Use of battery control technology to improve the environmental balance sheet

Article menu

Use of battery control technology to improve the environmental balance sheet-improve

To achieve the climate protection objectives in the transport sector – in particular a striking reduction of CO2 emissions – obviously does not pass a way at the mass introduction of battery-electric powered cars (BEV). The climate balance of the BEV is currently only slightly better than that of conventional cars with internal combustion engine. The main reasons for this are the relatively high greenhouse gas emissions in the production of the drive batteries for the BEV and the greenhouse gas emissions in power generation. Added to this is the environmental impact of raw material production for the batteries. At present, the aim is to continuously improve the environmental balance sheet by further developing the batteries and the associated manufacturing technology as well as by increasing the ecostromancial part of the electricity mix.

There is a simple concept that can significantly improve the environmental balance of battery electrical cars and at the same time can be avoided with the known disadvantages of these cars (low range, long loading times, high acquisition costs) without further developing battery technology or higher Economic roman parts must wait. For this purpose, the cars are equipped with batteries that are suitable for short and medium sections and thus sufficient for the overwhelming part of the daily rides. You can load these at ordinary charging stations for BEV (Z. B. at home or at work). In the event that the car is to be a longer drive, it has a shaft for changeable, standardized battery modules, larger cars could be equipped with several such shafts. These are usually empty, but can be equipped if necessary on a gas station with battery replacement station in a few minutes. Blank modules can be exchanged quickly against charged ones.

Use of battery control technology to improve the environmental balance sheet-balance

  1. Vehicle platform
  2. Firmly built-in batteries
  3. Interchange
  4. changeable battery module
  5. Electric motor
  6. Power electronics
  7. Control electronics
  8. Cooling technology

Sauce potential of battery capacity

Due to the technical development, one can assume that in the near future, a conventional BEV standard with a fixed battery for a range of approx. 500 km (equivalent to about 75 kWh in the middle class) will be equipped. However, from relevant statistics can be deduced that a basic range of 200 km for most vehicle users for approx. 95% of your daily trips is sufficient. If you equip the BEV with a fixed battery for this basic range (30 kWh) and allows the use of an additional battery for 300 km range (45 kWh), you need only about the entire vehicle fleet only approx. 50% of the O.G. Battery capacity. Of these are approx. 80% as a permanently installed batteries in the cars and about. 20% used as additional batteries.

Improvement of the environmental balance sheet

In the above estimation of the example of BEV with 75kWh battery, the proposed concept results in a reduction of battery capacity to averaging. 38 kWh per vehicle. In ABB.2, such a vehicle is compared to similar vehicles equipped with other drives. There, the progress expected by 2030 advances in the technical development and the expansion of renewable energies are already considered.

In the direct comparison of the two BEV variants, it can be seen that by the proposed concept in the medium term an additional greenhouse gas reduction of CA. 16% is made possible. At present, the saving effect would be significantly larger, as battery technology and the electric mix available for manufacturing is not yet so environmentally friendly, as expected for 2030.
With regard to consumption of battery-specific raw materials (lithium, kobald, nickel etc.) can be realized that with the same amount, almost twice the number of vehicles can be operated. The problem of environmentally friendly recycling of the remote batteries is also reduced accordingly.

Use of battery control technology to improve the environmental balance sheet-battery

The figure shows for 2030 expected greenhouse gas emissions of various vehicles in comparison, numerical values according to Agora Road Transportation (2019) climate balance of electric cars, adapted to the deviant battery capacities of the BEV considered here. The entire lifecycle of the vehicles was taken into account in a life rate of 150.000 km.

Battery change stations

The required infrastructure in the form of battery change stations is produced with comparatively little effort, since it is always needed for a very small part of the BEV and it is only occupied for a short time. Suitable technique has been available for a long time (FA. Better Place, Tesla, NIO) and can be advantageously integrated into the power supply network. However, the vast majority of charging operations is done as before about normal BEV charging points.

There are investigations that show that an optimized mode of operation under commercial use of your network stabilizing function can be operated economically and are possible for customers acceptable fees.

It can be shown that the bond regime for the additional batteries can be designed by using pfandkarten based on an anonymized smart card so that it is comfortable and financeable and the privacy is strictly adhered to.

Comparison of different battery technologies

Use of battery control technology to improve the environmental balance sheet-control

About the author: Steffen Schmidt is a diploma engineer for electrical engineering and was a long time as a development engineer and designer in industry in a company that provides manufacturing machinery and associated automation technology for the automotive industry. His area of responsibility included the overall design of the electrical equipment of these machines and the specialty of electric drives. Now he is retired.

Please follow and like us:

9 thoughts on “Use of battery control technology to improve the environmental balance sheet”

  1. This battery change technique brings little to long distances, since only a part is changed.
    The firmly built-in battery is not charged.

    Reply
  2. Apart from “operational island solutions” or “hand-changeable” battery systems I see No portable basis for one generally Battery protection technology!
    Especially for the EU (in contrast to state-regulated economies), I even consider this for almost hopeless for the reasons explained!

    By the fact that the author still from an additional complication by the Mix of fixed-mounted as well as changeable batteries Go out, the problems yes IMO will not be smaller – rather bigger!

    • Organizational Already not because a “synchronization” of the increasing variety of manufacturers does not seem realistic to me.
    • Technically not because standardization hampered both technical progress and flexibility.
    • Physical flexibility Means both the construction of the vehicle (example “structural integration” but also simply changing the battery supplier during the production of a vehicle series and also Small as well as great progress in the battery technology ..
    • electronic flexibility Means improvements in the BMS (OTA) updates with adjustments to the respective vehicle
    • Manufacturing cost-sided I also have considerable concerns, as there is a double additional expense, namely 1. a clear spatial and technical increase in the vehicle structure with devices for automatic changeover, 2. a clear technical additional expense also battery-side!
    • Operating cost-sided is not just V.a. The area, construction cost, operating cost and maintenance costs is much higher than that of charging stations … It is also a continuous transport of batteries between the individual change stations necessary to adapt changing requirements!

    At the latest 2022 expectable current Average Eauto ranges of 300-> 500 km becomes a variety (I mean even plurality!) From users anyway only (max.) Load 2-3 times a week and then do not drive to a many km away, rather high priced change station ..

    In metropolitan areas, I already have one now Average distance from only 1.000 m from station to station (Z.B. In Greater HH), the very rapid rising number of private charging stations (parking spaces, garages, underground parking etc.) Not considered times – what should I be there (with longer approach) (very?) Expensive change stations??

    Even on highway routes Cross and across Germany seems to be with such a Varietary structure DIV. Battery change stations DIV. Manufacturers rather not realistic, Since the number of those who would really want to use that on average – measured at the overall eauto share – rather slightly appeared!

    In the longer term, such standards also mean for me rather a disability of the technical. Progress As a relief! How long should – with adopted lifetime of 15-20 years for an eauto – as an exchange standard with simultaneous battery technology progress “hold”? Should it be Interchangeable batteries for “my” car model z.B. only give the first 5 years?

    My skepticism encourages not least the information, there are already in China at least. 3 manufacturers of various battery systems and specifically at NIO the announcement of a second generation of batteries and associated battery replacement stations (Power Swap Station 2.0), Then all older stations should be replaced with new ones and until when should that be completed and when is the 3. Genee? … and – even with other manufacturers – which are still newer vehicles with newer batteries, there will be back until then?

    By the way: How the author on examples such as Betterplace – the crash failed – comes or even a battery change system at Tesla? … suggests me rather ..

    My Change Battery Conclusion:
    On the proverbial first look – possibly also in terms of improved environmental values – perhaps more consistently – especially probably from the point of view of previous gas stations-fixed combustionists – at second glance from many reasons rather not promising.

    Reply
  3. There is a much easier trick to increase the range on long-distance rides and that means driving down. Depending on consumption and charging speed, each car has its Sweet Spot where faster drive nothing brings because you need a longer break with the ladestop.

    My share of rides lying above my battery capacity (which is about what the author suggests) is below 1%. For these exceptions, I should buy a car with battery change? Especially since the effort is the battery and expanding for the long line probably no temporal advantage over Laden.

    I do not think the manufacturers could agree on a battery format. What was that for a hickhack at the charging plugs? Ultimately, this can only be operated economically if all use the same standard and I do not think that will happen. The battery change stations would also have to be widespread on highways. I do not see that.

    Farnsworth

    Reply
  4. Basically, the idea convinces from the principle. It is also very similar to the argument for a roughly equal battery with a hydrogen-range extender instead of the change battery. The stupidest is definitely a huge battery in a vehicle that drives 95% only short distances.
    The question is how such a system leaves up, or. How to overcome the HENNE EI problem. The easiest way is something in a totalitarian state where it would simply be prescribed.

    Reply
  5. If the charging time further decreases through new batteries, then each exchange system loses its sense, because the load then goes as fast as that and you have no additional weight through a heavy 2.Battery, which costs range and increases power consumption and tire abrasion (particulate matter).

    Reply
  6. Interchangeable batteries make sense in racing.
    Without complete electrification of racing, it is difficult to convince the petroleous heads from the electric car.
    If you want to electrify the complete racing, you probably get around change batteries. The 24h record with electric cars is only about half as high as burners.
    Today you can hardly use the battery capacity if you want to recharge very quickly.
    With 3 battery packs per vehicle you could change a 100% full battery in 3 minutes. That would be achievements in 100kW battery size as well as the high-performance quick release of a semi-tractor (2mW).
    Thus, it would be possible to introduce electric 24h races with comparable performance as today and an electrical succession of Formula 1.

    Reply
  7. Electromobility could only be a partial solution of the mobility issue for the future if we finally realize that this is only possible with small, slightly exchangeable batteries. Alone the resource consumption at 75 kW savings would be for about 1 bn. Do not afford vehicles. But otherwise, as mentioned in the report, for everyday vehicles with “only” for 200 km range large batteries (max. 30 kW). We have been driving a Peugeot ion for around 4 years, even touring to Rotterdam and otherwise possible thanks to quick loading technology and otherwise. But the development in D to ever larger E-SUVs to enable the “prosperity” of the large corporations is absolutely counterproductive. The weight of the vehicles, which is permanently (thus also in short distances) is unnecessarily large. This is a rational statement.
    An even greater concern I see in price development at the e-charging columns, especially the environmentally conscious buyers of smaller E-Mobile are punished by pricing.
    We are on a criminal case if we believe that this will be the right way out of the climate crisis!

    Reply
  8. Good day,
    The change system could be more interesting for long-distance trucks than for cars. At the car, the existing, but at the latest but the next battery technology, in conjunction with fast-loading, also for remote rides very good. The car driver will also feel as cumbersome to bring a change battery before a long distance and then to give it back.
    At the heavy remote truck, the battery range is actually not really sufficient and the mass saving by smaller, interchangeable batteries could be considerable, so that the logistical cost of the change is worthwhile.
    In the commercial vehicle, it was likely to establish the standardized battery shafts that would be necessary for alternating batteries.
    Compared with the hydrogen-operated fuel cell, which is discussed for the truck, the energetic advantage of the change battery system would also be much larger than at the car, where it is only about slightly smaller instead of larger batteries. You need only about 40 to 50% of the electrical energy required for the detour via the fuel cell for battery electrical driving.
    You could do that for a truck.
    Many greetings
    U. Scratch

    Reply
  9. I have been going on for almost 3 years a Tesla model 3 Dual Motor Long Range.
    A charging station at home supplies me with electricity. On the way I have the Super Charger network.
    Only the thought of the long-distance use a change battery to use me the neck hair vertically! I can easily think about the purchase of such a car for me completely exclude. why? NO NEED!

    I do on long distances at the latest all 2-3h a short break of max. 20-30 minutes.
    In the time, my Tesla invites from 20% to around 80%. Free after the motto – he then invites he.
    In the 3 years and around 90.000km has not been a moment in which I would have liked more range or more loading options.
    So why should I buy a car, the more technique wrapped around as needed?
    From the development costs, the complexity of the necessary votes between the manufacturers and the foreseeable time missing availability of nationwide change stations.

    The benefit reasoning of these and similar technologies is M.E. also on toned feet.
    The environmental balance (CO2 and raw material procurement) and the capacity of BEV batteries will improve massively over the next 5-10 years.
    Also the argument, big ‘batteries on the short distance, lapping’ would indemnify a lot of multi-consumption. My practical experiences show the suggestive. Recuperation, as you can up to approx. 50kW in the Tesla is possible, brings close to all weight-related starting and acceleration conventions when braking back into the battery. This is true for the city as well as for the highway. The other BEVs that can not be used in this extent lies on their motor generators and control electronics. The a very well-braking (more recollecting) engine can also produce a tremendous torque can be in the nature of the matter (phySyik) and not a tesla liked to want to sprint as fast as possible.
    Ergo, fingers away from Bevs who can not sprint properly, because they can not recover a properly!

    All together will probably lead to that in a few years the change battery idea as well as the H2 idea for cars to the edge note. As so much, which was sold in Germany in recent years as the innovation for securing the future and is still becoming.

    Unless this technology would be prescribed to us as part of a technocratic environmental dictatorship!
    But before such a absence of common sense in the population, everything will preserve us what is nice and holy.

    Reply

Leave a Comment