Those monsters

[CharlieK]

I drove a Tesla to visit family on a four hour drive away. About two hours in to the trip, I stopped to charge the battery at a super charger while we ate, despite still having about 60% left in the "tank." The next day I returned to the same super charger site on my way home to recharge the battery, again, while I ate. It was beautiful.

I've never been around electric cars.. Even though I'm rather fond of pre-emission semi tractors that belch clouds of black smoke, and the high efficiency of '60's to early '80's carbureted cars, I'm a little curious about electric.

It sounds like 4 hours is about max range for current electric cars? If you run it for 4 hours, how long does it take to charge it? How common are the super charger sites? I've never seen one, but I haven't been looking for them either... What is the cost of the charge for 40% charge? What is the cost for 100% charge... or 4 hours of drive time? (at one of the sites, not at home...)

I used to have propane and diesel forklifts, that I have replaced with electric... I wish I had done it much sooner, but that's only from a emissions/maintenance standpoint... certainly not for a run time, or charge time. My forklifts require almost 6 hours on the charger, for quite frankly, not much run time. I don't have any meters on them for timing run-time... I'm aware of the fact that we are talking much different battery tech from my forklifts to cars... or airplanes... ;-)

 

[SkyDog58]

Some of the comments I read in this thread make me think of this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05091-3

That was a good read. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Huckster79]

Had Edison not built the light bulb because it wouldn’t be as good as the dollar store LEDs we can buy in 2019 we would be writing our posts via kerosene lamp...

Innovation always takes folks that are overconfident in their solution who refuse to accept the likelihood of failure as reason not to try...

 

[TCABM]

Had Edison not built the light bulb because it wouldn’t be as good as the dollar store LEDs we can buy in 2019 we would be writing our posts via kerosene lamp...

Yet we can choose to use a kerosene lamp (or pretty much any alternative lighting solution, to include using only natural light) still today.

I’m a huge fan of innovation, both evolutionary and revolutionary. I think most people are too, but most don’t give it much thought.

The issue becomes if market manipulation forces adoption.

 

[3393RP]

Your chemistry is based on old information- By the nature of research, those summaries, while of some use, don't list the latest work. I'm writing a review article for ACS Combinatorial chemistry.

There are many ways of getting around the polysulfide problem-
https://cen.acs.org/energy/energy-s...-boosts-lithium-sulfur-battery/96/web/2018/10
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsami.8b11029
These are only some of the ones published- almost no one will publish a paper unless a patent is granted.

This is a quote from one of your links.

Finally, the researchers blended the nanoparticles with graphene sheets and sulfur to make a cathode and tested it in a battery, completing the cell with an electrolyte and a lithium-metal anode. The graphene sheets held the cathode together and improved electrical contact with the electrolyte. The electrode’s current output was 14% greater than that of a comparable carbon-based Li-S electrode.

The experimental electrode also showed signs of keeping sulfur in line. The battery operated at a high voltage, indicating that pesky polysulfides did not persist. This performance stayed steady as the battery charged and discharged 100 times.

Yuegang Zhang, a battery chemist at Tsinghua University, says the conductive, lightweight MgB2 “has almost all the attributes a sulfur host needs.”

Nazar next plans to make Li-S batteries that can withstand more charging cycles.

While a carbon/metallic based capture scheme at the cathode may look promising, it only makes an incremental improvement in conductivity. This is hardly a method of "getting around the polysulfide problem".

There has been very little progress in improving the Li-s life cycle, which the researcher acknowledges as a challenge.

Your other link reports an experimental process conducted on an extremely small scale, with a similar process involving carbon nanostructures.

This further validates my assertion, that Li-s technology is immature and unready for commercial exploitation.

These days any criticism of a topic is labeled internet "hate", as you have done. This dismissive judgement of my riposte with your inexact and misleading promotion- I'll quote you here-

"They've apparently overcome the polysulfide issues that previously limited the number of recharge cycles."

of Li-s batteries serves as validation of my contention those pushing EVs use exaggeration and misinformation as facts.

Your position as a professional can surely withstand dissention, can't it? I wonder.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm a little curious about electric.

It sounds like 4 hours is about max range for current electric cars? If you run it for 4 hours, how long does it take to charge it? How common are the super charger sites? I've never seen one, but I haven't been looking for them either... What is the cost of the charge for 40% charge? What is the cost for 100% charge... or 4 hours of drive time? (at one of the sites, not at home...)

Good questions. The longer-range Teslas will do over 300 miles, so we'll call that 4 hours at 75 mph if you start from 100%.

Starting from home at 100% is easy. I would NOT charge to 100% at a supercharger because it takes as much time to go from 80 to 100 as it does to go from 0 to 80. The Tesla Superchargers currently max out at 145 kW, so on a long-range Model 3, for example, it's 1/2 hour to go from 0 to 80.

But, for a trip, it's better to drive 4 hours, charge to 80%, drive 3 hours, charge to 80%, drive 3 hours etc. For example, in a 600 mile trip you could go 300, charge for 1/2 hour, go for 240, charge for 7-8 minutes, and complete the trip.

Cost is 28 cents per kWh. That's about double what I pay at home, but a full charge at home would be about 11 bucks, and that 80% charge at the Supercharger would be about $17.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

This is a quote from one of your links.

Finally, the researchers blended the nanoparticles with graphene sheets and sulfur to make a cathode and tested it in a battery, completing the cell with an electrolyte and a lithium-metal anode. The graphene sheets held the cathode together and improved electrical contact with the electrolyte. The electrode’s current output was 14% greater than that of a comparable carbon-based Li-S electrode.

The experimental electrode also showed signs of keeping sulfur in line. The battery operated at a high voltage, indicating that pesky polysulfides did not persist. This performance stayed steady as the battery charged and discharged 100 times.

Yuegang Zhang, a battery chemist at Tsinghua University, says the conductive, lightweight MgB2 “has almost all the attributes a sulfur host needs.”

Nazar next plans to make Li-S batteries that can withstand more charging cycles.

While a carbon/metallic based capture scheme at the cathode may look promising, it only makes an incremental improvement in conductivity. This is hardly a method of "getting around the polysulfide problem".

There has been very little progress in improving the Li-s life cycle, which the researcher acknowledges as a challenge.

Your other link reports an experimental process conducted on an extremely small scale, with a similar process involving carbon nanostructures.

This further validates my assertion, that Li-s technology is immature and unready for commercial exploitation.

These days any criticism of a topic is labeled internet "hate", as you have done. This dismissive judgement of my riposte with your inexact and misleading promotion- I'll quote you here-

"They've apparently overcome the polysulfide issues that previously limited the number of recharge cycles."

of Li-s batteries serves as validation of my contention those pushing EVs use exaggeration and misinformation as facts.

Your position as a professional can surely withstand dissention, can't it? I wonder.

It would be helpful if you would separate your comments from the material quoted.

Of course, I will cite experiments conducted on a small scale. As I don't work in the field, all I have access to is published research papers and other public information. Neither of us have access to what happens inside the places that make these batteries. Even if I did work for one of these companies, do you really think I'd be dumb enough to post the research here?

Even so, I think you are only "seeing what you want to see and disregard the rest".
You quoted this:

The battery operated at a high voltage, indicating that pesky polysulfides did not persist.

and still wrote

While a carbon/metallic based capture scheme at the cathode may look promising, it only makes an incremental improvement in conductivity. This is hardly a method of "getting around the polysulfide problem"

Why did you write the first part of the sentence when the scientist says the polysulfides didn't persist? What knowledge can you provide that says Dr. Zhang is wrong?

These days any criticism of a topic is labeled internet "hate", as you have done. This dismissive judgement of my riposte with your inexact and misleading promotion- I'll quote you here-

"They've apparently overcome the polysulfide issues that previously limited the number of recharge cycles."

of Li-s batteries serves as validation of my contention those pushing EVs use exaggeration and misinformation as facts.

Your position as a professional can surely withstand dissention, can't it? I wonder.

Note that I said "apparently", suggesting some small degree of skepticism. I'm not pushing EVs, just trying to correct the statement below:

R&D money doesn't change chemistry.

As I've said, R&D money allows us to learn and exploit chemistry.
I've shown where a company is scaling up to actually produce these batteries, shown the research scale work where they seem to have solved these problems, and your response has been a mis-characterization of how production pilot runs work. I'll agree that because something works in a lab, doesn't mean it is practical, economical, or can stand the rigors of the "real world". However, you've dismissed the research and simply said that it doesn't work and it will never work. That's why I've used the word "hate"- until your last post, you never said anything critiquing the actual work.

You're right to be skeptical, and I'd have no argument about that, but you've moved beyond skepticism. My opinion is that these batteries are likely available sooner than you think. Sony was reportedly going to sell Li-S batteries next year, but I haven't seen anything from the past several years about them.

 

[CharlieK]

Good questions. The longer-range Teslas will do over 300 miles, so we'll call that 4 hours at 75 mph if you start from 100%.

Starting from home at 100% is easy. I would NOT charge to 100% at a supercharger because it takes as much time to go from 80 to 100 as it does to go from 0 to 80. The Tesla Superchargers currently max out at 145 kW, so on a long-range Model 3, for example, it's 1/2 hour to go from 0 to 80.

But, for a trip, it's better to drive 4 hours, charge to 80%, drive 3 hours, charge to 80%, drive 3 hours etc. For example, in a 600 mile trip you could go 300, charge for 1/2 hour, go for 240, charge for 7-8 minutes, and complete the trip.

Cost is 28 cents per kWh. That's about double what I pay at home, but a full charge at home would be about 11 bucks, and that 80% charge at the Supercharger would be about $17.

Just looked at their map for the locations of superchargers, and destination charging stations.... Gotta admit, I'm surprised their are as many as their are. Sometimes I think maybe I should come out from under my rock a little more often...

 

[arnoha]

It's not hatred against electric it's the that the people that buy these look at everybody else with some sort of disdain like they are somehow morally superior to the rest of us. I put electric vehicle drivers in the same category as vegans. It's mostly for show and status and "look at me" not really about being green, especially when you look at the rest of their energy footprint.

Some of that has to do with location. You're in Michigan. Out there, gas is cheap and attitudes toward things like electric cars tend in the direction of your attitude. Who's going to buy an electric car in that environment? Yeah...the person you just listed. They're going to be rich and showing off. Electric cars are still quite expensive. And they're a bit rare.

That isn't true places like where I'm at. Traffic is the primary push that gets people into electric. They're everywhere...you're not special for driving one and you certainly could not pull off some superior attitude. It'd be laughable. Having one here means nothing more than you have a car: the cost of everything else makes cars look cheap, since they're nationally priced. Gas isn't, though, so the financial incentive is large to ditch that bill.

It's like the Prius. In the beginning, it attracted annoying hypermilers and holier-than-thou types. Now? It's the car for taxi and rideshare. For folks with long commutes who can't afford big gas bills. The original buyers? They're not looking at a Prius anymore. In some parts of the country, like here, electric cars are normalized. Their clientele is no longer mostly those looking for affirmation. It's economics that now drive the sales.

(Disclosure: I do not drive an electric car. I picked something with a manual transmission because I know it's likely to be the last new manual that I'll ever have a chance to buy. Going to savor that.)

 

[SoonerAviator]

Some of that has to do with location. You're in Michigan. Out there, gas is cheap and attitudes toward things like electric cars tend in the direction of your attitude. Who's going to buy an electric car in that environment? Yeah...the person you just listed. They're going to be rich and showing off. Electric cars are still quite expensive. And they're a bit rare.

That isn't true places like where I'm at. Traffic is the primary push that gets people into electric. They're everywhere...you're not special for driving one and you certainly could not pull off some superior attitude. It'd be laughable. Having one here means nothing more than you have a car: the cost of everything else makes cars look cheap, since they're nationally priced. Gas isn't, though, so the financial incentive is large to ditch that bill.

It's like the Prius. In the beginning, it attracted annoying hypermilers and holier-than-thou types. Now? It's the car for taxi and rideshare. For folks with long commutes who can't afford big gas bills. The original buyers? They're not looking at a Prius anymore. In some parts of the country, like here, electric cars are normalized. Their clientele is no longer mostly those looking for affirmation. It's economics that now drive the sales.

(Disclosure: I do not drive an electric car. I picked something with a manual transmission because I know it's likely to be the last new manual that I'll ever have a chance to buy. Going to savor that.)

 

[3393RP]

It would be helpful if you would separate your comments from the material quoted.

.

The material I quote from other sources is obvious, at least to me. Did you not notice the quoted text is in italics? What better way is there to differentiate it? I don't use the quote feature, because it only shows a couple of sentences of the quoted text and hides the rest.

That requires another click to read it, and IMO it interrupts the presentation and makes it more difficult to understand.

The method described improved conductivity 14%. My comment describes that as incremental, which it surely is.

The comment about persistence is vague to the point of meaninglessness. The writer made it, not the researcher.

Your further comment:

However, you've dismissed the research and simply said that it doesn't work and it will never work.

Is quite untrue. I never said it won't work.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

The material I quote from other sources is obvious, at least to me. Did you not notice the quoted text is in italics? What better way is there to differentiate it? I don't use the quote feature, because it only shows a couple of sentences of the quoted text and hides the rest.

That requires another click to read it, and IMO it interrupts the presentation and makes it more difficult to understand.

Unfortunately, all the text looked the same on my screen. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. Try different colors, maybe?

The method described improved conductivity 14%. My comment describes that as incremental, which it surely is.

Actually, they wrote about current: " The electrode’s current output was 14% greater than that of a comparable carbon-based Li-S electrode." This merely means that the electrode had better contact with the electrolyte. There is always going to be a current limit in a battery for a variety of reasons. In this case, they are saying the polysulfides aren't blocking the flow of ions into the electrolyte.

The comment about persistence is vague to the point of meaninglessness. The writer made it, not the researcher.

It is clear to me. Polysulfides form as a function of the battery operation. The chemistry involved allows them to be oxidized/reduced so they don't stay in the cell.

The exaggeration and misinformation produced by Tesla

I noted you didn't answer this when asked.

 

[3393RP]

There's a reason the SEC has sanctioned Musk and Tesla. I won't bother providing detail, it's well known.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There's a reason the SEC has sanctioned Musk and Tesla. I won't bother providing detail, it's well known.

The SEC sanctioned Musk for making a comment about taking Tesla private. That has nothing to do with batteries or technology (which is what you were posting about when you said it). So, I say again: What misinformation?

 

[3393RP]

The SEC sanctioned Musk for making a comment about taking Tesla private. That has nothing to do with batteries or technology (which is what you were posting about when you said it). So, I say again: What misinformation?

My post made about Tesla did indeed use the word technology. That doesn't mean the example I used of the sanction was inaccurate, and the actions taken by the SEC did not happen in a vacuum. They are well aware of the litany of misleading forward looking statements by Musk over a period of years. I think the SEC was remiss in not calling him to account long before they did.

Musk's tweet about taking Tesla private was an obvious lie, at least to those that don't worship in the Temple, and was meant to affect the stock price and thwart short sellers.

As for misinformation, the years long obfuscation about Model 3 pricing, production rates, and availability is an obvious example. Please don't debase yourself by saying that's not true, because it most certainly is.

This CNBC article reports that the SEC has expanded its probe into Tesla's projections made in early 2017, and that the FBI is also investigating the matter. Just because no other information has been forthcoming since November doesn't mean it has gone away.

Nov 2 (Reuters) - Tesla Inc said on Friday it received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding Model 3 production forecasts the electric-car maker made in 2017.

Tesla has repeatedly missed its own production deadlines for the crucial Model 3 sedan, and is being investigated by multiple government agencies for misleading investors about its business.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/11/02...as-tesla-on-model-3-production-estimates.html

 

[flyingcheesehead]

As for misinformation, the years long obfuscation about Model 3 pricing, production rates, and availability is an obvious example. Please don't debase yourself by saying that's not true, because it most certainly is.

Let's see. They said that the base model was going to be $35,000. It is. What misinformation?
They said it was going to begin shipping on 7/31/2017. It did. What misinformation?

They have, several times, revised their production estimates and projections. Anyone who didn't expect that is an idiot. This is the first car company to make it to mass production in over 100 years. They have never produced anything in the volumes that they're producing the Model 3. They also have attempted to be the most highly automated car manufacturer in the process. Anyone who thought that was going to go exactly as planned, like I said, is an idiot.

 

[3393RP]

You met my expectations. Do you have any knowledge at all about public companies and the regulations for forward looking statements?

When Tesla went public and gained access to capital markets, they agreed to follow the rules about financial reports and forward looking statements. Now they owe investors over $10 billion. How many institutional investors relied on Tesla's false financial projections? How many people bought stock based on Tesla's February 2017 guidance regarding Model 3 production? Its subsequent many revisions?

You call them idiots, because you are blinded by what you called "the truth" of EVs in an earlier post. But truth isn't what Musk has dispensed. His cavelier dispensing of unattainable numbers defrauded those "idiots". They based their decisions on revenue and production projections that were false.

You dismiss all of this. Like all the other Tesla sycophants, you ignore reality. People that buy $65,000 Model 3s with paint flaws, misaligned body panels, and unexplained glitches are derided as complainers. Owners that cannot get crash damage repaired because parts don't exist are traitors to the cause.

You should contact the SEC and FBI to let them know their investigations are pointless.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You met my expectations. Do you have any knowledge at all about public companies and the regulations for forward looking statements?

Regulations? No. I always just see the disclaimers, which are the same for Tesla as everyone else.

 

[3393RP]

Let's see. They said that the base model was going to be $35,000. It is. What misinformation?

It appears the $35,000 Model 3 never existed and it never will. What a surprise.

Tesla disappears its vaunted $35,000 Model 3 in a confusing update, after apparently failing to deliver a single one.

Ever since Elon Musk published his "master plan" for Tesla in 2006, an affordable electric car has been the California startup's holy grail. But just weeks after opening orders for the base "Standard Range" version of its Model 3, Tesla appears to have killed off any dream of selling a car at the national average new car price of $35,000... apparently without producing a single one.

https://www.thedrive.com/tech/27400/tesla-shakes-up-model-3-lineup-killing-35000-base-price

 

[MIFlyer]

It's not hatred against electric it's the that the people that buy these look at everybody else with some sort of disdain like they are somehow morally superior to the rest of us. I put electric vehicle drivers in the same category as vegans. It's mostly for show and status and "look at me" not really about being green, especially when you look at the rest of their energy footprint.

Some do. But we bought a four year old used one for about what we’d have paid for a similar gas car. Charges off our 120v standard garage outlet. Takes wife to and from the city 20 mile round trip and costs 20 buck a month in hydroelectric to run it with no time wasted stopping for gas. She just plugs it in when she pulls into garage.

I drive a one ton diesel and we take mine on longer trips and to haul. Different needs, but hers is superb for running around


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Katamarino]

100 years ago 3393RP would have been railing against this crazy new fangled automobile, and telling us all how it will never replace a good old proven horse.

 

[EdFred]

100 years ago 3393RP would have been railing against this crazy new fangled automobile, and telling us all how it will never replace a good old proven horse.

It doesn't...on those long, cold Montana nights.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

It appears the $35,000 Model 3 never existed and it never will. What a surprise.

Tesla disappears its vaunted $35,000 Model 3 in a confusing update, after apparently failing to deliver a single one.

Ever since Elon Musk published his "master plan" for Tesla in 2006, an affordable electric car has been the California startup's holy grail. But just weeks after opening orders for the base "Standard Range" version of its Model 3, Tesla appears to have killed off any dream of selling a car at the national average new car price of $35,000... apparently without producing a single one.

https://www.thedrive.com/tech/27400/tesla-shakes-up-model-3-lineup-killing-35000-base-price

Recently in this thread, you've been talking about Musk's business practices, which has nothing to do with the viability of electric vehicles. You could claim just as easily that Space-X is a scam because of Musk's SEC shenanigans.
I can buy a 2019 electric vehicle from Ford, Toyota, Chevrolet, Audi, Jaguar, Kia, BMW, Nissan, Hyundai, as well as Tesla.

Your recent comments are like saying the airplane won't work because you don't like Glenn Curtiss's business practices.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Without a doubt, Tesla has looked disorganized at best for the past month or two. Announcing that they're closing stores, then deciding to keep them open (likely after discovering how much it'd cost to break all those leases). Announcing the $35K Model 3, followed by "disappearing" it - It's kind of still available, though it sounds like it'll be $37K with autopilot automatically included, and not available on the online store at all, you have to call or visit a store (remember those things that were going to close a few weeks ago?). Same for the LR RWD version I think it is - Not on the online configurator any longer, but still available via call/visit.

The "invisible" models don't make any sense to me. The rapid backtracking looks really bad, like they don't know what they're doing. IMO, Musk should hire a COO who can temper his decisionmaking a bit. The stores closing thing was probably an OK idea in principle, but the idea really should have been vetted and examined further, for example, BEFORE being announced!

Elon Musk is the next Steve Jobs, no doubt... But unfortunately, right now he's Steve Jobs before being fired from Apple in 1985. Visionary, but hard to work for and kinda scatterbrained sometimes. I don't think he needs to get fired, go found another car company, and get bought back in 12 years before rising up to utterly decimate the competition the way Jobs did, but he definitely needs to take a step back for a minute.

The product is, however, still fantastic...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I think the latest wonkiness is an overwhelming desire to make good on what he promised... And on the back of a napkin those cost saving measures did what the company needed in order to deliver... but then they realized shutting down the showrooms set a bad precedent. So they reneged... but it had to be one or the other, so the price got bumped a bit.

Oh, I understand why the decisions were made. It's just that announcing them to the public and then reneging makes them look completely disorganized, and like they don't know what they are doing. The stock has tanked in the last few weeks as a result.

Imagine if we rewound a month, and Tesla said nothing... And then, this week had the Model Y/Supercharger v3/$37K Model 3 announcements all at the same time - It would have been overwhelmingly positive, and not just showing off their missteps which is what they've actually done.

 

[Eric Stoltz]

The man tossed his car into space with a driver, and sent it to another planet. What's next? A real live Dick Tracy watch? Robots on Mars? Electronic maps?

 

[SoonerAviator]

All that needs to be said for Musk, in my opinion, is that he's the only person to have successfully started a car company since the big three destroyed everyone else with better ideas.

He doesn't have to be bigger than them to be successful. He's just gotta exist. That's something in its own right.

I think the latest wonkiness is an overwhelming desire to make good on what he promised... And on the back of a napkin those cost saving measures did what the company needed in order to deliver... but then they realized shutting down the showrooms set a bad precedent. So they reneged... but it had to be one or the other, so the price got bumped a bit.

Hell, the DeLorean hung around for a bit, it’s a little early to be calling Tesla a success. Give it another 5 years and we’ll see what it looks like. I can appreciate the initiative and innovation they’ve done, but they still have a tough row to hoe with all of the major auto manufacturers starting to get more heavily invested into EVs.

 

[GeorgeC]

Current Li-S technology has twice the energy density of current Li-ion batteries, and theoretically up to 5x the energy density. Historically, we've achieved fairly close to the theoretical limits.

@Cap'n Jack, how do they compare on power density?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

@Cap'n Jack, how do they compare on power density?

I haven't seen that value quoted. My opinion is that it should be similar or better, assuming the internal diffusion, and concentration, of the ions is similar to current batteries.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

First flight 11 December?
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news...elicopter+Safety+Rate-Monday+December+9,+2019

 

[benyflyguy]

First flight 11 December?
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/electric-beaver-first-flight-set-for-dec-11/?MailingID=245&utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Textron+Laying+Off+Hundreds,+Helicopter+Safety+Rate&utm_campaign=Textron+Laying+Off+Hundreds,+Helicopter+Safety+Rate-Monday+December+9,+2019

That’s pretty cool. I hope it works out. Got to start somewhere right?

 

[Spring Ford]

WITCHCRAFT!

It's witchcraft I tell you, who is going to join my posse to get over there and burn the witches in a pyre of Beautiful Clean Coal?

 

[GeorgeC]

@Cap'n Jack, what do you make of these solid state batteries?

https://asia.nikkei.com/content/4c8b11d1c65d83d23ba9aeb11030a947

 

[Cap'n Jack]

@Cap'n Jack, what do you make of these solid state batteries?

https://asia.nikkei.com/content/4c8b11d1c65d83d23ba9aeb11030a947

There's not enough information there to tell much. There's a few different chemistries for solid-state batteries. I think is this is the vehicle they planned to roll out during the Olympics this year. The article hints at Li-S using a solid polymer electrolyte with this statement, but that is just a guess:

Manufacturing solid electrolytes requires solidifying sulfides, which is a specialty of the metal and chemical industry. Sumitomo Chemical is developing material as well.

My best guess is that we will see vehicles in about 5 years using these batteries since there's a lot of talk of "building" and "investing" in the link.

Another potential problem is that there are several groups working on these batteries, and the state-of-the-art is advancing quickly. Suppose I come up with a good battery technology that is twice as good as current technology. If I know you are also working on a similar technology, I may not invest in a factory if there is a good chance that you make a product that is 4x as good as current technology within 2 years that needs different equipment and you grab all my customers. Alternatively, I may be advancing technology fast enough that I won't invest in capital equipment because some of it won't work with a newer design.

This could make the Harbour Air experiment much more feasible because this probably meets their range needs, along with a fast recharge. My opinion is that it makes trainers more feasible, too. It would fit nearly perfectly with the type of flying I do now.

 

[Salty]

There's not enough information there to tell much. There's a few different chemistries for solid-state batteries. I think is this is the vehicle they planned to roll out during the Olympics this year. The article hints at Li-S using a solid polymer electrolyte with this statement, but that is just a guess:

My best guess is that we will see vehicles in about 5 years using these batteries since there's a lot of talk of "building" and "investing" in the link.

Another potential problem is that there are several groups working on these batteries, and the state-of-the-art is advancing quickly. Suppose I come up with a good battery technology that is twice as good as current technology. If I know you are also working on a similar technology, I may not invest in a factory if there is a good chance that you make a product that is 4x as good as current technology within 2 years that needs different equipment and you grab all my customers. Alternatively, I may be advancing technology fast enough that I won't invest in capital equipment because some of it won't work with a newer design.

This could make the Harbour Air experiment much more feasible because this probably meets their range needs, along with a fast recharge. My opinion is that it makes trainers more feasible, too. It would fit nearly perfectly with the type of flying I do now.

Yeah, the reason progress is so slow right now is because progress is so fast. LOL Good one.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Yeah, the reason progress is so slow right now is because progress is so fast. LOL Good one.

I was wondering how soon that would be misinterpreted. I wasn't disappointed. Progress isn't slow. Deliveries to consumers might be. And that statement was an opinion of mine, from the point of view of a cautious management.

How many companies have brought out competing technologies and have been burned?
VHS vs. Betamax is one example. Multiple companies invested in tooling, but VHS became the standard over most of the world.
Think about being Toyota, and selling a car based on a battery technology. Now 2 years from now, Volkswagen launches their car with a battery twice as good. Toyota needs to catch up, so they need to retool the cars to take a battery with a different form factor and charging requirements. They also invested in a battery factory which may need to be retooled. They spend money twice, while VW spends it once. Being first doesn't guarantee market share. "First mover advantage" is only transient. Go look it up.

 

[Salty]

I was wondering how soon that would be misinterpreted. I wasn't disappointed. Progress isn't slow. Deliveries to consumers might be. And that statement was an opinion of mine, from the point of view of a cautious management.

How many companies have brought out competing technologies and have been burned?
VHS vs. Betamax is one example. Multiple companies invested in tooling, but VHS became the standard over most of the world.
Think about being Toyota, and selling a car based on a battery technology. Now 2 years from now, Volkswagen launches their car with a battery twice as good. Toyota needs to catch up, so they need to retool the cars to take a battery with a different form factor and charging requirements. They also invested in a battery factory which may need to be retooled. They spend money twice, while VW spends it once. Being first doesn't guarantee market share. "First mover advantage" is only transient. Go look it up.

None of this is relevant to get a prototype flying for more than 10 minutes after 3 hours of charging.....

 

[Cap'n Jack]

None of this is relevant to get a prototype flying for more than 10 minutes after 3 hours of charging.....

Sure, it is. When the batteries shake out, whenever that happens, they'll fly that plane for longer flights with 15 minutes of charging. I don't think you read the link in post #118.

Depending on how they installed the batteries in that prototype, it may be a very simple upgrade.