Slashdot Mirror
Toyota's New Solid-State Battery Could Make Its Way To Cars By 2020 (techcrunch.com)
According to the Wall Street Journal, Toyota is in production engineering for a solid state battery, which uses a solid electrolyte instead of the conventional semi-liquid version used in today's lithium-ion batteries. The company said it aims to put the new tech in production electric vehicles as early as 2020. TechCrunch reports: The improved battery technology would make it possible to create smaller, more lightweight lithium-ion batteries for use in EVs, that could also potentially boost the total charge capacity and result in longer-range vehicles. Another improvement for this type of battery would be longer overall usable life, which would make it possible to both use the vehicles they're installed in for longer, and add potential for product recycling and alternative post-vehicle life (some companies are already looking into putting EV batteries into use in home and commercial energy storage, for example).
Cool story, Bro. Except the reason we don't have solid electrolyte batteries is because the blow themselves to smithereens (along with everything around them) if you attempt to charge them at low temperature. They also suffer from serious sinusoidal deplanaration if their cardinal grammeters are not absolutely perfectly synchronized. To top it all off, a solid electrolyte battery can't even convert energy through the modial interaction between magnetoreluctance and capacitive duractance, leaving us with the time honored yet ancient tradition of using the relative motion of conductors and fluxes.
Wow Darrell, are you a detective?
#DeleteFacebook
Ask a Weeping Angel. They know what it means. - The Doctor.
#DeleteFacebook
Cool story, Bro. Except the reason we don't have solid electrolyte batteries is because the blow themselves to smithereens (along with everything around them) if you attempt to charge them at low temperature. They also suffer from serious sinusoidal deplanaration if their cardinal grammeters are not absolutely perfectly synchronized. To top it all off, a solid electrolyte battery can't even convert energy through the modial interaction between magnetoreluctance and capacitive duractance, leaving us with the time honored yet ancient tradition of using the relative motion of conductors and fluxes.
Great, another AC troll on the site. The encabulation technology that resolves the thermal and deplanaration issue has be around since WW2. In 1962 a series of discoveries by GE enabled them to create the turboencabulator, the predecessor to the modern microencabulator. And really, magnetoreluctance? Magnetoconstrictors are practically naturally occurring. Be gone, foul beast!
I swear it's like half the people on the internet don't have a clue about what they are talking about!
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I think that was underground heat storage from solar, not electrical storage for cars.
Tesla sells actual electric cars that people get in a waiting list years in advance to buy.
GM sells actual electric cars that people generally yawn at.
Toyota: Our lab-scale battery is gonna be a big hit in 2020!
Solid state batteries are no real magic. It just means that you're using a solid electrolyte rather than a liquid one plus a membrane. They offer some nice benefits (such as resistance to dendrite punctures), but they hardly change the world on their own. They're a popular choice for working towards lithium-air batteries, which would be revolutionary, but there's no way anyone (including Toyota) is going to be mass-producing mature lithium-air batteries in 2020.
But anyway... if you're not going to make EVs, I guess you can still make press releases about hypothetical EVs. Seems to be a popular alternative these days.
And for the record... energy density really isn't the issue; Tesla has shown that you can get quite good range even with today's batteries without having your vehicles be excessively heavy (Model S, a bit over 2 tonnes; Model 3, a bit under). Cost per kilowatt hour is the issue. Tesla is reportedly at $190/kWh now and thinks they'll be at $100/kWh in a few years. But ideally you want even lower than that.
So, apart from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Is this an elaborate ruse? I still can't decide.
After they spent millions and partnered with Tesla to develop an electric RAV-4 they discontinued it even though it meant paying a penalty in California. My bet is that some exec got himself a private island in the Caribbean, courtesy of your neighborhood oil cartel. I do not expect any innovation from Toyota in the EV department, other than to encumber the technology with patents.
And molten salt is used extremely successfully in numerous solar power plants.
as early as 2020.
I don't get used to those kind of years being "early". They always seem far in the distant future.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
In terms of number of battery units produced, Tesla and GM are roundoff error compared to Toyota.
Several issues with your "analysis". 1) The Tesla Model S is a $70-100K car so not exactly and apples to apples comparison 2) The cars you are comparing have been on the market for 6 years or less versus 20 years for the Prius. Of course cumulative sales will be bigger for the Prius. Do you know how many Prius were sold in the first 5 years on the market worldwide? 81,700. That means that both the Volt and the Model S outsold the Prius over the first several years of their availability. 3) The Bolt has been on the market for a year. Are you seriously going to compare cumulative sales of a vehicle that has been on the market for a year to one that has been on the market for 20?
That tells you that there's something seriously wrong with the scalability of their production.
Not even remotely. I design manufacturing production systems for a living. Tesla scaling production to deliver cars more quickly would be a substantial cost with no obvious benefit to Tesla either short or long term. The reason they haven't done it isn't that they cannot do it but because they have chosen not to do it. As long as customers are willing to wait for delivery it would be enormously stupid of Tesla to devote that much capital to upgrading assembly lines and supply chains. There is no evidence to suggest that faster production would result in enough marginal extra sales to be worth the expense. They need to produce cars fast enough to keep their customers happy but any faster is wasting money. So far Tesla customers clearly are ok with waiting a bit.
(If you want to know what the problem is, Tesla relies on selling ZEV credits to other automakers to keep from going bankrupt. But other automakers only need a certain number of ZEV credits each year to comply with CARB regulations. So Tesla has to be careful not to produce too many ZEVs lest they cause the price of ZEV credits to plummet due to oversupply.
Wrong again. Tesla is not throttling production for that reason and they certainly aren't calibrating it to demand for emissions credits. That would not be a sustainable business model and Elon Musk certainly knows that. The reason Tesla isn't profitable and why they produce at the rate they do is much simpler. They simply lack the economies of scale enjoyed by major auto firms. That fact alone is why you haven't seen a major new car company in decades. It's hard to achieve minimum efficient scale in the auto industry, particularly with a wildly non-traditional product offering. They have to reinvest all their capital (and then some) into building the company. Production lines to make cars are enormously expensive. Companies like Ford and GM and Toyota have had years to develop the scale and balance sheets necessary to bankroll such investments. Tesla is still a small young company with a weak balance sheet and it will take time to get to where the major auto makers are now.
Pretty much all small companies have the same problem including mine. My company makes auto parts and we could easily bring in enough people and machines to deliver products to our customers in a few days. But the expense would be enormous and we would immediately become uncompetitive on price. We also could produce products ahead of time and inventory them but that means we tie up vast amounts of capital in inventory and storage. Producing products faster than your customers demand them is wasteful, expensive, and stupid.
1) Tesla's batteries are "small capacity"? 4-5 hours highway driving time per charge is "small capacity"?
2) Actually, it takes 125 minutes to fully charge a Tesla pack. But it takes only 30 minutes to charge one to 80%. There's a taper over the course of a charge, so the higher you want the percentage, the slower it gets.**
3) Supercharger V2 is 120kW per vehicle / 145kW shared, but the upcoming V3 is going to be "over 350kW". That could potentially up the speed in the first ~50% or so of a charge, although more dramatic improvements will also require battery pack improvements.
** - Basically, early in the charge, almost all of the energy you pump in becomes stored as fast as you can get, with only a tiny fraction converted to heat. As cells begin to fill up (unevenly), however, the incoming power is increasingly turned into heat. The charge rate must consequently be reduced to avoid excessive cell heat during charging, which is one of the biggest contributors to reducing cell lifespans.
So, apart from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
What are you talking about? Tesla's supercharger map alone has 909 supercharger stations with 6118 superchargers, over half of which are operational. That's one supercharger per 60 cars sold, not "2 chargers for every 1000 or 10000 cars". And given that EVs spend the vast majority of their time charging at home, that's actually a huge ratio of chargers to cars.
As for costs: supercharger stations cost roughly the same to build as gas stations. They cycle vehicles much more slowly through, but their profit margins are much higher, as their operating costs are much smaller. They buy power at industrial rates (say, 6 cents per kWh) and sell it for $0.20/kWh or so and require no overhead for arranging deliveries or the like.
Your comment about 400V three-phase power makes little sense. If you're talking AC then you're talking onboard chargers, which don't use three-phase, are not 400V, and are limited in capacity. Are you meaning to talk about AC charging or DC?
Are you even talking about fast charging or slow? Adding slow chargers is an easy "loss leader" for businesses, in that the power costs so little, you earn goodwill, and if anyone actually wants to draw a meaningful amount of power then they're going to be spending long periods of time at your store. Charging can be as simple as an outdoor 120V (US) / 220V (Europe) outlet, although you'd usually prefer something like a J1772 connector.
EVs spontaneously bursting into flames is not exactly a common occurrence. EV fires have occurred during charging, but it's been very rare, and is a sign of manufacturing defects, generally in the charger (not the battery pack). Most EV fires have been in severe car accidents; however, the rate per mile seems to be significantly lower than gasoline car fires.
As for the amount of power needed, that depends on whether you're talking unbuffered chargers or battery-buffered chargers, and what rate charging you're discussing. Unbuffered chargers require lines with a high peak capacity, but rarely make use of that full capacity. They're cheaper to buy, but mean you pay for higher rates for having the connection. Buffered chargers are more expensive to buy, but can be installed on any line so long as the average draw can be provided for by the line. E.g. if you put a buffered supercharger out in the middle of Canyonlands and it was visited by only one EV per week (needing say 50kWh of power), you could power it for decades on end with nothing more than 7 square meters of solar panels costing $2k and making a couple hundred watts of power. Now, even an unbuffered supercharger will cost you in the upper 5 figures, so it's probably not worth it to stick a supercharger out in the middle of Canyonlands, but just saying... ;) For infrequently visited sites, having a solar awning over the charger can provide most to all of the power.
(The lower the peak power, the cheaper a charger is - and AC chargers are cheaper than DC, but limited to whatever the EV's onboard charger can handle. Little AC chargers directly wired into the wall and delivering 5-20kW generally cost only $500 or so, plus installation costs)
So, apart from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
How long is your commute that today's EVs couldn't handle it? Tesla range calculator (scroll down 3/4ths of the way). Model 3 range should be only slightly less than the S 75.
So, apart from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Needing to keep then at ~300C just limits the domain of use, it doesn't say they aren't useful. You wouldn't use something like that in a laptop, but it might make a great line ballast (wrong word?). Another responder said they are in current use at electric plants (to store heat?)...seems plausible.
300C isn't really all that hot, it just means you need good insulation, which means you don't use small batteries, and you don't use it where you need a small, light, battery.
OTOH, were they ever proposed to store electricity? I haven't heard that. The places I've heard them proposed they were storing heat to feed to a steam turbine or some such. It would be the turbine (or some such) that would produce the electricity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The molten salt battery was supposed to be the next big battery technology, until people realised you had to keep them at ~300C or they stop working.
Sumitomo claimed to be close to a commercial low-temp molten salt battery but it's now several years late & they've been quiet since 2014
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
ruse, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...