QuoteToyota's Solid-State Batteries Will Offer Over 900 Miles On A Single Charge (https://www.topspeed.com/toyotas-solid-state-batteries-up-to-932-miles/)
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.
This article at the same site lists some pros and cons (https://www.topspeed.com/solid-state-batteries-pros-and-cons/)
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.
Quote from: vdeane on June 24, 2023, 05:12:08 PM
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.
"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.
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.
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 25, 2023, 11:27:31 AM
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).
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 25, 2023, 11:27:31 AM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on June 25, 2023, 05:04:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 25, 2023, 08:05:06 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 25, 2023, 11:27:31 AM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on June 25, 2023, 05:04:51 PM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on June 24, 2023, 05:12:08 PM
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.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 27, 2023, 01:01:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 24, 2023, 05:12:08 PM
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...
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 25, 2023, 08:05:06 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 27, 2023, 01:57:55 PM
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....
(https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/e18af21e-4c78-4ef6-b4d5-0c7834d40c22/mcontent.jpg)
.
Quote from: kalvado on June 27, 2023, 02:18:47 PM
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 27, 2023, 02:26:42 PM
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?
Quote from: SP Cook on June 27, 2023, 02:26:42 PM
.Quote from: kalvado on June 27, 2023, 02:18:47 PM
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..
Quote from: SP Cook on June 27, 2023, 02:26:42 PM
.Quote from: kalvado on June 27, 2023, 02:18:47 PM
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...
Quote from: SP Cook on June 27, 2023, 02:26:42 PM
.Quote from: kalvado on June 27, 2023, 02:18:47 PM
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 27, 2023, 01:57:55 PM
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 27, 2023, 02:26:42 PM
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.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 27, 2023, 01:01:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 24, 2023, 05:12:08 PM
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.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 27, 2023, 01:01:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 24, 2023, 05:12:08 PM
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 (https://www.electronicsforu.com/technology-trends/research-papers/silicon-chip-density-nears-physical-limit).
Quote from: SectorZ on June 27, 2023, 04:05:27 PM
- 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.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on June 27, 2023, 04:48:54 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 27, 2023, 04:05:27 PM
- 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?
Quote from: SectorZ on June 27, 2023, 07:11:28 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on June 27, 2023, 04:48:54 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 27, 2023, 04:05:27 PM
- 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
Quote from: SP Cook on June 27, 2023, 01:57:55 PM
The purpose of science is to discover what is true. Not to invent what society wishes to be true.
Yeah, that's the purpose of capitalism, isn't it? To invent that which there's a demand for? Why do you hate the free market, SP Cook?
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 27, 2023, 08:45:46 PM
Why do you hate the free market, SP Cook?
I can actually see the sarcasm dripping from that sentence on my computer monitor.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 27, 2023, 01:01:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 24, 2023, 05:12:08 PM
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.
Sure, we've had incremental advances, but not the revolutionary ones that have been talked about for 20+ years. I remember 20 years ago hearing on a podcast about how they were working on some type of capacitor that was going to replace batteries and allow laptops to charge really fast and last all day on a single charge. Did it happen? No. Does it sound just like what they're talking about now with solid state? Yes.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 27, 2023, 02:26:42 PMThen cure cancer.
You can't "cure cancer" because there is no single "cancer," there are a whole lot of different forms of cancer.
You are correct that there will, in all likelihood, never be a pill you can take that will inoculate you from every form of cancer. But to say that any given cancer diagnosis is the same death sentence it was 40 years ago is simply absurd.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 28, 2023, 10:08:37 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on June 27, 2023, 02:26:42 PMThen cure cancer.
You can't "cure cancer" because there is no single "cancer," there are a whole lot of different forms of cancer.
You are correct that there will, in all likelihood, never be a pill you can take that will inoculate you from every form of cancer. But to say that any given cancer diagnosis is the same death sentence it was 40 years ago is simply absurd.
My biochemist friends used to say is the only way to avoid cancer is to die before it happened.
With that, currently 40% of population get cancer at some point of life, but only 20% of deaths are from cancer. Later number includes those with long remissions...
Quote from: SectorZ on June 27, 2023, 07:11:28 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on June 27, 2023, 04:48:54 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 27, 2023, 04:05:27 PM
- 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?
The incoming bus strike (starting July 1st, 2023) where I live went on for so long it caused the apocalypse. I wanted to live the days where the world wasn't ending.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 28, 2023, 10:08:37 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on June 27, 2023, 02:26:42 PMThen cure cancer.
You can't "cure cancer" because there is no single "cancer," there are a whole lot of different forms of cancer.
You are correct that there will, in all likelihood, never be a pill you can take that will inoculate you from every form of cancer. But to say that any given cancer diagnosis is the same death sentence it was 40 years ago is simply absurd.
Not to mention that cancer happens all the time, and our immune system normally takes care of it (assuming the tumor doesn't starve itself before it mutates the ability to get blood vessels to service it). What we think of as "cancer" is when it mutates in a way that makes it so the immune system can't solve the problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoJwt9l-XhQ
I used to read Sears catalogues as a kid and would achieve "solid state." Not necessarily because of the electronic items that were advertised as "solid state" at the time.