[HN Gopher] BYD begins testing solid-state EV batteries in the Seal
___________________________________________________________________
BYD begins testing solid-state EV batteries in the Seal
Author : toomuchtodo
Score : 52 points
Date : 2025-06-20 20:42 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (electrek.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (electrek.co)
| the_arun wrote:
| > According to local reports, BYD's solid-state EV batteries set
| a record by gaining 1,500 km (932 miles) range in just 12 minutes
| of charging.
|
| If so, can this be beneficial to use cases outside auto industry?
| Eg. Power walls. If so, I am more excited for that. I am tired of
| electricity bills.
| majorchord wrote:
| The tech used to get such fast charging isn't revolutionary,
| it's just extremely (dangerous) high voltage DC charging that
| only exists in any capacity in China.
|
| Also, what happens when an EV taxi runs out of battery power in
| China? They actually have stations setup all over that you
| simply drive into and it replaces the entire battery pack... in
| minutes.
| lazide wrote:
| For the audience - up to 1500V, 600A. Or just shy of a
| Megawatt. Yowzers.
| daveguy wrote:
| Really no more dangerous than a 480v, 300A level 3 charger in
| the US. Both have enough to kill. It's not like you'd be less
| dead if a level 3 charger malfunctioned. They both require
| redundant monitoring hardware and female plugs on the hot
| end.
| rob_c wrote:
| My favourite is the standard of water cooled high current
| high voltage cables for charging EVs...
|
| Imo that's stepping beyond the risk profile of filling a tank
| with a known high explosive that can evaporate and suffocate
| and catch fire in the sun ... But risk profiles are
| inherently personal
| awongh wrote:
| Most relevant part:
|
| > BYD's solid-state EV batteries set a record by gaining 1,500 km
| (932 miles) range in just 12 minutes of charging.
|
| > The test charged the battery to just 80%, meaning total EV
| range could reach upwards of 1,875 km (1,165 miles). Keep in
| mind, that is CLTC range. On the EPA scale, it would be closer to
| 1,300 km (808 miles)
|
| Is this true? How quickly will other companies be making these
| types of batteries?
|
| Is there some reason why solid state batteries seem to be being
| deployed in cars sooner than in phones?
| MostlyStable wrote:
| For the last part, my guess is that the advantages are much
| more valuable in an EV than they are in a phone (where
| batteries are mostly fine. While longer life and faster
| charging are always nice to have:they are just that: nice to
| have), so if you are A) production limited and B) they are
| still more expensive (the article states they expect them to be
| price-comparable by the end of the decade), then they probably
| aren't worth it in a phone (yet).
|
| When price comes down and production comes up (assuming those
| things happen), then I would expect them to start appearing in
| phones as well.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| That logic seems crazy to me. Extra hundreds of miles are
| _also_ just nice to have, and with the same material that
| goes into a 500kg car pack you could make 10000 double life
| phone batteries and sell them for $100 each. There 's more
| per-cell overhead in the phone batteries but is it worth a
| million dollar drop in revenue?
| MostlyStable wrote:
| Consumers seem to disagree with you on the first part. I
| personally think that current battery tech is fine for EVs
| (I have an EV with a 260 mile range, and only a 77kW max
| charge rate, and I think it's fine even for 10+ hour road
| trips), but a segment of the consumer space wants more than
| that.
|
| I personally thought that the more interesting part of the
| article was where they claimed to be able to add 800 miles
| of range in 12 minutes. At those kinds of charge rates, my
| ideal EV would probably have a 300ish mile range that I
| could charge from 10-80 in <10 minutes (although I believe
| that part of the way they get those charge rates is with
| large battery packs, so a smaller pack would probably not
| charge as fast).
|
| Additionally, while the specs for EV sedans are currently
| fine, batteries are only barely good enough for larger,
| less efficient vehicles. Maybe the killer app here isn't a
| sedan that goes 1000 miles, but a truck or SUV that can go
| 500.
|
| The point is, whatever your and my opinions on the adequacy
| of current EV charging, the market seems to value improved
| battery specs more highly in the EV space than it does in
| the phone space (or maybe it doesn't and BYD is making a
| mistake by keeping their batteries for their cars instead
| of selling them to phone manufacturers).
| cherioo wrote:
| Battery life is fine but phone company are always after
| thinner and lighter. I can't imagine no company will jump on
| this.
|
| Just look at rumored iphone air
| rob_c wrote:
| > Is there some reason why solid state batteries seem to be
| being deployed in cars sooner than in phones?
|
| Not quite energy density, but the energy density, cost,
| complexity when combined with the discharge profile generates a
| very "interesting" phase space.
|
| There's a few promising technologies which have very, very good
| efficiencies but only like very slow predictable discharge
| cycles. These are excellent for say building giant GW batteries
| in the desert, but not so great for even car batteries.
|
| Phones and tech have bursty power needs based on use, the cost
| of taking other tech down to the size of a phone is extremely
| high (especially if you're first to market unless you know you
| will sell millions of units). Not to mention the reliability of
| batteries typically decreasing as the size drops.
|
| Cars tend to be in the middle with their discharge profiles
| being relatively smooth compared to say a laptop, but yes you
| still have economies of scale, complexity, reliability and
| supply chain and patents to contend with ;)
| awongh wrote:
| I guess I would have just assumed that because batteries are
| chemistry the size scales relatively easily.
|
| Anyways- isn't a normal cell in an EV battery is like a AA
| size? Is this still true for solid state?
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| 1200 miles of range? I only need 100-200 regularly and maybe a
| bit more on special occasions. Can I spend 1/6 as much and get
| 1/6 the battery?
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| byd has a seagull model that's basically exactly that for $10k.
| Don't see why they wouldn't bring it to the US absent tarrifs.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Because it would destroy the auto industry overnight.
| johnea wrote:
| You say that like its a bad thing...
| dyauspitr wrote:
| It is. I want American auto manufacturing to continue to
| be a thing. With this administration most industries will
| see 4 years of technological and competitive regression
| though so it's probably a losing battle.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Yes I think it is, because over time it becomes too great
| an amount of leverage that another country can use to
| hold over your head.
| rconti wrote:
| I suspect most cars will still be in the 250-400mi range sweet
| spot, same reason that's where we're at with gas cars.
| majorchord wrote:
| > BYD's solid-state batteries have an energy density of 400
| Wh/kg, or nearly twice that of current lithium-ion batteries.
|
| I thought the big issue with solid-state (besides dendrites) was
| a lower energy density than Li-ion? What happened?
| rob_c wrote:
| It's a next generation Lithium battery, I've seen lithium
| chemistry power storage quoted as high as 600 in some
| prototypes so I'm guessing they cracked something in the
| lithium chemistry.
|
| Given it's still lithium based I'd still think twice before
| chucking a bucket of water on one that's fizzing :p
|
| As for how this battery is better I'm not an expert, but good
| to read if true.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Better density is one of the reasons solid state battery
| research has been pursued.
|
| Maybe you are comparing the density of research batteries that
| weren't worth commercializing to high developed lithium ion
| batteries?
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| would be very interested to know if people know what the cold-
| weather behavior of these batteries are: i'm in montana and
| battery life, especially in winter, can be a life-or-death issue
| and that (+ range/recharge time) is a reason a lot of folks here
| look at ev's skeptically, would love to hear they handle cold
| better
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I understand that Teslas sell _[sold?]_ well, in Norway.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| > and battery life, especially in winter, can be a life-or-
| death issue
|
| How so? A full battery can run your seat heaters for about a
| month. That's a lot better than the hours of heat you'd get out
| of a full tank of gasoline.
|
| Not to mention that you'll never get carbon monoxide poisoning
| from a gasoline engine with a tailpipe blocked with snow.
| lazide wrote:
| Tell me you've never lived in a really cold climate without
| telling me you've never lived in a cold climate before.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| I've experienced -48. You?
| lazide wrote:
| -40ish for a month. And -30 around that.
|
| None of the 'answers' address the range issues with
| batteries in the cold. Or how you can be totally fucked
| if your pack drops below a certain temp, and you don't
| have enough charge to heat the pack and get home.
|
| Probably even more fucked than if your diesel tank
| gelled. At least you can heat it up directly if you
| really need to.
| dismalaf wrote:
| Such a weird comment. Tailpipe blocked with snow? I've lived
| in (the cold part of) Canada nearly my whole life, never
| happened. Snow doesn't fall sideways and upwards to block a
| tailpipe lol. And range is the relevant part of a vehicle,
| given Canada is so large and sparsely populated, not how long
| seat heaters heat.
| rconti wrote:
| It happens.
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00039929.htm
| https://www.rearviewsafety.com/safety/news/news-release-
| dead...
|
| But it sounds like it's hard to get a handle on how common
| it is. It feels like it's more on the level of "a handful a
| year in North America/freak occurrance", rather than
| "common way to die".
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| I know of somebody it happened to. Maybe it's not
| particularly common, but it's in my mind as something
| that happens.
| ledauphin wrote:
| I mean... a thought experiment like "medical emergency in
| remote location" would seem a useful place to start.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I'm thinking about it.
|
| Is it road-accessible? What kinds of vehicles can get
| there?
|
| The cars in the article have twice as much range as a gas
| car or more, even in the cold. And it's easier to charge
| them at remote locations than to get fuel deliveries to
| those same remote locations.
|
| I'm sure a scenario could be contrived where _any_ type of
| car wins, but on average I expect a long range battery car
| to do quite well.
| Zee2 wrote:
| I believe they are talking about how the range/capacity is
| significantly affected in deep cold weather. It's not about
| life-or-death that you'll freeze to death - it's that your
| 300mi EV turns into a 150mi EV and that makes range planning
| unpredictable and more challenging in rural areas.
| ggreer wrote:
| I think people are working off of outdated information. I have
| a 2020 Model 3 and it's been fine in subzero temperatures. Yes,
| range goes down by about 20%, but if anything it's more
| convenient than a gas car in the cold because you don't have to
| wait for an engine to heat up before the cabin gets warm. Also
| you always wake up with a full tank (so to speak) because you
| don't need to go to a gas station to refill. And EVs tend to be
| AWD, so they're easy to drive in the winter. During one
| snowstorm I had to help dig out trucks that got stuck, but my
| car was fine.
|
| Newer models have heat pumps that greatly improve efficiency in
| cold weather. They also have better battery chemistries that
| store more energy in the same form factor. Unless you live in a
| very remote, very cold location (eg: rural Alaska), an EV is a
| fine choice.
| chneu wrote:
| People in Nordic countries are fine with EVs.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| I seriously hope the next US administration stops bending over
| backwards to protect the big 3. If we want to address climate
| change, we're gonna _low_ cost greentech and china is currently
| the king of that in evs, batteries and solar.
|
| If we're really so concerned about 'supply chain' issues we could
| build up a strategic reserve of batteries and solar panels. If
| china wants to continue subsidizing their industry below costs of
| manufacture I see no reason why we shouldn't exploit their
| generosity to meet our climate goals as quickly as possible.
|
| One of the 'good news' stories re: the recent datacenter buildout
| is that grid storage is now being more widely deployed, and that
| compliments the roll out of renewable energy.
| epolanski wrote:
| Also, the only way to make your companies competitive is by
| having them face competition, not by protecting them by
| artificial and anti consumer duties.
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| They already doing that for decades, the problem is that move
| making china rich. Which is US don't want
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| The US has no ability to stop China from becoming wealthy,
| they already have the will and political leadership to build
| high tech for a global market. At this point, it's just angry
| old people sticking brooms in their own bike wheels at speed.
|
| _How we made it: will China be the first electrostate?_ - ht
| tps://www.ft.com/content/e1a232c7-52a0-44dd-a13b-c4af54e74...
| | https://archive.today/OSFYo
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| They sure has, problem is people also like cheap goods
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > If china wants to continue subsidizing their industry below
| costs of manufacture I see no reason why we shouldn't exploit
| their generosity to meet our climate goals as quickly as
| possible.
|
| Are they even doing that? A few billion dollars a year is
| meaningful but it's not dumping for an industry this big.
| thewebguyd wrote:
| Hear, Hear. We are seriously missing out over here in the US
| and continuing to be protectionist over the big 3 automakers is
| not going to improve our climate situation.
|
| I consistently hear 2 main arguments against electric vehicles
| in the US. Range, and cost.
|
| BYD & China is solving both. Range is important because we lack
| charging infrastructure still, and anyone who rents at an
| apartment complex, you are screwed and have to rely on public
| charging stations. Big batteries are important for these folks.
| People also still have range anxiety, so when a fuel efficient
| gas car will get ~400+ miles per full tank, only having more
| expensive cars with a ~250 mile range is a non starter for a
| lot of people in the US.
|
| Cost is self explanatory. One of the better electric cars sold
| in the US, the Ioniq 6 STARTS at $38k, which is already more
| than a significant chunk of the population can afford - you're
| looking at close to an $800/month payment at current rates for
| entry level. BYD could sell in the US at around $20,000.
| rconti wrote:
| Hopefully this will allow cheaper cars to get ~400mi of range
| but I doubt we'll ever see much more in mainstream cars.
| Batteries are simply too expensive and too heavy. Fuel tanks
| are cheap to build, but we still see no gasoline passenger
| cars with large tanks. The manufacturers sort of standardize
| around a "normal" capacity, and just want the one option to
| design, manufacture, crash test, etc.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Not to say EV charging has been solved, it is still very much
| in progress, but 64% of Americans live within 2 miles of a
| public charging station. We should continue to use policy to
| encourage "EV ready" infra in residential and apartment
| settings, places of business, commercial/retail, government,
| etc, but lots of folks can be served today. The vast majority
| US housing stock is single family homes (attached and
| detached combined), and those can, in most cases, be upgraded
| to support a dedicated circuit for charging. And, to your
| point, you'll also want to mandate new apartment building
| build outs are EV charging ready for their tenants.
|
| https://www.pewresearch.org/data-labs/2024/05/23/electric-
| ve...
|
| Key takeaways from the above:
|
| > The number of EV charging stations has more than doubled
| since 2020. In December 2020, the Department of Energy
| reported that there were nearly 29,000 public charging
| stations nationwide. By February 2024, that number had
| increased to more than 61,000 stations. Over 95% of the
| American public now lives in a county that has at least one
| public EV charging station.
|
| > EV charging stations are most accessible to residents of
| urban areas: 60% of urban residents live less than a mile
| from the nearest public EV charger, compared with 41% of
| those in the suburbs and just 17% of rural Americans.
|
| Maps: https://supercharge.info/map |
| https://www.plugshare.com/ | https://afdc.energy.gov/stations
| #/find/nearest?country=US&fu...
| devilbunny wrote:
| > ~400+ miles per full tank
|
| My car gets ~500 miles/800 km per tank. My wife's car, which
| has a more efficient engine and transmission and is also
| smaller, but with the same huge tank, gets ~600 miles/960 km
| per tank. I will have to stop for a bathroom somewhere along
| a route that long, but only once or twice. I used to have to
| stop three times for a ~900 mile/1500 km trip that I did a
| few times.
|
| This is a problem with EV proponents who try to argue that
| "you'll stop every couple of hours for half an hour or so
| anyway, so charging isn't an issue". No, I won't. I'll drive
| 1000 miles with less than 45 minutes of downtime on the whole
| trip. I don't stop every two hours. Maybe 15 minutes every 4
| hours, of which 10 is fueling and going to the bathroom and 5
| is getting off and back on the highway.
|
| That's not a slam against EV's, but let's acknowledge their
| weak points honestly.
| p_j_w wrote:
| > If we want to address climate change
|
| Given our recent election results, it seems to me that we don't
| want to.
| chneu wrote:
| > If we want to address climate change
|
| At least 40% of Americans do not give a crap about addressing
| climate change. Many Americans see EVs as a waste of time and a
| direct attack on the US.
| Aloisius wrote:
| _> If china wants to continue subsidizing their industry below
| costs of manufacture I see no reason why we shouldn 't exploit
| their generosity_
|
| Because the unfair advantage distorts the market leading to a
| potentially otherwise noncompetitive product destroying the
| competition at which point they can (and will) jack up prices,
| so not only do you get more expensive vehicles, but you've also
| destroyed an entire industry and several adjacent industries at
| the same time.
|
| It's not like you can't just snap your fingers and re-establish
| a vehicle manufacturing supply chain once it disappears.
|
| I get people just want cheap vehicles, but the short-term
| benefit simply isn't worth it.
| tiahura wrote:
| Weren't Chinese battery manufacturers supposed to be shipping
| some sort of Lithium battery breakthrough this year?
| rob_c wrote:
| Might be this if you've read something, this is still lithium
| based, it's just solid state vs LiPo
| johnea wrote:
| The resistance to electrification in the US is one of the
| country's biggest self inflicted wounds.
|
| In the long run, I really don't think we can tariff our way
| around technical innovation.
|
| 900 miles of range in 12 mins of charging... Charge for 20 mins
| and have enough range for 2 full days of travel driving!
|
| And this is only when driving long distances. Anyone with a
| driveway can eassily charge overnight for typical daily driving.
|
| The whole package: many types of energy source providing
| electricity, never having to go to a gas station for typical
| daily driving, path to complete elimination of petro combustion
| byproducts, massive simplification of the overall vehicle
| mechanism, significant performance enhancements, etc.
|
| All technical evaluation come out in favor of EVs...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-20 23:00 UTC)