All "Future" battery technology thread

[JRP3]

I agree wityh you that there would be a cost issue, however, I;m not so sure that energy density would be as big a big deal given rapid refueling. Although it's always nice to have, you don't need as much range if you can be on your way again in 3-5 minutes. I suspect 2 hours of freeway range would be acceptable to most people other than real road warriors.

It's not acceptable to the general public, let alone road warriors. Less than 200 miles of range is not acceptable, especially when it drops even further in bad weather. Not to mention building the "filling" infrastructure would be much more complicated than installing high power chargers, and the added expense of keeping large bins of these "footballs" in stock to be available for use.

Whether such batteries could do that with acceptable weight/volume, I have no idea.

They can't. The best pack systems today can barely do it with superior weight/volume compared to these footballs.

[GRA]

I agree with you that there would be a cost issue, however, I'm not so sure that energy density would be as big a big deal given rapid refueling. Although it's always nice to have, you don't need as much range if you can be on your way again in 3-5 minutes. I suspect 2 hours of freeway range would be acceptable to most people other than real road warriors.

It's not acceptable to the general public, let alone road warriors. Less than 200 miles of range is not acceptable, especially when it drops even further in bad weather.

To be clear, when quoting ranges I always mean in poor conditions, including HVAC use etc. As to whether it would be acceptable to the general public, I'm not sure that's true. Most weekend trips are within 4 hours of range, so a five minute stop isn't a big deal. Even a single 30 minute stop wouldn't be that big a deal for BEVs, as most people can schedule themselves to take a food break then. It's when you get beyond a single enroute 30 minute stop that the delay starts to get unacceptable. Sure, I'd rather have 4+ hours of range (I've got 6+ in my current ICE), but that's mainly of advantage in allowing me to do weekend round trips without needing to gas up enroute.

Not to mention building the "filling" infrastructure would be much more complicated than installing high power chargers, and the added expense of keeping large bins of these "footballs" in stock to be available for use.

OTOH, there would be less need for having to pay demand charges to enable high rates of recharging. But either method relies on reducing the cost of mass storage to be profitable, and neither is or would be now.

Whether such batteries could do that with acceptable weight/volume, I have no idea.

They can't. The best pack systems today can barely do it with superior weight/volume compared to these footballs.

Of course, but that's now. I'm talking about some future date, when energy densities have increased considerably (as you point out, current densities are only marginally adequate for cars with integrated packs when new).

[JRP3]

It seems obvious to me that it's a complete crap idea and can never work. We've seen that limited range EV's have limited popularity with the general public. With the Bolt and the Model 3 on the market the default minimum range will be 200+ miles, and in a few years that will move to 300+ miles. High rate demand charges for fast charging will be less of an issue with a grid based on renewables with battery backups, which is likely the direction the grid will go. Plus since you're talking about future technologies that means conventional batteries will have better energy density, will cost less, and will charge faster.

[GRA]

It seems obvious to me that it's a complete crap idea and can never work. We've seen that limited range EV's have limited popularity with the general public. With the Bolt and the Model 3 on the market the default minimum range will be 200+ miles, and in a few years that will move to 300+ miles.

That default 200+ miles is really about 2 hours at freeway speeds, with a reserve and including HVAC use, some allowance for winds/climbs etc., which is exactly what I'm talking about. Would I prefer 300+ miles, to match ICEs? Absolutely. But it comes down to cost. If BEVs can reach 300+ miles of range under all but awful conditions, and do that for a decade or more at a competitive price, then fine. For now, that's not possible, so the idea of putting battery degradation on the company rather than the individual has value. I'm a big fan of battery leasing for the same reason, as it limits the size of pack that an owner has to pay for,and allows for future upgrades. And there are still situations where pack swapping for trips may make economic sense, albeit almost certainly not for private vehicles. Fleets are a different matter.

High rate demand charges for fast charging will be less of an issue with a grid based on renewables with battery backups, which is likely the direction the grid will go. Plus since you're talking about future technologies that means conventional batteries will have better energy density, will cost less, and will charge faster.

And that's the essential part, batteries must cost less if variable renewables with mass storage is to be cost-effective. We're not there yet, and can't know when we will be.

[JRP3]

In fact we are already there for islands, as Tesla has shown. http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/22/1371 ... -tau-samoa

As for the rest, pack leasing, pack swapping, and football batteries are all bad ideas which will never catch on. Better Place tried both pack leasing and swapping, and they went bankrupt, just as I predicted well in advance.

[GRA]

In fact we are already there for islands, as Tesla has shown. http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/22/1371 ... -tau-samoa

As for the rest, pack leasing, pack swapping, and football batteries are all bad ideas which will never catch on. Better Place tried both pack leasing and swapping, and they went bankrupt, just as I predicted well in advance.

Better Place had lousy management that believed their own hype, so I don't think we can judge battery swapping by them:

A Broken Place: The Spectacular Failure Of The Startup That Was Going To Change The World

https://www.fastcompany.com/3028159/a-b ... tter-place

Tesla has suffered from much the same issues on occasion, but fortunately there are enough people there who know what they're doing that they've managed to produce much of what they claimed, albeit usually late and often at a higher price.

As to pack leasing, it's quite popular where it's offered in Europe (see the 97% take rate mentioned here: http://www.plugincars.com/buying-peace- ... 27595.html, and this recent story re the Zoe which mentions a 93% take rate:

]Renault Leases 100,000th EV Battery, Offers ZOE Upgrades To 41 kWh Packs

http://insideevs.com/renault-leases-100 ... kwh-packs/), and 90% of Smart ED owners opted for it when it was first offered here:

Our Conversation With Smart Boss: Electric Drive A Hit In US, Consumers Love Renting Batteries, And Future Plans

http://insideevs.com/smart-talks-electr ... e-with-us/ I don't know if that % has remained stable, grown or fallen off in the meantime, but then the number of Smart EDs being bought/leased here now is so small that it doesn't much matter.

As battery capacity grows, there is less need to lease for longevity reasons, but the price, weight and space advantages still apply.

[JRP3]

How does leasing provide price, weight, and space advantages? You do understand that 1. you can lease the entire vehicle, not just the pack, so that's no real advantage, and, 2. leasing is more expensive in the long run, which is why it's offered, because it makes the companies more money than selling outright.

[GRA]

How does leasing provide price, weight, and space advantages? You do understand that 1. you can lease the entire vehicle, not just the pack, so that's no real advantage, and, 2. leasing is more expensive in the long run, which is why it's offered, because it makes the companies more money than selling outright.

It's simple. The average consumer doesn't look at life cycle costs. Their main concerns when buying or leasing a car are upfront costs and monthly expenses, i.e. whether or not they can afford it on a pay-as-you-go basis. Leasing means you don't need to do it all at once, nor are you locked into the original battery as tech improves. Sure, buying is cheaper in the long run (I've never leased a car, pay cash and keep mine until they die), but that's not how the U.S. market (at least) works.

[JRP3]

So it sounds as if you agree with me that leasing the entire vehicle would make the most sense for the type of consumer you describe, and that leasing the battery alone makes no sense at all, i.e. if leasing the pack is "good" then leasing the entire vehicle is "better".

[GRA]

So it sounds as if you agree with me that leasing the entire vehicle would make the most sense for the type of consumer you describe, and that leasing the battery alone makes no sense at all, i.e. if leasing the pack is "good" then leasing the entire vehicle is "better".

No, the car itself will last far longer than the battery (average age of the U.S. LDV fleet is currently 11.6 yrs), and the battery's the most expensive part that will have to be replaced during that time period. To give an example, if the design requirement is a car that you want to commute/do all your local errands in, call it a maximum of 70 miles with a 10 mile reserve using HVAC in all weather for say 12 years, you've got two options. You can buy a Bolt, with a battery that's vastly oversized for your design case (but allows you to use it for other things for several years), at a battery price north of $12k, which boosts the price (lease or buy) of the car well above the median price of the U.S. LDV fleet. Or, you can buy the car but lease a much smaller and lighter battery, paying much less up front for the most expensive component, but with no worries about not meeting your use case as the battery ages, with the option to either lease or buy a bigger battery down the road when the costs have dropped considerably, as is the case with the Zoe's 22 to 41kWh upgrade option. At some point the capabilities, prices and (maybe) lifetimes of batteries will become comparable with ICEs; Some forecasts predict that will happen around 2025, but until that happy moment arrives, BEV batteries remain an immature tech with a limited lifespan.

Of course, for people who routinely turn their cars over every three years leasing is the way to go and battery life's less relevant, but presumably we both agree that's the most expensive method of car ownership. In any case, this discussion has strayed far from the topic, so if you wish to continue it let's do so via PM.