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

The price of lithium-ion batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 330 posts

Re: The price of lithium-ion batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades

#231

Post by walrus01 »

FabHK wrote: post #224

Nice that the cost has come down. Unfortunately, that which makes electric cars and planes feasible, namely energy density (Wh/litre) and specific energy (Wh/kg), has not improved that rapidly. The article mentions a factor of 3.4 over 30 years for energy density, ie 4% p.a., or doubling every 17 years. I think electric aircraft need another doubling or two in specific energy to become feasible, so another few decade…

If one looks at the Wh/kg of the very best li ion batteries right now (about 250Wh/kg) and then compares it to the Wh/kg in avgas or jet a or diesel, it's nuts. Even if you lose 40-60% to waste heat. The amount of energy contained in those fuels is ridiculously dense by comparison.

Re: The price of lithium-ion batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades

#232

Post by oblio »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #179
justinator wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> California, a state of 40 million people, would disagree with you ;) How explode-y is this battery? I hear California also has this problem with forest fires and it seems a fire and giant batteries all over the place would be two flavors that do not go well with each other.

Probably less explody than a propane tank. Turns out that pretty much any form of energy storage can release a bunch of energy in a short time if pushed hard enough.

I was thinking the same thing until someone pointed out that lard stores a ton of energy but you can't really make it explode. I hope.

Re: The price of lithium-ion batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades

#233

Post by oblio »

FabHK wrote: post #224

Nice that the cost has come down. Unfortunately, that which makes electric cars and planes feasible, namely energy density (Wh/litre) and specific energy (Wh/kg), has not improved that rapidly. The article mentions a factor of 3.4 over 30 years for energy density, ie 4% p.a., or doubling every 17 years. I think electric aircraft need another doubling or two in specific energy to become feasible, so another few decade…

If we fix everything except for aircraft, we will have done enough. At that point aircraft can keep using fossil fuels for a while longer.

Cars, trucks, buses, trains, HVAC, factories are what needs to be electrified ASAP.

Re: The price of lithium-ion batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades

#234

Post by oblio »

azernik wrote: post #197
cm2187 wrote: post #39

That's not the price of batteries in general, that's the price of Li-Ion batteries. Were Li-Ion batteries mass produced in 1991?

This illustrates a big problem in econometrics, specifically inflation measurement ("price indexes"): when comparing the prices of equivalent (baskets of) goods and services, "equivalent" gets harder and harder to define over longer time and space intervals. The classic example is light bulbs [1]. If you use naive comparisons of like goods across years, with weighting by percentage of expenditures, to measure consume…

> But what you won't capture is that these two goods are both providing lighting, and that the switch from one to another provides a sharp drop in the price of light that is not captured by the change in prices of either in isolation.

I wonder if there was any way to compute light emitted per source. Then you could calculate a price per unit of light and whale-oil lamps would be obliterated by incandescent light builds which would in turn be obliterated by LED light bulbs.

Re: The price of lithium-ion batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades

#235

Post by oblio »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #151
cbmuser wrote: post #110

Yes, but their energy density has hardly changed and every gasoline tank beats your average LiIon battery by a factor of 10: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#In_chemical_rea...

Energy density is a meaningless measure for cars. $ per mile isn't. If you have a heavier battery, you just need a bit more of it to drive the same amount of miles. It just boils down to cost in the end. You can also trade weight for mileage and have less battery. That lowers the cost and improves the mileage. Apparently Tesla has pushed internal cost per kwh of storage below 100$ now. That price is going to drop fur…

Range matters. My current Volvo V40 can, at highway speeds, go for 1100km on a full tank of diesel.

There is no electric car at a similar price that can go farther than 500km, in practice I'd be shocked if it went more than 400km.

I'd want range to be at least 80% of that of the diesel before I switch.

Re: The price of lithium-ion batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades

#236

Post by cbhl »

oblio wrote: post #234
azernik wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This illustrates a big problem in econometrics, specifically inflation measurement ("price indexes"): when comparing the prices of equivalent (baskets of) goods and services, "equivalent" gets harder and harder to define over longer time and space intervals. The classic example is light bulbs [1]. If you use naive comparisons of like goods across years, with weighting by percentage of expenditures, to measure consume…

> But what you won't capture is that these two goods are both providing lighting, and that the switch from one to another provides a sharp drop in the price of light that is not captured by the change in prices of either in isolation. I wonder if there was any way to compute light emitted per source. Then you could calculate a price per unit of light and whale-oil lamps would be obliterated by incandescent light buil…

Planet Money had an episode where they used the metric "minutes of light per day's wages". Here's the transcript: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/503769949

But there are qualitative changes that aren't captured by this -- street lights are brighter and whiter now than they were in the 1990s for example, and those were brighter than oil lamps before them.

Re: The price of lithium-ion batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades

#237

Post by amelius »

oblio wrote: post #233
FabHK wrote: post #224

Nice that the cost has come down. Unfortunately, that which makes electric cars and planes feasible, namely energy density (Wh/litre) and specific energy (Wh/kg), has not improved that rapidly. The article mentions a factor of 3.4 over 30 years for energy density, ie 4% p.a., or doubling every 17 years. I think electric aircraft need another doubling or two in specific energy to become feasible, so another few decade…

If we fix everything except for aircraft, we will have done enough. At that point aircraft can keep using fossil fuels for a while longer. Cars, trucks, buses, trains, HVAC, factories are what needs to be electrified ASAP.

If every industry thinks like that ...

Re: The price of lithium-ion batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades

#238

Post by harperlee »

oblio wrote: post #233
FabHK wrote: post #224

Nice that the cost has come down. Unfortunately, that which makes electric cars and planes feasible, namely energy density (Wh/litre) and specific energy (Wh/kg), has not improved that rapidly. The article mentions a factor of 3.4 over 30 years for energy density, ie 4% p.a., or doubling every 17 years. I think electric aircraft need another doubling or two in specific energy to become feasible, so another few decade…

If we fix everything except for aircraft, we will have done enough. At that point aircraft can keep using fossil fuels for a while longer. Cars, trucks, buses, trains, HVAC, factories are what needs to be electrified ASAP.

And boats!

Re: The price of lithium-ion batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades

#239

Post by winter_blue »

walrus01 wrote: post #231
FabHK wrote: post #224

Nice that the cost has come down. Unfortunately, that which makes electric cars and planes feasible, namely energy density (Wh/litre) and specific energy (Wh/kg), has not improved that rapidly. The article mentions a factor of 3.4 over 30 years for energy density, ie 4% p.a., or doubling every 17 years. I think electric aircraft need another doubling or two in specific energy to become feasible, so another few decade…

If one looks at the Wh/kg of the very best li ion batteries right now (about 250Wh/kg) and then compares it to the Wh/kg in avgas or jet a or diesel, it's nuts. Even if you lose 40-60% to waste heat. The amount of energy contained in those fuels is ridiculously dense by comparison.

It looks like diesel holds ~10,700 Wh/kg[1]. That’s over 40 times the volumetric energy density.

I hope people find an electrical energy storage system (ie a battery) that’s cheap, and with high mass and volumetric energy density, soon. That would be huge for solving the impending climate (and pollution) crisis.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#In_chemical_r...

Re: The price of lithium-ion batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades

#240

Post by _Microft »

oblio wrote: post #233
FabHK wrote: post #224

Nice that the cost has come down. Unfortunately, that which makes electric cars and planes feasible, namely energy density (Wh/litre) and specific energy (Wh/kg), has not improved that rapidly. The article mentions a factor of 3.4 over 30 years for energy density, ie 4% p.a., or doubling every 17 years. I think electric aircraft need another doubling or two in specific energy to become feasible, so another few decade…

If we fix everything except for aircraft, we will have done enough. At that point aircraft can keep using fossil fuels for a while longer. Cars, trucks, buses, trains, HVAC, factories are what needs to be electrified ASAP.

If batteries do not make progress fast enough, synthetic fuels might be a temporary(?) solution. With these we can have the advantage of the high energy-density of hydrocarbon fuels for use cases like airplanes without having the climate effect of fossil fuels. Remember that the problem with fossil fuels is that they increase the amount of carbon in (short term) circulation which is what leads to further accumulation in the atmosphere or oceans. Producing synthetic fuels would remove carbon from the environment before releasing it on use again, leading to a net-zero effect.
Post reply on HN