INL L2 vs DC initial capacity test results after 50k mi+

GRA said:

...What's unfortunately been missing from this test is any comparison to a group of vehicles operating in a temperate climate and undergoing the same cycling, so that we would have some idea of the point at which battery cooling starts to make a big difference...

Click to expand...

While this study was not specifically designed to answer that question, IMO, the data required to largely answer that question is not "missing".

Look at the capacity loss and average battery temperatures over the seasonal periods marked by 10,000 mile capacity tests:

http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/energystorage/DCFC_Study_FactSheet_EOT.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are very high rates of capacity loss at very high battery temperatures, which averaged over 104 F while charging for the DC LEAFs during the April to October 20 k miles driven, resulting in ~62% of the total average capacity loss over 50 k miles occurring during just those 20 k miles.

In contrast, over the only 10k miles driven entirely in the winter (January-March) but still with relatively high average battery temperatures of over 80 F (that's still higher than my warm-climate LEAFs average pack temperature is when it is charged in the early morning in mid-Summer!) the DC LEAFs only experienced ~9% of the total average capacity loss over 50k miles, less than one third of the rate of capacity loss reported from April to October.

What is missing, is data on how much lower capacity loss is at cooler pack temperatures, which almost all LEAFs experience for three-to-twelve months of the year.

="GRA"...We also still don't know what the effect of frequent QCing (as advocated by those who want to see QCs spaced every 50 miles along freeways) would be, although we do know that such treatment in an uncooled pack like the LEAF's will boost the battery temp well up into the danger zone.

Click to expand...

It doesn't sound like there was ever any "danger" involved, though it was a test of the LEAF pack under more severe conditions than any LEAF in private use in the USA is likely to ever approach.

From the summary, p 12:

...The four BEVs driven in Phoenix, Arizona were faced with a hot climate, and two were fast charged twice as often as recommended by their manufacturer. Despite these conditions, the vehicles were operated without failure for 50 thousand miles. A greater loss in battery capacity was observed for the fast charged vehicles, though the difference compared to the level two charged vehicles was small in comparison to the overall capacity loss...

Click to expand...

http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/energystorage/FastChargeEffects.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Most LEAF battery packs spend relatively little time at the very high temperatures (even those that regularly and rationally utilize DC charging) compared with the large amount of time at very high temperatures maintained in this test, which looks to have been the primary cause in reduced pack life, as shown by this study.

Which should not exactly be a surprise, since high ambient temperature was listed first as factors reducing battery life in the disclosure signed by (almost) all of us when we took delivery.

The study suggests little likelihood of rapid capacity loss for LEAFs in most climates, under most driving patterns, and using more rational charging/SOC patterns, which actually spend much or most of their time with pack temperatures below the minimum average temperatures while charging (~ 77 F during Winter) the study LEAFs experienced.

edatoakrun said:

GRA said:

...What's unfortunately been missing from this test is any comparison to a group of vehicles operating in a temperate climate and undergoing the same cycling, so that we would have some idea of the point at which battery cooling starts to make a big difference...

Click to expand...

While this study was not specifically designed to answer that question, IMO, the data required to largely answer that question is not "missing".

Look at the capacity loss and average battery temperatures over the seasonal periods marked by 10,000 mile capacity tests:

http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/energystorage/DCFC_Study_FactSheet_EOT.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are very high rates of capacity loss at very high battery temperatures, which averaged over 104 F while charging for the DC LEAFs during the April to October 20 k miles driven, resulting in ~62% of the total average capacity loss over 50 k miles occurring during just those 20 k miles.

In contrast, over the only 10k miles driven entirely in the winter (January-March) but still with relatively high average battery temperatures of over 80 F (that's still higher than my warm-climate LEAFs average pack temperature is when it is charged in the early morning in mid-Summer!) the DC LEAFs only experienced ~9% of the total average capacity loss over 50k miles, less than one third of the rate of capacity loss reported from April to October.

What is missing, is data on how much lower capacity loss is at cooler pack temperatures, which almost all LEAFs experience for three-to-twelve months of the year.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I was asking for. Let's see how batteries do in average ambients of 50-70 degrees, which is more typical of the PNW (and much of coastal CA, FTM). We need to compare cars in a different climate over the same period of time and seasonal variation. We now have reasonable data for a specific set of circumstances in a hot to very hot climate, and it's clear that the LEAF's pack is unsuited there (we already knew that, but the data just confirms it). I wish they had run a concurrent test with a couple of FFEs, so we could see the effects of a liquid-cooled TMS in those conditions. Obviously, the FFE would only provide comparison with the L2 LEAFS, but that would be useful.

edatoakrun said:

="GRA"...We also still don't know what the effect of frequent QCing (as advocated by those who want to see QCs spaced every 50 miles along freeways) would be, although we do know that such treatment in an uncooled pack like the LEAF's will boost the battery temp well up into the danger zone.

Click to expand...

It doesn't sound like there was ever any "danger" involved, though it was a test of the LEAF pack under more severe conditions than any LEAF in private use in the USA is likely to ever approach.

From the summary, p 12:

...The four BEVs driven in Phoenix, Arizona were faced with a hot climate, and two were fast charged twice as often as recommended by their manufacturer. Despite these conditions, the vehicles were operated without failure for 50 thousand miles. A greater loss in battery capacity was observed for the fast charged vehicles, though the difference compared to the level two charged vehicles was small in comparison to the overall capacity loss...

Click to expand...

http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/energystorage/FastChargeEffects.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Most LEAF battery packs spend relatively little time at the very high temperatures (even those that regularly and rationally utilize DC charging) compared with the large amount of time at very high temperatures maintained in this test, which looks to have been the primary cause in reduced pack life, as shown by this study.

Which should not exactly be a surprise, since high ambient temperature was listed first as factors reducing battery life in the disclosure signed by (almost) all of us when we took delivery.

The study suggests little likelihood of rapid capacity loss for LEAFs in most climates, under most driving patterns, and using more rational charging/SOC patterns, which actually spend much or most of their time with pack temperatures below the minimum average temperatures while charging (~ 77 F during Winter) the study LEAFs experienced.

Click to expand...

One QC morning and one evening is not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about multiple QCs one right after another where the battery temp continuously climbs with each charge, for people taking trips. I don't think the current wave of limited-range BEVs make any sense whatsoever for such trips, but there are people here saying we need to provide closely spaced QCs to enable them to do so.

GRA said:

One QC morning and one evening is not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about multiple QCs one right after another where the battery temp continuously climbs with each charge, for people taking trips. I don't think the current wave of limited-range BEVs make any sense whatsoever for such trips, but there are people here saying we need to provide closely spaced QCs to enable such trips.

Click to expand...

When I've set out on a cool (4 or 5 bars) morning, holding the rise to three bars over 150 to 200 miles works out OK, hitting those closely spaced QCs. Two things I believe in my bones: 1) Nissan could do a much better job of dissipating battery heat - even with a passive system - than they presently do, and 2) I would pay the cost premium for such a higher duty-cycle pack.

GRA said:

Let's see how batteries do in average ambients of 50-70 degrees, which is more typical of the PNW (and much of coastal CA, FTM).

Click to expand...

With the test data, it's pretty easy to see that the summer pack and ambient temps are about 20C hotter than winter temps.

Arrhenius' equation estimates that a 20C rise in temp will result in 4 times faster chemical reactions in the battery and thus the packs will lose capacity about 4 times faster.

And surprise - if you look a the amount of capacity lost between 10k mile intervals, the minimum capacity lost was around 0.5 kWh while the maximum capacity lost was around 2 kWh - 4 times higher. The 10k intervals where only 0.5 kWh was lost occurred in the winter while the 10k intervals where 2 kWh were lost occurred in the summer with average temps 20C higher than winter.

GRA said:

... I wish they had run a concurrent test with a couple of FFEs, so we could see the effects of a liquid-cooled TMS in those conditions. Obviously, the FFE would only provide comparison with the L2 LEAFS, but that would be useful...

Click to expand...

As I've posted before, AVTA is testing the FFE and a number of other BEVs in similar tests:

http://avt.inl.gov/fsev.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No long-term capacity results for the FFE yet, but the initial tests show the ATM FFE seems to be less capable than the Passive TM LEAF in preventing battery heating in full discharge followed by Recharge tests.

Note the FFE allows the average battery temperature during recharging to exceed 100F, following full discharge range tests on a fairly cool (~80F) Phoenix day:

http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/fact2013fordfocus.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

="GRA"...I'm talking about multiple QCs one right after another where the battery temp continuously climbs with each charge, for people taking trips. I don't think the current wave of limited-range BEVs make any sense whatsoever for such trips, but there are people here saying we need to provide closely spaced QCs to enable them to do so.

Click to expand...

The obvious benefit in having DC chargers available is to extend the practical daily range of a ~20 kWh (available) BEV from ~60-100 miles to ~150 to 250 miles, by recharging up to a few times.

This study indicates that using DCs occasionally for this purpose will not reduce battery life for a LEAF or any other BEV, significantly.

On the other hand, having DC chargers available provide the huge benefit, of not requiring every BEV to haul around ~ three or four times as many kWh worth of expensive and rapidly depreciating batteries, to accomplish the same 150 to 250 mile trips.

edatoakrun said:

GRA said:

... I wish they had run a concurrent test with a couple of FFEs, so we could see the effects of a liquid-cooled TMS in those conditions. Obviously, the FFE would only provide comparison with the L2 LEAFS, but that would be useful...

Click to expand...

As I've posted before, AVTA is testing the FFE and a number of other BEVs in similar tests:

http://avt.inl.gov/fsev.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No long-term capacity results for the FFE yet, but the initial tests show the ATM FFE seems to be less capable than the Passive TM LEAF in preventing battery heating in full discharge followed by Recharge tests.

Click to expand...

I had a look at the FFE battery tests before my last post, and as you say they unfortunately only include initial data despite having started the testing last year, so we just don't know yet how they'll hold up over the long term.

edatoakrun said:

Note the FFE allows the average battery temperature during recharging to exceed 100F, following full discharge range tests on a fairly cool (~80F) Phoenix day:

http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/fact2013fordfocus.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

The notes show temperature deltas of from 2-6 deg. C (3.6-10.8 deg. F.) during charging in ambients from 31-36 deg. C (87.6-96.8 deg. F.). I agree that I'm surprised that it is allowed to go so high. Maybe we need something like a Spark instead, as it would allow comparison for both AC and DC charging, with a similar AC charge rate to a 2012 LEAF. The Smarts they have now in long term test have much smaller batteries, as well as no QC. Unfortunately, the Volt tests were all in ambients well below the 30 deg. C. mark at which rapid battery degradation is said to take off, and it's not possible to say if the 28-29 deg. C that the batteries reached during charge was a maximum limited by the TMS, or just how hot the got under the prevailing conditions. What we need is to get ambients well above the 30 deg. C mark, and see if the TMS can cool the battery down to or below it while charging.

edatoakrun said:

="GRA"...I'm talking about multiple QCs one right after another where the battery temp continuously climbs with each charge, for people taking trips. I don't think the current wave of limited-range BEVs make any sense whatsoever for such trips, but there are people here saying we need to provide closely spaced QCs to enable them to do so.

Click to expand...

The obvious benefit in having DC chargers available is to extend the practical daily range of a ~20 kWh (available) BEV from ~60-100 miles to ~150 to 250 miles, by recharging up to a few times.

This study indicates that using DCs occasionally for this purpose will not reduce battery life for a LEAF or any other BEV, significantly.

On the other hand, having DC chargers available provide the huge benefit, of not requiring every BEV to haul around ~ three or four times as many kWh worth of expensive and rapidly depreciating batteries, to accomplish the same 150 to 250 mile trips.

Click to expand...

I'd set the ranges lower, because I think anything over 1 (full) enroute QC is too time inefficient for most people. Once there's considerably more on-board range, it will make sense to consider these cars for road trips. In the meantime there are PHEVs.

...Testing and cycling of identical packs in a fixed temperature chamber, in-progress at the writing of this paper, show an initial rate of capacity loss that begins steeply, but slows for each successive test interval approaching a constant rate of capacity loss. The full results of that testing will be presented in a future publication and will serve to answer some questions posed by this testing and analysis...

Click to expand...

RegGuheert said:

Of course they get the same result as Nissan: they're doing the same test which is (likely) dominated by cycling losses. Cycling losses slow as the battery ages.

But with very few exceptions, losses customers experience are dominated by calendar losses...

Click to expand...

Why do you believe losses customers experience are dominated by calendar losses?

How can you have any idea what actual calendar losses are, when the only study of LEAF battery capacity loss (this one) covers an interval of under two years, and for that matter, when the oldest LEAF batteries in existence are still less than five years old?

I was worried about excessive calendar loss before taking delivery, but with my battery now over 50 months old, I'm no longer nearly so concerned.

GRA said:

edatoakrun said:

Note the FFE allows the average battery temperature during recharging to exceed 100F, following full discharge range tests on a fairly cool (~80F) Phoenix day:

http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/fact2013fordfocus.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

I agree that I'm surprised that it is allowed to go so high...

Click to expand...

You have to consider that when you actively condition pack temperature, you have to forgo conductive cooling, which seems to be quite effective in the LEAF pack design.

Look at figure 6, page 7 which shows how quickly the LEAF battery cools off when not in charging or discharging:

http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/energystorage/FastChargeEffects.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course, the pack is also dispersing heat while charging and while being driven, just not at the same rate as it is being generated.

Unfortunately, that chart does not show ambient temperatures.

Once you place the batteries in an insulated enclosure, the only way to remove the heat generated in that enclosure by charging/discharging, is by pumping liquid coolant or chilled air through, using the ATM.

edatoakrun said:

...The obvious benefit in having DC chargers available is to extend the practical daily range of a ~20 kWh (available) BEV from ~60-100 miles to ~150 to 250 miles, by recharging up to a few times.

This study indicates that using DCs occasionally for this purpose will not reduce battery life for a LEAF or any other BEV, significantly.

On the other hand, having DC chargers available provide the huge benefit, of not requiring every BEV to haul around ~ three or four times as many kWh worth of expensive and rapidly depreciating batteries, to accomplish the same 150 to 250 mile trips.

Click to expand...

="GRA" I'd set the ranges lower, because I think anything over 1 (full) enroute QC is too time inefficient...

Click to expand...

Well, it's a good thing BEV manufactures don't need to please everyone.

Since the advantages of driving a BEV rather than an ICEV on trips within the initial charge range every day (including never having to stop to refuel) are so great, I think most people will not mind the 30-60 minutes of total DC charging, during the occasional three-to-five hour, 150-to 250-mile trip.

IMO, most people will find it easy enough to make use of that amount of time relatively efficiently, given access to food, restrooms, and WIFI.

edatoakrun said:

GRA said:

edatoakrun said:

Note the FFE allows the average battery temperature during recharging to exceed 100F, following full discharge range tests on a fairly cool (~80F) Phoenix day:

http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/fact2013fordfocus.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

I agree that I'm surprised that it is allowed to go so high...

Click to expand...

You have to consider that when you actively condition pack temperature, you have to forgo conductive cooling, which seems to be quite effective in the LEAF pack design.

Look at figure 6, page 7 which shows how quickly the LEAF battery cools off when not in charging or discharging:

http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/energystorage/FastChargeEffects.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course, the pack is also dispersing heat while charging and while being driven, just not at the same rate as it is being generated.

Unfortunately, that chart does not show ambient temperatures.

Once you place the batteries in an insulated enclosure, the only way to remove the heat generated in that enclosure by charging/discharging, is by pumping liquid coolant or chilled air through, using the ATM.

Click to expand...

Sure. And doing so can cool the battery down to temps it's happy at much more rapidly, at a cost in energy to be sure. Of course, it's an even better idea to prevent the battery from exceeding its comfortable temps in the first place, which an active TMS can also do.

edatoakrun said:

GRA said:

edatoakrun said:

...The obvious benefit in having DC chargers available is to extend the practical daily range of a ~20 kWh (available) BEV from ~60-100 miles to ~150 to 250 miles, by recharging up to a few times.

This study indicates that using DCs occasionally for this purpose will not reduce battery life for a LEAF or any other BEV, significantly.

On the other hand, having DC chargers available provide the huge benefit, of not requiring every BEV to haul around ~ three or four times as many kWh worth of expensive and rapidly depreciating batteries, to accomplish the same 150 to 250 mile trips.

Click to expand...

I'd set the ranges lower, because I think anything over 1 (full) enroute QC is too time inefficient...

Click to expand...

Well, it's a good thing BEV manufactures don't need to please everyone.

Since the advantages of driving a BEV rather than an ICEV on trips within the initial charge range every day (including never having to stop to refuel) are so great, I think most people will not mind the 30-60 minutes of total DC charging, during the occasional three-to-five hour, 150-to 250-mile trip.

IMO, most people will find it easy enough to make use of that amount of time relatively efficiently, given access to food, restrooms, and WIFI.

Click to expand...

You're right, they don't have to please everyone, just most people. Most people don't mind making a single enroute stop on a trip, because they can schedule a meal at the same time. But most people (I hope) don't plan to have a meal every 50 miles of driving, and just want to get to their destination. Once affordable BEV freeway ranges at normal speeds increase to 100-150 reliable miles, weekend destinations with a single enroute QC stop will be viable for the mainstream consumer, but not before.

As it is, with the current Volt being driven 94% of the all-electric miles of the LEAF (see the link in the Volt thread) and the longer-AER next gen almost here, I see little justification for hastening the deployment of QCs to serve the current generation of short range BEVs. People who want to drive Bay Area to SAC can do so with QCs now, as can LA-SD. Anything beyond those distances just takes too long and is too inconvenient compared to an ICE for the typical consumer, and I assume we're trying to make PEVs more desirable, not just serve the early adopters. Once the so-called 200 mile BEVs arrive (Chevy seems to be backpedaling on that number), we can see which way people vote with their wallets, and act accordingly. I don't consider even that range adequate for real road trips, but it will allow the typical weekend trip out to 200-250 miles.

="edatoakrun"...Note the FFE allows the average battery temperature during recharging to exceed 100F, following full discharge range tests on a fairly cool (~80F) Phoenix day:

Click to expand...

="GRA"...an even better idea to prevent the battery from exceeding its comfortable temps in the first place, which an active TMS can also do...

Click to expand...

Well, apparently, the ATM used on the FFE, can't prevent the battery from exceeding its comfortable temps in the first place, under realively mild conditions.

I suspect this is because Ford may have just stuffed the biggest off-the-shelf AC system they could fit under the hood, rather than design a cooling system with sufficient capacity to cool the passenger compartment and the battery pack under extreme conditions.

The fact is, All BEVs lose their advantages over ICEVs in extremely hot, and even more so, in extremely cold ambient conditions.

If you insist your BEVs need to outperform ICEVs under all conditions to be successful, whether in terms of extremes of climate or extremes of driving range, you will remain stuck in your ICEV for a long, long time.

The reason most people will replace their ICEVs with BEVs (in the relatively near future, IMO) is that BEVs are superior to ICEVs overall under all their driving conditions.

Back to the question of using ATM on BEVs.

If you have a battery that will catch fire without it (Tesla) ATM is obviously a requirement.

For all other battery pack designs, it is a question of cost/benefit analysis.

It looks to me like ATM currently could make sense for those small number of BEV owners (maybe five or ten percent) living in extremely cold or hot climates.

And even for that 5%-10%, the advantages from ATM remain uncertain, because the disadvantages of ATM, higher initial vehicle cost, lower energy efficiency, higher maintenance and repair costs, and reduced reliability, may outweigh the advantages from ATM of marginally longer battery life (in hot climates) or marginally greater range (in cold climates).

But since battery prices in the future can be expected to continue to drop far more quickly than all those additional costs imposed by ATM, I don't think there is much question that by the time most new vehicle sales are BEVs, most BEVs will not have ATM.

Meanwhile, the AVTA tests of the FFE and other ATM BEVs/PHEVs, should give us a good idea of how they can perform presently, in a hotter climate than experienced by ~99% of US drivers, and demanding driving cycles exceeding those of close to 100% of US drivers, just as the studies already have done so for the LEAF.

edatoakrun said:

GRA said:

edatoakrun said:

...Note the FFE allows the average battery temperature during recharging to exceed 100F, following full discharge range tests on a fairly cool (~80F) Phoenix day:

Click to expand...

...an even better idea to prevent the battery from exceeding its comfortable temps in the first place, which an active TMS can also do...

Click to expand...

Well, apparently, the ATM used on the FFE, can't prevent the battery from exceeding its comfortable temps in the first place, under realively mild conditions.

I suspect this is because Ford may have just stuffed the biggest off-the-shelf AC system they could fit under the hood, rather than design a cooling system with sufficient capacity to cool the passenger compartment and the battery pack under extreme conditions.

Click to expand...

Yes, judging by the data there does seem to be a certain lack of design for purpose with the FFE's TMS. GM seems to have done it right.

edatoakrun said:

The fact is, All BEVs lose their advantages over ICEVs in extremely hot, and even more so, in extremely cold ambient conditions.

If you insist your BEVs need to outperform ICEVs under all conditions to be successful, whether in terms of extremes of climate or extremes of driving range, you will remain stuck in your ICEV for a long, long time.

The reason most people will replace their ICEVs with BEVs (in the relatively near future, IMO) is that BEVs are superior to ICEVs overall under all their driving conditions.

Click to expand...

IMO, for BEVs to make mainstream consumers want to switch from their ICEs, they have to provide virtually all the capability they get now from an ICE, plus something extra that people value.

What are the practical capabilities that an ICE provides? Transportation for the driver, their passengers and cargo with no physical exertion required, that is also:

1. Quick.
2. Convenient.
3. Flexible.
4. Weather-protected.
5. Climate-controlled.
6. Usable for a decade or more with about the same functionality, and with reasonable resale value.
7. At a price they can and are willing to pay.

The only one of these that limited-range BEVs succeed on all the time is #4; they fail on one or more of the others for most people a large % of the time. Increasing range to a real-world 100-150 miles will mostly eliminate issues with #1-3 and 5 in routine daily driving, and will justify adding QCs. 6 is going to be tough, but more range will extend the car's useful range lifetime, even if not providing the same functionality.

edatoakrun said:

Back to the question of using ATM on BEVs.

If you have a battery that will catch fire without it (Tesla) ATM is obviously a requirement.

For all other battery pack designs, it is a question of cost/benefit analysis.

It looks to me like ATM currently could make sense for those small number of BEV owners (maybe five or ten percent) living in extremely cold or hot climates.

And even for that 5%-10%, the advantages from ATM remain uncertain, because the disadvantages of ATM, higher initial vehicle cost, lower energy efficiency, higher maintenance and repair costs, and reduced reliability, may outweigh the advantages from ATM of marginally longer battery life (in hot climates) or marginally greater range (in cold climates).

But since battery prices in the future can be expected to continue to drop far more quickly than all those additional costs imposed by ATM, I don't think there is much question that by the time most new vehicle sales are BEVs, most BEVs will not have ATM.

Meanwhile, the AVTA tests of the FFE and other ATM BEVs/PHEVs, should give us a good idea of how they can perform presently, in a hotter climate than experienced by ~99% of US drivers, and demanding driving cycles exceeding those of close to 100% of US drivers, just as the studies already have done so for the LEAF.

Click to expand...

We arrive at very different conclusions. I think that the cost-benefit anaylsis of TMS will remain positive except for BEVs that operate in benign climates (PNW, NW Europe) until such time as we see 'life of the car' batteries. There's nothing marginal about the range increase in cold climates of a heated battery, or the advantage of cooling for battery life when a car is routinely used for extended freeway driving at high speed, which current limited-range BEVs are simply incapable of. I'll be the first to recommend that we eliminate TMS once the lifetime, unaffected-by-temp battery arrives, but we aren't near that yet.

Naturally, they also need to improve the efficiency of the heating system to reduce the other major contributor to BEV range loss in cold vice ICEs, and work continues on that score. Here's a recent report on one such tech, via GCC:

HRL Labs video demonstrates principle of thermal battery based on advanced metal hydrides for EV heating and cooling

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/04/20150430-hrl.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Thread resurrection.)
Unfortunately, most of the PDF links to the study/related docs are dead. Not sure how many were fed into http://archive.org/web/.

I did stumble across another thread with a working PDF of likely the same study at http://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&p=503062.

Also, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/01/f19/dcfc_study_fs_50k.pdf works. https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/DCFCSeattleEVworkgroupJuly2014.pdf seems to refer to the same vehicles (via the last 4 digits of the VINs).

Feel free to add more working links, even if they are just archived copies. I currently have little interest in discussing/rehashing arguments.

cwerdna said:

(Thread resurrection.)
Unfortunately, most of the PDF links to the study/related docs are dead...

Click to expand...

Final paper:

https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/vehiclebatteries/FastChargeEffects.pdf


Summary by slideshow:

https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/vehiclebatteries/DCFC_Study_FactSheet_EOT.pdf

Brutal:

Table 2 – Average pack temperature during all charging through mileage accumulation interval (ºC)

Click to expand...

Directory of all AVTA light-duty Vehicle test results here:

https://avt.inl.gov/vehicle-type/all-powertrain-architecture?page=1

Reminder, all AVTA testing activity was abruptly suspended last year, before the tests of nearly all the BEVs and PHEVs, and their battery packs, were completed.

Who killed the AVTA?