Supposedly one of the things that they did to give the pack long-life is to
very tightly control temperature while charging. I suspect they cool and
maybe even heat it in cold environments.
It could also be their balancing system eating up the extra power.
Anyway, 20kwh a charge is not all that much to pay for much longer cycle
life (if their claim is true).
-Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph T. " <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:41 PM
Subject: [EVDL] Tesla Roadster Charging Efficiency...
> In case you didn't know, the official EPA range estimates of the Tesla
> Roadster are in....BA, BUM, BA, DADA.....245 miles! And they have
> confirmed, themselves, that 0-60 is still under 4 seconds! Yay!
>
> Now...the bad news. 1. It's delivery to customer will be delayed
> another 3 months. (But 6 months total delay isn't that bad for a new
> car, from a new car company, isn't it?)
> All this info above, however, is aside from my point.
>
> Bad News 2. is that on the Tesla Motors blog they answered one of the
> questions presented in the comments. In the answer, they said it takes
> 73 AC KWH in all to CHARGE the Tesla Roadster. The battery pack only
> holds 53 kwh!!! This is a mere 70% efficiency; that sounds just awful
> compared to their other specs.
>
> These 73 AC Kwh of course include the amount of energy to cool the
> battery pack while it is charging, but does cooling a battery pack
> really require that much energy to be cooled? And wouldn't just
> charging the battery pack slower reduce the need of cooling, and
> therefore dramatically decrease the amount of energy wasted?
>
> I always heard, and thought, that lithium-ion batteries were so
> efficient with charging, but now I'm not so sure.
>
> And one last question, you can see from the specs (~30kwh/100miles)
> that they took the total energy used for the car (73 AC Kwh) and not
> the energy in the battery pack. 73/245 is about 0.3kwh a mile i.e.
> 30kwh/100 mile.
>
> Is this how they rated older EVs, such as the ratings for the Rav4 EV
> found on fueleconomy.gov?
>
> Woah...this is a long post for just asking questions!
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
very tightly control temperature while charging. I suspect they cool and
maybe even heat it in cold environments.
It could also be their balancing system eating up the extra power.
Anyway, 20kwh a charge is not all that much to pay for much longer cycle
life (if their claim is true).
-Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph T. " <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:41 PM
Subject: [EVDL] Tesla Roadster Charging Efficiency...
> In case you didn't know, the official EPA range estimates of the Tesla
> Roadster are in....BA, BUM, BA, DADA.....245 miles! And they have
> confirmed, themselves, that 0-60 is still under 4 seconds! Yay!
>
> Now...the bad news. 1. It's delivery to customer will be delayed
> another 3 months. (But 6 months total delay isn't that bad for a new
> car, from a new car company, isn't it?)
> All this info above, however, is aside from my point.
>
> Bad News 2. is that on the Tesla Motors blog they answered one of the
> questions presented in the comments. In the answer, they said it takes
> 73 AC KWH in all to CHARGE the Tesla Roadster. The battery pack only
> holds 53 kwh!!! This is a mere 70% efficiency; that sounds just awful
> compared to their other specs.
>
> These 73 AC Kwh of course include the amount of energy to cool the
> battery pack while it is charging, but does cooling a battery pack
> really require that much energy to be cooled? And wouldn't just
> charging the battery pack slower reduce the need of cooling, and
> therefore dramatically decrease the amount of energy wasted?
>
> I always heard, and thought, that lithium-ion batteries were so
> efficient with charging, but now I'm not so sure.
>
> And one last question, you can see from the specs (~30kwh/100miles)
> that they took the total energy used for the car (73 AC Kwh) and not
> the energy in the battery pack. 73/245 is about 0.3kwh a mile i.e.
> 30kwh/100 mile.
>
> Is this how they rated older EVs, such as the ratings for the Rav4 EV
> found on fueleconomy.gov?
>
> Woah...this is a long post for just asking questions!
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev