GCR: GM battery chief: 600 mile EVs viable, million-mile battery in sight

[Oilpan4]

I know about past improvements.
So you claim to know the future?

[WetEV]

I know about past improvements.
So you claim to know the future?

Moore's law worked for quite a while. Betting against it would have been a very bad idea.

[GRA]

I know about past improvements.
So you claim to know the future?

Moore's law worked for quite a while. Betting against it would have been a very bad idea.

Moore's Law is very much an exception when it comes to technological development, and battery development has never come anywhere close to achieving that rate of improvement.

[WetEV]

I know about past improvements.
So you claim to know the future?

Moore's law worked for quite a while. Betting against it would have been a very bad idea.

Moore's Law is very much an exception when it comes to technological development, and battery development has never come anywhere close to achieving that rate of improvement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects

SOP. Faster rate sure. For example, 1956 for a price that had a lot of zeros, 5MB of disk:

https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2011/ ... -forklift/


I've got a printed advertisement for a 5 MB disk drive from about 1980. Original printed advertisement on real paper from a press... Before computer printers were cheap and common. A lot smaller and a lot cheaper. About a thousand.

And the best selling drive at Amazon is 2TB for $55. That's $0.14 for 5MB.

[Nubo]

I know about past improvements.
So you claim to know the future?

Moore's law worked for quite a while. Betting against it would have been a very bad idea.

Moore's Law is very much an exception when it comes to technological development, and battery development has never come anywhere close to achieving that rate of improvement.

Definitely wouldn't try applying Moore's Law to batteries, but... EV success has proven the market potential for improved batteries is staggering. That means $$$ for research. It's the beginning of a virtuous cycle.

[GRA]

Moore's law worked for quite a while. Betting against it would have been a very bad idea.

Moore's Law is very much an exception when it comes to technological development, and battery development has never come anywhere close to achieving that rate of improvement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects

SOP. Faster rate sure. For example, 1956 for a price that had a lot of zeros, 5MB of disk:

https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2011/ ... -forklift/


I've got a printed advertisement for a 5 MB disk drive from about 1980. Original printed advertisement on real paper from a press... Before computer printers were cheap and common. A lot smaller and a lot cheaper. About a thousand.

And the best selling drive at Amazon is 2TB for $55. That's $0.14 for 5MB.

Uh huh, $0.028/MB, and that's for 40 years (64 if you start in 1956) of product price reductions, where if it followed (the 2 year vice 1.5 year version of) Moore's law, the price would have dropped as follows: 1980 $200/MB; 1982 $100; 1984 $50; 1986 $25; 1988 $12.50; 1990 $6.25; 1992 $3.125; 1994 $1.56125; 1996 $0.78; 1998 $0.39; 2000 $0.195; 2002 $0.0975; 2004 $0.049; 2006 $0.0245. Maybe inflation can account for the remaining 14 years, maybe not. And that's in a field where Moore's Law actually applies, which is definitely not the case with battery development.

[goldbrick]

Moore's law specifically applies to semiconductors and the density of them. It was amazingly accurate for a very long time even though the technologies required for the advances were unknown when Moore first proposed it. Other techs, HDD's for instance, have followed a similar path although the rate of increase for HDD's has been more spotty and is currently slowing down until HAMR, etc become viable.

And yes, battery tech has always been a classic counter-example of a tech that didn't follow Moore's law or an equivalent. What gets me excited about the future of EVs though is that it is now the scientists and researches who are predicting the increases. Not some VP who simply thinks he/she can dictate technological progress by fiat. I've seen ludicrous examples of the VP style hype in my business and anyone who is involved knows it's BS at once. But when the research lab says they can do it, that's a different story.

[GRA]

Course, the scientists are rarely the ones with the skills to commercialize a product. Papers reporting advances in batteries in the lab are a dime a dozen; very few of these ever make it to production, either through lack of effort or funding, or because there's an insurmountable problem that's only apparent once they move out of the lab.

So, while I'm happy to note claims of the next big improvement in batteries (or FCEVs/H2 or whatever), until a company is formed with financing, has the necessary facilities and is ready for real-world D&T, I take any such claims with a huge pile of salt. And that pile doesn't go away until there's an actual commercial product you can buy, with specs and prices known. Everything else is just another Envia (or Edison FTM, as the development history of the Edison NiFe battery demonstrates).

[WetEV]

battery tech has always been a classic counter-example of a tech that didn't follow Moore's law or an equivalent.

Really?

Battery prices, which were above $1,100 per kilowatt-hour in 2010, have fallen 87% in real terms to $156/kWh in 2019. By 2023, average prices will be close to $100/kWh,

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/1 ... -bnef.html

[GRA]

battery tech has always been a classic counter-example of a tech that didn't follow Moore's law or an equivalent.

Really?

Battery prices, which were above $1,100 per kilowatt-hour in 2010, have fallen 87% in real terms to $156/kWh in 2019. By 2023, average prices will be close to $100/kWh,

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/1 ... -bnef.html

Yeah, really - you just made our point. Per Moore's law, $1,100/kWh in 2010 should be $550/2012; $275/2014; $137.50/2016; $68.75/2018; $34.375/2020; $17.69/2022.