Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Chinese Startup May Have Cracked Solid-State Batteries (engadget.com)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the watch-out dept.

hackingbear writes: According to Chinese media, Qing Tao Energy Development Co, a startup out of the technical Tsinghua University, has deployed a solid-state battery production line in Kunshan, East China. Reports claim the line has a capacity of 100MWh per year -- which is planned to increase to 700MWh by 2020 -- and that the company has achieved an energy density of more than 400Wh/kg, compared to new generation lithium-ion batteries that boast a capacity of around 250-300Wh/kg. Details beyond this are sparse. The headline news here, if accurate, would be that the company has managed to put solid-state batteries into high volume production, but it's not clear how Qing Tao Energy Development has achieved this, nor what price points are involved. Furthermore, while a capacity of 100MWh is not to be sneezed at, it still only equates to fewer than 2,000 long-range EVs per year. Nonetheless, the news demonstrates that progress is happening in the solid-state battery arena. We might not feasibly yet be at high volume production, but we're on our way.

58 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. easy how they do this by iggymanz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    like with the quantum radar claim, it's B.S. to lure investors

    1. Re:easy how they do this by Koby77 · · Score: 1

      A sucker is born every minute.

    2. Re:easy how they do this by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not BS, but it is hype. The founder and CEO is this guy, who just recently published this paper on their tech. The cells reportedly lost 25% of their capacity in just 50 cycles. They also reported a "high" ionic conductivity of 3.15e-3 S cm-1, which is an order of magnitude less than traditional liquid electrolytes. They conducted their discharge tests at a mere 0,1C.

      --
      You people make me envy the deaf and the blind!
    3. Re: easy how they do this by Type44Q · · Score: 1
      Or possibly like with capacitors, where they got hold of someone's formula (or thought they did) and rushed it to market untested.

      I think it's entirely apropos that they'll soon be entertaining us with fireworks displays.

    4. Re:easy how they do this by quanminoan · · Score: 2

      You seem knowledgeable about battery tech -- I understand the capacity issue, but how exactly do the ionic conductivity and discharge rate figure into the ultimate performance? The much lower ionic conductivity corresponds to slower discharge even if it could still hold 400Wh/kg? Would this still be useful although not for something like an electric car where fast charge/discharge matter?

    5. Re:easy how they do this by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      This would not be useful for electric cars, although mainly due to the cycle life issues (and presumably cost issues, but we can't know that yet). This would be most interested for various "specialty" applications - applications where power is drained only slowly (thus rendering the ionic conductivity issue moot as well as the cycle life issue). Perhaps remote sensors or the like. I'd think they'd also be quite desirable in military drones designed to circle over a given location for as long as possible. For applications like that, you don't need a huge number of cycles out of the batteries, and cell cost is not a limiting factor, but what you need above all is energy density.

      For the mass market, though, it's more of an issue of how the tech (particularly cycle life and cost) evolves. Hopefully investors in this company realize that they're betting on where this tech might go rather than where it is as things stand.

      --
      You people make me envy the deaf and the blind!
    6. Re:easy how they do this by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      that is my very definition of marketing B.S. to lure investors. Exaggerations are lies. this stuff can't be used practically

    7. Re:easy how they do this by gweihir · · Score: 1

      If you remember that Edison patented the light bulb way before it was ready, this approach has a long tradition. Anyways, even if they are just close, they have beaten the rest of the world in a very important research area.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re:easy how they do this by JimToo · · Score: 1

      Too easy to define BS as being the exact equivalent to hype.

    9. Re:easy how they do this by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      I for one believe them that they've created cracked solid-state batteries.

      If you gave them enough money, maybe they'll even think of how to make working ones!

    10. Re:easy how they do this by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      Underrated comment

    11. Re:easy how they do this by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      This paywalled paper. Ties in with this article.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    12. Re:easy how they do this by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      This outfit is building a production line before it's ready. They say.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    13. Re:easy how they do this by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Edison bought the patent for the lightbulb. China is not known for research and development, they are known for cutting corners and trying to cheat their customers.

    14. Re:easy how they do this by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      The cells reportedly lost 25% of their capacity in just 50 cycles.

      So? That's Planned Obsolescence already built-in! That just raised the potential stock value by 1/3rd.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  2. Call me when I can test it myself. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've seen enough regular batteries from China, that claimed way higher energy densities than they really had. Let alone after a few usages. (Usually, batteries are supposed get better after being broken in, before getting worse.)

    I also want to make sure they don't start to bulge and catch fire or something after a few months.

    Then we can talk.

    1. Re:Call me when I can test it myself. by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      Call me when any of the major car companies adopt the cells.

      That is when you know for sure that independent testing in both the lab and in the field has deemed them both safe and long lasting.

      Until then, it is just more hype ... or worse ... a scam ala Theranos

    2. Re:Call me when I can test it myself. by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Even ignoring quality issues, a wait and see approach for any Chinese company is prudent given history. Remember how a couple years ago LeEco was going to buy Vizio, launch an electric car company and bunch of other crap, then fell apart a couple months later? Also see their movie industry buying their own tickets to inflate stock prices.

    3. Re:Call me when I can test it myself. by Wolfier · · Score: 1

      i would moderate it as insightful instead of interesting.

  3. Questions by unknown_user_name · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article notes that information is sparse. Hopefully more will be released soon. The production rates and energy density are both significant. Cost, including the environmental manufacturing and disposal costs, the number of recharges, and safety requirements are all necessary considerations in bringing a battery to market.

  4. Everything it's cracked to be. by Ostracus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Isn't a cracked solid-state a bad thing? :-D

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    1. Re:Everything it's cracked to be. by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      I thought a cracked crystal was what gave us sold-state in the first place.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
  5. Re: Solid state = high capacitance? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    "Ching Dao." Geez.

  6. Another battery story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm tired of all of these fake and unproven battery tech stories Can we just get back to political infighting and slasdot member flaiming?

  7. Still better by AndyKron · · Score: 3, Funny

    Vacuum tube batteries still sound warmer.

  8. You don't say by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 2

    And this is different from the battery breakthroughs that get divulged here to the tune of several per year, only to be consigned to oblivion almost immediately - how?

    1. Re:You don't say by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      If you only want to hear about completely finished products on shelves then read a catalogue, not /.

      https://slashdot.org/comments....

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    2. Re:You don't say by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      It's almost impossible to tell in advance between Arthur C Clarke's "sufficiently advanced technology" and "rigged demo", so if you want to know about the possibilities several years out of the catalogue then you absolutely have to be hearing about a little "fake news" and do your own filtering.

      Whining about having to think helps no one.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    3. Re:You don't say by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Energy densities have certainly not been increasing by 20% per year, more like 5-8% per year.

  9. No Generators by Ostracus · · Score: 2

    Long term new battery tech will replace oil and whichever country gets there first owns the future.

    Ummm, no. Batteries are for STORAGE not GENERATION. That's one of the reasons they've invested in solar cells as well.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    1. Re:No Generators by NormalVisual · · Score: 2

      Ummm, no. Batteries are for STORAGE not GENERATION.

      And any fuel is for both storage AND generation - batteries just decouple the two from each other. Regardless of how the electricity is generated, the first battery that's able to reliably store enough charge to power an automobile for 1,000 miles over an extended number of recharging cycles has the potential to put an awfully big dent in the fortunes of oil companies.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    2. Re: No Generators by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      600 miles is more than enough provided it can be recharged from flat to full in 6 hours. It is beyond the legal limit for a professional driver in a single 24h period in the EU, and consequently an excellent bench mark for what is safe. Anything more requires tag team driving. I would have never in my entire life to date been constrained in my ground based vehicular journeys with those parameters. In fact you could dial it down to 450 miles.

    3. Re:No Generators by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Historically the second one to market wins. Asia has much better cellphone service than USA, but USA started it.

    4. Re: No Generators by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      We don't need 600 miles, we need power rails in the roads. With that you only need 50 meters to get you out of your driveway.

  10. Solid-state by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    Doesn't Solid-state mean "No Moving Parts"? Aren't ALL batteries solid-state by that definition?

    1. Re:Solid-state by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Batteries usually have a liquid electrolyte, solid state batteries use a solid instead.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Solid-state by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. For instance flow batteries (of which the most promising is the vanadium redox battery) depend on the continuous movement of the electrolyte.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    3. Re:Solid-state by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      No, solid state means solid state. Like NOT liquid state, nor gaseous state.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Solid-state by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Sounds like somebody fibbed, and somebody believed them.

  11. May Have Cracked Solid-State Batteries by DigressivePoser · · Score: 2

    Did the batteries leak anything? Did it leak into groundwater? How many people died? Why aren't environmentalists in an uproar? /acosta

  12. Re:Chinesium by mukinrestak · · Score: 1

    That's not fair, they also make some damned fine movies over there.

  13. Recyclable & Non-toxis? by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    Inquiring manufacturers want to know.

    No details, you say? Hmmm, sounds then like another pyramid scheme.

  14. Funny thing about the Tesla shorts. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    There is this whole genre of people who constantly post/trade negative stories and rumors about Elon Musk. He is going to jail, he is Felon Musk, he lies, he is going to Mars because Mars does not have an extradition treaty with USA (honest, they said that.) and they cast doubt on anyone not as strongly anti Elon as they are. SEC has been paid off, the CA work place safety officer has been bribed, there is no one trustworthy person in the federal, state governments of USA, or the banks, or the regulatory agencies like NTHSA or SEC, or the traditional media, or the alternative media. All of them are colluding crooks.

    The same gang, is now praising to high heaven this Chinese company announcement as though it is the Word of God revealed directly to them. That people who are that so extremely skeptical on one side are so very credulous on the other side is so mind boggling.

    If the Chinese company is right, good luck to them. I can't wait to rid the world of diesel and gasoline engines. It is always nice to have plan B, another basket to keep the eggs in. Cant depend totally on Tesla.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Funny thing about the Tesla shorts. by gravewax · · Score: 2

      really where are all the people praising this startup? I see a lot of people eyeing them with suspicion. Regardless whether they are legit or not that doesn't change the facts around Musk's shenanigans.

    2. Re:Funny thing about the Tesla shorts. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Tons of articles in shady stock trading sites, China is going to eat Tesla alive is a constant recurring theme. Every little announce is received with great joy and repeated endlessly.

      Anyway, I dont trade any individual stock, so got not horse in the stock market race one way or the other.

      All I want is the death of diesel and gasoline engines. That is all. That day is coming. Already, existing known battery tech has batteries at 120 $/kWh. If this technology lowers the price even more, it is great. Even otherwise BEVs are on track to achieve price parity with ICEV in 2020, 2022 time frame. So I believe I would live to see the death of ICE.

      Steam locomotives are romantic and majestic, I love them. ICEs are pestilence I abhor them.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  15. Meanwhile by nyet · · Score: 1

    Gasoline is 13,000KW/kg

    We've still a ways to go, sadly.

    1. Re:Meanwhile by green1 · · Score: 1

      Not realy a relevant comparison as we can't extract the energy from gasoline in a very efficient manner (best we can do is about 35% efficient compared to over 95% efficient for batteries) additionally electric motors are a lot smaller and lighter than gasoline engines.

      If looking at it from a pure energy to move a vehicle vs weight to do so stand point, solid state batteries would be quite likely to tip the scales in favor of electric over gasoline.

      Overall though, we're already past "good enough" for energy density in batteries. The challenges to electric vehicle adoption now are more in the charging infrastructure, recharge times, and cost of batteries. Density is just not an issue anymore (not saying more isn't better, of course it is, it's just not what limits electric vehicle adoption right now.)

    2. Re: Meanwhile by mlyle · · Score: 1

      Kilowatts per kg? Really?

    3. Re:Meanwhile by nyet · · Score: 1

      35% of 13,000 compared to 95% of 400?

      I'd say less than an order of magnitude of efficiency difference isn't relevant that that level of disparity.

    4. Re: Meanwhile by nyet · · Score: 1

      yea, sorry, unit fail

      13KWh/kg vs 0.4KWh/kg

    5. Re:Meanwhile by green1 · · Score: 1

      Except it's ok to carry more weight of batteries offset by less weight of engine (which was not taken in to account in the original comparison)
      Electric motors weigh a fraction what gasoline engines do, and take up a lot less space too.

      50l of gasoline weighs 37.5 kg and contains about 475kwh (it's actually about 9500wh/l) add on the engine, about 400kg, and you're at 438kg for 475kwh, but can only extract 35% of that, or 166kwh. For an effective density of 400wh/kg

      Meanwhile for electric, we carry 100kwh of battery weighing about
      377 kg, but the motor only weighs about 30kg for a total of 407kg. At 95% efficient we are still at 95 kwh for an effective density of 233wh/kg

      Cars are also already being shown off with 130kwh batteries and heigher coming all the time.

      Yes, gasoline still wins the density contest, but not by orders of magnitude.

      Modern electric cars travel almost as far on a charge as gasoline vehicles do on a tank, and only weigh marginally more. It's now in the realm of "good enough". The challenge now is cost, and infrastructure. While better energy density is still welcome, it will have negligible impact on adoption from this point.

    6. Re: Meanwhile by mlyle · · Score: 1

      More like 12. (But can we please use MJ/kg instead?) But you also need to take into account that you only convert about 25% of the energy in gasoline to useful work, and that you need to carry all the mass of an internal combustion engine to extract the energy.

  16. Re: Solid state = high capacitance? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Ching Dao." Geez.

    If you are going to be pedantic, at least get it right.

    The modern standard pinyin spelling is: "Qingdao".

    The Wade-Giles romanization is: "Tsing Tao"

    "Tsing Tao" is what is printed on the bottles, for reasons of tradition and marketing.

    "Qingdao" is the name of the city in Shandong where the beer is brewed, and is what the Chinese call the beer.

    "Ching Dao" is not correct under any romanization scheme. "Ch" and "Q" may sound the same to monolingual English speakers, but they represent different phonemes that are distinguishable in many languages.

  17. oh good! by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh good, I'm so sick of using all those batteries with moving parts.

    1. Re:oh good! by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      Good for you that you've never had a battery leak its (moving) electrolyte into your equipment, nor had to run an equalization cycle on a lead-acid battery to stir up its electrolyte, nor had to deal with the complexity a flow battery.

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
  18. Chinese by GrBear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder what company they stole their technology from.

  19. Convert to specific energy by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    To convert Wh/kg to Si specific energy in joules/kg, just multiply by 3600, the number of seconds in an hour. So now we can compare to this table and find that the claimed specific energy is 65-300% more than Li-ion and about 20% less than Li-metal. About 32 times less than gasoline, but of course gasoline is not rechargeable or renewable.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  20. Re: Solid state = high capacitance? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    since they throw rice into the mash now it doesn't matter what we call that dilute piss.