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

CATL has announced a new “condensed” battery with 500 Wh/kg

thedriven.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 919 posts

Re: CATL has announced a new “condensed” battery with 500 Wh/kg

#51

Post by Epa095 »

nvy wrote: post #9
idontwantthis wrote: post #4

Why does 500wh/kg make electric aircraft possible? 6x less than kerosene. Is that the break even on cost if you can source very cheap electricity? Seems like it would still annihilate the payload/range.

Seems like marketing hype to me. An 8-hour transatlantic flight requires something like 600MWhr of energy. That's about 75MW, which is in small nuclear reactor territory.

Replacing transatlantic flights is out of the question (for batteries for now). But there exists shorter routes, and according to this list [1] on Wikipedia, the busiest route in the world is 449km long. That's probably also not doable now, but maybe in some years?

For the first years it will probably only be a few wierd, short routes in rich countries like Norway with 110% financial support from the state. But when they can safely fly 5-600km there is a actually quite a number of routes with a lot of passengers out there.

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_ai...

Re: CATL has announced a new “condensed” battery with 500 Wh/kg

#52

Post by mcapodici »

pcurve wrote: post #20
idontwantthis wrote: post #4

Why does 500wh/kg make electric aircraft possible? 6x less than kerosene. Is that the break even on cost if you can source very cheap electricity? Seems like it would still annihilate the payload/range.

Yep. Also... kerosene gets spent. Pilots can also dump fuel in emergency when it's too heavy to land. Battery powered planes can't dump electricity, so I'd imagine some trade offs that have to be made.

Dumping batteries might be a thing? After all it is an emergency!

Re: CATL has announced a new “condensed” battery with 500 Wh/kg

#53

Post by baq »

imiric wrote: post #42
pcurve wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Also... kerosene gets spent. Pilots can also dump fuel in emergency when it's too heavy to land. Battery powered planes can't dump electricity, so I'd imagine some trade offs that have to be made.

Electric planes could recharge using solar or wind. As efficiency increases with these technologies, it would mean planes wouldn't require carrying the same watt-for-watt energy as fuel.

Recharging a small plane with solar power would either take ages or hectares. Pick your poison.

Recharging multiple airliners will take a nuclear reactor at the airport.

Re: CATL has announced a new “condensed” battery with 500 Wh/kg

#54

Post by eastbound »

krasin wrote: post #19
idontwantthis wrote: post #4

Why does 500wh/kg make electric aircraft possible? 6x less than kerosene. Is that the break even on cost if you can source very cheap electricity? Seems like it would still annihilate the payload/range.

Let's consider Cessna-172S ([4]). Its characteristics: - 130 kW engine, Lycoming_O-360 that weighs 117 kg. For comparison, an electric motor of this range would weigh 11-13 kg (at 10-12 kW/kg, [2]). That saves 100+ kg weight immediately and we can put 50+ kWh batteries instead. - It carries up to 200 liters of kerosene ([3]), which weighs 164 kg. We can place 82 kWh of batteries instead. - The engine consumes around…

> quite practical for recreation and short flights

Perfectly agree with everything, but 1.5hr may be very short if you need to have 30 minutes of reserve at landing. On the saving side, you don’t have to have an alternator to transform ICE energy into energy for the dashboard instruments. On the downside, you now need to heat the cabin manually, rather than reusing the ICE heat.

Re: CATL has announced a new “condensed” battery with 500 Wh/kg

#55

Post by ozim »

Someone wrote: post #29
krasin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's consider Cessna-172S ([4]). Its characteristics: - 130 kW engine, Lycoming_O-360 that weighs 117 kg. For comparison, an electric motor of this range would weigh 11-13 kg (at 10-12 kW/kg, [2]). That saves 100+ kg weight immediately and we can put 50+ kWh batteries instead. - It carries up to 200 liters of kerosene ([3]), which weighs 164 kg. We can place 82 kWh of batteries instead. - The engine consumes around…

The airplane would be a bit heavier at landing, though. I expect that will require a somewhat heavier landing gear. I also think taking out the weight of the tank is unfair if you don’t add weight for the structures for holding the batteries. But yes, for many smaller planes, we’re close to flying electric on shorter flights being economically feasible.

Maybe dropping battery just before landing could be a thing - on a small parachute or some catch ground in front of landing strip.

Silly as it sounds just thinking :)

Re: CATL has announced a new “condensed” battery with 500 Wh/kg

#56

Post by ur-whale »

Notably missing from the release:

   - cost?
   - what new chemicals are involved and what is the environmental impact?
   - how many cycles can the new battery take?
   - volume? (density is always shown as weight/mass, it's not the only thing that matters)?
   - how does it behave under environmental changes (temp / pressure / etc ...)

Re: CATL has announced a new “condensed” battery with 500 Wh/kg

#57

Post by Akronymus »

baq wrote: post #46
bagels wrote: post #2

"CATL has announced a new “condensed” battery with 500 Wh/kg which it says will go into mass production this year" This is a lot more credible than most of the battery stories, because CATL is already producing a ton of batteries, lending them some credibility. This is a little under 2x the density of current batteries.

My plan to buy an EV in the next five years may be realistic after all. Happy!

You may not have a choice in the matter as more and more countries are thinking of/implementing ICE bans in the near future.

Re: CATL has announced a new “condensed” battery with 500 Wh/kg

#58

Post by thriftwy »

pcurve wrote: post #36
thriftwy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electric engines may be much more reliable than kerosene engines.

I would hope so, considering this is what it looks like inside. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent_1000#/media/... But. Turbine engine is actually very reliable and doesn't need overhaul for 20,000 flight hours.

The problem here is single-engine planes losing engine on takeoff. Would be almost non-issue with electrics.

Re: CATL has announced a new “condensed” battery with 500 Wh/kg

#59

Post by NovaDudely »

mcapodici wrote: post #44
microjim wrote: post #5

Cool! What didn’t occur to me until I learnt it was that you get a multiplicative benefit with energy density when weight is a major factor (air transport, especially) because you need to spend less energy accelerating mass used by the battery itself.

Same with jet fuel on a plane. They calculate the amount to fuel carefully to be efficient but safe. Too much and the plane is heavier and uses more fuel. Too little and you might run out if put into a holding then diverted. Obviously jet fuel is what it is it wont get more dense but a more efficient engine means less fuel needed means even more efficiency and so on.

It was something I had never considered but it is wild to think about. I believe it was Vaclav Smil that highlighted it to me. On its longest trip an A380(I think?) takes off weighing 400 tons and lands weighing 200 tons. That kind of thing is just cool to ponder.

Re: CATL has announced a new “condensed” battery with 500 Wh/kg

#60

Post by jansan »

ozim wrote: post #55
Someone wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The airplane would be a bit heavier at landing, though. I expect that will require a somewhat heavier landing gear. I also think taking out the weight of the tank is unfair if you don’t add weight for the structures for holding the batteries. But yes, for many smaller planes, we’re close to flying electric on shorter flights being economically feasible.

Maybe dropping battery just before landing could be a thing - on a small parachute or some catch ground in front of landing strip. Silly as it sounds just thinking :)

Sounds about as realistic as shooting nuclear waste into space.
Post reply on HN