The future of EVs is not lithium-ion batteries but solid-state

[skluth]

Toyota's Solid-State Batteries Will Offer Over 900 Miles On A Single Charge
By Brayden Wood

Toyota says it has found a breakthrough in solid-state battery technology that would revolutionize the EV industry, yet details are scarce.

The Japanese automakers notoriously released the first mass-produced hybrid ever with the Toyota Prius back in the late '90s. Although they implemented electric batteries into their vehicles long before other big-name brands, they have been surprisingly late to the game when it comes to fully electric vehicles (EV). Companies like Ford, Tesla, General Motors, Hyundai, and many more have all released multiple electric vehicles into the market while Toyota has just recently unveiled its first EV. The Toyota bZ4X is an electric SUV crossover that is expected to arrive later this year. While it seems like they are finally catching up in the EV race, the automakers need to do something that propels them past their competition. Toyota's engineers may have found the answer to this with new solid-state battery technology.

Toyota expects production to begin in 2027 or 2028. Rest of article linked in headline.

[skluth]

This article at the same site lists some pros and cons

[vdeane]

I feel like the battery industry has been talking about these and other new energy storage technologies for 25 years with nothing to show for it, so I think I'll believe it when I see it.  Would be nice, though.

[kalvado]

I feel like the battery industry has been talking about these and other new energy storage technologies for 25 years with nothing to show for it, so I think I'll believe it when I see it.  Would be nice, though.

If you think about it, there is a lot of money being poured into battery development, and there will be some return of investment. Question is how much of return, and it is probably less than hoped.
Oh, and by the way, these are certainly lithium batteries. Not Li-ion, but lithium obviously.

[JREwing78]

"900 miles" of range on a standard EV would translate to ~ 300 miles of range scaled up for a pickup truck towing a trailer, which would be a decently useful range. One would need powerful enough chargers and capable battery management to refill the massive battery in under an hour.

Given the rapid development of battery technology and the number of firms vying to build ever larger batteries, having an electric vehicle with 900 miles range isn't that far-fetched.

[JREwing78]

What will likely happen, however, is most vehicles will use this new technology to shrink and lighten the batteries needed for a 300 mile range, which will improve packaging, handling, and efficiency. One may well be able to option a 900 mile battery range into a large truck, but it would be to increase towing range to respectable levels.

[vdeane]

What will likely happen, however, is most vehicles will use this new technology to shrink and lighten the batteries needed for a 300 mile range, which will improve packaging, handling, and efficiency. One may well be able to option a 900 mile battery range into a large truck, but it would be to increase towing range to respectable levels.

And since a lighter battery requires less electricity to move, this would further reduce charge times (and/or make it possible to acceptably charge them at a slower speed).  This could make recharging more like refueling with gas and/or make it easier to deploy chargers at businesses where travelers would stop (such as restaurants and hotels).

[Dirt Roads]

What will likely happen, however, is most vehicles will use this new technology to shrink and lighten the batteries needed for a 300 mile range, which will improve packaging, handling, and efficiency. One may well be able to option a 900 mile battery range into a large truck, but it would be to increase towing range to respectable levels.

And since a lighter battery requires less electricity to move, this would further reduce charge times (and/or make it possible to acceptably charge them at a slower speed).  This could make recharging more like refueling with gas and/or make it easier to deploy chargers at businesses where travelers would stop (such as restaurants and hotels).

Welcome to the railroad!  The game we play with fuel is how many total miles per additional ton of contained fuel.  I never thought I would see the day where we measured EV batteries by the ton.  The new Hummer EV1 is expected to weigh in at 9,000 lbs; the comparable Hummer H3 weighed [only] about 4,800 lbs.  Even if we [falsely] assume that the traction motors and inverters weigh about the same as a Vortec 3700 LLR straight-five engine (plus its four-speed 4L60E transmission), that's still over 2 tons of battery.  (Allright, the frame of the new Humvee is much heavier in order to support the extra weight plus address crashworthiness issues, but in railroad terms, that's still part of the contained weight of the "fuel").  I'm guessing well over 2-1/2 tons of additional "contained battery" weight.

All that being said, if the SSB technology actually provides such a huge weight differential in real life, the automotive industry is going to be hard-pressed to compete with railroads, truckers and perhaps even the aviation industry in battery acquisition costs.

[kalvado]

What will likely happen, however, is most vehicles will use this new technology to shrink and lighten the batteries needed for a 300 mile range, which will improve packaging, handling, and efficiency. One may well be able to option a 900 mile battery range into a large truck, but it would be to increase towing range to respectable levels.

And since a lighter battery requires less electricity to move, this would further reduce charge times (and/or make it possible to acceptably charge them at a slower speed).  This could make recharging more like refueling with gas and/or make it easier to deploy chargers at businesses where travelers would stop (such as restaurants and hotels).

Welcome to the railroad!  The game we play with fuel is how many total miles per additional ton of contained fuel.  I never thought I would see the day where we measured EV batteries by the ton.  The new Hummer EV1 is expected to weigh in at 9,000 lbs; the comparable Hummer H3 weighed [only] about 4,800 lbs.  Even if we [falsely] assume that the traction motors and inverters weigh about the same as a Vortec 3700 LLR straight-five engine (plus its four-speed 4L60E transmission), that's still over 2 tons of battery.  (Allright, the frame of the new Humvee is much heavier in order to support the extra weight plus address crashworthiness issues, but in railroad terms, that's still part of the contained weight of the "fuel").  I'm guessing well over 2-1/2 tons of additional "contained battery" weight.

All that being said, if the SSB technology actually provides such a huge weight differential in real life, the automotive industry is going to be hard-pressed to compete with railroads, truckers and perhaps even the aviation industry in battery acquisition costs.

Sodium - sulfur seem to be a better possibility for railroads though.

[triplemultiplex]

I feel like the battery industry has been talking about these and other new energy storage technologies for 25 years with nothing to show for it, so I think I'll believe it when I see it.  Would be nice, though.

It's all about incremental advancement, much like a lot of other technologies.  Batteries keep getting better and better, but bit by bit, not by tremendous leaps.  Yeah it would be great to skip a few rounds of incremental improvement with some kind of breakthrough. It's way sexier and we're primed to expect that kind of thing thanks to other industries.  But that ain't how it works.  Just look at solar.  It's waayyy more efficient than it was 30 years ago.  But no one thing leaped us to where we are at.  It was improvements built upon improvements built upon improvements... At any one time it feels like we're just treading water, but looking back, we've come a helluva long way.

That's the way this EV transition is going to go.  We're impatient for the one new battery thing that's gonna instantly make it easy to replace most ICE use cases.  But that's not the way it's going to work.  Each model year will get a little better than the last until it's 20 years later and we're like, damn, these things are waaaayyy better than those shitboxes we had to settle for in the '20s.

[kalvado]

I feel like the battery industry has been talking about these and other new energy storage technologies for 25 years with nothing to show for it, so I think I'll believe it when I see it.  Would be nice, though.

It's all about incremental advancement, much like a lot of other technologies.  Batteries keep getting better and better, but bit by bit, not by tremendous leaps.  Yeah it would be great to skip a few rounds of incremental improvement with some kind of breakthrough. It's way sexier and we're primed to expect that kind of thing thanks to other industries.  But that ain't how it works.  Just look at solar.  It's waayyy more efficient than it was 30 years ago.  But no one thing leaped us to where we are at.  It was improvements built upon improvements built upon improvements... At any one time it feels like we're just treading water, but looking back, we've come a helluva long way.

That's the way this EV transition is going to go.  We're impatient for the one new battery thing that's gonna instantly make it easy to replace most ICE use cases.  But that's not the way it's going to work.  Each model year will get a little better than the last until it's 20 years later and we're like, damn, these things are waaaayyy better than those shitboxes we had to settle for in the '20s.

Question is where things enter the era of diminishing returns. Rechargeable Li batteries are fundamentally what, at least 8x worse than gas by weight? And modern chemistries add another 5x to that - for a total of 2-3% of gas at best. There is definitely room for improvement, but the ceiling is pretty low as well...

[kphoger]

The new Hummer EV1 is expected to weigh in at 9,000 lbs; the comparable Hummer H3 weighed [only] about 4,800 lbs.  Even if we [falsely] assume that the traction motors and inverters weigh about the same as a Vortec 3700 LLR straight-five engine (plus its four-speed 4L60E transmission), that's still over 2 tons of battery.  (Allright, the frame of the new Humvee is much heavier in order to support the extra weight plus address crashworthiness issues, but in railroad terms, that's still part of the contained weight of the "fuel").  I'm guessing well over 2-1/2 tons of additional "contained battery" weight.

The battery pack itself weighs 2923 pounds, which is several hundred pounds more than an entire Chevy Spark.

[SP Cook]

The purpose of science is to discover what is true.  Not to invent what society wishes to be true.  The religious like faith that batteries, or any other technology, are automatically going to get "better and better" is simply incorrect. 

It is possible that this is true.  It is equally possible that battery technology is currently at the peak of its capabilities. 

[kalvado]

The purpose of science is to discover what is true.  Not to invent what society wishes to be true.  The religious like faith that batteries, or any other technology, are automatically going to get "better and better" is simply incorrect. 

It is possible that this is true.  It is equally possible that battery technology is currently at the peak of its capabilities.

Oh not again. which definition of science are you using? I like to stick with Sir Karl Popper, and that is totally irrelevant statement from that perspective.
Then, on top of that, there is R&D and engineering - which are definitely steered to achieve (or try to achieve) the goals set by society.  Goal of higher battery capacity is there, as well as some paths towards that. There is definitely room for improvement, question is if there is enough effort and if design would end up practical.
Li-S, for example, would need to be kept hot for the operation. That is difficult for certain applications; definitely no go for the phone, difficult for the car.  Train? Ok, maybe....

[SP Cook]

.

Then, on top of that, there is R&D and engineering

Then cure cancer.  Make the next generation have an IQ of 200.  Invent a time machine.  Make food from sand.  Etc.

Some things simply CANNOT be invented. 

[kphoger]

Then cure cancer.  Make the next generation have an IQ of 200.  Invent a time machine.  Make food from sand.  Etc.

Some things simply CANNOT be invented. 

Are you saying cancer treatment is no longer improving, or that food production is no longer improving?

[kalvado]

.

Then, on top of that, there is R&D and engineering

Then cure cancer.  Make the next generation have an IQ of 200.  Invent a time machine.  Make food from sand.  Etc.

Some things simply CANNOT be invented.

Cancer survival rates are increasing. There is no social demand for IQ increase in US, more like the other way. I have a few clocks at home. Plants can grow on sand with hydroponics...
You see, once the goals are set - there is an attempt to achieve them. Sometimes unsuccessfully, sometimes partial success..

[Rothman]

.

Then, on top of that, there is R&D and engineering

Then cure cancer.

Some things simply CANNOT be invented.

Dear heavens.  My cancer was cured.

Somebody's digging themselves a hole here and something tells me it's going to get deeper...

[SectorZ]

.

Then, on top of that, there is R&D and engineering

Then cure cancer.  Make the next generation have an IQ of 200.  Invent a time machine.  Make food from sand.  Etc.

Some things simply CANNOT be invented.

- Cancer death rates year over year improve, because of the tireless work of the thousands of scientists and doctors that work on curing the myriad different types of cancers that exist. There is no "cure" for cancer because that is like saying a medical treatment that works on orcas should work for humans because we're each animals. Each cancer is different.

- There are few, if any, discovered genetic aspects to IQ. The only minimal way to achieve such a thing would be eugenics. Good luck with pushing that.

- Invent a time machine from what? Incremental progress in science would dictate that some sort of proto-time machine already exists to move onto an actual time machine. Asking someone to invent something when its not an engineering hurdle, but a physics hurdle, is a big ask.

- Food from sand? Sand is oxygen and silicon. Plants are not made out of silicon. What you are asking for is alchemy.

[kphoger]

The purpose of science is to discover what is true.  Not to invent what society wishes to be true.  The religious like faith that batteries, or any other technology, are automatically going to get "better and better" is simply incorrect. 

It is possible that this is true.  It is equally possible that battery technology is currently at the peak of its capabilities. 

Then cure cancer.  Make the next generation have an IQ of 200.  Invent a time machine.  Make food from sand.  Etc.

Some things simply CANNOT be invented. 

You've moved the goalpost from 'getting better and better' (progress) to utopia.

[jeffandnicole]

I feel like the battery industry has been talking about these and other new energy storage technologies for 25 years with nothing to show for it, so I think I'll believe it when I see it.  Would be nice, though.

It's all about incremental advancement, much like a lot of other technologies.  Batteries keep getting better and better, but bit by bit, not by tremendous leaps.  Yeah it would be great to skip a few rounds of incremental improvement with some kind of breakthrough. It's way sexier and we're primed to expect that kind of thing thanks to other industries.  But that ain't how it works.  Just look at solar.  It's waayyy more efficient than it was 30 years ago.  But no one thing leaped us to where we are at.  It was improvements built upon improvements built upon improvements... At any one time it feels like we're just treading water, but looking back, we've come a helluva long way.

That's the way this EV transition is going to go.  We're impatient for the one new battery thing that's gonna instantly make it easy to replace most ICE use cases.  But that's not the way it's going to work.  Each model year will get a little better than the last until it's 20 years later and we're like, damn, these things are waaaayyy better than those shitboxes we had to settle for in the '20s.

Consider the device we're using right now to look at these comments. The first cell phone was used in 1973. 30 years later in 2003, it was still pretty much a phone and texting and websurfing was very limited.  Computers had a much longer timeline before they became commonplace. Electric cars, by comparison, have had a fairly short startup period. But more than ever, people want instant perfection. They'll gladly try to point out if an electric car ran out of power on the road or has trouble starting, ignoring the entire reason AAA flourished for decades, helping stranded motorists in gasoline powered vehicles.

[skluth]

I feel like the battery industry has been talking about these and other new energy storage technologies for 25 years with nothing to show for it, so I think I'll believe it when I see it.  Would be nice, though.

It's all about incremental advancement, much like a lot of other technologies.  Batteries keep getting better and better, but bit by bit, not by tremendous leaps.  Yeah it would be great to skip a few rounds of incremental improvement with some kind of breakthrough. It's way sexier and we're primed to expect that kind of thing thanks to other industries.  But that ain't how it works.  Just look at solar.  It's waayyy more efficient than it was 30 years ago.  But no one thing leaped us to where we are at.  It was improvements built upon improvements built upon improvements... At any one time it feels like we're just treading water, but looking back, we've come a helluva long way.

That's the way this EV transition is going to go.  We're impatient for the one new battery thing that's gonna instantly make it easy to replace most ICE use cases.  But that's not the way it's going to work.  Each model year will get a little better than the last until it's 20 years later and we're like, damn, these things are waaaayyy better than those shitboxes we had to settle for in the '20s.

I don't disagree with you as much as feel you're not acknowledging tech inventions. A lot of technology jumps are those you don't see. I bought my first desktop computer 33 years ago. It had a cathode ray monitor, a 40 MB disk drive, and plenty of other technologies that have been outright replaced by things that didn't exist back then like LCD flat screen monitors and solid-state drives. Those technologies have also improved incrementally and often weren't common right out of the gate (CRTs were around for quite a while when LCD monitors were still expensive). We'll need one of those tech jumps soon as we're quickly reaching the limit of silicon chip density.

[LilianaUwU]

- Invent a time machine from what? Incremental progress in science would dictate that some sort of proto-time machine already exists to move onto an actual time machine. Asking someone to invent something when its not an engineering hurdle, but a physics hurdle, is a big ask.

I come from the year 2034, AMA.

[SectorZ]

- Invent a time machine from what? Incremental progress in science would dictate that some sort of proto-time machine already exists to move onto an actual time machine. Asking someone to invent something when its not an engineering hurdle, but a physics hurdle, is a big ask.

I come from the year 2034, AMA.

How bad was 2034 that you wanted to come back to 2023?

[kalvado]

- Invent a time machine from what? Incremental progress in science would dictate that some sort of proto-time machine already exists to move onto an actual time machine. Asking someone to invent something when its not an engineering hurdle, but a physics hurdle, is a big ask.

I come from the year 2034, AMA.

How bad was 2034 that you wanted to come back to 2023?

And why not even further back?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33400.0