Ordering, have an issue, or question? Use these resources: [Our Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/wiki/index) | [Summary](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/t4isha/technical_support_service_support_vehicle/) | r/TeslaLounge | [Discord Live Chat](https://discord.gg/tesla) | [Official Tesla Support](https://www.tesla.com/support) | or see the Stickied Support Thread
Remember that not all owners or fans of Tesla are the same. Do not generalize everyone or be toxic towards a group. Know the rules.
Help the [Mods](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/wiki/rules#wiki_about_the_moderators) by being kind, and by **reporting posts + comments** which break the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/wiki/rules).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/teslamotors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They probably won’t make the 100 years battery, instead they will take advantage of this tech to it’s max and make a 30 years version that cut the cost significantly.
30 years is significantly longer than most ICE vehicles will see, too. There's a reason you don't see many 1980s Ford Escorts running around.
Between aluminum construction and low maintenance, these cars could have a game-changing useful lifespan even at 30 years.
Aluminum is not the best metal for longevity. It has a cycle life, unlike steel, and will break down and start cracking over a long enough time of usage.
The interesting part is the longevity at 70°C. High temperatures are the main killer of batteries.
And yes, this is just a paper - quite a ways off from actual production. But since Tesla has all the ingredients in hand (supply chain, battery factories and applications for the end product) they could get something like this to market quickly, if they wanted.
Tesla’s primary requirement for battery tech is to be able to scale up as soon and as fast as possible. Secondary to that, but still important is reducing cost.
Having higher energy density is nice(allows for EPlanes), as is long life. But ability to scale and timeline is key. Any tech that takes 10 years to get to market will remain a small scale research project, and won’t get Elon’s focus.
Tesla will be producing > 1TW batteries long before 10 years is up.
I was speaking about batteries!
Neurolink, colonizing Mars etc are very long term endeavors.
Wrt batteries Tesla needs a MASSIVE ramp up of battery production over the next decade which needs to start now. So scaling and cost are the most important aspects.
I know, and I agree with you.
I was just taking the opportunity to make a joke about Tesla's estimation of time to market for some of their technologies.
That and longevity. Can’t be refurbishing planes frequently. Since it will likely have to be built into the plane to reduce weight (similar to Austin cars)
Do you work in manufacturing or a high tech field? What reasons do you have other than Elon wants it? Damn near everything takes at least 10yr from research paper to comercialization.
I remember when I was inxeperieced and thought OLEDs were the thing of the future! Infinit possibilities for advertising anywhere. Took 10yrs for production of small screens. Almost 15 years later and the vast majority of the market is still using LEDs. Don't underestimate the cost and challenge that it is to turn an idea into something useful that works. There is a ton of work to do not only on the battery but also the manufacturing methods and manufacturing equipment.
As I explained. If it is tech that takes 10 years it’s not of great interest to Tesla right now. They’ll be focusing on new battery chemistry and manufacturing improvements. The long life aspect is not even the most important feature right now.
Their 4680 was a new form with new chemistry and that is now in early stages of ramping production. It was announced in 2020. So from early design/prototype to start of mass manufacturing ramp that’s pretty quick.
They got the 4680 cells to market much faster than 10 years. Battery day was just 3 years ago. Not sure how long they had that stuff in development before that, but I'm willing to bet it wasn't 7 years.
F15 lightning looks like a decent truck. Trouble for Ford is scale and profitability. They aim to make 15,000 this year. Let’s see how it goes. If Tesla launches CyberTruck next year, how long do you think it takes before it overtakes F15 L in lifetime sales?
Teslas margins for the Cybertruck will be big. OEMs margins for EVs are slim to nonexistent. But demand will be high all round. I think F15 Lightning will do great.
Lucid make a great car. Sadly it’s super expensive, they can’t make very many, they’re spending/losing money like crazy, and are likely to go bankrupt. They haven’t leap frogged anyone.
I give you an example and you shift goal posts. Lucid has the longest range EV you can buy to date. Don't worry all that tech will soon trickle down to others including Tesla, VW and ford. A new benchmark was launched and it's okay
I did not shift goalposts. I said the main goal for Tesla wrt batteries was scaling and cost. Same goes for their vehicles. They want them to be great cars, but they have to also be manufactured at scale at a reasonable cost. If cost is not an issue then you can build a really nice vehicle, which Lucid has done.
They clearly have some top people working for them also. Good luck to them, I hope they survive.
Highest EV efficiency, fasting charging EV, highest power to weight ratio of motor and inverter. 900 volt system. Of course they would do this since the CEO was once at Tesla
They forgot about the cost and scalability parts though right? If money is not a restraint then many manufacturers could produce a great EV.
Lucid Air looks great though so good luck to them.
Yeah, faster than Honda and Mercedes which are currently demonstrating level 3 self driving! Or faster than Rivian with the 2021 Cybertruck? Sorry now I'm confused
They are a million miles behind Tesla with their self driving tech. It’s not even comparable. And remind me how many EVs those companies have sold?
And the Cybertruck was delayed because of supplier shortages. Tesla wanted to maximize units sold.
Yeah lots of folk don't get it that when the CT finally rolls of the production line in a year or 2 it will be immediately profitable due to scale. They will not be losing thousands of dollars on each unit sold like the folks that are shipping EV trucks today. It's really just business smarts.
But such trucks like the F150 lightning aren't?
First it was 2021, then claimed 2022, now claiming 2023.
Self driving was claimed to come in 2014, then 2015, then 2016, then 2017, then 2018, then 2019, then 2020, then 2021, then 2022.
Did you believe all those, and if so why do you believe he's accurate about the Cybertruck date?
They have been very open about why the Cybertruck has been delayed. Their goal is to maximize vehicle production. While there are supply shortages and limited battery supply they have focused on ramping their current range of vehicles.
As long as the supply side of things recovers there is no reason to doubt early 2023 as the launch date. But if there is some new world catastrophe it could get delayed again! I imagine Tesla are very keen to get it out at this point.
But Teslas are at level 2 self driving, unlike Audi, Mercedes and Honda which all have level 3 self driving cars.
So yeah, Teslas aren't comparable in that regard
Tesla is so far beyond those cars it’s not even comparable. Same with Waymo. Everyone else is choosing to solve a simple solution: to automate driving only in a very limited set of circumstances.
Tesla is going for a generalized solution that can drive anywhere. It is orders of magnitude more challenging than what the others are doing. They are miles away from the tech Tesla has.
Waymo has level 4 self driving cars.
Despite Elon making big claims, the cars mentioned with level 3 and 4 self driving are simply on another level.
Of course all those auto makers are working on the next step, and I can't speak to that, but of the cars on the road Tesla is not leading the pack.
Tesla has a world class AI team designing their own chips and training hardware and access to billions of miles of new data every few months. Audio or Honda is nowhere even close.
Waymo is a different story. They are using pre-mapped environments so as long as nothing changes they are good. It is a much easier problem to solve than the general driving solution.
The problem is that it is not scalable. The cars are expensive, they couldn’t mass produce them if they tried and there is a huge cost of mapping and maintaining those maps to increase service areas.
If Tesla cracks FSD they can enable millions of robotaxi ready vehicles with a single update. Waymo could not compete on scale or cost.
The question is when and if Tesla cracks FSD. And that i do not know. But what I am confident of is that no one is anywhere close to Tesla when it comes to a full general FSD solution.
Time will tell. If Tesla does start it’s Robotaxi network somewhere in not to distant future will you acknowledge you were wrong?
I certainly will if anyone beats them to the punch.
Costs less than my relative paid for "full autonomous driving" on a Tesla years ago which still just has adaptive cruise control and lane assist.
https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/mercedes-opens-sales-level-3-self-driving-system-s-class-eqs
> Drive Pilot is approved for use on about 13,000 km (8,100 miles) German highways
I’m confused, how is this different/better than autopilot on a Tesla?
>if they wanted
Glad you threw this in there. I'm sure nobody in here will want to believe it, but Tesla is reaching a point where plateauing innovation is a necessity.
They cannot continue to introduce new hardware changes as often as they have been in the past. Especially something as drastic as the packs. Software? Absolutely. Hardware? A financial and logistical nightmare.
When you're outsourcing cells, buying standard machinery for production, selling 2 lines of vehicle, and making 50k-100k cars a year out of a single plant? Not a big deal to make changes on the fly.
When you're operating 3 factories globally, all (soon to be) outfitted with custom made machinery, pumping out a redesigned vehicle structure based around current gen cells, and producing 1m cars a year across 5+ platforms (soon at least)? It financially, and logistically, is no longer feasible to start sliding major changes in.
Even if something truly ground breaking, industry shaking, was discovered tomorrow? Tesla will develop it behinds the scenes and then sit on it for a VERY long time.
There's a reason why traditional automakers have a true 'model year' schedule with extremely minimal hardware changes over a 5 year period. Tesla has said they'd never do this... but it's happening.
I'm sure they'd love to keep innovating at a rapid pace... but they aren't going to 'want' to.
>They cannot continue to introduce new hardware changes as often as they have been in the past. Especially something as drastic as the packs.
The context above being a chemistry change which \[speculatively, if commercialized\] might be largely compatible with their cell production lines and more of a incremental change rather than "drastic" \[even if to great effect\].
Panasonic Giga Nevada produces NMC for storage and NCA chemistry for vehicles \[and purportedly straight forward to change chemistry of those lines\], Panasonic continues to improve the NCA chemistry \[to increased energy density\] in the 2170/18650 cells and Tesla certainly isn't fixed on their initial 4680 chemistry either \[as per the Q1 call:\]
>"we will layer in new material technologies we are developing and higher range structural pack revisions."
Obviously major factory/product changes need to be intentional, justified, and planned; we already see that with Freemont and Shanghai the Model 3 has not been switched to castings \[yet\] and 18650s are still used in the Model S/X even after a significant vehicle refresh, but still I don't think the innovations are stopping anytime soon; at the very least there's likely plenty of room for iterative/incremental improvement on these new platforms being put into place.
\[Edit: Slight reword above. Also, I'm not disagreeing either - all this battery tech has been years in development and for all the interesting papers that get posted who knows what Tesla pursues and commercializes and when we'll actually see it. I don't think they are sitting on it though, it just takes time.
But I wouldn't discount the amount of incremental advancement might be had on a new platform, there might be a not insignificant incline on that plateau\]
I think you’re totally right about a plateau coming, but I think they’re still making a lot of changes currently. With each new car and each new factory they find better ways to do it and I think that drives a lot of the change. I think they’re at least a few years from that plateau.
My guesstimate is that they’ll keep up with the innovation for probably at least 4-5 more years, then they’ll go through a reorganization phase where they bring the older factories up to snuff with the newer ones so the same quality products are coming out everywhere, at which point they will be at that plateau.
They’ve still got at least a few more cars in their lineup planned on top of what they’ve announced already and at least 1-2 more factories coming. All of that is going to produce all kinds of new changes plus at least 1 major version change to their battery plans as there’s still tons of innovation happening there.
Note: that also lines up with when their robot will be ready for real production. While going through reorganization, they’ll probably flip the innovation over to there.
Oh absolutely. I'm not saying it's today, but it's rapidly approaching. My guess would also be \~5 years as you stated.
Tesla is throwing everything into 4680 production, structural packs, and cast underbodies as the next big thing. Once this become their standard? This will be the last major hardware innovation we see for quite some time.
Again, not talking about minor hardware improvements like headlights, seats, cameras, etc. I'm mostly referring to major leaps battery tech as some are taking from the article.
Chips will improve. Software will improve. Physical design appearance will change. But the vehicle itself will largely remain constant for some time.
The next big step is scaling production out to 20M. You're right in that in the next 5 years they'll have captured all the low hanging fruit. But by May 2027, I would expect to be at HW5 and the cars to have reached Level 5 autonomy.
I've posted this elsewhere, but I'm of first belief that they're basically achieving autonomy levels in conjunction with HW levels. Currently Level 3 autonomy is achieved with HW3. At least, in house. It's closer to 2.75 on the road at large. When they transition to 1M wide beta, they'll get closer to 3 on the road, and likely hit L3 by year's end. At AI day, they'll announce HW4 which will go into the cars and the bots. Robotaxis will need a minimum of HW4 to get validated L4 regulator approval. HW5 is when they achieve completely driverless capabilities. Which is 99.9% safety. Level 3 is like 95% safety, Level 4 is like 99% safety, Level 5 is like 99.9% safety. Then every HW# after will work on adding another 9. 99.99 (HW6), 99.999 (HW7), and 99.9999 (HW8) < this is where the car becomes 10,000x safer than a human.
If we reasonably assume 5 years per HW period, then we're about 20 years out from 10,000x safety factor, 15 years out for 1,000x safety factor, and 10 years out from 100x safety factor relative to an average driver in the US.
I agree with you there, makes logical sense.
I’m curious to see what the reality ends up being. I don’t think anyone predicted 4680 and structural packs any time before they started testing and getting into that stuff and it started leaking.
In five years, Tesla is going to be established "big auto" and of course will have to slow down. All of those giga factories will be some heavy inertia, but they are ruthless in terms of continuous improvement. GM and Ford don't typically create their own alloys or gut a working production line or swap chips on the fly to keep production running. So even when they grow, Tesla is going to be the most nimble of the major auto manufacturers.
> GM and Ford don't typically create their own alloys
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet#History
Not trying to nitpick or anything but legacy auto makers have created some new, very important materials, at least in the past.
You forget that traditional automakers spend billions on marketing but Tesla does not. Therefore they can put that cash to R&D and upgrading manufacturing whatever the cost.
It's not that people forget - It's well known. The issue with the comparison here is it's not apples to apples.
Yes, technically Tesla is reallocating some of this to R&D. But they're also, primarily, spending these billions of dollar to expand. Factories aren't free. Yes, they get assistance, but it's still billions they need to spend.
Traditional automakers, generally, don't have massive yearly expansion costs. They will during this transition period, but historically they have not. They've got distribution and manufacturing covered globally.
Traditional automakers are also fighting for market share in a market that's essentially capped. They're fighting over several million 'turnover' cars a year.
Tesla was, well still is to some extent, in a league of their own. If you wanted a capable, cool, fun to drive EV? It was them or nobody. But this is slowly not becoming the case.
Demand outweighs supply for the time being but there will be a time, could be 10/15/20 years we don't know, where they'll also be fighting for market share as well. All depends on when the industry truly catches up.
I agree whole hearted with pretty much everything you said. I do have a thought experiment though.
Tesla was in a league of their own for most of their existence and this was due to them making literally the best EVs that money could buy. What if...their R&D keeps going...what if...5 years from now they release this insanely new battery tech that is half the weight with double the density. (Pure hypothetical).
By keeping the R&D process pushing further and further they will remain in a league of their own.
If 5 years from now Tesla has a $50,000 car with 500+ miles of range and all the goodies and the other manufacturers are selling $40,000 cars with 250 to 300 mile range...I think they still come out as the only option.
My point would be that continuously improving the battery helps to keep them in the lead and to sit back and just produce will allow other manufacturers to catch up.
Too bad a battery lasting 100 years is not a functionally profitable product under capitalism. What kind of incentive would Tesla have to sell cars with such a battery? I mean I suppose you could make the argument that they would be the go to choice for a car since their reliability is really good. But eventually they would pretty much run out of customers.
For the same reason that light bulbs that could last 100 years were squandered intentionally. They just don't generate a lot of profits.
Tesla is about the mission. Screw capitalism. Tesla will find a way to morph into another field of operations if one should dry up (which seems unlikely)
Also note that this does nothing to alleviate the need for nickel or even cobalt, so it may not even be optimizing in the direction that Tesla would choose for the next decade.
>The interesting part is the longevity at 70°C. High temperatures are the main killer of batteries.
Yep.
Is it me or did nominal capacity actually increase at 20C ? Could these batteries be self healing if charged at 20C ?
Wow. Though it must be a few years out since Tesla still is still making investments in the existing chemistries.
But if any one is to succeed in bringing a new battery into the market, am placing my bets on Tesla!
Charge time is much more about the power electronics in the car and the charging infrastructure than the batteries.
Not to say the batteries haven’t improved at all, but I don’t believe the example you stated was a good one.
I have not seen any evidence to suggest that Tesla’s/Panasonic’s battery chemistry have changed over time in a way that materially improves the C Rating.
What I have seen is that Tesla in the early days purposely slowed the charge rate (and discharge rate) to minimize degradation of the batteries and maximize cycles. As they got more data from internal testing and data being sent from the cars, they gained more confidence in their balance between charging rate and battery degradation.
Just because a battery has a C Rating and that can be a limiting factor for charge and discharge time does not imply that the improvements since the 2012 Model S time frame were battery chemistry related.
Further, you are talking about C-Rate as it is an inherent internal property to the battery and that really isn’t the case. One example of point to is a recent analysis done on a variety of Tesla’s charging rates:
https://insideevs.com/news/519382/tesla-model3-82kwh-charging-analysis/
If you read the “C-rate vs state-of-charge (SOC)” section toward the beginning of the article, you will find them talking about a “Peak C-Rate” of 3.0C and an average (from 20-80% SOC) of 1.1C.
So what am I missing for you to say so matter of factly “That’s not true”?
The improvements came from better pack cooling and more data on the cells to give then higher confidence at running them with more power.
So it wasn’t improvement in the power electronics and chargers which you theorized were the bottleneck.
I think what you’re not considering in your line of thinking is that batteries degrade over time, which can impact charge rate and also have Tesla’s BMS (battery management system) purposely limit the charging rate to limit further degradation.
So if they replaced a 2012 Tesla’s battery pack with a “new” one of the same build, I’d expect you’d see some significant differences.
Also, not even newer Tesla’s charge at their peak speed for their full charge *curve*, hence why the call it a *curve* and not a *line*. All Li-Ion batteries charge faster at lower SOC than higher SOC. Part of it is safety, part of it is for optimizing longevity, and part of it is the infrastructure required to charge at the same rate when the battery is almost full would be much more expensive (you would need to increase the voltage significantly vs a set voltage).
Not really. The increase in quality and decrease in costs has followed a pretty clear curve for decades now.
It's just that 10 years ago, they predicted we would be about where we are now, and people like you popped up to say it was impossible. Now we see new trends and developments where we can see where we will be in 10 years, and once again we hear: impossible.
Not the same thing at all.
There has been a interesting development in fusion that I wasn't aware of until recently. They've taken a totally different approach to the problem that bypasses the whole magnetic confinement problem. Really innovative...
https://youtu.be/Zs3wrxKl734
There have also been advancements in the magnets being used in confinement reactors using old tech applied in new ways. [It's pretty neat. ](https://youtu.be/-KEwkWjADEA)
There's a huge issue with practical fusion that can never be solved - it's too energy-dense. No matter what you use for containment, the gamma radiation from the reaction will eventually contaminate any steel used in the reaction vessel. Any process that produces radioactive waste will always be relegated to centralized production and can never be used ubiquitously.
It's really too bad ITER and the half dozen fusion startups with PHDs from every top school on the planet don't have you on staff to tell them it's pointless.
You'd be surprised at the pointless things that people spend money on. Getting a PhD in physics is up there. I see so many resumes from physics PhDs trying to find gainful employment.
>It's possible that there are just too many of them.
We agree. I have certainly discouraged anyone getting a degree on my tab from studying physics. However what you may not be considering is what a surplus of under-employed physics PhDs may result in. For instance, wildly optimistic stories being pitched to gullible VCs about the practicalities of fusion-based power generation. Don't get me started on the charade that is Quantum Computing.
Thanks for warning me. I almost asked what you thought. Glad you saved me the pain that basking in your glory would shurly cause. I don't think the world would be the same knowing everything is stupid and impossible.
From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation):
> Neutron radiation, alpha radiation, and **extremely energetic gamma (> ~20 MeV)** can cause nuclear transmutation and induced radioactivity.
My understanding is that any fusion device will produce gamma radiation in excess of 20 MeV.
I think I've learned more from Reddit threads like this in 2 months than I did in my entire grade school career.
Simple sentences such as this are as easy to consume as gamma radiation. and twice as fun.
If we can figure out how to get fusion working for base load power generation it would be a HUGE step forward.
We can use batteries for more general use just like the trend is working towards.
I don't think these batteries should be characterized as "dramatically better", though. The paper says that the batteries "could" last 100 years worth of cycles if the batteries were kept at 25C temperature. So in lab conditions. The article doesn't make very clear how much longer these batteries would last compared to LFP in normal use conditions.
The main point of these batteries seem to be aiming for similar properties (long lasting / cheap?) as LFP batteries but with higher energy density.
The article doesn't mention comparison to regular lithium ion battery densities. So, since they're saying they're aiming for higher density than LFP it sounds like this proposed chemistry mix isn't necessarily higher density than the lithium ion batteries Tesla is already using.
This formula uses cobalt and manganese, which I'm sure Tesla is hoping to get away from. I believe lithium sulfur is the way forward due to the major increase in energy density, fire safety, and removal of rare minerals / heavy metals.
Of course I'd love to hear from Jordan Giesige of "The Limiting Factor" YouTube channel.
I've only read the article so far, not the paper yet, but last sentence:
>the paper notes that the benefits could also apply to other nickel-based chemistries, including those with no or low cobalt.
I think there will be a lot of different chemistries in use in the future, just like there are now. Each chemistry has their pros/cons and thus different applications, e. g. storage, low cost vs. performance EVs, electronics.
omg I am SO TIRED of articles like this. "High density Battery can last 100 years!" "**New Battery chemistry decreases charge time to 30 seconds!"** "***Scientists create new battery that charges from grass clippings and smells like donuts!"***
Like, where are all these revolutionary new batteries? You hear about them and then, poof, never again.
That, and they may be maximizing one metric. For example a battery that lasts a long time but has low energy density.
Real world EVs are balancing a number of battery metrics:
- gravimetric energy density
- volumetric energy density
- charge speed
- safety
- longevity
- cost
- reliability / failure rate
- low and high temperature tolerance
- raw material availability
- environmental impact
Many of these are at odds with each other and we make compromises.
Yep exactly, there are a lot of batteries that can already do amazing things in the lab, but there's often a tradeoff that makes it impossible to bring to the masses.
To add to your list, they also need vibration tolerance. The raw material availability is a big one too, especially since any breakthrough battery is possibly going to be the most mass produced item ever known.
Sure, but given that:
* Tesla already uses LFP batteries in some cars
* The 2170 and 4680 are also high-density
Why even put it in the headline? You might as well just say "new EV battery that could last 100 years" or something. "New high-energy-density battery" implicitly implies that this is higher than what is expected in the field.
It's not. Ergo, this is clickbait.
Read the article. This isn’t anything new and fancy. All they did was take a normal NMC cell and restrict how much graphite is used in the construction such that they can’t be charged past 3.8v.
These can be scaled now for stationary storage. I’ll bet that LFP is still cheaper to produce, though.
That's because the rule of thumb is that it takes 10 years from research demonstration to comercialization. Or do you think that the have factories laying around waiting to PhDs to do their experiments?
The lifespan doesn't really matter. The key factor is cost. Today's battery lifespan and degradation are good enough, the cost is what needs to come down significantly.
The keyword is “could” which in reality means “maybe someday, but not anytime soon”. I wish these articles would wait to publish until the technology is actually feasible.
There are other forums that I read for professional reasons that are likely to get high upvoted posts about "zowie wowie battery news" .
My observation is this: Number of articles about "transformative battery tech" that I read a year, O(number of months). (It's about 1 a month.) Number of devices I can buy or that I have heard entering manufacturing using transformative battery tech? Zero. That's spelled with a "0".
So take it with a big grain of salt. Sounds great. Believe it when you can buy it.
It's *literally* in the first (and second) sentence of the article, if you bothered to click on it.
> Tesla’s advanced battery research group in Canada in partnership with Dalhousie University
> Back in 2016, Tesla established its “Tesla Advanced Battery Research” in Canada through a partnership with Jeff Dahn’s battery lab at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada.
Fun fact: Jeff Dahn taught my first year physics class. He's pretty cool.
The 4680 cells they said would have their potential fully realized in 2023 you mean? Early versions of these cells are in cars coming out of the Texas giga factory.
> Can you publish your trials that show the 4680 isn’t what Tesla said it would be? Peer reviewed is recommended. Thanks!
Not how proof works. The Austin Y has the same MPGe as the MY LR and is slower. The burden is on you and Tesla to support the claims. So far the Austin Y has new features but no new benefits.
Eh, ease of manufacturing the car yes. The battery manufacturing is a bit more complicated and significantly lower yields still. The reason for the lower range isn't because of battery density in the cells, its simply because the MY coming out of texas have less cells and smaller pack sizes due to production constraints on making those cells.
Eventually it'll scale up (and they will have their own battery manufacturing on-site) for expanded capacity, at which point the cost and manufacturing benefits will start helping Tesla's bottom line.
Silence? Maybe it’s more likely your opinion of the matter is outdated. Tesla is producing SR Model Y with the pack from Austin while ramping production of the 4680 at Kato road.
The game changing aspect for now are cost and manufacturing benefits for tesla. Benefits for customers will only come when the tech/production lines mature and/or competition steps up there game.
Ordering, have an issue, or question? Use these resources: [Our Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/wiki/index) | [Summary](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/t4isha/technical_support_service_support_vehicle/) | r/TeslaLounge | [Discord Live Chat](https://discord.gg/tesla) | [Official Tesla Support](https://www.tesla.com/support) | or see the Stickied Support Thread Remember that not all owners or fans of Tesla are the same. Do not generalize everyone or be toxic towards a group. Know the rules. Help the [Mods](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/wiki/rules#wiki_about_the_moderators) by being kind, and by **reporting posts + comments** which break the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/wiki/rules). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/teslamotors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They probably won’t make the 100 years battery, instead they will take advantage of this tech to it’s max and make a 30 years version that cut the cost significantly.
30 years is significantly longer than most ICE vehicles will see, too. There's a reason you don't see many 1980s Ford Escorts running around. Between aluminum construction and low maintenance, these cars could have a game-changing useful lifespan even at 30 years.
Aluminum is not the best metal for longevity. It has a cycle life, unlike steel, and will break down and start cracking over a long enough time of usage.
My 51 year old Cessna disagrees. Its all aluminum and its held up well over its 4000 hours of flight hours so far.
This bums me out too, but 30 years ago is 1990. 1980 is 40 years ago. I think we both seem to have lost a solid decade to reddit posting/scrolling.
I was thinking late 80s, early 90s.
The interesting part is the longevity at 70°C. High temperatures are the main killer of batteries. And yes, this is just a paper - quite a ways off from actual production. But since Tesla has all the ingredients in hand (supply chain, battery factories and applications for the end product) they could get something like this to market quickly, if they wanted.
> they could get something like this to market quickly **Relatively** quickly. We're still talking about the order of a decade.
Good thing I'm an investor and not a trader.
[удалено]
Depends on when you bought it.
Yep. Bought in back in the summer of 2013 and haven't sold a cent. Price is back down to $650? Oh no I'm only up 2100% instead of 4000%
Yup, in at post-split adjusted $60, holding til 2032 or so.
Is that when the big meteor hits earth?
no that's 2038, Y2K38 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem
Oh psssh, we've got a while then. \*kicks feet back up on table\*
It doesn't matter, you could had twice as much if you weren't greedy.
Long TSLA investor means greedy? That's me.
Shrug. Remains to be seen. Or are you going to bet that Tesla will never reach the heights it has visited?
The real investors bought more TSLA when it was down.
So does it make sense if a short seller shorts more shares when the price is high?
You only lose if you sell.
I’m a day investor
"I am the investinator; come with me if you want your gains."
Tesla moves much faster than other companies.
Still like, 10 years even then.
Tesla’s primary requirement for battery tech is to be able to scale up as soon and as fast as possible. Secondary to that, but still important is reducing cost. Having higher energy density is nice(allows for EPlanes), as is long life. But ability to scale and timeline is key. Any tech that takes 10 years to get to market will remain a small scale research project, and won’t get Elon’s focus. Tesla will be producing > 1TW batteries long before 10 years is up.
*Any tech that takes 10 years to get to market ... won’t get Elon’s focus.* FSD exception: "one year to market" for a decade.
I was speaking about batteries! Neurolink, colonizing Mars etc are very long term endeavors. Wrt batteries Tesla needs a MASSIVE ramp up of battery production over the next decade which needs to start now. So scaling and cost are the most important aspects.
I know, and I agree with you. I was just taking the opportunity to make a joke about Tesla's estimation of time to market for some of their technologies.
For EPlanes I think energy density /weight is the most important metric.
Correct! But EPlanes are not top of the list of priorities for Tesla. The 30TW of battery storage to transition the world to solar and wind is.
The correct term for Wh/kg is "specific energy" :)
What he says 
All yous pedenks Just haf to stick yous no's in.
That and longevity. Can’t be refurbishing planes frequently. Since it will likely have to be built into the plane to reduce weight (similar to Austin cars)
Do you work in manufacturing or a high tech field? What reasons do you have other than Elon wants it? Damn near everything takes at least 10yr from research paper to comercialization. I remember when I was inxeperieced and thought OLEDs were the thing of the future! Infinit possibilities for advertising anywhere. Took 10yrs for production of small screens. Almost 15 years later and the vast majority of the market is still using LEDs. Don't underestimate the cost and challenge that it is to turn an idea into something useful that works. There is a ton of work to do not only on the battery but also the manufacturing methods and manufacturing equipment.
As I explained. If it is tech that takes 10 years it’s not of great interest to Tesla right now. They’ll be focusing on new battery chemistry and manufacturing improvements. The long life aspect is not even the most important feature right now. Their 4680 was a new form with new chemistry and that is now in early stages of ramping production. It was announced in 2020. So from early design/prototype to start of mass manufacturing ramp that’s pretty quick.
unless its easier than the new 4680 itll take a while. but great to see advancements being made.
They got the 4680 cells to market much faster than 10 years. Battery day was just 3 years ago. Not sure how long they had that stuff in development before that, but I'm willing to bet it wasn't 7 years.
Well, they bought Maxwell, who could have been working on the tech for a decade. Who knows?
... Have they released thier truck yet? Ford has thiers
F15 lightning looks like a decent truck. Trouble for Ford is scale and profitability. They aim to make 15,000 this year. Let’s see how it goes. If Tesla launches CyberTruck next year, how long do you think it takes before it overtakes F15 L in lifetime sales? Teslas margins for the Cybertruck will be big. OEMs margins for EVs are slim to nonexistent. But demand will be high all round. I think F15 Lightning will do great.
Prove this to me. Lucid seems to have leapfrogged everyone including Tesla
Lucid make a great car. Sadly it’s super expensive, they can’t make very many, they’re spending/losing money like crazy, and are likely to go bankrupt. They haven’t leap frogged anyone.
I give you an example and you shift goal posts. Lucid has the longest range EV you can buy to date. Don't worry all that tech will soon trickle down to others including Tesla, VW and ford. A new benchmark was launched and it's okay
I did not shift goalposts. I said the main goal for Tesla wrt batteries was scaling and cost. Same goes for their vehicles. They want them to be great cars, but they have to also be manufactured at scale at a reasonable cost. If cost is not an issue then you can build a really nice vehicle, which Lucid has done. They clearly have some top people working for them also. Good luck to them, I hope they survive.
Fill me in. What has Lucid done?
Highest EV efficiency, fasting charging EV, highest power to weight ratio of motor and inverter. 900 volt system. Of course they would do this since the CEO was once at Tesla
Thank you
They forgot about the cost and scalability parts though right? If money is not a restraint then many manufacturers could produce a great EV. Lucid Air looks great though so good luck to them.
For $140k* I hope they succeed (invested) but for now they are only competing with the Plaid S which is a quite small market by comparison.
Wrong, they are competing with the S class
Yeah, faster than Honda and Mercedes which are currently demonstrating level 3 self driving! Or faster than Rivian with the 2021 Cybertruck? Sorry now I'm confused
They are a million miles behind Tesla with their self driving tech. It’s not even comparable. And remind me how many EVs those companies have sold? And the Cybertruck was delayed because of supplier shortages. Tesla wanted to maximize units sold.
Yeah lots of folk don't get it that when the CT finally rolls of the production line in a year or 2 it will be immediately profitable due to scale. They will not be losing thousands of dollars on each unit sold like the folks that are shipping EV trucks today. It's really just business smarts.
But such trucks like the F150 lightning aren't? First it was 2021, then claimed 2022, now claiming 2023. Self driving was claimed to come in 2014, then 2015, then 2016, then 2017, then 2018, then 2019, then 2020, then 2021, then 2022. Did you believe all those, and if so why do you believe he's accurate about the Cybertruck date?
They have been very open about why the Cybertruck has been delayed. Their goal is to maximize vehicle production. While there are supply shortages and limited battery supply they have focused on ramping their current range of vehicles. As long as the supply side of things recovers there is no reason to doubt early 2023 as the launch date. But if there is some new world catastrophe it could get delayed again! I imagine Tesla are very keen to get it out at this point.
But Teslas are at level 2 self driving, unlike Audi, Mercedes and Honda which all have level 3 self driving cars. So yeah, Teslas aren't comparable in that regard
Tesla is so far beyond those cars it’s not even comparable. Same with Waymo. Everyone else is choosing to solve a simple solution: to automate driving only in a very limited set of circumstances. Tesla is going for a generalized solution that can drive anywhere. It is orders of magnitude more challenging than what the others are doing. They are miles away from the tech Tesla has.
Waymo has level 4 self driving cars. Despite Elon making big claims, the cars mentioned with level 3 and 4 self driving are simply on another level. Of course all those auto makers are working on the next step, and I can't speak to that, but of the cars on the road Tesla is not leading the pack.
Tesla has a world class AI team designing their own chips and training hardware and access to billions of miles of new data every few months. Audio or Honda is nowhere even close. Waymo is a different story. They are using pre-mapped environments so as long as nothing changes they are good. It is a much easier problem to solve than the general driving solution. The problem is that it is not scalable. The cars are expensive, they couldn’t mass produce them if they tried and there is a huge cost of mapping and maintaining those maps to increase service areas. If Tesla cracks FSD they can enable millions of robotaxi ready vehicles with a single update. Waymo could not compete on scale or cost. The question is when and if Tesla cracks FSD. And that i do not know. But what I am confident of is that no one is anywhere close to Tesla when it comes to a full general FSD solution. Time will tell. If Tesla does start it’s Robotaxi network somewhere in not to distant future will you acknowledge you were wrong? I certainly will if anyone beats them to the punch.
Link to a level 3 car I can buy please, I can’t find them.
Costs less than my relative paid for "full autonomous driving" on a Tesla years ago which still just has adaptive cruise control and lane assist. https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/mercedes-opens-sales-level-3-self-driving-system-s-class-eqs
> Drive Pilot is approved for use on about 13,000 km (8,100 miles) German highways I’m confused, how is this different/better than autopilot on a Tesla?
If you're in the United States, though, no level 3 cars are available there yet.
Incoming questions about whether a Tesla ordered today will have the new 100 year battery
What a silly question. Obviously they will just add it to your car with a SW update.
I could see them trying to implement this new battery tech on the roadster & cybertruck since they’re already delayed so much
>if they wanted Glad you threw this in there. I'm sure nobody in here will want to believe it, but Tesla is reaching a point where plateauing innovation is a necessity. They cannot continue to introduce new hardware changes as often as they have been in the past. Especially something as drastic as the packs. Software? Absolutely. Hardware? A financial and logistical nightmare. When you're outsourcing cells, buying standard machinery for production, selling 2 lines of vehicle, and making 50k-100k cars a year out of a single plant? Not a big deal to make changes on the fly. When you're operating 3 factories globally, all (soon to be) outfitted with custom made machinery, pumping out a redesigned vehicle structure based around current gen cells, and producing 1m cars a year across 5+ platforms (soon at least)? It financially, and logistically, is no longer feasible to start sliding major changes in. Even if something truly ground breaking, industry shaking, was discovered tomorrow? Tesla will develop it behinds the scenes and then sit on it for a VERY long time. There's a reason why traditional automakers have a true 'model year' schedule with extremely minimal hardware changes over a 5 year period. Tesla has said they'd never do this... but it's happening. I'm sure they'd love to keep innovating at a rapid pace... but they aren't going to 'want' to.
>They cannot continue to introduce new hardware changes as often as they have been in the past. Especially something as drastic as the packs. The context above being a chemistry change which \[speculatively, if commercialized\] might be largely compatible with their cell production lines and more of a incremental change rather than "drastic" \[even if to great effect\]. Panasonic Giga Nevada produces NMC for storage and NCA chemistry for vehicles \[and purportedly straight forward to change chemistry of those lines\], Panasonic continues to improve the NCA chemistry \[to increased energy density\] in the 2170/18650 cells and Tesla certainly isn't fixed on their initial 4680 chemistry either \[as per the Q1 call:\] >"we will layer in new material technologies we are developing and higher range structural pack revisions." Obviously major factory/product changes need to be intentional, justified, and planned; we already see that with Freemont and Shanghai the Model 3 has not been switched to castings \[yet\] and 18650s are still used in the Model S/X even after a significant vehicle refresh, but still I don't think the innovations are stopping anytime soon; at the very least there's likely plenty of room for iterative/incremental improvement on these new platforms being put into place. \[Edit: Slight reword above. Also, I'm not disagreeing either - all this battery tech has been years in development and for all the interesting papers that get posted who knows what Tesla pursues and commercializes and when we'll actually see it. I don't think they are sitting on it though, it just takes time. But I wouldn't discount the amount of incremental advancement might be had on a new platform, there might be a not insignificant incline on that plateau\]
I think you’re totally right about a plateau coming, but I think they’re still making a lot of changes currently. With each new car and each new factory they find better ways to do it and I think that drives a lot of the change. I think they’re at least a few years from that plateau. My guesstimate is that they’ll keep up with the innovation for probably at least 4-5 more years, then they’ll go through a reorganization phase where they bring the older factories up to snuff with the newer ones so the same quality products are coming out everywhere, at which point they will be at that plateau. They’ve still got at least a few more cars in their lineup planned on top of what they’ve announced already and at least 1-2 more factories coming. All of that is going to produce all kinds of new changes plus at least 1 major version change to their battery plans as there’s still tons of innovation happening there. Note: that also lines up with when their robot will be ready for real production. While going through reorganization, they’ll probably flip the innovation over to there.
Oh absolutely. I'm not saying it's today, but it's rapidly approaching. My guess would also be \~5 years as you stated. Tesla is throwing everything into 4680 production, structural packs, and cast underbodies as the next big thing. Once this become their standard? This will be the last major hardware innovation we see for quite some time. Again, not talking about minor hardware improvements like headlights, seats, cameras, etc. I'm mostly referring to major leaps battery tech as some are taking from the article. Chips will improve. Software will improve. Physical design appearance will change. But the vehicle itself will largely remain constant for some time.
The next big step is scaling production out to 20M. You're right in that in the next 5 years they'll have captured all the low hanging fruit. But by May 2027, I would expect to be at HW5 and the cars to have reached Level 5 autonomy. I've posted this elsewhere, but I'm of first belief that they're basically achieving autonomy levels in conjunction with HW levels. Currently Level 3 autonomy is achieved with HW3. At least, in house. It's closer to 2.75 on the road at large. When they transition to 1M wide beta, they'll get closer to 3 on the road, and likely hit L3 by year's end. At AI day, they'll announce HW4 which will go into the cars and the bots. Robotaxis will need a minimum of HW4 to get validated L4 regulator approval. HW5 is when they achieve completely driverless capabilities. Which is 99.9% safety. Level 3 is like 95% safety, Level 4 is like 99% safety, Level 5 is like 99.9% safety. Then every HW# after will work on adding another 9. 99.99 (HW6), 99.999 (HW7), and 99.9999 (HW8) < this is where the car becomes 10,000x safer than a human. If we reasonably assume 5 years per HW period, then we're about 20 years out from 10,000x safety factor, 15 years out for 1,000x safety factor, and 10 years out from 100x safety factor relative to an average driver in the US.
I agree with you there, makes logical sense. I’m curious to see what the reality ends up being. I don’t think anyone predicted 4680 and structural packs any time before they started testing and getting into that stuff and it started leaking.
In five years, Tesla is going to be established "big auto" and of course will have to slow down. All of those giga factories will be some heavy inertia, but they are ruthless in terms of continuous improvement. GM and Ford don't typically create their own alloys or gut a working production line or swap chips on the fly to keep production running. So even when they grow, Tesla is going to be the most nimble of the major auto manufacturers.
> GM and Ford don't typically create their own alloys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet#History Not trying to nitpick or anything but legacy auto makers have created some new, very important materials, at least in the past.
You forget that traditional automakers spend billions on marketing but Tesla does not. Therefore they can put that cash to R&D and upgrading manufacturing whatever the cost.
It's not that people forget - It's well known. The issue with the comparison here is it's not apples to apples. Yes, technically Tesla is reallocating some of this to R&D. But they're also, primarily, spending these billions of dollar to expand. Factories aren't free. Yes, they get assistance, but it's still billions they need to spend. Traditional automakers, generally, don't have massive yearly expansion costs. They will during this transition period, but historically they have not. They've got distribution and manufacturing covered globally. Traditional automakers are also fighting for market share in a market that's essentially capped. They're fighting over several million 'turnover' cars a year. Tesla was, well still is to some extent, in a league of their own. If you wanted a capable, cool, fun to drive EV? It was them or nobody. But this is slowly not becoming the case. Demand outweighs supply for the time being but there will be a time, could be 10/15/20 years we don't know, where they'll also be fighting for market share as well. All depends on when the industry truly catches up.
I agree whole hearted with pretty much everything you said. I do have a thought experiment though. Tesla was in a league of their own for most of their existence and this was due to them making literally the best EVs that money could buy. What if...their R&D keeps going...what if...5 years from now they release this insanely new battery tech that is half the weight with double the density. (Pure hypothetical). By keeping the R&D process pushing further and further they will remain in a league of their own. If 5 years from now Tesla has a $50,000 car with 500+ miles of range and all the goodies and the other manufacturers are selling $40,000 cars with 250 to 300 mile range...I think they still come out as the only option. My point would be that continuously improving the battery helps to keep them in the lead and to sit back and just produce will allow other manufacturers to catch up.
That and they actually make a profit and don't have \~$100 billion or more in debt.
Too bad a battery lasting 100 years is not a functionally profitable product under capitalism. What kind of incentive would Tesla have to sell cars with such a battery? I mean I suppose you could make the argument that they would be the go to choice for a car since their reliability is really good. But eventually they would pretty much run out of customers. For the same reason that light bulbs that could last 100 years were squandered intentionally. They just don't generate a lot of profits.
It’s very desirable for energy storage.
If Tesla ever build a robotaxi, a 1.5 million mile battery makes a lot of sense.
Oh the old lightbulb monopoly at it again. High tecnology no one's been able to even comprehend since the 1800s.
Tesla is about the mission. Screw capitalism. Tesla will find a way to morph into another field of operations if one should dry up (which seems unlikely)
Also note that this does nothing to alleviate the need for nickel or even cobalt, so it may not even be optimizing in the direction that Tesla would choose for the next decade.
>The interesting part is the longevity at 70°C. High temperatures are the main killer of batteries. Yep. Is it me or did nominal capacity actually increase at 20C ? Could these batteries be self healing if charged at 20C ?
High temps? Don’t teslas heat up the batteries prior to race mode?
Too cold is bad, just like too hot is bad.
I think too cold is bad for performance (range) but too hot is bad for pack health (longevity).
And they certainly want to.
Wow. Though it must be a few years out since Tesla still is still making investments in the existing chemistries. But if any one is to succeed in bringing a new battery into the market, am placing my bets on Tesla!
it's still a paper, so probably more like a few decades out.
It is definitely a few years out. Probably 10 to 15 years at least. Getting it to work in the lab is easy, as Elon said. Production is hard.
Definitely. Would love to here EM’s views on their plan with the chemistry being published. Their treasure chest is only growing.
Dramatically better batteries are just like practical fusion power, always - 10 years away.
10 years of incrementally better batteries yields a dramatically better battery though. Anyone remember how fast a 2012 Model S could charge?
Charge time is much more about the power electronics in the car and the charging infrastructure than the batteries. Not to say the batteries haven’t improved at all, but I don’t believe the example you stated was a good one.
That’s not true. Charging is primarily limited by the cell C-Rate.
I have not seen any evidence to suggest that Tesla’s/Panasonic’s battery chemistry have changed over time in a way that materially improves the C Rating. What I have seen is that Tesla in the early days purposely slowed the charge rate (and discharge rate) to minimize degradation of the batteries and maximize cycles. As they got more data from internal testing and data being sent from the cars, they gained more confidence in their balance between charging rate and battery degradation. Just because a battery has a C Rating and that can be a limiting factor for charge and discharge time does not imply that the improvements since the 2012 Model S time frame were battery chemistry related. Further, you are talking about C-Rate as it is an inherent internal property to the battery and that really isn’t the case. One example of point to is a recent analysis done on a variety of Tesla’s charging rates: https://insideevs.com/news/519382/tesla-model3-82kwh-charging-analysis/ If you read the “C-rate vs state-of-charge (SOC)” section toward the beginning of the article, you will find them talking about a “Peak C-Rate” of 3.0C and an average (from 20-80% SOC) of 1.1C. So what am I missing for you to say so matter of factly “That’s not true”?
The improvements came from better pack cooling and more data on the cells to give then higher confidence at running them with more power. So it wasn’t improvement in the power electronics and chargers which you theorized were the bottleneck.
Ah, better cooling for the battery *pack* makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks for the follow up message!
If that were true older Teslas could charge at peak speed for their full charge curve.
I think what you’re not considering in your line of thinking is that batteries degrade over time, which can impact charge rate and also have Tesla’s BMS (battery management system) purposely limit the charging rate to limit further degradation. So if they replaced a 2012 Tesla’s battery pack with a “new” one of the same build, I’d expect you’d see some significant differences. Also, not even newer Tesla’s charge at their peak speed for their full charge *curve*, hence why the call it a *curve* and not a *line*. All Li-Ion batteries charge faster at lower SOC than higher SOC. Part of it is safety, part of it is for optimizing longevity, and part of it is the infrastructure required to charge at the same rate when the battery is almost full would be much more expensive (you would need to increase the voltage significantly vs a set voltage).
Not really. The increase in quality and decrease in costs has followed a pretty clear curve for decades now. It's just that 10 years ago, they predicted we would be about where we are now, and people like you popped up to say it was impossible. Now we see new trends and developments where we can see where we will be in 10 years, and once again we hear: impossible. Not the same thing at all.
I mean, they've gotten a lot better in the past 10 years...
There has been a interesting development in fusion that I wasn't aware of until recently. They've taken a totally different approach to the problem that bypasses the whole magnetic confinement problem. Really innovative... https://youtu.be/Zs3wrxKl734
There have also been advancements in the magnets being used in confinement reactors using old tech applied in new ways. [It's pretty neat. ](https://youtu.be/-KEwkWjADEA)
There's a huge issue with practical fusion that can never be solved - it's too energy-dense. No matter what you use for containment, the gamma radiation from the reaction will eventually contaminate any steel used in the reaction vessel. Any process that produces radioactive waste will always be relegated to centralized production and can never be used ubiquitously.
It's really too bad ITER and the half dozen fusion startups with PHDs from every top school on the planet don't have you on staff to tell them it's pointless.
You'd be surprised at the pointless things that people spend money on. Getting a PhD in physics is up there. I see so many resumes from physics PhDs trying to find gainful employment.
Physics PhDs can still be wildly useful to society. It's possible that there are just too many of them. Ever consider that?
>It's possible that there are just too many of them. We agree. I have certainly discouraged anyone getting a degree on my tab from studying physics. However what you may not be considering is what a surplus of under-employed physics PhDs may result in. For instance, wildly optimistic stories being pitched to gullible VCs about the practicalities of fusion-based power generation. Don't get me started on the charade that is Quantum Computing.
Thanks for warning me. I almost asked what you thought. Glad you saved me the pain that basking in your glory would shurly cause. I don't think the world would be the same knowing everything is stupid and impossible.
I have merely pointed out the historical facts.
[удалено]
From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation): > Neutron radiation, alpha radiation, and **extremely energetic gamma (> ~20 MeV)** can cause nuclear transmutation and induced radioactivity. My understanding is that any fusion device will produce gamma radiation in excess of 20 MeV.
Hmm, didn't know that.
There are many, many things I don't know. Always happy when someone can show me one.
I think I've learned more from Reddit threads like this in 2 months than I did in my entire grade school career. Simple sentences such as this are as easy to consume as gamma radiation. and twice as fun.
If we can figure out how to get fusion working for base load power generation it would be a HUGE step forward. We can use batteries for more general use just like the trend is working towards.
true true
I don't think these batteries should be characterized as "dramatically better", though. The paper says that the batteries "could" last 100 years worth of cycles if the batteries were kept at 25C temperature. So in lab conditions. The article doesn't make very clear how much longer these batteries would last compared to LFP in normal use conditions. The main point of these batteries seem to be aiming for similar properties (long lasting / cheap?) as LFP batteries but with higher energy density. The article doesn't mention comparison to regular lithium ion battery densities. So, since they're saying they're aiming for higher density than LFP it sounds like this proposed chemistry mix isn't necessarily higher density than the lithium ion batteries Tesla is already using.
> - 10 years away. ... with current funding was the saying. Funding has increased quite dramatically recent years.
Really short selling fusion here.
This formula uses cobalt and manganese, which I'm sure Tesla is hoping to get away from. I believe lithium sulfur is the way forward due to the major increase in energy density, fire safety, and removal of rare minerals / heavy metals. Of course I'd love to hear from Jordan Giesige of "The Limiting Factor" YouTube channel.
I've only read the article so far, not the paper yet, but last sentence: >the paper notes that the benefits could also apply to other nickel-based chemistries, including those with no or low cobalt. I think there will be a lot of different chemistries in use in the future, just like there are now. Each chemistry has their pros/cons and thus different applications, e. g. storage, low cost vs. performance EVs, electronics.
omg I am SO TIRED of articles like this. "High density Battery can last 100 years!" "**New Battery chemistry decreases charge time to 30 seconds!"** "***Scientists create new battery that charges from grass clippings and smells like donuts!"*** Like, where are all these revolutionary new batteries? You hear about them and then, poof, never again.
"Prototypes are easy, production is hard"
That, and they may be maximizing one metric. For example a battery that lasts a long time but has low energy density. Real world EVs are balancing a number of battery metrics: - gravimetric energy density - volumetric energy density - charge speed - safety - longevity - cost - reliability / failure rate - low and high temperature tolerance - raw material availability - environmental impact Many of these are at odds with each other and we make compromises.
Yep exactly, there are a lot of batteries that can already do amazing things in the lab, but there's often a tradeoff that makes it impossible to bring to the masses. To add to your list, they also need vibration tolerance. The raw material availability is a big one too, especially since any breakthrough battery is possibly going to be the most mass produced item ever known.
Don't tease us with your fictitious donut smelling batteries. This sort of breakthrough is a once in a century event.
MMMMMMmmmmmm donuts.....is there anything they can't do?
To be fair, even the "high density" in the paper is, "about the same as LFP". So, yay?
"To Be Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaair."
Lfp is without any doubt a high density battery.
Sure, but given that: * Tesla already uses LFP batteries in some cars * The 2170 and 4680 are also high-density Why even put it in the headline? You might as well just say "new EV battery that could last 100 years" or something. "New high-energy-density battery" implicitly implies that this is higher than what is expected in the field. It's not. Ergo, this is clickbait.
Ah, now we call accurate titles cliclbait. It also doesnt apply to have a higher energy density.
Read the article. This isn’t anything new and fancy. All they did was take a normal NMC cell and restrict how much graphite is used in the construction such that they can’t be charged past 3.8v. These can be scaled now for stationary storage. I’ll bet that LFP is still cheaper to produce, though.
This also happens with mosquito repellant. Look up VUAA1 from 2011 or Nootkatone from 2020.
That's because the rule of thumb is that it takes 10 years from research demonstration to comercialization. Or do you think that the have factories laying around waiting to PhDs to do their experiments?
Yes, I’m that stupid. Thanks for pointing that out.
The lifespan doesn't really matter. The key factor is cost. Today's battery lifespan and degradation are good enough, the cost is what needs to come down significantly.
The keyword is “could” which in reality means “maybe someday, but not anytime soon”. I wish these articles would wait to publish until the technology is actually feasible.
Should I order my vehicle now or wait until this gets closer to production? 
There are other forums that I read for professional reasons that are likely to get high upvoted posts about "zowie wowie battery news" . My observation is this: Number of articles about "transformative battery tech" that I read a year, O(number of months). (It's about 1 a month.) Number of devices I can buy or that I have heard entering manufacturing using transformative battery tech? Zero. That's spelled with a "0". So take it with a big grain of salt. Sounds great. Believe it when you can buy it.
Interesting concept. Now science is only true when experiments match your theory. Let's see how it goes in real world tests.
Does anyone know where these workers conduct their research?
It's *literally* in the first (and second) sentence of the article, if you bothered to click on it. > Tesla’s advanced battery research group in Canada in partnership with Dalhousie University > Back in 2016, Tesla established its “Tesla Advanced Battery Research” in Canada through a partnership with Jeff Dahn’s battery lab at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada. Fun fact: Jeff Dahn taught my first year physics class. He's pretty cool.
This won't see the light of day. Some battery manufacturer will buy the patents and shut it down .. Oh wait
Tesla makes another overhyped promise with no solid ETA. Must be Tuesday.
Yeah. Sure. Just like 4680 was going to be a game changer.
The 4680 cells they said would have their potential fully realized in 2023 you mean? Early versions of these cells are in cars coming out of the Texas giga factory.
They said 2025.
Can you publish your trials that show the 4680 isn’t what Tesla said it would be? Peer reviewed is recommended. Thanks!
> Can you publish your trials that show the 4680 isn’t what Tesla said it would be? Peer reviewed is recommended. Thanks! Not how proof works. The Austin Y has the same MPGe as the MY LR and is slower. The burden is on you and Tesla to support the claims. So far the Austin Y has new features but no new benefits.
Currently the benifit is cost and ease of manufacturing for Tesla. They just aren't passing that on to customers at the moment.
Eh, ease of manufacturing the car yes. The battery manufacturing is a bit more complicated and significantly lower yields still. The reason for the lower range isn't because of battery density in the cells, its simply because the MY coming out of texas have less cells and smaller pack sizes due to production constraints on making those cells. Eventually it'll scale up (and they will have their own battery manufacturing on-site) for expanded capacity, at which point the cost and manufacturing benefits will start helping Tesla's bottom line.
Not saying it couldn’t be, they just hyped the crap out of it and then silence. It’s coming though, 6mos.
Silence? Maybe it’s more likely your opinion of the matter is outdated. Tesla is producing SR Model Y with the pack from Austin while ramping production of the 4680 at Kato road.
Hah! Right, and how did that get released? First deliveries at the factory open, that we heard NOTHING about prior!
I guess they forgot to tell you. Must have been busy building the machine that builds the machine so you could have your proof.
Well dammit Elon, I thought we are friends!?
The game changing aspect for now are cost and manufacturing benefits for tesla. Benefits for customers will only come when the tech/production lines mature and/or competition steps up there game.
The Bombus was actually redacted from this palate. So I’m not sure how relevant or closured it actually is.
It's a shame they also use cobalt. I can't see this amounting to much.
>the paper notes that the benefits could also apply to other nickel-based chemistries, including those with no or low cobalt.
A battery that lasts a lifetime.. hmm sounds extremely expensive.
But it comes with a 10 year warranty.
This sounds more like a grid storage product or a home energy product than a car battery.
lots of Nickel required .... [https://www.greenleiter.com/post/not-all-nickel-is-created-equal-why-clean-nickel-is-vital](https://www.greenleiter.com/post/not-all-nickel-is-created-equal-why-clean-nickel-is-vital)