5 ms·

This raise an interesting question. Is improving the battery tech an inherently more difficult problem than the efficiency of a thermic motor? I'd intuitively

This raise an interesting question. Is improving the battery tech an inherently more difficult problem than the efficiency of a thermic motor? I'd intuitively think so, as it's mostly chemical compared to mechanical work, and that would explain why thermic engine were favoured at the time. (On top of economic reasons)

usrusr 3y ago
If battery tech was easy and it only failed to progress faster due to lack of a well-funded use case, then submarine warfare should have brought us to Tesla-grade batteries in no time.
- nick222226 3y ago
  Fission batteries, baby!
  - Gare 3y ago
    Currently there are two land vehicles that drive with them :)
- fragmede 3y ago
  That did bring them nuclear reactors though. Hasn't helped my electricity come from nuclear.
  - Philip-J-Fry 3y ago
    That's the next step though. SMRs, Small Modular Reactors. Basically the same sort of thing that's in a submarine but dotted around our neighbourhoods and cities.
    - nradov 3y ago
      We are never, ever going to see SMRs dotted around our neighborhoods. I like the concept of nuclear power in general, but the security and terrorism concerns alone will kill any possibility of putting them in residential areas regardless of any potential economic benefits.
- __m 3y ago
  Panasonic-grade
avianlyric 3y ago
I don’t think it so much that battery chemistry is so hard to improve, but rather the energy density of oil is so high, you don’t simply don’t need an efficient thermic motor to do useful work. If you completely ignore the externalities of oil (which we did for a very long time). Then it’s very hard for an electric battery to compete with diesel or gasoline. Gasoline has an energy density of about 46MJ/Kg, compared to a lithium ion battery at just 0.9MJ/Kg and that’s a modern battery. A lead acid battery is just 0.15MJ/Kg. So right out of the gate, your thermic motor can be two orders of magnitude less efficient than your electric motor, and still achieve the same range with an equivalent mass of stored energy. And that’s ignoring the fact the thermic engine burns its fuel, so does more useful work as the mass of stored energy drops. To be quite honest, it’s astounding to me that electric traction was even remotely competitive with thermic traction back in Henry Fords era. The head start thermic engines get from such high density fuel is kind of obscene.
- lucubratory 3y ago
  Yep, and then when you compare both of those options to nuclear they look like ~similarly puny options. If I remember correctly nuclear has roughly 100,000 times higher energy density.

usrusr 3y ago

If battery tech was easy and it only failed to progress faster due to lack of a well-funded use case, then submarine warfare should have brought us to Tesla-grade batteries in no time.

nick222226 3y ago
Fission batteries, baby!
- Gare 3y ago
  Currently there are two land vehicles that drive with them :)
fragmede 3y ago
That did bring them nuclear reactors though. Hasn't helped my electricity come from nuclear.
- Philip-J-Fry 3y ago
  That's the next step though. SMRs, Small Modular Reactors. Basically the same sort of thing that's in a submarine but dotted around our neighbourhoods and cities.
  - nradov 3y ago
    We are never, ever going to see SMRs dotted around our neighborhoods. I like the concept of nuclear power in general, but the security and terrorism concerns alone will kill any possibility of putting them in residential areas regardless of any potential economic benefits.
__m 3y ago
Panasonic-grade

avianlyric 3y ago

I don’t think it so much that battery chemistry is so hard to improve, but rather the energy density of oil is so high, you don’t simply don’t need an efficient thermic motor to do useful work. If you completely ignore the externalities of oil (which we did for a very long time). Then it’s very hard for an electric battery to compete with diesel or gasoline. Gasoline has an energy density of about 46MJ/Kg, compared to a lithium ion battery at just 0.9MJ/Kg and that’s a modern battery. A lead acid battery is just 0.15MJ/Kg. So right out of the gate, your thermic motor can be two orders of magnitude less efficient than your electric motor, and still achieve the same range with an equivalent mass of stored energy. And that’s ignoring the fact the thermic engine burns its fuel, so does more useful work as the mass of stored energy drops. To be quite honest, it’s astounding to me that electric traction was even remotely competitive with thermic traction back in Henry Fords era. The head start thermic engines get from such high density fuel is kind of obscene.

lucubratory 3y ago
Yep, and then when you compare both of those options to nuclear they look like ~similarly puny options. If I remember correctly nuclear has roughly 100,000 times higher energy density.