Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Transportation Hardware Technology

Tesla Announces 'Tabless' Battery Cells That Will Improve Range of Its Electric Cars (theverge.com) 117

Posted by BeauHD from the what-to-expect dept.
At Tesla's Battery Day Event today, the company unveiled plans to develop a "tabless" battery cell that will make their EV batteries five times more energy dense, six times more powerful, and enable a 16 percent range increase for the company's vehicles. These new "tabless" cells, which Tesla is calling 4860 cells, are "close to working" at the pilot plant level, Musk said. The Verge reports: The company will produce its new batteries in-house, which Tesla CEO Elon Musk predicts will help dramatically reduce costs and allow the company to sell electric vehicles for the same price as gasoline-powered ones. The battery is expected to lower Tesla's cost per kilowatt-hour, the unit of energy most commonly used to measure the capacity of the battery packs in modern electric vehicles. Many experts believe that lowering these costs would allow Tesla to dramatically lower the price of its cars, thereby making them far more accessible. Musk's announcement that Tesla will begin manufacturing its own batteries should help with the shortages the company has experienced in the past with Panasonic and its other suppliers.

With that said, Tesla won't stop purchasing those batteries anytime soon. "In the run-up to Battery Day, Musk tweeted that the company would continue to use batteries supplied by Panasonic, China's CATL, LG Chem, and others," notes The Verge. "Not only that, but Tesla would buy more batteries from its suppliers than normal."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tesla Announces 'Tabless' Battery Cells That Will Improve Range of Its Electric Cars More

Tesla Announces 'Tabless' Battery Cells That Will Improve Range of Its Electric Cars

Comments Filter:

  • Tabless? (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by rossdee ( 243626 )

    You mean like the old web browsers?

    • No, like the diet soda. (Score:5, Funny)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2020 @07:11PM (#60533618)
      It'll never work. I've been trying for years. No matter how many times you press the key you don't get a soda.

    • Does this mean the Tesla fires will be five times more intense?

      • Does this mean the Tesla fires will be five times more intense?

        than gasoline powered vehicle fires? No. Tesla still hasn't managed to pack as much energy into their battery banks as a tank of gasoline.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by geekmux ( 1040042 )

        Does this mean the Tesla fires will be five times more intense?

        For the half dozen that might happen per year in the future? I doubt it.

        In the meantime, 150,000 ICE vehicles catch fire in the US every year. Wow, and NONE of them made the evening news? Damn, must be more of that that award-winning Democratic Dementia that everyone sees but no one talks about. Weird.

        • For the half dozen that might happen per year in the future? I doubt it.

          In the meantime, 150,000 ICE vehicles catch fire in the US every year. Wow, and NONE of them made the evening news? Damn, must be more of that that award-winning Democratic Dementia that everyone sees but no one talks about. Weird.

          This. If it's a Tesla vehicle fire, there is *no way* it's not making the front page. If there was ever any doubt that what's shown in the news, regardless of the medium, so effortlessly controls what people think. No, no, not me, I'm an independent thinker and I check my sources, I don't have any biases! It doesn't matter, it affects us all. Including me.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jbengt ( 874751 )

          In the meantime, 150,000 ICE vehicles catch fire in the US every year. Wow, and NONE of them made the evening news?

          Well, to be fair, if the vehicle fire holds up rush hour traffic, it does make the local evening news.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • *cough* [google.com]

            Sure, they never make the news...

            Uh, I was more referring to any of the bought-and-paid-for "news" channels hell-bent on reporting only the approved news in order to warp perceptions and crush stock futures, not the Goober Gazette reporting out of boredom. I've never had to search, to find out about a Tesla fire.

            What makes Tesla interesting is not that fires tend to get reported, but that they are still so rare on the roads that you wouldn't expect to fires to be frequent enough to merit reporting.

            Hype and bullshit is only interesting to those who value it. The rest of us, are waiting for that stupidity to die off so we actually rely on the MSM to report the news instead of peddling anything that creates ratings.

  • Someone explain the math. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2020 @06:28PM (#60533500) Homepage
    How does 5 times the density (5x100) equal only a 16 (1.16x100) percent range increase?

    Are they just making the battery with a similar capacity in a smaller package but taking advantage of the weight savings (yea I probably just answered my own question).
    • Probably makes sense. It would be nice to have a vehicle with a 2000 km range... but would you be willing to pay for that if your trips rarely exceed 500 km? But an EV with 500 km range with the weight (and sticker price) of an ICE vehicle, now that would be a game changer.

      The article mentions a 14% reduction in price per kWh at the cell level, and with these bigger cells they will have less complexity in the battery pack, with a further reduction in cost. Maybe that’s where the 16% comes from: th

      • How fast does it take to charge cars? Is it something you can reasonbly do during a pit stop in your road trip?

        • Re:Someone explain the math. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2020 @07:14PM (#60533624) Journal
          Long distance travel accounts for just 5% of the miles traveled in personal car. For 95% of the time, you can charge the car overnight in the garage and you leave home with full charge every day.

          For the 5% long distance, this is the current status with Teslas. First 275 miles, no diff with ICE. About 4 hours of driving. No charging needed. For every 200 additional miles (3 hours) you spend 30 minutes in the super charger. Not too bad. Accounting for bio breaks, snack/food breaks, it is not too horrendous.

          No doubt things will improve even more in the future.

          • I'm about making time on long trips. I stop long enough to get gas, hit the head, and grab something to go. It's amazing how much your average speed drops by stopping unnecessarily. If I could hot swap batteries in the time to get gas, that would be interesting to me.
            • No one is going to force you to drive electric. If gas works for you, go ahead use an ice car.

              The number of people willing to drive electric for whatever reason is big enough for us. We do not need you, we dont have to evangelize electric to you.

              • I'm more worried about the people who are in your group that go out on a cold northern Canadian highway and find out that a summer of battery wear plus the cold impact doesn't get them home anymore. Lets hope those SpaceX satellites are up because some places don't have celphone coverage.

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

              > I'm about making time on long trips. I stop long enough to get gas, hit the head, and grab something to go.

              Elon is installing Glory Holes at all charging stations to replace the out-dated gas station glory holes of old.

              Your drained battery is getting filled while you're getting drained yourself. The time will just fly by.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AvitarX ( 172628 )
              I also hate the longer wait on the occasions I need to charge on the road (very rare). But the 90 minutes of charging on an 800 mile day are well worth the zero 10 minute fill ups 345 days a year.

              I visit a friend who I can't charge on that side 350 miles away pretty regularly (every other month or so), it's annoying. But it's not the worst. And I NEVER need to do anything but plug in in my day to day. I HATE pumping gas when I just want to get home from work personally.
            • We pack a lunch as a family, only stopping for gas and bathroom.
          • It is not about people going on long-distance trips, Its about city dwellers who don't have a charging station at home or work. If you have a vehicle that they would only need to charge about as often as they currently go to pump gas then suddenly you have millions of potential customers who would not consider electrical otherwise.
            • EV market share right now is less than 1% of new vehicle sales. Number of EVs on the road is less than 1 million out of 300 million gas vehicles. Right now apartment owners dont see the return on investment in installing wifi enabled 240 V outlets in all their parking spots. But once the market share reaches a critical value, even the slum lords will realize installing electrical outlet is letting them into the business of gas stations. They both sell miles for a car. Apartment owners, street parking city d

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by gmack ( 197796 )

                In my city (Montreal) There are public charge points everywhere. There are a bunch downtown, but even in the lower rent part of the city I live in, there are 3 charge points (6 cars total) that I know of in a 2 block radius.

                • That's wonderful, so if three people on your block get visitors with EVs, which have yet to even become 'common', then those will be full when I get there. How many people live around these three plugs?

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by gmack ( 197796 )

                    You are missing the point. In the downtown area where there are more EVs, there are more charge points. If the 3 charge points in my area start to see more usage, they will install more charge points.

                    • But I would like to see those charge points there before I commit to an EV. So would most people.
                    • Maybe EV dealers in every city should all install a bank of 20-30 plugs and financially encourage businesses in small towns to install each 5-10. It may seem ridiculous today but if they really want to sell EVs then that's the way to increase public confidence. My kid is looking at an EV for semi-long distance university but he's not getting an EV unless I can feel comfortable he has enough chargers on the route that he won't get stuck in case he doesn't get a plug the night before at his dorm.
                    • The generic statement is definitely true. I would like to see those charge points there before I commit to an EV

                      But how much more would vary from person to person. As long as EVs cost more than ICEVs we keep arguing like this. But very soon BEVs and ICEVs will achieve price parity. Same price, BEV or ICEV take your pick. But driving BEV is like buy gas at 75 cents/gallon. When that happens the demand will shoot up so much, charge points will be installed every where.

                    • How far? What EVs are being considered?
                    • Ok well like I said, I'll wait until the charge points get built.
                    • It's their business. That's up to them. I show them the door and open it. They have to walk though.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by jbengt ( 874751 )
                I'm already seeing mandates in the cities around me for public parking lots and garages to have a few percent of spaces equipped with charging stations, and in some cases to put infrastructure in place to increase that percent in the future. It's not a big percent, but it's more than the current electric car usage. If the percentage of electric vehicles in use rises, so will the percentage of parking spaces that can charge them.
            • City dwellers should be using public transit, which should be made COVID-19 safe. No one wants to pay taxes so it will never happen but if you REALLY want to save the environment.......
              • Depends on the public transit.

                Diesel busses are actually very bad for emissions, they only beat out gas cars because you can pack so many people onto them. But, if you figure out the emissions per person of a diesel bus that's filled to capacity, including the manufacturing emissions related to the bus and the emissions related to fuel refining and transport, 1 person emits less by driving an EV, including manufacturing and electricity production emissions (at least, with my jurisdiction's electricity m
                • Electric motors are far more practical in buses with predictable routes and stops than they are in personal vehicles, provided they can put enough charging points and charge fast enough to satisfy the stops. There is no reason to think there won't be EV buses as quickly as there are EV cars.

            • Many EVs also have the option to charge from regular electrical outlets. Slowwww ... compared to superchargers. Overnight charging on household current works for 99.9% of commutes.

              • That's great, now all I need is a really long extension cord to throw out of my 3'd story apartment.

          • For every 200 additional miles (3 hours) you spend 30 minutes in the super charger.

            LOL bullshit.

            edmunds.com 2013 Tesla Model S (85 kWh battery, rear wheel drive), drove Los Angeles to New York: [edmunds.com]

            total driving time= 52h41m , total charging time=14h40m

            Every 3 hours driving time required ~50 min charging time...you over-hyped fast charge time by a factor of almost 2X.

            It's actually longer than 3hour+50min for real life driving since edmunds.com charging times were the minimum charging required to drive to the next "Supercharger", as they were driving across America for a fastest time record.

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by Namarrgon ( 105036 )

              That was six years ago - back then, Teslas were limited to 120 kW charge rates. The V3 Superchargers [wikipedia.org] introduced last year are capable of more than double that.

              • That was six years ago - back then, Teslas were limited to 120 kW charge rates. The V3 Superchargers [wikipedia.org] introduced last year are capable of more than double that.

                A lot of the Superchargers haven't been upgraded yet, though. For comparison, here's what it would take to do that in my 2020 Model S Long Range Plus (per abetterrouteplanner.com, which is quite accurate in my experience):

                Starting in LA w/100% charge:
                Drive 4h 4m, 270 mi, to Las Vegas, NV. Charge 58 min (8%->90%)
                Drive 3h 6m, 221 mi, to Beaver, UT. Charge 37 min (5%->71%)
                Drive 2h,33m, 187 mi, to GreenRiver, UT. Charge 40 min (6%->74%)
                Drive 2h 37m, 185 mi, to Glenwood Springs, CO. Charge 29 min

            • Lucid Air EV charges at 300 miles in 20 mins and you get free charging for 3 years - its due out next year for purchase.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by SpiceWare ( 3438 )

              Hilarious that you think something from 2013 proves your point.

              I bought my Long Range Model 3 in May of 2018. Have taken many trips, such as from Houston to Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin for a family wedding. Charging usually occurs while you are taking care of bio requirements, so has minimal impact on the trip time.

              • * 0 minutes - charged in Huntsville while eating dinner
              • * 5 minutes - charged during rest stop in Corsicana Texas
              • * 0 minutes - charged while sleeping at hotel in Ardmore, Oklahoma
              • * 0 minutes - ch
            • Six years ago they did a coast to coast run on a EV. That is a giant leap. No one thought it would even be possible.

              The supercharger network has filled out so much. 400 mile range model S would pick up 10 miles a minute for the first 20 minutes even in old 128 kW v2 supercharger. Then it would charge 8 miles a minute for the next 20 min. It can pick up 280 miles in 30 minutes. Enough for more than four hours of driving. Model 3 too would easily add 190 to 200 miles in a 30 min session

              .

          • Lol. So many people make this argument. "We've solved th easy part, now the hard part is YOUR problem!"

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by rndmtim ( 664101 )

          Either with this generation or the one right after it the terminal voltage is going to 800V; that means that right now you can get about 60kWH/hour but the next generation of chargers will have higher ampacity as well as voltage and be able to put up to 250kWh/hour into the car... say 1/3 of a kWh per mile, so basically you'll be at full range (notwithstanding the last 10-15% or so charging much more slowly) in part of an hour, might be as little as 25 minutes.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 )

      So Tesla doesn't have a new battery then... it's just planning to create one.

      Nothing to see here, move along.

      I gather there are companies planning to create time machines as well but, as we know, the best laid plans...

    • Re:Someone explain the math. (Score:4, Informative)

      by rgmoore ( 133276 ) <glandauer@charter.net> on Tuesday September 22, 2020 @07:14PM (#60533626) Homepage

      Either the summary is incorrect or the article has been updated. The article says the batteries have 5x the energy capacity, not 5x the energy density. That's not too surprising, because the new cells (not batteries!) are 48mm x 60mm rather than 21mm x 70mm. That gives the new cells about 4.5x the volume of the old ones, so it's a relatively modest improvement for them to hold 5x the energy. The big story is that Tesla is planning on using its own cells designed from the ground up to be used in cars rather than using repurposed laptop batteries. It makes sense for them to do so, and it makes sense to use larger individual cells as long as they can make the larger cells work well.

      • The big story is that Tesla is planning on using its own cells designed from the ground up to be used in cars rather than using repurposed laptop batteries.

        This isn't news. The cells in the Model 3 are 2170 cells, which is not a laptop formfactor.

      • AFAIK only the model S, or even only the early model S, uses/used 18650 cells which are the ones used in most laptops.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by skids ( 119237 )

          When's the last time you saw a modern laptop that was over 18mm thick? You can still find 18650s in a lot of small power tools IIRC.

          TFA wrongly calls the proposed design an increase in "energy density." They are bigger cells. They are just cutting the steak into wookie-sized chunks, and getting a bit more out of doing that than you'd expect due to improvements that are worth doing, per cell, at that size.

          I suppose there are various forms of "energy density"... volumetric, gravimetric, and one could stret

    • No, this whole thing seems all mangled.

      Look at the dimensions. I think it is supposed to be EACH INDIVIDUAL CELL holds 5x the energy.

      21700 cell is 21 mm x 70 mm = 24.245 cc

      4860 cell is 48 mm x 60 mm = 108.573 cc

      So 5x the volume of 21700 cells would be 121 cc, 12% more without thinking about how they pack in. And reducing weight improves the car's efficiency.

      And the article talks about improved power... usually making the cells more energy dense results in lower safe power delivery, but it seems they've impr

      • The "fiveness" I'm seeing here is this:

        Teslaâ(TM)s engineers âoelaser patternedâ the existing foils in the cell to create a âoeshingled spiralâ that results in a shorter electrical path length of 50 mm, versus the existing 250 mm length in the current cells.

        So they reduced "something" by a factor of 5, but not energy per unit volume.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sivaraj ( 34067 )

        The Verge article has a typo. It is not 4860, but 4680. So the actual volume is more than 5x of 2170. I guess the energy density is assume to be of equal proportion, since they are showcasing form factor improvement only in this slide. Power output increase is coming from efficient energy transfer due to tabless structure.

    • Probably 16% more range, but it can deliver 5X the AMPS:)

    • It's 5x energy, not energy density (Score:5, Informative)

      by Namarrgon ( 105036 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @01:20AM (#60534482) Homepage

      As you can see from the slide [amazonaws.com], TFA is just wrong. The battery is around 5.5x the volume of the 2170 cell they use currently, so has 5x the energy. Actual range benefit is just 16%, plus there are significant cost advantages from simpler manufacturing. Oh, and it's also a 4680 battery (46mm x 80mm), not 4860.

      • Mod up. Oh, the density may increase if they shrank the anode. Spiral is good, but only if does not break or chemistry does something weird. Then there is heating and air circulation considerations. The main advantage to making your own batteries is you know your cost structure and material input costs, so just like Walmart, they can choose to screw down the buy price from suppliers, when you buy lots. Tabs make good cheap connections. If no tabs then they are pressure connected which does not sound as g
    • The 5 times capacity is per cell, mainly because this new cell is bigger - 4.2 times bigger than the current 18650 cells.
      On top of that they seem to have 20% increase of capacity per volume.
      This means, they will need fewer cells for the same capacity - cheaper and less weight, so you will have range gains even if they package it at the same capacity battery.
    • They seem to be talking about the individual battery cells. This would be a 46800 cell vs. an 18650. Obviously, putting more more energy-holding material and proportionately less packaging into a cell is going to make it more efficient. The car will use fewer of these bigger cells. Why didn't they do this years ago? Was it not practical? Why don't they make the cells even bigger?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's easy, Musk is lying. Again.

      Tesla cells are more focused on performance than on low cost and high energy density. If they cared about those things they would move to pouch cells. LG and a few other EV battery suppliers have been using pouch cells for years at significantly lower cost and higher density than Tesla. The downside is that charging is a bit slower (but still very very fast) and the limits of performance a bit lower (but still 0-60 faster than is safe on public roads).

      Tesla has snookered itse

    • If a battery pack is 10% of the weight of an average vehicle, having 5x the power or density for the battery means it still has to carry the other 90% of the "deadweight" around. So the vehicle as a whole gets a 16% increase in range.

      At least thats what I think he means.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Twinbee ( 767046 )
      The 16% increase is just the cell design alone. See: https://i.imgur.com/byO5kq4.pn... [imgur.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sivaraj ( 34067 )

      Incorrect writeup by Slashdot.

      It is not 5x energy density. It is 5x more energy per battery. This is mainly because of higher volume of 4680 cells (132 cm3) vs 2170 cells (24.25 cm3). Power output is increasing by 6x because of tabless structure (better throughput for charging and discharging). I assume range increase is due to weight reduction achieved by structural efficiencies, which reduce overall weight. These improvements assume no difference in chemistry between 4680 and 2170.

    • >How does 5 times the density (5x100) equal only a 16 (1.16x100) percent range increase?

      Easy, there's not 5x the density. There's 5x the energy capacity per cell, but the cells are also ~5x the size (volume), so there has been no dramatic change in energy density.

      • And actually... the new 46(diameter)80(length) cell is 5.5x the volume of the old 2170 cells, so it actually has *less* capacity per unit volume, though the addition of a hollow core and end-cones are probably responsible for a lot of that.

  • For any confused by the math (Score:5, Informative)

    by DavenH ( 1065780 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2020 @06:33PM (#60533518)
    The summary mistakenly says 5x more energy dense, which is not the case. It's 16% more energy dense and a lot bigger per cell, hence the 16% more range rather than 500%. The power jump also is less impressive given the increased size per cell, keeping in mind that a cell 5 times the size ought to have 5 times the power; now it has 6 times, 20% more. Not claiming it's bad progress, just not what the summary implies.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Not just the summary, the slide they showed on stage says "5x ENERGY" whatever that means.

      Maybe they mean they can supply 5x the current per cell. Which means they will also need to upgrade the cooling system. And what does it get them? 2 minutes off a 20 minute charge time and a sub 2 second 0-60 on the top end model.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )

      keeping in mind that a cell 5 times the size ought to have 5 times the power; now it has 6 times

      Energy corresponds to volume of the cylinder, but power corresponds roughly to the area of the endcaps. A really long, narrow cylindrical cell will have less power output than a short cylindrical cell of equal volume (and chemistry, and construction, etc.).

  • As usual, you should expect that Musk will only deliver 80-90% of what he promises, and expect it to arrive some time later than he said.

    But also as usual, 80-90% of what's promised is still game-changing. Five times the energy density? Even if they only deliver half of that, that's huge. And if Tesla can sell EVs at anything remotely close to the price of comparable ICEVs, it will spell a quick doom for the ICEV industry. Not immediate, but quick, because EVs will then have a dramatically lower TCO.

  • There's a reference to "Muskâ(TM)s" in this summary.

    Slashdot - where outdated tech and lack of editing collide!

  • Huh? (Score:2)

    by gweihir ( 88907 )

    5 x the energy density and that gives 16% more range? I must have gotten my engineering PhD by accident then, because that is math I do not get.

    In other news, some ./ "editors" do not even understand the basics of engineering and, in addition, find it a challenge to do cut & paste from a story on the web competently. What actually happens here is that they are making a larger cell that only has a small increase in energy density.

  • Herp Derp.

    That's an actual quote from TFA, by the way.

  • mistake in the summary (Score:3)

    by caviare ( 830421 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2020 @07:03PM (#60533596)

    The new cells are five times the capacity, not five times the density. The new cells are much bigger. TFA doesn't state the increase in density.

  • It's the bigger picture that's interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by marcle ( 1575627 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2020 @07:19PM (#60533636)

    If you actually listened to the presentation, it wasn't just about better batteries. Musk and his engineer guy kept emphasizing that they were looking at the entire process, from raw materials to car, and seeing how they could streamline each part of it, gaining a few percent here and a few more percent there. Those percents add up. That's a very systems engineering oriented approach, and it's very effective.

    His timeline may be over-optimistic as usual, but I really liked the direction he's going in.

    The one fly in the ointment was during the stockholders' meeting just before the battery stuff. Tesla apparently has a pretty poor record on human rights (cobalt mining) and treatment of employees. That's jarring for a company that otherwise pretends to care about ecology, sustainability, etc.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by vipvop ( 34876 )

      You'd have to be living under a rock to think Tesla cares about its employees or the environment.

    • I worked on a small UAV project that needed to be battery powered. And the endurance requirement far exceeded what the then state of the art could achieve. We just ended up going with some bullet proof 18650s and put our efforts into weight reduction, aero efficiency, propulsive efficiency, and autopilot tweaks to reduce the aggressiveness of the controls. At the end of the day, we more than doubled the state of the art.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by rndmtim ( 664101 )

      Tesla is about to make a big bet on LFP (no cobalt). The LFP cells could be for power gen sized batteries (that's our preferred chemistry now, and almost all of that is one way or another coming from CATL, so another supplier is a welcome change.) It's also possible that either the LFP cells will be used on cheaper cars or they will hybridize the cell - NCA battery for that enormous specific power requirement (current cells go from no output to nearly 2MW in less than 1 sec) but LFP for the deeper storage.

    • Re:It's the bigger picture that's interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

      by edi_guy ( 2225738 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2020 @08:54PM (#60533890)

      I watched the battery presentation and was also impressed. How/when it comes to fruition is of course up for grabs. Musk seems like a pretty process and efficiency oriented kind of guy. For all the flash that he tries to deliver and is criticized for, so much of the success of his respective companies is just about going back to square one, finding out the wasteful parts of processes and improving upon them. Instead of burning time trying to create some futuristic solid state, super capacitor, something, they look at kinks in the process, removed the tabs. Then re-imagined the process to remove the large ovens for drying the films. That's pretty boring stuff for a revolutionary guy.

      Ditto with the idea that maybe energy density needed by a powerwall and a electric semi are different. There's plenty of room in the avg American house (2400 sq ft) for a large volume powerwall battery pack made with all iron cathodes, with weight also not nearly as much as a concern as it is on vehicles. Many techie folks would see going to iron & nickel as a step back but given the uncertainty of cobalt supply and availability of iron/nickel (silcon as well) very smart move. Reminds me of SpaceX Starship...was carbon fiber then back to good old cheap stainless. Cheap enough, and easily available you can blow a few of them up and not miss a beat.

      Last comment. I think it's really interesting that the best environmental choices are also the best business choices once you have to account for the externalities. Tesla can't just dump their wastewater into the creek sending the problem to someone else, the US & German regulations force them to deal with the waste that they create. So naturally they look for ways to reduce that waste and the cost. The problem for us is that other corps find it easier to buy politicians. Thankfully I bet the engineer in Musk can't stand the idea of kowtowing to a technologically and scientifically illiterate, politician to get favoritism.

    • Their batteries are already down to just 3% cobalt and they're working on eliminating it completely. What more do you expect out of them?
    • "Tesla apparently has a pretty poor record on human rights (cobalt mining) " so no different to the fossil industry then that uses cobalt (non-recyclable) to remove sulphur from diesel - at least with batteries, cobalt is recyclable.. You should cite a source that show Tesla gets its cobalt from unethical and non-traceable sources.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      So just the normal stuff that car companies do.

  • 5x higher energy density means 5x the range not 16% more range. Or did they make the batteries like 400% smaller? Yeah, I know, square cube law and whatever. You know what I mean.

  • I'm pleased there's progress on batteries, and I'm pleased that they keep working on it. But let's be clear, it's not ACTUALLY working, either.

    I don't mean to harsh on Musk, not at all. He may be a bombastic self-promoter, he may be ridiculously optimistic, but I don't see anyother megabilliionaire actually throwing his ludicrous sums of money at pie-in-the-sky high-risk, high-reward sorts of projects - ie, the kind of money only they can afford to lose.

    (Yes, Bill Gates is spending his billions in cautiou

  • Musk reveals himself as the slithering creature he is. Tesla can just go ahead sell its cars to Trump supporters, any that manage to avoid jail. Elon Musk can go attend a covid party. My wallet stays shut to Tesla.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close