NASA Achieves milestone Solid State Battery

[Space Lynx]

Samsung SDI to start mass-producing solid-state batteries in 2027

South Korean manufacturer sends samples from pilot line to global automakers

asia.nikkei.com

(this article is only one day old, so good news indeed)
Samsung SDI to start mass-producing solid-state batteries in 2027

Honestly if their original 700 mile range claim is true, and this timeline holds up, the world is going to change overnight. I just hope they sell the copyright on the battery to other companies so the world can prosper. Or at least team up with NASA and keep improving it further or make the manufacturing process go further. At some point people have to start working together and not only focusing on max profits.

 

[dgianstefani]

Samsung SDI to start mass-producing solid-state batteries in 2027

South Korean manufacturer sends samples from pilot line to global automakers

asia.nikkei.com

(this article is only one day old, so good news indeed)
Samsung SDI to start mass-producing solid-state batteries in 2027

Honestly if their original 700 mile range claim is true, and this timeline holds up, the world is going to change overnight. I just hope they sell the copyright on the battery to other companies so the world can prosper. Or at least team up with NASA and keep improving it further or make the manufacturing process go further. At some point people have to start working together and not only focusing on max profits.

Most corporations sell parts to others, like Samsung screens in iPhones etc. So if they have the tech and the production, it should happen.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

The sooner the world gets better battery tech is gonna be a great thing.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Let's establish a timeline...and include links. Let's do this, so you can understand why this is...I'm gonna call it stupid. You want to pretend that this is news...just as NASA does...but I'm calling it a plea for more capital funding.

1987. Solid state batteries exist...and aren't viable because of the associated costs. Declassified document
1990. Commercial lithium ion construction is viable thanks to Sony. Not solid state, but does provide commercial lithium chemistry.
2008. Tesla demonstrates traditional wet cell chemistry can be used to power EVs. It demonstrates that you can have a practical EV powered by current energy density storage.
2010. Toyota announces and demonstrates a lab cell for a solid state battery. Toyota
2011. Practical solid state battery chemistry demonstrated in lab with technical paper.
2011. French company demonstrates practical use of solid state battery in a car. Company site
2014. Toyota claims a 2020 release in production vehicles for those wonderful solid state batteries. 2014
2017. Toyota revises promise for those batteries to "early 2020's." 2017
2019. Blue solutions. I'm going to call this the actual release for their cells in functionally non-commercial uses. Their road map is 2026 at earliest to have a solid state battery equivalent to current wet chemistry lithium cells. Please note in 2011 they were all gung-ho on a single demonstration...and in 2024 they aren't yet as good as lithium-ion chemistry.
2021. Toyota is now claiming 2025.
2023. Toyota revises again. This time 2027-2028. Hmmm....about 5 years in the future. I see a pattern. 2023
2024. NASA claims that they've cracked the barrier to beating lithium ion. No word on cost, or production plans. They do claim 500 Wh/kg...or about twice that of a Tesla lithium ion cell (whether used in energy grid storage or for an EV).

Cool. I detect another feel good article. Another promise of technology that is a few years out...but can be demonstrated without scale and without cost consideration in a lab. Great...

I hope you understand this now...but I'm assuming you still have a sacred cow being beaten here. It's funny when you actually stack the timeline up, and see that the evolution of the solid state battery is literally in the same place it was 37 years ago. Let me define that. It's potentially some of the best technology...as demonstrated by laboratory samples...with no commercially viable usage (read that original paper...'cause it's spelled out there) . It's another half decade out...perpetually. There are laboratory developments all of the time...yet it's never something you can go out and buy. Let me draw a parallel for you, with blue LEDs. History of the Blue LED - youtube video Note that the reason blue LEDs succeeded was that they managed to make a commercially viable process (earlier attempts failed because laboratory experiments didn't equate to a viable manufacturing process)...and that this was from Bloomberg so there is not conservative bias.


Let me share a little secret with you. I hate Elon Musk, because he's an idiot who failed upward. Despite that, the greatest thing he ever did was to take tax payer money and build the factory that mass manufactures lithium ion battery cells. Yes, they are a recycling issue, and they are a huge environmentally impactful item. That said, they did drive down the cost of cells. It sounds silly to say this, but without someone like him we'd probably still be bound to much more expensive batteries. The thing here is he took a good process and made it commercial. Solid state has Ford, Toyota, Panasonic, and a litany of other companies spending billions to try and make solid state batteries commercial...and after more than a decade they've got both jack and squat, with a 5 year timeline that is perpetually five years out. Maybe it's time to suggest that all of this news is garbage meant to drum up more investment capital, to try and research some way to make this commercial, instead of a real and genuine good thing. If you cannot, with the above outline, see how this conclusion is objectively correct then you lack objectivity.

This is the same sorrow as Beta cassettes, the rotary engine, SLC memory cells, and a litany of other technologies that are great on paper but aren't practical. Note that 5 years ago on youtube they demonstrated how awesome solid state batteries are...and they're still that awesome today, if they were commercially viable. Cutting a battery Note that the comments are also very quick to point out that it's not viable due to a silly low energy density, the size is an issue, they've been hearing about this for a decade already, and my favorite point is that the company that made these is still not offering a commercial product...they only do B2B sales based on their website Prieto

 

[dgianstefani]

Let's establish a timeline...and include links. Let's do this, so you can understand why this is...I'm gonna call it stupid. You want to pretend that this is news...just as NASA does...but I'm calling it a plea for more capital funding.

1987. Solid state batteries exist...and aren't viable because of the associated costs. Declassified document
1990. Commercial lithium ion construction is viable thanks to Sony. Not solid state, but does provide commercial lithium chemistry.
2008. Tesla demonstrates traditional wet cell chemistry can be used to power EVs. It demonstrates that you can have a practical EV powered by current energy density storage.
2010. Toyota announces and demonstrates a lab cell for a solid state battery. Toyota
2011. Practical solid state battery chemistry demonstrated in lab with technical paper.
2011. French company demonstrates practical use of solid state battery in a car. Company site
2014. Toyota claims a 2020 release in production vehicles for those wonderful solid state batteries. 2014
2017. Toyota revises promise for those batteries to "early 2020's." 2017
2019. Blue solutions. I'm going to call this the actual release for their cells in functionally non-commercial uses. Their road map is 2026 at earliest to have a solid state battery equivalent to current wet chemistry lithium cells. Please note in 2011 they were all gung-ho on a single demonstration...and in 2024 they aren't yet as good as lithium-ion chemistry.
2021. Toyota is now claiming 2025.
2023. Toyota revises again. This time 2027-2028. Hmmm....about 5 years in the future. I see a pattern. 2023
2024. NASA claims that they've cracked the barrier to beating lithium ion. No word on cost, or production plans. They do claim 500 Wh/kg...or about twice that of a Tesla lithium ion cell (whether used in energy grid storage or for an EV).

Cool. I detect another feel good article. Another promise of technology that is a few years out...but can be demonstrated without scale and without cost consideration in a lab. Great...

I hope you understand this now...but I'm assuming you still have a sacred cow being beaten here. It's funny when you actually stack the timeline up, and see that the evolution of the solid state battery is literally in the same place it was 37 years ago. Let me define that. It's potentially some of the best technology...as demonstrated by laboratory samples...with no commercially viable usage (read that original paper...'cause it's spelled out there) . It's another half decade out...perpetually. There are laboratory developments all of the time...yet it's never something you can go out and buy. Let me draw a parallel for you, with blue LEDs. History of the Blue LED - youtube video Note that the reason blue LEDs succeeded was that they managed to make a commercially viable process (earlier attempts failed because laboratory experiments didn't equate to a viable manufacturing process)...and that this was from Bloomberg so there is not conservative bias.


Let me share a little secret with you. I hate Elon Musk, because he's an idiot who failed upward. Despite that, the greatest thing he ever did was to take tax payer money and build the factory that mass manufactures lithium ion battery cells. Yes, they are a recycling issue, and they are a huge environmentally impactful item. That said, they did drive down the cost of cells. It sounds silly to say this, but without someone like him we'd probably still be bound to much more expensive batteries. The thing here is he took a good process and made it commercial. Solid state has Ford, Toyota, Panasonic, and a litany of other companies spending billions to try and make solid state batteries commercial...and after more than a decade they've got both jack and squat, with a 5 year timeline that is perpetually five years out. Maybe it's time to suggest that all of this news is garbage meant to drum up more investment capital, to try and research some way to make this commercial, instead of a real and genuine good thing. If you cannot, with the above outline, see how this conclusion is objectively correct then you lack objectivity.

This is the same sorrow as Beta cassettes, the rotary engine, SLC memory cells, and a litany of other technologies that are great on paper but aren't practical. Note that 5 years ago on youtube they demonstrated how awesome solid state batteries are...and they're still that awesome today, if they were commercially viable. Cutting a battery Note that the comments are also very quick to point out that it's not viable due to a silly low energy density, the size is an issue, they've been hearing about this for a decade already, and my favorite point is that the company that made these is still not offering a commercial product...they only do B2B sales based on their website Prieto

Who exactly are you arguing with? Is it supposed to be me?

I'm not interested in arguing with you.

Are you seeking validation for your opinion? What's the objective here?

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Who exactly are you arguing with? Is it supposed to be me?

Are you seeking validation for your opinion? What's the objective here?

You want me to argue with you? You are the one who started an argument with me. I pointed out why the energy density was an issue...and why it was a problem before you decided to do the "it's green technology and you're just ignorant" response. To be fair...you and @Assimilator.

Funny that... My only point was, and remains, that the technology is stupid. Existing tech outstrips its ability to hold power. Existing tech outstrips its commercial viability. We've been promised that this new and shiny technology is the thing that will redefine the future...and it's been that way literally all of my lifetime. It's provable, objective truth. I'm not some "rah, green technology is a lie" person, I'm a human being who isn't stupid enough to see this song and dance for quite literally its second decade and be impressed.


It's great. Both of you really wanted me to be all about the ICE engines are better than electric cult. That was obvious when both of you projected arguments onto me so hard that I think it might have changed the rotation of the planet. It's then the truth that after 30+ years I'm actually questioning the technology itself...and most surprising of all somebody who questions your motivations isn't actually just some die-hard lover of gasoline, but someone who is actually tired of this crap because it's a perpetually unrealized promise that isn't a solution in and of itself. I'm someone who's actually just tired of hollow promises, when we already have better solutions and parallel technologies which are competing with this promise with a fraction of the investment.

Oh boy...a competing opinion....which you identified...that has a logical issue with unrealized promises instead of just a fundamental issue with green technology. Can you understand that? Maybe in the future instead of descending into criticism you can put yourself in my shoes. It took me about 10 nanoseconds to understand both of your opinions...that any tech progress is a good things, no matter if it's ever commercially viable.
My point, so you can understand it, is "Tech...without...commercial....applications...is...not...a....solution...it...is...a...cry...for...capital...investment." Unsurprisingly, this nuance is often lost when you argue what you feel, which both of you clearly did. You want to feel like you're doing good...which I can empathize with. For the second time, I will state that feeling good is useless without doing good. Solid state batteries are, for the last 37 years, the definition of feeling without doing good. If they weren't, there'd be a commercial replacement of Li-ion chemistry a decade and more after demonstrating the things...according to the above timeline.



-Edit-
Let me close with one last point. I liked old Top Gear. I also knew they were absolutely stubborn idiots...and that was part of the charm. When they pulled the crap they did with the Tesla I had issues, because while it wasn't and isn't a solution to the problems of the world it is a stepping stone solution. Portraying it so badly was frustrating, because instead of the low hanging fruit they literally only had to try the thing in adverse weather and it'd have been apparent what was a real issue versus make-believe. There are, surprisingly, people with the nuance to know what we have now is not perfect, that we do need change, but don't buy into the hype that the next newest thing is when everything will change. Mostly those old enough to remember the news promising this since Y2K was a thing.
-Edit end-

 

[dgianstefani]

You want me to argue with you? You are the one who started an argument with me. I pointed out why the energy density was an issue...and why it was a problem before you decided to do the "it's green technology and you're just ignorant" response. To be fair...you and @Assimilator.

Funny that... My only point was, and remains, that the technology is stupid. Existing tech outstrips its ability to hold power. Existing tech outstrips its commercial viability. We've been promised that this new and shiny technology is the thing that will redefine the future...and it's been that way literally all of my lifetime. It's provable, objective truth. I'm not some "rah, green technology is a lie" person, I'm a human being who isn't stupid enough to see this song and dance for quite literally its second decade and be impressed.


It's great. Both of you really wanted me to be all about the ICE engines are better than electric cult. That was obvious when both of you projected arguments onto me so hard that I think it might have changed the rotation of the planet. It's then the truth that after 30+ years I'm actually questioning the technology itself...and most surprising of all somebody who questions your motivations isn't actually just some die-hard lover of gasoline, but someone who is actually tired of this crap because it's a perpetually unrealized promise that isn't a solution in and of itself. I'm someone who's actually just tired of hollow promises, when we already have better solutions and parallel technologies which are competing with this promise with a fraction of the investment.

Oh boy...a competing opinion....which you identified...that has a logical issue with unrealized promises instead of just a fundamental issue with green technology. Can you understand that? Maybe in the future instead of descending into criticism you can put yourself in my shoes. It took me about 10 nanoseconds to understand both of your opinions...that any tech progress is a good things, no matter if it's ever commercially viable.
My point, so you can understand it, is "Tech...without...commercial....applications...is...not...a....solution...it...is...a...cry...for...capital...investment." Unsurprisingly, this nuance is often lost when you argue what you feel, which both of you clearly did. You want to feel like you're doing good...which I can empathize with. For the second time, I will state that feeling good is useless without doing good. Solid state batteries are, for the last 37 years, the definition of feeling without doing good. If they weren't, there'd be a commercial replacement of Li-ion chemistry a decade and more after demonstrating the things...according to the above timeline.

We're projecting? OK. I get it, everyone else has an emotional stance and you have an objective one. Great, now let's move on please. More links to interesting info on the relevant subject, less essays about how the subject is stupid. Ta ta.

Hopefully a mod won't need to come and take further action besides the verbal warning given earlier.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

We're projecting? OK. I get it, everyone else has an emotional stance and you have an objective one. Great, now let's move on please. More links to interesting info on the relevant subject, less essays about how the subject is stupid. Ta ta.

Hopefully a mod won't need to come and take further action besides the verbal warning given earlier.

You asked for information. Note that the timeline above develops all of that with links to outside source. I put in the work to define why solid state batteries are a good thing...if you ignore the reality behind their commercial adoption.

I'm cool with your opinion. I'd ask that in the future you check before you decide to come down on someone with a valid point. Period. You started an argument because you and someone else decided that instead of addressing a valid point you'd decide to project that I was somehow ignorant. You challenged, I answered with a history that linked to the topic, and about half a dozen other sources. My point stands. According to the rules of this forum I am on topic, haven't personally insulted anyone, and surprisingly enough when asked just to focus on the narrowest version of a topic whilst those around are allowed to make digressions I did the work.



It's cool. I know you don't want to be wrong. I know you want to be hyped. The objective truth sometimes hurts...and instead of buying the promises of "five years from now" we can push to get something today utilizing the tech. If not...then this is a puff piece. It's that simple.



Let me end on the lines which are projection:
@Assimilator: "This nonsense again." - I'm not anti-green technology
@Assimilator: "As opposed to the environmental impact of global warming?" - Never made this point, so 100% projection
@Assimilator: "Fallacy of believing that range of EVs needs to be the same as ICEs." - Again, flatly never stated
@dgianstefani: "Current Li-ion is actually more like 600 Wh/kg." - Yeah...objective truth is commercial cells are 269...and linked article says NASA wins over Li-ion at 500...so whose math is wrong?
@dgianstefani" Furthermore, there's really not much left to research and improve with ICE cars, whereas battery technology improves every year." - Except demonstrably not...but not answered as off topic

If you want to have an argument, come to the table with why your opponent is wrong. If I claimed that solid state is undemonstrated technology, that'd be 100% wrong...but I didn't. I claimed a variety of things which were supported by outside links and facts...which both of you didn't even attempt to do. You plopped down a link to NASA....that's basically a carbon copy of a decade old article proclaiming the same things (for one example IDTechEX in 2015)... It's almost like my point is that spreading ignorance and feelings about technology is stupid and detrimental. Both of you wanted me to hate...so you could dismiss me on the green tech grounds (the projection)...but the nuance is that tech without commercial application was the issue.

I'll gladly eat crow if in the next two months...so you've got plenty of time...if you can link to any commercial solid state battery that competes with Li-ion. It shouldn't be too difficult, as it was demonstrated more than a decade ago. Please, you asked me to do the work. I'm asking you the same. Of course, I know better than to expect a response but feel like I should give you the opportunity to prove me wrong. Heck...if the above articles are to be believed you shouldn't have any difficulty given in 2014 Toyota claimed a 2020 release date.

 

[dgianstefani]

You asked for information. Note that the timeline above develops all of that with links to outside source. I put in the work to define why solid state batteries are a good thing...if you ignore the reality behind their commercial adoption.

I'm cool with your opinion. I'd ask that in the future you check before you decide to come down on someone with a valid point. Period. You started an argument because you and someone else decided that instead of addressing a valid point you'd decide to project that I was somehow ignorant. You challenged, I answered with a history that linked to the topic, and about half a dozen other sources. My point stands. According to the rules of this forum I am on topic, haven't personally insulted anyone, and surprisingly enough when asked just to focus on the narrowest version of a topic whilst those around are allowed to make digressions I did the work.



It's cool. I know you don't want to be wrong. I know you want to be hyped. The objective truth sometimes hurts...and instead of buying the promises of "five years from now" we can push to get something today utilizing the tech. If not...then this is a puff piece. It's that simple.

And we're projecting?

If you want to have an argument, come to the table with why your opponent is wrong. If I claimed that solid state is undemonstrated technology, that'd be 100% wrong...but I didn't. I claimed a variety of things which were supported by outside links and facts...which both of you didn't even attempt to do. You plopped down a link to NASA....that's basically a carbon copy of a decade old article proclaiming the same things (for one example IDTechEX in 2015)... It's almost like my point is that spreading ignorance and feelings about technology is stupid and detrimental. Both of you wanted me to hate...so you could dismiss me on the green tech grounds (the projection)...but the nuance is that tech without commercial application was the issue.

I'll gladly eat crow if in the next two months...so you've got plenty of time...if you can link to any commercial solid state battery that competes with Li-ion. It shouldn't be too difficult, as it was demonstrated more than a decade ago. Please, you asked me to do the work. I'm asking you the same. Of course, I know better than to expect a response but feel like I should give you the opportunity to prove me wrong. Heck...if the above articles are to be believed you shouldn't have any difficulty given in 2014 Toyota claimed a 2020 release date.

If I want to have an argument? Strange, I seem to remember clearly stating the opposite.

I'm not interested in arguing with you. Post about solid state batteries and their development or take it somewhere else.

You're entitled to your own opinion, share it in the appropriate place with people who want to engage.

Yet here you are writing another essay. Seems to me that you're more interested in shouting your "facts" at the wall, because we've made it pretty clear we're not interested in debating what you're trying to force us to debate, and noone is responding to the "facts and logic" you're raising. One post would have been enough -
"I don't think solid state batteries are commercially viable".
Fair enough. You're entitled to that opinion. You're not entitled to try and force us to debate you.

You started an argument

No, I started a thread, and for nine pages it's been pretty civil interested discussion related to the topic, then you barge in and say none of this matters, yet you strangely are still very insistent on trying to... Gatekeep? Correct? Explain? A topic you've declared "ignorant of reality" and "stupid and detrimental spreading of ignorance and feelings". So why are you so invested?

Buddy, noone cares as much about whatever you're going on about as much as you do, and I've politely asked you to refrain from continuing in the same critical and patronising vein several times now. The social cue you should have easily picked up on was "I'm not interested in arguing". If you need to have the last word or issue some challenge to prove you wrong in order to feel good, that's great for you, but I won't be engaging with you any more on this topic, as I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.

Samsung SDI to start mass-producing solid-state batteries in 2027

South Korean manufacturer sends samples from pilot line to global automakers

asia.nikkei.com

(this article is only one day old, so good news indeed)
Samsung SDI to start mass-producing solid-state batteries in 2027

Honestly if their original 700 mile range claim is true, and this timeline holds up, the world is going to change overnight. I just hope they sell the copyright on the battery to other companies so the world can prosper. Or at least team up with NASA and keep improving it further or make the manufacturing process go further. At some point people have to start working together and not only focusing on max profits.

Toyota Unveils New Technology That Will Change the Future of Cars | Corporate | Global Newsroom | Toyota Motor Corporation Official Global Website

Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota) recently held a technical briefing session, "Toyota Technical Workshop," under the theme "Let's Change the Future of Cars" and announced a variety of new technologies that will support its transformation into a mobility company.

global.toyota

2027.

Great, looks like they're firm on 2027. Seems realistic.

they're just too fragile, micro fractures make them lose their power efficiency long before any damage is visible to the human eye
And remember that you'd have panels on the top of the car facing up - so you're only getting power at full noon, if you live on the equator. Anywhere or any time the sun is angled, you're not getting that.
Some of this wasn't obvious to me until I set up my own camping solar kit, the effort to get sunlight when stationary is tough enough


I suppose the simplest way to explain it would be: You need to be directly facing the sun, being bright doesnt work because the human eye is happy with reflected light - solar panels are not.

Having had personal experience with solar panels mounted on top of several vans and campers, they're not fragile. Amorphous panels can be walked on, monocrystalline is also tough if you don't attack it with a pick.

Perovskite panels currently in development are showing 40-50% efficiency. So roughly double what's currently available. A bit of trickle charging never hurt anyone, and solar labels aren't exactly expensive either. It's the installation, inverters, batteries etc that make fitting panels to houses expensive, but those things aren't issues for electric cars, which have them already.

I reckon you could even find a way to make semi transparent panels like you have in some products already, so a "sunroof" made of solar cells that works similarly to a tinted glass panel, but provides enough charge to run the speaker system, heaters, or keep things topped up in cold weather etc.

Transparent Solar Panels: Reforming Future Energy Supply

Transparent solar panels are regarded as the “wave of the future” for new solar technologies. Ubiquitous Energy and Physee are 2 pioneers.

solarmagazine.com

Yep, had the idea then looked it up, here's a way to turn any window into electricity generating surface. The way I see it, tech like this along with all the advancements made in solid state battery options, aerodynamic improvements etc. are what will push EV viability past the point needed for mass market adoption.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

And we're projecting?

If I want to have an argument? Strange, I seem to remember clearly stating the opposite.

Yet here you are writing another essay. Seems to me that you're more interested in shouting your "facts" at the wall, because we've made it pretty clear we're not interested in debating what you're trying to force us to debate, and noone is responding to the "facts and logic" you're raising. One post would have been enough -
"I don't think solid state batteries are commercially viable".
Fair enough. You're entitled to that opinion. You're not entitled to try and force us to debate you.

No, I started a thread, and for nine pages it's been pretty civil interested discussion related to the topic, then you barge in and say none of this matters, yet you strangely are still very insistent on trying to... Gatekeep? Correct? Explain? A topic you've declared "ignorant of reality" and "stupid and detrimental spreading of ignorance and feelings". So why are you so invested?

Buddy, noone cares as much about whatever you're going on about as much as you do, and I've politely asked you to refrain from continuing in the same critical and patronising vein several times now. The social cue you should have easily picked up on was "I'm not interested in arguing". If you need to have the last word or issue some challenge to prove you wrong in order to feel good, that's great for you, but I won't be engaging with you any more on this topic, as I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.



Great, looks like they're firm on 2027. Seems realistic.

Having had personal experience with solar panels mounted on top of several vans and campers, they're not fragile. Amorphous panels can be walked on, monocrystalline is also tough if you don't attack it with a pick.

Perovskite panels currently in development are showing 40-50% efficiency. So roughly double what's currently available. A bit of trickle charging never hurt anyone, and solar labels aren't exactly expensive either. It's the installation, inverters, batteries etc that make fitting panels to houses expensive, but those things aren't issues for electric cars, which have them already.

I reckon you could even find a way to make semi transparent panels like you have in some products already, so a "sunroof" made of solar cells that works similarly to a tinted glass panel, but provides enough charge to run the speaker system, heaters, or keep things topped up in cold weather etc.

Transparent Solar Panels: Reforming Future Energy Supply

Transparent solar panels are regarded as the “wave of the future” for new solar technologies. Ubiquitous Energy and Physee are 2 pioneers.

solarmagazine.com

Yep, had the idea then looked it up, here's a way to turn any window into electricity generating surface. The way I see it, tech like this along with all the advancements made in solid state battery options, aerodynamic improvements etc. are what will push EV viability past the point needed for mass market adoption.

You...are...not...fooling...anyone...and...a...forum...where...the...responses...are...listed...shows...a...timeline...of...responses...

It's pretty obvious you want to rewrite reality. Let me start by stating that if I respond to you with incorrect data, and immediately then claim you are wrong, I am initiating a discussion and argument. YOU DID THIS. I stated facts regarding the energy density of solid state being a joke. You replied with blatantly contradicted facts. Let me do that math for you. 269 is searchable statistics for Lithium ion from Tesla...500 Wh/kg is stated in the article, saying it's so much better than lithium ion tech, and you quoted 600 Wh/kg with no source to "prove" I was wrong. Seriously...basic fact checking should be necessary, but apparently you cannot read the article you linked to...so what am I to expect?


Stating "I'm not interested in arguing," after you start arguing, is the admission you don't have a point... Maybe the social cue is that if you don't understand that you cannot win by simply refusing to engage facts after engaging in an argument is beyond you "buddy." Of course...I may be assuming too much of a fact checker...that cannot check their own facts. I mean...math is so very difficult. I'd be happy to be silent on that point...but based upon your responses you decided to only read the headline of your own article...or take umbrage from the facts contained within...so which error should I be responding to? Is it a lack of you reading, or the article being wrong, because either conclusion means you have lost the argument before the word go.



In 2011, 2014 was a reality. In 2014, 2020 was a reality. In 2024, 2027-2028 is a reality. What's new this time? I'm not waiting on the response, because the answer is self evident. NOTHING. The only difference is that you've decided to do poor math, and ignore two decades of facts. Those who ignore reality are damned to repeat it...and you've really got that one down. So we are clear, the next obstacle will be the same as the last (commercial production). How much Lithium is necessary to make those solid state batteries? 500%-1000% more lithium Oh goody...more tech hobbled by the costs and thus not commercially viable.


-Edit-
I think that even the article I linked can do some critical thinking.
"Solid-state battery prices are estimated to range from $800/kWh to $400/kWh by 2026 . With liquid electrolyte batteries, which are currently around $156/kWh, that does create a significant issue for production costs."

So...about 5k according to Musk to replace the batteries in a Tesla...13k cost total. Because replacement is usually part cost*2 to cover labor...and Li-ion to solid state is about 2-4x as expensive...we're looking at 10k to 20k for the batteries. I can buy an entire car for 20k...and that's just the battery cost. If you don't get the promised 30 years and 15 minute charging times from solid state (the huge benefits they tout, along with safety), then your 20 year old car could be scrapped because replacing the battery is 2-4x the cost of the vehicle as a whole. Ouch. Note that this is 1:1 capacity...where Toyota is actually looking at about twice the range as their goal, so 20k to 40k and 4-8x the cost of the car...bigger ouch. And this is PROJECTED cost...as actual current is not defined given there's nothing to benchmark.
-Edit end-


-Edit-
I do have to thank both of you though. After reading through this again...it's obvious what I missed.

It's because people like the two of you swallow this garbage that we get it new every few years. It's also because people are not willing to be critical that we have people slobbering all over themselves to report that the next newest thing is coming...eventually. It's a fantastic trait to share with the young...who haven't got the critical thinking skills and knowledge base that the older have...and it at least is a source of positivity. That may sound like a back-handed complement...and it is...but at least it has its place.

I'll file it away with everything else that will not happen in 2027...because even now Toyota is backpedaling. First it was production vehicles...then it was a limited run...then it was a single, or maybe a couple of models...and as of today solid state batteries in a commercial application are now "2030 and beyond." It takes a brave dreamer to see 20+ years of non-progress...all of the technical issues...the only examples being laboratory 1-offs, and the immense costs that even those drooling over the possibility of this have to acknowledge...and want it.

Lithium Mining.

Better yet...and this one is a quote:
"Let us consider, for example, electric cars. To give an idea of this effect, producing a battery weighing 1,100 pounds emits over 70% more carbon dioxide than producing a conventional car in Germany, according to research by the automotive consultancy Berylls Strategy Advisors.

Furthermore, lithium mining requires a lot of water. To extract one ton of lithium requires about 500,000 liters of water, and can result in the poisoning of reservoirs and related health problems."

Being able, with a straight face, to pretend that Lithium mining is better for the environment than conventional vehicles is...so fundamentally idiotic that I can't put it into words. To hold that belief either labels you as ignorant of facts, hopeful to the point of being irrational...or perhaps indicates that you've been non-critical of a technology sold to you as better for the environment and thus your willful ignorance is so hypocritical that it labels you as a fundamentally untrustworthy actor.
And...170% of the carbon emissions for a single lithium battery car...with solid state requiring 500-1000% more lithium is 950% to 18700% more carbon production in just the battery than an entire ICE car... Jesus...if I said that was better for the environment I'd be absolutely cross with my own stupidity.
-Edit end-

 

[dgianstefani]

Hina Battery becomes 1st battery maker to put sodium-ion batteries in EVs in China

The unveiling of the Sehol E10X test vehicle means that sodium-ion batteries are starting to be used in passenger cars, after the new batteries were mainly used in electric two-wheelers and for energy storage.

cnevpost.com

Interesting little car, Sodium ion battery, 2-300 km range, $6-10k price. Nice little shopping car or to zip around town.

Looks like we're seeing early glimpses of these types of batteries being commercialised at cheap price points.

Good low temperature performance and fast charging compared to lithium, but lower range.

 

[Space Lynx]

Hina Battery becomes 1st battery maker to put sodium-ion batteries in EVs in China

The unveiling of the Sehol E10X test vehicle means that sodium-ion batteries are starting to be used in passenger cars, after the new batteries were mainly used in electric two-wheelers and for energy storage.

cnevpost.com

Interesting little car, Sodium ion battery, 2-300 km range, $6-10k price. Nice little shopping car or to zip around town.

Looks like we're seeing early glimpses of these types of batteries being commercialised at cheap price points.

Good low temperature performance and fast charging compared to lithium, but lower range.

as long as it could reach a top speed of 60-63 mph without any issues this would be ideal for me at that price. really wish this stuff would get super mass produced and shipped out, I'd buy one at 8k for sure, Biden has already said he will block cheap Chinese cars though. which is bs, every other industry they allow China to sell to USA lol, put a 1k tariff on it, that would be ok, I'd pay 9k, still better than 25k for a Corolla.

 

[dgianstefani]

Nio signs deal with CATL to jointly develop long-life batteries

CATL will also plan and develop battery systems of longer service lives for Nio's upcoming models.

cnevpost.com

Long life hot swappable batteries. Semi solid state too with self healing electrolyte.

 

[dgianstefani]

Sodium battery for energy storage goes into mass production

Natron Energy presented its battery cell back in 2021. Now the market launch is set to begin on a large scale. The performance data of the new type of battery is very remarkable.

www.notebookcheck.net

Mass production, 50-100,000 charging cycle life.

Made in the USA.

 

[LabRat 891]

Sodium battery for energy storage goes into mass production

Natron Energy presented its battery cell back in 2021. Now the market launch is set to begin on a large scale. The performance data of the new type of battery is very remarkable.

www.notebookcheck.net

Mass production, 50-100,000 charging cycle life.

Made in the USA.

More info

natron-blue-rack

bridex.fujielectric.com

BLUE PACK™ CRITICAL POWER BATTERY​

The Natron Blue Pack battery is a 25kW, 48 volt building block for systems up to 812 volts. Standard configurations are 10-string for 480 volt critical power applications and 14-string configuration for 672 volt industrial applications.

It is designed for extremely rapid charge/discharge, providing between 50,000 & 100,000 discharge cycles depending on application. It is incapable of thermal runaway and operates at extremely wide temperature ranges. Having twice the power of lithium-ion, it's a safer alternative that is also responsibly and ethically sourced.

https://natron.energy/wp-content/up..._BluePack_Industrial_Power_Battery_021723.pdf

 

[TumbleGeorge]

Mass production

Max production for year equivalent of 50000 average electromobile batteries. Very small production. Meantime only Tesla produced 1846000 cars for 2023. This is mass production.

PS. The sodium batteries have heavy weight. This is a negative indicator when we talk about mobility.

PS2. Because in title mentioned the NASA. For the space weight is important thing.

 

[dgianstefani]

Max production for year equivalent of 50000 average electromobile batteries. Very small production. Meantime only Tesla produced 1846000 cars for 2023. This is mass production.

PS. The sodium batteries have heavy weight. This is a negative indicator when we talk about mobility.

PS2. Because in title mentioned the NASA. For the space weight is important thing.

Ps NASA develops a lot of tech that isn't for space.

The article mentions they're specifically optimized for static storage, eg housing etc. In which case the weight is irrelevant and the huge cycle count is more important.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Max production for year equivalent of 50000 average electromobile batteries. Very small production. Meantime only Tesla produced 1846000 cars for 2023. This is mass production.

PS. The sodium batteries have heavy weight. This is a negative indicator when we talk about mobility.

PS2. Because in title mentioned the NASA. For the space weight is important thing.

You're going to have to be careful. A nuanced view of things is just too complicated when dealing with sacred cows.

To build on your points:
1) The 2019 test by UL of the Natron blue batteries did have large off-gassing and flames when a single cell was tested.
UL battery test
2) The flames did self-extinguish...once charging stopped.
3) The test doesn't require these be configured as anything more than a single cell.
4) The supplier claims these to be viable for EVs...because the memo about why an aluminum frame was necessary for Teslas to be viable apparently still escapes people. Battery energy density being so low when compared to any fossil fuel is just something that can be ignored.
5) You'll note that the H2+aluminum makes heat+aluminum hydride is ignored when you test a single cell in a vacuum....because why not. There's no thermal run-away if you just remove heat sources....right? Of note, that is what they did.

Also of note you don't list off the 4 pages of patents, which to some extent will prevent any of this from being commercialized. None of the secondary notations which mean that the technology has a very narrow realistic usage field, or that the sodium cell is not inherently of importance due to the cost-weight ratio being the reason that despite it being safer for the last 40 years we still have effectively chosen lithium chemistries.


Stop with that nuanced view of reality. This is about swallowing the latest "NASA research is great" puff piece and projecting that things will somehow be different than the last thousand of these that puffed up technologies for the express purpose of then asking for more funding. It's not that NASA has had funding cuts, making their attempt to value what they do obvious: FUNDING This is not about that...or in-time with any of that. This was entirely separate and coincidentally aligned on timing...because.


It's not like your average person would be smart enough to see promises of break-throughs in perpetually 5 year off technologies, and be persuaded to dig a little deeper to fund things... That would be silly, because it's 2024 when they promise solid state batteries in 2027 that is right...forget about the last two decades of that same promise... Forget about the real hurdles that have to be overcome. It's just a bit more capitol into research that will suddenly flip a magic switch and make all of this viable.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

You're going to have to be careful

Ok, what about numbers of energy density of this sodium batteries?

 

[dgianstefani]

You're going to have to be careful. A nuanced view of things is just too complicated when dealing with sacred cows.

To build on your points:
1) The 2019 test by UL of the Natron blue batteries did have large off-gassing and flames when a single cell was tested.
UL battery test
2) The flames did self-extinguish...once charging stopped.
3) The test doesn't require these be configured as anything more than a single cell.
4) The supplier claims these to be viable for EVs...because the memo about why an aluminum frame was necessary for Teslas to be viable apparently still escapes people. Battery energy density being so low when compared to any fossil fuel is just something that can be ignored.
5) You'll note that the H2+aluminum makes heat+aluminum hydride is ignored when you test a single cell in a vacuum....because why not. There's no thermal run-away if you just remove heat sources....right? Of note, that is what they did.

Also of note you don't list off the 4 pages of patents, which to some extent will prevent any of this from being commercialized. None of the secondary notations which mean that the technology has a very narrow realistic usage field, or that the sodium cell is not inherently of importance due to the cost-weight ratio being the reason that despite it being safer for the last 40 years we still have effectively chosen lithium chemistries.


Stop with that nuanced view of reality. This is about swallowing the latest "NASA research is great" puff piece and projecting that things will somehow be different than the last thousand of these that puffed up technologies for the express purpose of then asking for more funding. It's not that NASA has had funding cuts, making their attempt to value what they do obvious: FUNDING This is not about that...or in-time with any of that. This was entirely separate and coincidentally aligned on timing...because.


It's not like your average person would be smart enough to see promises of break-throughs in perpetually 5 year off technologies, and be persuaded to dig a little deeper to fund things... That would be silly, because it's 2024 when they promise solid state batteries in 2027 that is right...forget about the last two decades of that same promise... Forget about the real hurdles that have to be overcome. It's just a bit more capitol into research that will suddenly flip a magic switch and make all of this viable.

Having fun?

If you're done projecting about sacred cows why not go start your own thread.

You're obviously too smart for this one.

Bearing in mind that a) this is not a NASA product asking for funding and b) they aren't asking for your permission or funding, rather just getting on with full scale production.

Ok, what about numbers of energy density of this sodium batteries?

Designed to sit in a storage unit as an energy buffer for renewables, can be charged and discharged very quickly.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

Having fun?

If you're done projecting about sacred cows why not go start your own thread.

You're obviously too smart for this one.

Bearing in mind that a) this is not a NASA product asking for funding and b) they aren't asking for your permission or funding, rather just getting on with full scale production.


View attachment 346209

Designed to sit in a storage unit as an energy buffer for renewables, can be charged and discharged very quickly.

With other words needs of 30 packs, which weight 1500lb to have 25 kWH capacity at 48V. Very low capacity.

 

[dgianstefani]

With other words needs of 30 packs, which weight 1500lb to have 25 kWH capacity at 48V. Very low capacity.

The weight is irrelevant. They get put on the floor and left there.

The idea is to charge/discharge then quickly when needed, to avoid using rare earth metals, and to have a very long cycle life.

Think Lead Acid but without the maintenance issues, low power output etc.

Comparing them to lithium cells density is like comparing a minivan to a sports car. The idea is cheap and reliable.

CATL also have sodium ion tech, seems the other perk is they can charge/discharge much faster than lithium ion.

10x faster if specs are true.

10x faster cycling than traditional lithium-ion batteries, and an over 50,000 cycle-life.

... supply chain requires zero lithium, cobalt, nickel, or other difficult-to-obtain minerals. Made from commodity materials including aluminum, iron, manganese, and sodium electrolyte

 

[TumbleGeorge]

if specs are true.

Looks like we'll hope the specs are true and not just marketing BS.
Can we expect independent tests of the characteristics to be available soon?

 

[dgianstefani]

Looks like we'll hope the specs are true and not just marketing BS.
Can we expect independent tests of the characteristics to be available soon?

I'd assume so considering they're being manufactured.

Nothing stopping one of the battery enthusiast channels or sites from just buying some and testing them.

 

[Denver]

Max production for year equivalent of 50000 average electromobile batteries. Very small production. Meantime only Tesla produced 1846000 cars for 2023. This is mass production.

PS. The sodium batteries have heavy weight. This is a negative indicator when we talk about mobility.

PS2. Because in title mentioned the NASA. For the space weight is important thing.

600MWh = 12,000 (50kWh) batteries.

The gravimetric energy density is expected to be less than 100 Wh/kg, but with this level of durability, it would be excellent for off-grid residential energy storage.