Summary
- Analyzing differences between charging cases by examining unit transactions and comparing them
- Battery pack characteristics include cycle life, miles driven, range, pack size, and pack lifetime
- Comparing two cases: buffered fast charge and slow charged swap
- Conclusions show no benefit to buffered fast charge compared to slow charged swap
- Final results indicate both cases use the same number of packs for miles traveled, with the same cycle life and longevity
Article
The analysis of charging cases involves examining charging transactions, cycle life, miles driven, range, pack size, and pack lifetime. All battery packs have a cycle life, typically lasting 1,000 to 4,000 cycles for electric vehicle use. The maximum range of a vehicle is determined by its characteristics and pack size, with range calculated as pack size multiplied by miles/kWh. Performance is equal for identical cells and packs. The lifetime miles a pack can travel is determined by the range and cycle life.
Comparing two cases on a unit transaction basis, Case 1 involves buffered fast charging where a truck receives a charge from a buffer pack, while Case 2 involves slow-charged swapping of packs. Both cases result in similar outcomes, with no significant advantages to buffered fast charging over slow charge swapping. The number of packs used, initial and final states of charge, and overall efficiency are the same in both cases.
The conclusions drawn from the comparison of the two cases show that buffered fast charge does not provide any substantial benefits over slow charge swap. Both cases require the same number of packs for mobile use, with only one pack contributing to miles traveled in the fast charge scenario. Over time, buffered fast charge uses twice as many packs compared to slow charge swap.
Furthermore, the analysis extends to scenarios where a buffered storage pack may have different characteristics or chemistries. In all cases, the additional pack used for buffering incurs extra costs without contributing to miles traveled. The inefficiencies and losses associated with fast charging also make it less efficient than slow charge swapping, potentially due to internal pack losses and charger electronics.
Overall, the study suggests that slow charge swapping of packs is a more efficient and cost-effective solution compared to buffered fast charging. The use of unit transactions allows for a simplified comparison of the two cases, highlighting the advantages of slow charge swap in terms of pack usage, efficiency, and overall performance.
Read the full article here
