Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla battery researcher unveils new cell that could last 1M miles

electrek.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Tesla battery researcher unveils new cell that could last 1M miles

#51

Post by BubRoss »

DuskStar wrote: post #45
hwillis wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) 532 is not a new chemistry. It's not even the lowest cobalt chemistry; there's 511 and 811 beyond that (811, or 80% nickel, 10% manganese, and 10% cobalt, is not yet technically feasible). 2) Range is decreased. 532 has lower energy density. 3) Maybe..? But nothing truly significant. The additives in this chemistry mean a lot of heat gets generated during charge/discharge. Heat is the limiting factor during charge…

> since a battery that lasts 5x as long costs 5x less. This is only true if there is an inflation-adjusted discount rate of 0%, which is unrealistic even in this era of low interest rates. Adjusted for inflation, paying $10 now and again at years 10, 20, 30 and 40 is better than paying $50 up front would be. (By adjusted for inflation, I mean that the $10 you pay in 10 years might actually be $11, but still $10 in 20…

That's assuming that batteries would stay the same price while currency inflates.

Re: Tesla battery researcher unveils new cell that could last 1M miles

#52

Post by DuskStar »

BubRoss wrote: post #51
DuskStar wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since a battery that lasts 5x as long costs 5x less. This is only true if there is an inflation-adjusted discount rate of 0%, which is unrealistic even in this era of low interest rates. Adjusted for inflation, paying $10 now and again at years 10, 20, 30 and 40 is better than paying $50 up front would be. (By adjusted for inflation, I mean that the $10 you pay in 10 years might actually be $11, but still $10 in 20…

That's assuming that batteries would stay the same price while currency inflates.

It's assuming that the item you're purchasing would maintain the same real price. If it cost $10 to start, and after 10% inflation the battery now costs $11, this holds. (Well, it holds if you have some way to beat inflation with safe returns. US government bonds often but not always meet this requirement)

In the case of batteries specifically, I think it's likely that prices drop even without adjusting for inflation. This makes the price advantage even clearer.

Re: Tesla battery researcher unveils new cell that could last 1M miles

#54

Post by ianai »

surewhynat wrote: post #50
ianai wrote: post #27

Can anyone tell whether this is a solid state electrolyte? I’m still hooked on what I saw in that Netflix documentary where the guy was able to cut and puncture the battery without combustion. Also seemed capable of being much more dense.

which documentary was that?

Nova search for the super battery

In classic Netflix fashion, it’s been removed. Worth the 2$ to watch it though.

This is the company making solid state battery tech: https://ionicmaterials.com/about-us/

Re: Tesla battery researcher unveils new cell that could last 1M miles

#55

Post by gamblor956 »

DuskStar wrote: post #45
hwillis wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) 532 is not a new chemistry. It's not even the lowest cobalt chemistry; there's 511 and 811 beyond that (811, or 80% nickel, 10% manganese, and 10% cobalt, is not yet technically feasible). 2) Range is decreased. 532 has lower energy density. 3) Maybe..? But nothing truly significant. The additives in this chemistry mean a lot of heat gets generated during charge/discharge. Heat is the limiting factor during charge…

> since a battery that lasts 5x as long costs 5x less. This is only true if there is an inflation-adjusted discount rate of 0%, which is unrealistic even in this era of low interest rates. Adjusted for inflation, paying $10 now and again at years 10, 20, 30 and 40 is better than paying $50 up front would be. (By adjusted for inflation, I mean that the $10 you pay in 10 years might actually be $11, but still $10 in 20…

Adjusted for inflation, paying $10 now and again at years 10, 20, 30 and 40 is better than paying $50 up front would be.

This ignores the economic realities of how projects of this nature are funded. Once projects reach a certain scale, it's much easier to find $50x once than $10x multiple times, especially when that $10x spend does not include costs that may increase over time, such as labor and regulatory compliance.

Re: Tesla battery researcher unveils new cell that could last 1M miles

#56

Post by taneq »

FooHentai wrote: post #44
hwillis wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is referring to the fact that it is ubiquitous to leave some amount of reserve so that the battery is never fully charged (100% SoC) or discharged (0% SoC). This formulation is capable of going the full 0-100%, while most formulations will last significantly longer if they don't do that.[1] In that graph, charging to 75% and discharging to 25% gives you about 3x more life than from 25%-100%. NB that most l…

24kw leaf battery is an example of this with user stats seemingly bearing it out. Charge it to 80% each time, you can expect 3000 cycles before it's spent (drops below 85% of original capacity). If you charge to 100% each time, you'll only get 1000 cycles. 3-4 years versus 8-10 years use makes a big difference.

The 85% capacity benchmark seems pretty arbitrary to me. I'd imagine most owners very rarely use more than 85% of their range (or at least, could avoid doing so easily) at which point 85% isn't "needs expensive battery replacement", it's just "slightly less range buffer". I imagine in 20 years' time we'll see plenty of old beaters, student cars etc. with 50% or less range that are still quite happily driving around.

Re: Tesla battery researcher unveils new cell that could last 1M miles

#57

Post by perl4ever »

DuskStar wrote: post #45
hwillis wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) 532 is not a new chemistry. It's not even the lowest cobalt chemistry; there's 511 and 811 beyond that (811, or 80% nickel, 10% manganese, and 10% cobalt, is not yet technically feasible). 2) Range is decreased. 532 has lower energy density. 3) Maybe..? But nothing truly significant. The additives in this chemistry mean a lot of heat gets generated during charge/discharge. Heat is the limiting factor during charge…

> since a battery that lasts 5x as long costs 5x less. This is only true if there is an inflation-adjusted discount rate of 0%, which is unrealistic even in this era of low interest rates. Adjusted for inflation, paying $10 now and again at years 10, 20, 30 and 40 is better than paying $50 up front would be. (By adjusted for inflation, I mean that the $10 you pay in 10 years might actually be $11, but still $10 in 20…

"which is unrealistic even in this era of low interest rates"

What? It doesn't seem unrealistic to me. Interest rates are increasingly negative in nominal terms, but much more frequently near zero or negative in real terms. Even in the US, 5 year real rates have averaged around zero from 2010 to present.[1]

[1]https://www.multpl.com/5-year-real-interest-rate (as you can see, real rates were going up a lot until the fed backed off and we're back to zero)

Re: Tesla battery researcher unveils new cell that could last 1M miles

#58

Post by scrungus »

thekyle wrote: post #43
std_throwaway wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would make the phone thicker which is not going to happen.

How much thicker?

https://www.solidsmack.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Energi...

bonus: https://i.redd.it/og0o0b3cr8a31.png

Re: Tesla battery researcher unveils new cell that could last 1M miles

#60

Post by drcross »

taneq wrote: post #56
FooHentai wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

24kw leaf battery is an example of this with user stats seemingly bearing it out. Charge it to 80% each time, you can expect 3000 cycles before it's spent (drops below 85% of original capacity). If you charge to 100% each time, you'll only get 1000 cycles. 3-4 years versus 8-10 years use makes a big difference.

The 85% capacity benchmark seems pretty arbitrary to me. I'd imagine most owners very rarely use more than 85% of their range (or at least, could avoid doing so easily) at which point 85% isn't "needs expensive battery replacement", it's just "slightly less range buffer". I imagine in 20 years' time we'll see plenty of old beaters, student cars etc. with 50% or less range that are still quite happily driving around.

That's already the case, you can pick up 2013 Nissan Leafs with very small batteries for small money. They're used for commute cars or grocery pickup.
Post reply on HN