• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Why is battery technology so behind the times?

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
10,368 (4.00/day)
Processor Intel i5-12600k
Motherboard Asus H670 TUF
Cooling Arctic Freezer 34
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 2TB Crucial MX500
Display(s) Dell U3219Q + HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
Cost less yes and while maybe true in your case this statement does not represent Li-ion vs NiMH performance. Li-ion cells hold their charge longer, have a longer shelf life, and can go through far more charging cycles before they significantly degrade.
Yes, a coworker was telling me ever since he changed his everyday tools to 18650 cells, he literally forgets to charge them every month or so, where he would need to charge them every week or sooner on AA.
But lex is also right. If you need safety, you can probably make do with NiMH.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2021
Messages
564 (1.10/day)
Yes, a coworker was telling me ever since he changed his everyday tools to 18650 cells, he literally forgets to charge them every month or so, where he would need to charge them every week or sooner on AA.
But lex is also right. If you need safety, you can probably make do with NiMH.
I've never owned any NiMH tools but I've used them, performance is worlds apart. I got a really good deal on a BOSCH 18v drill and 12v driver (8 - 10 years ago) so thats eco system I'm in now for tools (that and Ryobi for cheaper stuff), the 1.3aH batteries that came with drill still work great, they sit on the shelf all winter and near as I can tell have the same charge as they did when stopped using them.

For performance its not even close but yeah, not everything needs to be Li-ion. Its hard on the environment and nobody is going to recycle tiny little Li-ion packs so for things that don't need the specific density of Li-ion or the weight advantage MiMH is great. Safety yeah I guess... but unless its defective, poorly designed or abused Li-ion is safe.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2021
Messages
2,161 (4.69/day)
Location
Colorado, U.S.A.
System Name HP Compaq 8000 Elite CMT
Processor Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
Motherboard Hewlett-Packard 3647h
Memory 16GB DDR3
Video Card(s) NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 GDDR5 (fan-less)
Storage 2TB Seagate Firecuda 3.5"
Display(s) Dell P2416D (2560 x 1440)
Power Supply 12V HP proprietary
Software Windows 11 Pro 64-bit
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
8,093 (1.34/day)
System Name money pit..
Processor Intel 9900K 4.8 at 1.152 core voltage minus 0.120 offset
Motherboard Asus rog Strix Z370-F Gaming
Cooling Dark Rock TF air cooler.. Stock vga air coolers with case side fans to help cooling..
Memory 32 gb corsair vengeance 3200
Video Card(s) Palit Gaming Pro OC 2080TI
Storage 150 nvme boot drive partition.. 1T Sandisk sata.. 1T Transend sata.. 1T 970 evo nvme m 2..
Display(s) 27" Asus PG279Q ROG Swift 165Hrz Nvidia G-Sync, IPS.. 2560x1440..
Case Gigabyte mid-tower.. cheap and nothing special..
Audio Device(s) onboard sounds with stereo amp..
Power Supply EVGA 850 watt..
Mouse Logitech G700s
Keyboard Logitech K270
Software Win 10 pro..
Benchmark Scores Firestike 29500.. timepsy 14000..
Rubbish! It is one of the most common metals found on Earth.

Nickel does not cause cancer. Where are you getting this nonsense from?

Try to remember, Wikipedia is a good reference site, it is not the end-all-be-all of science data, especially chemistry. My set of AA NiMH batteries have 2500mah rating. I have a similar set of Lithium batteries and that are rated for 3000mah but only ever output 2800mah at max when new. The NiMH set is older than the lithium set and are still going strong. The lithium set is already starting to die. The NiMH cost less. and has lasted longer.


That's total nonsense as well. Lithium batteries have a slower standing discharge rate, but it does happen.

We were not talking about Nickel Cadmium batteries. We're talking about Nickel Metal Hydride vs Lithium Ion batteries.

Can we stop with the disinformation?

lex.. you said while a back we see things differently.. all i can say is we sure do... he he..

i have more lithium batteries than you can shake a stick at.. the self discharge rate is pretty much none existent.. it has to be because if the cell voltage drops below a certain level the cells are f-cked..

also the self discharge rate between ni-cad and metal hydride cells is/was very similar.. they both fit in the "charge over night before use" category if you want anything like the full capacity out of them..

li-ion might well be a fire hazard if abused.. but none of the stuff we so rely on today would be possible without it.. plus allowing for the sheer amount of lithium powered devices in use today it cant be that dangerous ether..

i am quite happy with lithium even if nobody else seems to be.. :)

trog
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2021
Messages
2,161 (4.69/day)
Location
Colorado, U.S.A.
System Name HP Compaq 8000 Elite CMT
Processor Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
Motherboard Hewlett-Packard 3647h
Memory 16GB DDR3
Video Card(s) NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 GDDR5 (fan-less)
Storage 2TB Seagate Firecuda 3.5"
Display(s) Dell P2416D (2560 x 1440)
Power Supply 12V HP proprietary
Software Windows 11 Pro 64-bit
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
8,093 (1.34/day)
System Name money pit..
Processor Intel 9900K 4.8 at 1.152 core voltage minus 0.120 offset
Motherboard Asus rog Strix Z370-F Gaming
Cooling Dark Rock TF air cooler.. Stock vga air coolers with case side fans to help cooling..
Memory 32 gb corsair vengeance 3200
Video Card(s) Palit Gaming Pro OC 2080TI
Storage 150 nvme boot drive partition.. 1T Sandisk sata.. 1T Transend sata.. 1T 970 evo nvme m 2..
Display(s) 27" Asus PG279Q ROG Swift 165Hrz Nvidia G-Sync, IPS.. 2560x1440..
Case Gigabyte mid-tower.. cheap and nothing special..
Audio Device(s) onboard sounds with stereo amp..
Power Supply EVGA 850 watt..
Mouse Logitech G700s
Keyboard Logitech K270
Software Win 10 pro..
Benchmark Scores Firestike 29500.. timepsy 14000..
Eneloop claim 70% storage after 10 years and 2100 charges

eneloop - eneloop - Panasonic

they maybe do but i have never used those batteries and am going purely on personal experience with metal hydride batteries in general which admitted i havent used for a few years.. i ditched the technology as soon as i could.. i did use it a lot in digital cameras.. for sure it was a charge before use experience and picking up a power tool to use and finding the batteries flat was also pretty annoying and quite common..

as for your earlier comment about lifepo4 battereis being safer.. they are but dont have the same energy density as li-ion which is why most small devices use the li-ion even though it is more of a fire hazard..

the cell voltage is also different.. li-ion run between 4.2 and 3.2 volts lifepo4 run between 3.5 and 2.8 volts.. lifepo4 cells work nicely for 12 volt systems 4 cells in series are used whereas only 3 lion cells would be used.. 4 would be too high when fully charged.. 3 of course being too low when not fully charged..

five volt usb ports are also very handy for charging single cell li-ion devices which is also a big plus for lithium cells and single cell devices..

trog
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
19,423 (5.93/day)
Location
USA
Cost less yes and while maybe true in your case this statement does not represent Li-ion vs NiMH performance.
Yes, it does. I'm comparing Duracell NiMH AA packs to Energizer Ultimate Lithium AA packs. Both packs get the same use. The NiMH packs are older and are lasting longer. They also charge up in less time.
Li-ion cells hold their charge longer, have a longer shelf life, and can go through far more charging cycles before they significantly degrade.
Utter and complete hogwash. NiMH battery charge/discharges cycle durability is measured around 1500 to 2000 depending on the formulation. Lithium is half that at best.

The disinformation is strong in this thread.

Folks, do your homework before spouting out nonsense like this.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
10,208 (3.64/day)

looks like solid state EV;s are already here.

impressive. if you just recently bought a toyota corolla hyrbid or prius, your car is painfully out of date/old tech officially now. lol
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
1,302 (4.28/day)
Location
Thailand
System Name Shoebox
Processor 3600x
Motherboard Msi b550m Mortar +WiFi
Cooling Cryorig m9
Memory Crucial Ballistix c16 B-die 2x8gb
Video Card(s) Powercolor rx570 4gb
Storage WD black sn750 256gb (OS), crucial mx500 1tb(storage),Hitatchi ?? 7200rpm 500gb(Temp files)
Display(s) Samsung 65" TU7100
Case Zzaw b3
Audio Device(s) Yamaha rx-v363
Power Supply Corsair sf750
Mouse Logitech g300s
Keyboard Custom Skyloong sk64s
Software Windows 11Pro
So this subject has been on my mind alot lately especially with my current solar project.

Batteries are great I've been having fun with them since I was a kid and had my first flashlight with the giant square 4.5v battery made of cardboard with two springs on top but sadly they just don't last and as others have pointed out not that environmentally friendly.

Recently we seem to see a lot more pumped hydro electric damn batteries being constructed, which led me down the rabbit hole of could this be done on a domestic scale.

Sounds great right!

A clean battery that has the potential to last you centuries if built correctly, sadly it's just a dream.
Below is a photo of one water tank that would store enough water to produce 10kwh bear in mind you need 2 and alot more to supply a home with AC's running for a night.
Screenshot_20220126-192346.png

Batteries have moved on a fair way in the last decade or so but design hasn't you might think that lithium cell in your ancient laptop is the same as a new one, looks the same and has the same voltage but density has shot up and as I pointed out with the water tank energy density is what matters.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
3,526 (0.56/day)
Location
Ikenai borderline!
So this subject has been on my mind alot lately especially with my current solar project.

Batteries are great I've been having fun with them since I was a kid and had my first flashlight with the giant square 4.5v battery made of cardboard with two springs on top but sadly they just don't last and as others have pointed out not that environmentally friendly.

Recently we seem to see a lot more pumped hydro electric damn batteries being constructed, which led me down the rabbit hole of could this be done on a domestic scale.

Sounds great right!

A clean battery that has the potential to last you centuries if built correctly, sadly it's just a dream.
Below is a photo of one water tank that would store enough water to produce 10kwh bear in mind you need 2 and alot more to supply a home with AC's running for a night.
View attachment 233986
Batteries have moved on a fair way in the last decade or so but design hasn't you might think that lithium cell in your ancient laptop is the same as a new one, looks the same and has the same voltage but density has shot up and as I pointed out with the water tank energy density is what matters.
Which is exactly why the switch to non-carbon-emitting energy sources needs to be driven by governments, not individual citizens - governments are the only entities with enough capital and land to construct the pumped-storage infrastructure necessary to replace our current, carbon-emitting, base-load infrastructure.

Such infrastructure projects would create massive numbers of jobs and be good for the planet, yet no government on this planet has the vision to implement such.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2021
Messages
564 (1.10/day)
Yes, it does. I'm comparing Duracell NiMH AA packs to Energizer Ultimate Lithium AA packs. Both packs get the same use. The NiMH packs are older and are lasting longer. They also charge up in less time.
AA batteries? Are we posting from 1994?

Those AA lithiums from Energizer or whoever else makes them are not rechargeable, at least they are not designed to be. You can't compare a AA battery to a standard 18650 cell or any other standard Li-ion cell.
Utter and complete hogwash. NiMH battery charge/discharges cycle durability is measured around 1500 to 2000 depending on the formulation. Lithium is half that at best.

The disinformation is strong in this thread.

Folks, do your homework before spouting out nonsense like this.
I have no idea where you finding your information but its pretty much the opposite of reality from my own anecdotal experience literally every person I've ever meet that has used batteries and all the research I've seen on the subject.

Anyone using these things in real world already knows but yeah if you want numbers do you own research. These guys have some of the most concise data in one place that makes comparing the various cells relatively easy to understand. The picture below pretty much says everything you need to know in my opinion.



looks like solid state EV;s are already here.

impressive. if you just recently bought a toyota corolla hyrbid or prius, your car is painfully out of date/old tech officially now. lol
Thats pretty much a glorified beta test. Those types of batteries have more in common with traditional Li-ion cells than what future true solid state batteries are aiming for. Solid state batteries won't be taking over anytime soon, they really only exist in the lab and a few test mules.

They aren't ready yet, and no there isn't some global conspiracy / conclusion with battery manufactures holding it back.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bug
Low quality post by Assimilator
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
3,526 (0.56/day)
Location
Ikenai borderline!

looks like solid state EV;s are already here.

impressive. if you just recently bought a toyota corolla hyrbid or prius, your car is painfully out of date/old tech officially now. lol
Are you unable to understand the difference between "solid" and "semi-solid"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
10,208 (3.64/day)
AA batteries? Are we posting from 1994?

Those AA lithiums from Energizer or whoever else makes them are not rechargeable, at least they are not designed to be. You can't compare a AA battery to a standard 18650 cell or any other standard Li-ion cell.

I have no idea where you finding your information but its pretty much the opposite of reality from my own anecdotal experience literally every person I've ever meet that has used batteries and all the research I've seen on the subject.

Anyone using these things in real world already knows but yeah if you want numbers do you own research. These guys have some of the most concise data in one place that makes comparing the various cells relatively easy to understand. The picture below pretty much says everything you need to know in my opinion.



Thats pretty much a glorified beta test. Those types of batteries have more in common with traditional Li-ion cells than what future true solid state batteries are aiming for. Solid state batteries won't be taking over anytime soon, they really only exist in the lab and a few test mules.

They aren't ready yet, and no there isn't some global conspiracy / conclusion with battery manufactures holding it back.

toyota already said solid state, full solid state, is coming in mid 2020's to its hybrid line of cars. so I am not sure i agree with you
 

bogmali

In Orbe Terrum Non Visi
Staff member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
9,269 (1.78/day)
Location
Pacific Northwest
System Name System Has No Name
Processor Core i9-10920X
Motherboard MSI X299 Pro Carbon
Cooling Corsair H115i AIO
Memory TeamGroup T-Force Delta 4x16GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) EVGA FTW3 Ultra RTX-3080ti
Storage MSI SPATIUM M480 M.2 NVMe 1TB/Samsung 860 EVO 512GB M.2 NVMe
Display(s) LG 27GP850-B
Case Corsair 5000d AirFlow
Audio Device(s) AudioEngine D1 DAC/Onboard
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Ultra 1K Watt
Mouse Corsair Ironclaw RGB
Keyboard Corsair K68 RGB
Software Win11 Pro 64
Benchmark Scores Xbox Live Gamertag=jondonken
Leave the hostility at the door please or I will thread-ban you ;)
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
17,840 (3.29/day)
System Name Pioneer
Processor Ryzen R9 5950X
Motherboard GIGABYTE X570 Aorus Elite
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 + A whole lotta Sunon and Corsair Maglev blower fans...
Memory Crucial Ballistix 64GB (4 x 16GB) @ DDR4-3600 (Micron E-Die, dual rank sticks)
Video Card(s) EVGA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti FTW3
Storage 2x Crucial P5 Plus 2TB PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSDs
Display(s) 55" LG 55" B9 OLED 4K Display
Case Thermaltake Core X31
Audio Device(s) TOSLINK->Schiit Modi MB->Asgard 2 DAC Amp->AKG Pro K712 Headphones or HDMI->B9 OLED
Power Supply EVGA SuperNova T2 Titanium 850W
Mouse Razer Deathadder v2
Keyboard WASD CODE Mechanical KB w/ Cherry MX Green switches
Software Windows 11 Enterprise (yes, it's legit)
Last time I checked, that is what obsolete means, almost verbatim.

We are still using Li-Ion. So it's not obsolete.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 28, 2021
Messages
564 (1.10/day)
toyota already said solid state, full solid state, is coming in mid 2020's to its hybrid line of cars. so I am not sure i agree with you
Yeah, Toyota said that but they have shown very little and between their floundering back and forth between hybrid tech, hydrogen, and their clueless stance on EVs I have little faith in anything they say. I doubt they'll be the first with meaningful solid state packs let alone when they say they'll have it on the market.

Toyota is a lost company under shit management. They have shown signs of turning it around but they are behind everyone in almost everything, and all their solid state talk is pretty much just that to distract investors from how bad things really are internally. I don't doubt they are actively pursuing it because frankly they kinda have to if they are going to survive but I'd be really surprised if they are as far along as they are leading people to believe.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
19,423 (5.93/day)
Location
USA
AA batteries? Are we posting from 1994?
Now you're just trolling me. Cut it out.
Those AA lithiums from Energizer or whoever else makes them are not rechargeable, at least they are not designed to be.
And that is an example of your lack of understanding and why you need to be doing a LOT more reading on the subject.
Here you go.
I have no idea where you finding your information but its pretty much the opposite of reality from my own anecdotal experience literally every person I've ever meet that has used batteries and all the research I've seen on the subject.
I'm not the one displaying a shocking lack of knowledge and experience as evidenced by the following;
Toyota is a lost company under shit management.
The defense rests...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
192 (0.16/day)
Location
Olympia, WA
System Name Sleepy Painter
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard Asus TuF Gaming X570-PLUS/WIFI
Cooling FSP Windale 6 - Passive
Memory 2x16GB F4-3600C16-16GVKC @ 16-19-21-36-58-1T
Video Card(s) MSI RX580 8GB
Storage 2x Samsung PM963 960GB nVME RAID0, Crucial BX500 1TB SATA, WD Blue 3D 2TB SATA
Display(s) Microboard 32" Curved 1080P 144hz VA w/ Freesync
Case NZXT Gamma Classic Black
Audio Device(s) Asus Xonar D1
Power Supply Rosewill 1KW on 240V@60hz
Mouse Logitech MX518 Legend
Keyboard Red Dragon K552
Software Windows 10 Enterprise 2019 LTSC 1809 17763.1757
A Taiwanese Solid-State Lithium Ceramic Battery manufacturer recently posted a Corporate Promo video, so it was recently in mind coming back across this thread.

About ProLogium
ProLogium Technology (PLG) is a global leader in high-performing, safe and affordable battery technologies in vehicle, consumer and industry applications. Founded 15 years ago in Taiwan, ProLogium is the world’s first company to successfully develop, mass produce, and commercialize the solid-state lithium ceramic battery (SSB)
If you search for "solid-state lithium ceramic battery" you will find a lot of non-company-specific information about the relevant technology. I think they first came to my notice from a YouTuber demonstrating a free sample; including cutting the cell up while under load. That seriously impressed me.

Seemed relevent
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
2,496 (0.61/day)
Wow....7 pages before this became silly.

So...let's talk about some limitation, and why battery technology is limited. Let's also leave the politics at the door, after a good poke at a merchant of stupidity.

Musk, and by extension Tesla, have delivered exactly zero in the way of technological advancements. If you spend all of ten seconds doing high school trig, you'd be able to see that the "new" Tesla cells hold 50% more energy (or whatever he's claiming this week). You'd also see that the dimensions for those cells changed. As in, most humans are bad at doing math, and missed that the "minor" increase to radius meant that the cylindrical cell actually has an internal volume that matches exactly with the increase in total stored energy.


Let's now talk about advancements. Most of the advancements are not about the battery chemistry, they're about changing the electrodes. Has anyone asked why? Well, the logic is that breakdown of lithium chemistry batteries largely occurs at the interface between the electrodes and the energy storage medium. This happens due to crystallization of the ions, and subsequent release of lithium gasses created when the battery charges too fast.
Please note that charging too fast is a problem for creation of gasses the battery has to vent, degrading the chemistry, and most frustratingly the desire of us humans to have these things charged instantly. This is, anecdotally, how in practice NiMH (nickel metal hydride) batteries can last longer than lithium polymer chemistry...despite the ratings and technical data stating the exact opposite. This is how your fast charging iPhone also lasts for a couple of years, but my non-fast charging Samsung smart phone is still at 70% of initial capacity 4 years after purchase. Yeah, I've watched that anecdotally, and it seems like others in this thread are confusing anecdotal results with experimental laboratory data.


Now...about that charge density. Did anyone here actually stay awake in high school chemistry? I'm basically going to assume not... I do that because there's a lot of stupidity in general (from the reporting side). Let's walk through all of this in one shot.
1) The reason diesel trucks run on diesel is that the chemical energy available is the highest density available. They get this distinction because diesel basically doesn't auto-ignite under pressure like octane (gas). Because you can get a huge compression ratio, diesel is capable of turning chemical energy into mechanical energy very easily.
2) The reason that octane (gasoline) is used is that at the compression ratios it can attain it's very easy to combust fully and deliver a ton of energy. The reason our current gas is unleaded, and if you find some old timers or farmers they say it is garbage, is because with tetra-ethyl lead that compression ratio could go much higher (and thus the inherent greater power delivery of gasoline could be realized).
3) The amount of energy in your average AA battery is more than in a rechargeable. Why? Well, in a one-way chemical breakdown the difference in electronegativity can be high. That is, much higher than in a reaction which is meant to be done and undone on a regular basis. This is where that basic high school chemistry comes into play. Imagine for a moment the lemon with a copper and zinc spike driven into it. You don't get to reverse that reaction, but with simply the ability to transfer ions through an electrolyte solution you get a surprising amount of power.

Now, let's talk rechargeable batteries (in the context of current cars). You are literally charging and discharging its battery constantly. How does it work? Well, it's basically lead plates stored into a solution of sulfuric acid. Just like your lithium chemistry, it develops gasseous bubbles on the plates. Unlike Lithium chemistry though, the degredation of the electrodes is much slower because of the amount of cells and sheer volume of them. That said, 14 volts from your alternator is used to overcome the chemistry and allow a 12 volt charge to be delivered.
Lead acid has the benefit of being relatively cheap, relatively resistant to temperature swings, and capable of delivering large amounts of power quickly. Lithium is not so much. You give up all of these conveniences, but in return get a much higher energy density (about 4 times in practice). The problem is that lithium chemistry also requires a charging circuit, to try and minimize all of the costs to using them.

So, what kind of efficiencies are we talking? Let's set lead-acid to a value of 1. That would mean lithium ion represents 4. This then gets silly, because octane is a 300+ value. Does anyone else look at this basic math, and wonder how exactly a semi-truck is supposed to work? If a semi takes three tank refills going coast to coast, and you simply converted all of its current energy storage mass to batteries, you'd basically go from 3 stops to 3*4/300 = 225. Of course that sounds silly...so let's factor in a 15% conversion of energy from gasoline to electro-mechanical potential (losses in the drive train), and it's only 34 stops to get across the US...from the current 3. So we are clear, this is the stupidity that places like Forbes fail to comprehend about basic math and physics.



Now...let's remove all limits on battery tech. Let's say that you could actually get the equivalent 15% electromechanical energy of gasoline directly from a battery. Would you want to do this?

NO!

I'd ask you a simple and stupid question. Have you seen the explosion of a small lithium battery? Great. Now imagine that but 11x bigger. You go from the danger of a hand grenade in your pocket to basically a small pipe bomb...and you'd presumably be dragging that around in the pocket of your pants. Maybe it's acceptable to have that danger...but now imagine that you suddenly had a car that can do 3000 miles on a single charge, so you have to charge it over night once every few months. Great. Now imagine a puncture of that battery, and the subsequent action movie style detonation of the energy as the surrounding environment becomes a crater.
Oh, but Tesla or whomever had these batteries would simply decrease their volume by 91% to have the same power...and that decrease in weight would actually mean the range of electric vehicles would increase along with better performance due to the huge leap in power:weight ratio. Great. Now you've got 91% less components, so any failure means your car is grounded. Right now, Tesla and similar designers actually balance out their batteries such that a certain amount of failures can be tolerated without consumer transparency.



Now...about the quantum, gold, and other battery technologies... Our media sucks at reporting. These are evolutions of the capacitor technology. The quantum battery basically is a proof of concept that you can develop a charging circuit for capacitors that is ultra fast. They haven't demonstrated a technology, only a concept in the lab. The gold nanofilaments are the same thing. Fast charge with an energy density that makes lead-acid seem like a great idea. The hydrogen batteries...imagine the insane volatility of lithium with a dramatically decreased density, and no current storage technology.

What about Toyota's solid state battery? Well, they're looking to commercialize the concept the first half of the 2020s. We are four years out from this...as 2022-2025 is four years. Let's say they have something...because their press releases are less than great. The technology is outlined as bi-polar NiMH. The vehicles they outlined for initial commercialization are basically the cousin of the Geo-Metro. This means their goal is to take a small and lightweight vehicle, plug in an unknown battery tech, and potentially get 300 miles of range out of it. Of course, let's talk manufacturing. It's a minimum of 18-24 months to go from finalized design to manufactured product. It's another 3-4 months to go from production volume to distribution. Top that with another 3 months from production start to full production volume. So...about 30 months from final designed to be able to be purchased. New tech is going to need a testing cycle...so those batteries are going to need to be fabricated in a small batch and tested for about 3 months to get enough testing to cover charge cycles and environmental conditions. Now, in the US we also have testing from the national highway safety institution. That's another 3 months. 30+3+3+1 (assuming the testing units can be small batch fabricated in one month). That's 37/42 months down...as new car models roll out middle of the year (assuming 2026 models would be available in July 2025). This means their battery tech has another 5 months to be finalized...which makes sense if their reports of incorporating these into hybrid (tiny) vehicles. So...the break through tech is incapable of powering a geo, it's got to pay for that with the mass of an additional combustion engine, and its goal is only to decrease charge time without impacting time to replacement.
Do we understand that this is possible without current technology being dramatically improved, and only being iterated on? If not, then I don't understand exactly why any of the battery tech can be described as archaic, as the OP seems to conclude.



Of course...if you could decrease the mass of a car by about 80% everything just works. That'd need aircraft grade aluminum composites, which have existed for literal decades. That could take your battery tech that's at 9% as efficient, and make it viable for vehicles assuming that you also decreased expectations to 75% of the range of a much cheaper combustion engine. Of course, it'd also make sure that an "antique" electric vehicle is impossible. That is to say, cars from the 1920's still exist but any electric vehicle is entirely impossible to maintain because after at most a couple of decades the vehicles themselves would be impossible to service...because the batteries getting replaced account for the majority of the vehicle cost. Ironically enough though, even the most long lived batteries cannot endure extended usage...and the motivation is chemistry. This isn't about tech being slow...it's about the limits of material engineering and physics. Neither of which is something that is capable of being overcome without novel alternative situations.
 

Frick

Fishfaced Nincompoop
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
17,446 (2.93/day)
Location
Piteå
System Name Black MC in Tokyo
Processor Ryzen 5 2600x
Motherboard Asrock B450M-HDV
Cooling AMD Wraith Spire I think
Memory 2 x 8GB G-skill Aegis 3000 or somesuch
Video Card(s) Gainward RTX 3060ti Ghost OC
Storage Kingstong NV1 500GB | WD Blue 1TB x 2 | Toshiba P300 2TB
Display(s) Samsung U32J590U 4K + BenQ GL2450HT 1080p
Case Fractal Design Define R4
Audio Device(s) Line6 UX1 + some headphones
Power Supply Seasonic Core GC500
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Dell Sk3205
VR HMD Acer Mixed Reality Headset
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores Rimworld 4K ready!
Wow....7 pages before this became silly.

So...let's talk about some limitation, and why battery technology is limited. Let's also leave the politics at the door, after a good poke at a merchant of stupidity.

Musk, and by extension Tesla, have delivered exactly zero in the way of technological advancements. If you spend all of ten seconds doing high school trig, you'd be able to see that the "new" Tesla cells hold 50% more energy (or whatever he's claiming this week). You'd also see that the dimensions for those cells changed. As in, most humans are bad at doing math, and missed that the "minor" increase to radius meant that the cylindrical cell actually has an internal volume that matches exactly with the increase in total stored energy.


Let's now talk about advancements. Most of the advancements are not about the battery chemistry, they're about changing the electrodes. Has anyone asked why? Well, the logic is that breakdown of lithium chemistry batteries largely occurs at the interface between the electrodes and the energy storage medium. This happens due to crystallization of the ions, and subsequent release of lithium gasses created when the battery charges too fast.
Please note that charging too fast is a problem for creation of gasses the battery has to vent, degrading the chemistry, and most frustratingly the desire of us humans to have these things charged instantly. This is, anecdotally, how in practice NiMH (nickel metal hydride) batteries can last longer than lithium polymer chemistry...despite the ratings and technical data stating the exact opposite. This is how your fast charging iPhone also lasts for a couple of years, but my non-fast charging Samsung smart phone is still at 70% of initial capacity 4 years after purchase. Yeah, I've watched that anecdotally, and it seems like others in this thread are confusing anecdotal results with experimental laboratory data.


Now...about that charge density. Did anyone here actually stay awake in high school chemistry? I'm basically going to assume not... I do that because there's a lot of stupidity in general (from the reporting side). Let's walk through all of this in one shot.
1) The reason diesel trucks run on diesel is that the chemical energy available is the highest density available. They get this distinction because diesel basically doesn't auto-ignite under pressure like octane (gas). Because you can get a huge compression ratio, diesel is capable of turning chemical energy into mechanical energy very easily.
2) The reason that octane (gasoline) is used is that at the compression ratios it can attain it's very easy to combust fully and deliver a ton of energy. The reason our current gas is unleaded, and if you find some old timers or farmers they say it is garbage, is because with tetra-ethyl lead that compression ratio could go much higher (and thus the inherent greater power delivery of gasoline could be realized).
3) The amount of energy in your average AA battery is more than in a rechargeable. Why? Well, in a one-way chemical breakdown the difference in electronegativity can be high. That is, much higher than in a reaction which is meant to be done and undone on a regular basis. This is where that basic high school chemistry comes into play. Imagine for a moment the lemon with a copper and zinc spike driven into it. You don't get to reverse that reaction, but with simply the ability to transfer ions through an electrolyte solution you get a surprising amount of power.

Now, let's talk rechargeable batteries (in the context of current cars). You are literally charging and discharging its battery constantly. How does it work? Well, it's basically lead plates stored into a solution of sulfuric acid. Just like your lithium chemistry, it develops gasseous bubbles on the plates. Unlike Lithium chemistry though, the degredation of the electrodes is much slower because of the amount of cells and sheer volume of them. That said, 14 volts from your alternator is used to overcome the chemistry and allow a 12 volt charge to be delivered.
Lead acid has the benefit of being relatively cheap, relatively resistant to temperature swings, and capable of delivering large amounts of power quickly. Lithium is not so much. You give up all of these conveniences, but in return get a much higher energy density (about 4 times in practice). The problem is that lithium chemistry also requires a charging circuit, to try and minimize all of the costs to using them.

So, what kind of efficiencies are we talking? Let's set lead-acid to a value of 1. That would mean lithium ion represents 4. This then gets silly, because octane is a 300+ value. Does anyone else look at this basic math, and wonder how exactly a semi-truck is supposed to work? If a semi takes three tank refills going coast to coast, and you simply converted all of its current energy storage mass to batteries, you'd basically go from 3 stops to 3*4/300 = 225. Of course that sounds silly...so let's factor in a 15% conversion of energy from gasoline to electro-mechanical potential (losses in the drive train), and it's only 34 stops to get across the US...from the current 3. So we are clear, this is the stupidity that places like Forbes fail to comprehend about basic math and physics.



Now...let's remove all limits on battery tech. Let's say that you could actually get the equivalent 15% electromechanical energy of gasoline directly from a battery. Would you want to do this?

NO!

I'd ask you a simple and stupid question. Have you seen the explosion of a small lithium battery? Great. Now imagine that but 11x bigger. You go from the danger of a hand grenade in your pocket to basically a small pipe bomb...and you'd presumably be dragging that around in the pocket of your pants. Maybe it's acceptable to have that danger...but now imagine that you suddenly had a car that can do 3000 miles on a single charge, so you have to charge it over night once every few months. Great. Now imagine a puncture of that battery, and the subsequent action movie style detonation of the energy as the surrounding environment becomes a crater.
Oh, but Tesla or whomever had these batteries would simply decrease their volume by 91% to have the same power...and that decrease in weight would actually mean the range of electric vehicles would increase along with better performance due to the huge leap in power:weight ratio. Great. Now you've got 91% less components, so any failure means your car is grounded. Right now, Tesla and similar designers actually balance out their batteries such that a certain amount of failures can be tolerated without consumer transparency.



Now...about the quantum, gold, and other battery technologies... Our media sucks at reporting. These are evolutions of the capacitor technology. The quantum battery basically is a proof of concept that you can develop a charging circuit for capacitors that is ultra fast. They haven't demonstrated a technology, only a concept in the lab. The gold nanofilaments are the same thing. Fast charge with an energy density that makes lead-acid seem like a great idea. The hydrogen batteries...imagine the insane volatility of lithium with a dramatically decreased density, and no current storage technology.

What about Toyota's solid state battery? Well, they're looking to commercialize the concept the first half of the 2020s. We are four years out from this...as 2022-2025 is four years. Let's say they have something...because their press releases are less than great. The technology is outlined as bi-polar NiMH. The vehicles they outlined for initial commercialization are basically the cousin of the Geo-Metro. This means their goal is to take a small and lightweight vehicle, plug in an unknown battery tech, and potentially get 300 miles of range out of it. Of course, let's talk manufacturing. It's a minimum of 18-24 months to go from finalized design to manufactured product. It's another 3-4 months to go from production volume to distribution. Top that with another 3 months from production start to full production volume. So...about 30 months from final designed to be able to be purchased. New tech is going to need a testing cycle...so those batteries are going to need to be fabricated in a small batch and tested for about 3 months to get enough testing to cover charge cycles and environmental conditions. Now, in the US we also have testing from the national highway safety institution. That's another 3 months. 30+3+3+1 (assuming the testing units can be small batch fabricated in one month). That's 37/42 months down...as new car models roll out middle of the year (assuming 2026 models would be available in July 2025). This means their battery tech has another 5 months to be finalized...which makes sense if their reports of incorporating these into hybrid (tiny) vehicles. So...the break through tech is incapable of powering a geo, it's got to pay for that with the mass of an additional combustion engine, and its goal is only to decrease charge time without impacting time to replacement.
Do we understand that this is possible without current technology being dramatically improved, and only being iterated on? If not, then I don't understand exactly why any of the battery tech can be described as archaic, as the OP seems to conclude.



Of course...if you could decrease the mass of a car by about 80% everything just works. That'd need aircraft grade aluminum composites, which have existed for literal decades. That could take your battery tech that's at 9% as efficient, and make it viable for vehicles assuming that you also decreased expectations to 75% of the range of a much cheaper combustion engine. Of course, it'd also make sure that an "antique" electric vehicle is impossible. That is to say, cars from the 1920's still exist but any electric vehicle is entirely impossible to maintain because after at most a couple of decades the vehicles themselves would be impossible to service...because the batteries getting replaced account for the majority of the vehicle cost. Ironically enough though, even the most long lived batteries cannot endure extended usage...and the motivation is chemistry. This isn't about tech being slow...it's about the limits of material engineering and physics. Neither of which is something that is capable of being overcome without novel alternative situations.

Post more please! Wherever you like.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
10,208 (3.64/day)
Yeah, Toyota said that but they have shown very little and between their floundering back and forth between hybrid tech, hydrogen, and their clueless stance on EVs I have little faith in anything they say. I doubt they'll be the first with meaningful solid state packs let alone when they say they'll have it on the market.

Toyota is a lost company under shit management. They have shown signs of turning it around but they are behind everyone in almost everything, and all their solid state talk is pretty much just that to distract investors from how bad things really are internally. I don't doubt they are actively pursuing it because frankly they kinda have to if they are going to survive but I'd be really surprised if they are as far along as they are leading people to believe.

I disagree with your assumption of Toyota here. I think Toyota was playing it cautious in moving in to the EV market to fast, as the infrastructure just wasn't and still isn't there yet. Toyota has announced a full line of EV's incoming, but I think they were wise and letting the tech grow a little before getting in to it.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
1,302 (4.28/day)
Location
Thailand
System Name Shoebox
Processor 3600x
Motherboard Msi b550m Mortar +WiFi
Cooling Cryorig m9
Memory Crucial Ballistix c16 B-die 2x8gb
Video Card(s) Powercolor rx570 4gb
Storage WD black sn750 256gb (OS), crucial mx500 1tb(storage),Hitatchi ?? 7200rpm 500gb(Temp files)
Display(s) Samsung 65" TU7100
Case Zzaw b3
Audio Device(s) Yamaha rx-v363
Power Supply Corsair sf750
Mouse Logitech g300s
Keyboard Custom Skyloong sk64s
Software Windows 11Pro
@lilhasselhoffer I saw your post and thought oh no a wall of text but I actually read it all and have to say good post.

Those AA lithiums from Energizer or whoever else makes them are not rechargeable, at least they are not designed to be. You can't compare a AA battery to a standard 18650 cell or any other standard Li-ion cell.
Don't type stupid crap in a forum full of intellectuals and geeks.
Lithium AA rechargeables are here and have been for a while it's a 14500 lithium cell with the voltage split pretty much. People throw the "18650" name about like it's something special when it's only a dimension.
As lilhasslehoffer and I pointed out earlier energy density is what's important that's the simple reason why fossil fuels are still about.
My view for the last decade or so has always been micro nuclear, now that fusion (micro sun) is finally moving forward I don't think we should even bother with battery development super capacitors tiny reactors and wireless energy is where it's at. If your car and house have an unlimited source of clean energy and power to smaller devices such as watches, phones and the like can be delivered wirelessly why would we need to store energy atall
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
3,526 (0.56/day)
Location
Ikenai borderline!
My view for the last decade or so has always been micro nuclear, now that fusion (micro sun) is finally moving forward I don't think we should even bother with battery development super capacitors tiny reactors and wireless energy is where it's at. If your car and house have an unlimited source of clean energy and power to smaller devices such as watches, phones and the like can be delivered wirelessly why would we need to store energy atall
Yeah, no. We don't even have working (net energy gain) fusion yet, even if (and it's still an if) we do get it working it is going to take years and vast amounts of money to commercialise the tech, then it's gonna take years and vast amounts of money to actually build the power plants, and then the companies owning the plants are going to want a return on their investments. It makes zero sense to stop any and all other progress just because fusion is hopefully going to solve everything, and if you believe fusion is going to lead to a future where energy is free then I have some bad news for you.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
17,840 (3.29/day)
System Name Pioneer
Processor Ryzen R9 5950X
Motherboard GIGABYTE X570 Aorus Elite
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 + A whole lotta Sunon and Corsair Maglev blower fans...
Memory Crucial Ballistix 64GB (4 x 16GB) @ DDR4-3600 (Micron E-Die, dual rank sticks)
Video Card(s) EVGA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti FTW3
Storage 2x Crucial P5 Plus 2TB PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSDs
Display(s) 55" LG 55" B9 OLED 4K Display
Case Thermaltake Core X31
Audio Device(s) TOSLINK->Schiit Modi MB->Asgard 2 DAC Amp->AKG Pro K712 Headphones or HDMI->B9 OLED
Power Supply EVGA SuperNova T2 Titanium 850W
Mouse Razer Deathadder v2
Keyboard WASD CODE Mechanical KB w/ Cherry MX Green switches
Software Windows 11 Enterprise (yes, it's legit)
Yeah, no. We don't even have working (net energy gain) fusion yet, even if (and it's still an if) we do get it working it is going to take years and vast amounts of money to commercialise the tech, then it's gonna take years and vast amounts of money to actually build the power plants, and then the companies owning the plants are going to want a return on their investments. It makes zero sense to stop any and all other progress just because fusion is hopefully going to solve everything, and if you believe fusion is going to lead to a future where energy is free then I have some bad news for you.
No free lunch?
 
Top