Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Transportation Technology

Lamborghini Licenses MIT's New High-Capacity, Fast-Charging Organic Battery Tech (techradar.com) 81

Posted by BeauHD from the future-of-EV-batteries dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechRadar: Thanks to new Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) research, which was part-funded by Lamborghini, we could soon see the end of difficult-to-source and often problematic rare metal materials featuring in the batteries of future electric vehicles. The MIT study's aim was to replace cobalt and nickel, typically used as a cathode in today's lithium-ion battery technology, with organic materials that could be produced at a much lower cost. This would also reduce the impact on the planet and conduct electricity at similar rates as cobalt batteries. [...] The research, which has been running for six years, has culminated in a novel organic material that could be a direct replacement for cobalt and nickel. According to details recently released by MIT, this material consists of many layers of TAQ (bis-tetraaminobenzoquinone), an organic small molecule that contains three fused hexagonal rings.

It's a complicated subject for those not donning lab coats for a living, but these TAQ layers can extend outward in every direction, forming a structure similar to graphite. Within the molecules are chemical groups called quinones, which are the electron reservoirs, and amines, which help the material to form strong hydrogen bonds, which ensure they don't dissolve into the battery electrolyte (something that has previously blighted organic cathode compounds), thus extending the lifetime of the battery. It comes as no surprise that Lamborghini has licensed the patent on this technology, seeing as it funded the research and has a certain Lanzador high performance electric vehicle in the pipeline.

Researchers say that tests of the material revealed that its conductivity and storage capacity were comparable to that of traditional cobalt-containing batteries. Also, batteries with a TAQ cathode can be charged and discharged faster than existing batteries, which could speed up the charging rate for electric vehicles. This speedy rate of charge and discharge could help give something like Lamborghini's Lanzador a performance edge, while super-fast charging capabilities will negate the need for lengthy charging stops -- something the Italian marque's discerning clientele will likely be opposed to. However, Lamborghini is also part of the wider Volkswagen Group and seeing that the primary materials needed to manufacture this type of cathode are already commercially available and produced in large quantities as commodity chemicals, we may see the battery tech filter down to more affordable EVs in the future.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lamborghini Licenses MIT's New High-Capacity, Fast-Charging Organic Battery Tech More

Lamborghini Licenses MIT's New High-Capacity, Fast-Charging Organic Battery Tech

Comments Filter:
  • Is it 0.001% or more like 0.000001%? Whatever it is, Lamborghini will certainly not move the needle on anything like "the end of difficult-to-source and often problematic rare metal materials".

    • Re:Lamborghini has what market share? (Score:5, Informative)

      by youngone ( 975102 ) on Monday January 22, 2024 @07:30PM (#64180847)
      Lamborghini helped with funding for the research, so I could see them licensing the technology to other automobile manufacturers, and it's as good as the claims they'd make a lot of money.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ls671 ( 1122017 )

        Lamborghini helped with funding for the research, so I could see them licensing the technology to other automobile manufacturers, and it's as good as the claims they'd make a lot of money.

        I first suspected as you did but then I glanced over TFS and I am still not sure that would be possible. "Licensing a patent" usually means paying the patent holder to use the product. It still isn't clear who owns the patent and it seems like Lamborghini couldn't do what you suggest at first glance but who knows? As I said the whole thing isn't clear enough in my mind yet.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Dusanyu ( 675778 )
        If another compony wanted this tech they could buy out Lamborghini

    • Re:Lamborghini has what market share? (Score:5, Informative)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Monday January 22, 2024 @07:39PM (#64180869)
      Lamborghini is owned by the Volkswagen Auto Group (the largest automaker in the world) through its subsidiary Audi. So, it's an interesting question why they chose to place this under Lamborghini. Maybe they deem it a good brand for an initial, small-volume, experimental, high performance technology. If it works great and scale up, I'm sure it will find its way from there.

      • Just because it is a conglomerate of companies, does not mean they are not individually run anymore.
        If you look carefully at the summary, you see that Lamborghini was involved in the research.

      • If the battery works as well as they hope it would make all kinds of sense to showcase in a Lamborghini. Not the least of the reasons is, it will initially have a Lmborghini-like price when they are still manufacturing in boutique quantities.

        • From the article about the Lamborghini involvement:

          while super-fast charging capabilities will negate the need for lengthy charging stops -- something the Italian marque's discerning clientele will likely be opposed to.

          For the life of me, I can't imagine WHY their customers would possibly be opposed to faster charging times and LESS time sitting around waiting for a battery to charge???

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by havana9 ( 101033 )
        Maybe is the other Lamborghini, the brand owned by SAME/ DEUTZ-FAHR.
        Or maybe because The founder, Ferruccio Lamborghini made successful side projects. He started making agricultural tractors, first getting military surplus stock of engines, then designing new engines, then made a spin-off making Lamborghini cars, and then another less known for making hydraulic pumps. So it's a brand that was already used for side projects.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ruddk ( 5153113 )

        perhaps because you expect a Lamborghini to be expensive and unreliable? So you can let people with too much money test it out first and pay the repair bills for the technology before it trickles down to a more stable platform. IDK.

      • it's an interesting question why they chose to place this under Lamborghini

        Huh? If it is good tech for a 'hypercar' it should be absolutely fucking fantastic for your Volkswagen.

        In other words, of COURSE they would associate this tech with their highest value brand.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Personally, I'm looking forward to buying my next Lamborghini [windows.net] with this technology.

      • Re:Lamborghini has what market share? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Monday January 22, 2024 @08:38PM (#64180959)

        That reminds me of a story I heard about how and why Lamborghini got in the sport car business. I'm going by memory here so I'm certain I'm getting something wrong, perhaps someone knows where to find the story from a trusted source online and can post a link.

        Mr. Lamborghini was a successful businessman that made his fortune selling agricultural tractors. Perhaps he sold many things that I don't recall, the point is that he knew how to make a damned fine tractor for pulling farming implements. He was a fan of Ferrari automobiles but thought the transmissions were junk. He contacted Ferrari and offered his services to improve on their transmissions. His offer was refused. Lamborghini thought that if he was going to have a damned fine automobile then he was just going to have to make it himself. So he created the Lamborghini brand of automobiles. While he knew how to make a good transmission he still needed some people to help with engineering the rest of the car. In looking for engineers and technicians he ended up hiring a lot of people that worked for Ferrari. A few years later Ferrari now had competition from Lamborghini in making high end sport cars. Apparently Ferrari transmissions were improved from having competition from Lamborghini.

        If Ferrari took Lamborghini's offer on making a better transmission then Lamborghini would not exist as an automobile manufacturer, it would be known for making really nice agricultural tractors instead.

        • Yep, you're pretty close. The problem he had was with the clutch. Ferrari told him, basically "you're holding it wrong [hotcars.com]".

          "It's very simple. In the past, I have bought some of the most famous Gran Turismo cars and in each of these magnificent machines I have found some faults. Too hot. Or uncomfortable. Or not sufficiently fast. Or not perfectly finished. Now I want to make a GT car without faults. Not a technical bomb. Very normal. Very conventional. But a perfect car," Ferruccio Lamborghini once said.

          With regard to the Ferrari cars, the after-sales service also disappointed Ferruccio, so he expressed his frustration with Enzo Ferrari. However, following a lively exchange in which Ferruccio voiced his displeasure with the clutch and advised Ferrari to find a remedy, Enzo responded: "The clutch is not the problem. The problem is you don't know how to drive a Ferrari and you break the clutch."

          According to the Motor Web Museum, Ferruccio replied: "Dear engineer, I'll never buy your cars again. From now on I'll make my own cars, then I can be sure they work the way I want them to." Fast-forward to 1963 and Ferruccio founded his grand touring car company in Sant'Agata Bolognese, with the intention of building the "perfect car."

    • What's more to the point is that they want to make Lamborghinis that don't go "Vroom! Vroom!" & make lots of stinky, dirty fumes. Have they lost their minds? What kind of petrol-heads are going to buy that?! Unless of course, they're admitting that Lamborghinis are mostly very expensive garage & driveway decorations.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rei ( 128717 )

        No, they want to be able to keep selling cars, and much of their market is places that have phaseout dates for ICE sales of 2035 or sooner.

    • Is it 0.001% or more like 0.000001%? Whatever it is, Lamborghini will certainly not move the needle on anything like "the end of difficult-to-source and often problematic rare metal materials".

      This is early-adopter tech, and it's going to be at early-adopter prices. People who are willing to pay more and experiment on themselves pave the way for the rest of us.

    • Lamborghini is owned by Volkswagen AG.

      You think VW's market share might be important? You think they might be using it in a hyper-exclusive low-volume brand where cost isn't a problem for it's buyers in order to prove market worth and viability, and iron out manufacturing kinks before you try to stuff it into every car you make?

      There's a reason why these people are running one of the largest auto manufacturing companies on the planet, and you're posting on Slashdot.

  • How does this compare to Solid State Batteries? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MIPSPro ( 10156657 ) on Monday January 22, 2024 @07:22PM (#64180827)
    There are so many stories about improving battery tech, it's hard to know which to believe. It's also hard because so many have been pipe dreams that didn't make it to market as a real product, though this Lambo Lanzador is definitely in the pipeline. Toyota is planning a solid state [electrek.co] battery they claim to be able to reach a 750 mile range in existing sized sedans. Hope it pans out, but as an EV owner (Leaf) I have already discovered that the most important thing about an EV is your abililty to get the battery serviced and/or replaced. Since Nissan (and everyone else including Tesla) has loads of DRM in your way, it's difficult and expensive, with few third-party alternatives. Despite a company in New Zealand that tried to make one for my Leaf, it's neither available nor is it apparently going to be coming to the USA even if it is available. So, my options are to swap for a wrecked battery in better condition for about $9k (40kwh) or pay Nissan $12k for a new 40Kw battery. No option to upgrade to the 60Kw battery, either, even though the exist unless you swap in a wrecked one and load some firmware & hardware hacks. I feel trapped with nothing but bad options, but thankfully I have three other cars :-)

    • Re:How does this compare to Solid State Batteries? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Monday January 22, 2024 @07:41PM (#64180873)

      I really think as soon as possible there should be some clarifying legislation mandating that car companies have to maybe work on a common battery pack interface for power/control/cooling? Or they need to not put impediments from allowing 3rd party manufacturers from producing compatible packs, which really we have for a large majority of traditional car parts.

      Now where this gets really hairy is something like what Tesla has proposed where the battery is not in fact a pack of any sort and is basically built in a structural element of the car, like all the phones today.

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by nonBORG ( 5254161 )
        Yes just what they need more limiting legislation. Why not just force them all to have the same exact design and materials and supply chain and price.

        • Re:How does this compare to Solid State Batteries? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Monday January 22, 2024 @10:48PM (#64181141)

          They are free to play nicely of their own volition.

          But if they do some shit where out of warranty if you want to replace your battery pack but you have to buy from the OEM because they have stupid handshake or codes that only the dealers get, well, fuck them.

          Also OBD and CAN Bus and a host of other common protocols tie cars together already. It's almost like SAE and IEEE do things.

        • EV auto makers welcome standards that lower their costs and add customer benefit to improve sales. Last year nearly every maker voluntarily adopted Tesla's charge plugs in quick succession. Tesla also sent specs for the 48V accessory system to all makers for free. It's likely that will be adopted by many EV makers next year. If it makes sense no government regulations are needed.
      • The next step in the path to pack standardization is for swappable range extenders. The EV would have a small, less expensive permanent battery with about 150 mile range for daily use. For a long trip you go to a swap station and pick up a more expensive range extender pack for the trip. Then if the permanent pack had issues at least it would be 1/3 the cost to replace. It would also lower the purchase price of the EV by 15% or so.

        • I have heard about this concept of towable batteries or a generator for especially long trips years and years ago but have never seen in materialize, is anyone working on such things still? Seems promising.

          • Yes, multiple companies are working on such things. I've yet to see one that is beyond fundraising with actual sales/rentals happening. It's kind of a chicken egg problem.

            You need cars that can plug in while driving and you need enough cars for demand to drive a business like that. It appears to me there are many attempts or planned attempts just waiting to get going when it can be viable as a business.

            Car makers are solely fixated on large battery cars they want you to replace after X years with a new ca

      • Now where this gets really hairy is something like what Tesla has proposed where the battery is not in fact a pack of any sort and is basically built in a structural element of the car, like all the phones today.

        Such an odd coincidence isn't it? It is almost like Musk learned from Jobs.

    • it's hard to know which to believe

      Simple: do not believe ANY of them until they deliver a useful commercial battery. Batteries have a huge number of parameters they have to get correct before they are commercially viable e.g. charge per weight, number of usable charge cycles, discharge rate, charge rate, cost of materials, stability in an accident etc. Every time you hear a story about some new battery tech it focuses on a few parameters where the new tech shines and never mentions the others.

      To be successful any new battery technology

    • There are so many stories about improving battery tech, it's hard to know which to believe.

      I've seen MIT mentioned along with new battery chemistry before, usually Prof. Donald Sadoway is involved.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      I've seen Sadoway mentioned many times with new battery chemistry that at some point I realized that he was mostly just picking different elements from the periodic table and testing out how well they perform in storing an electrical charge. He's started at least two different companies to work on putting his ideas into batteries that people could buy but given that I h

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by BranMan ( 29917 )

        One possible solution for that is to split it up - maybe max out each connector at a fixed voltage and amperage. But then build a car that has TWO plug in points, that can be used at the same time. Or THREE for even faster charging. Keep the standards and be able to multiply the power being fed into the car.

        Making cars lighter has been done for quite a while now - there isn't a whole lot of meat left on that bone. There are limits we're pretty much at right now - especially considering all the required

    • There are so many stories about batteries because so many people are working on battery technology. As you said yourself, getting the battery serviced/replaced is a key facet of EVs. Many of the issues you've described are issues imposed by the manufacturer. But there are also many physical challenges around the batteries and if the batteries were lighter, cheaper, and higher capacity it would significantly change the EV market.

    • I am dragging my Leaf out as long as possible and if I must... I'll get a smaller battery. I wanted the minimum (~23kW) which does limit me but before when I needed to go a great distance I rented anyway (try having an old car break down far from home and being at the mercy of whomever you are towed to... and not being able to repair things yourself cheaply... and you could end up totaling the car pretty easily.) I figured that new tech would take a decade+ and 3rd parties to make me cheaper better replace

  • Can people writing about batteries... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rei ( 128717 ) on Monday January 22, 2024 @07:27PM (#64180839) Homepage

    ... at least be bothered to learn the first thing about them?

    rare metal materials

    There are no rare metals (whether you mean rare earths, or literally rare metals) in li-ion batteries. You're thinking of ICE car catalytic converters and spark plugs.

    The MIT study's aim was to replace cobalt and nickel

    1) Neither rare, nor rare earths. Cobalt, the less common / more expensive of the two, is currently under $30 per kg. In the price ballpark of, say, a decent cheese.
    2) Only in use in less than half of EV li-ion batteries. Iron phosphate is more common.

    cobalt batteries

    Nobody uses "cobalt batteries" in EVs (LCO). That's cell phones and laptops. Cobalt is a minor additive in nickel-based li-ion cells - NCA, NMC, etc.

    for those not donning lab coats for a living,

    Stop pretending like lab tech is a finished product. The vast majority of battery lab techs die with a whimper.

    • You're thinking of ICE car catalytic converters and spark plugs.

      And many electric motors, to be fair.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rei ( 128717 )

        And many electric motors, to be fair.

        What are you picturing? The housings are generally alumium. The windings are most commonly copper, but sometimes alumium. There's rare earth magnets in most (not all, you can use induction motors), but as people here should already know, "rare earths" aren't actually rare.

        • Rare earth magnets, yes. I agree they're not rare, but still at present somewhere north of 80% of global supply comes from China, which has demonstrated willingness to artificially restrict exports of these in the past, so that does strike me as a weakness in our supply chains.

          I know efforts are underway to diversify sources here, and that not all motors need them, but like cobalt it's an area that we need to address.

  • What EVs really need now is not capacity but discharge rate, today's high-performance EVs need a huge battery pack to collectively get enough power out of all the cells for high total power output, leaving them with excessive range, weight, and cost. That weight then takes more power to move and causes the car to go through tires and brakes faster making the car costlier to run.

    With a higher discharge rate a smaller, lighter, and potentially cheaper pack could be used, plus since discharge rate and charge r

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )

      What EVs really need now is not capacity but discharge rate, today's high-performance EVs need a huge battery pack to collectively get enough power out of all the cells for high total power output, leaving them with excessive range, weight, and cost.

      I disagree. Manufacturers don't build a big battery pack into the car just so that they can provide the necessary output power. Rather, the pack is sized primarily for the desired range and cycle life requirements.

      As just one example datapoint: the Model

      • That's an understandable mistake if you think they have different battery packs, but they don't. The packs are the same and when you buy an extended range model, Tesla basically just sells you an uprated warranty to go along with opening up the battery charge limits to allow for more range (which will wear the pack out faster).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by necro81 ( 917438 )

          The packs are the same and when you buy an extended range model, Tesla basically just sells you an uprated warranty to go along with opening up the battery charge limits to allow for more range (which will wear the pack out faster) Please explain the difference in curb weight, then. Is Tesla tweaking that in software, too?

  • There's been more than a few articles on Slashdot that mention MIT and batteries, inevitably such news comes with mention of Donald Sadoway. I guess this is the exception.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    Dr. Sadoway has made a lot of noise about new battery chemistry for a long time. I remember seeing him in a TED Talk speak with considerable energy and enthusiasm about breaking the code on how to make a more affordable battery by reconsidering the assumptions people made about what makes a good battery.

    • I have better hope in seeing synthesized hydrocarbons to get our vehicles to net zero carbon emissions than any improvement on the chemical storage battery

      Me too. I expect I will never own a Lamborghini, but if I ever do I want a V-12.

    • Re:MIT? Batteries? But no Sadoway? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Namarrgon ( 105036 ) on Monday January 22, 2024 @11:58PM (#64181221) Homepage

      I don't recall iron batteries being mentioned since so I assume that not much has come from this.

      Well, there are LiFePO4 (lithium iron phosphate) [wikipedia.org] batteries in use today, and in fact form the majority of the EV market (both Tesla and BYD produce most of their vehicles with LFP cells these days). They have the advantages of being longer-life, safer, and cheaper than nickel/cobalt chemistries, plus of course not requiring cobalt.

    • Oh, and a couple more points:

      I have better hope in seeing synthesized hydrocarbons to get our vehicles to net zero carbon emissions than any improvement on the chemical storage battery.

      Synfuels are in-use today to some extent, and they can be carbon neutral (if you source the carbon from the atmosphere, which is a big, expensive, and inefficient "if"), but they suffer from nearly all the same disadvantages of petroleum fuels (pollution, distribution, 60% energy loss from heat-engine inefficiencies etc), and add a major new problem: cost [arstechnica.com].

      You need lots of hydrogen (electrolysis is roughly 75% energy efficient) as well as a source of carbon, then you spend more e

    • The next best EV might just have a diesel engine under the hood.

      It won't, and the reason is a combination of cost, emissions, and NVH.

      Cost, diesels cost more to make because they have higher cylinder pressures so you need to use superior materials if you want to keep weight down. Emissions, ties back into cost, you can't keep the emissions down without a) a turbo (for maximum efficiency) and b) a DEF system to handle NOx specifically. NVH, obvious. Even a small diesel is hard to keep from being noisy. You wind up having to tune for noise and that affects everything else

  • let's hope it pans out, but if I had a cent for every piece of news about a magical battery breakthrough, I'd be a trillionaire long ago.

  • Does that cure covid?

  • It's not that rare strategic resources "happen" to be in politically unstable countries, but that we keep countries having a large amount of rare strategic resources unstable because it makes it cheaper. Let's call a cat, a cat.
    • Being slightly less cynical, the reality is that resource-extraction never benefits the place from which the resource is extracted. The only places that "take the deal" are ones that are somewhat desperate. If we discovered strategic resources in the middle of Miami, the NIMBYs would be sure that there was no extraction. So it tends to be a self-reinforcing negative cycle.

  • Or VW? VW owns Audi which owns Lambo, so VW is licensing the technology.

  • bis-tetraaminobenzoquinone is more appropriately shortened to BTABQ. Taq (polymerase) is already taken and well known. They are just going to confuse people.

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close