Alternative Fuels

RIP

WTF kind of article is this? Piss-poor grammar and sentences. "By the time the odometer ticked past that 160,000 kilometre mark, equivalent to 160,000 kilometres, 99,000, the pack still retained over 90 percent of its original net capacity." Then it jumps to 91% remaining capacity somehow...? And when jumping to 91% capacity remaining, I don't think they did any math at all. See below for a paragraph that shouldn't be made as evidence of anything. As an engineer, this kind of "facts" should infuriate you.  "Battery health statistics can sound abstract until you translate them into the range figure you see on your dashboard. In this case, the Volkswagen ID. 3 Pro S started life with a usable pack of 77 kWh, and independent testing recorded an initial real world range of 77 k and 272 miles on a full charge. After the long term trial, the car still had 91% of its battery capacity, a figure that aligns with separate reporting that the Volkswagen ID 3 retained 91% battery capacity in a 160,000 kilometre test. In practice, that meant the car lost only around eight miles of usable range, a change small enough that you would struggle to notice in daily driving." 272 x .09 = 24.5 miles. Theoretically losing 9% would lose the owner about 25 miles of range, not 8 miles. It is now a 248-mile range EV.  This looks like some garbage AI-generated article.  Just for the record, I'm not saying that EVs don't have good battery management and degradation. I'm just saying this article was an embarrassing example to stand by.

I genuinely didn't read anything that said winter range doesn't drop by nearly 40% for "well-made EVs". All it really said is charging is more available than ever with vehicles that can entertain and comfort the passengers while inside waiting.  What part of that article says anything about how far they've come and why the fear of winter on the battery pack is overblown? 

Spot on read! Cormac Moore: The parallel paths of Trump and Hitler can no longer be ignored

Interesting watch