[HN Gopher] Samsung to Mass-Produce Solid-State Batteries for 'S...
___________________________________________________________________
Samsung to Mass-Produce Solid-State Batteries for 'Super Premium'
EVs
Author : achow
Score : 122 points
Date : 2024-08-11 11:35 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.pcmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.pcmag.com)
| csours wrote:
| > 600Mi/1000KM range, 9min charging
|
| We're still doing this? Capacity by weight and volume, and
| efficiency per distance are much more meaningful. Charging is
| mostly a function of input voltage.
| LtdJorge wrote:
| Yeah, there's also the: charging everytime in the 9m mode, how
| long does it last? Or, how much energy do you have to put in?
| Because the charging efficiency and lifespan change when the
| input voltage changes.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| The people with the money to buy these EVs probably don't
| care as much. They own or lease them for 2 or 3 years then
| refresh.
| Loic wrote:
| In Germany where more than 70% of the new vehicles are
| bought/leased by companies over 24/36 months, you are
| totally right. They do not care as longevity of the battery
| is priced in the lease.
| Someone wrote:
| I don't follow that logic. If you're in charge of car
| lease contracts at a company, wouldn't the lease price be
| one of the major factors in deciding whether an offer is
| good/in whether your boss is happy about you?
|
| On the contrary, I would think individual leasers would
| be more likely to make the impulse choice of "greater
| range, and 'only' costs $X a month more" than companies,
| who often lease dozens or more cars.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| The price would be a major factor. The state in which the
| battery will be in at the end of those 3 years would be a
| complete non-factor (because at that point it's not your
| problem anymore). So someone who leases like this won't
| need to think/worry about battery longevity, whereas
| someone buying will be hesitant to buy a vehicle unless
| they are reasonably sure that the battery will last a
| long time.
|
| Of course, battery degradation would likely have _some_
| influence on the lease price, but I doubt it will be a
| major factor.
| Someone wrote:
| > Of course, battery degradation would likely have some
| influence on the lease price, but I doubt it will be a
| major factor.
|
| I disagree. Battery longevity hugely affects how much
| money the lease company can get when they sell the car
| after X years, so in a world of perfect information, it
| should have a large influence on lease price.
|
| In the real world, the lease company will have to gamble
| a bit. Many will choose to spread the risk by buying a
| spread of different cars, but they'll still calculate
| expected sale price and adjust the lease price
| accordingly.
| dotancohen wrote:
| My EV has been the cheapest vehicle to own that I've ever
| had. 90,000 KM and I've never changed the oil, or an oil
| filter, or had a catalytic converter stolen, or had wet
| plug wires lead to a tow, or had a coil go bad, or failed
| emissions testing, or leaked transmission fluid. And during
| the time that I've owned it, I've never had to drive into a
| shady gas station at night. And even per-kilometer, I'm
| paying about 1/8 what I was paying with gasoline.
|
| That said, I did replace the tires at 70,000. And I've
| filled the washer fluid dozens of times. So it's not
| completely maintenance-free ))
| rat9988 wrote:
| What car do you own, if you don't mind?
| dotancohen wrote:
| Tesla Model 3 Long Range
| irdc wrote:
| Not every kind of battery chemistry tolerates high-speed
| charging (in fact, I'd say that most don't) Knowing that this
| particular battery chemistry is not limited in that sense is
| very relevant to end users, who are of course the ones who have
| to wait for their car to be charged.
| bbarnett wrote:
| $5 says that these two figures were combined accidentally.
|
| For example, a full charge in 9m from 0? That's 10x faster at
| least, than 100% charge with current tech. Adding 3x the
| range would be an additional leap.
|
| Likely, someone was asked "how fast does it charge to 80%,
| like current batteries which take 15 tp 20 minutes?"...
| "9m!", and later "how much more range wouldnot have" and
| someone said a simple "double per weight".
|
| Still, these solid states may not need battery heaters in the
| cold. That's huge on its own.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| EV batteries all weight in the 400-500kg range, and the volume
| is similar for all cars (size of the underfloor). Given that
| these are pretty much fixed variables, the range figure is a
| good measure to report on. For density it means getting close
| to 500Wh/kg, but that is not something most consumers can
| understand.
|
| Efficiency is a function of the car design and drivetrain, how
| would that apply to the battery itself?
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Other sources are quoting 500Wh/kg, so roughly double currently
| available EVs. I haven't seen anything on volumetric density.
| dangus wrote:
| They are just putting it into the perspective of the layperson
| by telling them what will actually be possible with the
| technology in a passenger vehicle. It's not a big deal.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| I think for the average human, this is exactly the kind of
| numbers they want to hear.
|
| I don't care about the volume of my battery one bit, I care
| about how the car looks (and performs).
|
| This pair of numbers is relevant, because it suggests that you
| can do an extended road trip with the car, start early in the
| morning, take a brief break that you'll need anyways at a
| sufficiently fast fast charger, or a longer lunch break at a
| place that offers "normal" fast charging, and be good to drive
| for the rest of the day. Or if you drive conservatively,
| possibly make an "all day" long trip (7-8 hours of driving)
| without needing to charge on the way at all.
|
| Also, 9 minutes puts it into the "stop for refueling" rather
| than "extended break" territory, eliminating one of the major
| issues people worry about when considering whether to get an EV
| or not.
| dotancohen wrote:
| > Samsung's latest solid-state battery technology will power up
| premium EVs first, giving them up to 621 miles of range.
|
| Whenever I see text like this, my opinion of the editors, and
| thus the entire publication, immediately plummets. Did they think
| that 1000 KM was an accurate figure to be converted literally to
| three significant digits? Do they even understand the field that
| they are covering? Was it a machine conversion? What else should
| I not trust in their publication?
| unglaublich wrote:
| What's the alternative? Taking the liberty to round it up or
| down? Both could lead them to trouble. The best would be to
| mention the stated number with conversion in parenthesis.
| acdha wrote:
| I think the latter: 1,000km (621mi) makes it immediately
| understandable that it's not 3 digits of precision.
| p51-remorse wrote:
| "1,000km (about 600-700 miles)" would feel better.
| Daneel_ wrote:
| "Several hundred miles" perhaps?
| p51-remorse wrote:
| Nah, that brings the 200-400mi range to my mind, far
| outside of the 750-1250km range that I intuit is implied
| by single-significant-digit "1000km" in this context.
| mppm wrote:
| This is your main complaint about this totally uninformative
| vaporware "announcement"?
| GeoAtreides wrote:
| why are you saying is vaporware?
|
| From the article: "We supplied samples to customers from the
| end of last year to the beginning of this year and are
| receiving positive feedback,"
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _Do they even understand the field that they are covering?_
|
| They are doing a programmatic conversion of 1000km to miles,
| because most Americans don't have a clue about the metric
| system. What's the problem?
|
| > _What else should I not trust in their publication?_
|
| I'd love to hear about what you think is "untrustworthy" about
| converting from kilometres to miles so the audience can
| visualize the distance. 1000 km = 621 miles, this is a fact.
| kccqzy wrote:
| The problem is that the editor (and you probably) didn't
| understand the idea of significant figures.
| jakewins wrote:
| Respectfully the argument you're responding to is clearly
| just saying: the level of outrage feigned here over
| translating the mileage specs and not rounding is _out of
| proportion_.
|
| Continuing the thread with rude pedantry is not adding
| anything useful to the conversation.
| Larrikin wrote:
| I think you don't understand significant figures if you
| think they matter in a press announcement.
| jameshart wrote:
| There is a huge difference between the claim of 'this
| battery technology will allow a range of up to about 600
| miles' and 'this battery technology will allow a range of
| up to 621 miles'
|
| The former invites you to imagine that the actual Mileage
| will vary depending on other factors in the car design.
| The latter suggests some inherent theoretical limit
| caused by this technology that makes 621 miles into an
| absolute best case range.
|
| Which of these two do you think the original author of
| the claim was trying to communicate?
| imtringued wrote:
| Ok it has a range of six hectomiles. Happy?
| Swizec wrote:
| > I'd love to hear about what you think is "untrustworthy"
| about converting from kilometres to miles so the audience can
| visualize the distance. 1000 km = 621 miles, this is a fact.
|
| 1000km is not an exact figure. It's rounded, probably up.
| Somewhere between 900km and 1100km. Likely closer to 999km
| than 1099 because they'd want to publish the biggest number
| they can reasonably claim. So you can assume the real range
| is between 900km and 999km.
|
| The correct translation to miles would be "600mi". Because
| 621 invents precision that wasn't there in the original
| figure.
| FredPret wrote:
| The same happens in the US->rest of world direction when
| you read about "approximately 16km" or "approximately
| 2.54cm".
| davoneus wrote:
| What petty BS; it's a rounding error of a press release! If
| you want numerical precision, go read American Mathematical
| Society papers.
| badpun wrote:
| It's not a rounding error.
| arghwhat wrote:
| Converting 1000 km to 600 miles is _always_ wrong. Assuming
| that 1000km is not an exact figure solely because its least
| significant digits are zero is also wrong, and making up a
| +-10% margin is _very_ wrong.
|
| The correct thing to do would be to write the conversion as
| "1000 km (~621 miles)", so that the original value is not
| lost.
| solardev wrote:
| I'd be less concerned about sig figs and more about real-world
| battery chemistry, load limits, charging times, risk of fire,
| etc.
|
| Even if they rounded it to 600 mi, that's still huge. It's less
| about the precision, since batteries are inherently imprecise,
| and more about whether this can live up to the marketing...
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| I would rather have a battery pack that's half the size and
| half the price because 300 miles is enough for most of my
| work. Really I would be fine with 100 miles in about 45-50
| weeks/year.
| solardev wrote:
| I haven't looked in a while, but I think there are already
| several with ~200 mi of range (Leaf, Kona, etc.) and a few
| with ~300 (Equinox, Ioniq, etc.). Are those not enough?
|
| They don't really seem that much more expensive than
| comparable gas cars, either.
| yegle wrote:
| Ha that reminds me of the COVID social distance rule of 2
| meters. That translated to 6ft in US.
| m348e912 wrote:
| I think it was the other way around. Officials at the CDC
| determined that 6ft would be a good guideline for social
| distancing and it translated to 2m for countries that more
| widely used the metric system.
|
| Dr Fauci talks about this point at the 1:50 mark
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EETzkOjpyg
| cperciva wrote:
| In Canada it was translated into "one hockey stick".
| kevinventullo wrote:
| Do EV range estimates ever have three significant figures? My
| understanding is that true range depends heavily on things like
| external temperature, what speed one is driving, whether it's
| stop-and-go, the ground one is driving on, ...
| robotnikman wrote:
| 621 is the E number for Monosodium glutamate, I wonder if they
| wanted to make a reference to that.
| torginus wrote:
| I just don't get why don't they put it in consumer electronics
| first. You need big volume for supplying EVs, and having a
| $1000/kWh pricetag would be prohibitive for even premium EVs as
| it would cost $100k for a 100kWh battery alone, but would be
| totally OK for an $1000 laptop, as it would cost $100 for a 100Wh
| battery.
| maximus-decimus wrote:
| Since they care more about reducing laptop thickness by 1mm
| that adding battery, I just don't see laptop manufacturers be
| interested in this. Even if they did, they would just make the
| laptops even thinner instead of increasing capacity. Apple just
| won't be satisfied until you can use your ipad as a kitchen
| knife.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| Apple did just increase the thickness of the MBP with the
| redesign a couple of years ago.
| maximus-decimus wrote:
| Rumors are the next will be the thinnest ever though : http
| s://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1di6xrg/mark_gurm...
| solardev wrote:
| They better leave my HDMI and USB-C ports alone!
| datavirtue wrote:
| Why do you need those "old" boomer ports?
| solardev wrote:
| The HDMI-VGA adapter connected to my 27" Trinitron lets
| me see the "print" button. The USB-parallel adapter sends
| it to the dot-matrix. It's how I print all my "GET OFF MY
| FACEBOOK" signs.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| To be either really boomer or really hipster, you should
| send it to a split flap display.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| The dongle generation has been officially subsumed by
| apple propaganda.
|
| That's right, the youth not caring About HDMI means they
| officially cannot think for themselves.
|
| Also cut your hair!
| maximus-decimus wrote:
| I'm refusing to upgrade my 6 years old phone because all
| the good phones I would want don't have headphone jacks
| :(
|
| Just think about it, the latest Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6
| is half an inch thick and they'll still complain they
| don't have the room for a headphone jack. Absolutely
| infuriating.
| bugbuddy wrote:
| And here I was hoping they would fix the loose HDMI port
| problem.
|
| By the way, is your MacBook Pro HDMI port really loose
| and easily disconnected with any small movement or bump?
| It has been very frustrating.Some people are saying all
| the MacBook HDMI ports are like this.
| pyth0 wrote:
| Yes I also run into this! I thought it was just a shoddy
| HDMI cable but this is the first I'm hearing that it's a
| wider issue. Fortunately macOS handles the
| disconnect/connect quickly but it drives me crazy some
| days trying to run my secondary monitor off it.
| bugbuddy wrote:
| I think someone should start a class action lawsuit to
| demand Apple to recall and fix all of them.
| solardev wrote:
| I haven't noticed any issues on my M2 MacBook Pro yet,
| but I've only used that port maybe a total of a dozen
| times since I've gotten it. Probably an eventuality :(
| mulderc wrote:
| I haven't seen this and many people in my office have one
| and have not heard anything about this.
| kccqzy wrote:
| Which is why I'm selling my MBP for a MBA. I already have a
| Linux desktop for powerful computing; my on-the-go
| computing solution should prioritize lightness and
| portability.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| Have fun using a single screen
| nozzlegear wrote:
| The latest MacBook Air can use two external screens.
| Toutouxc wrote:
| I really wish the first two Apple Silicon Airs didn't
| have this weird limit. Not because I need to connect two
| displays to mine -- almost no one actually does. But even
| though since the M1 it's been an amazing, futuristic,
| freakishly thin, light, and glorious powerhouse of a
| laptop, someone always has to bring up this stupid crap
| whenever it's being discussed.
| Aperocky wrote:
| Got my M1 in 2020 when it first launched and was drawn by
| the 15 inch air due to the screen real estate, but have
| literally no other reason to replace it. Couldn't say the
| same for any other 4 years old laptop.
| dagmx wrote:
| They just said they prioritize portability and your
| retort is over the number of non-portable external
| monitors that can be hooked up, and an outdated number at
| that?
| ksec wrote:
| Precisely because they want to reduce thickness they will
| need higher battery density and use a thinner battery with
| the same battery life. Not to mention the battery will last
| much longer than current battery.
| maximus-decimus wrote:
| Will they spend the money on this kind of tech for the
| thinness though?
| kmeisthax wrote:
| In the case of the iPad, the thinness (and corresponding
| weight reduction) makes it more usable as a tablet,
| especially with the 13" model. It also fixed - or at least,
| mitigated - a few problems with the keyboard attachment.
|
| Granted, that attachment shouldn't exist, but that's a
| different problem whose root cause is "Apple expected the
| iPad to replace the Mac like the Mac replaced the Apple ][".
| cogman10 wrote:
| My best guess is that these cells might be more bulky than can
| be put into a laptop.
|
| It could also be a planned obsolescence thing.
| ksec wrote:
| I dont understand it either and wish if those how knew, while
| may not have the time to explain it but just give me some
| pointers or direction.
|
| I would have thought, as shown by Chinese EV maker it may be
| better to have bulky larger cheap battery in an EV intended for
| long range driving, than an expensive long range EV because of
| solid sate.
|
| On the other hand Solid State Battery on Smartphone could have
| been a major marketing point for many consumer.
| akmarinov wrote:
| 100 kWh batteries are charged with 350kW chargers for 9
| minutes.
|
| Do people have the equivalent to charge laptops with the
| respective speed of what they'll need to match the 350?
| manmal wrote:
| You can cleanly divide by 1000 and you get exactly the
| capacity of a 16" MacBook Pro. So you'd need a 350 Watt
| charger (ca like a vacuum cleaner) to charge that MBPro in 9
| minutes, if it supported that kind of throughput. Such a
| charger might need air cooling, and would probably not be as
| portable. But certainly doable.
| mook wrote:
| Randomly looking at Lenovo's site (sorting by highest
| price) shows they already have 330W chargers; that's not
| very far off.
|
| https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/gx21m50608
| manmal wrote:
| Amazing how small GAN has made these things.
| p1mrx wrote:
| 100 kWh / 350 kW = 17 minutes
|
| 100 kWh / 9 minutes = 667 kW
| HPsquared wrote:
| It's not a full charge. Batteries charge fastest at mid-
| level, not when empty or full.
| everdrive wrote:
| EVs are already far too expensive. At least in the short term
| this would only be a niche product.
| vhcr wrote:
| Batteries don't have bigger capacities because people want to
| carry them inside of planes, which have a limit of 100Wh, the
| MacBook Pro has a 99.6Wh battery.
| r00fus wrote:
| This regulation is only because specific lithium battery
| chemistries like NMC or Li-Polymer.
|
| Once proven safer chemistries like LFP or sodium-ion are used
| more commonly in laptops (including SSBs like this Samsung
| one) then regulation should shift to accommodate.
|
| That said, who really needs over 100Wh of battery when most
| long haul flights have plugs available?
| whamlastxmas wrote:
| People use laptops without chargers outside planes too, and
| processing intensive stuff drains batteries very quickly
| brookst wrote:
| True, but who would buy a laptop that could never be
| taken on a plane?
| viewtransform wrote:
| People with lengthy jail sentences ?
| bagels wrote:
| It took decades to allow electronic devices to be used in
| flight, despite no evidence that they would cause a
| problem. I wouldn't count on battery chemistry changes
| leading to changes in FAA rules very quickly.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| Isn't the concern the fires caused by the batteries?
| mertd wrote:
| Initially people assumed without evidence that the
| wireless signals from portable devices would interfere
| with avionics. It was the days where you could
| prophetically "hear" that you are about to get a call or
| sms through your computer speakers.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Sounds like they did have evidence then...
| akira2501 wrote:
| > people assumed without evidence
|
| If you don't have evidence that emissions will be within
| acceptable limits and will not interfere with the planes
| avionics then you don't introduce things into life safety
| critical areas like planes.
|
| It's the same reason a captain can declare pretty much
| whatever they want on their plane and you as a passenger
| are _obligated_ to follow those orders. It's a felony if
| you don't. The captain doesn't have to present evidence
| just any concern that some action might interfere with
| the safety of his flight and that's the end of the
| discussion.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| I believe so. In particular, the size of the fire that a
| battery will burn.
|
| I think OPs point is more that the FAA is extremely
| conservative with risk. Electronics weren't allowed for a
| long time due the fear of interference with airplane
| equipment.
| surfingdino wrote:
| > who really needs over 100Wh of battery
|
| YouTube video editors and idiots running LLMs.
| justinclift wrote:
| Gaming laptops are a thing too. ;)
| Aperocky wrote:
| > That said, who really needs over 100Wh of battery when
| most long haul flights have plugs available?
|
| Plenty of laptops still run intel lol.
| threeseed wrote:
| > then regulation should shift to accommodate
|
| You are talking about shifting regulations globally.
|
| Companies like Apple are not going to build products just
| for one or two markets.
| solarkraft wrote:
| Manufacturers (I can think of one in particular) would still
| like to make devices smaller and wouldn't mind faster
| charging.
| mppm wrote:
| I guess they will... once they actually have them. The
| batteries probably only exist in the lab at this point, but
| what do execs get paid for if not pretty roadmaps?
| goodSteveramos wrote:
| Because the cost is probably closer to $10,000/kWh. Makes sense
| for a $1,000,000 supercar. Fundamentally all the new battery
| chemistries have serious underreported problems that make them
| dead-on-arrival. Either short cycle life (nanowire) or
| impractical manufacturing (solid state) or middling performance
| versus LiPo (sodium). Hopefully some of these may find niche
| applications where their advantages outweigh their problems but
| don't expect more than a 50% improvement in density over the
| next 20 years.
| nikanj wrote:
| Coming to a car dealership near you in 2177.
|
| Battery breakthroughs have been happening bi-weekly for decades
| Maken wrote:
| Batteries are not like fusion energy, we have actually seen
| continuous improvements in the last 40 years.
| cogman10 wrote:
| They hit way sooner than you think. The current best in class
| battery cells are a hybrid of these breakthroughs. Companies
| just don't advertise what's going into the special sauce for
| obvious reasons.
|
| If you look at a chart if battery capacity density, it's been
| pretty much exponentially growing.
| illiac786 wrote:
| Do you have such a chart handy? The last one I checked showed
| a linear 10% / year increase, something like that...
| chopin wrote:
| A 10% increase per year _is_ exponential.
| illiac786 wrote:
| yes, ok, but it's far from e. Let's say "exponential" is
| a shitty term, it can mean very different things.
|
| But 10%/y is still a doubling within 8 years, so maybe
| not so bad - if my memory is correct.
|
| [edit] see other comment, it is indeed very much linear,
| not exponential at all.
| _visgean wrote:
| There is a chart here:
| https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Advances-in-energy-
| densi... I am a bit confused by the units but it seems to
| be growing, tho the data cuts off at 2005.
|
| Another chart is here: https://physicsworld.com/a/lithium-
| ion-batteries-break-energ..., still does not seem
| exponential, looks kind of of linear to me.
| illiac786 wrote:
| the first one shows linear progression, not even 10%,
| except the prototypes at the end.
|
| Second one shows a linear progression too it seems, I
| agree.
| datavirtue wrote:
| There are consumer products shipping with solid state
| batteries.
| fred_is_fred wrote:
| I can't ever seem to find it, but does someone have that
| checklist of the "oh you've invented a great new battery, here
| are the issues?" This one will probably either be toxic,
| explosive, expensive, fragile...
| cogman10 wrote:
| Expensive is main problem with these things and that's because
| cracking solid state for mass production has proven to be
| really tricky.
|
| Otherwise, these things are pretty near ideal. Higher cycle
| life and power density with pretty much the same materials as
| standard lipo cells.
| xnx wrote:
| New battery technology checklist:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26633670
| akira2501 wrote:
| "The entropy conditions of the Universe itself are against
| your entire endeavor. Good luck."
| datadeft wrote:
| >> Perhaps unsurprisingly, the batteries won't be cheap
|
| Could we get a price comparison per driven distance? Without it
| these numbers look good but I would be interested in the price
| too
| LightBug1 wrote:
| Bye bye, Tesla ... remember when they were at the forefront of
| battery technology?
|
| Actually, I don't either ...
| Maken wrote:
| Do you mean when they were licensing Panasonic technology?
| kccqzy wrote:
| They were never at the forefront of battery technology. Their
| project meant to leapfrog everyone else, the 4680 cell, had not
| delivered. To date they still hadn't achieved the main
| technical challenge of dry electrode production. Even if they
| did achieve it today, it would already be too late.
| nabla9 wrote:
| Tesla has always used lithium-ion battery cells tech from
| Panasonic.
| encom wrote:
| Charging speed is too overrated as a metric, in my opinion. For
| the overwhelming majority of people, you're almost never driving
| more per day than the capacity of your battery. And even on an 11
| kW home charger, you're easily back up to 100% during the night,
| especially since you're never starting from 0% or even close to
| it.
|
| Even my Nissan Leaf which has notoriously slow AC charging (being
| single phase), the max 6,7 kW charging is very rarely a concern
| for me.
| astronads wrote:
| A ton of people live in flats, apartments, condos and other
| shared housing that do not provide home charging capabilities.
| Just because it's not a big deal for you and your situation
| doesn't mean it's the same for everyone else.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| And people who rent a house and can't install the necessary
| equipment.
| cogman10 wrote:
| I agree,and this is why I really wish the EV charger rollout
| focused on L2 chargers rather than L3.
|
| Incentivizing workplaces, grocery stores, malls, and
| apartment complexes to install slow chargers would make a
| huge impact on feasibility.
|
| All for a lot less money than it takes to install L3
| chargers.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Wouldn't grocery stores want bigger chargers, so someone
| with an apartment can combine a grocery run that takes
| maybe 30 minutes inside the store with fully charging their
| car for the next few days?
| cogman10 wrote:
| With an L2 charger it doesn't take days to fully charge.
| It is more like 8 hours when going from 0 to 100.
|
| But that's not necessary. You just need to recover enough
| charge to cover daily driving. In 30 minutes that can
| equate to adding 20 miles of range.
|
| With EVs you are rarely trying to charge from 0 to 100. A
| slow charge is sufficient and preferable for battery
| health.
| klabb3 wrote:
| Charging speed is a big issue when you're renting or road
| tripping. When people use shared infrastructure, charging time
| corresponds to how many customers you can serve per parking
| spot/charging station. With gas, hoards of cars can be serviced
| quickly. Thus it's really important that the car can be
| meaningfully charged during an extended rest stop or lunch
| break. Consumers disproportionately buy for these "happy"
| occasions, even if it would make much more economical sense to
| just rent once or twice a year.
|
| Me + partner rented a small e-fiat in Mallorca and it was
| really fun to drive, but there was a lot of anxiety around
| finding charging stations and wandering around for hours while
| charging. Note we didn't have overnight charging at the hotel
| though.
| pornel wrote:
| > how many customers you can serve per parking spot/charging
| station. With gas, hoards of cars can be serviced quickly
|
| For gas stations the throughput matters, because cars are
| blocking the queue. BEV charging is more comparable to
| parking. This is simply solved by having more charging
| stations (dispensers) at parking spots.
|
| BTW: even in shittiest EVs, DC charging doesn't take hours.
| You probably have been misdirected to an AC charger designed
| to be used overnight. Unfortunately, many satnavs still treat
| charging stations as all equal like gas stations, and send
| you to the nearest one, instead of the fastest one.
| illiac786 wrote:
| I guess it makes a huge difference for the station if they
| have to build 10 or 100 charging spots no? Space, cost,
| etc.
|
| Kind of the reason why there is 10 gas pumps and not 100.
| pornel wrote:
| This is _the most important metric_.
|
| 1000km in the slow-charging Leaf takes 14 hours. 1000km in
| quick-charging cars takes 9h-9.5h, compared to 8.5h in a gas
| car[1].
|
| For the trivial case of a city-only car with a home charger all
| battery metrics are irrelevant, so even the terribly outdated
| Leaf is adequate.
|
| But when leaving the perimeter of the home charger, the car
| will need to be recharged. Charging speed is primary factor
| that makes long road trips in BEVs take longer than in gas
| cars. Battery sized large enough for a longest road trip adds a
| lot of weight and cost, which is a waste in daily city driving.
| Quick to recharging makes long trips possible, without need for
| a huge battery.
|
| [1]:
| https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V6ucyFGKWuSQzvI8lMzv...
| datavirtue wrote:
| People are OK with added weight and cost. You can't sell a
| truck without the added 500lbs and $12k of 4x4 shit under the
| front end. It lives there dragging down tow capacity, fuel,
| and driveability the entire life of the the vehicle, rarely
| used if ever.
| skykooler wrote:
| While that's true in the ideal case, there are still many
| areas in America where you need significant range to make it
| from one charger to the next. I have a Leaf which can fast-
| charge via Chademo, but the low range means that if I go
| anywhere rural I often have to spend several hours at a level
| 2 charger because it doesn't have the range to drive directly
| to the next fast charger.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| > 1000km in the slow-charging Leaf takes 14 hours. > 1000km
| in quick-charging cars takes 9h-9.5h, compared to 8.5h in a
| gas car[1].
|
| There are so many variables here. 1,000 cumulative km for my
| normal usage requires no waiting since I charge at home, so
| the it's the ICE car that eats up time since I have to visit
| a fuel station.
|
| On a 1,000km road trip I would be stopping anyway, so as long
| as it charges within the 30 min window it would not be
| additional time here either.
| dangus wrote:
| It is a big deal in the US considering that almost 20% of
| Americans say they'll plan to make a road trip of between 250
| and 500 miles, and almost 10% of Americans plan to take a trip
| between 500 and 1000 miles by car.
|
| Overall, 75% of Americans surveyed said they intend to take
| some kind of road trip.
|
| https://thevacationer.com/summer-travel-survey-2024/
|
| This is on top of what other people have brought up about
| people who live in apartments, rent, or have no garage space.
| encom wrote:
| Everyone replying to me as if I said charging speed is
| totally irrelevant and are bringing up contrived edge cases.
| If all you're doing is commuting to work, which is what most
| of us are doing, unless you have an absurdly long commute you
| will never need fast charging. Can I do a trans-european road
| trip in my Leaf. No. But I'm not buying a car for what I
| might do some day, and neither should you unless you like
| wasting money. If I was going on a trip like that I'd rent a
| car or swap cars with a friend. My point is, people place far
| too much importance on it, when it _for most people, most of
| the time_ is not that big of a deal.
| dangus wrote:
| It's not an edge case. 75% of Americans plan to take a road
| trip during the year per the link I sent.
|
| Remember that in the US the 300-500 mile problem is huge.
| There's no viable train alternative for medium to short
| distances for almost every city pair. If you have family in
| Tennessee and you live in Illinois you need to drive 6
| hours unless you want to blow money on plane tickets and
| still end up eating up 4-6 hours at the airport and on the
| plane anyway.
|
| The same can honestly be said for shorter trips like
| 100-200 miles. There's no usable public transit between
| cities like Dallas and Houston.
|
| "Most of the time" doesn't really work when you need your
| car to do the thing you're doing 5% of the time. I don't
| buy a two door car because most of the time I don't have
| four passengers inside, I buy a four door car because it's
| extremely useful to have that capability without needing to
| reserve a rental car or borrow cars from friends.
|
| This is especially important considering that gasoline
| vehicles are already for sale and compete with electric
| vehicles. Why am I renting a car or swapping cars when the
| whole point of owning a car was to have a car?
| fpoling wrote:
| In Norway in mountains charging stations are often literally in
| the middle of nowhere with their placement dictated by
| availability of high-voltage power lines. They are fully
| automated with just few charging boxes and nothing else.
| Although the view is often nice with mountains and valleys,
| when it is snowing or raining spending an extra hour on top of
| 7 hours of driving is not nice especially as for toilet and
| food one needs to stop at other places. So I would appreciate
| if I do not need to spend that extra hour sitting in a car and
| watching rain.
|
| Now, Norway may be an extreme case, but driving for 1000 km
| daily in Europe while rare is still a normal event. For
| example, from Paris to Mediterranean coast it is like 800 km.
| And if one drives 130km/h that 1000 km of battery will be
| reduced to 500km so one will need to charge once and it will be
| nice if that can be done within 15 minutes not to add too much
| time to the trip.
| rini17 wrote:
| This is a nonproblem inflated by petrolheads routinely doing
| 1000 kilometers in one go, which are overrepresented among
| journalists. Most people don't do that and are doing longer
| stops at least twice, vacations make that even more likely.
|
| And cherry picking distinct worst aspect of long distance
| driving in Norway and France and mashing them together them
| as one argument is disingenuous. There's plenty of stuff to
| stop and enjoy between Paris and Med.
| fpoling wrote:
| Electrical with range of 1000km and fast charging gives an
| option that is not presently covered. There are people in
| Norway who still do not consider electrical cars because
| they want to have an option to drive 500 km over mountains
| in one go without extra delays. The same in France. Or even
| consider Spain. The argument is that one cannot go from
| Madrid to Alicante (like 400-450 km) without extra stops to
| charge still prevents people to get electrical cars. In a
| lot of cases option to drive a long distance will never be
| used, but people want to have that option as a form of
| insurance.
| rini17 wrote:
| But "just to have an option" isn't how it's usually
| presented.
|
| Besides, no one appears to realize gas supply will vanish
| first in case of crisis, it did once happen already in
| Europe. Electricity usually gets cut later, if at all.
| illiac786 wrote:
| No, it is a a real problem for most people who buy their
| cars for the 2 holiday trips they do a year. Yes it does
| not make sense economically but this is how customers buy
| they cars.
|
| And hence, this battery range and ability to quickly charge
| will be very important to people.
|
| You may disagree with their position (I do) but that won't
| affect their buying decision - range and charging speed
| will.
| skybrian wrote:
| Eventually this might make electric vehicles practical for
| people who can't charge at home, much like going to a gas
| station.
|
| It won't happen in the first round, which is for luxury
| vehicles, though.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > Charging speed is too overrated as a metric, in my opinion
|
| Then you will _never_ electrify the entire fleet of vehicles
| and you will always have ICE vehicles to fill the space that
| you feel is "overrated."
|
| > charging is very rarely a concern for me.
|
| Ostensibly because you live somewhere where large ICE vehicles
| bring the goods within range of your EV for you. This is great
| it's adequate for you. This is not sustainable.
|
| I always get mistaken on these issues, as I think EVs are
| important, but the way we've deployed and built them is
| precisely backwards. We hoisted EVs on you because you would
| pay for them but it's made a complete mess of the transition.
| cubefox wrote:
| The title of this should be the original one from the website:
|
| "Samsung to Mass-Produce Solid-State Batteries for 'Super
| Premium' EVs by 2027"
| greenavocado wrote:
| This information is worthless for electric vehicle owners who
| charge mostly or exclusively at home.
|
| A Tesla Model Y battery pack is 75 kWh and the highest rated
| connection within the typical American home with 200 amp 120/240
| volt split-phase service is 50 amps over both phases: 12,000
| watts.
|
| 75 kWh / 12 kW = 6.25 hours assuming the battery can be hit with
| maximum wattage continuously throughout its charge cycle (this is
| unhealthy).
|
| To charge the Tesla Model Y 75 kWh battery pack in nine minutes
| the 240 volt cable would need to carry 2083 amps. This is
| hilariously far beyond the capacity of a 50-amp rated wire.
|
| 6 AWG copper wire which is rated for 50 amps has an 0.000395 ohms
| per meter (at 20degC). Assuming a ten meter length of wire, the
| resistance is 0.00395 ohms. Power dissipation in the wire P = I^2
| * R. 2083^2 * 0.00395 ohms = 17,166 watts.
|
| Temperature rise in the wire delta T = P / (A * k) where P =
| 17,666 watts, A = pi * 0.00411m * 10m. Assuming PVC insulation
| whose thermal conductivity is k = 0.19 W/m*K. Delta T is approx
| 700,615 degrees K. The surface temperature of the Sun is
| approximately 5773 K, so our wire would get about 121 times
| hotter than the surface of the sun if it did not instantly
| explode.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| It's for fast DC charging at 350kw+. Home charging is solved,
| but there is still travel range anxiety to squeeze out of the
| human, as well as use cases with high utilization and
| turnaround need (taxi, livery, law enforcement). 9 minutes to
| charge and a 20 year service life is awfully close to "you have
| no excuse this is suboptimal compared to liquid fuel
| refueling."
|
| High level, EVs have almost killed combustion vehicles, we're
| almost there [1] [2]. Batteries will only improve over time as
| EV production scales up.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41191790
|
| [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41207048
| GaggiX wrote:
| Safety, long range and lifespan are still important to people
| who charge their EV at home.
| malfist wrote:
| Home charging will not be that fast in the conceivable future.
| Just too much power for homes. Just thinking about it, my ford
| lightning with the extended battery has enough capacity to
| power the average house for something like 8 days. That'd be
| crazy be be about to demand that much power at home to charge
| it in nine minutes.
|
| But, it doesn't mean it's worthless to those that charge at
| home. I only own EVs. Even if I do 99.99999% of my charging at
| home, I still need to be able to charge during road trips. The
| faster the better. My partner and I have been eyeing the ev6
| with it's 18 minute charge time. That's way easier to swallow
| than the 48 minutes the truck takes.
|
| 9 minutes and every seven hours of driving would be a god send,
| instead of our current 48 minutes every 4 hours
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| > 6.25 hours assuming the battery can be hit with maximum
| wattage continuously throughout its charge cycle (this is
| unhealthy).
|
| Are you sure it's unhealthy if you're already charging this
| slow? I'd expect 12 kW to still be below the slow part of a
| fast charge.
| kccqzy wrote:
| You took a home charging cable that's rated for 50 amps and
| thought about what if you used that exact cable for DC fast
| charging. What did you expect?
| oliwarner wrote:
| I just did a 1400mile round trip in our 9yo Model S. 80-20kW
| just doing my nut in. At least it was free.
|
| This sort of battery makes that sort of trip easy.
|
| There are already 3m liquid-cooled charging cables that allow
| 600kW+ DC charging. Many use more than one conductor per
| polarity to increase the capacity.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| > 75 kWh / 12 kW = 6.25 hours assuming the battery can be hit
| with maximum wattage continuously throughout its charge cycle
| (this is unhealthy).
|
| 12kW is nowhere near the max charging speed. Here is the
| charging curve with a peak at 250kWh when DC charging:
| https://evkx.net/models/tesla/model_y/model_y_long_range/cha...
| lolwhatitis wrote:
| Presuming an 80 kWh battery and 80% efficiency:
|
| 80 kWh / 0.8 = 100 kWh
|
| To charge in nine minutes:
|
| 100 kWh * 60 min/hr / 9 min = 667 kW
|
| A 400 V DC setup is common for this sort of application, so:
|
| 667 kW / 400 V = 1667 A
|
| How physically large do the cables and related apparatus need to
| be in order to deliver this sort of current? What sort of
| training and personal protective equipment will people need in
| order to plug and unplug these cables? (Hint: Arc flashes are no
| joke!) What sort of service would you need to order from the
| electric company to be able to power just one of these
| installations?
| deepsun wrote:
| Arc flashed are no problem I think, because these cables don't
| unleash the whole power before everything is connected and
| protocol negotiation finished.
|
| But agree with the rest. Regardless of voltage and current, you
| still need half-megawatt delivery somehow.
| jve wrote:
| Why you limit yourself to 400V? Today 250kW chargers are
| available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Supercharger so
| we need 2.7 times of that.
|
| > The voltage range was increased to 1000 V and it supports up
| to 615 A (charging cable) / 1000 A (charging pole) for power
| delivery.[14][15] However, they are currently software limited
| to 250 kW.[12][16]
|
| v4 charger already features thermally conductive liquid to
| dissipate heat. Maybe one could get rid of cables and car could
| park near charger and some serious metal rods could
| automatically connect somewhere under the car.
|
| Anyways, that 1000Vx615A already supports 615kW so very close
| as far as we consider cables/connectors.
| Retric wrote:
| 400V is hardly the limit...
|
| Anyway, if you're just interested in big connectors/cables MCS
| targets up to 3.75 multi megawatts for commercial vehicles.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megawatt_Charging_System
|
| Though 3.7MW is mostly theoretical there's already 700kw
| chargers in the wild. The cables end up thick, but they can be
| supported by an overhead gantry which helps.
| kccqzy wrote:
| The CCS standard supports 1000V.
|
| Furthermore charging cables are locked while charging. (The
| latch is on the cable for CCS, and the latch is inside the car
| for NACS.) Unless the lock mechanism is mechanically broken,
| it's impossible to unplug a cable that's charging.
| goodcanadian wrote:
| The latch is on the car for CCS. It is only on the cable for
| chademo. Regardless, the main issue with high current is the
| cable resistance. You need very thick cables or they will
| melt. Higher voltage helps, but cable weight is a real issue
| at higher power.
|
| P.S. NACS is just CCS with a different connector.
| oezi wrote:
| DC charging at 350 and 500kw is getting rather common on
| highway chargers.
|
| Why stop there? Heat management is the key limitation.
| Tade0 wrote:
| Your typical tram is powered by four 150kW motors. It's not an
| unusually high amount of power.
| bearjaws wrote:
| Almost all cars are moving to 800v architectures for this
| reason.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| Note that charging curves usually have a drop in charge rate as
| the battery gets closer to 100%, so it's probably an even
| higher peak than this for this to be the average.
| haunter wrote:
| Samsung has such a low quality crap home appliances that I have 0
| hope about this being actually good by the time we peasants get
| it.
| illiac786 wrote:
| Porsche makes shitty shoes. But good quality cars (that I
| dislike still).
| selimnairb wrote:
| Can we just make regular-ass EVs that people can afford?
| tomashubelbauer wrote:
| I wish someone made an EV with LFP batteries and as little
| software as possible, certainly no displays or a companion
| mobile app. Let me put an AliExpress parking camera in if I
| want one. Something that I can afford to own and maintain
| myself, without being dependent on repair shops with
| specialized tools or knowledge, or worse, the manufacturer, for
| service. Throw in a service manual with full schematics and
| I'll be elated.
| kube-system wrote:
| Reverse cameras are a legal requirement in the US and some
| other places
| thfuran wrote:
| But what are the requirements on the display? Can you get
| away with one LED for a single pixel? That'd really let you
| cheap out on the camera too.
| kube-system wrote:
| No, the regulations do not specify technical
| specifications, they specify requirements in terms of
| actual visibility.
|
| 49 CFR 571.111 S14. specifies a test that the image must
| pass, and that would not pass:
|
| https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/part-571/section-57
| 1.1....)
| borski wrote:
| Yes, eventually. They're expensive to manufacture for now,
| because the tech is relatively new (as compared to ICE cars).
| Price will come down over time.
| ac29 wrote:
| You can get a 2-3 year old Bolt or Leaf for well under $20k
| (under 15, even).
|
| Sadly, both are no longer in production (though the Leaf is
| still on sale from the final production run).
| binary132 wrote:
| How do these things compare to "regular" lithium batteries on
| fire hazard?
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| The article says that it eliminates the problem. But I find
| that hard to believe. On the other hand, silicon dioxide is
| already oxidized so it can't burn more.
| ianburrell wrote:
| Solid state batteries replace the flammable liquid
| electrolyte with nonflammable solid one. It isn't the lithium
| that is burning.
|
| Also, LiFePO4 are already nonflammable lithium batteries.
| They have lower power density when solid state are supposed
| to be equal or better to LiPo.
| Tade0 wrote:
| The liquid electrolyte is where most of the fire hazard happens
| in a lithium-ion battery, as it's typically based on ethylene
| carbonate, which is flammable.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| > eliminate risk of battery fires
|
| > very low risk of fire
|
| Which is it?
| borski wrote:
| The latter for now, the former hopefully eventually.
| Animats wrote:
| _" We supplied samples to customers from the end of last year to
| the beginning of this year and are receiving positive feedback,"
| Samsung SDI VP Koh Joo-young said at SNE Battery Day 2024 in
| Seoul, according to Korean outlet The Elec and translated by
| Google."_
|
| This would be more convincing if reviewers could order samples.
|
| Yoshino seemed to be shipping a solid state battery, but several
| people have bought and disassembled the thing, and it has
| liquid/gel components. That was disappointing.
|
| CATL has some good comments.[1] Wu Kai of CATL was quoted as
| saying that the maturity level of the technology and the
| manufacturing process can currently be categorised at 4 on a
| scale of 1 to 9. CATL wants to be at 7 to 8 by 2027, which is
| equivalent to the production of solid-state batteries in small
| quantities. CATL also mentions that they have 1,000 people in R&D
| working on this. This is a big project in China. The China All-
| Solid-State Battery Collaborative Innovation Platform is getting
| government funding and has all the big battery makers in China on
| board.[2]
|
| Toyota's roadmap shows solid state batteries around 2028.[3]
|
| There are solid state battery announcements all over, but the big
| players all admit that the manufacturing is really tough.
|
| A US startup exists.[4] They mostly make press releases, not
| products.
|
| [1] https://www.electrive.com/2024/04/29/catl-expects-to-
| produce...
|
| [2] https://www.electrive.com/2024/05/30/china-solid-state-
| batte...
|
| [3] https://electrek.co/2024/01/11/toyota-solid-state-ev-
| battery...
|
| [4] https://www.electrive.com/2024/08/06/ion-storage-systems-
| ann...
| hereme888 wrote:
| Expensive electric mowers will need these at discount if they
| ever hope to catch up to cheap gas mowers.
| ok_dad wrote:
| My "expensive" electric (battery) mower works for three mowings
| on my lawn and cost less than 6 months paying a lawn service.
| Perhaps someone with an acre needs a gas riding mower but
| anyone with the average sized yard probably can do electric
| today easily.
| hereme888 wrote:
| I bought an electric one because it was still quick ROI vs
| paying for lawn service, and also noise dB and avoiding
| breathing the gas exhaust.
|
| But here in KY the other week it rained for a whole week, the
| grass was really tall and thick, and the mower couldn't
| handle it at all. My neighbor's old, cheap gas mower worked
| just fine.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-11 23:01 UTC)