New Lithium batteries with 3 times the storage
Discussion
wsurfa said:
A real comparison would be Note 2 to Note 7 - battery increase c 10%. That worked out well.....so well the Note 7R has the same size battery as the Note 7, but is only c3% increase to the Note 2.
Both phones are effectively the same size.
However during that time processor efficiency has massively increased.
Electric motors have improved as has the management systems with kinetic energy energy clawback.Both phones are effectively the same size.
However during that time processor efficiency has massively increased.
Mabbs9 said:
My mate is CTO of a Silicon Valley technology company. He says the one thing NOT advancing is battery technology. It is simply not keeping up with the rest of the sector.
There have been a few breakthroughs in batteries, they are just not in production. it takes time for that, then the makers test the batteries in their products for a loooooong time, to ensure reliability.RayTay said:
Mabbs9 said:
My mate is CTO of a Silicon Valley technology company. He says the one thing NOT advancing is battery technology. It is simply not keeping up with the rest of the sector.
There have been a few breakthroughs in batteries, they are just not in production. it takes time for that, then the makers test the batteries in their products for a loooooong time, to ensure reliability.Dazed and Confused said:
98elise said:
Pvapour said:
Mr2Mike said:
For actual car enthusiasts (e.g. the people that started this place) driving is one of, if not the best part of owning a car. How are they meant to be celebrating at the thought of being delivered to work and back by a glorified washing machine?
I'll try and put it more simply..Autonomous cars will replace the tedious parts of driving,
There is zero enjoyment to be had driving around the M25 for hours.
Our starry eyed swooners seem incapable of understanding that, cometh the self driving car, cometh a blanket ban on driving.
I've never seen so many dumb lemmings in one place.
mybrainhurts said:
Our starry eyed swooners seem incapable of understanding that, cometh the self driving car, cometh a blanket ban on driving.
I've never seen so many dumb lemmings in one place.
People with obsessions of `driving` outdated pollution spewing cars should not hold sway.I've never seen so many dumb lemmings in one place.
Edited by RayTay on Sunday 16th July 16:31
RayTay said:
mybrainhurts said:
Our starry eyed swooners seem incapable of understanding that, cometh the self driving car, cometh a blanket ban on driving.
I've never seen so many dumb lemmings in one place.
People with obsessions of `driving` outdated pollution spewing cars should hold sway.I've never seen so many dumb lemmings in one place.
Most of the range increase between Gen1 and Gen2 production EVs has come from improved (volume optimised) cell packaging at a battery module level (individual cells are built into modules holding a certain number of cells and then those are buildup into the battery itself).
The cells themselves have had capacity increases, but the main improvements have been an enormous reduction in cost, and increased performance across the ambient temperature spectrum. ie more amps at any given temperature with less voltage sag (reduced Ri).
The Tesla suffers quite badly from thermal derating under high load, simply because it's battery, made up from round 1865o cells cannot be cooled due to the geometry and (high) thermal impedance of those cells:
It's obvious from that photo that a relatively small area of cell wall can have a low thermal impedance to the cooling system.
Pretty much all other manufacturers now use 'pouch' cells specifically designed for high performance automotive battery systems, and the extra cooling performance and increased volumetric efficiency bring large improvements in energy density.
Here ^^ the improved thermal performance and improved packaging density is obvious. Large, thin walled, low thermal impedance pouch cells are sandwiched between hydroformed thin wall aluminium cooling "plates", allowing each cell to be in very close contact with the cooling medium, yet without having a large volumetric penalty.
So Gen1 -> Gen2 has been in some ways easy. The between 50 and 100% range increase has come pretty much from lower costs meaning a bigger battery can be fitted, and that bigger battery can be still packaged in the same space as the old one due to the packing improvements.
Gen3 is looking to be pretty much just "bigger batteries" with cars designed from the word go to have large a batteries.
Gen4 is where we will need real cell energy density improvements to bring further range capabilities (and lower costs fro a given range)
(Note on Generations. Broadly speaking, (all dates approximate)
pre 2010 all Evs were pretty much "prototype" ie Gen0 - G-wizz etc
2010 -> 2015, First Generation (Gen1) production EVs Leaf, i3 etc
2015 -> 2018, Second Generation (Gen2) production EVs - big battery "Leaf" etc
2018 -> 2021, Third Generation (Gen3) higher volume production EVs (Tesla Model 3, 3e, A4e etc)
2020 - > .... Forth Generation (Gen4) mainstream EVs, start to take over from rest of range
The cells themselves have had capacity increases, but the main improvements have been an enormous reduction in cost, and increased performance across the ambient temperature spectrum. ie more amps at any given temperature with less voltage sag (reduced Ri).
The Tesla suffers quite badly from thermal derating under high load, simply because it's battery, made up from round 1865o cells cannot be cooled due to the geometry and (high) thermal impedance of those cells:
It's obvious from that photo that a relatively small area of cell wall can have a low thermal impedance to the cooling system.
Pretty much all other manufacturers now use 'pouch' cells specifically designed for high performance automotive battery systems, and the extra cooling performance and increased volumetric efficiency bring large improvements in energy density.
Here ^^ the improved thermal performance and improved packaging density is obvious. Large, thin walled, low thermal impedance pouch cells are sandwiched between hydroformed thin wall aluminium cooling "plates", allowing each cell to be in very close contact with the cooling medium, yet without having a large volumetric penalty.
So Gen1 -> Gen2 has been in some ways easy. The between 50 and 100% range increase has come pretty much from lower costs meaning a bigger battery can be fitted, and that bigger battery can be still packaged in the same space as the old one due to the packing improvements.
Gen3 is looking to be pretty much just "bigger batteries" with cars designed from the word go to have large a batteries.
Gen4 is where we will need real cell energy density improvements to bring further range capabilities (and lower costs fro a given range)
(Note on Generations. Broadly speaking, (all dates approximate)
pre 2010 all Evs were pretty much "prototype" ie Gen0 - G-wizz etc
2010 -> 2015, First Generation (Gen1) production EVs Leaf, i3 etc
2015 -> 2018, Second Generation (Gen2) production EVs - big battery "Leaf" etc
2018 -> 2021, Third Generation (Gen3) higher volume production EVs (Tesla Model 3, 3e, A4e etc)
2020 - > .... Forth Generation (Gen4) mainstream EVs, start to take over from rest of range
RayTay said:
otolith said:
With respect, most of your list relates to why they are less polluting in use,
That is enough. You have selective amnesia. I have reviewed this thread, you don't appear to have posted anything to support your assertion that EV manufacture is less energy intensive than ICE manufacture. Happy to review that position if you have evidence to the contrary, but it really doesn't matter because the important savings are in use, not in manufacture.
RayTay said:
mybrainhurts said:
Our starry eyed swooners seem incapable of understanding that, cometh the self driving car, cometh a blanket ban on driving.
I've never seen so many dumb lemmings in one place.
People with obsessions of `driving` outdated pollution spewing cars should hold sway.I've never seen so many dumb lemmings in one place.
Are you here as a representative of the Environmental Hallelujah Movement?
Or do you have a vested financial interest? Your enthusiasm is way over the top, borderline orgasmic.
otolith said:
I don't think they are substantially less demanding of energy to manufacture, indeed I think they need a little more.
The studies i've seen suggest they are less polluting (total energy required) to manufacturer because they have less high precision metal components. Think about the average engine/gear box, full of nice hgih strength precision steel and aluminium parts (Block, heads, crank, rods, pistons, valves, camshafts, flywheel, pulleys, shafts, gears, dogs etc etc)And aluminium in particular has a significant energy footprint. We haven't seen it yet in production EV's, but there is no reason the motor and inverter casings couldn't be plastic for example, rather than ally.
Max_Torque said:
The studies i've seen suggest they are less polluting (total energy required) to manufacturer because they have less high precision metal components. Think about the average engine/gear box, full of nice hgih strength precision steel and aluminium parts (Block, heads, crank, rods, pistons, valves, camshafts, flywheel, pulleys, shafts, gears, dogs etc etc)
And aluminium in particular has a significant energy footprint. We haven't seen it yet in production EV's, but there is no reason the motor and inverter casings couldn't be plastic for example, rather than ally.
That's interesting - what's changed since that 2010 study?And aluminium in particular has a significant energy footprint. We haven't seen it yet in production EV's, but there is no reason the motor and inverter casings couldn't be plastic for example, rather than ally.
otolith said:
Max_Torque said:
The studies i've seen suggest they are less polluting (total energy required) to manufacturer because they have less high precision metal components. Think about the average engine/gear box, full of nice hgih strength precision steel and aluminium parts (Block, heads, crank, rods, pistons, valves, camshafts, flywheel, pulleys, shafts, gears, dogs etc etc)
And aluminium in particular has a significant energy footprint. We haven't seen it yet in production EV's, but there is no reason the motor and inverter casings couldn't be plastic for example, rather than ally.
That's interesting - what's changed since that 2010 study?And aluminium in particular has a significant energy footprint. We haven't seen it yet in production EV's, but there is no reason the motor and inverter casings couldn't be plastic for example, rather than ally.
Broadly speaking CO2 = COST
ie, the reason something costs say £20 rather than £10 is because it's taken more total work to make it, and every bit of work has both a monetary and environmental cost. Mass production, which could really be called "efficient" production drives down the cost, and hence the environmental impact (per item made, not overall!!!!)
EV's built before 2010 were largely hand built, using low volume parts, and built into broadly speaking, existing platforms. The latest Gen cars are now obtaining cost parity through design optimisation and volume assembly.
It's also worth noting that developing an ICE, with it's complex and highly regulated fossil fuel burning engine is hugely expensive and time consuming. For example, simply homologating the emissions and OBD on a high volume ICE platform is a circa £150M, 3 year job, involving hundreds of engineers, lots of worldwide travel and massive test infrastructure. None of that is even required for an EV, which when it breaks is actually less polluting that when it runs!
Overall, when you add it all up, i simply can't see an EV having a higher build footprint that a modern complex ICE.
The piston/crank engine is highly inefficient due to its inherent design. It cannot be improved to any level of efficiency or tolerable emissions for the planet and humans breathing in the exhaust. It is way past the end of its sell by date for sure. The line has been drawn. It should have gone decades ago in favour of rotaries. But a rotary is an ICE as well and would have only have extended the pain of these unsuitable engines.
Just about everything about the ICE is wrong.
Just about everything about the ICE is wrong.
I was talking to a ship's designer a week back. I was talking about EVs and that batteries are far more efficient than they were and so efficient the electric plane is here. Electric boats are not new; they date back to the 1800s. He mentioned that electric propulsion of ships is here in that electric motors turn props in Diesel/electric and going over to full battery is just another progressive step. He said that it is now feasible to use battery storage on ships, the fluid-flow versions used for grid battery storage. Weight is not such an issue with ships. They are slightly less efficient than Lith Ion batteries, but when in port the batteries can be charged up. He said it would be ideal for coastal vessels and say cruise ships around Europe.
Many places like Venice are kicking up about the pollution cruise liners create. Solar panels could be on the ships to assist the ancillaries. I mentioned advances in batteries to come. He said that was an advantage, as when batteries need replacing a far more efficient set will probably be available. They will also take up less space than massive diesel engine generators, the exhausts and fuel storage tanks. When a cell of a battery set fails it is easy to replace and maybe with a more efficient cell. A whole battery set could be replaced gradually cell by cell as they deteriorate. This spreads the costs of course.
He did mention hybrid ships that run on batteries when running into ports. The diesel generators can then be downsized.
Here are the fluid-flow batteries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OHstY_kKUY
Many places like Venice are kicking up about the pollution cruise liners create. Solar panels could be on the ships to assist the ancillaries. I mentioned advances in batteries to come. He said that was an advantage, as when batteries need replacing a far more efficient set will probably be available. They will also take up less space than massive diesel engine generators, the exhausts and fuel storage tanks. When a cell of a battery set fails it is easy to replace and maybe with a more efficient cell. A whole battery set could be replaced gradually cell by cell as they deteriorate. This spreads the costs of course.
He did mention hybrid ships that run on batteries when running into ports. The diesel generators can then be downsized.
Here are the fluid-flow batteries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OHstY_kKUY
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff