6 ms·

Meh, we need better charging networks more than we need better battery chemistry at this point.

by davedx 2y ago

smegger001 2y ago
fortunately we can do two things
johanvts 2y ago
For cars I agree, but a significant energy density improvement would enable aviation and other fields to electrify.
SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
These are 2 different things; "better batteries" is scientific and engineering breakthroughs. Engineering in the sense of building them in on time, in quantity, to quality and on a budget. "Better charging networks" is infrastructure rollout that is underway. If it's an engineering issue, it's civil engineering. Charging networks are on the whole continually getting better. But maybe not at a fast enough pace. Both can happen, though. Both would make a difference.
prododev 2y ago
Better batteries require less frequent charging, reducing pressure on networks. But also, better batteries enable electrification of other modes of transport much more easily. Cars are bad, electric cars are at best "less bad".
- bobim 2y ago
  Sure, but we have some difficulties to understand that we have to let go some of the comfort we were used to. And we know that EVs are not for saving our climate, it's for saving the car industry. Don't look up.
  - hedora 2y ago
    All our cars are EV’s now. I cannot express how much more convenient this is for us. We only have level one charging at home. It’s fine. The biggest remaining problem is having to go to multiple charging stations during long trips every once in a while, usually because Electrify America says they have open stalls when they do not. That seems fixable. EV charge times improved a lot in the last 9 years. Even better batteries would be better, of course. However, my bigger concern is energy efficiency. Tesla’s mile/kwh is much higher than comparable cars from the other manufacturers. It’s not clear if the other companies will catch up, since they’re hard-wired to build gas guzzlers.
  - prododev 2y ago
    I agree, sold my car awhile back. It's not really needed.
Gareth321 2y ago
I disagree. Range anxiety is one of the top concerns for EV car buyers and telling them they can just charge more frequently won't assuage their fears, for many reasons. No matter how many stations we build (at enormous cost) there will inevitably be issues related to access from time to time. Today this presents as chargers offline, slow, or full with queues. Worst of all is that no matter how ubiquitous, one still needs to exit the freeway and navigate to one of these chargers. Today my Model Y gets about two hours on the Autobahn before I need to charge it. That's just not enough, and it has what is considered good range for an EV. There are undoubtedly people who like to take frequent breaks. Many people are not like that. The future is both ubiquitous chargers and much larger battery capacity.
- varelse 2y ago
  [dead]
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  I'm not THAT pessimistic about buildout of charging if it was a politically rational era, but the Ramcharger style 50-100 mile PHEV really is a great compromise for EV transitions. We should have mandated PHEVs 20 years ago for consumer cars (you know, with a 5-10 year transition period), but it was the Bush administration. Then again Obama and Biden didn't do that much either, and even California didn't do and still hasn't.
- arghwhat 2y ago
  Two hours at the Autobahn is just 200-250km in what is effectively optimal conditions (steady driving over long distances). That number doesn't check out. Most people drive significantly less than a full charge in a given day. Overnight or workplace charging solves like, 95% of car needs. And remember, it's not much of a problem if 5% or less of road cars need to still be (efficient) fossil fuel cars. Battery advances should mainly be used to make cars lighter at decent range, not to give more range at same weight. Electric cars are too heavy in the current state, fixing that should come first.
  - ipsi 2y ago
skellington 2y ago
Hard disagree (as a person that owns EV). While it's true that most people don't drive that far daily, it's also true that most people want their cars to be multipurpose. Most EVs can only be time-efficiently charged to 80% while DC fast charging because the charge curve drops a lot. And nobody want the pucker factor of getting much below 10% while road tripping. So, you're really only working with 70% of the max range. At 'normal' freeway speeds of 70mph+, most EV max ranges are less than 300 miles, and 70% of that is 210 usable miles. You can make it work, but it feels like you're always managing and thinking about charge level vs a car which usually has 400+ miles of range on the freeway. IMO the base range for EVs needs to be 500 miles, to get 350 miles of usable range, plus 350kW+ charging so charge stops are 10 minutes ish. And the Chinese EV companies have 400kW+ charging cars already, with announcements for 600kW charging! So battery energy density is critical to getting the range that people want without making the cars even heavier.
- dzhiurgis 2y ago
  Sorry but what you are after likely has less than 1% utility. Niche cars will always exist for cases like yours, but everyone will depend on charge network.
surajrmal 2y ago
There are a lot of other potential wins here : lighter cars meaning less road and tire wear, cheaper evs, lower crash fatalities, etc.
dzhiurgis 2y ago
Agree. 300km range seems to be sweet spot. Anything over 50kW charging is enough and 150kW is good. So long there are reliable stations every 50km - current EVs are sufficient.
DrScientist 2y ago
If your battery charges faster and has a higher range then you will need less charging points ( less time charging and less frequently ) - just through better batteries. Solid state battery tech looks to be game changing.... pushing EV's into the no-brainer territory for the vast majority of people.

Meh, we need better charging networks more than we need better battery chemistry at this point.

by davedx 2y ago

Meh, we need better charging networks more than we need better battery chemistry at this point.

smegger001 2y ago

fortunately we can do two things

johanvts 2y ago

For cars I agree, but a significant energy density improvement would enable aviation and other fields to electrify.

SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago

These are 2 different things; "better batteries" is scientific and engineering breakthroughs. Engineering in the sense of building them in on time, in quantity, to quality and on a budget. "Better charging networks" is infrastructure rollout that is underway. If it's an engineering issue, it's civil engineering. Charging networks are on the whole continually getting better. But maybe not at a fast enough pace. Both can happen, though. Both would make a difference.

prododev 2y ago

Better batteries require less frequent charging, reducing pressure on networks. But also, better batteries enable electrification of other modes of transport much more easily. Cars are bad, electric cars are at best "less bad".

bobim 2y ago
Sure, but we have some difficulties to understand that we have to let go some of the comfort we were used to. And we know that EVs are not for saving our climate, it's for saving the car industry. Don't look up.
- hedora 2y ago
  All our cars are EV’s now. I cannot express how much more convenient this is for us. We only have level one charging at home. It’s fine. The biggest remaining problem is having to go to multiple charging stations during long trips every once in a while, usually because Electrify America says they have open stalls when they do not. That seems fixable. EV charge times improved a lot in the last 9 years. Even better batteries would be better, of course. However, my bigger concern is energy efficiency. Tesla’s mile/kwh is much higher than comparable cars from the other manufacturers. It’s not clear if the other companies will catch up, since they’re hard-wired to build gas guzzlers.
- prododev 2y ago
  I agree, sold my car awhile back. It's not really needed.

Gareth321 2y ago

I disagree. Range anxiety is one of the top concerns for EV car buyers and telling them they can just charge more frequently won't assuage their fears, for many reasons. No matter how many stations we build (at enormous cost) there will inevitably be issues related to access from time to time. Today this presents as chargers offline, slow, or full with queues. Worst of all is that no matter how ubiquitous, one still needs to exit the freeway and navigate to one of these chargers. Today my Model Y gets about two hours on the Autobahn before I need to charge it. That's just not enough, and it has what is considered good range for an EV. There are undoubtedly people who like to take frequent breaks. Many people are not like that. The future is both ubiquitous chargers and much larger battery capacity.

varelse 2y ago
[dead]
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
I'm not THAT pessimistic about buildout of charging if it was a politically rational era, but the Ramcharger style 50-100 mile PHEV really is a great compromise for EV transitions. We should have mandated PHEVs 20 years ago for consumer cars (you know, with a 5-10 year transition period), but it was the Bush administration. Then again Obama and Biden didn't do that much either, and even California didn't do and still hasn't.
arghwhat 2y ago
Two hours at the Autobahn is just 200-250km in what is effectively optimal conditions (steady driving over long distances). That number doesn't check out. Most people drive significantly less than a full charge in a given day. Overnight or workplace charging solves like, 95% of car needs. And remember, it's not much of a problem if 5% or less of road cars need to still be (efficient) fossil fuel cars. Battery advances should mainly be used to make cars lighter at decent range, not to give more range at same weight. Electric cars are too heavy in the current state, fixing that should come first.
- ipsi 2y ago

skellington 2y ago

Hard disagree (as a person that owns EV). While it's true that most people don't drive that far daily, it's also true that most people want their cars to be multipurpose. Most EVs can only be time-efficiently charged to 80% while DC fast charging because the charge curve drops a lot. And nobody want the pucker factor of getting much below 10% while road tripping. So, you're really only working with 70% of the max range. At 'normal' freeway speeds of 70mph+, most EV max ranges are less than 300 miles, and 70% of that is 210 usable miles. You can make it work, but it feels like you're always managing and thinking about charge level vs a car which usually has 400+ miles of range on the freeway. IMO the base range for EVs needs to be 500 miles, to get 350 miles of usable range, plus 350kW+ charging so charge stops are 10 minutes ish. And the Chinese EV companies have 400kW+ charging cars already, with announcements for 600kW charging! So battery energy density is critical to getting the range that people want without making the cars even heavier.

dzhiurgis 2y ago
Sorry but what you are after likely has less than 1% utility. Niche cars will always exist for cases like yours, but everyone will depend on charge network.

surajrmal 2y ago

There are a lot of other potential wins here : lighter cars meaning less road and tire wear, cheaper evs, lower crash fatalities, etc.

dzhiurgis 2y ago

Agree. 300km range seems to be sweet spot. Anything over 50kW charging is enough and 150kW is good. So long there are reliable stations every 50km - current EVs are sufficient.

DrScientist 2y ago

If your battery charges faster and has a higher range then you will need less charging points ( less time charging and less frequently ) - just through better batteries. Solid state battery tech looks to be game changing.... pushing EV's into the no-brainer territory for the vast majority of people.