Apple supplier says new tech has 100 times the capacity of its current batteries.
See full article...
See full article...
TDK claims insane energy density in solid state battery breakthrough
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
For non-mobile uses, $ / efficiency / durability usually more important than size / weight / density.
There's a lot of critical information missing. It's really hard to tell what markets & uses this would be suitable for. :-/
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Yeah, I had to read through this a few times to get it. "It" refers to their current tech that is currently on sale, not their new stuff. The writing is awkward as s**t.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Double the battery life, use the additional savings to reduce size and weight.
Apple's current "all-day" battery life often doesn't last an entire day if there's heavy usage, but "two-day" battery life should sort that out.
99.99% people will be able to get to a charger or an external battery pack by the end of a day.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
There has been battery improvements continuously for decades. You just haven't noticed I guess.
Upvote
26
(27
/
-1)
As others have already mentioned the headlines in the article are about volumetric energy density. The size of a battery for a given capacity or how much battery you can fit in a given size. This doesn't necessarily mean the batteries will be lighter. It's possible and even probable but not guaranteed.
Either way, I think the biggest factor for BEVs is not volume or weight of the battery but the cost. Sure, a lighter battery isn't bad and may indirectly reduce the cost some. A lighter battery should allow the BEV to be a little more efficient allowing for a slightly smaller battery to achieve the same range. A lighter battery may also allow somewhat cheaper parts in the suspention, crash safety zones, etc, to be used because of the decreased weight. A smaller battery will be easier to fit into the car design. Can potentially use less supporting material or less area to protect for the pack.
All good things but the cost reductions are still only going to be secondary or tertiary effects not the primary effect. Cost of the battery pack is still one of the major barriers for BEV adoption, especially as manufacturers and consumers push for longer range packs. If, hopefully when, battery prices drop enough we will get to an inflection point where new BEVs will match ICEs on initial cost. Then if pack prices keep dropping BEVs can be cheaper on initial cost. Obviously, pack size will be a factor in that so you could hit it sooner on a "short range" 25-30kWh pack but that's only going to give you 100 and change miles of range. A "standard range" 50-75kWh pack for a 200-275 mile range will take longer. Long range packs that are 75+kWh for 300+ mile range will take even longer. Unfortunately, in the US manufacturers don't offer much in the way of short range BEVs. That's one of the factors for the 10k Chinese BEV every article likes to talk about. It's a small car with a small battery pack.
The volumetric energy density talked about here is going to be most important in situations where the size is a major limiting factor in battery capacity. Hearing aids, Airpod style ear buds, Smart Watches and even to an extent smart phones. It doesn't seem like this will be able to get standard Apple Watches up to a week of battery life but it certainly could allow them to manage battery life comparable to the Ultra for 2+ days of light use and guaranteed at least a day even during heavy use.
Either way, I think the biggest factor for BEVs is not volume or weight of the battery but the cost. Sure, a lighter battery isn't bad and may indirectly reduce the cost some. A lighter battery should allow the BEV to be a little more efficient allowing for a slightly smaller battery to achieve the same range. A lighter battery may also allow somewhat cheaper parts in the suspention, crash safety zones, etc, to be used because of the decreased weight. A smaller battery will be easier to fit into the car design. Can potentially use less supporting material or less area to protect for the pack.
All good things but the cost reductions are still only going to be secondary or tertiary effects not the primary effect. Cost of the battery pack is still one of the major barriers for BEV adoption, especially as manufacturers and consumers push for longer range packs. If, hopefully when, battery prices drop enough we will get to an inflection point where new BEVs will match ICEs on initial cost. Then if pack prices keep dropping BEVs can be cheaper on initial cost. Obviously, pack size will be a factor in that so you could hit it sooner on a "short range" 25-30kWh pack but that's only going to give you 100 and change miles of range. A "standard range" 50-75kWh pack for a 200-275 mile range will take longer. Long range packs that are 75+kWh for 300+ mile range will take even longer. Unfortunately, in the US manufacturers don't offer much in the way of short range BEVs. That's one of the factors for the 10k Chinese BEV every article likes to talk about. It's a small car with a small battery pack.
The volumetric energy density talked about here is going to be most important in situations where the size is a major limiting factor in battery capacity. Hearing aids, Airpod style ear buds, Smart Watches and even to an extent smart phones. It doesn't seem like this will be able to get standard Apple Watches up to a week of battery life but it certainly could allow them to manage battery life comparable to the Ultra for 2+ days of light use and guaranteed at least a day even during heavy use.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
EVs with even just 200 mile range are pretty wasteful when the average person drives less than 40 miles per day.
I understand the appeal of more range, but the increasing wastefulness is concerning.
Upvote
-6
(3
/
-9)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
As others noted, complaining about the life span of P Zero tires is laughable. Have you looked at the tread they have when new? I stayed with them on my wife's Cayman but only for their awesome dry weather performance. I wished I got 20K miles out of a set! The OEM S02's on my AP1 Honda S2000 got about 6K miles on the rears. I only got about 2K more than that out of the rear F1 tires on my 'C5 ZO6.
I admit I was abusive but still, don't expect great life out of performance tires. Motorcycles are a more extreme example. I tended to sport-touring tires (8K to 10K mile lifespans for me) but friends with pure sports rides often changed their super sticky tires around the 3K mile mark, give or take!
I admit I was abusive but still, don't expect great life out of performance tires. Motorcycles are a more extreme example. I tended to sport-touring tires (8K to 10K mile lifespans for me) but friends with pure sports rides often changed their super sticky tires around the 3K mile mark, give or take!
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
so you’re saying we need to have DCFC on our freeways, like Canada has on the 401? It’s cheaper to increase DCFC availability than to pack more batteries in a car.
Upvote
1
(3
/
-2)
Wait, is that how you are supposed to power a car with orphans?? I had been throwing them in a furnace and using the heat to spin a turbine and using that to generate electricity.
It was taking me a few hundred orphans just to get to work every day -- and at today's orphan pricing, I just wasn't finding it very economical.
Of course your way, you likely go through a lot of food and stuff, so maybe it roughly evens out?
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
One of the (supposed) points of the solid electrolyte batteries is that they have no wear life concerns at all, so it should last forever. As ever practical experience may vary.
I understand it works like this (corrects welcome!). Conventional lithium ion batteries have a wear life dictated by the behaviour of the chip in control of charging and discharging. It’s programmed around the chemist’s understanding of the rate at which dendritic growth happens under different conditions, but they’ve no way (AFAIK) of measuring what actual growth is taking place. With a solid electrolyte one can know that dendrites cannot touch, and so one can push the cell more whilst being safe.
The encouraging thing is that it works at all. The rest for scale up is just engineering!
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Oh absolutely! I meant to imply “assuming we don’t fix the infrastructure problem,” and that would definitely be one way. I just don’t see that happening anytime soon unfortunately, at least at scale.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I definitely agree, there are lots of use-cases for low-range EVs, though there are (I think) a lot more apartment dwellers than homeowners, so even at 40 miles per day, that’s about one charge a week for a lot of people, so…in a high density area, that would be a challenge without major improvements to charging infrastructure. This doesn’t have to be a one-size-fits-all solution of course, have a range of ranges available for people, though I could see a 900 mile range being very appealing to even a 40 mile per day person…1 charge per month vs per week would also lower the infrastructure scale requirements.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
I remember Canon promoting their fuel cell and the SRD display technology 20 years as well.
https://eepower.com/news/canon-develops-tiny-fuel-cells-for-digital-cameras/
https://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/peripherals/whatever-happened-to-sed-tv-173620
Neither went anywhere and it was jarring how quickly the once dominant Japanese electronics companies lost their advantage.
Upvote
-3
(0
/
-3)
Yes, with the infrastructure we have now, more range is very desirable... which is a shame.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
7 days? I'd be happy if I could stay at my in-laws for one night without running out of battery the next day.
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
Don't forget the bonus gift from burning. Pollution, particulates and other nasties.
Upvote
-1
(2
/
-3)
You know what tech this kind of battery could really improve? Drones. Battery weight is of massive importance for drones for obvious reasons. You don't need the battery to be as safe as you do in other vehicles because drones aren't transporting humans. Also if the battery doesn't last a long time it's also not an issue, because it's a tiny battery so it doesn't cost much to swap it out, and it's physically easy to swap a drone battery.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
We actually have EVs with 500 mile range. You can have one delivered to you this week: https://lucidmotors.com/air
NIO did a 650 mile live-streamed drive on a single charge last year, and this model is now mass-produced in China.
Upvote
3
(5
/
-2)
These new "breakthroughs" are always hyped, and always years ahead of commercial success, if that ever happens.
But there is a message underlying all this, and that is the fact that technologies like batteries, solar panels, fuel cells, and even wind turbines are much less mature than fossil-based technologies, so they ARE going to get better by a greater amount in on a faster time scale. Gas & steam turbines and diesel & gasoline engines are all still improving, but not very fast, and not by much. Renewable power is already cheaper than coal or nukes, and that's WITH storage included. Only high-efficiency gas turbines can compete. Throw in any cost of CO2 emissions, and they beat gas turbines, too. And the gap is just going to grow.
But there is a message underlying all this, and that is the fact that technologies like batteries, solar panels, fuel cells, and even wind turbines are much less mature than fossil-based technologies, so they ARE going to get better by a greater amount in on a faster time scale. Gas & steam turbines and diesel & gasoline engines are all still improving, but not very fast, and not by much. Renewable power is already cheaper than coal or nukes, and that's WITH storage included. Only high-efficiency gas turbines can compete. Throw in any cost of CO2 emissions, and they beat gas turbines, too. And the gap is just going to grow.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
In the US, most people actually do live in single family homes. You don't have to own a home to live in a single family home.
Obviously we need a solution for apartment dwellers, but there is a huge market of people who aren't stuck in an apartment right now that we can target while we work on other solutions.
E: most as in "more than half." Of course there are tons of people who live in other types of housing. But there are a huge number of people who do live in "a house" and many of those have some kind of dedicated parking. Plenty of potential EV buyers.
Last edited:
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Don't remember whether it was Colin Chapman (Lotus) or somebody related to Porsche who said: "First, add lightness." Chapman, of course, was infamous for allegedly removing tubes from a tube frame until it collapsed, then adding the last one back.
Gas cars have, to a degree, the same problem as EVs when it comes to weight vs range, though. Very small, light cars generally don't have a very long range - around 200 miles is ballpark. One way to reduce weight is to use a smaller gas tank, and I've had several cars that had around 10 gallons yielding an ideal highway range around 250 miles (150-200 miles typical between fills). They were fine for my use. A larger, heavier, less economical vehicle would of course have a larger gas tank, which itself increased the weight somewhat, though not by the amount that larger batteries do.
The other way to add range, of course, is to improve gas mileage, and modern vehicles do much better than way than similar-sized vehicles of even the 1990s despite the almost universally higher power output and vehicle weight. Hybrids (not plugin) tend to do it best. That and bigger gas tanks are why we've come to expect 400 miles between fills. It hasn't always been that way.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Why are they acting like you need one gigantic piece of ceramic to power a car, and it would be too fragile? I thought the word battery literally means a collection of smaller units.
Upvote
-11
(0
/
-11)
Yeah it does logically make sense, but in practice there are a few issues. Even low-range EVs is that they still cost a lot of money. I'd rather get ~500km for $35k than 200km for $30 or even $25k. You also have the same fixed costs in parking, insurance, etc.
If we had really cheap solid-state batteries that you could recharge very quickly and without destroying them, that might make this more feasible, but sadly it doesn't seem like we're particularly close.
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
Introducing the new Apple watch, now using only 0,4 mikroliter pr hour. Oil and filters sold separately.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I am curious what exactly is TDK supplying Apple with right now? Cassette tapes? I am not aware of Apple using solid state batteries in any of their devices. It looks like TDK might be producing Li-ion batteries and selling them to anyone who'd buy. Labeling TDK as "Apple supplier" is obviously a click-bait technique which speaks volume about the quality of the article.
Upvote
-13
(1
/
-14)
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
If the density is high enough, than large stationary systems like industrial power storage would be the immediate application.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
A battery pack in a BEV is always going to be a collection of individual cells. Due to chemistry, the voltage of a single battery cell is always going to be in the couple of volts range depending on the exact battery. Even your 12v Lead Acid battery for your typical car is actually made up of a couple few cells to get to that 12v range. Getting to the 400-800v a battery pack for an EV uses requires using a bunch of cells in series. It would be completely impractical to try to run a BEV off the voltage of a single cell even if you could make one that large. They amount of power you are dealing with would mean current levels that are impractical if not flat out impossible. Even so the individual cells for a BEV battery are still going to be much larger than what you'd find in an Apple Watch or even a Cell phone. An Apple watch has ~1 Wh. A small BEV battery like an early gen Leaf is 24 kWh or 24,000 Wh. You wouldn't want to use 24k individual cells to make up that battery. That early gen Leaf instead has 192 cells which puts each one at ~125Wh.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
All of the houses in my neighborhood (on the small side for the town, at 1200-1
Most (built in the 1990s-early 2000s) do not have sufficient power supply as built for EV chargers even though they usually have 2-car enclosed garages (often filled with stuff relegating the usually multiple cars to the driveway and the street). The actual electrical service is usually 200A/240V because electric kitchens were an option at build time, but most have gas cooking/heat/water heat and therefore lower-rated (80-100A) panels. Upgrades are fairly simple, but not inexpensive.
And back to the article ... it seemed well-focused on the small-electronics nature of the batteries discussed, and seemed clearly to state that this was not a EV battery technology and would probably never be. Yes, there were a few confusing points, but what I took from the "100x" capacity statement was that TDK was behind some others that now stored 50+ wh/l, so if TDK's current production of coin cells and the like is more like 10 then 100 is correct. The way it was stated was confusing. Oh well, FT and all that.
Edit: pressed "5" meant "8"
Last edited:
Upvote
-2
(1
/
-3)
Drop table users;
Ars Praetorian
The two are not mutually exclusive.
A large increase in efficiency would allow both additional range and less batteries.
So as an easy example
If we obtain a %400 increase in efficiency
We can
a. Increase range %400
b. Make the battery %25 of the current size
c. Double the range cut battery size in half.
d. Any permutation of the two.
Upvote
-3
(1
/
-4)
Exactly.
We won't be putting double the amount of "lighter" batteries in there so we can go 800 miles, we'll be putting half the amount of batteries in there so the car weighs 4000 lbs instead of 6000 lbs.
In turn, the car uses less energy to move less mass around, which increases the range in a beautiful positive feedback loop of increasing efficiencies.
Right now the most efficient EV's are in the 3.5-4.5 mile per watt-hour range. The best a production car has gotten so far is the newest refresh of Lucid's 2wd Air Pure that broke the 5 miles per kwh barrier.
Good solid state batteries with +50%> energy density are going to help so much with the transition to a fully electric auto industry. It bears mentioning though that the batteries in the article are for consumer electronics and use a different chemistry than automotive batteries - there likely won't be any crossover with EVs. However, these batteries from TDK should start showing up in 2028 models of Air Pods, etc. and show a multi-day increase in battery life.
I just want a 3-day minimum battery life on my phone and watch. That's enough. I'll be happy with that. Just keep making them more efficient after that.
Upvote
2
(4
/
-2)
Neither. We get these breakthroughs on a regular cadence; but somehow, the rate of progress stays pretty linear. It's almost like the breakthroughs aren't.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
That assumes you can charge at home. If you live in an apartment and are dependent on public chargers, having to charge twice a week instead of every day is a big difference.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Sure, but if the argument is that people with short commutes don't need long range, you're talking about people who live in the city. Which is disproportionately going to be apartment dwellers.
Upvote
-8
(0
/
-8)