Durandal wrote:lorenfb wrote:Durandal wrote:
In any event, I'd rather have an intermittent energy penalty of 300w-500w continuous and have a traction battery that gets an extra year or two of longevity than to save that 300w-500w of usage and have a vehicle that is less than practical after 7 years time.
That's your guess on the power 'hit'! Do have a design for a proposed system that Nissan can use?
If one uses your worst case number (500W) and 24 hr 'on' time in some climates, that's about 12 kWh of energy per day.
Obviously, a good portion of that energy would be supplied when connected for charging.
Do you have some snark that Nissan can use? If you read my bloody original message, I suggested ATM that would only be used when discharging or charging the battery, which is when more of the heat damage would be done versus when it's sitting idle. It's ridiculous to suggest that such a system would run 24 hours a day.
Yes, just having a cooling process active during charging would be beneficial, but that would be secondary to reducing
the effects from ambient temperature extremes for some. Besides, once you introduce a battery cooling system,
the battery then needs to be insulated from the vehicle's chassis, which then reduces the chassis' effect as a heat sink
necessitating on-going cooling - more power consumption.
- Anecdotal -
During L3 charging for about 15 minutes, my battery temp changes about 2-4 deg C, whereas driving here in SoCal
for about four hours results in an increase in battery temp about 10 deg C during the summer.