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

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Oilpan4 said:
I thought tesla claimed they had a 1 million mile battery last year.
The problem is do people want to pay for 600 miles of range?
...


I do, if the price is reasonable. Even if the battery is still $100 per kWh, that could be 200 kWh of battery for 20 thousand -> plus the car around it.
So maybe 45k? 45k with incentives available to me right now would be worth it if I liked the car. 600 miles is even more important if it was a TRUCK
People easily pay 60 grand for F150s. .

The reason I want more miles is because where I live, EPA range is fictional. My 2018 Leaf averages 3.3 Kwh on the open road. Meaning since I don't push the lower limit of the battery I get maybe 100 miles. Add in terrain and it can drop a lot further. One of the drives I like to do to go hiking takes me from 2200 feet to 10,000 feet. Even a Leaf plus looks iffy given the lack of charging where I live.

I think having 600 miles or more really just depends on where you live. In some areas it is probably way overkill, in others, its what's needed to replace and kill the ICE. That and charging options... So the question really just depends on where you live, your lifestyle and what your goal is. For a in town or commute only car, it is probably not needed. Heck my 2018 Leaf is overkill for an in town and commute car.

But I can see myself having an EV truck in the future and wanting to tow. Or an EV Class C motor home? What range will that need? Probably a hell of a lot.
 
GRA said:
Yeah, really - you just made our point.

Your point was Moore's law is the fastest exponential growth known to date, or that other technologies never have exponential growth?

The first point is boring. Doesn't show the second point.
 
My memory of Moore's law was something like the number of circuits on a certain area of silicon would double every 18 months. That's just a swag and there are many differing versions of what Moore originally posited, but that's the gist of it. There are obvious cost and performance ramifications that occur when the size of each integrated circuit shrinks but the original thought was all about circuit density. This started in the early 1960's IIRC, and it has been eerily accurate since the days of $500 hand-held calculators that could only do the basic 4 math functions.

Batteries haven't followed nearly such a trend. Li batteries were a huge jump in tech and capacity but what about Pb-acid? It hasn't changed much since the days of Volta's piles. Li tech has certainly improved and shows signs of further improvements but the gains are uneven and hard to predict.
 
goldbrick said:
My memory of Moore's law was something like the number of circuits on a certain area of silicon would double every 18 months. That's just a swag and there are many differing versions of what Moore originally posited, but that's the gist of it. There are obvious cost and performance ramifications that occur when the size of each integrated circuit shrinks but the original thought was all about circuit density. This started in the early 1960's IIRC, and it has been eerily accurate since the days of $500 hand-held calculators that could only do the basic 4 math functions.

Batteries haven't followed nearly such a trend. Li batteries were a huge jump in tech and capacity but what about Pb-acid? It hasn't changed much since the days of Volta's piles. Li tech has certainly improved and shows signs of further improvements but the gains are uneven and hard to predict.
What about vacuum tubes?

Li ion batteries have improved in cost, energy per kg and service lifetime since their invention in the 1970's. While the future of both transistors and batteries is uncertain, both have fairly straight lines on a log graph. The path for double capacity in the same mass and for half the cost per kWh is fairly clear, but beyond that isn't clear. The path for a few more generations of transistors is fairly clear, but beyond that isn't. Which was true in 1980 as well as today.

Physics provides the limits of technology. Once you can count the atoms in a transistor on your fingers, it's not going to get much smaller. Ten atoms of gate oxide are an insulator, so the transistor works. Two atoms are not.

Once batteries get close to the energy density of fuels like gasoline (if you include the necessary oxygen), then little improvement is possible. That's about fifty times the present energy density. So batteries might, just might, improve for a long time.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Yeah, really - you just made our point.

Your point was Moore's law is the fastest exponential growth known to date, or that other technologies never have exponential growth?

The first point is boring. Doesn't show the second point.


No, the point is that no other tech development has ever shown the prolonged constant rate of doubling as the semi-conductors that Moore's Law applies to, and which has only applied to them. Citing Moore's Law as an example of what can be expected from any other tech development is unsupported by the entire history of technical development, including energy. Semi- conductors are unique.

And of course, Moore had to modify the original version of the law, as he originally said the doubling rate was every 18 months. That rate didn't last.
 
GRA said:
No, the point is that no other tech development has ever shown the prolonged constant rate of doubling as the semi-conductors that Moore's Law applies to, and which has only applied to them.

To date.

So Li-ion batteries have only halved the cost five or six times. Only a decade's worth of Moore's law, and at less than a third the rate of improvement of Moore's law. Once again, so what?

GRA said:
Citing Moore's Law as an example of what can be expected from any other tech development is unsupported by the entire history of technical development, including energy. Semi- conductors are unique.

In the number of generations the improvement has gone on, yes. At the rate of improvement, yes.

Strawman of batteries are just like semiconductors is your loser. Take it away.

Moore's law is another example of improvement through experience. Goes all the way back to at least Adam Smith, in 1776, "Wealth of Nations". A stunning one, yes, but still just one of many.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
No, the point is that no other tech development has ever shown the prolonged constant rate of doubling as the semi-conductors that Moore's Law applies to, and which has only applied to them.

To date.

So Li-ion batteries have only halved the cost five or six times. Only a decade's worth of Moore's law, and at less than a third the rate of improvement of Moore's law. Once again, so what?

GRA said:
Citing Moore's Law as an example of what can be expected from any other tech development is unsupported by the entire history of technical development, including energy. Semi- conductors are unique.

In the number of generations the improvement has gone on, yes. At the rate of improvement, yes.

Strawman of batteries are just like semiconductors is your loser. Take it away.

No, citing Moore's Law as an example in reference to any other technology's likely future development isn't a straw man, it's what you did. Our point is that Moore's Law has no relevance to any other tech development, and has no business being cited other than as a unique case (so far, measured over a hundred thousand years or so of human invention) of R&D timescale.


Moore's law is another example of improvement through experience. Goes all the way back to at least Adam Smith, in 1776, "Wealth of Nations". A stunning one, yes, but still just one of many.

If you want to use it so, fine, but identify it as such. Don't try to use it as if it's typical of tech development.

I think this horse is thoroughly dead,so you get the last word, if you wish.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
No, the point is that no other tech development has ever shown the prolonged constant rate of doubling as the semi-conductors that Moore's Law applies to, and which has only applied to them.

To date.

So Li-ion batteries have only halved the cost five or six times. Only a decade's worth of Moore's law, and at less than a third the rate of improvement of Moore's law. Once again, so what?

GRA said:
Citing Moore's Law as an example of what can be expected from any other tech development is unsupported by the entire history of technical development, including energy. Semi- conductors are unique.

In the number of generations the improvement has gone on, yes. At the rate of improvement, yes.

Strawman of batteries are just like semiconductors is your loser. Take it away.


No, citing Moore's Law as an example in reference to any other technology's likely future development isn't a straw man, it's what you did. Our point is that Moore's Law has no relevance to any other tech development, and has no business being cited other than as a unique case (so far, measured over a hundred thousand years or so of human invention) of likely tech improvement timescale.


Moore's law is another example of improvement through experience. Goes all the way back to at least Adam Smith, in 1776, "Wealth of Nations". A stunning one, yes, but still just one of many.


If you want to use it so, fine, but identify it as such. Don't try to use it as if it's typical of tech development.

I think this horse is now thoroughly dead, so you get the last word if you wish.
 
WetEV said:
Physics provides the limits of technology. Once you can count the atoms in a transistor on your fingers, it's not going to get much smaller. Ten atoms of gate oxide are an insulator, so the transistor works. Two atoms are not.

Once batteries get close to the energy density of fuels like gasoline (if you include the necessary oxygen), then little improvement is possible. That's about fifty times the present energy density. So batteries might, just might, improve for a long time.

pingswept said:
Battery scientists have a metric called maximum theoretical specific energy; you can read about the definition in Advanced Batteries by Robert Huggins. Right now, the most energy dense batteries you can buy are lithium ion, which are in the 100-200 Wh/kg range. I don't know what the best battery is, but later in the book, Huggins shows calculations that indicate that Li/CuCl2 cells have an MTSE of 1166.4 Wh/kg. (5x the capacity of current batteries!)

We know that the highest MTSE is at least 1166.4 Wh/kg; you could use his method to calculate the same value for other chemistries, but the search space is pretty large.

I've also seen references on the internet to Li/O2 and Al/O2 batteries with MTSE of 2815 and 5200 Wh/kg, respectively. Not sure how credible those references are. Later references, like this 2008 article in the Journal of the Electrochemical Society, suggest that the MTSE for a Li/O2 cell is around 1400 Wh/kg.
The energy density of gasoline is about 13000 Wh/kg when air mass is ignored.
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/4329
 
coleafrado said:
WetEV said:
Physics provides the limits of technology. Once you can count the atoms in a transistor on your fingers, it's not going to get much smaller. Ten atoms of gate oxide are an insulator, so the transistor works. Two atoms are not.

Once batteries get close to the energy density of fuels like gasoline (if you include the necessary oxygen), then little improvement is possible. That's about fifty times the present energy density. So batteries might, just might, improve for a long time.

pingswept said:
Battery scientists have a metric called maximum theoretical specific energy; you can read about the definition in Advanced Batteries by Robert Huggins. Right now, the most energy dense batteries you can buy are lithium ion, which are in the 100-200 Wh/kg range. I don't know what the best battery is, but later in the book, Huggins shows calculations that indicate that Li/CuCl2 cells have an MTSE of 1166.4 Wh/kg. (5x the capacity of current batteries!)

We know that the highest MTSE is at least 1166.4 Wh/kg; you could use his method to calculate the same value for other chemistries, but the search space is pretty large.

I've also seen references on the internet to Li/O2 and Al/O2 batteries with MTSE of 2815 and 5200 Wh/kg, respectively. Not sure how credible those references are. Later references, like this 2008 article in the Journal of the Electrochemical Society, suggest that the MTSE for a Li/O2 cell is around 1400 Wh/kg.
The energy density of gasoline is about 13000 Wh/kg when air mass is ignored.
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/4329

Looks like I was incorrect, thanks for checking. There is less potential for improvement that I suggested.
Adding in the air mass is fairly easy. And I didn't do it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometry#Stoichiometric_air-to-fuel_ratios_of_common_fuels

13000Wh/kg/14.7 = 880 Wh/kg (gasoline air) or about 5x times for gasoline-oxygen or 4200Wh/kg as air is 21% oxygen.

So 16x today's batteries is about the limit. Not 50x. Practical limit is less, perhaps 4x. So a range of 1200 miles is about the best we could hope for. 12 hours at 100 miles per hour. Can anyone's brain, butt or bladder last that long?
 
WetEV said:
Looks like I was incorrect, thanks for checking. There is less potential for improvement that I suggested.
Adding in the air mass is fairly easy. And I didn't do it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometry#Stoichiometric_air-to-fuel_ratios_of_common_fuels

13000Wh/kg/14.7 = 880 Wh/kg (gasoline air) or about 5x times for gasoline-oxygen or 4200Wh/kg as air is 21% oxygen.

So 16x today's batteries is about the limit. Not 50x. Practical limit is less, perhaps 4x. So a range of 1200 miles is about the best we could hope for. 12 hours at 100 miles per hour. Can anyone's brain, butt or bladder last that long?

Not sure I understand. First of all, why is the mass of air important for comparing gravimetric energy density of fuels? The car doesn't have to carry that mass around. Second, how does the energy density of gasoline dictate a limit for the energy density of an electrical storage device?
 
Nubo said:
why is the mass of air important for comparing gravimetric energy density of fuels? The car doesn't have to carry that mass around.
how does the energy density of gasoline dictate a limit for the energy density of an electrical storage device?

Both provides an idea as to the actual mass to energy ratio possible. Rough, sure. Batteries are unlikely to exceed something like gasoline/oxygen or even gasoline/air.
 
Nubo said:
Not sure I understand. First of all, why is the mass of air important for comparing gravimetric energy density of fuels? The car doesn't have to carry that mass around. Second, how does the energy density of gasoline dictate a limit for the energy density of an electrical storage device?

- It isn't
- Correct
- It doesn't.

The air mass thing was a red herring. (unless we can get air-breathing batteries, which I personally don't think will happen within the next 50-100 years.)
 
coleafrado said:
Nubo said:
Not sure I understand. First of all, why is the mass of air important for comparing gravimetric energy density of fuels? The car doesn't have to carry that mass around. Second, how does the energy density of gasoline dictate a limit for the energy density of an electrical storage device?

- It isn't
- Correct
- It doesn't.

The air mass thing was a red herring. (unless we can get air-breathing batteries, which I personally don't think will happen within the next 50-100 years.)
There are "air-breathing batteries" now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium%E2%80%93air_battery

These are primary batteries, IE non-rechargeable, but putting in fresh aluminum and removing the oxidized aluminum has been both proposed and demonstrated, along with 1300 mile range.

Yes, kids, you can do this at home!

http://exo.net/~pauld/activities/AlAirBattery/alairbattery.html
 
WetEV said:
There are "air-breathing batteries" now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium%E2%80%93air_battery

These are primary batteries, IE non-rechargeable, but putting in fresh aluminum and removing the oxidized aluminum has been both proposed and demonstrated, along with 1300 mile range.

Yes, kids, you can do this at home!

http://exo.net/~pauld/activities/AlAirBattery/alairbattery.html

Speaking practically, I don't see anyone loading their cars with vacuum-sealed aluminum-air batteries any time soon. They beat NiMH and lead-acid any day, but they're not competitive with lithium-ion.
 
coleafrado said:
WetEV said:
There are "air-breathing batteries" now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium%E2%80%93air_battery

These are primary batteries, IE non-rechargeable, but putting in fresh aluminum and removing the oxidized aluminum has been both proposed and demonstrated, along with 1300 mile range.

Yes, kids, you can do this at home!

http://exo.net/~pauld/activities/AlAirBattery/alairbattery.html

Speaking practically, I don't see anyone loading their cars with vacuum-sealed aluminum-air batteries any time soon. They beat NiMH and lead-acid any day, but they're not competitive with lithium-ion.
Wikipedia said:
Aluminium–air batteries (Al–air batteries) produce electricity from the reaction of oxygen in the air with aluminium.

Current practical specific energy is about 4 times that of Li-ion. Of course, both can be improved.

Not vacuum sealed, an "air breathing" battery.
 
Vacuum sealing before use is necessary to prevent self-discharge. Some have claimed that it's no longer necessary - at the scale of automotive batteries, that's hard to believe. Do you have any idea how physically and mentally inconvenient it would be to manage a fleet of batteries (each 50-100 kg and costing hundreds of dollars) at various states of discharge just so you can drive around? Completely ridiculous. What works for a watch or a calculator does not work for a car. Maybe rechargeable metal-air batteries will work, eventually. Nonrechargeable cells will never be used for EVs.
 
coleafrado said:
Vacuum sealing before use is necessary to prevent self-discharge. Some have claimed that it's no longer necessary - at the scale of automotive batteries, that's hard to believe. Do you have any idea how physically and mentally inconvenient it would be to manage a fleet of batteries (each 50-100 kg and costing hundreds of dollars) at various states of discharge just so you can drive around? Completely ridiculous. What works for a watch or a calculator does not work for a car. Maybe rechargeable metal-air batteries will work, eventually. Nonrechargeable cells will never be used for EVs.

Al-air batteries might be "add water before use", or filled with inert gas such as nitrogen, or perhaps even vacuum sealed.

A reasonable use case isn't a "fleet of batteries", but rather a battery used for longer trips. Consider an EV with a hybrid battery:

40kWh of Li-ion for daily driving.
Place for a Al-air battery up to 100kg of AL to be mounted/dismounted in a service station.

Li-ion for daily driving, Al-air for long trips.

2000 Wh/kg so a 100kg battery would give 400kWh for a price of about $200 and a cost of $110.(*) Plus likely a deposit. Now you can do the back roads road trip with 160 mile on rechargeable and 1600 miles on the Al-air. A similar efficiency to hydrogen fuel cells, but a much lower cost. Yes, would likely have a self discharge problem if was the daily use battery. More convenient and capable than DCQC network.

(*)
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7753(02)00370-1
 
I remember an aluminum-air prototype car back in the Nineties. The discharge output was so low that they needed to add a smaller Ni-Cad pack just so the car could accelerate on the highway. They had more luck with a bus, again, IIRC, with a second pack for acceleration. The aluminum modules had to be replaced regularly as they were exhausted.
 
LeftieBiker said:
I remember an aluminum-air prototype car back in the Nineties. The discharge output was so low that they needed to add a smaller Ni-Cad pack just so the car could accelerate on the highway. They had more luck with a bus, again, IIRC, with a second pack for acceleration. The aluminum modules had to be replaced regularly as they were exhausted.

Not to mention that Al-air discharge efficiency (when recycling is accounted for) is about the same as internal combustion.
 
Back
Top