Volvo Developing Nano-Battery Tech Built Into Car Body Panels 178
cartechboy writes "Electric vehicle batteries have three problems — they're big, heavy, and expensive. But what if you could shift EV batteries away from being big blocks under the car and engineer them into the car itself? Research groups at Imperial College London working with Volvo have spent three years developing a way to do exactly that. The researchers are storing energy in nano structure batteries woven into carbon fiber--which can then be formed into car body panels. These panel-style batteries charge and store energy faster than normal EV batteries, and they are also lighter and more eco-friendly. The research team has built a Volvo S80 prototype featuring the panels where the battery panel material has been used for the trunk lid. With the materials used on the doors, roof and hood, estimated range for a mid-size electric car is around 80 miles."
Hazard (Score:3, Interesting)
Great, so now it's not just one battery pack in the back that's a fire risk, the whole exterior of the car could spontaneously combust at any moment. Oh, and good bye independant body shops.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hazard (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, let me ask you a slightly different question. How much more expensive would a trunk panel be if it were a battery?
Cars are moving towards carbon fiber and other exotic materials today because of the reduction in weight and thus improvement in MPG. So let’s assume your car already had a fiber carbon trunk which is going to be expensive to repair. If the marginal cost to add the battery function is low then you would still be better off.
Re:Hazard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Also there are still those jerks that ram shopping carts into new cars in parking lots. I only had my new car for three months when I came out of the store to a huge dent in the back passenger side door. I was
Re: (Score:3)
Its wishful thinking if you think expensive parts will stop stupidity. If you are in an accident and a body panel costs ten grand who eats the cost? Why the insurance companies of course. The idiot driver doesn't have to worry about his ten grand door panel. In most states in the US you are required to have insurance except for Wisconsin and New Hampshire but they have stipulations regarding being able to pay for damages if you are at fault. So you are still left with shit drivers because the insurance comp
Re: (Score:2)
Ferrari's might be moving toward carbon fibre, but Volvo's haven't really made the transition yet. Outside of the highest performance cars you'll find the same steel as we've been using for 40 years. The increased cost of carbon has never really been worth it. Batteries might be, but that's still to be seen.
Re: (Score:2)
having to replace something like the roof is nowadays easily enough to put the whole car on insurance sale.. that meaning that the cost of repair isn't worth it. it's a structural part and expensive to fix even if it isn't functioning as a battery.
what I'm interested in, how long a range would you have if you just made 8cm thick bottom for the car out of the stuff?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, cost of repairing small damage just goes through the roof if you do this.
So what happens if you put in flat rechargeable modules like the flat 6v batteries in Polaroid SX-70 film packs [time.com], in various places (upgraded of course), like attached to the back seat on the trunk side, or just use arrays of Li-ion batteries all over the place? Not embedded, as small modules that can be replaced as they fail?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Failure due to short circuiting the capacitor via mechanical failure (accident)
2) Failure due to normal wear.
3) Failure due to material defects.
4) Failure due to improper installation...
Really, there are 100's of ways that the system could be compromised. Some may be mitigated with logic in the car to identify failing components. But, instantaneo
Re:Hazard (Score:5, Informative)
I didn't say that they don't pose *ANY*... I said that they don't pose *THAT KIND OF*.
The fire hazard that exists in lithium batteries exists because of a potential for a chemical reaction between the lithium and any nearby moisture. Carbon fibre batteries pose no such danger at all.
That said, if sufficiently damaged, the result with a carbon fibre battery is approximately the same as when a capacitor gets damaged. It is shorted out and becomes useless. The energy is released in an instant when the short occurs, just like a static spark... but since pure carbon is not especially flammable (eg: diamonds) a fire is still not terribly likely (still theoretically possible, but unlikely).
Re:Hazard (Score:5, Informative)
pure carbon is not especially flammable (eg: diamonds)
Pure carbon is quite flammable. Try check out the MSDS for graphite [hawaii.edu]. The problem with diamonds is their surface area is relatively low, but you can burn them slowly with a hot enough flame and high enough concentration of oxygen.
Re: (Score:2)
Coal isn't quite pure carbon. There's oxygens and the occasional nitrogens in the structure too. Graphite is pure carbon, except for hydrogens at the edges.
Re: (Score:3)
If an impact creates a short through the surface, the energy of the battery will be dumped through the short, appearing as heat in the resistance of the (non-superconducting) short and the conductors leading to it.
If something isn't done to interrupt this discharge, the energy will be dumped as heat (and perhaps actinic light and vaporized material) at the short, the region around it, or the whole panel.
The trick will be to build the panel so that, in a crash, the breakage and/or the current from the short(
Re: (Score:2)
The fire hazard that exists in lithium batteries exists because of a potential for a chemical reaction between the lithium and any nearby moisture.
Nope. Lithium polymer, and to a lesser degree, lithium ion batteries, catch fire when an internal short generates a thermal runaway. The only risk moisture poses is it could short a cathode and anode in a cell, and again, you get a thermal runaway. There is no chemical reaction between the lithium and water.
Re:Hazard (Score:4, Interesting)
Anything that stores energy, particularly electrical energy, is a fire risk, particularly when it involves sudden grievous damage to the structure containing that energy
That's just not true. There are many ways of storing power. Take hydrogen for example: you can store power by cracking water to get it, but how do you store it? If you store it in some compressed gas form, you're asking for trouble. If you store it in a big low-pressure balloon on top the bus (people actually do this), the practical risk is low, since with any rupture the hydrogen will move up quickly. But you can also store it as an metal hydride, which requires electrical power to release at any speed. Yes, it can catch fire, but it will just burn slowly for a long time, and can be extinguished normally.
Another example are the kinetic batteries occasionally used by satellites - storing power in a flywheel sounds dangerous, but not if you make the flywheel of soft plastic, so that it lacks the structural integrity to fly off the axel and will instead just shred itself if damaged. That was prototyped for electric car battery use, but the need to gimbal-mount the batteries was prohibitive.
Really, for electric car batteries the bar is pretty low - as safe as a tank of gasoline. For home solar to ever really take off it will be a greater safety concern, at least if you want to store enough power to run your house for a day (which seems like a minimum to not need grid power). I do wonder if the flywheel concept might not be worth a second look for the home - weight no longer an issue, and no need for gimbals.
Re: (Score:2)
The hindenburg comes to mind, hydrogen is dangerous.
What a strange non-sequitur. You do know that the lesson from the Hindenburg is that rocket fuel is dangerous, and you shouldn't paint your airship with it, right?
Yes, magnesium is dangerous, what's your point (and yet you can still buy magnesium wheels)? Palladium hydride is far safer, and was the choice the DOE threw a ton of research money at.
Re: (Score:2)
More like good bye after market vendors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Hazard (Score:3)
But we Slashdotters say Ni!
Re:Hazard (Score:5, Insightful)
Great, so now it's not just one battery pack in the back that's a fire risk, the whole exterior of the car could spontaneously combust at any moment. Oh, and good bye independant body shops.
Do you walk around with a phone thinking "in my pocket, near my crotch is a continuing, unending fire risk that occasionally makes phone calls".
A flaming car is an exceptional event, but say 'hello' to a rash of volvo body panel thefts!
Re: (Score:2)
Great, so now it's not just one battery pack in the back that's a fire risk, the whole exterior of the car could spontaneously combust at any moment. Oh, and good bye independant body shops.
Do you walk around with a phone thinking "in my pocket, near my crotch is a continuing, unending fire risk that occasionally makes phone calls".
No, but we also don't stab screwdrivers through our cell phones while they are in our pockets.
Try that for us and see if you have a positive result. Make sure you have a full charge first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, have it your way. Charge up your phone, put it into your pocket, and run out into traffic. After a car hits you, come back and let up know how your cell phone is doing. Oh, make sure the vehicle in this test hits your phone directly; getting struck in the opposite hip doesn't count. So if the first one isn't at the right angle, stumble on until another opportunity presents itself. That will usually be about three seconds later.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see the value of those panels being high enough to justify stealing and reselling. The trouble involved in taking off a panel without damaging it is reason enough to discourage thieves. Catalytic converters on the other hand could quickly be chopped off a car that you could slide under and resold as raw materials instead of attempting to sell an actual car part at a ridiculously lower value than new.
Re: (Score:2)
> Do you walk around with a phone thinking "in my pocket, near my crotch is a continuing, unending fire risk that occasionally makes phone calls".
No, but occasionally I think that of my laptop.
Re: (Score:3)
Spontaneous Combustion? Naw, just a little water would be all that's needed and it wouldn't matter if the power source is one big lump, like a bunch of batteries next to each other or spread out all over the car, taking your house with it. [autoweek.com]
To your other point, auto manufacturers have been shifting more and more technology into cars which prevents your local mom and pop car repair from fixing them requiring dealer only servicing or programming services. Even then, you can't get things fixed properly, even w [7machine.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The summary appears to be incorrect / misunderstood. The battery panels appear to sit alongside the bodywork, effectively filling in un-used space, not forming the bodywork itself.
Re: (Score:3)
"spontaneously combust"
If by that you mean if you get in an accident and one or more battery packs gets physically damaged, self-discharges catastrophically, and starts a fire? Yes, I would consider that to be a serious drawback to this idea. Not that concentrating all your energy storage capacity in one place is all that much better (bigger BOOM! if damage occurs to it) but on the other hand having the battery pack in one central location on the vehicle makes it easier to protect and harder to damage in a garden-variety fender-b
Re: (Score:2)
I know. It's not like battery technologies are any different. I always expect my alkaline, lead-acid, agm, nicad, NiMH, etc batteries to go up in flames at all times. Hell i remember when my tv remote exploded once.... ohh yeah that never happened.
No one said anything about putting lithium in carbon fiber, unless you are suggesting that you are. If so i would like to subscribe to your amusing newsletter.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had lead-acid batteries explode on me a couple of times. Hydrogen gas is evolved during charging and one time I was welding something at what I thought was a safe distance from a battery on charge when it exploded. Another time starting a small truck the battery also exploded; I think the alternator controller failed and was overcharging the battery and when it restarted there was enough hydrogen vapour trapped under the hood to form an explosive mixture.
My main worry about this sort of wraparound E-Z-
Submarine Batteries (Score:2)
I remember hearing about a submarine design where the batteries were deliberately distributed in the outer part of the vessel, underneath the skin. While that increased the risk of damage to the batteries themselves, the heavy batteries also served as a layer of armor, giving additional protection for the ship's interior. So depending on the design decisions made, it might actually increase safety in some situations.
Re: (Score:2)
And then when the batteries wear out, just throw the car away! Isn't that special.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the best reasons to keep the battery packs in the bottom of a car is to keep them protected.
So when they burn they've got something above them to cook?
And the best part... (Score:2)
...is that it provides people with a really strong incentive not to sideswipe you, since all that energy would be dumped into your car when you hit the panel. I am sure the pyrotechnics would be quite pretty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Here in France *all* electric cars come with a contract for batteries replacement. Otherwise it'd be catastrophically costly. And boy will you replace them. Having the whole car structure to replace instead of changing batteries to me is a kind of industrial suicide, unless you decide to throw your car away every two years...
Re: (Score:2)
Having the whole car structure to replace instead of changing batteries to me is a kind of industrial suicide, unless you decide to throw your car away every two years...
Ah, so this is how they plan to add forced-obsolesce into cars.
Can't have anyone driving the same automobile for a decade, of course.
Two major problems (Score:4, Insightful)
1. If you're in a crash or just dent a body panel with this crap in it how much is that going to cost?
2. What happens when you need to replace the batteries because they don't hold a charge? You replace all the body panels?
I totally understand the "problems" with batteries in EVs. As the summary states "they're big, heavy, and expensive", but they also need to be serviceable, easily swapped or replaced, and then made smaller, lighter, cheaper over time. The barriers to EVs are gas/petrol stations. There's a lot of them! Sure, some have chargers now, but what EVs need are battery swap stations. Of course, this would also require a standard for battery placement, shape and technology to work, but the battery swapping (like propane tanks a la Blue Rhino) I feel is the best solution for competing with internal combustion based cars and the multitude of fueling stations available. Range issues all but disappear if I can pull over just about anywhere and swap out the battery for a fully charged new one in two minutes or less. [teslamotors.com] Integrating batteries into other parts of the car seems dumb to me. Sure, something that makes electricity to help charge the battery pack would be nice, but batteries in body panels for a vehicle that runs on them? Don't see that as a good idea. Standardization of a battery pack and mass deployment of swap stations would be the big win for EVs. Going to be a while yet. Lots could happen.
Re: (Score:2)
1. That's what insurance is for.
2. Carbon fibre batteries don't deteriorate in capacity like lithium batteries do.
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand how insurance works don't you?
They need to take in premiums, more than what they pay out in claims and desired profit, less whatever they expect to make investing in other financial instruments before they have to payout.
When they underwrite collision and comp on the vehicle you will simple pay more because they will be aware of the unusually high cost associated with repairing your vehicle and being more likely to need to total it.
If enough cars start using this technology liability will
Re: (Score:2)
Only if I was at fault in the collision.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's time you learn how insurance works, it seems. Insurance is a zero sum game: someone, somewhere will have to pay -- you included.
1) You will pay a higher premium simply for owning said car, whether or not any accident takes place.
2) Premiums will be higher across the board to offset the additional expense of these accidents.
So, this particular hypothetical accident may not result in your premiums being adjusted directly, but remember that your premiums include the cost to repair your accident, and ever
Re: (Score:2)
> [...obamacare....]
> And since there's an insurance company in the middle taking out
> profit, society as a whole pays more.
well, there's the source of the problem. remove the profit, remove the problem.
socialised health insurance should be not-for-profit.
but obama had a hard enough time getting this abomination of a pseudo-socialised health care system through congresss, even leaving room for the parasites to keep their snouts in the trough. if he had tried cutting them out of the loop, he would
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, greater risk because of value of the car, not because of previous accidents that were not my fault.
Given your position, I can only presume you are not the same AC as the one above, who found the notion that my premiums would not rise on account of accidents that were not my fault to be laughable (although as I said... I don't discount the possibility that any person having an accident could end up affecting everyone's premiums, but that is not the same as saying that accidents I am in which aren
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of insuring a vehicle is a function more of its cost than how much it costs to repair, since when the latter exceeds the former, they consider the vehicle "totalled", and will only give you the current market value for the car.
So unless these features add significantly to the actual cost of the car, it won't significantly affect insurance premiums.
Speaking from experience, my insurance pays the bulk of if not all of the costs for any accident I am in, whether it is my fault or not. If it is m
Re: (Score:2)
2. Carbon fibre batteries don't deteriorate in capacity like lithium batteries do.
Batteries that don't deteriorate over time are like the Loch Ness Monster. I keep hearing tales about them, but I've yet to meet one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Increasingly, I think we are going to find body panels that are made of carbon fiber. While these may well end up being both lighter and more damage-resistant than their steel and aluminum predecessors, they won't be easy to repair. Carbon fiber doesn't dent when it get hit - it fractures. Therefore, you can't just have the guy in the body shop pound out a few dents, grind it down, and put on a new coat of
Solution looking for a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Having the batteries centralized like in the Tesla is a GOOD thing. They keep the center of gravity low on the car making it almost impossible to roll (seriously, the NHTSA had to specially design a scenario to get it to roll) and they make it possible to swap batteries for a quick charge which is going to be necessary unless the capacity of batteries can be increased by a factor of 10 with charge speeds doubled or tripled.
This is a step backwards in many ways not to mention the least of which is to necessarily increase the cost of mild accidents to replace the battery integrated pieces.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because sedans roll over all the time~
With the Volvo solution you have the same center of gravity a current volvos
They are lighter - more distance
They charge quickly - I can't find how much more quickly, but they aren't chemical so I expect it to be much quicker.
As a bonus. Hitting a piece of metal on the road won't lead to the car bursting in flames.
a better article:
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_5-2-2010-10-26-39 [imperial.ac.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
...because nothing says "low cost" like "Hey, let's take the most expensive part of an EV, and embed it in a couple hundred square feet of specialized carbon fiber!"
Nobody's serious? (Score:2)
Fine, I'll join the dumb comments parade.
"The whole car body is batteries."
"Shocking!"
Need to charge your cellphone? Tie the USB ground lead to a manhole cover, tie the other lead to a nail and pound it into the quarterpanel of the nearest Volvo (oops, wrong voltage :-) )
not good (Score:2)
>>> But what if you could shift EV batteries away from being big blocks under the car and engineer them into the car itself?
You actually want all the weight to be in the middle of the car and low down. If you raised the car's centre of gravity or made it off-centre (by redistributing the weight of the batteries) you will make the car handle a lot worse.
Also batteries can be dangerous as they contain a LOT of energy. Physical damage can easily result in fire. They are best protected by being locate
Re: (Score:2)
Post like that is why my sig says what it says.
You actually want all the weight to be in the middle of the car and low down.
And we don'e know how to distribute weight? ad weight?
Read the article. This material is strong enough to be used as struts. Think about that.
"Also batteries can be dangerous as they contain a LOT of energy. "
true, but it isn't chemical energy, so no fires.
" one small bump or even door ding could be catastrophic."
um, no. Please read up on the tech.
Re: (Score:2)
taking your points in order:
1) your sig isn't even visible in your post.
2) It doesnt matter what you can make of it, if the weight is higher than it was, the handling WILL be affetcted. 2b) I dont need to be talked to like a kid you arrogant prick.
3) see http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/10/07/tesla-ceo-says-fire-caused-by-impaled-battery/ [foxnews.com]
4) see 3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not the OP, but...
1) your sig isn't even visible in your post.
And the fact that you've chosen to hide it is his fault because...? Anyway it's just a link to Dunning-Kruger Effect on Wikipedia.
2) It doesnt matter what you can make of it, if the weight is higher than it was, the handling WILL be affetcted.
These panels weigh *less* than existing panels. RTFA
3) see http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/10/07/tesla-ceo-says-fire-caused-by-impaled-battery/ [foxnews.com]
Let me first quote the point you're replying to:
"Also batteries can be dangerous as they contain a LOT of energy. "
true, but it isn't chemical energy, so no fires.
The Tesla uses chemical batteries. These are not chemical batteries.
4) see 3)
Again, this is a *completely* different technology than what is used in the Tesla. That's like saying a hand crank flashlight is going to spontaneously combust just because some laptop batteries d
always wondered (Score:2)
Since batteries are electricity driven by chemical reactions, I've always wondered about the impact of cold-weather climates on electric cars - both in the short term immediate-power context, and in the longer-term cycle life of the system. I suspect that the reports of range, power output, etc are all based on relatively favorable situations.
Living in northern MN, there are several weeks if not months per year that I walk out and start my vehicle (parked outdoors) and every piece of it has to be -20C, -35
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a minute, you claim to live in Minnesota, but you quote temperatures in Celcius? That ain't 'Merican! You must be one o' them commie Canadians! (Either that, or your an engineer like me.)
Key scratches (Score:5, Funny)
sure, and more eco tooo (Score:2)
I suppose they use less nasty stuff than current batteries.
Of course we recycle current batteries pretty well, oh, and metal body panels. I am sure it can't be TOOO hard to recycle nano-battery carbon fiber panels can it? Is it even possible in theory? What happens if you throw these in a dump with water, random metal things, and pressure?
I see the CG is a big point. I love the local EV that is 3 ft wide and looks like it would tip if you lean on it but has a 1000 lb battery pack in bottom and handles great
Sounds familiar (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, with the understanding that capacitors and batteries are different things with different manufacturing and operational characteristics. But sure, there's probably some parallels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
great idea (Score:2)
That's not a bad idea at all. Two questions, though: (1) How does this affect accidents, specifically willingness of emergency crews to pry open a crunched car body to extract you, and (2), how does this affect the cost and/or practicality of replacing the batteries when they inevitably begin to wear out?
Range not taken into consideration (Score:2)
I understand this "prototype" is capable of 80 miles but lets say it was able to do 400 miles, I would still be limited to 400 miles. What Tesla is trying to do is have gas stations keep charged batteries in storage for quick swaps. The Telsa batterie is a quick disconnect/reconnect so that you can extend the range beyond its current limited range. I think in the near future it is the best option for EVs.
Lots of potential (Score:2)
Cool (Score:2)
Until you park your car, come back to find someone opened their door into yours, cracked part of your battery and now you don't have enough capacity to get home.
(or it caught fire, like lithium batteries like doing when punctured)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if the density of solar energy available were actually sufficient.
It isn't,
Re:Solar panels (Score:5, Insightful)
It is if you park near the focus point of one of the parabolic death ray buildings.
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't this work well with some kind of solar panel technology that charges the panels. You would never have to plug it in.
Only if you drive it no more than an hour a month.
A horsepower is almost exactly 3/4 kilowatt. A square yard gets about a kilowatt of raw sunshine at high noon. Factor in the efficiency of the solar panel, battery storage, and motor control and you're lucky to get a fifth of that. Call it a quarter-horse for each square yard of cross-secton as seen by the sun, if you're parked in
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ricer Randy whips out his dad's power drill to mount a whale tail on the fender.
Also a very likely circumstance.
Exploding Cars (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the best reasons for self-driving vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
The intersection between people who want to drive pickup trucks and people want to who drive electric cars is close to zero.
Re: (Score:2)
The intersection between people who want to drive pickup trucks and people want to who drive electric cars is close to zero.
This is true - the weight of the battery packs would severely diminish the tow/hauling capacity of the vehicle, and thus would pretty much defeat the purpose of owning a truck to begin with.
Re:80-mile range? Keep trying... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I never said anything about a battery. I said electric. There's no reason you can't toss a decent generator in there.
Turbodiesels get that extra 25-40% power by overfueling. It's basically like lighting an afterburner. You continue to dump fuel into the cylinder well past the power stroke. It keeps the exhaust hot for the turbine, adding extra boost. It also makes your economy and emissions go to shit. They don't come from the factory that way because there's no way the engine would be able to meet E
Re: (Score:2)
they just have no idea.
only vegetarians know the excitement and accomplishment of hunting the wily pumpkin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a partial answer. No – you are comparing apples to oranges.
The Tesla – and all other electric vehicles – uses chemical batteries. When chemical are bashed about they can burn.
This technology uses ultra-capacitors. So jostling them about won’t cause a chemical reaction. Not sure what will happen – just that it’s not going to be a chemical reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Runs after financial period has closed, 8 times a year. Wait until ETL/Zena process is done.
My point is that it will react very differently than the example and it may not be explosive. IIRC 1 gallon of gasoline has the same amount of energy as 11 sticks of dynamite however it is really hard to make gasoline explode.
So my question is how you would make this type of battery to explosively discharge its energy. Not chemical. Structural damage would cause some of the capacitors to discharge but that would not
Re: (Score:3)
batteries store lots of energy that can be released in an accident.
As far as I can tell, these don't actually qualify as batteries, as there is no chemical reaction. They're capacitors. Of course, capacitors shorting out are not the greatest thing either. Arc flashes are not a fun thing to experience.
Additionally, how well do carbon fibres burn? Like a torch, or like a bomb?
Neither, really. Carbon fiber really doesn't burn. They use the stuff as thermal shielding on the leading edges of the Space Shuttle, and on high end ceramic brakes. Far too often do people conflate "carbon fiber" with "carbon fiber reinforced plastic". Carbon fiber is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Tesla has already partnered with gas stations to provide on site batterie exchanges in an attempt to extend the range. The newest Tesla is designed to allow easy swap of the batterie. A friend of mine who owns one claims it's quicker than filling up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, hang on. Electric vehicle batteries are typically very high current but *low* voltage. Not enough voltage, in fact, to overcome the natural resistance of the human body. With a good conductive path, the high current can cause bad things to happen (like extreme heat, fire, smoke) but you are in no danger of getting shocked to death.
This is one of the things TV/movies often get wrong and it's crept into our tribal knowledge -- that the type of batteries you find in cars can shock you to death. It's no
Re: (Score:2)
You're the moron for posting such empty and non factually backed comment.
We passed that a long time ago. (Score:2)
Electric cars went about 50 to 100 miles almost 100 years ago.
They do the same today.
Hopefully by about 2100, they should go 200 miles.
The "low-end" 60 kW-h version of the Model S gets 208 miles by the more conservative EPA estimate. The more expensive 85 kW-h gets 310 miles by European standards or 265 miles by EPA ones.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but it is the ONLY production vehicle with a range over 120miles. Actually, not only the only one now, but there aren't even any on the design boards which top 200 - at any price.