Bold claims on Density/Range
Bold claims on Density/Range
Chinese giant joins list of automakers exploring solid-state options
Bold claims, but that energy density would be amazing.
You're viewing a single thread.
What’s more, the company theorizes that it is able to eke some 1,864 miles of range from its battery technology, as well as complete the industry standard 10-80% charge in less than five minutes.
Bullshit claim. A car has a range, a battery has capacity.
It's a matter of capacity per unit of weight and level of safety that makes the range feasible within the limits of the weight of a normal car.
So it's not bullshit, and other battery manufacturers use similar standards in PR releases.
The correct number would be kWh/kg, but I think most people don't recognize the meaning of such a number as easily."This battery can go 3x as far as current ones" is perfectly understood by anyone.
solid-state battery architecture with energy densities between 400 and 500 Wh/kg, which is two or three times that of the current EV battery landscape.
So 3x is the upper limit, comparing probably to the worst of current cells, which I think is LFP. So let's be generous and use the 3x figure, and not the lower end of the spectrum.
1864 miles / 3 = 621.3 miles, which comes close to the recent figure of 607 achieved in a test for the Escalade IQ. Important to note that GM only claims 465 miles of range that, and that test only achieved that by limiting speed to 60 mph.
So, the highest range "common" car, which definitely does not use the least dense battery, can achieve reliably only 465 miles. So if that switched to this new tech, it would get some 1000 miles at best (which is great, but close to half what's promised). Which begs the question: what currently in production car were they thinking of when touting a 3000 km range?
And now comes my assertion: that car doesn't exist. They're full of it and they know, they just wanted something for headlines. And the specialized media was supposed to catch that but didn't, because journalism has been reduced to parroting press releases, devoid of any critical thinking.
Note that headline says "we have questions", but didn't ask any of that, which would be the first thing to ask: is this true? If it wasn't for the very sane point at the end that nobody wants a 1800 mile range vehicle, the whole article would be little more than a puff piece for Huawei. Bottom tier journalism.
Mercedes and a Lucid have production cars with near 1000 km range.
Are you talking about the Lucid Air? Stated EPA range is 512.
The only Mercedes I found with a 1000 figure was 1000 km or 626 miles for the Mercedes Vision EQXX concept.
But my search prowess isn't what it used to be. I'd love if you could provide the models.
I wrote near 1000 km. But above 800 km mixed, and above 950 in good conditions, on a single charge on currently available production cars, is pretty close IMO.
https://ev-database.org/car/2193/Mercedes-Benz-EQS-450plus
WLTP 825
City - Mild Weather 955 kmhttps://ev-database.org/car/1696/Lucid-Air-Dream-Edition-R
WLTP 828 km
City - Mild Weather 960 kmI did not count concept cars, because I know there has been some pretty crazy concept cars made, that will NEVER be possible to buy.
So the EQXX should do about six miles per kWh. Which isn't far off double the efficiency of your normal EV this size and performance.
That double efficiency comes at extreme cost of materials the car is built with, and probably also lacking equipment that is normally present. Also if I remember correctly, the battery is not production ready, and does not have good durability.
Thank you.
I wrote near 1000 km.
My bad, misread that as miles.
Still, I think is safe to assume those batteries are on the higher end of energy density, so the Huawei battery would be something like twice the density (which, again, amazing). So those would be upgraded to 2000 km with the new tech.
I agree 3000 km sounds pretty crazy, even if possible, almost nobody needs that.
So instead it will be a cheaper smaller lighter battery, with probably around 600 km range in average cars.
The real issue here is not 3000 km because that's irrelevant, the issue is whether they can make better prices, security and fast charging.
The 3000 km is just a number to sound impressive.
Yeah, I'm sure it'll all drop in practical use. But if the energy density is anywhere near that, the making smaller batteries would be great.
What I mean is that a battery doesn't have wheels. It can't go anywhere, so you can't give it a range rating unless you put it in a vehicle. Any battery range rating is bullshit.
If you take an ebike with a range of 200 km and take it's battery out and put it on a Nissan Leaf, it won't go 20 km. If you take a Cadillac Escalade battery and put in a Leaf somehow, it will definitely achieve a lot more than the 600 miles it did on the SUV.
Yeah, we get that. An electric generator (battery backup) gets 0km/h... Hopefully
At that density it better comes hugely fire resistant. Otherwise we'll have China syndromes.
It's solid State, so it should be safer than traditional batteries.
I can assure you solid matter can burn well. The problem with battery fires is that they're made of pyrophoric metals such as lithium and sodium, which makes extinguishing the fires extremely difficult. It looks like it is still lithium based.
Yep, but we don't know yet for sure, fingers crossed that they won't be causing massive fires.
It's a PR number targeting average people.
A PR number would be "300% the capacity of current batteries with the same weight". A mile range is just bullshit, and the "journalist" just parroted it out without second thought.
have you met muricans? you mention "capacity" and half would assume you are talking trunk space
Change to range. Still no reason to blatantly lie.
Sorry bud but I think you are being pedantic here. It is basically industry standard (again, Murica driven) to advertise specs in whatever freedom units rubes would most easily swallow
You are not wrong but you act like this is your first day finding out about marketing
I assure you I am not being pedantic. This isn't a PR. It's supposed to be a critical article about a PR. And it does a terrible job at it. And that's what I'm complaining about.