Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Toshiba's Fast-Charging Battery Could Triple the Range of Electric Vehicles (newatlas.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the powering-up-pronto dept.

Big Hairy Ian quotes New Atlas: A key focus of electric vehicle (EV) makers is maximizing the range users can get from each charge, and for that reason new battery technologies are poised to play a huge part in driving their adoption. Toshiba has developed a new fast-charging battery it claims could allow EVs to travel three times as far as they do now, and then be fully recharged again in a matter of minutes.

Toshiba's SCiB (Super Charge ion Battery) has been around in various forms since 2007, with its chief claim to fame an ability to charge to 90 percent of capacity in just five minutes. It also boasts a life-span of 10 years and high levels of safety, and has found its way into a number of notable EVs, including Mitsubishi's i MiEV and Honda's Fit EV. The current SCiB uses lithium titanium oxide as its anode, but Toshiba says it has now come up with a better way of doing things. The next-generation SCiB uses a new material for the anode called titanium niobium oxide, which Toshiba was able to arrange into a crystal structure that can store lithium ions more efficiently. So much so, that the energy density has been doubled.
Toshiba calls the battery "a game changing advance that will make a significant difference to the range and performance of EV," and hopes to put it "into practical application" in 2019.

119 comments

  1. This script is still running? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Yet. Another. Battery. Breakthrough. Post.

    Someone kill that posting script, it's bee running for years now.

    1. Re: This script is still running? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Don't worry, it's getting close to the ten year lifespan limit.

    2. Re:This script is still running? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      But this one really is original: they figured out how to triple range by only doubling the energy density! Think of the possibilities!

    3. Re:This script is still running? by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Well now there is interest in the area. There hadn't been much research in this area for generations, where we have been having minor incremental improvements. However knowing that products are being pushed to be using more batteries means there is more Research in the area.

      The problem with these breakthrough that are getting released, is that it will take a few more years to get it out on the market, and the previous breakthroughs will get to the market earlier, so all we see is a smooth improvement over time.

      Being that current electric cars can now range a one or two hundred miles, which is enough to be practical for most commuters allows enough growth towards the next generation to make such cars hit 300-400 miles range which is about the same range as our gasoline cars, combine that with fast charging, there will be less need to consider gasoline cars.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:This script is still running? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They doubled it in 4 dimensions.

    5. Re:This script is still running? by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is almost head-smackingly bad.

      LTO (like Toshiba's SCiB) has only recharge speed and durability going for it. Everything else about it is terrible, including energy density (vastly inferior to other li-ion chemistries - their best ones are something like 100Wh/kg), and the most important aspect, price. LTO is extremely expensive ($1000/kWh at present; most EVs use batteries in the ballpark of ~$150/kWh).

      So now Toshiba has announced that their next generation is going to include.... niobium? A metal that costs about $200 per kilogram?

      I guess that they better get this one out on the market before the come out with their next battery based on cesium, holmium and platinum ;)

      --
      I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
    6. Re:This script is still running? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      If someone makes a battery that incorporates ALL of the breakthroughs, then we should be set for life!

    7. Re:This script is still running? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not universally applicable.
      For example, there's Peukert's law - as rate of discharge increases, total available energy decreases.
      Lithium Ion typically mitigates that by warming up and thus raising the voltage, but for large high-draw systems like vehicles you need to actively cool them to prevent thermal runaway.

      A battery cell technology with a low k value would provide far lower systemic losses when used at very high draw, which would in turn provide higher effective energy density at the same nominal energy density.

      Although unlikely, their claim actually IS plausible.

    8. Re:This script is still running? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Please don't read or comment on new battery posts if you don't like them.
      This is a "news for nerds" site.
      There is a lot of research going on with new batteries. Some of it may pan out. A better battery will help with better EVs and with power storage.
      (Seems a lot more relevant that Google's "outrageous $20 price" for a USB adapter.)

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    9. Re:This script is still running? by Khyber · · Score: 0

      "A metal that costs about $200 per kilogram?"

      Well that's far better than a fucking platinum anode for lithium deposition. Guess how much platinum costs for a mere 28 grams?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    10. Re:This script is still running? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

      I guess that they better get this one out on the market before the come out with their next battery based on cesium, holmium and platinum ;)

      No,. the next battery is going to use unobtainium.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    11. Re:This script is still running? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I hope Toshiba fails because this would render Tesla's gigafactory as old tech and diminish their value. I'm a big Musk fan, and wouldn't want to see him get surpassed.

    12. Re:This script is still running? by mattmarlowe · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure what the whole rush is to get rid of gas engine cars is about.....sure, most people drive commutes that can be more efficiently handled in plugin hybrid. Why do we need to go full EV? I'm perfectly happy with having both an electric and gas engine in my car, and the electric battery is big enough already to meet 99% of the daily drives I make. On the off chance, I go on a long trip or need power to go fast, I'm happy to have the gas engine kick in. As is, I only need to fill up the gas engine 2-3 times/year and I have a range of around 700 miles.

      I certainly don't want a huge expensive electrical battery that needs to be replaced every 10 years. And, I like the reliability of having two engines and two fuel supplies.

    13. Re:This script is still running? by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Battery research has been ongoing at a phenomenal rate of advancement for 16+ years at this point. You appear to have no concept of how rapidly batteries are advancing. When the lead-acid battery was invented more than 100 years ago it became the one and only battery technology up until the 90's. The advancements during that time period were slow and nearly insignificant in comparison to the current breakthroughs with a major advancement about every 20-50 years.

      Lithium Ion batteries in turn have advanced so quickly that capacity is growing 20% a year. The same size and weight battery in 2008 now holds more than triple the charge and costs 90% less. Every year there are new advancements that roll into the supply chain a few years later sustaining this continuing innovation. In 2008 Lithium Ion batteries were near on $1000kwh, now prices are $125 and expected to reach $50 by 2020. This is revolutionizing the world, already numerous countries, including China the largest automotive market in the world, have announced that by 2030 they won't allow petrol based vehicles to be sold.

      If you told someone in 1990 that the Gas and Diesel automobile would be dead in 40 years and it would be killed by a battery electric car they would have laughed their ass off.

    14. Re:This script is still running? by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. Pollution: CO2 and other nasty stuff that automobiles emit. A factor in global warming, general air quality, Spilled fuel gets into our drinking water supply. While there is pollution trade off with EV for the most part they can be better contained and managed vs the wide spread damage gasoline uses.

      2. Political Stability: Gasoline isn't a resource we can get anywhere. Some countries have more of it and others do not. We go to war over rights to purchase it, countries setup unstable alliances not based on common values but on the need for this resource.

      3. Limited supply: Oil is useful for more than just fuel that we burn, and it is a limited supply by cutting gasoline usage we can assure that other hydrocarbon usages are still available.

      4. Energy Independence: We can use mutable sources to generate Electricity, Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric, Nuclear... Some of these sources we could generate on our own property, vs having to be reliant on a large companies to provide this fuel we need at prices they determine as fare.

      Are Cars the sole part of our energy problems... No, however it is one of those areas where we a an individual can make a choice to switch. Other areas will need to try to change big businesses, and government. But we can go I will get myself a Chevy Bolt, or a Tesla for my next car.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    15. Re: This script is still running? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Co2 is not a pollutant. It's plant food.

      I agree gasoline and worse, ethanol, leaking into the water table is horrible.

      The rest of your issues about gasoline/oil apply to the rare metals required for high density batteries.

      So, is it worth ditching combustion engines to save the water table? Probably not as overall it doesn't happen very much at all. The rest of your post does not successfully argue for EV over oil.

    16. Re:This script is still running? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I hope Toshiba fails...I'm a big Musk fan, and wouldn't want to see him get surpassed.

      This isn't sports. Your team doesn't have to win. You should be hoping these types of things succeed, as it would make things just a little bit better for everyone.

    17. Re:This script is still running? by Rei · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about?

      --
      I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
    18. Re: This script is still running? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Too much of a good thing becomes a polutant.
      Dumb ass.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    19. Re:This script is still running? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One point of the article is that the energy density of their new battery is _superior_ to other li-ion chemistries ..... whether their claim is true or not remains to be seen of course, but simply claiming that their current batteries are _vastly inferior_ by no means proves the article wrong.

      Also you say their current batteries are extremely expensive, in the ballpark of 6x most EVs' batteries .... yet they are being used in some current production EVs, which would seem to make that claim unlikely if the cost was that dramatically different.

      Also note that the batteries also have power output going for them - the flip-side of the fast-charging (recharge speed) that you acknowledging.

    20. Re:This script is still running? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be a lot of benefits for society generally when EVs finally replace ICEs. Air pollution for one. Places like LA and Mexico City should see dramatic improvements, even London where I was born should see noticeably better air. The increase in the number of Diesel vehicles was an utter disaster and frankly half the management of Volkswagen should be jail. Also noise pollution will fall. I now live in Tokyo and the steady hum of engines in the background will just disappear. There'll still be road noise, but the effect will be very dramatic overall. The only downside is that you cant hear vehicles as they approach, but proximity sensors should help address that. Finally, the vehicles will become very reliable. The only part that has issues now is the battery and those will be fixed over time. No oil changes, little maintenance, no valves, camshaft, crankshaft, oil pumps, gears, clutch, complex transmission etc. High torque, powerful acceleration etc.. You should try driving a Tesla. The performance is quite startling. It's going to be a revolution.

    21. Re:This script is still running? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Platinum anodes for Lithium battery chemistries have been a thing for quite a while, and the price of platinum is pretty high up there (though gold has overtaken it) at a spot price of almost ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER *OUNCE* instead of per Kilogram.

      So using niobium and titanium is a far better, cheaper, and apparently equally-performing alternative.

      Are you even paying attention to the conversation?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    22. Re:This script is still running? by Rei · · Score: 1

      It is most distinctly not. According to their graphs it's not even that. They've "tripled" how far it can go on a 6 minute charge, but only because 6 minutes brings it to a much higher percentage of its max charge state than before; the max charge state, according to their graphs, only looks to be about 40-50% more than current titanates. Which means that they're catching up to the energy density of li-ions in the early 1990s.

      And yes, was used in the MiEV and Fit. Which have had tiny battery packs. The range on the MiEV was 62 miles, while the Fit was 82 miles. A high price per kilowatt hour isn't terrible when you don't have many kWh. They were both low-sales compliance EVs, meaning that it didn't really matter that much to the manufacturer how much they cost to make. Also, note the past tense. They've both been discontinued. The Fit wasn't even sold, it was just leased.

      Lastly, I'll repeat: a chemistry that takes an already expensive chemistry and adds in a $200/kg metal is not going to have an impact on the EV market. At all. Price is the number one discriminator to EV manufacturers when it comes to batteries, trumping all else. That doesn't mean that they're useless; there are lots of niche applications where charging speeds are the top metric. But mainstream EVs? No. Take a Tesla Model 3 LR. The entire car retails for $44k. Just going to current titanates, *without* niobium, would make the battery pack *alone* cost $75k. And increase its weight 2 1/2x (less, but still significant, with their new niobium-based chemistry). It's a total non-starter for EVs, except again in niche applications (e.g. super expensive track cars designed for short races, track motorcycles, etc).

      --
      I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
    23. Re:This script is still running? by Rei · · Score: 1

      No commercial li-ions use platinum electrodes that I am aware of. My reference to cesium, holmium and platinum batteries was a joke.

      --
      I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
    24. Re:This script is still running? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sure is sports. The thing is the better tech doesn't always equal to win (bigger/majority market share). See: TCP/IP vs ISO OSI, or mp3 vs aac/opus, or VHS vs Betamax, etc.

    25. Re:This script is still running? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Loads of commercial Li-ions use platinum anodes. That's one of the big recycling recovery points next to hard drive platter surfaces (which have a thin layer of platinum vapor-deposited on the surface.) We use it for.... stopping the whiskering that happens and kills batteries, since platinum is quite noble and doesn't whisker like nickel-zinc or other various chemistries.

      If you thought that little 1S li-ion battery in your quadcopter is capable of 20C power draw without that highly-conductive anode, you're mistaken.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    26. Re:This script is still running? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Loads of commercial Li-ions use platinum anodes

      Where are you getting this? Li-ions use carbon (graphite, amorphous) and sometimes silicon anodes.

      --
      I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
    27. Re:This script is still running? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about the current collector maybe? They use copper for that. Better conductivity than platinum, no need for platinum's abnormally good corrosion resistance (sealed cells), and far cheaper.

      --
      I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
    28. Re:This script is still running? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      This is almost head-smackingly bad.

      LTO (like Toshiba's SCiB) has only recharge speed and durability going for it. Everything else about it is terrible, including energy density (vastly inferior to other li-ion chemistries - their best ones are something like 100Wh/kg), and the most important aspect, price. LTO is extremely expensive ($1000/kWh at present; most EVs use batteries in the ballpark of ~$150/kWh).

      So now Toshiba has announced that their next generation is going to include.... niobium? A metal that costs about $200 per kilogram?

      I guess that they better get this one out on the market before the come out with their next battery based on cesium, holmium and platinum ;)

      R&D experiments lead to technology breakthroughs. Its surprisingly disappointing that this research is not being done in the wealthest country in the world.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    29. Re: This script is still running? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While CO2 does cause plants to grow faster, it also causes them to grow with LOWER nutrient densities. Just being a bigger plant doesn't mean it's going to make better feed for the rest of the food chain. In fact, too much CO2 and the food chain actually begins to fail since all of the animals eating the LOWER QUALITY plant material are also lower in the quality of nutrition they supply to those animals higher up on the food chain.

    30. Re:This script is still running? by hipp5 · · Score: 1

      And, I like the reliability of having two engines and two fuel supplies.

      But you're also getting the complexity and maintenance issues of having two engines and two fuel supplies. Imagine never having to replace another muffler, or have another oil change, or buy new spark plugs, or have a squealing timing belt.

    31. Re:This script is still running? by minogully · · Score: 1

      Adding a couple more:
      5. Less maintenance: Electric drivetrains have about 10% of the moving parts of a gasoline drive train. A hybrid destroys this advantage by having both drive trains plus additional tech to get them to work nicely together making them worse for maintenance than simple internal combustion engine vehicles.

      6. More space: Electric drivetrains take up much less room, leaving that extra space for storage if the manufacturer is smart about it. Hybrids use up that extra space with the internal combustion drivetrain.

  2. Will be nice when the patents run out by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We need either a patent unencumbered replacement for Lion which is far better, or multiple technologies which are far better. One technology which is far better will help fuck all for the next 20 years.

    1. Re:Will be nice when the patents run out by CRB9000 · · Score: 2

      You are free to do the research, and then put the results out there. But, you'll have to get the backing for all the equipment and if you can't find someone to back you that isn't expecting to lock it down, don't be surprised.

    2. Re:Will be nice when the patents run out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LiPo batteries have been around since my college days, so I'm sure their main patents are long expired. And their energy density is 0.5kwh/L whereas gasoline is on the order of 30MJ/L.

    3. Re:Will be nice when the patents run out by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      Basic research is something the government used to do. Then multiple companies would compete to monetize the discoveries.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    4. Re:Will be nice when the patents run out by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Way to swap units there.
      Nothing says political motivated manipulation like swapped units.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Will be nice when the patents run out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The energy density of gasoline is a little less than 10kWh/l (36MJ/l), but there are physical limits to the amount of energy which can be extracted for mechanical work. Typical car engines have efficiencies of less than 40%, so you only get about 4kWh of usable mechanical energy out of a liter of gasoline. Electric cars save a lot of weight and volume by using a less complex engine and drive train, which means their batteries can be bigger and heavier than the full fuel tank of an ICE car, and they can use regenerative braking. That means they are only a battery capacity factor of 2-4 away from range parity.

    6. Re:Will be nice when the patents run out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah a bit sneaky.

      0.5 kwh is 1.8 MJ, so about 6% the Energy density / volme of gasoline. Which brings it to about 12% when efficiency is accounted for.

    7. Re:Will be nice when the patents run out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I meant 30kwh/L.

      HA, captcha - bumbled

    8. Re:Will be nice when the patents run out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't sneaky, it was a mistake since I work in Joules in my head and forgot to convert to KWh for the less technical crowd. I admitted so immediately after submitting that.

    9. Re:Will be nice when the patents run out by TimSSG · · Score: 1
      What country do you live in where the government used to do research?
      Note: Spying on people in not considered basic research!

      In the USA, Colleges and other places were and likely still are often funded by the government to do research.

      Basic research is something the government used to do. Then multiple companies would compete to monetize the discoveries.

    10. Re:Will be nice when the patents run out by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      That means they are only a battery capacity factor of 2-4 away from range parity.

      If you only care about range, then my 6-cylinder 2007 RAV4 has an estimated 300 miles average range, and the beefiest Tesla Model X has a 289 mile average range, so we're already roughly at parity as far as I'm concerned.

      BTW, the efficiency numbers for gasoline engines get even worse when you factor in the supply chain. For every gallon of gasoline refined, it takes about 6 kWh of power to refine, plus a lot of fossil fuel power to extract and transport. That same amount of energy input would get an electric car almost half as far as the gallon of gasoline would, even before you factor in the energy in the gasoline. So your overall efficiency is likely to be more on the order of 20%.

      Of course, you're moving around more weight with the EV, because they don't get lighter as they discharge, and their specific power (energy per unit weight) is only about 1/50th that of gasoline. When full, that 14-gallon tank of gasoline weighs ~87 pounds plus whatever the plastic tank weighs (15-20 pounds, typically). So assuming you get it near empty every time, it weighs on average about 44 pounds plus 15-ish. Let's call that 60 pounds.

      The Tesla pack weighs 1200 pounds. And the rest of the Model X weighs about 500 pounds more than the RAV4 in question, for a total difference of a whopping 1700 pounds. If the ICE-based car weighs only 68% as much as the electric, then instead of being ~5x as efficient, the EVs are only ~3.4x as efficient. Of course, this discounts the efficiency/inefficiency of producing electricity, but that's hard to quantify.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    11. Re:Will be nice when the patents run out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the Muskrat scam machine requires much more time to refuel after it's range empties, the Toyota is back up and running in under 5 minutes.

    12. Re:Will be nice when the patents run out by mattmarlowe · · Score: 1

      I don't get the fanatics on either side, plugin hybrids make the most sense. Two engines, two fuels...switch between them as you need. Some current plugin hybrids have 600-700 mile ranges today. 99% of daily commutes can be handled on the electric engine, and gas engine only needs to be filled up 2-3 times/year for long trips on the freeway or when high speed is required. What is the benefit of a pure gas or pure ev vehicle over a plugin hybrid with smart autoswitching as needed between the engines? I certainly don't want the sustained low efficiency of pure gas nor the high battery replacement cost of pure EV.

    13. Re:Will be nice when the patents run out by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      The amount of basic research the government does is way down and companies as well as universities have figured out ways to get a lock on the results of the research even tho the government funded it and it should be public domain.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    14. Re:Will be nice when the patents run out by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Either the fuel to make electricity has to be transported to the power plant (coal, natural gas) or the electricity has to be transmitted (with losses).

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    15. Re:Will be nice when the patents run out by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      What you lose in convenience on long trips, you more than make up for in convenience during the week. You can plug in a Tesla when you get home and never have to stop to fill up at all except when driving long distances.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    16. Re:Will be nice when the patents run out by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Hybrids just never really made sense to me, plug-in hybrids included. They seem like they're the worst of both worlds. They don't have the battery range for your average driver to not use fuel, so you still have the inconvenience of having to periodically stop for fuel, just less often. And you have all the complexity of an ICE, complete with all the emissions control hardware that greatly increases the failure rate, plus all the complexity of an EV on top of that.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    17. Re:Will be nice when the patents run out by mattmarlowe · · Score: 1

      Depends on your definition of sufficient battery range for an average driver. I've gone the last 6 weeks with my plugin hybrid and only used around 1-2 gallons of gas -- the rest of my energy consumption has been pure electric. I'm probably only going to have to fill up gas 3-4 times/year.

    18. Re:Will be nice when the patents run out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the original number was sneakily presented, but mostly correct. The new number (30kWh/l) is off by a factor of 3-4, or a factor of 10 if you count the losses in converting caloric energy to mechanical work.

  3. What I'm waiting for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $30k new no subsidy, 300 mile range, 15 minute charge time

    $20k new no subsidy, 200 mile range, 10 minute charge time

    $15k new no subsidy, 150 mile range, 7.5 minute charge time

    $10k new no subsidy, 100 mile range, 5 minute charge time

    Until my demands are met, I will keep driving my IC and burning one pile of yard trash daily.

    1. Re:What I'm waiting for by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Why would you care about subsidy? There are subsidy in nearly all the food that you eat, power for your home, and nearly every industry has some way to get extra funding.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:What I'm waiting for by iggymanz · · Score: 0

      they cost me money. why should I pay for some californian's solar roof?
        .

    3. Re: What I'm waiting for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that californianâ(TM)s solar roof is paying for the clean air you can breath.

    4. Re: What I'm waiting for by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      absolutely false assertion, what California is doing makes no difference to level of pollution in the world. for that matter solar is less than 2% of U.S. electricity production. My state's nuclear plants have bigger impact on reducing carbon emissions

    5. Re: What I'm waiting for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      California energy policy pays for California politicians. This is perhaps the most obvious statement ever and is universally known by everyone on the internet but you. If you want to find a scam, look no further than renewable energy. It is all corruption. Pure corruption. Anyone who understands the electrical grid knows this. I wish people would read books.

    6. Re: What I'm waiting for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what happens if California outlaws ICE vehicles? Overnight, electric vehicles become more popular and we begin reducing air pollution.

      As California goes, so goes the nation.

    7. Re: What I'm waiting for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      I believe in the free market. I want clean energy to succeed because it's a new, exciting market; good for the environment, just plain good business. Being viable means not needing subsidies. We can get away with some subsidies sometimes, but you can't subsidize everything all the time.

    8. Re: What I'm waiting for by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      would be a foolish thing to do *now*, as electric grid couldn't support it. in 5-7 years, nation as a whole should beef up the grid and do it. solar collection high sunlight areas, with ultra high voltage D.C. lines to distribute and the new battery tech to store

    9. Re:What I'm waiting for by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Why would you care about subsidy?

      Because existing subsidies for EVs are limited and could never be sustainable, and it helps to be specific so there is no confusion. Ignoring subsidies when discussing future price points would be, well, ignorant.

    10. Re:What I'm waiting for by mattmarlowe · · Score: 2

      Once again, false choices here.....we don't need pure ev versus pure gas fanatics. Plugin hybrid gives the advantages of both with little, if any, drawbacks. Purchased mine a few months ago for $32K, it handles 99% of my commutes on pure electric, and yet has 600-700 mile range for travel. Goes whatever speed I want it to. When I'm in a rush, I can fill it up w/ 5 minutes of gas -- when I'm at home, it charges overnight in around 2.5hrs. Using both engines, my MPG average to date is around 75. When on pure electric, I'm averaging around 135 MPG equivalent. Even with expensive electric costs here in Southern California, my monthly fuel cost is now 25% of what it was before (although, my previous car was an inefficient SUV). The new vehicle has less cargo space, but it's still relatively spacious and carries all that I need.

    11. Re: What I'm waiting for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As California goes so goes the nation?

      The only place I've heard that crap is from life long Californians who never left their cozy little 10 square mile area in San Francisco.

      I live in California and have traveled or lived in many other places in the US and other countries. Thanksfully, California is only an example of how NOT to do things.

      I'm here for the easy money. I would never retire here.

    12. Re:What I'm waiting for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Californians are paying for their own roofs, and a lot of stuff probably in your state. Which state do you live in?

      https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

  4. Range and Price Barriers by CRB9000 · · Score: 1

    Fast charging is nice, but what we really need is long range on single charge, 600+. Lower the price. The cars must be below $30k for a middle income family.

    1. Re:Range and Price Barriers by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      We don't need that, it'd just be killer. Something on the order of 200-300 miles would be adequate at a 30K or so price point for a small sedan. 10 year battery life makes it pretty close to adequate for lifespan. Adequate is of course, not ideal. Ideal would be closer to what you stated.

    2. Re: Range and Price Barriers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      Fast charge is absolutely a requirement. It takes me 5 minutes to gas up my car, it needs to take a similar amount of time to charge up.

      Range needs to be 300 miles bare minimum, and that needs to include using the heater or AC, driving uphill or into a headwind, and using accessories.

      And it needs to be at a $15k pricepoint for a no frills model. Then subtract the cost of the battery replacement.

      And then you'll have something which is an adequate replacement for an IC vehicle.

    3. Re:Range and Price Barriers by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1
      For me, what would be "ideal" would be this sort of massive improvement combined with an equally impressive gain in photovoltaic efficiency. IIRC, the current average efficiency for PV panels is something like 15% and there was something like an upper theoretical limit of 40%. (but I admit I do not understand the physics of why that limit is what it is)

      If we could achieve say a 65% efficiency and build a car body out of PV cells, there would be a rather significant number of owner/users who would never need to charge, along with another significant number who only need to charge for longer than usual trips or during the cooler seasons. I googled some rough numbers and came up with the following:

      There is roughly 1000W/m^2 of sunlight energy that reaches the earth surface. An average car has about 5m^2 of surface. At current 15% efficiencies, that means only about 750W can be generated, which is enough for a week long trickle charge I suppose, but not enough to fully recharge the batteries after a commute to work. Bump efficiency to 65% though and you get over 3200W of output. Parked at work or the car pool lot at the train station, such a car would be able to gain more than enough charge to get back home, where the battery pack can recharge all night if needed.

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    4. Re: Range and Price Barriers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why though when you just charge at home overnight? You no longer have to take a 20 min detour just to get the gas station.

    5. Re:Range and Price Barriers by mattmarlowe · · Score: 1

      Well, go ahead and buy it today. What you are looking for is a plugin hybrid. Many of this years models have a range of 600-700 miles, have sufficient seating and cargo room to act as family vehicles and have two engines/two fuel sources with a computer that automatically switches between the two. The electric engine/battery is big enough to handle 99% of daily commutes. You can easily find combined horsepower of 200+. Full safety and convenience features. Unless you take long trips, you only need to fill up the gas 2-3 times/year. I purchased mine a few months ago for only $32K.

    6. Re:Range and Price Barriers by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 1

      I also like the idea of plug-in hybrids, but what worries me is battery durability. Many drivers will be completely draining the battery each day, those that charge at work even twice a day. If a Tesla battery survives 1000 full cycles, that is some hundreds of thousands of miles, so essentially the lifespan of the vehicle. Draining a plug-in hybrid battery each day, 1000 cycles is less than 3 years.

  5. Charging is a serious issue. by technical_maven · · Score: 2

    One other side of the fast charge issue is the power requirement required to do so. A "five minute charge" will require a very high peak power demand and that is extremely expensive to deliver as most power companies charge based on peak demand. There will need to be some sort of battery buffering or the like to provide sufficient power at a reasonable cost...

    1. Re:Charging is a serious issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Five minutes at 1MW is about the equivalent to 10L of gasoline. A fuel tank holds 50L. To charge in 3 minutes (back of the envelope estimate), you'd need 8MW. x7 cars at any given time at my local stations, conservatively you'd have to wire each station for 40MW. That comes out to 25 refill stations per 1GW nuclear reactor.

      http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1MW+*+5+minutes+to+kwh+to+MJ

    2. Re:Charging is a serious issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect most charge stations will have a big battery which provides the current during charging, which is in turn charged slowly from the grid.

    3. Re:Charging is a serious issue. by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      The home charging station could have it's own batteries that get charged slowly from solar or the grid, then dumps quickly for 5 minutes after you pull in. It could be sized to put in 100 miles worth of power, then go to slow charge. The home battery could also double as a UPS during a power outage. If they build it right, you could use older car battery packs that have lost some capacity for the home charger.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    4. Re:Charging is a serious issue. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Interesting point...

      Overall you would need to charge about 333 (say 360 to make the math easy) cars per day or an average of 15 cars per hour worth of power.
      (http://www.strategycaseinterviews.com/blog/gas-in-the-us-oliver-wyman)

      It costs about $2.64 to charge one electric car from empty to full or about 22 kilowatt hours.

      That's a daily electric bill of about $950 (so say $960 or $40 per hour) for the station.

      That's about 6 houses during the summer in my area (or 20 houses during the winter).

      The lowest possible draw (with a big cache of batteries) would be $40 per hour.
      The highest possible draw (with no cache of batteries) would be about $120 per hour during peak hours.
      Different size cache's would yield different draw rates between those two extremes.

      A large cache would let you cover your morning rush hour with off peak pricing.
      A huge cache would let you cover your lunch rush hour with off peak pricing.
      Seems like the evening rush would be at peak prices unless you had an unreasonably huge cache.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    5. Re: Charging is a serious issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're at home why do you need to fast charge?

    6. Re:Charging is a serious issue. by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Home charging is typically done overnight. Fast charge at home isn't really a requirement.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:Charging is a serious issue. by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

      "That's a daily electric bill of about $950 (so say $960 or $40 per hour) for the station.

      That's about 6 houses during the summer in my area (or 20 houses during the winter)."

      Houses in your neighborhood have electricity bills of $160 per day? Live near Al Gore do you?

    8. Re:Charging is a serious issue. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Ah.. you have a point. And I tried to be so careful in my math. So it's about 180 houses worth of electricity per month.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    9. Re:Charging is a serious issue. by Ost99 · · Score: 1

      An electric car is 3-4 times as efficient as an ICE car. 1MW for 5 minutes is almost 85kWh, the total battery capacity of a Tesla S85D with a 270 mile range.
      Charging at 1MW seems improbable in the near term. 350kW is planned. That would charge a 100kWh battery to 80% in about 15 minutes.

      --
      ---- Sig. gone.
  6. Misleading article yet again by burtosis · · Score: 1

    The 6 minute charge time capacity is better than anything on the market or so it would seem. They say it is high energy density, but don't actually say what it is, you would think that if the specs were good they would be disclosed. Going off thier prototype cell in the link I calculate the volumetric energy density at about 540 watt hours/liter which is about 20% below the higher end of capacity on a volume basis. This battery may actually have the highest actual capacity at high discharge rates, which is why similar batteries have been used in racing electric designs, and be more robust to degradation than most lithium cells, which is why it was probably used in electric cars (cheapest battery per mile), but for slow economy cruising even the new battery is still on par with or below the performance (mileage per size/weight) of existing technologies.

    1. Re:Misleading article yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People don't want economy cruising. They want to be able to drive at highway speeds, and have responsive acceleration.

    2. Re:Misleading article yet again by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Economy crushing is highway speeds. Slow discharge rates for lithium cells are on the 1-2 hour+ scale. Fast discharge is on the 5 minute end, like a drone or dragster. These batteries do nothing to help range anxiety, to the contrary of what the article claims.

  7. Ma8e by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Right now. I tried, tO downloa3 the fear the reaper

  8. No claim on density here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article is misleading. It makes it sounds like toshiba has made a battery that goes 2/3x as far, but the press release only mentions "range per 6mins of charging" while avoiding specifics on energy density. In reality it looks like they have a faster-charging battery, not a longer range for EVs.

  9. Still skeptical by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Years of new battery announcements and still no new batteries. Still skeptical.

    1. Re:Still skeptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Me too. This technology is only used in a few production model cars and many other things. Total vaporware. We all know that technology comes out fully formed and never gets any advancement post initial development. I'm supposed to believe that battery technology that is in current cars got some improvement in metallurgy? No way. Does. Not. Happen.

      And this scam goes way deep. Look at this scam page

      http://www.scib.jp/en/applications/index.htm

      As if.

    2. Re:Still skeptical by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Years of new battery announcements and still no new batteries. Still skeptical.

      Batteries have been improving year on year.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  10. Niobium - another rare earth by mattr · · Score: 2

    I googled niobium rarity and...
    http://www.businessinsider.com...
    Due to its relevance in aerospace and defense, Niobium is considered a “strategic metal” by the U.S. government, meaning there are few or no substitutes for the metal’s essential use. Furthermore, of all strategic metals, Niobium is regarded as one of the most highly critical. But its supplies are considered potentially at risk. This is because only a few sources throughout the world produce the metal. Almost 90% of the world supply comes from Brazil. Nearly all of that comes from only one mine. Most of the rest comes from the Canadian Niobec Mine, owned by IAMGOLD (NYSE: IAG).

  11. Doubled or tripled? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Toshiba has developed a new fast-charging battery it claims could allow EVs to travel three times as far as they do now, and then be fully recharged again in a matter of minutes.

    [...]

    The next-generation SCiB uses a new material for the anode called titanium niobium oxide, which Toshiba was able to arrange into a crystal structure that can store lithium ions more efficiently. So much so, that the energy density has been doubled.

    I may not be an electric rocket surgeon but last time I checked, "three times" did not equal "doubled".

    If you find this comment funny, insightful or interesting, please donate a few Dogecoins to DNsSKbyNsi7369SGdvbKqLM9h4D5wAvmGD.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Doubled or tripled? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      For a full charge with economy driving it's 80% of today's batteries. Not even more, nor twice, nor thrice.

  12. NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, no EVs use the SCiB batteries so doubling their capacity means nothing for EVs. Second, SCiBs have a lower voltage (by 1 volt) than typical Li Ion batteries so saying 50 Ah by itself means nothing without this.

  13. Power Source? by stikves · · Score: 1

    I like being able to charge that rapidly. However it does not seem to be practical for widespread installations. The numbers just don't add up.

    A cheap (Leaf, eGolf) EV has about 20-30KW battery (giving 80-130 miles range).

    The current widespread commercial chargers are generally 6KW (the kind you find at parking lots, offices, etc). They will charge the car in about 4 hours from a depleted state. (The home chargers are 3KW or even 1KW but let's ignore them for the moment). To get 6KW, the charger supplies 204V @ 30A. (For a comparison, the only other device at your home would be the oven or the dryer that is using the same level of power).

    The "superchargers" provide about 100KW (they range from 30KW - 120KW). To do this they use 408V @ 100+A. However they require commercial installation, since this is more power than several houses combined together. They allow charging 80% of battery under 30 minutes for the smaller cars. Teslas are at the high en of the spectrum (120KW), and they can charge the 60KW versions in just above one hour.

    To get 5 minutes charging we would need to jump to 1,200A @ 408V, or 100A @ 4080V. The first choice is not practical. (At 1m this requires a cable width of 50cm! / 20in). The second one requires larger electric components in the car. Also even with 1% loss due to heat (which is wishful thinking), the excess heat would be 10KW, which is in the commercial oven range (i.e.: standing near the cable / car would easily roast a chicken, or make kabobs).

    Overall it is nice to think about these technologies, however there are limits in physics that make this very impractical in the short future.

    1. Re:Power Source? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I've seen a fast charger which had a water cooled plug is production ready.

      Question? Why don't they charge in parallel?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    2. Re:Power Source? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It does become practical when you include liquid cooling in the charging system. At 746 watts per horsepower and the famed inefficecy of combustion engines, we already successfully deal with an order of magnitude more heat energy/time. Further use of a supercapacitor bank, or large battery bank, on the charging side could provide far faster charges at the cost of some duty cycle. For example if you assume a 6 minute charge, and and 6 minutes of down time, you only need half the grid connection at full usage.

    3. Re:Power Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Overall I understand and somewhat agree with what you're saying, but let me amplify your numbers.

      I'm not sure where you're getting your "204" and "408" numbers! It's 240VAC in homes and other 1-phase wiring, and larger buildings frequently (usually) have 480 3-phase available. Homes do not have 480 (it would be pointless). In fact, even in small and medium-sized commercial and industrial equipment, most runs on 208 3-phase. (I'm an EE _and_ electrician, and aced all of my electricity, machines, power, etc., courses.) I can explain more if you don't understand why we use 208 in 3-phase situations. Then I'll explain 277V, or you can research it (480 is phase-to-phase, -> 277 is phase to neutral. Most large building lighting systems run on 277. Yes, ouch, don't touch).

      I work for a guy who bought a Chevy Bolt last March. It came with a 120V 8 or 12 amp charger (selectable).

      He had another guy (I do this too) install a 240V 50A outlet in his garage where he recently installed a "JuiceBox Pro 40" 10KW charger. This is completely reasonable for an average modern home. Many high-end ranges (kitchen stove) need 50A. I personally have installed hot tub circuits up to 80A, so 15KW home chargers would be quite reasonable. Of course you would want a 150-200A main service.

      Yes, oven-only units, dryers, some electric hot-water heaters, are often 240V 30A circuits. But I have seen and installed many of all of these which required 40A, and again, some ranges, large hot-water heaters, hot tubs, need 50A. All quite reasonable in a home.

    4. Re:Power Source? by stikves · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I might be slightly off with voltage numbers.

      However the scale is 10 times of what's possible with the current power delivery systems. In order to charge a 85KWh battery (Tesla) under 5 minutes we need a 1,020 KW charger. Until we find something better than copper for cables (maybe superconductors?) that's some huge ass cables (hgh amp), or huge ass components (high voltage) in the car.

      Also there is the issue of heat dissipation. All "cooling" systems essentially take heat from one place and dump it at another. Since the car is stationary, the "dump" will probably be a single place. Even if we were to lose only 1% (which is unlikely, it's probably going to be much higher), we're talking about a commercial furnace on the other side of the "cooling" system. (Talking about 10s of KW of "loss")

      The battery technology is not the concern here. It was how we deliver the power. If we have a single cell battery in isolation, we can charge and cool it without much issue. When you have 100s of them in a pack, it becomes harder. When you reach the EV levels (7000+ cells), it becomes a very fun engineering problem. Even if the batteries can take in that much charge in 5 minutes, we do not have the practical delivery system (cables, transformers, etc) today.

      I'm not discounting medium to long term discoveries though. For example, again superconductors will solve many of these issues, however they currently exist in cryogenic temperatures.

    5. Re:Power Source? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      (The home chargers are 3KW or even 1KW but let's ignore them for the moment)

      Most dedicated home chargers are 6-7kW. They are on a dedicated 30A/220V circuit. Or you can use a dryer outlet, which, as you point out, is also 30A/220V.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re:Power Source? by stikves · · Score: 1

      Btw to be be concrete, this is the size of the transformer you need to put "inside" the car, if you want to use current cable thickness:

      http://www.transformerscn.com/...

      (400KVA, 11kV, 100A)

      Or you can use the current car electrics, and have a 1,000A cable, which would have 20in (50cm) thickness.

    7. Re:Power Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, thanks for your comments. Original AC here. Sorry- /. has my login and refuses to respond to my requests to get it back.

      Anyway, again, overall I agree with you, but you don't need to be so negative. Humans have a way of adapting, inventing, solving, innovating, etc. That's what we engineers do. :)

      I suggest higher voltages and a parallel approach. We do that in very large power situations: parallel wire smaller cables. Above a certain ampacity (I forget the number- 500-1000A- big stuff!) NEC allow us to wire parallel. There exist large wiring cabinets with insulated "buss bars" with big cable "lugs" and you'll see several parallel cables.

      So EV batteries would need a different cabling, and the car would need a multi-pin connector, or several connectors. Maybe a smallish one like they have now for home overnight charging, and a bigger connector, or several connectors for higher capacity charging.

      I'm not a connector designer (sometimes I think I need to be) but maybe a very large connector in the ground, or behind a panel in the front or side of a car, and some large connector with a self guiding mechanism that does the physical connecting since it would be big, heavy, require a lot of push, etc.

      It can be done! There are more optimistic people in the world! Turn your skepticism into solutions! That's what I do, anyway.

      Afterthought: There's nothing saying you _must_ charge an 85kWh battery in 5 minutes. I think the idea is more that if you can charge in 5 minutes, you don't _need_ 85kWh. So my guy has a Bolt with (I believe) 60kWh battery and gets around 250 miles range. He needs that much in 1 day, but maybe he could live with 10kWh, roughly 50 miles, if he could charge up in 10 minutes. 480V @ 72A would do it. (be careful checking my math- if you don't understand 3-phase, you won't get the right answer. It is _not_ 480*72*3, it is 480*72*3 / sqrt(3) ).

      Afterthought#2: you'd want to use higher voltages to lessen the amps, as above, but you could go (much) higher if you wanted to. I admit that at some point voltage gets too difficult to deal with practically and safely. But good old Nikola Tesla had his fun with it.

      Afterthought #3: I've always wanted and advocated for easily removable battery packs. But I realize there are many problems with that approach- mostly due to economics and politics, not tech.

      Thanks!

    8. Re:Power Source? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      To get 5 minutes charging we would need to jump to 1,200A @ 408V, or 100A @ 4080V. The first choice is not practical. (At 1m this requires a cable width of 50cm! / 20in).

      You're way off with thise numbers.

      Copper has a resistivity of 1.68e-8. Assuming a 5 meter cable and a 0.02x0.02 section (for one conductor), i.e. 2cm by 2cm, and 1000A current, the dissipated power in the cable is:

        5 / (0.02*0.02) * 1.68e-8 * 1000^2

      which is 210W. Drop that to 1cm by 1cm and you have 810W, which is high in an absolute sense but less than 1% of the 120kW charging power. It'll need water cooling of the cable, but oyu'll need to water cool the battery too. The cable would be thick and heavy, but not *that* thick and heavy.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:Power Source? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You appear to have confused millimeters with inches, although I can't access your citation. 20 millimeters should be enough for 1000 amperes, even with cruddy plastic insulation and continuous duty. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wire-gauges-d_419.html

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    10. Re:Power Source? by stikves · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. I think you're right, I might be looking at the wrong table. Still with 3 wire connector, and insulation, it will still be very thick.

  14. Fake advance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It improves the capacity in terms of volume not in terms of weight. Which do you think matters most?
    That should be an immediate concern because titanium and niobium are many times heavier than lithium. I am not saying you canâ(TM)t use a heavier element to store more charge per weight but itâ(TM)s not going to be easy.

    1. Re:Fake advance by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      TFA is unclear; but it's possible that the titanium-niobium oxide anode is not consumed in use and only needs to be thick enough to coat whatever structure it's plated onto. This is implied in the summary: "titanium niobium oxide, which Toshiba was able to arrange into a crystal structure that can store lithium ions more efficiently."

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:Fake advance by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      Both weight and volume are important, but if I had to chose one I'd say volume is more important for cars.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    3. Re:Fake advance by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      If they are storing lithium ions in titanium niobium oxide, then that implies to me that they need the whole anode to have niobium, not just the surface. The surface might work for charge rate but not for energy storage.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
  15. A123 by OYAHHH · · Score: 1

    Admittedly I know practically zero about batteries. But I've used A123 batteries in my RC aircraft and they performed really well while having fairly short recharge times while doing that task safely (as opposed to LiPo batteries where you need a fire resistant bag for charging).

    How would this Toshiba tech compare to an A123 battery?

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
  16. Cross Country Drive by CRB9000 · · Score: 1

    Give me the ability to go 600 miles across Washington, Idaho, and into Montana on a single charge, then recharge over night.

  17. Re: Power Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most? The most popular EVs in America are Teslas, and their wall chargers use (2)x50A 240V circuits and draw 19.2kW for ~60 miles per hour of charge. Sure, you can plug into a dryer outlet (great for that vacation rental trip) or even standard wall outlet in a pinch, but no sane person would spend $60k+ on a Tesla and not sport the $420 for a proper power circuit.

  18. Re: Power Source by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    Most? The most popular EVs in America are Teslas, and their wall chargers use (2)x50A 240V circuits and draw 19.2kW for ~60 miles per hour of charge. Sure, you can plug into a dryer outlet (great for that vacation rental trip) or even standard wall outlet in a pinch, but no sane person would spend $60k+ on a Tesla and not sport the $420 for a proper power circuit.

    Your math is wrong. Those 19.2kW chargers take 80A and require a 100A breaker. You haven't allowed for installation costs, which could be quite substantial as an additional 100A load could require a complete new breaker board (and may exceed the capability of the house supply circuit).

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  19. white privilege speaks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you fucking serious?

    THINK!

  20. Wanna bet? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    The common destiny of all battery-related breakthroughs revealed in this forum over the years has always been the same: complete oblivion after a few months. Is this one going to be any different?

  21. Re: Power Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most? The most popular EVs in America are Teslas, and their wall chargers use (2)x50A 240V circuits and draw 19.2kW for ~60 miles per hour of charge. Sure, you can plug into a dryer outlet (great for that vacation rental trip) or even standard wall outlet in a pinch, but no sane person would spend $60k+ on a Tesla and not sport the $420 for a proper power circuit.

    Your math is wrong. Those 19.2kW chargers take 80A and require a 100A breaker. You haven't allowed for installation costs, which could be quite substantial as an additional 100A load could require a complete new breaker board (and may exceed the capability of the house supply circuit).

    I'm not the OP AC, but an EE and electrician. OP AC said 2 (two) 50A 240V circuits. That covers the ~20kW.

    Many (most?) newer houses have 200A main panels and feeders.

    Many people desire to upgrade to 200A.

      _Many_ (most) new bigger high-end houses have 2 (two) 200A panels. That's fun right there.

    As an electrician I can assure you that if someone can afford a Tesla, he/she can afford a 200A main panel / SEC / meter upgrade.

  22. Just to be grumpy about range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My old Gremlin used to have a range of 400+ miles. I could drive non-stop from LA to Phoenix on a tank of gas. As could a lot of contemporary vehicles. Manufacturers have systematically reduced the size of fuel tanks over the years, possibly in part to keep vehicle weight down for CAFE requirements, but it has also given the younger generation misconceptions about the range that us old gaffers with cash expect to see.

  23. Niobium - not another rare earth by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

    All true, but no matter how rare it is niobium is not classified as a rare earth.

    --
    a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    1. Re:Niobium - not another rare earth by mattr · · Score: 1

      Thank you for catching that! I misread the article on that point.

  24. Re: Power Source by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but, in the USA, a 220v circuit requires a double-pole breaker, each of which is connected between one half of the 220V and neutral.

    In other words, two breakers, each one between one half of the split phase 220v and neutral. Since each of the split-phases is the same as a 110V circuit, you effectively have 2 x 110V x 100A.

    Correct?

    As for your comments about existing breaker box installations, that probably depends largely on the age of the house.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!