Slashdot Mirror


Is Elon Musk Greatly Exaggerating Tesla's Battery Technology? (bloomberg.com)

"Tesla's newest promises break the laws of batteries," writes Bloomberg. Long-time Slashdot reader rudy_wayne summarizes their report. "Elon Musk knows how to make promises. Even by his own standards, the promises made last week while introducing two new Tesla vehicles...are monuments of envelope pushing. To deliver, according to close observers of battery technology, Tesla would have to far exceed what is currently thought possible." The Tesla Semi, which Musk claims can haul 80,000 pounds at highway speeds for 500 miles, then recharge 400 miles of range in 30 minutes, would require "a charging system that's 10 times more powerful than one of the fastest battery-charging networks on the road today -- Tesla's own Superchargers."

The Tesla Roadster is promised to be the quickest production car ever built. But that achievement would mean squeezing into its tiny frame a battery twice as powerful as the largest battery currently available in any electric car. These claims are so far beyond current industry standards for electric vehicles that they would require either advances in battery technology or a new understanding of how batteries are put to use, said Sam Jaffe, battery analyst for Cairn Energy Research in Boulder, Colorado.

But Jaffe reaches an interesting conclusion. "I don't think they're lying. I just think they left something out of the public reveal that would have explained how these numbers work."

11 of 266 comments (clear)

  1. Build electrified lanes... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For trucks and buses that can follow the wires. They can be powered and "recharged" as they move, as well as following the wires automatically. Also, electrified freight rail. "Charging" vehicles while on the go is a solved problem and doesn't require production of large, environmentally-costly batteries.

    1. Re:Build electrified lanes... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In fact there are several trolleybus lines in Murmansk. That is more to the north than Fairbanks.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  2. "Laws of battery technology" by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    With a title like that, you know the article is going to be good for a laugh. Sort of like people who say "physics says..." who wouldn't even recognize the formulae that apply to the problem in question if you wrote them out in front of them.

    1) Passengers in the Roadster noted how high its floor is. Aka: it's a double-high pack. Tesla already makes 100kWh packs for the S and X that are single-high. They may need to extend a bit further forward and back because the Roadster is a bit smaller of a footprint (on S and X they only slightly overlap the wheelbase, and on Model 3 they're inside the wheelbase entirely), but there's nothing at all implausible about 200kWh in such a form factor.

    2) The megacharger charge port has been filmed by KMan. It has 8 giant pins in what appear to be a 2x4 arrangement, with ground and control pins likely clustered in a side slot on the right. These pins are much larger than those on the supercharger port, and there's a lot more of them. Also note the 2x4 arrangement: there appear to be four separate battery packs, and there 4 separate drive units. It appears that bloody everything on this vehicle is redundant (one assumes that there's at least a charge balancing system between the packs).

    3) The means to provide the power to the megachargers is very, very simple: they're battery buffered. Tesla has always been clear on this; they're not drawing that power straight from the grid. More to the point, Semi uses the same battery chemistry as Tesla's grid-battery buffers (NMC). It's an extremely durable chemistry.

    4) The article is very reasonable in its assessment of the battery capacity on the 500mi semi - they say 600-1000kWh (I've been working on the assumption of 900kWh, but it could be a bit less). Their estimate on the price, however, assumes that batteries cost $100-$170/kWh retail. Yet the raw material costs for said cells is only about $50/kWh - and that's currently at "spiked" prices which can be expected to drop as the mining industry readjusts to the new demand curve (historic prices would be more like $35/kWh). The whole point of the Gigafactory was to make li-ion batteries - finally - get closer to the cost of the raw materials that go into them. These numbers simply suggest that the Gigafactory has done exactly what it was designed to do.

    5) Their estimate of the weight of the battery pack is probably correct (around 5 tonnes). However, in addition to the weight savings from using electric drive units vs. a big diesel / transmission / pollution controls / etc, Tesla always builds light. Don't expect the primary structure to be made of mild steel on this one; expect UHS steel, with 4-5 times the tensile strength, for example. Guillen stated in Europe that it has the same payload capacity as a diesel semi (aka, the tractor is no heavier), and that's probably correct.

    Or, to put it another way: none of the "experts" expected the Model 3 SR to come in at almost exactly the same weight as the BMW 330i, with the same performance, more standard features, and a cheaper price. It did. And the LR isn't much heavier than a 330i, and well faster (can't wait to see the specs on the performance package!)

    6) Charge rates of 7 cents per kWh: First off, their estimate that charging should cost 40 cents per kWh is just absurd. Pure nonsense. Even Tesla's current generation of superchargers is half that ($0,20/kWh), and they have to pay demand charges. That said, 7 cents per kWh comes across as extremely ambitious... until you start looking into it. And then you realize how much of a game changer it is that Tesla is doing here.

    --
    We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
    1. Re:"Laws of battery technology" by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh, one more thing: expect to see things get more impressive with time. For example: a lot of people are expecting the handling to be poor on the Roadster because the battery pack will weigh slightly over a tonne (at current cell energy densities). Sure, Tesla will be going all out to make the rest of the car light, but still, that's a lot of weight underneath you, right?

      But there's one thing people are forgetting: torque steering. The rear wheels are each driven by separate motors, each hooked up to wheels with very sticky tires. You can have one side going full thrust forward and the other side going full thrust in reverse if you wanted. You could make the car pirouette in place if you wanted. Computer controlled J turns, precise drift control, etc? They're only limited by their programming; there's a lot more potential here than you can achieve with just differential braking.

      And we already know that Tesla is working heavily on torque steering; this isn't something that's going to come as a surprise to them. Torque steering is the principle behind the anti-jackknifing approach on Semi.

      --
      We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
  3. Re:Seems feasible by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    NMC li-ion, likely 2170 form factor, 4x packs. Hard to estimate the number of bricks (because we don't know the voltage) and thus the number of cells per brick.

    The charge times are perfectly normal for Tesla cells. 30 minutes to 80% is the standard for supercharging as well. It's just more cells and more power.

    --
    We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
  4. So... by xlsior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...a standard car charging point isn't powerful enough to charge a semi in a reasonable time?

    Instead of immediately accusing them of witchcraft, perhaps... they just figured out a way to bundle multiple 'standard' standard car-chargers in parallel, and use those to charge separate battery packs inside a semi, greatly reducing the total recharge time?

  5. Like the TARDIS by jjeffries · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's bigger on the inside.

  6. Can be done with what they have today by RhettLivingston · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm betting the eight "pins" on the port aren't pins. They are sockets with two contact surfaces.

    Eight 120 kWH batteries (five in the 300-mile version) made using the newer 2170 cells wouldn't be much of a stretch of the current technology. This would provide 960 kWH total which is within the range of estimated needs.

    Tesla reuses the same AC/DC converter in their superchargers that they use in their vehicles. Current superchargers use 12 of these 11kW AC/DC modules to provide about 130kW (after losses).

    If you go with the same theme but update it to use 12 of the 20kW AC/DC modules now used in the model S, the existing supercharger design could be trivially increased to about 216kW after losses.

    Eight 216kW superchargers operating simultaneously could deliver 1,728kW - more than enough to provide a 400-mile charge in 30 minutes.

  7. Re: No surprise at all - it's about the stock pric by haruchai · · Score: 4, Informative

    "The first Toyota Prius model starting being sold in 2003 - long before Musk had even heard of Tesla"
    Fuck, how did you manage to stuff so much wrong info into so few words? The Prius first went on sale in Japan in 1997 and internationally in 2000; Eberhard & Tarpenning founded Tesla in July 2003 with Musk becoming Chairman in April 2004 & helping to securing financing while also investing millions of his own money.

    "That Prius electric technology is so successful it is now integrated into many of Toyota's lines. More importantly, those lines are actually profitable, and aren't over priced, overly limited vehicles, that suck up govt tax payer money to manufacture"

    Sure but that Prius tech did fuck all to get anyone excited about EVs or to goad the industry to get off their asses & build electric vehicles that people covet. Those lines are only profitable because Toyota already have profitable cars to offset the losses of the early years. It took them 5 years to get to ~120k sold in the USA which Tesla surpassed in roughly the same amount of time - for a car that cost THREE to FIVE times as much.
    Hell, the electric underpinnings barely changed for 10 years, the battery remained the same size & power for about as long and it took a dozen years for them to figure out a larger battery and that it might be a good idea to attach a power cord.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  8. Re:No surprise at all - it's about the stock price by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, they did have a working prototype doing max acceleration 0-70 mph runs all night long without recharging. The numbers they quoted appeared to be real numbers for that prototype.

    Unlike Porsche and others who display a stationary model and claim that it will be able to almost match the performance of current production Teslas, some day, when they actually manage to make it work.

    I think Tesla did figure out something new, aren't quite able to mass produce it yet, but already did make it in very small volume and are now testing it. They may not make the 2020 deadline (it's still Tesla, after all) but I doubt it will be much later than that. They are getting a lot better at actually producing things, delays on Model 3 are only a couple of months and that's after accelerating the development by a whole year. I expect them to deliver the first token roadsters in december 2020 and start producing them for real in the second half of 2021.

  9. Re: No surprise at all - it's about the stock pri by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.