[HN Gopher] One gemini battery nearly doubles Tesla Model S range
___________________________________________________________________
One gemini battery nearly doubles Tesla Model S range
Author : hardmaru
Score : 130 points
Date : 2022-01-29 15:32 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.motortrend.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.motortrend.com)
| Bud wrote:
| Could we be more careful about getting the capitalization right
| in headlines like this? "One gemini" not only reads different
| from "ONE Gemini" in English; it actually means something
| different.
|
| Just copy and paste the headline.
| detaro wrote:
| The "ONE" is auto-"corrected" by HN software, so you need to
| actually go back in and edit it after posting when submitting
| such titles.
| supperburg wrote:
| imglorp wrote:
| Nobody's talking about compatibility, which falls into right to
| repair territory.
|
| This is not your father's Die Hard battery, there's intelligence
| and protocols that need to be integrated. How does one drop in a
| replacement without Tesla's blessing and support?
|
| example: https://insideevs.com/news/459830/video-inside-tesla-
| model-3...
| sschueller wrote:
| You warranty is void if using a 3rd part battery pack...
| wffurr wrote:
| What does news like this do to current year EV sales? We needed
| to start transitioning the vehicle fleet around the world to EVs
| and alternate transportation modes years and years ago to make a
| dent on climate change.
|
| But now if EVs are going to have triple the range and be cheaper
| in a few years' time, why spend money on a 300 mile range EV now?
| Surely the resale value will plunge and current buyers will lose
| their shirts on them.
|
| I suppose that's good news for buyers in the secondhand market
| hoping to pick up cheaper vehicles, but it's a disincentive for
| new buyers.
| digikata wrote:
| Manufacturers could alleviate that by planning for battery pack
| upgrades. Offer customers an upgrade path, transition the old
| batteries to utility storage until the end of their life and
| then recycle them.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| The Osborne Effect keeps on giving, though in this case, it's
| industrywide instead of just one company.
| wffurr wrote:
| Thanks for the phrase that describes exactly what I was
| imagining.
|
| Looking that up led to an interesting and concerning article
| on the economic impact of the transition to BEVs:
| https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/25/the-osborne-effect-
| on-t...
| didgeoridoo wrote:
| Electric cars won't "make a dent" in carbon emissions until
| most of our electricity comes from renewables and nuclear. At
| least in the USA, we are many years away from this. BEV uptake
| is unfortunately not the rate-limiting step.
| d12bb wrote:
| And even if we had 100% renewables tomorrow, cars would still
| be incredibly inefficient (2 ton car for most times only 80
| kg load (aka one human)), loud, dangerous for everyone not in
| a car, expensive for owner and state, etc...
| wffurr wrote:
| Good thing these batteries will show up in all kinds of
| vehicle once the tech is proven, then. Smaller urban
| runabouts, ebikes, scooters, etc.
| tbihl wrote:
| To the extent that the old range was a deal breaker for buyers
| of used cars, it will hurt. To the extent that buyers of used
| cars were needing a little bit more depreciation, the
| depreciation will be back stopped. And the depreciation, in
| turn, would shift some buyers toward those older EVs, to say
| nothing of the new buyers that could be enticed by range.
|
| Look at depreciation of Intel Macs after M1 came out, maybe?
| jacquesm wrote:
| This could well be a game changer. What I don't understand from
| the article: they claim they have just done a trip with that
| battery and then in the same breath they say they will have a
| production sample by 2023. How can those be reconciled, if they
| already have one isn't that sample enough?
|
| Or is this a prototype of sorts? And if so has someone inspected
| that vehicle to make sure that it isn't a trick? Because if a
| factor of 2 in battery life works for EVs it works for
| _everything_ and that would be pretty big news utterly unrelated
| to Tesla.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I have a theory that the 'trick' here is that the battery isn't
| rechargeable... Not yet at least...
|
| For a PR stunt, they put lithium-manganese dioxide or some
| similar chemistry into a tesla. They're not rechargable, but
| they have a very high energy capacity.
|
| They'll obviously have a lab furiously working on trying to
| make a rechargeable version... But for now, this demo is great
| for getting investment.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I'll believe it when they allow independent inspection of the
| test vehicle pack. Until then, skeptical. Too many fake-it-
| until-you-make-it schemes and this could easily be one.
| olivermarks wrote:
| 'How does over 700 miles of range sound from a battery that fits
| where the stock one goes?' implausible until proven at scale over
| time
|
| Article reads like an advertorial
| brightball wrote:
| Still waiting to hear results on prototype EV batteries from GMG
| and Bosch, which I believe are 2025-26 timeline as well.
|
| Supposed to be 1/3 weight, ~3x energy and 40-60x faster charging
| without heat concerns.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| ----------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Dear battery technology claimant,
|
| Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary
| battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to
| existing lithium-ion technology is is just around the corner from
| taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely
| fail, because:
|
| [ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale.
|
| [ ] it will be too expensive for users.
|
| [ ] it suffers from too few recharge cycles.
|
| [ ] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels.
|
| [ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures.
|
| [ ] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable.
|
| [ ] it has too short of a lifetime.
|
| [ ] its charge rate is too slow.
|
| [ ] its materials are too toxic.
|
| [ ] it is too likely to catch fire or explode.
|
| [ ] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care.
|
| [ ] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then.
|
| [ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it.
|
| [ ] your claims are lies.
|
| ----------------------------------------------------------------
| hackerlytest wrote:
| This is one technology that I will regret in my later life that
| it didn't come soon enough.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| What improvements did they make to the design to double the
| capacity? Nanotechnology? Better battery controls?
|
| The article is light on what the underlying tech is.
| jacquesm wrote:
| There might not _be_ any underlying tech.
| drewg123 wrote:
| I'll probably get down-voted, but I really think best way to
| improve BEV range for road trips is towing a diesel or gas
| powered electric generator. Your car becomes like a plugin
| hybrid, except you don't have to deal with the weight, mess and
| complexity of an ICE drivetrain on a daily basis.
|
| I can imagine an infrastructure where you rent one of these towed
| generators at a national chain when you depart, and drop it off
| at your destination. Similar to renting a U-Haul trailer.
|
| I have a Tesla with a 100Khw battery and ~290mi of range. The
| only time I need more than 100mi of range in a day is when I'm
| taking a trip, which is not a daily thing. If such trailers were
| rentable for a trip, BEVs could have much smaller and lighter
| batteries. Eg, my car could be substantially cheaper and lighter.
|
| I wish Tesla and other BEV cars would allow charging while
| driving.
| [deleted]
| dhc02 wrote:
| How about a trailer that contains a battery pack big enough to
| last your whole trip? Going 600 miles? 100kWh trailer. 1000
| miles? 250kWh trailer.
|
| Drop it off at uHaul when you get there, and pick up another
| one for the return trip.
|
| Of course, a 250kWh battery pack would be a lot more expensive
| than a diesel generator, but it would involve much less
| maintenance and wouldn't risk disastrous user error.
| jeppesen-io wrote:
| > If such trailers were rentable for a trip, BEVs could have
| much smaller and lighter batteries. Eg, my car could be
| substantially cheaper and lighter.
|
| hypothetically if this trailer solution existed, I still don't
| see people buying BEVs with smaller batteries. In general, most
| like the piece of mind of that range. Things happen - chargers
| break, power outage or you end up taking an unexpected trip or
| you spend some time at a friends home where you can't charge
|
| Given that the charger networks are growing at a decent clip
| and average charging speeds continue increase, not many people
| would want to bother going to U-Haul before and after a trip
| when you could just stop for a bit on the way, have some coffee
| and stretch your legs
|
| In short, it'd be such a niche product it would make little
| sense for auto manufactures in invest in it
|
| Rivan does have plans to let you add a battery pack for the bed
| of the truck. I hope that comes out and someday other brands do
| the same
| edent wrote:
| The BMW i3 REX is like that. It has a small petrol tank and ICE
| - which is used as a generator to power the traction battery.
|
| It's fine, as far as it goes. But most of the time you're
| dragging around extra weight and there's more mechanically to
| go wrong. You also might not be able to use some roads when
| you're emitting fumes.
|
| I don't understand why people are allergic to stopping at a
| rapid charger every 2 - 4 hours. Surely people need to stretch
| their legs or go to the loo?
| drewg123 wrote:
| Indeed.. I don't much care for solutions like the i3 rex.
| That's why I propose hauling around the charger only when
| needed.
|
| Its not so much stopping every 2-4 hours that's the problem.
| If it was a 3-5 minute stop, it would be fine, but its a
| 20-40 minute stop (assuming no contention for chargers). I've
| taken many 900+ mile (each direction) road trips in my car.
| Charging generally ads about 25% to the overall elapsed time.
| The chargers (at least in the I95 corridor in the USA) are
| often not equipped with 24hr restrooms.
| Crosseye_Jack wrote:
| > towing a diesel or gas powered electric generator. Your car
| becomes like a plugin hybrid
|
| The Hammerhead Eagle i-Thrust used this method. OK, it had the
| generator in the back so you were always carrying it about, but
| you know, baby steps and all that.
| motoboi wrote:
| Well, why not form road trains with a truck sized generator.
|
| You just schedule your route and an app shows you where to dock
| with the roadtrain.
|
| You can also carry your meat body into an actual train, but I
| think this is not the point here.
| drewg123 wrote:
| That's an interesting concept, but the towed generator model
| also allows you to go "off grid" to rural areas without fast
| charging. Such areas would be unlikely to be a common enough
| destination for a roadtrain..
| heymijo wrote:
| Double the capacity, no exotic materials, same size as a regular
| battery pack and not much more weight.
|
| Tested in cold Michigan weather instead of more idyllic
| conditions adds credibility.
|
| This doesn't sound like vaporware. I wonder what barriers there
| might be to scaling this up to mass production.
| dognotdog wrote:
| So far, so good -- let's see what the pricing will be like :)
| gruez wrote:
| >Double the capacity
|
| How can it be double the capacity when the wikipedia article
| for LFP battery says it has "lower than that of other common
| lithium ion battery types such as Nickel Manganese Cobalt (NMC)
| and Nickel Cobalt Aluminum (NCA)"? What type of battery does
| the stock tesla battery pack use?
| leoedin wrote:
| The article says the battery is split, with an LFP traction
| battery and another undefined battery to make up the "range
| extender" - presumably the bulk of the capacity. So I suspect
| they've got some sort of novel high capacity low discharge
| battery which keeps the regular LFP battery topped up, which
| then drives the car.
| oblio wrote:
| The general rule of thumb for such fundamental breakthroughs
| is that unfortunately for 99% of the really huge ones we'll
| only know they're revolutionary when the inventors get Nobel
| prizes 5-15 years after the fact.
|
| 99% of these articles are trash that never gets talked about
| again after 6 months.
|
| Maybe this one isn't, I can't tell. Time will tell, though.
| sschueller wrote:
| Maybe they use the space for effectively that packing all
| those 18650 into the pack.
| bserge wrote:
| cesaref wrote:
| We'll need to know how quickly it can be charged, how many
| charge cycles it takes, how it drains when not in use, etc etc,
| but you are right, it's a promising start, one to watch to see
| where it ends up.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Exactly. It sounds good, but can it do this at least two or
| three times a month for 10 years?
| abracadaniel wrote:
| Past a certain capacity, I wonder where the need for rapid
| charging begins to decrease. It might be an interesting trade
| off.
| pkulak wrote:
| 1C, which isn't fast charging, is already 200kW with this
| battery. So yeah, if you can make a battery with a massive
| capacity, but it can't fast charge, that could be a great
| tradeoff.
| MattRix wrote:
| In the article they state they charged it at 1C, which is 1
| hour from 0% to fully charged (200kw for a 200kwh battery).
| Who knows what the final numbers will be, but very promising
| if true.
| pkulak wrote:
| Yeah, but maybe that was one of the 100 the battery can
| take before it's at 70% life. There are just so many
| sliders with a battery, and they all effect each other.
| Getting them all up at once is the grail.
| Wistar wrote:
| Nice analogy, the "sliders."
| karamanolev wrote:
| 1C is usually not 1hr from empty to fully charged, because
| of CC-CV charging. Most Li based chemistries charge at 1C
| until a certain threshold (when the needed voltage for 1C
| charging reaches a maximum predetermined level, usually the
| target max cell level, e.g. 4.2V). After that, you charge
| at constant voltage until you reach full charge. If the
| battery is significantly oversized, i.e. it treats 85%
| charge as 100% for the user, then 1C might be possible from
| 0 to 100%, but usually it's not.
| gpapilion wrote:
| Just assume it takes twice as long to charge, since the
| circuit will be a factor if you double the capacity. Your 208
| 40amp circuit can only deliver so much power, and even dc
| fast chargers can only go as fast as they can consume power
| from there circuits.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| LFP charges pretty well since it is so much safer.
|
| The real mystery is the "non-LFP" battery cells they used.
| causality0 wrote:
| Personally I wonder if it's going to lower prices. It takes a
| long time to use enough gas to make up the $10K difference
| between a cheap gas sedan and a cheap electric sedan.
| Animats wrote:
| _" The production intent Gemini battery will be LFP (Lithium Iron
| Phosphate)"_
|
| But the demo battery is not. It's something else. What?
|
| Why do these people think they can get that kind of energy
| density from lithium iron phosphate when nobody else can? BYD,
| which really likes that technology, has pushed the energy density
| per unit volume up by about 2X, but the resulting battery is
| denser and thus heavier. No problem for fixed installations, but
| mediocre for vehicle range.
|
| There's a lot to be said for using lithium iron phosphate
| chemistry. The batteries don't blow up. They don't have the
| negative temperature coefficient which causes thermal runaway.
| They survive the "nail test". As electric cars go mainstream, and
| we have tens of millions of under-maintained cars on the road, we
| need all that.
|
| So, is this for real, or a demo only?
| jacquesm wrote:
| Yes, that was exactly what I thought. If they have twice the
| energy density that applies to much more than just vehicles.
|
| For now I'm chalking this up to a fake, let's see if they get
| their 'production sample' up and running. I would not put money
| on it.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > Why do these people think they can get that kind of energy
| density from lithium iron phosphate when nobody else can?
|
| Other people can, but not within the same safety, regulatory,
| longevity, cooling, weight, and manufacturability constraints.
|
| Which is why this demo is useless. It's easy to make one-off
| prototypes that accomplish something impressive as long as it
| only has to work a couple times, doesn't have to comply with
| safety regulations, and you have a massive budget to hand-build
| a couple of them. It's a different story entirely to try to
| ship it.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Even that isn't all that easy. The energy density constraints
| are fairly hard on these.
|
| I suspect that they are doing something a lot more directly
| nasty than that: not rechargeable, or, entirely different
| chemistry.
| V__ wrote:
| What I often see omitted and think is just as important long
| term: recyclability, cycle life and cost.
|
| These will impact the resale value and the lifetime costs of the
| car. The second-hand market will be crucial when it comes to
| widespread EV adoption.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| At the moment second-hand values seem to be holding up well,
| even for old Leafs. I suspect the problem is going to be the
| opposite, a lack of cheap cars for people with a tight budget.
| Right now I could buy a cheap car for PS1000 and although it
| might be a bit grotty it would get me to and from a job. That
| end of the market might disappear completely.
| V__ wrote:
| My hope is that public transport and bike infrastructure will
| catch up by that point. However, this might help in Europe,
| but I could see a real problem with the market vanishing in
| the U.S.
| oblio wrote:
| I appreciate your optimism, but if you look at a Youtube
| channel such as Not Just Bikes, you'll see that the scale
| of the problem is humongous. Most people in North America
| doesn't even realize that car infrastructure is a problem.
|
| First you need people to understand, then to accept the
| necessary changes and then you need the money and time to
| perform those changes.
|
| Even the Netherlands, the bike capital of the world, has a
| thriving car market, and North America is probably 30+
| years behind the Netherlands, in the best US biking
| locations.
| markvdb wrote:
| From what I've seen of the US, the lag is more like 50
| years and increasing because of "interesting" spatial
| planning.
|
| Look at Flanders (northern Belgium) and Germany for areas
| 30+ years behind the Netherlands.
| V__ wrote:
| That's sadly true. Not Just Bikes and their String Towns
| initiative is really eye-opening. A bit off-topic but I
| do wonder if covid and the current state of the economy
| will accelerate the debt crisis of small cities (
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfQUOHlAocY ) and force a
| downsizing to a more reasonable infrastructure.
| oblio wrote:
| I doubt it.
|
| After a while there's going to be a glut of vehicles, some
| will be known as lemons for whatever reason (sometimes it can
| be just looks) and their resale values will be low, various
| brands have already started producing cheap EVs (for example
| Dacia has an EV at around 20k in Europe, yes, it's crappy by
| HN standards but it's still an EV:
| https://en.media.dacia.com/news/all-new-dacia-spring-
| prices-...), etc.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| I wonder what the life of the battery is going to be in the
| Dacia and how much it will cost to replace. If in ten years
| it can only do 20 miles and a replacement is PS5K then that
| car is leaving the market. The ICE equivalent will be fine
| as a cheap run around.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| Why should the battery in the Dacia be so much worse than
| that in a Leaf or Tesla. Surely there can't be that much
| variation in battery quality within the major Western
| manufacturers (Dacia is a Renault subsidiary I think).
|
| My 2015 Model S 70D which has done over 160 thousand km
| seems to have pretty much the same range as it had when
| it was delivered (about 330 km) so if the decline is more
| or less linear from the start then the lifetime is
| actually rather longer than the manufacturers expected.
| Of course I suppose it is just possible that it will die
| on the day after the eight year warranty is over or
| perhaps drop to 70%! But how likely is that?
|
| And surely once there are a lot of old EVs on the road
| there will be a big market for replacement batteries and
| competition will drive the prices down.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| >Why should the battery in the Dacia be so much worse
| than that in a Leaf or Tesla.
|
| The Dacia doesn't have thermal battery management. The
| warranty is only 75K miles on the battery. It's already a
| small battery so there isn't much in reserve. The car is
| the cheapest EV on the market. Comparing it to one of the
| most expensive is ridiculous especially when we are
| talking about running cars on a tight budget.
| jcims wrote:
| To the extent this is legit it would be great news for electric
| aviation as well. Range would still be very limited vs. current
| aircraft but it starts to get more viable for short-haul
| applications.
| alamortsubite wrote:
| The irony to me is how we continue to discuss improvements in
| battery technology for EVs in terms of increased range, rather
| than decreased weight. I still have high hopes EVs will shift
| public consciousness about our environment and the way we live
| our lives, but true enthusiasm still seems to be for heavy
| vehicles people can spend more time in.
| wffurr wrote:
| These same type of batteries will make their way into a whole
| range of vehicles, from shorter-range runabouts to e-bikes and
| scooters.
| alamortsubite wrote:
| Right. I meant to imply that is the silver lining.
| enchiridion wrote:
| Given the large long roads in the US, there's always going to
| be a preference for large vehicles. Especially since there is a
| strong link between weight/size and safety.
| jMyles wrote:
| Be reminded that many of us are out here on bikes every day,
| and that our lives are at risk by the strange proclivities to
| engineer car-first roads and to drive oversized, heavy, fast
| vehicles on them (regardless of their means of propulsion).
|
| Many municipalities (I'll use my current location of St.
| Petersburg, FL as an example) are working to make the roads
| safer in all that ways that you (I assert, incorrectly)
| presume will never happen.
| amluto wrote:
| You mean how tall vehicles are much less stable in high wind
| and are much more likely to roll over? Having recently driven
| a large vehicle and a small vehicle on the highway, I'll take
| the small one any day as long as whatever I'm carrying
| physically fits.
|
| Not to mention that the operating cost of the small vehicle
| is about 1/10 that of the large one.
| alamortsubite wrote:
| > Given the large long roads in the US, there's always going
| to be a preference for large vehicles.
|
| Are you sure you don't have that relationship backwards?
| Similarly,
|
| > Especially since there is a strong link between weight/size
| and safety.
|
| Solely for the given vehicle's occupants, and to the
| detriment of everyone else around them.
| jmspring wrote:
| I have a sprinter van for business and a Tacoma for a
| normal driver. I drive more than some due to distance, not
| frequency. I also explore remote back/off roads.
|
| The sprinter is more susceptible to wind and driving
| surface variation.
| [deleted]
| jcims wrote:
| If they would build a car that had removable packs you could
| have the best of both worlds. Leave one at home charging and
| commute with the other.
| lm28469 wrote:
| It's all fun and games until you start looking up the
| environmental cost of mining the metals needed for batteries.
| Replacing all thermic cars with electric ones is already
| going to be a disaster, if we need two batteries for each car
| we're in for a treat
| neaanopri wrote:
| Yup, the means to solve climate change and electricity the US
| already exist, but people don't like them for stupid reasons.
|
| US has an irrational dislike for overhead wires, for both
| trains and trolley buses (ubiquitous enough they have Unicode)
|
| This isn't a problem of technology, and we can't "innovate our
| way out". Our dispersed suburban land use pattern is simply a
| mistake, and impossible to make efficient.
|
| Efficiency comes from:
|
| * Electrified freight rail for cargo transport into and between
| cities and buildings
|
| * High speed intercity electrified passenger rail
|
| * Frequent, automated subway and heavy rail in cities and their
| peripheries
|
| * Frequent, ubiquitous trolleybuses to bring people to rail
| stations
|
| * Dense apartment buildings with good noise cancellation which
| share heated walls, and use heat pumps for heating and cooling
|
| * Renewable electricity
|
| * Flights for trips >500km, taking passengers from several
| nearby cities who take high speed rail to the airport
|
| ALL OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES EXIST TODAY, we just need to be
| willing to adopt them. Because these technologies exist today,
| there is no sense in "waiting for technology to save us". We
| need to choose to adopt them, and abandon our inefficient
| policies now. These will always be the solutions, and we are
| just in denial that we need to adopt them.
| maxerickson wrote:
| What does efficient mean, objectively?
|
| Like is it efficient for me to live in a place I don't like?
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| CO2 emissions per mile traveled.
|
| > Like is it efficient for me to live in a place I don't
| like?
|
| Is it more efficient to accommodate hundreds of millions of
| climate refugees rather than simply internalize the costs
| of climate change?
| maxerickson wrote:
| I doubt we need to move to trolley based cities to get to
| low emissions.
| analyte123 wrote:
| Completely overhauling the entire built environment, housing
| stock, supply chain, energy flows, and air transportation
| network of the world's 3rd largest country is not matter of
| "just" choosing or "just" anything.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > US has an irrational dislike for overhead wires, for both
| trains and trolley buses
|
| but oddly, not for neighborhood electrical delivery.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| I have what I believe to be a rational dislike for overhead
| wires for neighborhood electrical delivery: They're
| unreliable (multiple outages every winter because
| snowstorms take out trees), unsafe when they're knocked
| down but still live, expensive in the long run due to pole
| replacement and tree maintenance, ugly, and all it takes is
| a slight increase in capital expenses for installation to
| replace them with underground utilities. I don't think I'm
| alone in this.
| beerandt wrote:
| >expensive in the long run due to pole replacement and
| tree maintenance,
|
| Not compared to burial. The cost is up front (not
| amortized) and is a big enough multiplier that it won't
| overcome maintenance costs, especially when including
| buried repair/maintenance costs, which are significantly
| higher than overhead, even taking into account the lower
| frequency. (Tree roots, dug-up lines, cathodic decay and
| leaking conduits, necessary relocations, etc, all
| happen.)
|
| There's nothing preventing the adoption of buried
| electrical today except the customer's willingness to pay
| for it.
|
| New neighborhoods and houses that want it, pay for it.
| Simple as that. And nothing prevents replacing existing
| overhead except it becomes a 100% unnecessary cost, once
| overhead has already been installed.
|
| >...and all it takes is a slight increase in capital
| expenses for installation to replace them with
| underground
|
| >slight
|
| 4-10x upfront install cost. Higher in urban environments.
| Not slight.
|
| If it paid for itself as you claim, why are companies
| almost universally making an irrationally expensive
| decision?
| cgriswald wrote:
| To compare fairly, you'd also have to take into account
| relative fire risk and difference in frequency of
| outages.
|
| > If it paid for itself as you claim, why are companies
| almost universally making an irrationally expensive
| decision?
|
| I don't think he made such a claim. There's an
| implication that it's 'worth it', but not that it's
| necessarily less expensive to implement.
|
| Companies aren't making irrational decisions. They just
| haven't historically been paying for the externalities.
| oblio wrote:
| You're not alone. The EU generally has underground wires
| and where it doesn't yet have them it's actively planning
| to move them there.
| alamortsubite wrote:
| Not at all, but it's totally beside the parent's point,
| which is the hypocrisy of scapegoating overhead lines to
| restrict public transportation options, while
| simultaneously letting them proliferate unchallenged for
| residential electric delivery.
| vasco wrote:
| Not trying to be too dismissive, but americans like big
| houses, and I'm not sure how you can get around that.
| alamortsubite wrote:
| A gas expands to fill its container.
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| Americans would like mansions too if they were massively
| subsidized to the point of affordability.
|
| If you stopped subsidising the suburbs and suburbanites
| were forced to pay the 5x higher property tax rates it
| takes to maintain infrastructure, people's preferences
| would change.
| kube-system wrote:
| The people who currently live there have chosen where
| they live based on their budget. They likely cannot
| afford the 5x in taxes, so the practical result is that
| infrastructure would be left to crumble. This is what is
| currently happening with a lot of post-war infrastructure
| in the US right now.
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| No, the practical result in the US is a huge Federal
| bailout every few decades, labelled "Infrastructure."
|
| Not to mention that they are subsidised within their own
| municipalities by commercial property and what little
| climate friendly housing is not NIMBY'd, typically by
| loud car sewers.
| whiddershins wrote:
| How about people want to live how they want to live and we
| should innovate to accommodate that not restructure society?
| wyre wrote:
| Because climate change is quickly killing our planet as we
| know it.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| We don't have that now (and never have). There are always
| constraints on what we can do.
| lm28469 wrote:
| We have to stop with this toddler mentality. Wanting
| something isn't nearly enough to make it a sustainable
| reality.
| atq2119 wrote:
| Written on the website whose reason for existence is
| innovations that restructure society.
| maccam94 wrote:
| Suburbs were not created out of a natural desire people
| had. There was a combination of federal financial
| incentives and racist motives in the 50s that created them,
| and they are far less efficient than cities by basically
| every metric.
|
| Not Just Bikes series on Strong Towns: https://youtube.com/
| playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN...
|
| https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-federal-
| governmen...
| kube-system wrote:
| There are reasons people like having a yard, more space,
| less noise, and an automobile, other than racism.
| jeromegv wrote:
| Yes. Many people. Issue is lack of alternative and how
| the whole society is built to cater to this lifestyle so
| many people are forced into it if they want anything more
| than a shoebox 1 bedroom. That's why understanding why
| this option became the only choice is interesting to
| study.
| freshpots wrote:
| Tragedy of the Commons.
| oblio wrote:
| Innovation is still finite per unit of time. People's wants
| are infinite.
|
| Everyone wants to live in a sprawling castle far away from
| pesky neighbors, they want to have an entire forest as a
| backyard and at the same time they want to have access to
| the same urban facilities as those in Manhattan.
|
| There's no amount of innovation we could muster at least
| the next 2 decades to make that a financially feasible
| reality.
| visarga wrote:
| > Innovation is still finite per unit of time. People's
| wants are infinite.
|
| That's what I say to people afraid AI will steal their
| jobs. No way we run out of jobs before we run out of
| desires. We can always imagine and want more, and it's so
| easy to become entitled to what you already have and
| think nothing of it.
| oblio wrote:
| People are not necessarily afraid of AIs on their own
| (though they are afraid of them, too, at least a bit, see
| Skynet).
|
| I think the bigger fear is that of AI ownership. In a
| "winner takes all world" where people have a hard time
| sharing effectively, if there's no need for human labor
| for many fields and AI owners can just buy lawmakers,
| some people can just become infinitely powerful. Creating
| a permanent underclass of those who missed their chance.
|
| See what's happening with coal mining, for example.
| People keep talking about reconversions but frequently
| what happens with these people is... Nothing. Their kids
| are the ones that move away or work in new fields, but
| most adults over 40 or 50 don't radically change their
| field of work en masse, or if they do, it's towards even
| crappier jobs.
| visarga wrote:
| Use it or lose it - this new technology will also be
| available in open source, easy to use format for everyone
| to empower their lives, but those who refuse to partake
| will be at a disadvantage.
|
| It used to be that you needed a large dataset and a
| custom architecture for each individual task. Now you can
| use a general model and a few examples, it will catch on
| much faster on what you want it to do. Sometimes it's
| just as simple as telling it in free language what the
| task is.
|
| What took whole departments multiple years to achieve
| will become something regular people could do. We learned
| to live with internet and cell phones, we can learn to
| program AI that is by design especially easy to program.
|
| For example, how easy is it to make an image classifier
| with CLIP. https://openai.com/blog/clip/
| gen220 wrote:
| Question for the more EV knowledgeable people out there.
|
| Is there anybody pursuing the idea of charging stations where one
| swaps your EV's battery for a fully charged one, and pays a fee
| proportional to how expensive it was to charge that battery at
| the local electricity rate?
|
| Specifically, what are the barriers? Legal? Technical? Patent-
| related? Capital? Or is it not worth investing in this vision,
| because there's reason to believe we'll reach ubiquitous
| availability of charge stations with <5 minute charge times for a
| 350 mile range (i.e. equivalent to a full tank fill-up at a gas
| station) in the not distant future?
|
| To understand the use case better, we own a car and only use it
| to "get away" (i.e. 200-600 miles over the course of a day into
| somewhat remote locales). We'd love to have an EV, but the idea
| of pausing to take a long charging break in the middle of an
| already long drive is very unappealing.
| iamben wrote:
| Similarly, EVs feel incredibly impractical for cramped city
| life. If you're living in a small London flat with no garage,
| parking etc. (hey!), the whole where and how are you going to
| keep something charged is very real. I'm completely unsure how
| that's meant to be solved in a real and practical long term
| way.
| TheDudeMan wrote:
| Streetside charging stations? They exist.
| iamben wrote:
| You're right. I've just had a google and looked on
| https://www.zap-map.com/ - there's not _enough_ though.
|
| But I stand by my original point - it's hard enough to find
| somewhere to park, never mind _the_ parking spot next to
| the charger.
| leoedin wrote:
| Long term this is probably the solution. Sort term though -
| the ratio of cars to street side charging is about 50 to 1
| right now. Even if we put a charging socket in every
| existing lamppost we'd still only be at about 10:1. We
| basically need to dig up the streets of entire cities and
| lay additional high voltage cables and a charging point at
| every parking space. There doesn't seem to be any desire to
| do that right now.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| I don't know about in London, but here in Canada a lot of
| businesses like grocery stores and movie theatres are
| realizing that charging stations are great for business.
|
| If you have a car in the city, you probably only need to
| charge once a week depending on usage, is it really that
| outlandish to think that in an entire week you won't take
| your car somewhere with a charger nearby? Besides that, you
| can slow charge off mains voltage using an extension cord in
| many cars.
|
| We have wired every room in every building in every city
| across most of the globe to have electricity. I really don't
| think it's much of a stretch to run some extra wires to the
| curb as ecar adoption rises. The current system of moving
| billions of gallons of highly explosive liquids to custom
| built dispensing facilities placed every few kms on valuable
| real estate is far less practical when you think about it.
| iamben wrote:
| > I really don't think it's much of a stretch to run some
| extra wires to the curb as ecar adoption rises.
|
| My flat is about ~50m from the road and 3 floors up. I
| absolutely get what you're saying, but charging from a
| cable inside the building isn't practical for anyone in
| this block (or many of the blocks nearby).
|
| Could agree more with regards to the explosive liquids -
| but you can be in and out of a petrol station in ~5
| minutes. I may only need to charge once a week, but it
| still requires my car to be somewhere with a charging point
| for an hour (or whatever) a week.
|
| FWIW, I don't have an answer. I just don't think we're
| there (or close) yet. I suspect EV adoption will start
| outsides the cities and spread in.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| The running the cable out to the curb was more meant as a
| municipal or collective effort. I don't think that
| running a cord from your window to your car is practical.
| More that the infrastructure to put a few charging
| stations on every block is already existent in every
| first world town and city.
|
| A government will instantly approve of a plan to install
| dozens of parking meters per block at a cost of thousands
| and thousands, and then employ an entire department to
| wander the city and enforce the rules. It really can't be
| that much harder to make it so that some of those meters
| also work as a charging station.
|
| I imagine as battery and charging tech progresses, the
| difference between getting petrol and charging a car will
| narrow to the point that it really doesn't matter. e.g.
| For the better part of a decade Tesla had been able to
| charge to 80% in ~30 min. That's more than enough for the
| average city dweller to get their shopping done. This is
| one area where I think techno-optimism is extremely
| warranted.
| iamben wrote:
| Yeah, I don't think we're disagreeing which each other.
|
| I'd assume eventually it will work exactly like you
| suggest - I just think we're very far from it right now.
| I see it very much chicken and egg - trying to encourage
| your local council to put charging points every 3 or 4
| spaces on every street is going to be next to impossible
| when there's just not enough EVs; too much
| hassle/uncertainty to own an EV in the middle of a city
| if you have to park it on the street (and your charge
| options are super limited).
|
| That said, I'm sure it'll change and change will come
| quicker as more people in the suburbs (with the space to
| charge at home) buy.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| I heard of an Israeli startup working on that, not sure what
| happened with it. More moving parts around delicate electronics
| probably make for a challenging combination, I'm guessing the
| biggest challenges are technical.
| wolf550e wrote:
| Defunct 2013
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place_(company)
| martro wrote:
| There is alliance of big motorcycle producers (Honda, KTM,
| Piaggio, and Yamaha) to standardise batteries, probably aimed
| to be used in scooters:
|
| https://www.cycleworld.com/story/motorcycle-news/swappable-e...
|
| Edit: added brands
| gregmac wrote:
| One of the issues is the battery is the heaviest part of the
| car, and tend to be pretty large. Most EVs today are basically
| built around the battery, using it as a foundation that
| everything else attaches to.
|
| Making it replaceable means sacrificing range, because the
| battery must be smaller and there's more weight for a frame to
| hold the battery pack(s).
|
| This is in addition to the more practical problems such as
| standardizing packs, network of swap stations, ownership of the
| batteries. If the packs are big you need a machine at every
| station (which can break), but if they're small enough for a
| driver to swap you sacrifice even more range and increase other
| potential problems like theft.
| aaronblohowiak wrote:
| Driving 200 miles is doable today. 600, I _definitely_ need to
| stop, stretch legs and eat. Sfbay to az and and I stopped more
| frequently than "required" just to get a break from the road.
| I'm middle aged though so ymmv
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| When I was in college, and much more willing to suffer, it
| was 335 miles from home to school, and took 5.5 hours
| driving. I could do that without stopping, though normally
| would stop at least once for snacks/bathroom. Now I'm more
| likely to stop two or three times on a trip that long.
|
| Even now on a mountain west traffic-free interstate I don't
| really count on going more than 500 miles in a day. And that
| includes a meal break.
|
| Both of these use cases sound like they would be very
| minimally disrupted by planning my stops around a charging
| break.
|
| I think that range anxiety is largely overblown for a huge
| majority of use cases.
| djaychela wrote:
| This is already a thing. I don't know how widespread it is, but
| take a look at this video:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTsrDpsYHrw
| visarga wrote:
| Battery swap is sweet but mobile charging stations coming on
| demand using a phone app and charging your car as it is
| parked on the street - that's a new and interesting idea for
| me. You could call one overnight and have your car ready next
| day, even in a place without fixed charging stations.
| cronix wrote:
| Nio is doing it in China. Here's the process:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvMr42VnFyo
| a9dhalaan wrote:
| The battery is probably the singular most expensive component
| in an EV Vehicle. And batteries degrade with time and are in
| different states. If someone comes in with a batter that's only
| half working, then swaps it for a fully working one? or One
| that comes to the station with a fully working one and swaps it
| for a half working one?
|
| Batteries would need to be a communal resource - with them
| being expensive i don't see it happening. Batteries need to be
| cheap for companies and people to take the risk of swapping
| their battery with a random one.
| lostdog wrote:
| Obviously we should just swap the entire car. It would be
| like with horses, where you could swap for a fresh one to
| speed up a long ride.
| ajuc wrote:
| > companies and people to take the risk of swapping their
| battery with a random one.
|
| What if you don't own the batteries, just buy the car without
| a battery and sign a contract for X years and $Y that you
| will get the battery replaced on each station?
|
| > with them being expensive i don't see it happening
|
| People rent cars that are more expansive than batteries.
| otterley wrote:
| Tesla and Elon Musk presented a demo of just that over 8 (!)
| years ago and then ... nothing.
|
| https://youtu.be/H5V0vL3nnHY
| gen220 wrote:
| I've tried thinking about this from Tesla and the auto
| manufacturer's point of view.
|
| I think, while battery technology is rapidly evolving, the
| incentives of EV manufacturers is not to create "open
| interfaces", but instead to integrate the battery into the
| hardware as much as possible. This gets better performance
| but also creates lock in.
|
| In short, my theory is that until there's a "battery company"
| ecosystem that sells up to auto manufacturers, this dream of
| swap stations will not materialize. Barring some regulation,
| I guess.
| fuzzy2 wrote:
| It's available in China today. I think I read somewhere the
| Chinese government will also enforce interoperability or
| something like that.
|
| There was an Israeli company in the past, Better Place. It
| failed because car makers didn't participate. But that was
| almost 10 years ago, so EV adoption was way lower.
| sfjailbird wrote:
| > What mileage would be enough for these naysayers?
|
| I live in the city. There are a fair amount of chargers, but not
| enough (and probably never will be). So 'enough', for me, is when
| it can compete with a regular ICE car: Charge it for about 5-10
| minutes, and then not have to worry about it again for at least a
| couple of weeks. We're almost there, but not quite.
| pokot0 wrote:
| In a usual commute scenario being able to charge you car like
| your phone saves you the trip and the time to refuel every week
| (if you add the time to actually get to a gas station is way
| more than 5-10m).
|
| This is why I will switch to EV at some point.
| [deleted]
| nicbou wrote:
| If you have the charger at hand. This isn't the case for us
| street-parking city dwellers, to say nothing of travellers.
| [deleted]
| turtlebits wrote:
| If you don't have no way to charge an EV on your own, I
| would recommend against purchasing one.
|
| Fast charging stations are unreliable and expensive, and
| with all the new EVs out there, harder to find open spots
| in general.
| zbrozek wrote:
| I have an EV, but only because I can charge it away from
| home. My office has free charging, which is great.
| d12bb wrote:
| > I live in the city
|
| Then you probably don't need a car, unless you have special
| needs or your city is some car-centric shithole (like, sadly,
| most cities outside the Netherlands are to a point, even in
| Europe, which often gets praise from US bike/public transport
| advocates).
| steviescene wrote:
| "Then you probably don't need a car... unless you live in a
| shithole aka pretty much anywhere outside the Netherlands"
|
| lol
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "Charge it for about 5-10 minutes, and then not have to worry
| about it again for at least a couple of weeks."
|
| So you would rather have engineers solve the impossible, and
| then have 2,000,000 cars carry around additional 300kg of
| batteries?
|
| How about getting city officials and landlord to do their
| actual job they are getting paid for?
|
| And don't go 'oh no i have curbside parking' on. Me - you have
| millioms of lampposts in every city, don't you? They are
| already connected to power, is it too much to ask for all of
| them to be equiped with sockets?
| jayd16 wrote:
| Honestly a 15-20 minute charge isn't so bad if you can find a
| coffee spot by a charger. Same with just eating a long charge
| here and there. Its not bad at all.
|
| I understand the concern but as an owner its been less
| stressful than I feared it could be.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Grocery stores are great for that. Most people will a) be
| there with their car and b) spend at least 20 min in there
| anyways.
|
| Even better though is the office parking lot.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| I feel that charging an electric vehicle will always be a sore
| point. Because it takes so darn long. No amount of range
| improvement makes it less painful to recharge. There will always
| be complaints.
| hansel_der wrote:
| unless replaceable batteries get standardized
| gwbas1c wrote:
| Just "splash and dash." Usually I just plug my Tesla into a
| supercharger, go to the bathroom, and then I have enough charge
| to make it where I'm going.
| tppiotrowski wrote:
| I think when the amount of time you can drive on a battery
| equals the amount of time humans can stay awake, we'll have
| reached a good equilibrium.
| amelius wrote:
| With self-driving cars, you don't need to stay awake.
| [deleted]
| Game_Ender wrote:
| Production though is 4 years away in 2026. What capacity will
| stock manufacturer and Tesla packs be at then? Especially since
| Tesla is not sitting still and has new designs also under
| development.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Not bad, especially for LFP. Much lower fire risk as well.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| "range extender cells" == shorter recharge lifetime cells that
| are only supposed to be used in 1% of trips (long ones). I wonder
| if these are just experimental low-cycle cobalt/nickel or some
| other battery that normally isn't up to the cycle endurance of a
| consumer car.
|
| LFP for an everyday usage (200 miles in a day), which are high-
| endurance, good temperature range, safer, etc.
|
| I think this mixed mode is an excellent example of how "good
| enough"-density (200 wh/kg) LFP (and possibly even cheaper
| sodium) will be utilized.
|
| All these different cell chemistries can each be combined in
| heterogeneous packs for different use cases. So even if a cell
| can't do 1000 cycles, it might be usable for the rare trips. Or
| maybe make that high-density module more replaceable, and the
| long-endurance LFP/Sodium does Cell-to-Pack and that type of
| stuff.
|
| I think a typical consumer car in a few years will use a sodium
| or LFP for about 2/3 the cells (by weight/space) and 200 miles of
| range, and another higher density SSB or modern cobalt/nickel
| high-density cell for another 200 miles of range.
|
| So the question is, what was the mix in this car? That's the big
| question.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-29 23:01 UTC)