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

Solid-State Battery Has 2x the Energy–and No Anode

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 218 posts

Re: Solid-State Battery Has 2x the Energy–and No Anode

#91

Post by mabbo »

uoaei wrote: post #73
mabbo wrote: post #63

Lithium ion batteries set the standard because they have an acceptable level of all the key metrics: energy storage by weight; energy storage by volume; discharge rate; charging rate; production costs. Every single one of these big breakthrough announcements touts how great this new tech is- in just one or two particular metrics. The problem is that Li-Ion batteries are just barely acceptable in all of those metrics.…

Different battery designs and chemistries are appropriate for different applications. I don't care about how much a battery weighs if it never moves, for example.

I'm of two minds on this.

On the one hand, you're right that for different applications having different metrics can be acceptable. Sure, a battery for your home that never moves can be heavy and large and that's okay.

But then you have to consider the economics of production. How many of those batteries will you make? What will the factory for them cost to build? And what would it cost instead to just make a bunch more Li-Ion batteries at the existing factory instead?

Re: Solid-State Battery Has 2x the Energy–and No Anode

#92

Post by raddan »

kungito wrote: post #81
Feloevo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is already a car which uses two battery technologies in parallel. This would also allow you to configure or offer cars optimized for the climate they are being used. I personally also see those news more in 'im 5-10 years' we will have something much better than now.

Which car? You cannot drop something like this without a source

I’m sure this is not what the poster meant, but in fact most EVs and hybrids use multiple battery technologies in parallel. For example, a Chevy Bolt has a lithium ion battery to power the drivetrain and a conventional lead-acid battery for the accessories. My old Prius had a NiMH battery for the drivetrain and a lead-acid battery for accessories.

Re: Solid-State Battery Has 2x the Energy–and No Anode

#93

Post by jackmott »

wffurr wrote: post #50
jackmott42 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EVs are already very heavy, and when the model 3 switched to LFP it got even heavier. This mass has lots of subtle consequences that aren't always appreciated. Like accelerated tire wear (which Tesla owners notice after they buy) and increased particulate pollution from that, increased road wear, increased danger to pedestrians and cyclists, etc. So, I'm less excited about LFP. There are a number of ideas in the work…

Wh/Kg is the relevant metric to optimize though. Whether it’s LFP or solid state doesn’t matter. If that company is building higher density LFP batteries, that addresses every concern you mention.

[dead]

Re: Solid-State Battery Has 2x the Energy–and No Anode

#94

Post by rbanffy »

raddan wrote: post #92
kungito wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which car? You cannot drop something like this without a source

I’m sure this is not what the poster meant, but in fact most EVs and hybrids use multiple battery technologies in parallel. For example, a Chevy Bolt has a lithium ion battery to power the drivetrain and a conventional lead-acid battery for the accessories. My old Prius had a NiMH battery for the drivetrain and a lead-acid battery for accessories.

> For example, a Chevy Bolt has a lithium ion battery to power the drivetrain and a conventional lead-acid battery for the accessories.

This seems like an odd choice - unless you already bought a supply of lead-acid batteries for the next 50 years or so.

I've read about a car using supercapacitors in the regenerative brakes to capture energy at high current and, then let it trickle back into the main batteries (or drivetrain) at levels that won't damage it.

Re: Solid-State Battery Has 2x the Energy–and No Anode

#95

Post by tasty_freeze »

mabbo wrote: post #91
uoaei wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different battery designs and chemistries are appropriate for different applications. I don't care about how much a battery weighs if it never moves, for example.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, you're right that for different applications having different metrics can be acceptable. Sure, a battery for your home that never moves can be heavy and large and that's okay. But then you have to consider the economics of production. How many of those batteries will you make? What will the factory for them cost to build? And what would it cost instead to just make a bunch m…

Your logic makes sense if there is only one battery factory. But there are and will be many.

Re: Solid-State Battery Has 2x the Energy–and No Anode

#96

Post by Retric »

rbanffy wrote: post #94
raddan wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure this is not what the poster meant, but in fact most EVs and hybrids use multiple battery technologies in parallel. For example, a Chevy Bolt has a lithium ion battery to power the drivetrain and a conventional lead-acid battery for the accessories. My old Prius had a NiMH battery for the drivetrain and a lead-acid battery for accessories.

> For example, a Chevy Bolt has a lithium ion battery to power the drivetrain and a conventional lead-acid battery for the accessories. This seems like an odd choice - unless you already bought a supply of lead-acid batteries for the next 50 years or so. I've read about a car using supercapacitors in the regenerative brakes to capture energy at high current and, then let it trickle back into the main batteries (or dr…

This is a classic, it isn’t broken don’t fix it situation.

Many laptops had both a lithium ion battery and a watch battery used to keep the bios and an internal clock running after the battery died. https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/why-does-my-motherboard-have-a...

Re: Solid-State Battery Has 2x the Energy–and No Anode

#97

Post by Retric »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #95
mabbo wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, you're right that for different applications having different metrics can be acceptable. Sure, a battery for your home that never moves can be heavy and large and that's okay. But then you have to consider the economics of production. How many of those batteries will you make? What will the factory for them cost to build? And what would it cost instead to just make a bunch m…

Your logic makes sense if there is only one battery factory. But there are and will be many.

Economies of scale still apply with multiple factories because you need someone to design and build the equipment used at each of them.

Re: Solid-State Battery Has 2x the Energy–and No Anode

#98

Post by pjc50 »

nordsieck wrote: post #89
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strikes me that H2 made from excess solar panel output, at source, might become a thing. If you have enough solar for your needs then you're over-producing when the sun is at its peak. With feed in tariffs being low it makes sense to use this -- and hydrogen vehicles are an option.

> Strikes me that H2 made from excess solar panel output, at source, might become a thing. Why is that better than putting it back into the grid and/or putting it into a battery?

There's occasionally overproduction of renewables, which is normally just curtailed (discarded) because it exceeds grid demand.

The H2 for medium-term tank storage idea is not bad .. except for the very high capital cost of electrolysis. Without some means of making H2 that doesn't involve tying up a chunk of platinum as a capital asset this is a non starter economically.

Re: Solid-State Battery Has 2x the Energy–and No Anode

#100

Post by danbruc »

seszett wrote: post #39
danbruc wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 GWh in what time? Gigafactory 1 was at 30 GWh per year in 2019 and they planned to ramp up to 54 GWh, according to Wikipedia. So probably per year? Which would make their production capacity 570 kW. Also according to Wikipedia, a production of 35 GWh per year which is 4 MW was estimated to require 300 MW of energy input.

What is the point of comparing 300 MW energy use for production with 35 GWh/year (which is technically 4MW indeed) new battery capacity though? These are technically the same units, but they don't measure the same things.

I find that comparison quite interesting with respect to the energy intensity of producing lithium ion batteries. A factory that can produce two oil barrels per hour or seven 60 liter gasoline tanks per hour or will also produce 35 GWh storage capacity per year and would probably not consume anywhere close to 300 MW in the process.
Post reply on HN