JAC Motors, a Volkswagen-backed Chinese automaker, unveiled the first mass-produced EV with a sodium-ion battery through its new Yiwei brand. Although sodium-ion battery tech has a lower density than lithium-ion, its lower costs, simpler and more abundant supplies and superior cold-weather performan...
I can see that. My point is that the only electric car that has that range in the U.S. is the Leaf, which goes 168 miles on the smaller battery. I don't need an electric car that goes that many miles between charges. I'd be fine with 90. I'd probably be fine with less than 90. We have a second car if we ever want to leave town. I'd ditch my hybrid and get a cheaper electric car that didn't have a huge range, but it isn't even on offer.
For sure! I think we're going to have to move away from a one-size fits all car design. For general city use, I use a Chevy Bolt, but for longer (infrequent) runs, I'm still stuck with ICE (I'd use a hybrid if I had one). In Canada, the range really does go down in the winter. (and Canada has not taken charging infrastructure very seriously - mandatory for adoption)
Anyway you look at it, these are very, very positive developments.
My problem is that I need >100 mile range. I live in a cold climate and have a 50 mile, round-trip commute (and high speed, so even worse range), so if EVs get half the range in the winter, I could stuck. There isn't a big set of cars in the 100-150 mile range, usually you get something older and used with <100, or current cars get >200 and you pay the price for it.
A new Leaf is something like $30k, and used Leafs are something like $17k, so it's absolutely not worth replacing my reliable hybrid car at that price. If I could get a new car around $20k with ~150 mile range, or a used car (~5 years old) with 100-150 mile range for 10k, I'd probably buy it. But that just isn't a thing right now. So I'm waiting.
I've found people vastly overstated how much range they need. 99% of usage is in the city between home and somewhere else. 250km is perfect if the price is right.
For daily use, sure - but it completely excludes itself as an option for road trips in the US and parts of Canada. There's a stretch of interstate road near me with nearly a 100 mile gap between service stations.
I know that this isn't the purpose of this battery, but it's a valid reason why a lot of people might be hesitant to buy one. Many people can't afford multiple vehicles for different purposes. You have the car you drive to work with, and if you happen to go on a trip you just use the same thing.
Maybe 99% of use occurs within constraints that this battery can handle, but if you can only afford one vehicle, then this is still a pretty suboptimal option. That being said... it could still be cheap enough to not matter. I didn't see any mention of price in that article.
I agree with your logic. It makes perfect sense to rent a vehicle for edge cases.
However, I disagree that you’re going to encourage mass adoption by asking people to change their lifestyle. A large amount of the US population views their vehicle as more than a tool to get to and from work. It’s an extension of their personality. Road trips might be part of that personality.
They’re sold on the marketing ideals of luxury, comfort, or adventure. They buy accessories for these vehicles like roof-racks for their luggage or campers/trailers to help them travel across the country while keeping that comfort of home. Tens of thousands of campers are still sold in the U.S. every year and EV’s are a nonstarter for towing more than 75 miles.
No one enjoys renting an unfamiliar Honda CR-V where the seat doesn’t feel quite right for long periods of time, there’s something sticky on the shift handle, the previous driver smoked in it, and you hear a plastic creaking sound coming from the back seat. You can’t quite figure out from where and it’s driving you insane.
Until EV’s can match the convenience and capability of ICE vehicles, adoption is going to be limited.
If we can't convince people that we need to change habits then we are doomed anyway, switching to BE cars is not a viable solution we need to increase public transportation and cycling anyway
average american has two vehicles. Its literally not even a lifestyle change: one EV, one hybrid or gas vehicle will cover 100% of normal use cases. EVs have lower maintenance costs and longer predicted life spans and don't waste as much energy in stop and go traffic. They are superior commuter vehicles.
The problem is vehicle fleets. Trucks and busses will be hard to replace effectively and they mostly need longer discharge cycles and ranges.
...or rent a vehicle with the fuel savings from driving your EV most of the year, and skip putting a couple thousand km on your car over a long weekend.
It seems to me that car in the article is relatively small city car. I can imagine that building bigger car with inter city travels in mind would also include an improved range.
Exactly. We have two cars, and we only need one to have any kind of range. The other is fine with 250km/150mi range, but it needs to be relatively inexpensive to buy and repair. It'll just be for a daily commute and around-town driving, no expectation for long-distance.
It doesn't need space for people or stuff, just 2-4 passengers is plenty. It'll strictly be for commutes and small trips to the grocery store and whatnot, the other car can be used for larger trips.
Id like to add that there are different versions of the car, with the long range version being 302km range, and the battery mass to energy ratio is actually average compared to other batteries.