6 ms·

Actually good article if you continue reading. Comment from an independent expert: "Research has shown vertically aligned – or even just well distributed – car

Actually good article if you continue reading. Comment from an independent expert: "Research has shown vertically aligned – or even just well distributed – carbon nanotubes have far greater properties than randomly placed carbon nanotubes," said Dr. Shearer. "I am not surprised a x10 in conductivity is possible. Controlling the placement of carbon nanotubes is really the way to unlock their potential. The issue in commercialization is the cost associated with producing aligned carbon nanotubes. My guess is the cost would be much more than x10." Even if it was x10 the cost right now, I would expect that cost to go down a lot as the engineering gets better. Looks interesting.

choeger 6y ago
Even if the cost was x100 of the current technique, if you could double energy density you would find applications. Remember that this is just a part of the total cost of a battery.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Right, there are plenty of places now that would be willing to pay a premium for increased density. The airline industry comes to mind.
newyankee 6y ago
Given that presumably Tesla's goal is to take battery costs down by 56% in 3 years from (108 - 140 $/kwh) to (50 - 70$/kwh) and widely held consensus is that 100$/kwh is the price point at which EVs are no brainer on upfront costs with ICE cars, i feel that there is a long way to go. However, i think any successful real world demo starting with niche applications will help. We need all the battery tech to succeed.
- DennisP 6y ago
  Electric airplanes need significantly better energy density.
  - ryder9 6y ago
    hydrogen would probably make more sense in airplanes than batteries tbh airbus is already jumping on it
  - choeger 6y ago
    I don't know. Sure, if you can build batteries with the energy density of gasoline, you can build an electric plane with them. But is this really necessary? Right now, we have relatively large, relatively fast, jet planes. Do we need that size and that speed to be commercially viable? Could we also run a larger fleet of smaller, more automated planes or helicopters? If there was no kerosene left by tomorrow morning, would there really be no alternative?
    - djrogers 6y ago
      > I don't know. Sure, if you can build batteries with the energy density of gasoline, you can build an electric plane with them. But is this really necessary? Only if you value overseas travel... It currently takes ~16 hours to fly from SF to Singapore depending on weather. Any longer, and you're going to see a lot of that travel disappear.
      - onion2k 6y ago
        Only if you value overseas travel... It currently takes ~16 hours to fly from SF to Singapore depending on weather. Any longer, and you're going to see a lot of that travel disappear. It takes that long because it's more efficient to do it in a single flight. Taking off and landing are a massive waste of time and fuel. If we only had short range planes people would change their destinations in some cases or they'd plan layovers as part of the trip. I don't think you'd see that many people just stop travelling abroad.
        tomalpha 6y ago
        Indeed. Though like in the olden days the large number of stopovers might cut down demand somewhat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_Route#Multiple_stops https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_Route#Multiple_stops
- baybal2 6y ago
  Wholesale LFP price in China been <$100/kwh for quite a few years, yet...
- specialist 6y ago
  FWIW, I just learned about "Wright's Law" via Sandy Munro. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects
- samatman 6y ago
  Electric vehicles are right at the bottom of the curve for "amount of money consumers are willing to spend for more energy per gram/ml". I'd expect this kind of tech to debut in premium phones and laptops, and work its way down.
lopmotr 6y ago
Even if it was 10x the cost, it's supposed to last 5x as long so long-lived applications like perhaps commercial vehicles would only be 2x the cost even if they don't take advantage of the smaller size & weight to require less capacity.

choeger 6y ago

Even if the cost was x100 of the current technique, if you could double energy density you would find applications. Remember that this is just a part of the total cost of a battery.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Right, there are plenty of places now that would be willing to pay a premium for increased density. The airline industry comes to mind.

newyankee 6y ago

Given that presumably Tesla's goal is to take battery costs down by 56% in 3 years from (108 - 140 $/kwh) to (50 - 70$/kwh) and widely held consensus is that 100$/kwh is the price point at which EVs are no brainer on upfront costs with ICE cars, i feel that there is a long way to go. However, i think any successful real world demo starting with niche applications will help. We need all the battery tech to succeed.

DennisP 6y ago
Electric airplanes need significantly better energy density.
- ryder9 6y ago
  hydrogen would probably make more sense in airplanes than batteries tbh airbus is already jumping on it
- choeger 6y ago
  I don't know. Sure, if you can build batteries with the energy density of gasoline, you can build an electric plane with them. But is this really necessary? Right now, we have relatively large, relatively fast, jet planes. Do we need that size and that speed to be commercially viable? Could we also run a larger fleet of smaller, more automated planes or helicopters? If there was no kerosene left by tomorrow morning, would there really be no alternative?
  - djrogers 6y ago
    > I don't know. Sure, if you can build batteries with the energy density of gasoline, you can build an electric plane with them. But is this really necessary? Only if you value overseas travel... It currently takes ~16 hours to fly from SF to Singapore depending on weather. Any longer, and you're going to see a lot of that travel disappear.
    - onion2k 6y ago
      Only if you value overseas travel... It currently takes ~16 hours to fly from SF to Singapore depending on weather. Any longer, and you're going to see a lot of that travel disappear. It takes that long because it's more efficient to do it in a single flight. Taking off and landing are a massive waste of time and fuel. If we only had short range planes people would change their destinations in some cases or they'd plan layovers as part of the trip. I don't think you'd see that many people just stop travelling abroad.
      - tomalpha 6y ago
        Indeed. Though like in the olden days the large number of stopovers might cut down demand somewhat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_Route#Multiple_stops https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_Route#Multiple_stops
baybal2 6y ago
Wholesale LFP price in China been <$100/kwh for quite a few years, yet...
specialist 6y ago
FWIW, I just learned about "Wright's Law" via Sandy Munro. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects
samatman 6y ago
Electric vehicles are right at the bottom of the curve for "amount of money consumers are willing to spend for more energy per gram/ml". I'd expect this kind of tech to debut in premium phones and laptops, and work its way down.

lopmotr 6y ago

Even if it was 10x the cost, it's supposed to last 5x as long so long-lived applications like perhaps commercial vehicles would only be 2x the cost even if they don't take advantage of the smaller size & weight to require less capacity.