Elon Musk Says Larger Batteries Might Be On the Way

mknewman writes "Elon Musk intimated that more-powerful batteries could be on the way for the Model S. The most potent battery pack currently offered in the Model S holds 85 kWh of juice, or enough for 265 miles of driving. Musk wasn't terribly specific, however: 'There is the potential for bigger battery packs in the future, but it would probably be maybe next year or something like that. The main focus is . . . how do we reduce the cost per kWh of storage in the battery pack?' In other words, Musk seems less concerned with stronger battery packs than making cheaper battery packs for the upcoming mid-size sedan, which is expected to be unveiled at the 2015 Detroit auto show. 'Our goal is to drop the cost per kWh by 30 percent to 40 percent.'"

Comments

Make supplemental batteries in mannequin form

[RevWaldo]

Just strap it into the passenger seat, plug it into the lighter socket, and head straight for the HOV lane!

.

Wake up SAE. Standardize TREs now.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

We have reasonably priced mid range battery cars having a range of 50 miles (winter with full heat 70mph) to 100 miles (sprint/fall no a/c, no heat, daytime, 50mph). If we have good Towable Range Extenders, basically gensets on wheels, this would help us switch to electric cars. Already I see (Lotus?) making integrated engine+genset in the same block, designed for constant rpm electricity generation. Many enthusiasts are creating these thingamajiggers with balsa wood baling wire and duct tape. It is time for some standards body like SAE to define standard connectors, tow packages, and electronic communication protocols etc so that we could mix and match these range extenders. I see some people owning them and most people renting them when they need them. Ideally close to highway entrances you should see franchises renting out TREs, may even in highway service plazas.

The electric utility companies have so much excess capacity at night, mostly idling or off line. If they could come up with special meters and sell electricity cheaply overnight, the break-even point calculations vis-a-vis gas cars will shift dramatically. The utility companies will get a piece of the transportation energy market, currently shared only between oil companies. That is the motivation for the utilities. We need to set dog against dog, thief against thief and coal burning utilities against oil companies.

I wish someone with the charisma of Elon or pig headedness of Jobs would make the top honchos of these organizations and companies to pay attention.

Re:Wake up SAE. Standardize TREs now.

[Jonathan_S]

I like the idea of towable range extenders, but if you're renting one, what are the advantages over automated battery swapping instead?

I can see a couple advantages to towable range extenders.

Probably the biggest one is that once you've rented it you can continue to extend the range indefinitely by utilizing existing widely deployed infrastructure (stopping at a gas station to top up the generator's tank). So you can use to for trips into areas where the charging or battery swap stations haven't reached yet.

It also sidesteps the issue or concern about people swapping out, or receiving, an old reduced effective capacity battery pack at a swap station.

And the rental place needs less infrastructure than a battery swap place. To do battery swap you need the tools (or automated machines) and access to pull the existing pack and install a new one. For a towable rental you barely need more than an empty lot to park them until they've been rented.

And when a battery swap place gets a battery back they need a pretty hefty electrical connection to charge it back up for the next use. The towable rental place needs a gas can (or to take the returned genset by a gas station to top it up); plus they could use the rental car style gas fees to encourage people to return the range extender with a full tank - no practical way to do the same for battery swap.

Re:Wake up SAE. Standardize TREs now.

[ColdWetDog]

I'm not sure I like the idea of $random_driver towing anything. Your typical Freeway Fool is a danger to himself and others with just the vehicle. With a short coupled trailer - especially trying to park or backup - hilarity ensues.

That said, my next pickup truck is going to be a diesel electric.

Re:The larger the battery...

[beelsebob]

Thankfully, still not as big as the fuel fire you get when one of those goes up.

Re:Dead end

[beelsebob]

Why do people insist that batteries have to be at least 2-3 times as good as hydrocarbons before they can be useful?

Re:Dead end

[jo7hs2]

I don't see people saying that, mostly just that they expect parity with ICE vehicles before it will truly be useful outside of limited circumstances. For example, even that fairly generous 265 miles just isn't enough to make an electric vehicle attractive to me. I would require somewhere on the order of twice that, a little over 500 miles, to match the typical single-day range of my mid-size sedan. Right now, my personal, lay opinion is that electric vehicles are currently suitable for short commutes and major metropolitan usage. Until the range approaches that of a typical 4-cylinder equipped compact or mid-size sedan, use outside of those circumstances would periodically require a supplemental vehicle. Plus, there is the whole question of recharging on long trips. Once one can get an electric car with a 400-500 mile range that can recharge overnight at basically any hotel, then I expect to start seeing mainstream, suburban drivers picking up EVs.

Re:Dead end

[haruchai]

This is easily achievable with battery swap stations at a much lower density than current petrol / diesel pumps. Or build cars so a variety of range extenders can be added when needed. The one demo'ed by Phinergy gives 1600km range and weighs 25kg. Or a fuel cell or small ICE unit, preferably one that's better than the REx in the BMW i3.

Re:Non news

[Teancum]

The only difference is that Elon Musk has far more credibility than you do. He sometimes takes a bit longer to deliver, but his record on making wild assertions and making them actually happen is pretty good.

FAR better than fossil fuels, and even better tech

[CentristReview]

As the other responder said, the danger of fires with batteries is far less than that with fossil fuels, but even more - there is tech a few years off that will make them even safer. Just the other day someone developed a form of lithium ion battery that is significantly less prone to fire, which is amazing given how much energy is stored in those things. It's nearly impossible to design something that holds such an enormous amount of energy without it being dangerous if damaged and accidentally discharged.

Re:FAR better than fossil fuels, and even better t

[cduffy]

Just like the singularity it seems that improved battery tech is always about 5-10 years down the road.

The awesome thing is that it really is always 5-10 years down the road -- and things are rolling off of that 5-10 year timeline into production all the time.

If you don't think batteries have been getting better, you aren't paying attention.

Re:Dead end

[jo_ham]

Unless you can come up with battery tech that offers at least 700-800 kilometres range and a maximum recharge time of 5-10 minutes, electric cars are a dead end. Hydrogencars ftw. That is all.

The vast majority of commutes already happen well within the range of current electric cars.

It is hilarious to see all the naysayers claim that electric cars are doomed because they don't fit 100% of all possible uses cases for vehicles.

Also, as someone who works on hydrogen research, don't lump us all in with the anonymous idiot above me. Electric cars definitely have a strong future.

Re:FAR better than fossil fuels, and even better t

[beelsebob]

I find the perception that battery tech is not improving rather bizarre. You realise we have laptops that last 12-24 hours today, when only a decade ago the very best laptops lasted only 4 hours, right?

Re:FAR better than fossil fuels, and even better t

[beelsebob]

Mostly due to batteries. If you compare the power usage of laptops then, and now, you'll find that older laptops tended to use in the 10-20W range for their motherboard and CPU. Modern ultra books use a similar power level, while modern laptops use around 30-50W, and still get longer battery life.

Re:FAR better than fossil fuels, and even better t

[Kjella]

Mostly due to batteries. If you compare the power usage of laptops then, and now, you'll find that older laptops tended to use in the 10-20W range for their motherboard and CPU. Modern ultra books use a similar power level, while modern laptops use around 30-50W, and still get longer battery life.

No, mostly due to higher IPC, agressive power gating and deeper sleep stages. Here's the extended battery pack from my 2002 UltraPortable, 3600 mAh in 330 grams. In 2014 the extended battery for the Sony Vaio Pro 11 is 4690 mAh in 290 grams, that's about a 75% increase in power/gram in 12 years. There have not been any major revolutions in battery technology, it's still the same lithium-ion technology just a little more refined.

Re:Well you could always have an inductive road

[Hognoxious]

You know, where when you're on the highway you pull your energy from the road itself which would have power cables in it.

I remember that. Scalextric, I think it was called.