But you were talking about charging on the road, not at home. In which case you use the supercharger network (145kw) or rapid chargers (50-75kwh). Who cares if it takes 5hrs to charge at home, that's why you plug it in at night...
The section you quoted was in response to Entwoods suggestion that ended "you no longer "own" a vehicle .. you "rent" it for the duration you need it". The implication being that you are charging batteries/cars that someone else actually owns, or they are charging their own cars/batteries once you have finished renting them. Either way, they aren't going to do anything that reduces the life of their batteries. The batteries will be re-charged in the most cost efficient way which will mean slowly.
I don't know what "crashcharging" is and google only shows 4 results as one word, 2 for gaming/Halo and 2 relating to RC quadcopters, as two words you get lots of results but nothing on first two pages so can't really comment. However, assuming you mean it shortens battery life, the only cars that have been reported at high mileages seem to show 6-10% battery degredation at 150-200k miles. So it doesn't seem like the phenomenon you describe is happening in the real world. I made no reference to
Crashcharging is a phrase we use at work. It basically means charging batteries as fast as possible without them actually catching fire. I simply don't believe the Tessla figures - it simply doesn't stack up with typical Li battery usage. You may be able to achieve that in a lab test, but in the real world? Doubt it.
Moving the point of the consumption is only spurious if you assume both power sources do the same level of environmental damage, which they do not. I made no reference to financial cost when discussing the environmental impact of both fuel sources, only that in making the comparison you referred to the environmental impact of mining lithium for batteries (effectively the car's "petrol tank") compared to mining oil (the fuel). This is not the right comparison. The correct comparison is the environmental impact of a new petrol car vs BEV equivalent (factoring in recyclability) and then the environmental impact of electricity generation and transmission vs environmental impact of drilling, refining and then burning the fuel.
Most proponents of fossil technology are not in favour of making this comparison - can't think why 
That argument just ends up comparing apples with pears though. You either have millions of small sources of noxious fumes chucking particles into the city centres, or dozens of power stations chucking huge quantities of noxious fumes into the atmosphere and storing/burying radioactive waster somewhere for 10's of thousands of years. If you're going the consider the "environmental impact of drilling, refining and then burning the fuel" then you also have to consider the "environmental impact of drilling, refining and then burning the fuel" in the power statons - No?
80% of a full charge will get me how far? 80% of 335 miles is 270 miles - 4 hours at motorway speeds. Then I have to stop and either spend another 40minutes charging, or swap cars/battery packs again.
For 90-95% of users this scenario either could not be less relevant or is relevant only once or twice a year. Take an extreme example. I want to drive from home (DY11) to Naples Italy. 1st full charge takes me to folkestone eurotunnel (225miles) which I need to arrive at least 30 mins beforehand, but in reality you would leave it 45mins plus. So you are back at 100% in Calais. Worst case scenario you have to charge in calais so "lose" 40mins. Second charge gets you to Metz (275miles), and you charge fully, 75mins. Then Lucern (245 miles), charge again 75mins, Modena (260miles), 75 mins then into Rome (250 miles). Maximum "wasted time" 265mins.
Compared to an omega (say 390 miles to the tank), your 1055 miles will be done in 2 stops. So 20 mins if you fill up at calais (using nil time). So, say 20 mins total assuming you pee and monster a sandwich. So the electric car takes 245 mins longer, but at 27mpg, the omega costs you £247 each way, compared to £65 at tesla's rates (assuming your car doesnt qualify for free supercharger use). So you are saving £44.50 per hour you wait. I don't know about you, but that is rather more than my hourly rate! Also bear in mind the above scenario massively favours the car. If you sleep enroute (and I probably would), your car can charge over night. I honestly wouldn't feel save to drive 1100 miles with 2 x 10 min breaks, so it really is in favour of the car.
245 minutes is over 4 hours. An overnight kip (which I agree is sensible) en route saves the Tessla a 75 minute charge (providing the hotel has a charger) vs a 10 min break/fuel stop in the Omega bringing the time difference down to about 3 hours. I can spot a load of US military aircraft at Naples Airport and/or sink a lot of Barolo with my Pizza in Naples in 3 hours. My hourly rate is almost 10 times your £44.50
Truth be told I would fly that trip on Easyjet/Ryanair and expect to pay £100-£200 return and be there in 2 hours unless I had a load of kit to take with me.
But all the above relies on there being suitable Superchargers on the route you chose, and them not already being in use when you get there, and them not damaging the batteries long term.
Author
Topic: Electric Mini (Read 13196 times)