Elon Musk Says Larger Batteries Might Be On the Way 191
mknewman writes "Elon Musk intimated that more-powerful batteries could be on the way for the Model S. The most potent battery pack currently offered in the Model S holds 85 kWh of juice, or enough for 265 miles of driving. Musk wasn't terribly specific, however: 'There is the potential for bigger battery packs in the future, but it would probably be maybe next year or something like that. The main focus is . . . how do we reduce the cost per kWh of storage in the battery pack?' In other words, Musk seems less concerned with stronger battery packs than making cheaper battery packs for the upcoming mid-size sedan, which is expected to be unveiled at the 2015 Detroit auto show. 'Our goal is to drop the cost per kWh by 30 percent to 40 percent.'"
Make supplemental batteries in mannequin form (Score:5, Funny)
.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't most states grant access to the HOV lane for alternative fuel vehicles? I know mine does. I see at least a couple of Teslas and Leafs (Leaves?) with AFV plates pass me on my way to work every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't most states grant access to the HOV lane for alternative fuel vehicles?
Most do, but that access will be phased out as zero-emmission vehicles are more widely adopted. California is already phasing them out for hybrids, but not yet for full electrics like the Teslas. The mannequin-battery is a better long term solution.
Re: (Score:2)
This could be the start of a powerful relationship.
Wake up SAE. Standardize TREs now. (Score:5, Interesting)
The electric utility companies have so much excess capacity at night, mostly idling or off line. If they could come up with special meters and sell electricity cheaply overnight, the break-even point calculations vis-a-vis gas cars will shift dramatically. The utility companies will get a piece of the transportation energy market, currently shared only between oil companies. That is the motivation for the utilities. We need to set dog against dog, thief against thief and coal burning utilities against oil companies.
I wish someone with the charisma of Elon or pig headedness of Jobs would make the top honchos of these organizations and companies to pay attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no need for every one of us to haul an IC engine all the time. 90% of the trips of 90% o
How to kill a market (Score:2)
90% of the trips of 90% of the population can be met with existing battery vehicles.
The problem is that people will not buy something that cannot do 10% of what they want to do, when the importance of doing that thing they do not do often is around 80% to them.
Re: (Score:2)
My truck has a nearly 500 mile range on the highway, but I only need that range a few times a year. 90% of the time, 50 miles a day of range is plenty.
The problem is, I'm not going to buy a truck that doesn't have the long range as an option. I just won't, and there are millions of people who won't either.
GM has it right with the Volt. The price is still too high, but put the Volt tech into a Yukon, drop the price premium, and I'm a customer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, that is an option. Of course, the cost to rent for a week is $1,200 and doesn't include all that many miles.
Then you have to consider that I need something big enough for my family all the time, so I already need a large vehicle. It sounds really nice on paper, less so when reality hits. If gas were $8 a gallon, the idea would have more merit, but at current prices, it makes little sense.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing to keep in mind is that you may be paying over $10,000 dollars extra for that capacity vs renting a really big long range truck the few times a year you need this ability.
If it turns out you don't need that extra range, then you paid a lot of extra money for nothing.
However, there seems to be a severe disconnect between extra range and price. It should be cheap and a simple matter to have a slightly larger gas tank but that's not the way things work out in practice.
I've seen some people just load
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can rent a 24 to 26' flatbed truck. I can rent a pickup, such as a Dakota or Quad Cab Ram 1500. This is all local.
What do you need that you can't rent?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you can rent a pickup truck, but it is a basic, stripped work truck.
My daily driver is a 2012 GMC Yukon XL Denali. It is a very nice, well equipped, luxury truck with all the nice stuff.
I'm taking my family on a 2 week trip this summer to Disney World, it is an 18 hour drive from here to there, each way.
I can rent a Tahoe or Expedition, neither of which is really big enough for all of us and our stuff for 2 weeks, neither of which will be very nicely equipped.
I can rent a
Re: (Score:2)
However, there seems to be a severe disconnect between extra range and price. It should be cheap and a simple matter to have a slightly larger gas tank but that's not the way things work out in practice. I've seen some people just load 10 to 15 extra gallons of a gas on a tow mounted shelf behind the car but I guess those shelves cost a five hundred to a thousand bucks.
With an ICE? For most the people most the time the solution is just to bring a few jerry cans, why permanently waste so much space on a bigger gas tank. That's probably why the people with 10-15 gallons extra keep it outside the car too.
Re: (Score:2)
With an ICE? For most the people most the time the solution is just to bring a few jerry cans, why permanently waste so much space on a bigger gas tank. That's probably why the people with 10-15 gallons extra keep it outside the car too.
Yeah, people do crazy things. The control tower of the Kulalumpur airport caught fire, TWICE. Turns out petrol is more expensive at some places compared to other places in Malasia. One air traffic controller was commuting by motorcycle from slightly distant part. He was buying and storing extra petrol in simple jerry cans under his workstation in the bloody control tower! Yeah, I am not surprised people keep jerry cans of fuel inside the car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I drive a GMC Yukon XL Denali, a few times a year I take the family on long road trips. There is nothing I can rent that is the equal of my truck, nor would it be in as nice a condition.
What I am likely to do however, is replace my second truck with an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I can see a couple advantages to towable range extenders.
Probably the biggest one is that once you've rented it you can continue to extend the range indefinitely by utilizing existing widely deployed infrastructure (stopping at a gas station to top up the generator's tank). So you can use to for trips into areas where the charging or battery swap stations haven't reached ye
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure I like the idea of $random_driver towing anything. Your typical Freeway Fool is a danger to himself and others with just the vehicle. With a short coupled trailer - especially trying to park or backup - hilarity ensues.
That said, my next pickup truck is going to be a diesel electric.
Re: (Score:2)
Another advantage of having a towable generator is that it could be used to power a house in those places that don't have underground power lines.
Storms (both winter and summer) are only going to get worse as the temperature of the ocean increases...
Existing infrastructure (Score:2)
I like the idea of towable range extenders, but if you're renting one, what are the advantages over automated battery swapping instead?
You can use the existing gasoline/diesel infrastructure. Big advantage since automated battery swapping infrastructure essentially does not exist yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why towable?
So you don't have to haul it around the 99% of the time you don't need it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's also a whole lot of inherent problems with towed generators: A car towing something is not maneuverable and unlikely to pass the elk test, there will be unnecessary drag and towed generator will be heavy, since it will need to have wheels and some sort of shell. Series hybrids are already a fairly established thing and I do not believe and are the reasonable solution. The BMW i3 already has an optional built in g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the 250-300 mile range on electric cars don't exist? Sure, they're not cheap, but that's just a matter of time.
project estimation (Score:2)
it would probably be maybe next year or something like that.
Sounds like he has a handle on making accurate project estimates
This is good, but not what you think (Score:2)
What the coming 120 AND 160 KWH battery will be used for is long distance trips. You will simply to to the local service center, and swap your battery out with one of the LD ones. Then do your trip. If you are going to spend time at a remote location that has a service center, you will be able to swap back to a lower KWH batter
Re: (Score:3)
Thankfully, still not as big as the fuel fire you get when one of those goes up.
Re: (Score:2)
Well Chevy is apparently looking to combine those two types of fire:
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/0... [usatoday.com]
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/w... [go.com]
FAR better than fossil fuels, and even better tech (Score:3, Informative)
Re:FAR better than fossil fuels, and even better t (Score:5, Insightful)
The awesome thing is that it really is always 5-10 years down the road -- and things are rolling off of that 5-10 year timeline into production all the time.
If you don't think batteries have been getting better, you aren't paying attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, that's what you get from reading press releases. :)
New chemistries frequently have some particular thing they do really well, and a set of drawbacks. The problem you get is when you read the articles about "new battery has X% more energy density", or "new battery has X% higher charge/discharge rate", and expect to get both of those things in the same battery (much less a battery that isn't making tradeoffs unamenable to consumer u
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because we continue to invest in the science and engineering behind them.
Batteries are vastly better than they were 10 years ago, because they've been in continual development. The batteries of a decade ago were similarly much more advanced than the ones that came before.
Batteries are one of the easiest areas to see the "in a few years this tech will be amazing" future speak actually pay off.
Re:FAR better than fossil fuels, and even better t (Score:4, Insightful)
I find the perception that battery tech is not improving rather bizarre. You realise we have laptops that last 12-24 hours today, when only a decade ago the very best laptops lasted only 4 hours, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Mostly due to batteries. If you compare the power usage of laptops then, and now, you'll find that older laptops tended to use in the 10-20W range for their motherboard and CPU. Modern ultra books use a similar power level, while modern laptops use around 30-50W, and still get longer battery life.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any sources for this claim?
Every source I've been able to find estimates a 2-3x increase in Lion capacity in the last 25 years.
http://www.enevate.com/eart/ca... [enevate.com]
http://www.technologyreview.co... [technologyreview.com]
You're also very wrong about laptop battery life. The increase in laptop battery life is almost entirely due to the huge advancements made in frequency scaling, advanced idle states, and fine grained power management (ie shutting down individual cores when not in use).
You'll find that new laptops (and cell
Re: (Score:2)
Every source I've been able to find estimates a 2-3x increase in Lion capacity in the last 25 years.
Oddly, 12 hours is about 3 times longer than 4 hours ;)
You'll find that new laptops (and cell phones) will still run their batteries down very fast when actually under load, but when doing normal desktop tasks all of the advanced power saving features on the silicon are vastly cutting down laptop power consumption. Lion capacity has very little to do with it.
Nope, my laptop lasts about 6 hours even under very heavy load, I would have been lucky to get 1 hour, let alone 2 hours out of a laptop a decade ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Every source I've been able to find estimates a 2-3x increase in Lion capacity in the last 25 years.
Oddly, 12 hours is about 3 times longer than 4 hours ;)
You'll find that new laptops (and cell phones) will still run their batteries down very fast when actually under load, but when doing normal desktop tasks all of the advanced power saving features on the silicon are vastly cutting down laptop power consumption. Lion capacity has very little to do with it.
Nope, my laptop lasts about 6 hours even under very heavy load, I would have been lucky to get 1 hour, let alone 2 hours out of a laptop a decade ago.
You may think you are proving a point, but the previous poster is correct. Li+ battery technology peaked in the 1990s. It is limited by the actual physcis involved. Most likely, what you are seeing is improvements in CPUs such as scalable frequencies, more efficient HDs or even SSDs, and changes to screen technology. Of course, it's also possible that with the shrinking of electronics and the increased size of laptops (17" screens), there is simply more room inside the case for larger battery packs.
Li+ is
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've heard the 'physics limits' haven't been reached.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW it seems you need to increase the surface area of electrodes to increase battery capacity and this can be done with nanotechnology. The issue so far is reproducing some of these in mass production.
Re: (Score:3)
Mostly due to batteries. If you compare the power usage of laptops then, and now, you'll find that older laptops tended to use in the 10-20W range for their motherboard and CPU. Modern ultra books use a similar power level, while modern laptops use around 30-50W, and still get longer battery life.
No, mostly due to higher IPC, agressive power gating and deeper sleep stages. Here's the extended battery pack [toshiba.eu] from my 2002 UltraPortable, 3600 mAh in 330 grams. In 2014 the extended battery [amazon.com] for the Sony Vaio Pro 11 is 4690 mAh in 290 grams, that's about a 75% increase in power/gram in 12 years. There have not been any major revolutions in battery technology, it's still the same lithium-ion technology just a little more refined.
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly due to batteries. If you compare the power usage of laptops then, and now, you'll find that older laptops tended to use in the 10-20W range for their motherboard and CPU. Modern ultra books use a similar power level, while modern laptops use around 30-50W, and still get longer battery life.
No, mostly due to higher IPC, agressive power gating and deeper sleep stages. Here's the extended battery pack [toshiba.eu] from my 2002 UltraPortable, 3600 mAh in 330 grams. In 2014 the extended battery [amazon.com] for the Sony Vaio Pro 11 is 4690 mAh in 290 grams, that's about a 75% increase in power/gram in 12 years. There have not been any major revolutions in battery technology, it's still the same lithium-ion technology just a little more refined.
You're not comparing just the weight of the energy storage element, but also the weight of the casing. And that has changed a lot in the last 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like the singularity it seems that improved battery tech is always about 5-10 years down the road.
Pretty much true.
I've had laptops that ran on Lead Acid batteries, followed by ones that run on NiCad, and Lithium, then Li-Poly.
Seems like they were all about 5 to 10 years apart.
Seems like each time, we knew the new tech would arrive about 5 years in the future.
We are doomed to always be in this cycle, of using the best tech we have while waiting for rumored better tech form the future.
We even develop government programs [computerworld.com] to ensure that this perpetual waiting game remains perpetual.
We've all gotten used to
Re:Dead end (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do people insist that batteries have to be at least 2-3 times as good as hydrocarbons before they can be useful?
Re: (Score:2)
"Why do people insist that batteries have to be at least 2-3 times as good as hydrocarbons before they can be useful?" ..you might have noticed he used "kilometers"
because in europe, cars that go 1000 km on a tank aren't really that uncommon(and current world record for production car being somewhere around 2000(!) km though that takes some preeetty careful driving)...
but let's say 6 liters per 100km. 60 liters tank. what do you get? 1000km.
that's not really the point though, the point is that it has to cha
Re:Dead end (Score:4, Interesting)
This is easily achievable with battery swap stations at a much lower density than current petrol / diesel pumps. Or build cars so a variety of range extenders can be added when needed. The one demo'ed by Phinergy gives 1600km range and weighs 25kg. Or a fuel cell or small ICE unit, preferably one that's better than the REx in the BMW i3.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would probably be a service you subscribe to, not a barter economy. Who cares about owning a "nice new battery"? It's a consumable anyway. A guaranteed minimum quality of service is all that i would require, and this is easily enforced.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer to keep my trucks for 6-9 years, I buy them new and keep them in great condition, it is a pride of ownership thing.
Re: (Score:2)
For the Renault Zoe, you buy the car but lease / rent the battery. The car cost is about the same as the gas version
Re: (Score:2)
Correction - there is no direct gas equivalent of the Zoe but it's about the same price after rebate as a similarly equipped Clio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once electric cars become popular the government rebates aren't needed anymore. From the government's POV because they've already done their job of kickstarting the technology, and from the buyers POV because the manufacturers price has fallen though scale and improved technology such that it's a good buy even without the rebate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the negative aspects of the leasing arrangement is that Renault is able to disable recharging the battery is the consumer stops paying.
That policy and especially that level of access is worrying - leaving EVs open to hackers, law enforcement or other 3rd parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla's announced battery swap option requires you to pick up your original battery on your return trip; if you don't, they'll bill you the price difference taking depreciation into account.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't foresee them sticking to that policy when there are hundreds of thousands or millions of battery-swap capable EVs on the road, especially since a battery that's too degraded to be the primary in an EV still has perhaps a decade of usefulness as stationary storage.
If there are enough cars & enough demand for battery swap, they'll offer a subscription plan similar to what Shai Agassi envisioned for Better Place.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but if there were that many battery-swap capable Tesla EVs on the road, they'd probably be in the financial position to do something like that. I think the basic point is that the concern about getting a worn out battery from a swap isn't going to be a concern, either with the current system (where you get your existing battery back) or with a hypothetical battery subscription service.
For most people, though, battery swaps will be rare. You might need to drive far enough to justify one occasionally
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this assertion is that you've used the fuel efficiency of a typical european mid sized car (around the size of a jetta or something like that), but the fuel tank size of a very large car/SUV. I don't know of a single small-mid sized 4 door car with a 60 litre fuel tank. Most are closer to 30 litre.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a Jetta owner, I can assure you, it's manual is where I got the 30 litre figure from.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for the second reply, but...
Also, as a european, no, a Jetta is not considered a larger car. A Passat is, a golf is considered a small car, a jetta is considered a mid sized car.
Re: (Score:2)
Odd that Ford's web page on it's specs claims it's got a 45 litre tank.
Re: (Score:2)
"but let's say 6 liters per 100km. 60 liters tank. what do you get? 1000km."
Fuel economy is measured in miles per gallon, the metric equivalent of which is kilometres per litre
I can't get my head around an inverse measure..
Anyway not everyone needs to be able to go 1000Km in one trip, but 300 - 400Km would be useful, since cities are farther apart in the USA than EU
FWIW its 300Km from here to The Cities, and 400Km from FM to The Cities
And after 4 - 5 hours you'd probably want to stop for a meal, so your bat
European (Score:2)
European cars all show fuel economy in liters/100km. I don't know why. Seemed odd to me at first, too.
Since everything does it that way, it's an easy lower-is-better comparison.
I'd be curious if anyone knows why it caught on to measure it that way. Maybe it's easier at the pump? If I put in 5L, then I can go 100km... ?
Re: (Score:2)
European cars all show fuel economy in liters/100km. I don't know why. Seemed odd to me at first, too.
Since everything does it that way, it's an easy lower-is-better comparison.
I'd be curious if anyone knows why it caught on to measure it that way. Maybe it's easier at the pump? If I put in 5L, then I can go 100km... ?
If you do the same test that the EU uses to determine fuel economy.
L per 100 KM good because it's an aggregate score, it gives you an idea of the vehicles fuel efficiency under real world conditions. However because fuel deficiency depends on the driver and the route.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuel economy is measured in miles per gallon, the metric equivalent of which is kilometres per litre
I can't get my head around an inverse measure..
Living in a metric country (Canada), I refute your statement. The metric equivalent is litres per 100 kilometres.
Re: (Score:2)
Distance/Volume. Don't see anything raised to the power of a variable there.
And one that does 40 mpg will use half the fuel of one that does 20. Yeah, totally unintuitive.
Re: (Score:2)
that's not really the point though, the point is that it has to charge under 15 minutes while eating after 500km to do another 500km for it to be a long range replacement.
I don't stop to eat, so it needs to be charged up after everyone in the vehicle is finished with the rest room.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, I have no problem with expecting an electric car to be able to drive for an entire day without charging. But then expecting it to be able to charge in 10 minutes is ridiculous. For me, as soon as it can make it for 12 hours without a charge, it's good, as I can go to bed, and charge it for 4-8 hours without any issue at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see people saying that, mostly just that they expect parity with ICE vehicles before it will truly be useful outside of limited circumstances.
I don't hear people saying that either. Mostly they just say that electric vehicles are too damn expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2 words: Charge time.
Batteries are nowhere near as good as hydrocarbons on that front.
2 minutes vs 8 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like 4 minutes versus 30 minutes, but the point is still fair. Luckily, Tesla's battery swap option should take about 90 seconds (beating refuelling), assuming they ever actually deploy them. So far, Tesla's battery swapping has been a paper launch.
Well you could always have an inductive road (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I remember that. Scalextric, I think it was called.
Re:Dead end (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you can come up with battery tech that offers at least 700-800 kilometres range and a maximum recharge time of 5-10 minutes, electric cars are a dead end. Hydrogencars ftw. That is all.
The vast majority of commutes already happen well within the range of current electric cars.
It is hilarious to see all the naysayers claim that electric cars are doomed because they don't fit 100% of all possible uses cases for vehicles.
Also, as someone who works on hydrogen research, don't lump us all in with the anonymous idiot above me. Electric cars definitely have a strong future.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that people want a car that covers all their uses, not just 90%. Most people own one car. For families that own two, one could be all electric, but not both.
The future is in cars with range extension, then when batteries come out that can drive
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That, and the battery's cost is pretty much the limiting factor in how much power can be packed in. He could pack twice as many batteries in, but then it would cost an extra $20,000.
Re: (Score:2)
Weight of the batteries is a limiting factor. An extra $20K would likely _increase_ sales of a fashion accessory like a Tesla. The people currently buying them are that stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Please inform Porsche so they can jack up the price of the Panamera - NorthAm sales are down over 30% since the Model S started shipping.
It's also put a damper on the sales of some of the BWM 7-series and the Lexus GS
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could say this about the early adopters of pretty much any technology. And yet without them, the world is a very different place because no one would take any risks.
Re: (Score:2)
Third, why would you call somebody that hates to waste money on slow poorly made cars, to spend it on well-made high performance inexpensive cars to be stupid? Considering that the Model S is better than any car that costs under 150K, I would say that it is one of the best values going.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd do fine in the onion.
Re: (Score:3)
The only difference is that Elon Musk has far more credibility than you do. He sometimes takes a bit longer to deliver, but his record on making wild assertions and making them actually happen is pretty good.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell does that matter?