Single Crystal Lithium-Ion Batteries Last 8x Longer, Researchers Show (techxplore.com) 99
Researchers used Canada's national synchrotron light source facility "to analyze a new type of lithium-ion battery material — called a single-crystal electrode — that's been charging and discharging non-stop in a Halifax lab for more than six years," reports Tech Xplore.
The results? The battery material "lasted more than 20,000 cycles before it hit the 80% capacity cutoff," which they say is equivalent to driving 8 million kms (nearly 5 million miles). That's more than eight times the life of a regular lithium-ion battery that lasted 2,400 cycles before reaching the 80% cutoff — and "When the researchers looked at the single crystal electrode battery, they saw next to no evidence of this mechanical stress." (One says the material "looked very much like a brand-new cell." Toby Bond [a senior scientist at the CLS, who conducted the research for his Ph.D.] attributes the near absence of degradation in the new style battery to the difference in the shape and behavior of the particles that make up the battery electrodes... The single crystal is, as its name implies, one big crystal: it's more like an ice cube. "If you have a snowball in one hand, and an ice cube in the other, it's a lot easier to crush the snowball," says Bond. "The ice cube is much more resistant to mechanical stress and strain." While researchers have for some time known that this new battery type resists the micro cracking that lithium-ion batteries are so susceptible to, this is the first time anyone has studied a cell that's been cycled for so long...
Bond says what's most exciting about the research is that it suggests we may be near the point where the battery is no longer the limiting component in an EV — as it may outlast the other parts of the car. The new batteries are already being produced commercially, says Bond, and their use should ramp up significantly within the next couple of years. "I think work like this just helps underscore how reliable they are, and it should help companies that are manufacturing and using these batteries to plan for the long term."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the news.
The results? The battery material "lasted more than 20,000 cycles before it hit the 80% capacity cutoff," which they say is equivalent to driving 8 million kms (nearly 5 million miles). That's more than eight times the life of a regular lithium-ion battery that lasted 2,400 cycles before reaching the 80% cutoff — and "When the researchers looked at the single crystal electrode battery, they saw next to no evidence of this mechanical stress." (One says the material "looked very much like a brand-new cell." Toby Bond [a senior scientist at the CLS, who conducted the research for his Ph.D.] attributes the near absence of degradation in the new style battery to the difference in the shape and behavior of the particles that make up the battery electrodes... The single crystal is, as its name implies, one big crystal: it's more like an ice cube. "If you have a snowball in one hand, and an ice cube in the other, it's a lot easier to crush the snowball," says Bond. "The ice cube is much more resistant to mechanical stress and strain." While researchers have for some time known that this new battery type resists the micro cracking that lithium-ion batteries are so susceptible to, this is the first time anyone has studied a cell that's been cycled for so long...
Bond says what's most exciting about the research is that it suggests we may be near the point where the battery is no longer the limiting component in an EV — as it may outlast the other parts of the car. The new batteries are already being produced commercially, says Bond, and their use should ramp up significantly within the next couple of years. "I think work like this just helps underscore how reliable they are, and it should help companies that are manufacturing and using these batteries to plan for the long term."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the news.
Electrode? (Score:2)
Parts of a battery: anode, cathode, electrolyte.
What electrode?
Re: Electrode? (Score:2)
But can it work in a smartphone? (Score:2)
Pretty weak FP. So you didn't like the labeling?
Par for FP these days? I am interested in the topic, but mostly for smartphone applications. Thinking about composing an AskSlashdot about smartphone selection criteria, and batteries are certainly on the list. If I cycle the phone once a day, then 20,000 cycles should be long enough. But I sure don't believe that 2,400 number for "regular" batteries. My current phone sure feels way less than 80% after a little over a year. Call it 400 cycles?
Re: (Score:1)
I'm guessing the theoretical maximum of 2,400 cycles is based on optimal lab conditions; the ambient heat from your phone during charging probably shortens that life span dramatically. What I'd really want to know though, is how safe these are compared to traditional lithium-ion battery types, particularly when punctured or lit on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Good question and applies in different ways to cars or smartphones. Perhaps less of a problem if it's used for major load leveling?
Re: (Score:2)
Anodes and cathodes are electrodes.
Which electrode? (Score:2)
The cathode. They replaced the polycrystal lithium NMC material with a monocrystal. This addresses a common problem with crack formation in the cathode.
Re: (Score:2)
... You probably shouldn't comment on this particular topic.
Nah, it'll never fly (Score:2, Insightful)
Manufacturers *don't want* a car that lasts a really long time. Where's the profit in that?
Re: Nah, it'll never fly (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This was my thought as well, it may not be an issue for the next decade or so due to the endless demand for new batteries intended for new construction rather than replacement, but if Li-Ion batteries are still around in a decade or so, there will be a lot of incentive to form a Phoebus Cartel for batteries.
Re:Nah, it'll never fly (Score:5, Interesting)
>"Manufacturers *don't want* a car that lasts a really long time. Where's the profit in that?"
* Car manufacturers sell cars, not batteries.
* Cars with longer-lasting batteries will sell better and demand higher prices.
* ICE cars already last a very long time, if taken care of. And that was improving for many decades.
* ICE cars don't have some built-in/designed-in, expected, very expensive timebomb waiting to go off like EV's do.
* EV cars that eliminate the timebomb will better compete with ICE cars.
* Electric manufacturers can then be free to work on other features that will entice current and future buyers.
Generally, with an elastic, competitive market, *nobody* loses with improvements in technology... everyone wins.
Re: Nah, it'll never fly (Score:2)
Ice vehicles had many years of bad gas tank designs. It took decades to correct ice vehicles to make it so they hardly catch on fire at random any more.
That said I know several personal antetodes where an ice engines randomly caught fire and burned to the ground. The best one was on Halloween 2022 when my mother in law pulled in to my driveway on the flames of hell. Her voltage regulator randomly fried and caught a bunch of dry leaves on fire. By the time the fire dept got there the whole car was engulfed.
Re: (Score:2)
That said I know several personal antetodes where an ice engines randomly caught fire and burned to the ground.
Yeah, I have one myself, one of my earliest memories is of my father's Toronado burning in our driveway. It lit itself on fire while not being driven.
But anecdotes aren't that valuable, data is what we like, and gas cars are more likely to combust [kbb.com].
The sad part is, it's pretty easy to make this not happen. You build an inline engine with a hot side and a cool side, keep fuel lines away from hot components, use heat/fuel spray shields where necessary, and use fuel injectors with metal bodies. This would make
Re: (Score:1)
For those who don't know where this pundit's lie is, it's a lie of omission of details of the study.
You forgot to provide the citation. Maybe you messed up the link? That happens.
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to not have noticed that I agreed to your citation, and went to read it. And then simply explained what it actually said, and how it's completely different from what you claimed it said.
Or are you incapable of checking the fact if yearly roadworthiness inspections in our nations are real?
https://www.traficom.fi/en/tra... [traficom.fi]
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, you don't actually have a citation that disagrees, you just decided that their findings didn't apply to anywhere else. Thanks for making that clear.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can read Swedish or have a translator for PDFs, then you should read this: https://rib.msb.se/filer/pdf/2... [rib.msb.se]
If not then this is what will tell you about it. https://www.motortrend.com/fea... [motortrend.com]
You are wrong on this issue. EVs are least likely to combust, hybrids are most likely, and ICE is in the middle.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is in line with what I said above. Your last sentence is a lie by gross misrepresentation.
Re: (Score:2)
Your last sentence is a lie by gross misrepresentation.
How is it a misrepresentation? Regardless of how it happens, ICE cars are more likely to catch fire than EVs. I mean, claiming anything else is just... self-delusion.
Re: (Score:2)
It has been explained above: https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No, it has not been explained. The only thing there is the implication that you do not trust government agencies who's raison detre is to track car safety without cause for such distrust.
It seems the problem exists between your ears.
Re: (Score:2)
It's indeed difficult to make someone understand the obvious when they find it beneficial to not understand the obvious.
As the old adage goes, you can take the horse to the water. You can't make it drink. Your refusal to drink has been noted for future reference.
Re: (Score:2)
You have failed to present any evidence. Claiming that statistical data is inaccurate without anything to back up that claim of inaccuracy is not evidence. I hope you understand that your argument is on par with a conspiracy theorist's unfounded claims.
Re: (Score:2)
>without anything to back up
To quote myself:
It's indeed difficult to make someone understand the obvious when they find it beneficial to not understand the obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, flat-earther.
Re: (Score:2)
The irony is that you don't even understand that flat-earthers are in fact people who are difficult to make understand the obvious, because find it beneficial to not understand the obvious.
Just like you.
The fact that you chose that exact thing to accuse me of in reply to the above is significant piece of evidence to you actually having the aforementioned cognition problem, as it indicates your cognition of the obvious is so impaired, you couldn't even understand the basic principle being mentioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternative hypothesis: you need a boogieman because you cannot cope with reality.
As for myself, I have little to gain from EVs being less flammable because fully solid state batteries aren't that far off.
The real question is why you think there is a conspiracy to suppress the truth and more importantly, how you think it could be maintained when it would very advantageous both politically and financially for several major players. Seriously, someone could get a massive payday from selling info like that.
Re: (Score:2)
>because fully solid state batteries aren't that far off.
When's nuclear fusion that is workable coming?
>why you think there is a conspiracy to suppress the truth
Insurance prices changing affordability of EVs vs officially mandated push for switch to EVs in Western nations. Nations that don't have it quite as bad, such as South Korea already mitigate EV risks through inflated insurance pricing and bans on fully charged EVs in indoor garages.
Re: (Score:2)
>because fully solid state batteries aren't that far off.
When's nuclear fusion that is workable coming?
Cute but unlike fusion, progressive improvements can be used. Semi-solid state batteries [grepow.com] are likely to be used in Chinese EVs in 2025 while true solid state batteries are slated for 2028 and mass production in 2030. Do remember that it generally takes 15 years to get a new battery chemistry to market.
>why you think there is a conspiracy to suppress the truth
Insurance prices changing affordability of EVs vs officially mandated push for switch to EVs in Western nations.
Insurance pricing is not solely based on NTSB stats, so if the NTSB were lying, they would simply ignore the NTSB and raise their insurance rates. The real issue is the damage that a burning EV can cause more d
Re: (Score:2)
No son. Solid state batteries are already on Amazon, made by those chinese manufacturers!
Anyway, since you have demonstrated that you believe in every perpetual motion engine that aligns with your beliefs, contrary to all evidence that it's not real, I don't think there's a point in continuing this discussion, Perpetual motion engines aren't real, solid state lithium batteries have been "existing or coming any moment now" for over twenty years at least, lithium air is permanently 20 years away, fusion is pe
Re: (Score:1)
I had a 1976 celica burst into flames in 1990 when I pulled over to the side of a country road for my mate who needed a pit stop. Foot high Long dry grass touched the hot manifold and caught fire, which lit grease and oil from my old leaky engine.
Luckily sand and a stinky contribution from my mate with the full bladder got the situation under control.
Re: (Score:3)
The best one was on Halloween 2022 when my mother in law pulled in to my driveway on the flames of hell. Her voltage regulator randomly fried and caught a bunch of dry leaves on fire.
She should have used her broom. Especially on that day!
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries aren't a "time bomb". If not defective and properly designed, they will outlast the rest of the car. Some Chinese manufacturers even give a lifetime warranty now.
Fossil cars though... Lots of consumables, things like wet belts that destroy the engine if not properly maintained or manufactured. Brake pads wear out fast, various fluids need constant replacement. We have just got used to them, they aren't better.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Manufacturers *don't want* a car that lasts a really long time. Where's the profit in that?"
* Car manufacturers sell cars, not batteries. * Cars with longer-lasting batteries will sell better and demand higher prices. * ICE cars already last a very long time, if taken care of. And that was improving for many decades. * ICE cars don't have some built-in/designed-in, expected, very expensive timebomb waiting to go off like EV's do. * EV cars that eliminate the timebomb will better compete with ICE cars. * Electric manufacturers can then be free to work on other features that will entice current and future buyers.
Generally, with an elastic, competitive market, *nobody* loses with improvements in technology... everyone wins.
Do you even own a modern car, or do you enjoy assuming that hard about the pointless complexity and expendable reliability of modern shitwagons while trading in a barely used lease every two years? No ticking timebomb? There are over 150,000 ICE car fires that happen every year just in the United States. Thousands every day. What exactly are we calling a “timebomb” here?
Today, people can still own their mode of transportation. I only see pointless complexity leading one direction in the fut
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"ICE cars don't have some built-in/designed-in, expected, very expensive timebomb waiting to go off like EV's do."
Of course they do. It's called the engine and transmission.
EV batteries are said to last 300,000 - 500,000 miles. At 300,000 miles, you're probably going to replace your ICE engine that is measuring quarts per mile of oil consumption, spewing so much pollution that the EPA has put a price on your head, and so forth.
My own Ford Eco-Boost twin turbo is supposedly $9K without the turbos, and fig
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Manufacturers *don't want* a car that lasts a really long time. Where's the profit in that?
The software subscription they'll require to you to maintain, lest your car turn into a brick.
Re: (Score:2)
Manufacturers *don't want* a car that lasts a really long time. Where's the profit in that?
It’s quite hilarious to remember the Achilles heel of capitalistic competition; All it takes is ONE competitor with that exact mindset, to crush the rest with ultimate reliability. Especially when those building expendable dogshit have the arrogance to charge THAT price.
Manufacturers are now failing to push 2025 models to still-overpopulated car lots and dealers that can’t sell last years dogshit. We’ll soon see what they *don't want* worse.
Re: Nah, it'll never fly (Score:1)
different environments / temperatures (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It is not, because if what they claim is true, it's that you can massively increase the manufacturing cost of one of the battery parts (cathode), to mitigate against a very rare type of failure.
Reminder: primary problems in NMC batteries are lithium inventory loss and dendrite growth. Their monocrystal cathode changes nothing for those two problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Lithium battery density has been steadily improving over the past 15 years. https://www.energy.gov/eere/ve... [energy.gov]
Re: (Score:1)
For those wondering where the lie of this pundit is, it's in the fact that he claims this to be a "battery density improvement".
Page he links talks about "battery PACK density improvement". What is being talked about is minituarization of support systems such as cooling systems and control logic.
Science remains unbeaten by pundits in that no, chemistry hasn't suddenly being able to grow beyond its theoretical limits (which current lithium batteries are pretty close to).
Cell density has quadrupled (Score:2)
In actual fact, energy density of lithium-ion cells (not packs) has grown from 80 Wh/kg to 300 Wh/kg in the last 30 years, with cells reaching 700 Wh/kg [physicsworld.com] in the lab.
May I suggest backing your opinions with citations in the future, as loud but unsupported assertions are generally ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
This is more of the "but if we widen the scope enough, we can pretend that single charge lithium air is also a lithium battery like the current one".
This is why I specifically reference that everyone is aiming for lithium air in this research, because we know the limits of currently practically implemented chemistries like NMC (with actually working electrolytes rather than "works maybe two times, ten if we are really lucky") and LiFePo. We're hoping to find one of those lithium based chemistries that can a
Re: (Score:2)
Accidentally edited it out, but I was supposed to start with quoting from your link, as researchers are in complete agreement with me (last two paragraphs, the usual place where "reality check" is hidden in these puff pieces):
>The researchers, who report their work in Chinese Physics Letters, explain that a trade-off always exists between the energy density, cycle performance, rate capability and safety of lithium-ion batteries. Safety is a primary requirement, but elevated energy density will increase t
Re: (Score:2)
Cherry-picking a single packaging announcement from a single vendor does not disprove anything. Obviously there's trade-offs between battery metrics, and obviously commercial products lag behind lab results, but that says nothing about the industry's continual improvements over time - and neither do your quotes. Perhaps you should be reading them more closely yourself.
While new chemistries and packaging arrangements can certainly help, there have also been steady improvements in existing cell chemistries, a
Re: (Score:2)
I once again remind you that citing a lot of the same propaganda that falls into the exact same pitfall changes nothing. Yes, you can have a "battery" that charges once and then burns in a way that you will have to wait a month before it's safe to open and try to figure out what went wrong. That is where "increase in energy density" comes from.
Meanwhile batteries that can be actually used have stayed pretty much the same last two decades in terms of energy density. Because those are actually useful batterie
Re:Battery Miracle of the Week (Score:5, Insightful)
so we can go on frivolously traveling from place-to-place in two-ton un-aerodynamic brick--powered by a 1,020 horsepower electric motor
Why single out electric motors? How is it different from going frivolously traveling etc. if the un-aerodynamic brick is powered by an internal combustion engine? The IC engine just adds extra stink. And it's not like there's a shortage of idiots buying large pick-up trucks to drive them to the grocery store and back. It would still be better for everybody if those idiots would buy electric trucks instead.
without thinking of where the power to charge the batteries is going to come from, or a consideration for the future of those who follow.
I'd think the opposite is true. From all of those points of view BEVs are superior to internal combustion vehicles - in some cases crushingly so. BEVs are much more flexible regarding the source of power they use: a good percent of the energy used by BEVs can come from renewable sources like solar or wind. For the rest, BEVs can use energy from a large variety of sources, like nuclear, gas plants or even coal plants. This kind of flexibility doesn't appear to exist for ICVs; the main alternative fuel I'm aware of is LPG, who shares a lot of the same problems of extraction, refining and transportation. I don't see any comparable progress in renewable fuels like ethanol or maybe hydrogen.
Consideration for future generations should make the switch to BEV even more important. First, the amount of pollution from ICVs is significantly higher than the pollution from BEVs, even if the BEV is powered from dirty sources, like coal plants. Second, the vast majority of the fuel used by combustion engines comes from oil, whose extraction, refining and transportation are themselves highly polluting and very energy-intensive. By comparison, transportation of electricity from producer to consumer is much cheaper and more efficient.
Re:Battery Miracle of the Week (Score:5, Interesting)
All that you said is true, but trying to stick with having so many cars when we have more efficient alternatives which don't run on pneumatic tires which wear away and wind up in waterways and the ocean and our food and our bodies is definitely still insane. EVs are a big improvement over ICEVs, but electric trains (light rail, PRT, whatever) are an even bigger improvement.
In the USA there was actually a conspiracy which bought up and shut down profitable private rail lines in order to sell more cars, buses, tires, and fuel [wikipedia.org]. The principals were each fined five dollars, because yay rah capitalism. And this kind of thing also never stopped. For a popular recent example, see Elon lying about hyperloop in order to help try to kill CA HSR. He wants us to believe he can transport thousands of people thousands of miles in a couple of hours when he can't even transport people from one end of the Vegas Strip to the other faster than they can walk off the strip, get to the monorail, and get there on it instead.
EVs > ICEVs, but rail > either for medium to long trips.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree wholeheartedly that we should do everything possible to prioritize mass transit, walkability, and biking, and minimize car use.
We need better zoning laws that promote mixed use and multifamily housing. Eliminate parking requirements that turn our cities and towns into a sea of parking lots and asphalt. And more.
But.
In the US we've spend the last century designing our cites around urban sprawl. Like it or not, that's where many of our homes are and where people live.
You're simply NOT going to solve s
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to "solve" sprawl to make big improvements using public transport. You could still serve a much larger portion of the population using it than we are doing now without changing anything about where people live or work.
Self-driving vehicles can actually be a useful part of this, if instead of taking them all the way to work, we put in public transport and then use them to solve the last mile problem between transit stations and homes or work.
Re: (Score:1)
All that you said is true, but trying to stick with having so many cars when we have more efficient alternatives which don't run on pneumatic tires which wear away and wind up in waterways and the ocean and our food and our bodies is definitely still insane. EVs are a big improvement over ICEVs, but electric trains (light rail, PRT, whatever) are an even bigger improvement.
Automobile travel is a luxury that Americans are not much interested in giving up. Advantages: Leave exactly when you want, choose the exact route you wish to take, share space with specific people or no one at all, make the entertainment system play what you want it to, set the temperature to what you want it to, stop when you want and maybe take pictures or buy unusual foods to eat, load your luggage into the trunk, have no one snooping through it and maybe stealing something, nobody telling you that y
Re: Battery Miracle of the Week (Score:1)
"If you want a passenger train to be popular in America, make it carry the passenger AND HIS CAR to the destination."
There's no way to make that cost effective for a commute without shrinking the cars dramatically. And we can't do that without removing the idiots from the large vehicles. This also includes a majority of truckers, who are mostly new and incompetent. Plenty of the older truckers are also this. I just had one cut me off with a log truck the other day.
Re: (Score:1)
There's no way to make that cost effective for a commute without shrinking the cars dramatically.
Trains carry some amazingly heavy stuff. Cars and passengers would only be about 2 to 2 1/2 tons in most cases. Drive these onto a railcar transversely, so that the automobile is pointed crosswise of the track, so that you can just drive them into the railcar from appropriately sized loading platforms, so loading would probably take maybe 30 seconds of normal driving. Sides of the railcar could be closed, driver and passengers could elect to exit the automobile and travel to the ends of the railcar whe
Working on the wrong problem (Score:1)
How about working ion the biggest problem? Battery capacity?
Re: (Score:3)
It’s actively being worked on and steadily improving. https://www.energy.gov/eere/ve... [energy.gov]
Re: (Score:1)
Since he keeps spamming this specific lie, I will continue to spam the obvious debunk of this lie.
The false claim is that this link's charts talk about "battery capacity". It does not. It talks about battery PACK capacity. Specifically, everything from packing batteries more densely into the pack, to minituarizing logic boards and cooling systems.
Re: (Score:2)
You're full of shit.
Fuck off, troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla battery day from four years ago still haunts you, doesn't it? When they announced a much larger battery pack, made of much larger individual batteries. Absolute cutting edge, showcasing a result of ten years of development of lithium batteries.
Who's energy density was approximately.... 1% higher than their almost decade old smaller batteries. And once people got to disassemble those batteries, it was discovered that this difference mostly if not fully came from... needing less contact surface per volu
Re: (Score:2)
You were told to fuck off, lying troll.
Learn your place.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess I hit the bullseye again, as the output once again degenerated into barely coherent emotional outburst.
Re: (Score:2)
Which I of course have at several places in this very thread.
Re: (Score:3)
>"How about working ion the biggest problem? Battery capacity?"
* There are many problems.
* There is value in working on all problems.
* Battery capacity is actually not the largest problem for many people- it is not having a place to charge it at home.
* One could argue that battery capacity *is* what they have been working on the most.
Re: (Score:2)
All the time. We are neat theoretical limits of chemistries we widely deploy, so there's nothing to be gained there. Which is why we're constantly trying to look into chemistries that have theoretical maximums that are much better than current tech.
Problem is, we have not a faintest clue what to use for lithium air. It's the holy grail of battery tech the same way fusion is for energy generation. And just like fusion is perpetually 50 years away, lithium air remains perpetually 20 years away.
Re:Working on the wrong problem (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the advances underway is using Niobium (Nb) to reduce charging time down to 7-10 minutes. And that's for a 0-100% charge, not 10-80%.
If charging times are dramatically reduced, then there's less need for 300-400-500 ranges, since if you get low you just make a quick stop to "top off".
And if you don't need super-sized batteries, that makes cars lighter, less expensive, and more efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
This is pretty exciting if true. I did some googling but it was hard to come up with anything that wasn't clearly biased towards advertising/hype. Would love to find something that spells out the realistic tradeoffs of the technology.
Re: (Score:2)
We have 500kWh batteries in trucks, it's not really the capacity or physical size that is the issue at this point. It's cost, and that is falling rapidly.
Seasonal temperatures? (Score:2)
Have these new batteries been studied operating in extreme temperatures? Do they last longer in such less-than-ideal conditions as well? I'm mostly interested in the implications for winter driving range.
625k miles is already great (Score:2)
The article notes that this new battery material is goood for 8m miles, which it notes is 8x a standard Li ion battery. That’s 625k miles! That’s already the equivalent of 40 years of driving the US daily average of 40 miles a day. More than good enough to outlast the rest of a typical car.
Re: (Score:2)
The article notes that this new battery material is goood for 8m miles, which it notes is 8x a standard Li ion battery. That’s 625k miles! That’s already the equivalent of 40 years of driving the US daily average of 40 miles a day. More than good enough to outlast the rest of a typical car.
Statistically speaking, you will have been forced to total and replace that incredibly expensive asset multiple times in 40 years. Due to simple human error which isn’t leaving the roadways anytime soon.
And that’s before we get to the autonomous network hacking by terrorist organizations. Or planned obsolescence because “new safety standards” (aka Greed) made your model car not just obsolete, but illegal.
Sadly, reliability will become an afterthought to long-term predictable Shit H
LTO batteries did this a decade ago (Score:2)
So what would be the advantage?
Re: (Score:2)
LTO batteries have great charge times and long cycle life, but poor energy density (worse than NiMh) and high cost. Supercapacitors are cheaper and even faster to charge, but have even lower energy density. EVs generally use NMC (3x the energy density of LTO) or LFP (150% density with much lower cost, albeit slower charging than NMC).
Re: (Score:2)
My Ioniq 5 uses Liquid-cooled lithium-ion polymer (LiPB).
More range than my bladder has, and charges faster at a decent charger than I eat lunch.
Re: (Score:1)
My Ioniq 5 uses Liquid-cooled lithium-ion polymer (LiPB).
More range than my bladder has, and charges faster at a decent charger than I eat lunch.
Range and stops are 2 different things. I stop for the comfort at Interstate Highway rest areas, but there are neither gas pumps nor chargers there. Having to scare up a charger when you need it is still a constraint to EV travel. EV travel will be on a par with ICE travel when you do NOT have to plan the trip. Just point the hood ornament at the destination, drive until it says you have 50 miles left, then get gas at the 1st sign that says Exxon, or Shell, or Valero or 76 or whatever. Ever see an
di-lithium crystals are better (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously not even a single joke about di-lithium crystals, what is this world coming to?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously not even a single joke about di-lithium crystals, what is this world coming to?
Given the state of the environment, I would go with a warp core overload headed toward a warp core breach. The icing on the cellular peptide cake is that there are no escape pods.
OK, Fine, It Lasts A Long Time (Score:1)
No mention of comparative size, weight, power density, environmental durability with respect to temperature, and so forth. So, is it a good EV candidate or not? We are looking for lighter, denser, cheaper, fire resistance, etc.