Tesla Gigafactory Groundbreaking: Chinese Model 3 Production On Track

Initial construction should be completed by the end of summer.

Late Sunday evening, Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced that the automaker was hours away from an important event. In 2018, an agreement was made between Tesla and Chinese authorities to begin construction of a new facility in 2019. Now the official groundbreaking of Tesla’s Chinese Gigafactory in Shanghai will occur on Monday.

According to Chinese media sources late last year, land leveling had been completed by December. It seems that progress will be swift, as Musk says initial construction of the Shanghai Gigafactory is set to be completed before the end of summer. The final location is was announced for Shanghai and early signs of construction were spotted in December of last year.

Tesla Model 3 (Source: China AutoReview)

As InsideEVs had previously reported, Model 3 production was expected to begin in the 2nd half of 2019. Gigafactory 3 will produce battery packs and the Model 3 for the Chinese Market. According to Musk, Chinese Model 3 production is indeed on track to begin production by the end of the year. However, high volume production will not begin until 2020. The Model 3 configuration has already opened to Chinese customers.

However, some new info was provided about the automaker’s production plans. Musk states that only lower trim “affordable” versions of the Model 3 and Model Y will be produced in China. Higher cost Model 3’s will continue to be produced in the United States, and no production from Shanghai will find its way to North America.

Musk confirmed that the facility will also be home to Chinese production of the upcoming Model Y crossover.

According to a VIP invitation posted by Twitter user Vincent, the groundbreaking ceremony will occur on Monday, January 7 at 3:00 pm in Shanghai.

Source: Electric Vehicle News

Toyota and Lexus have hybrids for every taste

Toyota has got the hybrid powertrain down pat. Having honed its hybrid technology over the last 22 years of building the Prius, which has sold over 10 million units and is now in its 4th generation, the Japanese giant now offers seven different hybrid models, and its luxury brand Lexus offers six more.

Charged recently spent some quality time with the Lexus NX 300h and RX 450h, as well as the Toyota RAV4 Hybrid, Camry Hybrid and Prius Prime. All delivered an excellent driving experience. There’s plenty of power, and the powertrains shift gears and power sources as smoothly as you could wish. My unexpert perception found the drive of the RAV4 Hybrid to be particularly pleasant, with none of the cumbersome “big car” handling that’s typical of larger SUVs.

When it comes to form factors and features, there’s something for everyone in this lineup. I found things to like and things to dislike about each of these models, although the features I consider pros might be considered cons by other reviewers (and vice versa). Different drivers want different things, and that’s why Toyota/Lexus offers 13 models, instead of two or three.

Lexus RX 450

The vehicles we tested were all top trim levels, and they were loaded with doodads ranging from the handy to the silly. The Lexus RX 450hL must have nearly a hundred little knobs, switches and dials encrusting every surface in the passenger cabin – not one but three programmable seat positions, lighted door handles, seat heaters and coolers, adjustable cup holders, etc, etc.

One thing you’re paying for with a luxury model is more comfortable seats. My wife, who suffers from back pain, is a connoisseur of seating technology, and she found the seats in the RX 450 to be the most comfortable of any car she’s ridden in. A luxurious seat is necessarily bulky (and costly). It can’t be simulated in software.

Other bulky components can be eliminated by modern technology. I find it puzzling that many cars still have oversize, old-fashioned shifters. In my Prius, I shift gears using a wee joystick about the size of a computer mouse, but the RAV4 has an enormous metal rod that looks like something from a 1970s muscle car (perhaps that appeals to some drivers). Together with a gigantic parking brake lever, this heavy-duty shifter consumes most of the valuable real estate between the front seats.

Lexus NX 300

The RX 450 has no touchscreen – instead, there’s a contraption somewhat like a trackball on the armrest next to the driver’s seat (the NX 300 has a touch-sensitive pad in the same location). At first I thought this was neato, but I soon found it to be squirrelly and hard to use. To make matters worse, the RX 450’s infotainment system is organized in a non-standard way that makes it complicated to navigate. Fortunately all the old-style manual controls for the audio and AC are still there.

Seat heaters are wonderful in cold climates, but in Charged’s home state of Florida, a seat cooler is much more useful. Cool air blows through tiny holes in the seat cushions, eliminating the dreaded soaked-shirt syndrome.

Perhaps someone can explain the point of having an EV Mode in a non-plug-in hybrid, but I never figured it out. Even in a plug-in hybrid, EV Mode doesn’t prohibit the gas engine from operating – the gas burner will kick in if you punch the pedal beyond a certain amount. In these hybrid vehicles, however, EV Mode doesn’t work above 20 mph or so, so I fail to see that it serves any purpose (the pragmatic Prius has never included this useless feature).

Toyota RAV4 Hybrid

Now we come to my favorite hobby horse – cargo space. As regular readers are no doubt tired of hearing, a vehicle’s practical cargo-carrying capacity is not just a function of cubic feet of space – the best gear-hauling vehicles have a low ride height, little or no liftover at the back, and rear seats that fold perfectly flat. SUVs simply don’t have these attributes, because they aren’t designed for optimal cargo-carrying – they’re designed to carry a large number of large passengers and a moderate amount of stuff.

All three of these SUVs trade cargo space for passenger comfort – again, luxurious seats are bulky, and they can’t be made to fold neatly out of the way (although they can be, and are, motorized). Don’t worry, these vehicles offer plenty of space for groceries, suitcases or sporting equipment, but you’ll find that the smaller and far more fuel-efficient Prius has almost as much useable cargo capacity. On the other hand, rear-seat passengers will ride in luxury, especially in the two Lexi, with adjustable armrests, USB ports and all the mod cons.

For car buyers who aren’t ready to take the plunge and go fully electric, there’s no longer any reason to buy a non-hybrid vehicle. The Toyota and Lexus hybrid offerings cover all vehicle classes, from SUVs to hatchbacks (the Prius Prime) to sedans (the Camry Hybrid), their performance is uncompromised, and the price premium over their legacy counterparts is now small enough that most drivers will quickly recoup it in gas savings.


2018 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid

Engine 2.5-liter 4-cylinder
Total system power 194 hp
Fuel economy 32 mpg combined
MSRP LE: $27,385; XLE: $29,280; SE: $32,435; Limited: $34,280


2019 Lexus RX 450h

Engine 3.5-liter V6
Total system power 308 hp
Fuel economy 30 mpg combined
MSRP 450h: $45,995; 450 hL: $50,720; 450h F Sport: $51,355


2019 Lexus NX 300h

Engine 2.5-liter inline 4-cylinder
Total system power 194 hp
Fuel economy 31 mpg combined
MSRP $38,735




Source: Electric Vehicles Magazine

Self-driving vehicles could reach critical mass sooner than expected

Sponsored by Black & Veatch

A future where it’s cheaper to use a self-driving vehicle ― whether for transporting goods or people ― is driving a mobility revolution. And that future may be here sooner than many realize.

Transportation is in transition. City populations are rapidly growing, and residents are using rideshare and public transit more often. According to the new eBook, Autonomous Vehicles and Our New Mobility, the increase in Transportation as a Service (TaaS) is driving a future where individual vehicle ownership may no longer be as convenient, or cost-effective, as shared ridership.

The shifting mobility also impacts the movement of goods. Driver shortages, safety and efficiency are issues facing companies that haul cargo on roadways, whether long distance in heavy-duty semi-trucks or last-mile deliveries in medium-duty trucks and vans.

The rise of autonomous vehicles could mean billions in safety, collision repair and operations savings, not to mention reductions in greenhouse gas emissions with AVs primarily built on the electric vehicle (EV) platform.

Experts predict the AV tipping point, when AVs are more efficient than owning and operating vehicles, could happen within the next three to five years.

Black & Veatch’s new eBook was developed to help all stakeholders understand and plan for AVs. The free download provides an analysis of market and societal factors accelerating AV adoption and the infrastructure requirements needed to enable this transportation evolution.

As with all emerging technologies, partnerships will propel autonomous vehicles, and through timely collaboration, the industry will be able to plan and establish supportive charging, electric utility, and communication networks. Combined with a regulatory framework that encourages innovation, these essential digital infrastructure networks will enable the most significant transportation evolution to hit the roads in several decades.



Source: Electric Vehicles Magazine

Top causes of failure in power semiconductors

All electronic devices eventually die, and the failure can be quite spectacular if suitable foresight and care was not employed during the design and construction phases, especially if the device handles high power or is supplied by a large battery. It should go without saying that both conditions apply to much of the electronics inside an EV, so a closer look at where and how power electronics fail and how to minimize the collateral damage will be the focus of this article.

Although there are myriad precipitating or apparent causes of failure, the ultimate cause is usually thermal in nature; that is, overheating. The only real exception is failure due to overvoltage puncturing an insulator, such as the gate oxide layer in a MOSFET or IGBT. Applying too high a voltage across a reverse-biased or turned-off semiconductor (PN) junction will cause it to start conducting through a process called avalanche breakdown, but it might be surprising to learn that no harm will result as long as current is limited. This is how most Zener diodes work, actually (those with a breakdown voltage above 4 V or so), but aside from Zeners and a few specialized devices/circuits typically used to create short, sharp pulses, avalanche breakdown is an unwelcome – and unplanned-for – phenomenon. Consequently, if a switch or diode undergoes avalanche breakdown, it frequently fails a few nanoseconds later from extreme overcurrent.

The most common cause of avalanche breakdown in power electronics – besides overvoltage on the supply line – is from the spike produced during turn-off by any stray (or “unclamped”) inductance in between the switch and the input capacitor (or between each switch in an inverter leg). This spike is produced because inductors resist any change in the flow of current through them, and while the inductances involved here are (or should be!) very small – on the order of a few tens of nanohenries at most – the currents can be quite high and the switching times quite short.

The actual equation that describes the voltage produced by an inductor experiencing a change in current is V = L * (dI / dt), where V is in volts, L is in nH and dI / dt is the change in amps per nanosecond. Given that a single wire in free space has an inductance of about 8-10 nH per cm, and that the voltage spike will be 1 V for every 1 A / 1 ns per 1 nH of inductance, it’s apparent that serious attention must be paid to minimizing the stray inductance by bringing the forward and return conductors as close together as possible (which cancels out the magnetic fields – and therefore the inductance – from each) or else resort to more complex circuits to either recycle the energy stored (e.g. resonant operation or active clamps) or to dissipate it as heat in passive snubbers. While lengthening the turn-off time will reduce the magnitude of the spikes, it also increases the switching losses, and if taken too far will also result in device failure; a case in which the cure is worse than the disease. Finally, degradation of the input capacitor – that is, a loss of capacitance and/or an increase in its Equivalent Series Resistance (ESR) – can also cause the turn-off spikes to increase over time; this is a particular issue with electrolytic types, as they literally dry out with age or use.

Overcurrent is another proximate cause of failure, but unlike overvoltage, in which there is a clearly marked delineation between what is tolerable and what isn’t, current rating is a much more nebulous parameter. This is because the current rating of a semiconductor mainly depends on how effectively heat can be removed from it. Other effects such as the number of charge carriers available, thermal inertia, etc. affect the ultimate current permissible through a semiconductor device, but at timescales longer than a few minutes you can just about push as much current through it as you want so long as you keep it from getting too hot. The key parameter in the datasheet to check is the thermal resistance from the junction to either the case (you specify the heatsink) or the ambient (they specify the heatsink) and the maximum junction temperature allowed, which is usually 100° C (though it can be much higher for newer silicon carbide devices). Even reputable manufacturers can play fast and loose with all the specs involved here, so it definitely pays to run a few calculations as a sanity check before spec’ing a part.

For example, one 1,200 V / 600 A IGBT datasheet specifies a thermal resistance from junction to case of 0.049° C / W and a maximum voltage drop of 2.40 V at 100° C, so this device can theoretically handle 637 A as long as the case is kept at 25° C. To actually achieve the datasheet spec of 600 A while keeping the junction below 100° C at an ambient of 25° C, however, the total thermal resistance from junction to ambient cannot exceed 0.0521° C / W. Given that the IGBT already uses up 0.049° C / W of that in the junction to case, the heatsink can’t contribute any more than 0.0031° C / W of additional thermal resistance. While this isn’t technically impossible to achieve with an exposed-pipe liquid-cooled heat exchanger with sufficient coolant flow, it definitely qualifies as “heroic measures required” (especially since losses from switching haven’t been considered, much less operating at an ambient higher than 25° C). As a heatsink with such vanishingly small thermal resistance tends to cost a lot, while competitive market pressures steeply penalize designs that are too conservative, the best compromise is to monitor the temperature as close to the junction as possible – the aforementioned device includes a thermistor right next to one of the IGBT dice inside – and start derating the allowed current once temperature climbs above a certain point.

The other effects that come into play at even higher currents (and much shorter timescales) are bond wire vaporization (i.e. acting like a fuse), desaturation, current crowding and other safe operating area (SOA) violations. Bond wire vaporization is fairly self-explanatory: bond wires are the very small-diameter wires that interconnect the semiconductor die or dice to external terminals so they are very much like the fuses they so resemble (failure from repeated thermal cycling will be addressed below). Desaturation is a phenomenon in which the voltage drop across a switch that is otherwise supposed to be fully on starts rising sharply as if it were only partially on. While this term is most commonly applied to IGBTs (or other bipolar devices) because they exhibit the effect most strongly, it can occur in any semiconductor, and is the result of running out of charge carriers (“holes” in p-type material; electrons in n-type). Desaturation is especially pronounced in bipolar devices (like IGBTs) because voltage drop in them remains fairly constant over a wide range of current – usually in the range of 1.5 V to 2.5 V for modern IGBTs – but increases to 7 V or more at some level of overcurrent (usually >3x rated current). The voltage drop in unipolar (or “majority carrier”) devices such as MOSFETs is basically ohmic in nature until desaturation occurs, so it will likely already be quite high by the time the device truly enters desaturation (and it will have long since failed from overheating, too). The sharp rise in voltage drop during desaturation in IGBTs makes it a convenient proxy for detecting overcurrent and short-circuits in them (less so for MOSFETs), but the protection circuit needs to act fast, because a steep increase in voltage drop times an already excessive current means extraordinary amounts of heat are being generated in the junction. Consequently, even those IGBTs which claim to be “short-circuit tolerant” need to be turned off within 10 microseconds of entering desaturation (while those that don’t make such claims might survive such abuse for 1 µs at most).

Current crowding is basically desaturation that is localized to the area surrounding the gate contact(s), and it occurs to some extent every time an IGBT is in the process of turning on or off, due to the time it takes the change in operating state to propagate throughout the die (this effect is virtually non-existent in MOSFETs). Current crowding used to be a major problem in the older Bipolar Junction Transistor (BJT) technology that predates IGBTs, but the use of massively parallel and cellular construction – splitting one big switch up into many hundreds of smaller switches in parallel, basically – has nearly eliminated it.

A related problem is the SOA violation, which occurs when the product of the voltage drop across a device and the current through it exceed the safe operating area. When the switch is fully on, the voltage drop across it is very low, and while the switch is off the current through it is zero, so dissipation is low or zero, respectively. During the transition from each state, however, the voltage drop is high, while current might also be high – the device is acting more like a resistor than a switch. For example, a switch that is supplied by 300 V at a current of 100 A experiences a worst-case instantaneous power dissipation of 30 kW right before it fully turns off. When integrated out over the course of a full switching cycle the average dissipation loss from switching should be quite low, but that assumes that the transition time is a small fraction of the cycle time (a rule of thumb is to aim for transition time in the range of 0.5-1% of the period). This is why you don’t want to make the switching times any longer than necessary (nor increase switching frequency arbitrarily). The graph of allowable voltage drop vs current is called the safe operating area for the device, and while modern MOSFETs and IGBTs generally have “square” SOA curves – that is, can tolerate both maximum current and voltage at the same time – they also are infamously intolerant of operation in the linear region (i.e. like a resistor).

The last major cause of failure is thermal fatigue, which can affect the bond wires, semiconductor dice, the solder which attaches the dice to the heat spreader, the ceramic insulator used between the heat spreader and baseplate, etc. Thermal fatigue occurs when there are mismatches in the coefficients of thermal expansion of the various layers bonded together (die, substrate or heat spreader, insulator, baseplate, solder, etc) which are then subjected to temperature variations. The differences in the rate of expansion of each layer induces mechanical stresses proportional to the change in temperature. If the temperature swing is too wide and/or there are too many hot/cold cycles, then cracks in any of the layers, or voids in the solder, specifically, can develop. Thermal fatigue is the one failure mode guaranteed to strike down a power semiconductor if nothing else gets to it first. While there are simple solutions to this problem – such as the springs that Semikron uses to press the dice, heat spreader and insulator against the baseplate in their lower-power modules – they invariably suffer from a much higher thermal resistance and/or assembly cost. Consequently, this is one failure mode we all have to live with, but with good design and careful assembly the inverter, charger, etc, in an EV should outlast the batteries, motor and most of the moving parts. 



This article appeared in Charged Issue 40 – November/December 2018 – Subscribe now.

Source: Electric Vehicles Magazine

BYTON Provides Look At MByte Electric SUV Production Model At CES

See inside the production version of the electric SUV.

If BYTON is able to adhere to their previously announced timelines, they are less than a year from the start of production for the all-electric M-Byte SUV, the first vehicle to come from the new automaker. With that in mind, we expect 2019 to be chock full of announcements and reveals, since the M-Byte vehicles BYTON paraded around the world in 2018 were in concept form.

BYTON’s Concept M-Byte interior. The production interior is definitely similar, but much more refined.

So it’s no surprise to us that BYTON decided to show off some pictures of the production-intent interior of the upcoming SUV. What may surprise some of our readers, is that BYTON is sticking with the large display screen, that pretty much stretches the entire length of the dashboard. BYTON representatives had assured us from the start that was their intention, but there were those that doubted whether or not that would find its way into a production vehicle.

BYTON’s M-Byte SUV production interior

The M-Byte SUV, as well as the K-Byte sedan, (arriving about 2 years after the M-Byte) is available in 71 kWh and 95 kWh battery configurations. The smaller battery will offer approximately 250 miles of range, and with the larger battery, range is estimated to be 325 miles. BYTON hasn’t commented on which range measuring standard they are using, but we believe it’s most likely the WLTP, so EPA range figures would likely be slightly less.

.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

BYTON is also showing off their UI / UX technology here at CES, and is one of the aspects of the vehicle that their team seems most proud of.  There are multiple ways to interact with the M-Byte, including gesture and voice control as well as physical buttons.

We’ll be sitting down with the BYTON management team here at CES in the few days, and will bring you more insight into the company’s plans for 2019.

.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

Read BYTON’s full Press Release:

January 6, 2019, Las Vegas – BYTON, the premium intelligent electric vehicle brand, today revealed new details about its first production model, the M-Byte SUV, at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) 2019 in Las Vegas. Positioned as the next generation smart device, BYTON is designed for the future of autonomous driving when the automobile will become a mobile digital lounge.

“BYTON’s M-Byte represents the transformation of the traditional car into a next-generation smart device for every user,” said Dr. Carsten Breitfeld, CEO and Co-founder of BYTON. “We achieve this through the combination our state-of-the-art EV platform and our proprietary BYTON Life digital ecosystem.”

 A Digital Cockpit That Improves The Driver Experience

BYTON’s Shared Experience Display (SED) remains the world’s largest in-car display for a production automobile. It displays vehicle and driving information and offers various content options in an intuitive way. The position of the display has been carefully developed and tested to not affect driver line-of-sight and can automatically adjust brightness according to changes in ambient lighting to avoid further distraction. In addition, the SED will meet automotive safety standards as well as crash standards in all target markets.

The production M-Byte’s user-interface and user experience (UI/UX) hardware will feature abundant shared and private screen space to capture and display a wide array of digital content – music, videos, photos, files, contacts, and more – intuitively and safely to users in any seat:

  • The 7-inch Driver Tablet pioneered by BYTON will be at the center of the steering wheel just above the driver airbag, serving as one of the main interfaces for the driver to configure the vehicle and interact with the SED.
  • An 8-inch BYTON Touch Pad has been added between the driver and the front passenger seats on the production model, enabling the front passenger to control the SED and enjoy the same interactive experience as the driver.
  • Rear passengers have access to independent rear-seat entertainment screens that also share content with the SED.
  • The front seats can be rotated inward 12 degrees, to create a space that is more convenient for passengers in the car to interact and communicate with each other when not in motion.
  • The dashboard features a new wraparound design with air conditioning vents, gear selector, and other hard buttons located in the center along with a driver monitoring system to ensure safety during assisted-driving modes.
  • Multiple interaction modes with the vehicle will be offered including voice control, touch control, physical buttons, and gesture control.

 Enhanced User Experience & Personalized Mobility

BYTON users will have access to BYTON Life, an open digital ecosystem that connects applications, data, and smart devices. BYTON Life features advanced machine-learning capabilities that analyzes the user’s schedule, location, preferences, and application data to provide intuitive support such as scheduling reminders, online shopping tasks, remote charging management, and more. It can recognize voices of different users and sounds from different directions in the car. In North American and European markets, BYTON has been cooperating with Amazon Alexa to jointly develop voice control. In addition, BYTON has also invited software developers from around the world to join BYTON’s ecosystem and explore new possibilities for applications and content on BYTON Life’s open platform.

Full-scale vehicle testing ahead of production

The production version of the BYTON M-Byte is slated to debut in mid-2019, with mass-production starting at the end of the year. To achieve this, vehicle testing continues in full swing to achieve the highest safety and quality standards of China, the US, and Europe. Meanwhile, BYTON’s Nanjing plant is on-track to be completed this year and will be equipped with cutting-edge production equipment from leading global partners such as AIDA Engineering of Japan, and KUKA and DÜRR of Germany. The company is also working with key strategic investors FAW and CATL, and world-class suppliers Bosch, BOE, and Faurecia to integrate the world’s best technologies and resources into its products.

“We have made solid progress in the construction of our Nanjing plant and prototype vehicle testing,” said Dr. Daniel Kirchert, President and Co-Founder of BYTON. “This is a vital year for BYTON and our global team is sparing no efforts to achieve our goal of volume production.”

 About BYTON

It is not about refining cars. It is about refining life.

BYTON aspires to build premium intelligent electric vehicles for the future. Its crafted cars integrate advanced digital technologies to offer customers a smart, sage, comfortable and eco-friendly driving and mobility experience.

BYTON aims to create a premium brand rooted in China which has a global reach. Its global headquarters, intelligent manufacturing base and R&D center are located in Nanjing, China, while its North American headquarters, devoted to intelligent car experience, autonomous driving, whole vehicle integration and other cutting-edge technologies, is based in the Silicon Valley. The company’s vehicle concept and design center is located in Munich. BYTON also has offices in Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong to handle external affairs, marketing, sales, design and investor relations.

BYTON’s core management team is made up of the world’s top experts from China, Europe and the U.S., all of whom have held senior management positions in innovative companies such as BMW, Tesla, Google and Apple. Their expertise covers automotive design, automotive engineering and manufacturing, electric powertrain, intelligent connectivity, autonomous driving, user interface and supply chain management among other industry sectors, the sum of which represents BYTON’s strengths in manufacturing premium automobiles that are equipped with high quality internet technologies.

Source: Electric Vehicle News

Tesla Offers New Wheel Option On Model 3 Performance In China

19” Power Sports aero wheels for China

The Chinese configurator for Tesla Model 3 reveals different wheels for the Performance version of the car.

Unlike the 20” Sport Wheels in North America and Europe, in China the car will be equipped with 19” Power Sports wheels, which are considered for “balanced performance and cruising range”. The aerodynamics is probably improved.

The new design looks great and we guess that many customers around the world would be happy to get them too.

The standard all-wheel drive, long-range version in all markets gets two options:

  • 18” Aero Wheels
  • 19” Sports Wheels

More images:

Tesla Model 3 Performance with 19-inch Power Sports wheels in China

5 photos
Tesla Model 3 Performance with 19-inch Power Sports wheels in China
Tesla Model 3 Performance with 19-inch Power Sports wheels in China
Tesla Model 3 Performance with 19-inch Power Sports wheels in China
Tesla Model 3 Performance with 19-inch Power Sports wheels in China

Tesla Model 3 Performance in U.S.:

Tesla Model 3 Performance

5 photos
Tesla Model 3 Performance
Tesla Model 3 Performance
Tesla Model 3 Performance
Tesla Model 3 Performance

Source: Teslarati

Source: Electric Vehicle News

Electric Cars Battery Capacity and Efficiency: In-Depth Analysis, Graphs

There are many factors to consider when buying an all-electric car (BEV)

Some of the most important ones are:

• Wells-to-Wheels carbon emissions

• Battery Capacity in kWh

• Battery efficiency in miles/kWh, MPGe, kWh/100-miles. I prefer miles/kWh since kWh is what I pay for and it is easy to memorize.

• Range in miles, which is a function of battery capacity and efficiency

• Price

This article is an attempt to quantify the first five of these factors.

The following graph shows how kWh/100-miles and MPGe are related to miles/kWh:

The value of kWh/100-miles is useful to calculate how much energy in kWh is required to travel a specific distance in miles. The value of MPGe (MPG-electric) is useful to compare the efficiency of a BEV to a gasoline car’s MPG. MPGe is calculated using the EPA number that one gallon of unleaded regular gasoline when fully combusted produces 33.7 kWh of heat.

The following graph shows how range (miles) varies with battery capacity (kWh) for seven values of miles/kWh:

Range can be calculated as Range(miles = Battery-Capacity(kWh)*Miles/kWh. Unfortunately, auto companies often do not list range and/or efficiency for their BEVs. Some do not list either. However, reviews by car reviewers often list one or both. But, sometimes the range listed is for the European Driving Cycle (NEDC) rather than the U.S. EPA Driving Cycle. The NEDC range value for a specific BEV is always considerably larger than the EPA range, which means that the miles/kWh is always larger.

To complicate matters the European Union, Japan and India have defined another Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP), which value lies between the NEDC and the EPA value. It is often not clear in a BEV review article which of the three test numbers is given. So the range numbers in the following graph for range vs battery-capacity for several BEVs may not all be EPA values:

*Note that BEV efficiency (range) varies widely for high battery capacity

Union of Concerned Scientists has calculated the 2016 equivalent MPG for a gasoline car to equal the driving carbon emissions of a typical BEV in various regions of the U.S. The sales-weighted average for the U.S. is 80 MPG, which will increase if electric-power sources become more emissions free. The different regions vary from 38 MPG to 191 MPG. (See the map.) Of course, if you have enough solar panels on your house, the gasoline equivalent MPG is very much higher.

Union of Concerned Scientists have calculated the “Wells-to-Wheels (WtW)” carbon emissions of average gasoline cars and average BEVs in the U.S.. It was found that BEVs have about one-third WtW of gasoline cars for the U.S.

Here is a graph that shows driving costs for BEVs:

The dashed line (3.5 miles/kWh) is my estimate for the average BEV in 2018.

The average cost of electricity for the last several years has been about $0.12 (vertical line).

The average (dashed line) crosses the vertical line at about $0.035/mile.

Compare to this graph that shows driving cost for gasoline cars:

The dashed line (27.4 MPG) is for the average gasoline car in the U.S. for 2016.

The average cost per gallon for the last several years I estimate at $2.50 (vertical line).

The average (dashed line) crosses the vertical line at about $0.09/mile.



L. David Roper, ROPERLD@VT.EDU, http://www.roperld.com/personal/roperldavid.htm 4 January 2019

*Above web addresses are not secure.

Source: Electric Vehicle News

New Study Shows Which Countries Lead & Trail In Electric Car Adoption

The variation between countries is significant, indicates a new study by GoCompare.

The case example pointed out below is for Canada, but the interactive graphic allows for you to pick and choose what you’re searching for.

There are 23,620 electric cars in Canada, ranking the country 13th out of the 30 International Energy Agency (IEA) member countries analysed for the research. There are more electric cars in countries such as Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland – all smaller than Canada.

Canada, the second largest country in the world by area, had 5,841 charging points for electronic cars making it the ninth best equipped. In comparison, the tiny Netherlands comes third with 32,875 charging points. This means Canada has the seventh worst charging point network with just 0.56 charging points every 100 kilometres, compared to 23.25 in the Netherlands.

All charging points and petrol stations combined, the proportion of charging points in Canada is just 28 percent, the seventh lowest among the IEA member countries. This means 5,841 charging points against 15,000 petrol stations. In the best-performing Norway the proportion of charging points is 87 percent, while China comes third with 68 percent.

The below graph is available for all IEA member countries here



Image: GoCompare

Highest number of electric cars

With 1,227,770 cars, China has the highest electric car stock in the IEA countries. Canada comes 13th with 23,620 electric cars. There’s one electric car to every 1,554 Canadians, while there’s one to every 30 Norwegians.

  1. China – 1,227,770 electric cars
  2. United States – 762,060
  3. Japan – 205,350
  4. Norway – 176,310
  5. United Kingdom – 133,670
  6. Netherlands – 119,340
  7. France – 118,770
  8. Germany – 109,560
  9. Sweden – 49,671
  10. Belgium – 31,630

Highest number of charging points

China, the fourth largest country in the world by area, has more charging points than any other country, while Canada comes ninth with the second largest area.

  1. China – 213,903
  2. United States – 45,868
  3. Netherlands – 32,875
  4. Japan – 28,879
  5. Germany – 24,289
  6. France – 15,978
  7. United Kingdom – 13,534
  8. Norway – 10,350
  9. Canada – 5,841
  10. Korea – 5,612

Lowest number of charging points per 100km

Some electric cars have a range of less than 100 kilometres. With an average of 0.56 charging points every 100 kilometres (or one every 200 kilometres), Canada has the seventh poorest network.

  1. Australia – 0.05 charging points per 100km
  2. Poland – 0.13
  3. Hungary – 0.13
  4. Finland – 0.19
  5. Mexico – 0.39
  6. Czechia – 0.47
  7. Canada – 0.56
  8. Italy – 0.56
  9. Estonia – 0.65
  10. USA – 0.68

The Netherlands has the highest number of charging points per 100 kilometres with 23.25 charging points every 100 kilometres.

Lowest number of cars per charging point

Canada has the tenth lowest number of electric cars per charging point. It only has 4.04 cars per charger, while Iceland has as many as 77.72.

  1. Mexico – 0.60
  2. Slovakia – 1.88
  3. Ireland – 2.66
  4. Czech Republic – 3.08
  5. Poland – 3.21
  6. Estonia – 3.22
  7. Spain – 3.41
  8. Netherlands – 3.63
  9. Denmark – 3.86
  10. Canada – 4.04

Lowest proportion of charging points against petrol stations

These are the worst-performing countries for the number of charging points against the number of petrol stations. The percentage represents the portion of charging points which in Canada is 28 percent, ranking the country seventh worst.

  1. Australia – 7%
  2. Poland – 8%
  3. Mexico – 12%
  4. Italy – 12%
  5. Hungary – 12%
  6. Czechia – 14%
  7. Canada – 28%
  8. United States – 29%
  9. Spain – 31%
  10. Finland – 31%

What we analysed

GoCompare set out to see which countries are best-prepared for the future of electric cars by looking at the following factors:

  • The number of publicly accessible charging points per kilometre of each country’s road network.
  • The number of petrol stations vs the number of publicly accessible charging points in each country.
  • Each country’s electric car stock (including battery electric cars and plug-in hybrid cars) vs its number of publicly accessible charging points.
  • The number of normal power* and fast power** charging points that are publicly accessible.

*normal power charging points mean > 3.7 kW and ≤ 22 kW
**fast power charging points means AC 43 kW chargers, DC chargers, inductive and Tesla Superchargers

Source: GoCompare

Source: Electric Vehicle News