Battery breakthroughs

You ARE being trolled or stalked! Williams' comments ignore your arguments & he prefers to taunt you. Wise up, Martin.
"Batteries for electric vehicles are characterized by their relatively high power-to-weight ratio, energy-to-weight ratio and
energy density; smaller, lighter batteries reduce the weight of the vehicle and improve its performance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric-vehicle_battery
"We are at the edge where there is no point having ICE in the car, because that just plain increases weight in car that would
be more useful to increase batteries instead. The limiting factor is no longer the weight of the batteries but price of the batteries."
https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/battery-weight FROM 2011!

 

"Batteries for electric vehicles are characterized by their relatively high power-to-weight ratio, energy-to-weight ratio and
energy density; smaller, lighter batteries reduce the weight of the vehicle and improve its performance."

I don't disagree with any of this. It is all perfectly true. However, I interpret the words 'relatively high' rather less optimistically than you. The difference year on year, despite numerous claimed breakthroughs is small. As I have already pointed out, in the real world you get 150 Watt-hours per kilogram and that's about it. Lithium ion batteries are far better than Lead acid cells. You get about 30 Wh/kg from them, so they are five times better, although in 150 years it's still slow. But gasoline, by comparison, gives you 12,000 and you can use about 4000 to 5000 of them to propel the car and the remainder to keep you warm. Moreover, you can fill your tank in two or three minutes and be good for another 500 or more miles. Batteries have a long, long way to go to compete with this. They may do it one day - I hope they do - but progress towards it is slow indeed!

I'm sorry if these facts - which I can substantiate - upset you, but some of the ridiculously overblown claims made here are clearly nonsense.

 

Don't worry- I'm not in the least 'upset' but very optimistic that EV's are here to stay and can only improve dramatically over time- which ICE's cannot, being very close to their peak- driven by competition from EV's. Battery tech will, I believe experience a great leap forward within 5 yrs.
Not to mention zero emissions becoming an achievable goal, too. Like tobacco, oil, coal, gas etc resistance from 'the Establishment' is a big roadblock. That said I doubt I'll live to see EV's outnumber ICE's- but I might be wrong.

 

I can't see any reason to see any great leap forward soon. A pity, as I would like not to have to charge my phone every day.

As for cars, you have to accept that energy density is the most important parameter in the design of such a vehicle, and oil is very hard to beat there. It is way ahead of hydrogen as well. What would you think of producing gasoline or diesel from atmospheric carbon dioxide and water? You get the advantage of carbon neutrality as well as high energy density. It is chemically feasible, but would be horribly inefficient, but if you have plenty of cheap energy, that is perhaps not a particular concern.

As to electric cars, I remain very sceptical of them. By coincidence, this item was mentioned on the radio this morning here in the UK. It would seem the Japanese are less than impressed with them too:

https://www.tokyotimes.com/most-japanese-electric-car-owners-will-never-buy-another/

There is another big problem with charging batteries fast. Even if batteries with the energy density of a gas tank were to exist and be chargeable as quickly, you are talking about huge voltages and currents to do so. Far too high to allow people anywhere near!

A little old lady can put a MegaWatt hour into her car in two minutes in perfect safety in the form of diesel or petrol. To do so in electrical form would involve 30 MegaWatts - about what you need to supply a small town. It is only for two minutes of course, but it will inevitably involve 30,000 volts at 1,000 Amps for that time. Believe me. You want to be a LONG way from that!

 

OK, first up- your hypothetical figures are ridiculous; 30kV@1k Amps?? Not BEV country but cloud cuckoo land. Complete strawman setup.
My phone goes 3-4 days on a charge- 2 weeks on standby. Maybe you need to update.
Since when does 1 in 3 = "MOST"??? Only in your link- which is 7 YEARS out of date. Nice try- FAIL.
Overnight charging is the way. Minimal current draw for your 'little old lady' and cheaper, too. FAIL again.
Batteries do not need to have the energy content of fossil fuels, only a re-adjustment in driving habits.
Megawatt chargers are in use [ferries] without any reports of mass electrocution. FAIL
AND claiming 2 mins for a full refuel at the gas pump is bogus; takes more than double that or more for a large fuel tank.FAIL
"Believe me"- I don't. Whoever uses that phrase is to me a con-artist.

Conclusion- you're a waste of time with nothing positive to say. So, saddle up, get back on your horse & ride off into the sunset, pardner!

 

One in 3 previous owners and the ones who would never have bought one in the first place adds up to 'Most'
Two-thirds of Europeans cannot charge at home. One-third of Americans can't. Forget overnight charging for these folk.
To get the same performance and range you need comparable energy. Very few of us are prepared to 'readjust' our driving habits. Why should we? There are more convenient and less expensive alternatives.
A MegaWatt charger would take an hour. Try 30 MegaWatts. (Or rather, please don't. I wish you no ill!)
I charge my 75 Litre tank in exactly 2 minutes. That's a bit under a MWh. Perhaps your pumps are slower than ours?

Whether you believe me or not is your concern. But I strongly advise you to keep well away from any 30 MegaWatt power system. It is a 33rd of the total output from a 1GW power station and not to be trifled with!

 

This is similar to the coating made out of silicon nano spheres coated with graphene. I don't remember where I heard about that, but it apparently greatly increased cell life and allowed charging above 2C up to 60 degrees C. They did this because it was cheaper and easier to manufacture than trying to get a uniform and aligned layer of graphene deposited.

Add those two graphene technologies to the one silicon oxide nano powder that Jim J Fox posted, and it sure seems like we're getting pretty close to cost competitive mass-produceable battery tech. Exciting.

 

I get excited, too. Not so Pushmi-Pullu who is dismissive or at least disbelieving in any such breakthrough- which historically does happen when the stakes are high enough. Can't wait for early 2019!

 

OK, I have to ask. Why are you even here?

 

Okay, but the claim you quoted, "silicon oxide nano powder, which is a cathode material for lithium ion batteries which can double the capacities of electric car batteries," just means they're claiming a better material for the cathode. That's not really the same as a quantum jump in battery tech. Quite possibly it's just another step in the incremental improvement we've been seeing in li-ion battery chemistry over the past several years.

The claim "can double the capacities" is not logically equivalent to "will double the capacities". Let's see what happens if and when commercial battery makers actually try using the stuff in mass produced batteries, before we get all excited about it. If it results in, say, a 10-15% improvement in energy density, then that will certainly be good news, but it's not something that would prompt me to do my happy dance!

 

If it's worth getting excited about, then I suggest you break that out into its own thread. Most -- or more accurately, pretty much all -- of the claims reported in this thread will go nowhere.

Am I dismissive, or more accurately highly skeptical and pessimistic about claims for revolutionary battery tech and/or capacitor tech? Yes, I am. In several years of participation on TheEEStory forum, we saw roughly one new claim every two weeks for a breakthrough, quantum jump in technology. Over the course of several years, that came to hundreds of claims. Not one single one of them ever resulted in any commercial product!

Furthermore, I'm very far from the only one who is highly skeptical about such claims:

"The storage battery is, in my opinion, a catchpenny, a sensation, a mechanism for swindling the public by stock companies. The storage battery is one of those peculiar things which appeals to the imagination, and no more perfect thing could be desired by stock swindlers than that very selfsame thing. ... Just as soon as a man gets working on the secondary battery it brings out his latent capacity for lying." -- Thomas Edison, 1883​

And as they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same:

"My top advice really for anyone who says they've got some breakthrough battery technologies, please send us a sample cell, okay, don't send us PowerPoint. Just send us one cell that works with all appropriate caveats; that would be great. That... sorts out the nonsense and the claims that aren't actually true. Talk is super cheap; the battery industry has to have more B.S. in it than any industry I've ever encountered. It's insane." -- Elon Musk, Nov. 5, 2014
​

So, I'm still interested in reading about new claims for breakthrough battery tech. Considering the large number of companies and university research teams hard at work on finding more ways to improve batteries, I have confidence that sooner or later, we will see another truly revolutionary breakthrough. But it's going to take a lot more than a mere claim to get me excited about it.

However, please don't let my pessimism act as a damper on your enthusiasm! Please take my remarks as mere caveats, not a reason to give up hope. This world needs more optimists.
-

 

I'm surprised you even have to ask. I'm here for the same reason as you. I want to see how EVs will pan out.

You believe they have a glorious future (one day when batteries improve) I believe they are doomed. But both of us are interested in the outcome.

 

Pushmi -Pullyu is right to cast a sceptical eye over breakthroughs. Sadly, most fail to fulfil their promise and never make it to production or widespread adoption. Usually, an advance in one desirable parameter causes a degradation in another. It's best not to get too excited by early announcements.

Doesn't mean all of us don't want to see batteries improve though.

 

AS I said- 'not long to find out the truth'. IF their claim of first deliveries in Jan 2019 has any truth.

 

Here's yet another one!--
https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2017/may/1000-km-range-thanks-to-a-new-battery-concept.html

A few years ago I suggested connecting hundreds or thousands of small cells to form a battery was the worst possible engineering option-
and it is. But it was the ONLY option, at the time. And was widely ridiculed for it. Now this thing- a huge one square metre battery sandwich looms as a possibility- backed by big, reputable companies Krupp-Thyssen & Fraunhofer. Prismatic cells are a thing now- but this dwarfs them.

Of course it is another PUTATIVE advance but the credibility is a notch or 5 above the usual university lab research 'breakthrough'.
2020 is some way off & claims must be taken with a pinch of salt- but I SO hope this comes to fruition.

 

Jim Fox is right to point out how ridiculous a car run on 7,000 18650 cells or similar is. The ratio of active energy-holding elements to casings and wiring etc must be tiny and a smaller number of much bigger cells is clearly the way to go. You might even find that poorer energy density in the actual energy containing parts is made up for by there being less in the way of containing and connecting components. Whether this battery is a success or not, it certainly seems to be a better approach than stuffing a car with laptop cells!

 

Exactly. Note there is no mention of battery chemicals- just ceramic powders and an 'electrolyte' layered on thin film- the EMBATT design.
Where is the nickel/lithium/cobalt? This 'ceramic powder' has electron storage capability, apparently. Machinery shown in the photos looks
like actual production equipment, maybe at small scale, impossible to tell. The startling difference to me is that current flows all across the
entire surface area of the 'layer cake' and between layers. No mass of wiring or interconnects to fail plus much reduced electrical resistance.

 

Well, the Leaf's battery pack is certainly simpler.

From a practical perspective, Tesla's design certainly seems to work much better than some alternatives, and it allows Tesla to use higher energy density cells than its competitors. So, calling Tesla's design "the worst", fails a reality check.

Tesla also designs its battery pack so that any individual cell which shorts out is cut out of the circuit, so that one cell going bad won't significantly degrade the entire pack. What happens if the EMBATT develops an internal short?

* * * * *

Perhaps we should paraphrase Winston Churchill, and say:

Tesla has the worst battery pack design, except for all those other designs that have been tried from time to time.
-

 

I'd argue that was the case starting in 2008, when the Tesla Roadster Mk I was first sold.

Yeah, arguing that batteries are "inferior" because they weigh more than gasoline will soon be as outdated as arguing that motorcars can't possibly be as good as horses, because you can't feed them hay!
-

 

I did not mention TESLA at all- that is your strawman. Quoting Churchill adds nothing to your pessimism. Anyway, is it not Panasonic that designs & builds the cells for Tesla? I also said it was the only option, at that time. IF you bothered to read the article fully, it explained precisely why cylindrical cells are so space inefficient and costly with the complex interconnects and added resistance.
This EMBATT design has [as yet] unfulfilled promise but hopefully will blow away the silliness of 7,000 cells needing complicated assembly & a spider web of interconnections. Your single valid point, as I thought, too is the possibility of a short circuit; we have no idea how that would be dealt with, nor what consequences it would have. What this 'ceramic storage medium' is remains a mystery; the designers have obviously considered how to deal with a short, maybe a leaf or two can be extracted & replaced at reasonable cost. Plus, every of those 7000 cells must have a condition monitor that adds to battery cost. Because the current is spread across a whole square metre [or two?] it should reduce shorting from MUCH lower average battery current density.
Do you deny that the M3 'rampup' is in such a mess due to complex battery assembly & that Tesla has had to import TWO extra assembly lines from Germany? The future is NOT tiny batteries but something akin to this design- of that I am sure, unless an as-yet unthought of new design comes along.

Oh, shut up with 7 year old flawed analogies having no relevance to current state of affairs! More strawman [no pun] fallacy.
I don't recall making such a statement- but 7 years is a long time ago. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to refresh my memory? As for battery weight, EMBATT claims their design has TWICE the power density [kWh/kg?] of any current battery, due to removal of single cell containers and their supporting structural framework.