuming ones? I want how long I stay somewhere to be based on how long I want to stay there, not based on my need to charge my car. Your whole concept requires a rather drastic change in the priorities of everyday life.
I may be wrong about this, but I thought EV batteries use the same technology that degrades quicker with repeated short charge/drain cycles? Where fewer, longer charges are better for your long term investment in the vehicle?
Quick-swap batteries, where you add a charged battery and the drained one is then recharged outside the car. Yes, that would require all-new technology.
Or electrified roadways, that power/recharge the car while driving, with the battery only being used on unpowered back roads.
Those are the two feasible solutions, even if neither solution is particularly feasible to develop/impliment.
No, I also want you to stay there based on how long you want to stay there and not based on your need to charge your car. We’re not in disagreement here. You’d only need to stay longer if you’ve driven too far, in which case you can either keep your ICE or adapt
I don’t know about the short charge/drain cycles degrading it quicker. Going to 0% and 100% degrades it quicker than staying between 20% and 80%.
So your “no” was actually a “yes”? In this context, adapting is changing your priorities.
I’ve always wondered why anything with rechargable batteries is allowed to go to 0% or 100%? Why dont manufacturers reset the scale according to their product, and make 0% equal to 20% battery capacity and 100% equal to 80% battery capacity?
Scripta …
He just wants to argue. Its political to him.
He cannot logically understand the point you are making since it wouldn’t allow him to still be “right”
So his brain cannot accept what u are saying. He simply cannot ever understand it.
To those caple of understanding it. Wherever u are going to go ANYWAYS you charge while you are there. Instead of going to get gas (separate trip) at a gas station.
This is not an actual concern for 95-99% of ppl n trips as you charge at home.
I’m making tangible points about the practical limitations. I’m not the one dismissing those points as being “political” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) because they dont allow me to still be “right”.
Then there’s comments like this. That ignore the fact that half the country doesnt live in a home where charging overnight is a remotely feasible option.
Depends on your priorities I guess. If your plan is to go out to a restaurant that’s three hours away, and it’ll take longer to recharge your car than to eat, then you’ll have to find a closer restaurant. If your priority is to eat, that shouldn’t be a problem. If your priority is to go to that restaurant, then I suppose yes, adapting would mean changing priorities.
They do, or at least they’re supposed to. I was just reading something which said that 100% is never actually 100%. But the “keep it between 20% and 80%” guidance still exists, because I suspect in the manufacturer internal battle of advertised maximum range vs longevity, the range wins.
But what if your priority is to grab takeout to eat at home, or even swing by the grocery store to grab something to make at home? Every argument is made with the presumption of staying in one place for an hour (or half hour, or whatever the required length of time), regardless of where/why that may be. “Going to a restaurant to eat” is only rationalizing that presumption.
A renter with no charger near his home or work whose priority is to swing by the grocery store or takeout, who never spends enough time near a charger, clearly should not be getting an electric car that can’t be charged quickly. At some point this may describe a rather small subset of all car users.
You are missing the actual point while “answering to reply” a slightly different Interpretation of the actual point. A debatable part of the point.
Its pathological. Im not saying you are doing this on purpose … that would be trolling. Its just that you are incapable of EXACTLY understanding what’s being said since it will conflict with the very core of your being. Your brain just will not allow that.
My friend does this. Its maddening until you figure it out. Then its just a shoulder shrug … it just be that way sometimes.
And yet the agenda being pushed is to leave them with no other choice. There is no opposition to electric vehicles existing (at least exponentially less than that crowd has against gas powered cars), the opposition is to EVs being mandated crammed down everyone’s throats not only as a viable solution, but as the only viable solution. Go ahead and develop products and let the market develop as it develops, but that isnt happening - it’s being actively forced from numerous directions.
But it isnt happening at some point. Regulations and initiatives are forcing that point to be now, despite the technological capabilities being not ready for prime time.
The market has failed, because garbage cleanup is never included in the costs, so the market must be actively forced. There’s sufficient time in the timeline to make it a reality – nothing is being crammed down anyone’s throats right now – everyone has a few years. And since everyone knows what’s coming, everyone has a chance to prepare.
See this. Maybe the greens can join the line at the EV charging station?
BERLIN — The Greens want Germany to ban gas and oil heating and switch to heat pumps — but have been struggling to install such a device in their own party headquarters for years.
The Greens wanted to use the renovation of its headquarters in the heart of Berlin to renew its gas heating system, making it climate-neutral and in line with their plans for German society. But according to a report in Der Spiegel, the party has been trying and failing since the end of 2019 to complete construction work and install a heat pump.
At the time, Michael Kellner, then general secretary of the party and now state secretary in Robert Habeck’s economy ministry, said during a tour: “We’ll rebuild the house first and then the land.”
Things turned out differently, however, as the Green Party’s approval ratings have plummeted to 14 percent from 23 percent last summer — and the heat pump, a blue box with a fan, vegetates in the courtyard of the headquarters.
You’re the one who claimed failure, I just reframed the target of your claim. If the market hasnt adapted to your satisfaction, it’s due to the product(s) you are expecting it to adapt to.
