Evolution and limit of battery energy density

[flynfrog]

Estimates battery energy density increase 5-8% a year. At this current rate it will take 48 years to reach the energy density of gasoline. That is assuming they find some way to get more than 1eV per atom. That puts battery technology maxing out in 18-25 years well short of getting near gasoline.

Long story short the batteries will always be the problem.

[mzso]

Estimates battery energy density increase 5-8% a year. At this current rate it will take 48 years to reach the energy density of gasoline. That is assuming they find some way to get more than 1eV per atom. That puts battery technology maxing out in 18-25 years well short of getting near gasoline.

Long story short the batteries will always be the problem.

Nonsense. Batteries are not like that. You can't constantly develop them. But if you develop a new, better chemistry you can leap forward. For example LiS has a theoretical maximum of 2000Wh/kg if I'm remembering correctly. Now that never will be reached. But at first you maybe get 400 only which double the tesla's energy density then after further engineering 600-800-1000. Who knows. 600 at least seems credible.
Then something else might be developed, like the often mentioned Lithium-air battery which has a theoretical maximum of 5210Wh/kg. Which could again multiply energy density.

Anyway the energy density of gasoline is unattainable. But it's also not necessary. ICE's have 20-30% typical efficiency while electric motors can have 85+%

[J.A.W.]

Bit simplistic on the practicalities there perhaps mzso..

Liquid hydrocarbon/ICE usage - via well established infrastructure - currently enables practicable fuss-free driving,
& remote/external re-charge battery-electric really does not.. ..as yet..

[Andres125sx]

Estimates battery energy density increase 5-8% a year.

...for a given battery technology, but new technologies improve that rate drastically, as mzso explained

At this current rate it will take 48 years to reach the energy density of gasoline.

... then EVs will have 3-4 times the range of ICE because of the much better efficiency of electric motors compared to ICE, as mzso explained too. Obviously that´s not needed, with a quarter of that it would be enough to switch the whole industry to electric, so 12 years does not look that far. And that´s with your numbers wich do not consider the jump forward any new battery technology will suppose

Long story short the batteries will always be the problem.

With Lithium Ion batteries.... maybe (not for city cars tough). But there are some billions being invested developing new batteries, once any of the multiple proyects succeed, that problem will dissapear instantly

[andylaurence]

Liquid hydrocarbon/ICE usage - via well established infrastructure - currently enables practicable fuss-free driving,
& remote/external re-charge battery-electric really does not.. ..as yet..

Yes, because there's no electrical established infrastructure. I must be a good 22 inches from my closest power outlet. In terms of road cars, you have to remember that an electric car has a full tank every time you leave home. You don't have to stop to refuel unless you exceed the range of the batteries. In those cases, you only need a power socket at the service stations on the motorway. A fast charge is less than half an hour for an 80% charge. Of you're doing 300 miles, you probably need 30 minutes for a comfort break. I can drive a Tesla from here to nearly anywhere in Europe based on current charging infrastructure. What I can't do is tow a trailer and that's why I don't have one.

[Andres125sx]

( What about quick-change battery pack modules, for rapid pit stops?)

Agree, but when I read FE batteries weight 200kg then that idea became unrealistic.

Anycase I still think it could be done, maybe with smaller batteries even if the range is lower. Tesla actually did it, not applicable as it needs an inspection pit but I´m sure it could be done from a side if the cars were designed for that

[flynfrog]

Estimates battery energy density increase 5-8% a year.

...for a given battery technology, but new technologies improve that rate drastically, as mzso explained

At this current rate it will take 48 years to reach the energy density of gasoline.

... then EVs will have 3-4 times the range of ICE because of the much better efficiency of electric motors compared to ICE, as mzso explained too. Obviously that´s not needed, with a quarter of that it would be enough to switch the whole industry to electric, so 12 years does not look that far. And that´s with your numbers wich do not consider the jump forward any new battery technology will suppose

Long story short the batteries will always be the problem.

With Lithium Ion batteries.... maybe (not for city cars tough). But there are some billions being invested developing new batteries, once any of the multiple proyects succeed, that problem will dissapear instantly

If you look at a single chemistry it's much slower. the 5-8% a year includes new technologies.

you can see the big jumps in capacity when a new technology comes out.


You are also making a pretty big assumption that there isn't a hard limit of energy storage believed to be 1EV per atom. You can see the same issues in semiconductors and solar cells you get to a point where the atoms can only do so much or junctions can get so small no amount of money will overcome this. Trying to race electric vehicles in an ICE format was always going to result in this. Switching cars mid race because they are out of juice. Slow cars joke tires.

I find the Solar races much more interesting. They are actually attacking problems that EVs face. Extremely efficient cars low drag. Bloated cars with huge battery packs are not the answer to any problem.

Then again I might be biased.

When you refuse to acknowledge there is a problem with your solution you have killed any innovation you might have made.


But I digress this thread has been beaten to death with the same arguments. Lets get back to the racing not the bitching.

[mzso]

Bit simplistic on the practicalities there perhaps mzso..

Liquid hydrocarbon/ICE usage - via well established infrastructure - currently enables practicable fuss-free driving,
& remote/external re-charge battery-electric really does not.. ..as yet..

I'm fairly sure I didn't touch practicality at all....
I was just talking about battery improvement.

[mzso]

If you look at a single chemistry it's much slower. the 5-8% a year includes new technologies.

you can see the big jumps in capacity when a new technology comes out. You are also making a pretty big assumption that there isn't a hard limit of energy storage believed to be 1EV per atom. You can see the same issues in semiconductors and solar cells you get to a point where the atoms can only do so much or junctions can get so small no amount of money will overcome this. Trying to race electric vehicles in an ICE format was always going to result in this. Switching cars mid race because they are out of juice. Slow cars joke tires.

If it's a single chemistry it's not quite new technology. Doesn't seem like you read my post. Anyway there are large improvements to be had. I don't know where you're getting this 1 eV per atom thing but I doubt that it's relevant and surely wrong.
If battery energy density would improve 10 times which is entirely possible on the long haul you could forget the car swap. But after that you'd still have 5x the energy, so you could have 750 kw cars instead.

Wrong on the solar panel part too. It's not about junction size but that one junction can only cover a limited amount of the solar spectrum. Hence multi junction cells. Which are for the time being are really expensive.

I find the Solar races much more interesting. They are actually attacking problems that EVs face. Extremely efficient cars low drag. Bloated cars with huge battery packs are not the answer to any problem.
Image
Then again I might be biased.

When you refuse to acknowledge there is a problem with your solution you have killed any innovation you might have made.


But I digress this thread has been beaten to death with the same arguments. Lets get back to the racing not the bitching.

Wow. You can enjoy solar racing as much as you like but they have very little relevance to passenger EVs.
They are so extremely far from being practical it's hilarious. No relevance outside maybe engine technology and batteries if present. Bloated cars is what people do and will use to drive around. There might be a time when automated single person vehicles take over but it won't be anytime soon.

[flynfrog]

If it's a single chemistry it's not quite new technology. Doesn't seem like you read my post. Anyway there are large improvements to be had. I don't know where you're getting this 1 eV per atom thing but I doubt that it's relevant and surely wrong.
If battery energy density would improve 10 times which is entirely possible on the long haul you could forget the car swap. But after that you'd still have 5x the energy, so you could have 750 kw cars instead.

1Ev/atom is pretty a pretty common accepted theoretical limit on energy storage. But since you declare it to be wrong i guess its not then....

Wrong on the solar panel part too. It's not about junction size but that one junction can only cover a limited amount of the solar spectrum. Hence multi junction cells. Which are for the time being are really expensive.

I am well aware how a solar cell functions I was trying to keep the analogy simple. Multi junction cells have always been expensive and are pretty much only used on spacecraft.

The real jumps in solar technology have been in single crystal silicon cells and making them affordable. China is mostly to thank for this. If anything is going to make solar mainstream it will be cheaper cells.

Wow. You can enjoy solar racing as much as you like but they have very little relevance to passenger EVs.
They are so extremely far from being practical it's hilarious. No relevance outside maybe engine technology and batteries if present. Bloated cars is what people do and will use to drive around. There might be a time when automated single person vehicles take over but it won't be anytime soon.

What engine is in a solar car?
Cell phones drive battery technology not cars.

My point was if there is going to be a solution to getting away from fossil fueled automobiles there must be a shift towards more efficient vehicles not waiting for battery technology to catch up like electric cars have been doing for over 100 years now. I feel solar car racing's push to make more and more efficient vehicles is much more useful to developing usable EVs than spec indycar rejects that can't make a full race on a single car. Neither are in anyway practical that's not the point.


Again this thread is supposed to be about formula E racing....

[Andres125sx]

If it's a single chemistry it's not quite new technology. Doesn't seem like you read my post. Anyway there are large improvements to be had. I don't know where you're getting this 1 eV per atom thing but I doubt that it's relevant and surely wrong.
If battery energy density would improve 10 times which is entirely possible on the long haul you could forget the car swap. But after that you'd still have 5x the energy, so you could have 750 kw cars instead.

1Ev/atom is pretty a pretty common accepted theoretical limit on energy storage. But since you declare it to be wrong i guess its not then....

I don´t know where do you get this from or what´s the relationship with energy density, but LiO batteries theoretically have the potential to multiply current batteries energy density by a factor of 8 at least. Don´t know how close or far that´s from that limit you´re talking about, but since that LiO theoretical capacity is well known everwhere, who cares about that limit you´re talking about? That´d be more than enough, actually a half of than will be more than enough to match ICE´s range

You talk as if batteries will never be an useful solution because of that limit, but if there are electric vehicles today (I see more and more each month), with current batteries and current range, and knowing there are technologies that can improve current perfomance by a good factor, I really can´t understand what are you talking about

[Andres125sx]

If you look at a single chemistry it's much slower. the 5-8% a year includes new technologies.

you can see the big jumps in capacity when a new technology comes out.
http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-fb ... _webp=true

Sorry but this is fun, you´re taking that 5-8% year improvement taking development since 1900, when first 90 years there only was Niquel batteries...

Battery technology is improving for the last one or two decades, before that obviously there was no significant development, it´s lithium batteries what changed the game, that´s the reason EV are evolving and manufacturers are investing and building EVs today, because it is now when development rate has improved so much it´s worth

[flynfrog]

If you look at a single chemistry it's much slower. the 5-8% a year includes new technologies. -

you can see the big jumps in capacity when a new technology comes out.
http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-fb ... _webp=true

Sorry but this is fun, you´re taking that 5-8% year improvement taking development since 1900, when first 90 years there only was Niquel batteries...

Battery technology is improving for the last one or two decades, before that obviously there was no significant development, it´s lithium batteries what changed the game, that´s the reason EV are evolving and manufacturers are investing and building EVs today, because it is now when development rate has improved so much it's worth

You do realize its 5-8% yearly right? Do you understand compound interest? The 5-8% I quote is fact it's not something to debate doubling every 9-14 years is about 5-8% a year. I do understand that we are seeing more EVs now as battery technology improves it still has a long way to go to be near the usefulness of an ICE engine. Its fine for a small city car anything you want to do beyond that not so much. My point with Formula E is that the motors and controller systems have been in the high 90% efficiencies for probably going on 60 years now there isn't much left to be gained there. That leaves only the battery to improve like I said it will always be the problem with formula E. (problem meaning biggest challenge not a fault with the series it self.) [...]

[Andres125sx]

[...]

Long story short the batteries will always be the problem.

You are also making a pretty big assumption that there isn't a hard limit of energy storage believed to be 1EV per atom. [...] Trying to race electric vehicles in an ICE format was always going to result in this. Switching cars mid race because they are out of juice. Slow cars joke tires.

When you refuse to acknowledge there is a problem with your solution you have killed any innovation you might have made.

The 1 century period average you took (5-8% per year) is simply absurd, you perfectly know first 90 years shouldn´t be considered as there was no real investment, it is now on last decade or two when there´s real investment to improve batteries, and the graph you linked show how big was battery improvement on that period

You also are ignoring LiS and LiO batteries as if they do not exist, and they are not on production yet, but there are millions being invested on them, LiS will be the point when EV will match or even improve ICE´s range. And then it´s LiO batteries what will be even more impresive, but you prefer ignoring this and keep repeating some data nobody understand, probably not even you because you´re talking about that limit like if it will stop battery development, and maybe it will, but that will be way after ICE dissapear because EVs provide much better range, so it´s irrelevant data at this point

[flynfrog]

I'm sorry you don't understand basic math I feel its not possible to continue this discussion.

maybe try reading this to understand that the 5-8% is correct regardless of the technology of the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest