TDK claims insane energy density in solid state battery breakthrough

Apple supplier says new tech has 100 times the capacity of its current batteries.

See full article...

 

[noahmayer]

It's been a few years since I looked at solid state batteries, but if I remember correctly one of the gotchas of the field is they always talk in "Wh/L" - but they only include the chemically active parts of the battery in the volume and ignore the 'backer' material. Which, since the ceramics they make the SSBs out of are very brittle, has to be significantly thicker than the battery itself. The effective volumetric capacity is always worse than they advertise.

That said I'm looking forward to effective, stable batteries. The relatively low body count attributable to Lipos is frankly crazy given their instability.

I know what you mean. I've heard SSBs being talked up with much higher energy density but the actual samples being sent out on the most mature products are probably about 30% better than leading LiOn batteries. That's still really good, but we still need to see actual sellable product. I really hope it happens

 

[jwo7777777]

If traditional means offer 400 Wh/l, this is only 1.25x as much.

1000/400 = 2.5

 

[Systema Encephale]

and the best physical efficiency (for ICE) is 30%. ~ 2700 Wh/l.

Good point!
And just to clarify, I did not mean to say these advances are hopeless, just pointing out what competition battery tech is up against. Or, from a more positive perspective, what kind of energy density is possible. Taking efficiency into account like you did, I guess we are getting there.

 

[noahmayer]

Those are all cases where density barely matters.

True, but I'd SSBs can be made economically, then the SSB could win out regardless

 

[Midnitte]

Go ask Terrence Howard.

I just had a coworker talk to me about that.

Jfc. 1 times 0 is 0.

 

[Deleted member 764661]

“Industry experts believe the most significant use case for solid-state batteries could be in electric cars by enabling greater driving range.”

industry experts are clowns. The goal is to make vehicles lighter. Today, batteries add a lot of weight to the car to get to 400miles range. If you could reduce that weight by 50 or 75% you’ll have improved vehicle performance. Most gas cars have a range of 400 miles, so EVs at 400-450 miles is plenty - weight is the big issue today.

The article seems focused on energy density per volume, not weight, but a lighter battery with the same capacity would make the car lighter AND increase it's range.

 

[theoutlander523]

Let me guess it's either:

1. Batteries lose their charge after <100 cycles
2. Recharge time is incredibly slow
3. The method of manufacturing is stupidly dangerous/slow
4. The materials needed make the batteries cost prohibitive
5. They can't reproduce the results
6. The batteries need to operate outside human norms for temperature and pressure
7. Any of the above

 

[julian-]

For reference, gasoline has about 9,000 Wh/l.

For reference, only a fraction of that actually gets turned into movement in a vehicle, and the gasoline destabilises the climate and costs far more than electricity.

 

[Deleted member 195850]

The new material provides an energy density—the amount that can be squeezed into a given space—of 1,000 watt-hours per liter, which is about 100 times greater than TDK’s current battery in mass production. Since TDK introduced it in 2020, competitors have moved forward, developing small solid-state batteries that offer 50 Wh/l, while rechargeable coin batteries using traditional liquid electrolytes offer about 400 Wh/l, according to the group.

TDK new material solid state battery, 1,000Wh/l.
TDK "current battery in mass production", 10Wh/l. Introduced in 2020.
TDK competitors solid state battery, 50Wh/l. (TDK competitors have improved their own tech since 2020.)
Coin battery with liquid electrolytes, 400Wh/l.

Gasoline 9,000Wh/l. Too bad internal combustion engines are so horribly inefficient.

 

[GitM]

Be nice fit's actually commercially viable. Be better if they can scale it up for use in something bigger than a wearable.

But as with fusion, the gap between battery 'breakthrough lab result' and 'practical application' never seems to get smaller.

While I hope that's not the case, I'm not going to run out and add TDK to my investment portfolio over this.

Once they actually start sending out testing samples out... I'll take another look.

 

[numerobis]

True, but I'd SSBs can be made economically, then the SSB could win out regardless

Sure, but that’s not the direction the research is going. They aren’t trying to get the cheapest possible battery, they’re trying to get the densest, which allows use in a number of applications where cost is somewhat secondary.

 

[IncorrigibleTroll]

I just had a coworker talk to me about that.

Jfc. 1 times 0 is 0.

A quick web search is giving me some serious timecube vibes.

 

[redleader]

If you had batteries with higher energy density you could use fewer of them and save weight, extending range.

Most of the energy loss in an EV is air drag, which depends on size but not weight. Making the car lighter reduces the energy needed to accelerate but also reduces the energy recovered by the regen braking proportionally so the gains aren't so large like they are with ICE vehicles where all the extra weight is directly wasting energy.

If you want longer range what you need is cheaper batteries. That or to be more wealthy so you can buy a bigger battery pack. But ideally cheaper, even if they don't get lighter.

 

[littlestviking]

I'd be interested to see an article on the balancing between cell size and cell count that must go into designing batteries for cars. The whole "this won't work for EVs due to larger cells being fragile" doesn't make a whole lot of intuitive sense when small cells can be wired in parallel (wasn't the OG Tesla Roadster battery thousands of 18650s in a box?). Is it just that the casing/shielding doesn't scale efficiently as size decreases, so that a bunch of small cells ends up taking an order of magnitude more space than a single larger cell? It doesn't sound like it's some large minimum cell size, if this is being looked at for coin cells.

 

[numerobis]

Be nice fit's actually commercially viable. Be better if they can scale it up for use in something bigger than a wearable.

But as with fusion, the gap between battery 'breakthrough lab result' and 'practical application' never seems to get smaller.

While I hope that's not the case, I'm not going to run out and add TDK to my investment portfolio over this.

Once they actually start sending out testing samples out... I'll take another look.

Unlike with fusion, I’ve got a battery-operated computer in my hands and I can see my battery-operated car out the corner of my eye.

 

[tucu]

Looking at the press release, TDK is targetting very small devices, not EVs or smartphones:

Utilizing TDK’s proprietary material technology, TDK has managed to develop a material for the new solid-state battery with a significantly higher energy density than TDK’s conventional mass-produced solid-state batteries (Type: CeraCharge) due to the use of oxide-based solid electrolyte and lithium alloy anodes. The use of oxide-based solid electrolyte makes batteries extremely safe. It is intended for use in wearable and other devices that come in direct contact with the human body.
The battery can be applied for replacing coin cell primary batteries in compliance with EU battery regulations, which require them to be replaced by rechargeable batteries, which is expected to contribute to the reduction of environmental impact.

TDK will strive to develop the battery cells and package structure design and advance toward mass production, targeting the development of its new product, the solid-state battery. Moreover, TDK aims to enhance the capacity of the batteries through multi-layer lamination technology and expand its operating temperature range by applying the production engineering technology TDK has accumulated in the electronic components business.
Main applications

-Various wearable devices such as wireless earphones, hearing aids and smartwatches
-Environmental sensors
-Replacement of coin cell batteries

 

[Alexstarfire]

Will this lead to an Apple Watch with >7 days operation between charges, or will Apple make the cell and watch smaller or use the space savings for other features?

I think you know the answer to this.

 

[DoctorVenkman]

A better volumetric density is great for consumer electronics but gravimetric density is what matters the most for electrifying transportation. I would assume there's some improvement in gravimetric density as well but is it anywhere close to 100x?

 

[almsorne]

Why does the article not list an author? It just says "by The Financial Times" - are we to assume it's written by AI? As a paid "article"? Neither of those are good journalism.

Ars should be better than this.

 

[bruindrummer]

and the best physical efficiency (for ICE) is 30%. ~ 2700 Wh/l.

It's also extremely difficult to recharge.

 

[romrunning]

Most of the energy loss in an EV is air drag, which depends on size but not weight. Making the car lighter reduces the energy needed to accelerate but also reduces the energy recovered by the regen braking proportionally so the gains aren't so large like they are with ICE vehicles where all the extra weight is directly wasting energy.

If you want longer range what you need is cheaper batteries. That or to be more wealthy so you can buy a bigger battery pack. But ideally cheaper, even if they don't get lighter.

Reducing the weight has the benefit of lowering the harmful impact in a crash. I'd much rather be hit by a vehicle in the 3,000-4,000-lb range than one in the 6,000-9,000 lb range. (of course, I'd rather not be hit at all) All other safety factors being equal, lowering the weight can help the physics in a crash.

 

[Stuart Frasier]

NIO is finally selling cars with the WeLion semi-solid pack. It’s 150kWh in the same form factor and roughly the same weight as their current 100kWh pack. Hopefully, the real breakthrough will be figuring out how to make them economically.

 

[AusPeter]

Will this lead to an Apple Watch with >7 days operation between charges, or will Apple make the cell and watch smaller or use the space savings for other features?

Considering this current article, I think your question has already been answered /s

https://www.macrumors.com/2024/06/17/apple-plans-thinner-iphone-slimmer-macbook/

 

[Deleted member 195850]

We don’t have EVs with 400 miles in the mass market today, we have closer to 400 km.

Adding 50% more range would be quite desirable, if it could be done within cost and mass budgets.

400km is ~250 miles. My dual motor Ioniq 5 does that.

Cupra claim its Born will do 342 miles (550km) from its 77/82kWh battery.

VW/Seat/Cupra probably decided it wasn't a good fit for the American market.

 

[Scone Muncher]

and the best physical efficiency (for ICE) is 30%. ~ 2700 Wh/l.

Real audiophile headphones are powered by a small two-stroke engine, accept no substitutes!

 

[Demosthenes642]

For reference, gasoline has about 9,000 Wh/l.

Which is an utterly useless comparison given the technology is intended to be used in small batteries for electronics.

 

[Jeff S]

Good point!
And just to clarify, I did not mean to say these advances are hopeless, just pointing out what competition battery tech is up against. Or, from a more positive perspective, what kind of energy density is possible. Taking efficiency into account like you did, I guess we are getting there.

I would also add, that while ICE engines are about %30 efficient for motion, they also give 'free' heat using a few percentage of the wasted 70% heat, so on cold days when you are running the heat anyhow, technically the efficiency might end up being more like 35-40% (depending on how cold it is/how high you are running the heater) overall, because heating the cabin and windows, melting ice, etc is making use of that energy.

This isn't a case of just being pedantic - EVs have to pull energy from the battery to do those things, reducing mileage, so seems like a valid point of comparison to me.

 

[mobby_6kl]

Do I believe them? Yes. But I also believe there are negative tradeoffs they are not mentioning. There are so many battery performance factors to balance to make a worthwhile commercial battery, and almost any time somebody claims a huge jump in a single one, they are decreasing other important ones.

Negative tradeoffs like this?

The ceramic material used by TDK means that larger-sized batteries would be more fragile, meaning the technical challenge of making batteries for cars or even smartphones will not be surmounted in the foreseeable future, according to the company.

Kevin Shang, senior research analyst at Wood Mackenzie, a data and analytics firm, said that “unfavorable mechanical properties,” as well as the difficulty and cost of mass production, are challenges for moving the application of solid-state oxide-based batteries into smartphones.

They seem to be pretty upfront about them.

 

[Jeff S]

Which is an utterly useless comparison given the technology is intended to be used in small batteries for electronics.

Right now. Just because that is the first use that TDK plans to put it to doesn't mean that it will forever be just that.

I assume the reason for that initial use case has to do entirely with business reasons - they won't be able to produce at anywhere near the volumes and price points needed to compete for larger usage, like vehicles, or even laptops.

They will start very small scale, and sell these batteries at a premium price, and use those profits to scale up for larger applications if possible.

Although it may be the case that if TDK can't solve the fragility issues the poster above me mentions, maybe they'll never make it to other applications.

 

[NetMage]

and the best physical efficiency (for ICE) is 30%. ~ 2700 Wh/l.

And BEV tops out at 80% so for cars => ~800 Wh/l.

 

[AndrewZ]

Missing information:
Loss per charge/discharge cycle (efficiency), how often can this material cycle and still be at 95%/90%/80% capacity, charge and discharge speed.
How far along the stage from discovery to actual production, expected challenges to get it to production.

Completely agree. And why not just make lots of smaller batteries and put those in a car with a little cushioning?

 

[NopeNopeNope]

I suspect with Solid State batteries, we're in Bill Gates quote land.

We'll overestimate the change in the next 2 years, but under-estimate the change in the next 10.

Here's hoping.

 

[redleader]

I would also add, that while ICE engines are about %30 efficient for motion, they also give 'free' heat using a few percentage of the wasted 70% heat, so on cold days when you are running the heat anyhow, technically the efficiency might end up being more like 35-40% (depending on how cold it it/how high you are running the heater) overall, because heating the cabin and windows, melting ice, etc is making use of that energy.

Efficiency is calculated for work, not heat. If you include recovered heat in with work, then a Tesla using it's heat pump for climate control can get over 100% thermodynamic efficiency, which the second law of thermodynamics does not like.

A better way to think about this would be to subtract the energy needed to run a heat pump from the efficiency of an EV rather than add energy saved to the ICE. That matches reality better and keeps you from being the laws of physics. It also matches real world experience where you get less EV range in the winter, not better gas milage with an ICE.

 

[NopeNopeNope]

Completely agree. And why not just make lots of smaller batteries and put those in a car with a little cushioning?

Because it's the metal casing of each battery that is heavy. You'd be carrying a lot of dead weight. Just make bigger batteries with more cells in each.

The thing that kills current liquid lithium batteries is material migration to the anode/cathode. Solid state prevents that, so in theory the charge/recharge cycles can be much higher, and also at potentially higher energies.

 

[DarthSlack]

I'd be interested to see an article on the balancing between cell size and cell count that must go into designing batteries for cars. The whole "this won't work for EVs due to larger cells being fragile" doesn't make a whole lot of intuitive sense when small cells can be wired in parallel (wasn't the OG Tesla Roadster battery thousands of 18650s in a box?). Is it just that the casing/shielding doesn't scale efficiently as size decreases, so that a bunch of small cells ends up taking an order of magnitude more space than a single larger cell? It doesn't sound like it's some large minimum cell size, if this is being looked at for coin cells.

They're worried about the structural stability of the ceramic. So if you hit a molar-rattling pothole, you'll also break the ceramics in the battery. Could also be a problem for things like dropped cell phones, but cars are generally subject to a lot more bouncing around.

 

[Numfuddle]

Gasoline 9,000Wh/l. Too bad internal combustion engines are so horribly inefficient.

Theromodynamics is a bitch. They are inefficient because of the physics involved. The energy conversion efficiency of a gasióline engine os in the 30 - 35% range and - even though physicists and chemists still argue about the theoretical maximum - is already pretty close to the optimum. Then you have additional drivetrain losses.

So you get less than 3000Wh/l out as kinetic energy at the wheels. As a comparison: an electric motor has 95%+ conversion efficiency and you don't need clutch, driveshaft or transmission.

 

[Jeff S]

Efficiency is calculated for work, not heat. If you include recovered heat in with work, then a Tesla using it's heat pump for climate control can get over 100% thermodynamic efficiency, which the second law of thermodynamics does not like.

A better way to think about this would be to subtract the energy needed to run a heat pump from the efficiency of an EV rather than add energy saved to the ICE. That matches reality better and keeps you from being the laws of physics. It also matches real world experience where you get less EV range in the winter, not better gas milage with an ICE.

The best way of thinking about it is how much energy is the tesla pulling from the battery to run the heat pump, not how much heat does that heat pump move.

And I don't agree with your assertion that work is the only measure of efficiency. Because the heat from the gasoline/diesel is directly being used for heating in an ICE vehicle, whereas the heatpump in a Tesla is using environmental energy for the heat.

Efficiency can be thought of as how much of the original energy is put to useful effect for you?

It's undeniably true that running the heat pump on a below-freezing day in a Tesla is definitely reducing your mileage, while heating an ICE car barely impacts mileage (yes, it technically does have a slight impact because the heater in an ICE car is also pumping hot engine coolant through a heat exchanger and running a fan to blow air over the heat exchanger, which are also sapping the energy a bit).