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.
I just realized how much energy efficiency is being squeezed out of a Tesla. It's incredible.
A normal diesel fueled sedan such as the Chevy Cruze diesel runs at about 31mpg, which is 13.2 km/l or 15.3 km/kg. Diesel has a mind-boggling 12700 Wh/kg energy density[1], which translates to an efficiency of ~827 Wh/km for the Chevy.
By contrast, the Tesla Model S, has a ~540 kg battery[2]. At 272 Wh/kg (from the posted article), that's ~147 kWh of energy storage, and the Tesla can do a rated 650km on a single charge[3]. So that's an efficiency of ~225 Wh/km, which is ~27% of the energy required to run a normal car!
It just wouldn't have been possible to run cars on batteries without this efficiency bump.
The big reason for this is thermodynamics. A conventional internal combustion engine car has to convert chemical energy to kinetic energy - the absolute best theoretical efficiency of this might be 70%, but in practice it's more like 30%. Electric cars have to pay the same thermodynamic penalty, but they pay it at the power station (In practice, thanks to renewables, not all the electricity used to charge a car will come from hydrocarbons - but let's assume it does for ease of comparison sakes). It's much easier to build highly efficient hydrocarbon power stations - typical efficiencies range from 40-60%.
So when you look at the headline "efficiency" of an electric car, you need to take that thermodynamic penalty into account first.
A modern series hybrid like a Toyota Prius is effectively an electric vehicle and a gas generator (which means it has the same efficiency gains due to regenerative braking). That gets 52 mpg, which is about 493 Wh/km. If you generated the 225 Wh the Tesla needs in even the most efficient combined cycle gas turbine powerplant you'd need 375 Wh. Less - but not nearly as drastic as it first seems.
Renewables change the picture though - once you have significant renewable generation the carbon intensity of electricity starts dropping, which means that remote powerplant vs local powerplant argument falls apart. That is when the real power of electric vehicles kicks in - they can take their energy from anywhere.
BMW claim that a diesel 3 series will get 61mpg. Volkswagen reckon a Golf 2.0 TDI will do 68mpg. Electric is still significantly better, but you didn't need pick a terrible diesel car as an example.
Relative efficiencies also explain why city/highway efficiency is inverted between EV & ICE.
Gasoline is rather energy dense, but the ICE is rather wasteful.
There is a certain base load of energy being generated by an ICE engine, regardless of if you are moving or how slow you go. This is why carmakers experimented with things like rapid stop/start engines, regen batteries&motors, etc.
ICE becomes more efficient as you reach highway speeds, which is why highway mpg is better than city mpg.
Batteries by contrast are not very energy dense, while EV motors are extremely efficient.
The only energy being consumed is that which is needed to move the car, plus fight rolling & wind resistance, and power AC/heat. Wind resistance increases with the square of speed.
EVs as a result are most efficient at low speed, and at highway speeds become noticeably less efficient as you go from 55->65->75mph. This is also why running AC/heat has a noticeable impact on range in EVs.
The 272 Wh/kg is at cell level not pack level which the Tesla weight refers to. In my X has about 92 kWh usable energy when new and it uses around 225 Wh/km at 120 km/h and 170 at 90.
The 3 and Y is even more efficient, mostly due to size. But it has a smaller battery, I can get about 69 kWh out of my AWD 3 after losses and it hovers around 170-180 Wh/km at 120 km/h and 130-140 at 90.
How the hell a Chevy Cruze gets 31mpg with a diesel??? A VW Passat TDI will easily get 60+ imperial MPG, I've had it get close to 70 on long runs(that's 50 and 58 American MPG respectively).
Are American diesels this inefficient?? Looking at pictures online the Chevy cruze doesn't seem like a bigger/heavier car than a Passat, so what gives??
Meanwhile, fairly common cycling parameters lead to well under 10 Wh/km at comfortable cruising speeds, and with things like velomobiles you kinda start around 5 Wh/km, and 3 Wh/km is possible without significantly compromising the practicality of the vehicle.
But it’s still a useful comparison to contemplate, especially when considering the nascent category Lightweight Electric Vehicles, which in its most interesting form isn’t far off “ebike minus pedals”. Cars are still pretty power-inefficient as a general concept.
Not only that. The more important conclusion is that actually ICE cars are stupendously inefficient.
All that extra energy ICE cars carry isn't actually being put to use very well. They don't have more powerful engines. They don't have more torque. They don't have more acceleration. And even their range isn't that much better. You can of course get models that take something like 100+ liters of petrol. But the per liter performance only gets worse if you do that (heavier cars are less efficient).
The reality is that yes, fuel is very energy dense but sadly most of that isn't transformed into motion when you use it. You are instead making lots of noise (vibrations) and heat. Both are actually bad for your car. So, you use most of the energy to wear out your car faster. The more powerful the car, the less efficient they are. And the faster they break down.
For diesel, this is really really bad. Most gasoline cars will run more economic than this, let alone diesel.
If your diesel runs less then 17 to 18 km/l something is wrong.
(my opinion is based on how things are in .nl, other parts of the world can and will be different of course)
This is definitely not an apples-to-apples comparison. With an EV the ball is already at the top of the hill and merely needs to be rolled down, with an ICE car, the ball has to be pushed up the hill first. The power plant does all of the heavy lifting for the EV.
Not a mark against EVs of course - it kind of just makes sense. I'm sure future generations will laugh that every vehicle used to have its own on-board power generation facility. It's too bad the dumb power-plant-under-hood way is still so much cheaper than the EV approach of course.
Maybe I missed something, but seems very weird to compare kg of diesel fuel to kg of battery. The posted article's figure of 272Wh/kg is for battery capacity, not energy yield from source fuel.
225 Wh/km is even high for most routes and cars. Unless you drive fast on motorways or in cold climate, it's often easy to get to 150 Wh/km (15 kwh/100km as often displayed).
31mpg is not very efficient. Lots of current diesel engines in Europe are certified at 50+MPG. There's even a Car and Driver test where, with very efficient (and boring) driving you can get 70+MPG out of a Diesel Cruze...
@25% Viable for mining.................... 22,000,000,000 Kilograms [2], [3]
Tesla S battery weight.................... 540 Kilograms per car [4]
Lithium weight per Tesla S battery........ 63 Kilograms per battery [4]
Max Tesla S (global) production possible.. 349,206,349 units (See Edit below)
Number of automobiles running in the USA.. 102,000,000 units [1]
Number of automobiles running in the World 1,500,000,000 units [5]
So, even if we theoretically assume that the earth's entire known Li reserves are used for EV usage, we cannot replace more than 25% of the currently running cars in the world.
So, we have a bigger problem ahead of us (over the next decade) that will act as an opposing force against EV penetration and replacement of the IC engine.
Solutions possibly lie in exploring other battery chemistries while improving the efficiency of Li extraction.
Edit: As some of the comments below point out, the Li content in a Tesla Model S battery is approx. 63 Kg. That makes the Max Tesla S (production) possible to 349 million units. So, in theory, one could replace all IC engines in automobiles plying in the USA. That then leaves the rest of the world. So, the problem still remains.
It would be slightly worse in colder climates. I wish car manufactures would allow for easy installation for range extenders in the front trunk. I'd be a great source of heat for the heat pump. Range anxiety would be gone. No carbon tax since it would be an aftermarket solution.
It seems Mazda MX-30 r-ev is the only thing you can buy.
> which is ~27% of the energy required to run a normal car!
This is because you're not comparing the same things: going from thermal energy to mechanical energy has a much lower efficiency than going from electricity to mechanical energy. But that electricity has to come from somewhere, and most of the losses happen at the electricity generation place instead of in the car.
> It just wouldn't have been possible to run cars on batteries without this efficiency bump.
Electric motor have always been far more efficient than ICE ones, even in the 19th. In fact, the difference was even bigger, because combustion engine sucked hard back then, whereas electric engine didn't make as much progress as combustion engine ones (that doesn't mean that they didn't make progress, they did, but there's far less of a difference between an electric engine of 1920 and the one in a Tesla, than between an ICE engine then and now).
During the introduction to a speech by J. B. Straubel, the presenter said his mentor’s motivations were that 1% of the energy in the gas tank was moving the passenger, 12% the car, and the rest was lost.
We should measure efficiency based on that number.
Something you left out here is that the full capacity of the battery can’t be used. Tesla uses more of the battery than other manufacturers, which gives them a higher range per rated watt hour.
On top of that, they have more efficient components. When you compare a model S to a lightweight Carbon Fiber BMW i3, with a much smaller pack, you’ll see that the modelS still squeezes out a higher mpgE rating.
For a normal, new car, anything above 6l/100km for that size of a car (and usually around 5) is something's wrong with the car. That's more than twice the efficiency of described one from 1976.
The problem is that at that point liquid hydrogen already spent 70% of the energy stored in it (80% efficiency of electrolysis * 40% liquefying efficiency) .
Its almost like electric cars are cleaner, more efficient and better for the environment. Telsa's are god tier level of engineering under the hood. (Maybe not so much fit and finish). The only reason the gov't isn't buying these for everyone is because Tesla disrupted deeply entrenched companies and people don't like Elon.
500 Wh/kg means Sulphur cathode, which also explains the solid electrolyte. Roughly speaking, it'll be 3x as energy dense but only a 1/2 as volumetrically efficient (so, a given capacity battery will weigh 1/3 less but take up twice as much space).
There are other approaches to Li-S (and Al-S and Mn-S) which will be less expensive. Grats to CATL for bringing this to market, but the race for sure isn't over yet.
> During the presentation, CATL said its working with partners on the development of electric passenger aircraft practicing aviation-level standards and testing in accordance with aviation-grade safety and quality requirements.
Get ready for passenger drones[0], delivery drones[1] and just drones in general, because this is what this breakthrough means really.
- 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 ...)
I do wonder sometimes if scraping the million plus of components, produced and assembled with great care into a ICE car and still relatively new, makes any sense. Re-powering seems no brainer to keep millions of new cars out of the scrapyard. And avoid the environmentally unsustainable production of slightly newer cars. Reusing them whole, engine included, is ideal. If battery re-powering, synthetic gasoline and hydrogen re-powering are not viable for multiple reasons I wonder what the best pool of options is.
Chinese manufacturers will increasingly dominate innovation in their respective fields.
Manufacturing and innovation is inherently intervened and the West's decision to outsource manufacturing has stagnated our ability to innovate in many fields.
For me, this signals CATL is either actually on the verge of a breakthrough, or desperate and in big trouble. If the technology is brand new, how can it have been thoroughly life and cycle tested already?
I will believe the batteries are truly ready for prime-time after approx. 5 years of real world service. That's enough time to see the creeping, unforeseen issues that tend to crop up with batteries. Dendrite growth, structural failure, etc etc. They could be shipping millions of cars in 2025 with these and I would, rightly, still have my doubts.
A breakthrough based on solid state electrolyte sounds very plausible. But look at the presentation graphic. They get the translation of "energy density" wrong.
That high density energy is going to need some good fire protection. Excited about the increased density coming out of energy storage - these breakthroughs take a lot of research work.
How was this achieved? It seemed like battery energy density improvements were very marginal. I'd expect that this type of jump could only be achieved with a new significant insight, but the article seems to say it's just traditional process done better and newer. That's very vague:
> the condensed battery integrates a range of innovative technologies, including the ultra-high energy density cathode materials, innovative anode materials, separators, and manufacturing processes
Are these all things that are common knowledge now, and they're just the first ones to slap them all together, and that it's a short matter of time before all battery manufacturers start providing much better density? Or is there something more to it?
Key numbers: They doubled Wh/kg from about 280 to about 500.
I assume that thinking about battery capacity form first principles, the theoretical limit is reached when the charged battery consists of 50% matter and 50% antimatter, right?
Then during discharge, the reaction between the two would turn the matter/antimatter into energy.
How would that stack up against the 500Wh/kg stated here?
Update:
Did a bit of googling (Note to my future self: AI was still bad at math in 2023): Looks like 1kg of mass cointains about 25x10^9 Wh.
So if the above assumptions are right, we still have 8 orders of magnitude to go. An electric car with an optimal battery could go 100,000,000 times further on a single charge than the current ones.
How combustible are these batteries compared to the standard lower density ones, and if one of them catches fire, how easy/hard is it for the fire department to get it under control?
How do these batteries compare in terms of charge/discharge cycles? I suppose that if they can store twice the energy by mass, they'd only need 1/2 the cycles to be equivalent, yes?
If it's twice the density and the same number of cycles, a BEV will have a lifetime of 4 ICE vehicles.
[+] [-] bagels|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] microjim|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] msravi|2 years ago|reply
A normal diesel fueled sedan such as the Chevy Cruze diesel runs at about 31mpg, which is 13.2 km/l or 15.3 km/kg. Diesel has a mind-boggling 12700 Wh/kg energy density[1], which translates to an efficiency of ~827 Wh/km for the Chevy.
By contrast, the Tesla Model S, has a ~540 kg battery[2]. At 272 Wh/kg (from the posted article), that's ~147 kWh of energy storage, and the Tesla can do a rated 650km on a single charge[3]. So that's an efficiency of ~225 Wh/km, which is ~27% of the energy required to run a normal car!
It just wouldn't have been possible to run cars on batteries without this efficiency bump.
1. https://chemistry.beloit.edu/edetc/SlideShow/slides/energy/d...
2. https://blog.evbox.com/ev-battery-weight
3. https://www.caranddriver.com/tesla/model-s
[+] [-] leoedin|2 years ago|reply
So when you look at the headline "efficiency" of an electric car, you need to take that thermodynamic penalty into account first.
A modern series hybrid like a Toyota Prius is effectively an electric vehicle and a gas generator (which means it has the same efficiency gains due to regenerative braking). That gets 52 mpg, which is about 493 Wh/km. If you generated the 225 Wh the Tesla needs in even the most efficient combined cycle gas turbine powerplant you'd need 375 Wh. Less - but not nearly as drastic as it first seems.
Renewables change the picture though - once you have significant renewable generation the carbon intensity of electricity starts dropping, which means that remote powerplant vs local powerplant argument falls apart. That is when the real power of electric vehicles kicks in - they can take their energy from anywhere.
[+] [-] onion2k|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oblio|2 years ago|reply
Electric motors are very efficient, regenerative braking helps, EVs are designed to be super aerodynamic, etc.
[+] [-] steveBK123|2 years ago|reply
Gasoline is rather energy dense, but the ICE is rather wasteful. There is a certain base load of energy being generated by an ICE engine, regardless of if you are moving or how slow you go. This is why carmakers experimented with things like rapid stop/start engines, regen batteries&motors, etc.
ICE becomes more efficient as you reach highway speeds, which is why highway mpg is better than city mpg.
Batteries by contrast are not very energy dense, while EV motors are extremely efficient. The only energy being consumed is that which is needed to move the car, plus fight rolling & wind resistance, and power AC/heat. Wind resistance increases with the square of speed.
EVs as a result are most efficient at low speed, and at highway speeds become noticeably less efficient as you go from 55->65->75mph. This is also why running AC/heat has a noticeable impact on range in EVs.
[+] [-] tyfon|2 years ago|reply
The 3 and Y is even more efficient, mostly due to size. But it has a smaller battery, I can get about 69 kWh out of my AWD 3 after losses and it hovers around 170-180 Wh/km at 120 km/h and 130-140 at 90.
[+] [-] gambiting|2 years ago|reply
Are American diesels this inefficient?? Looking at pictures online the Chevy cruze doesn't seem like a bigger/heavier car than a Passat, so what gives??
[+] [-] chrismorgan|2 years ago|reply
Meanwhile, fairly common cycling parameters lead to well under 10 Wh/km at comfortable cruising speeds, and with things like velomobiles you kinda start around 5 Wh/km, and 3 Wh/km is possible without significantly compromising the practicality of the vehicle.
Sure, sure, lower speeds, lower cargo capacity, lower safety, &c. &c.
But it’s still a useful comparison to contemplate, especially when considering the nascent category Lightweight Electric Vehicles, which in its most interesting form isn’t far off “ebike minus pedals”. Cars are still pretty power-inefficient as a general concept.
[+] [-] jillesvangurp|2 years ago|reply
All that extra energy ICE cars carry isn't actually being put to use very well. They don't have more powerful engines. They don't have more torque. They don't have more acceleration. And even their range isn't that much better. You can of course get models that take something like 100+ liters of petrol. But the per liter performance only gets worse if you do that (heavier cars are less efficient).
The reality is that yes, fuel is very energy dense but sadly most of that isn't transformed into motion when you use it. You are instead making lots of noise (vibrations) and heat. Both are actually bad for your car. So, you use most of the energy to wear out your car faster. The more powerful the car, the less efficient they are. And the faster they break down.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mvanbaak|2 years ago|reply
For diesel, this is really really bad. Most gasoline cars will run more economic than this, let alone diesel. If your diesel runs less then 17 to 18 km/l something is wrong.
(my opinion is based on how things are in .nl, other parts of the world can and will be different of course)
[+] [-] osigurdson|2 years ago|reply
Not a mark against EVs of course - it kind of just makes sense. I'm sure future generations will laugh that every vehicle used to have its own on-board power generation facility. It's too bad the dumb power-plant-under-hood way is still so much cheaper than the EV approach of course.
[+] [-] rlue|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dx034|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tecleandor|2 years ago|reply
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15341744/the-prince-of-pa...
[+] [-] vivegi|2 years ago|reply
Earth's Lithium deposits.................. 88,000,000,000 Kilograms [2], [3]
@25% Viable for mining.................... 22,000,000,000 Kilograms [2], [3]
Tesla S battery weight.................... 540 Kilograms per car [4]
Lithium weight per Tesla S battery........ 63 Kilograms per battery [4]
Max Tesla S (global) production possible.. 349,206,349 units (See Edit below)
Number of automobiles running in the USA.. 102,000,000 units [1]
Number of automobiles running in the World 1,500,000,000 units [5]
So, even if we theoretically assume that the earth's entire known Li reserves are used for EV usage, we cannot replace more than 25% of the currently running cars in the world.
So, we have a bigger problem ahead of us (over the next decade) that will act as an opposing force against EV penetration and replacement of the IC engine.
Solutions possibly lie in exploring other battery chemistries while improving the efficiency of Li extraction.
Edit: As some of the comments below point out, the Li content in a Tesla Model S battery is approx. 63 Kg. That makes the Max Tesla S (production) possible to 349 million units. So, in theory, one could replace all IC engines in automobiles plying in the USA. That then leaves the rest of the world. So, the problem still remains.
[1]: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2021/m...
[2]: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a42417327/li...
[3]: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-c...
[4]: https://blog.evbox.com/ev-battery-weight
[5]: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/the-number-of-cars-wo...
[+] [-] mnw21cam|2 years ago|reply
Having said that, my 13-year-old normal sized diesel car does 60mpg in normal use.
[+] [-] ed_balls|2 years ago|reply
It would be slightly worse in colder climates. I wish car manufactures would allow for easy installation for range extenders in the front trunk. I'd be a great source of heat for the heat pump. Range anxiety would be gone. No carbon tax since it would be an aftermarket solution.
It seems Mazda MX-30 r-ev is the only thing you can buy.
[+] [-] littlestymaar|2 years ago|reply
This is because you're not comparing the same things: going from thermal energy to mechanical energy has a much lower efficiency than going from electricity to mechanical energy. But that electricity has to come from somewhere, and most of the losses happen at the electricity generation place instead of in the car.
> It just wouldn't have been possible to run cars on batteries without this efficiency bump.
Electric motor have always been far more efficient than ICE ones, even in the 19th. In fact, the difference was even bigger, because combustion engine sucked hard back then, whereas electric engine didn't make as much progress as combustion engine ones (that doesn't mean that they didn't make progress, they did, but there's far less of a difference between an electric engine of 1920 and the one in a Tesla, than between an ICE engine then and now).
[+] [-] bertil|2 years ago|reply
We should measure efficiency based on that number.
[+] [-] twobitshifter|2 years ago|reply
On top of that, they have more efficient components. When you compare a model S to a lightweight Carbon Fiber BMW i3, with a much smaller pack, you’ll see that the modelS still squeezes out a higher mpgE rating.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=46207&...
[+] [-] Keyframe|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 5ersi|2 years ago|reply
The problem is that at that point liquid hydrogen already spent 70% of the energy stored in it (80% efficiency of electrolysis * 40% liquefying efficiency) .
[+] [-] xxs|2 years ago|reply
The measurements outside North America are reciprocal, e.g. 7.7L/100km (which is awfully inefficient for a diesel, normally it should be around 5L)
So converting gallon to liter, and mile to kilometer is the wrong way to present it.
As for the efficiency in general - of course electric engines have a very high efficiency (in the 90s), unlikely diesel which can barely hit 35%.
[+] [-] strangescript|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clouddrover|2 years ago|reply
It's better to use real world highway range which is 300 miles (482 km) in a Model S:
https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] peoplefromibiza|2 years ago|reply
That's not very good, my LPG car runs on average around 25km/l and around 30km/l on gas, albeit being a 10 years old model.
Modern diesel cars run on average at over 20km/l, the Citroen C3 does ~30km/l.
[+] [-] timbit42|2 years ago|reply
Porsche Taycan: 2 miles per kWh
Tesla Model 3: 5 miles per kWh
Lightyear Zero: 7 miles per kWh
Aptera: 10 miles per kWh
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpiH-Y-HOvE
[+] [-] yc-kraln|2 years ago|reply
There are other approaches to Li-S (and Al-S and Mn-S) which will be less expensive. Grats to CATL for bringing this to market, but the race for sure isn't over yet.
[+] [-] Tade0|2 years ago|reply
Get ready for passenger drones[0], delivery drones[1] and just drones in general, because this is what this breakthrough means really.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw6HDgv4ekE
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOWDNBu9DkU
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ur-whale|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] idontwantthis|2 years ago|reply
Seems like it would still annihilate the payload/range.
[+] [-] topper-123|2 years ago|reply
Still, an announcement from a big company like this is a lot more credible than from research labs or small start-ups, IMO.
[+] [-] wuming2|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xDEF|2 years ago|reply
Manufacturing and innovation is inherently intervened and the West's decision to outsource manufacturing has stagnated our ability to innovate in many fields.
[+] [-] acyou|2 years ago|reply
I will believe the batteries are truly ready for prime-time after approx. 5 years of real world service. That's enough time to see the creeping, unforeseen issues that tend to crop up with batteries. Dendrite growth, structural failure, etc etc. They could be shipping millions of cars in 2025 with these and I would, rightly, still have my doubts.
A breakthrough based on solid state electrolyte sounds very plausible. But look at the presentation graphic. They get the translation of "energy density" wrong.
[+] [-] walrus01|2 years ago|reply
For reference hobby lipo batteries used in small quadcopters are around 155-160 Wh/kg.
Lithium ion battery packs built from the very best Sony and Panasonic high-C rate cells for UAV applications are right around 250Wh/kg.
[+] [-] fwungy|2 years ago|reply
Means expensive chemistry.
>targeting aircraft first
Means expensive chemistry
>no mention of durability
If they were highly durable this would be an important feature so they're likely not.
Sounds like these are going to be expensive special application batteries.
[+] [-] boringg|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beaned|2 years ago|reply
> the condensed battery integrates a range of innovative technologies, including the ultra-high energy density cathode materials, innovative anode materials, separators, and manufacturing processes
Are these all things that are common knowledge now, and they're just the first ones to slap them all together, and that it's a short matter of time before all battery manufacturers start providing much better density? Or is there something more to it?
[+] [-] mg|2 years ago|reply
I assume that thinking about battery capacity form first principles, the theoretical limit is reached when the charged battery consists of 50% matter and 50% antimatter, right?
Then during discharge, the reaction between the two would turn the matter/antimatter into energy.
How would that stack up against the 500Wh/kg stated here?
Update:
Did a bit of googling (Note to my future self: AI was still bad at math in 2023): Looks like 1kg of mass cointains about 25x10^9 Wh.
So if the above assumptions are right, we still have 8 orders of magnitude to go. An electric car with an optimal battery could go 100,000,000 times further on a single charge than the current ones.
[+] [-] dhruvbird|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tppiotrowski|2 years ago|reply
Hopefully not more than 2x the cost...
[+] [-] thangalin|2 years ago|reply
Is that around the expected range, presuming a new battery is a drop-in replacement?
Lithium-air has an energy density of 11,140 Wh/kg, yielding 32,639 km, which doesn't seem possible.
[+] [-] 11thEarlOfMar|2 years ago|reply
If it's twice the density and the same number of cycles, a BEV will have a lifetime of 4 ICE vehicles.