Not once in the entire article do they measure energy in a unit suitable for measuring energy.
Measuring batteries in km is misleading and nonsensical. Batteries do not have a distance range. Cars have a distance range, based on many factors, only one of which is battery capacity.
Similarly, please stop measuring light output in watts that an imaginary incandescent bulb from 30 years ago might theoretically have used to produce that amount of light.
I remember having the light-measured-in-watts discussion years ago when LED lights were still considered a novelty. Of course, this was with a videographer who actually understood the issue. He complained that it wasn’t a good idea to limit car headlights based on their wattage, which is how all the laws at the time were written. 5 years later, suddenly there were LED headlights blinding everyone.
I actually like the compatible watts for light bulbs. They should absolutely also prominently list a correct measurement (I assume linens?), but I only know how bright it is based on the old watt comparison.
Just like crop frame cameras list lens lengths in full frame equivalent because that is what people understand. But they also need to lose the actual mm.
Stopped reading after: “increase in battery capacity and charge time was achieved through a “brand-new superconducting electrolyte formula” that results in improved conductivity.”
I guess the source, author or both don’t really care about technically accurate terminology. If it’s good enough for Star Trek, it’s good enough for us.
We're past that point. Every claim you heard in the last 10 years has been researched to its end. Some worked out, some didn't, but we didn't need all of them. Just one or two breakthroughs are enough.
These are going into production this year
They're not lab experiments anymore.
Want to join me on an online betting platform and wager against my statement that you will not be able to purchase what is described here in 2years? We've seen these kinds of promises over and over again with battery tech. Slow incremental changes yes. These types of breakthrough reports are consistently garbage regardless of how close to market they claim they are. I presume they put these out to stir up investment.
Other challenges include access to battery materials and battery degradation, though CATL claims this second pain point is not an issue with its latest battery.
However. Fast charge isn't really necessary unless you are on a long journey over 400 km and need to charge on route or you drive a lot. Eg taxi Uber etc.
Best thing ever industry can do for planet would be a 350km car that's cheap. That's really what most car users require. They drive to and from work and most drive less than 100km a day.
Just like a phone you charge over night and don't need oooodles of range.
Anyone going on long trips really should be using a train with another vehicle if required at the destination.
Truckers are a different story and should be separated from the day to days if average car users
However. Fast charge isn’t really necessary unless you are on a long journey over 400 km and need to charge on route or you drive a lot. Eg taxi Uber etc.
There is a large amount of apartment renters that don't have access to the preferable overnight slow charging. Fast charging like this article is talking about could be a game changer for that segment of buyers.
Given enough time and demand there’s no reason apartment complexes can’t outfit their parking spots with slow chargers. Slow charging a car is much less demanding (and efficient) than trying to fast charge.
Totally disagree. I think fast charging is the biggest roadblock we have in making electric cars more popular. Just think how much time filling cars with petrol takes, charging should also take similar time. 10-15 mins would be ok if you also can have breakfast in that time.
But you don't need it. You need a vehicle that gets you a to b. You can charge when you aren't driving.
Electric cars will be common once they reach price parity with ice. Why buy an ice that helps prop up the profits of oil cartels.
If price can get close to ice with good enough range. Cuts out every going to a petrol station again and solar panels will reduce your transport costs. Plus added bonus of less moving parts and no oil changes ever again.
I'd be curious just how much energy you'd get from this. I couldn't imagine it would be very much. If the solar panels are on the roof and the roof is at least translucent then the efficiency would go way down. Not that i think an opaque roof would do a whole lot better though.
This , and I think the price will comedown a lot and soon, market pressure will see to that asap. We have yet to really see the economy of scale that is coming through and r&d for batteries is at a all time high. Plenty of promising developments in the very near future including the one cited in the op
Basically once price hits parity with nice it's over. Why would you upgrade to ice when they are getting blocked for resale after 2030 in several countries.
Running cost is cut in half. No oil changes less moving parts and so hopefully less maintenance costs.
I think honestly for most people. It's cost.
If you need a reliable running vehicle and it can get you from a to b. A little of people will look at lowest price.
Once you start earning more and need certain criteria you have to shop around a bit until you find that.
Once the market gets flooded with evs the price will start to get pushed down. Second hand market will be great but battery is going to be selling point.
Anecdotal I was just on a trading site looking at evs. Very few had range listed. Yet that is the most important part of an ev. I need to know range price and to some degree mileage. Batter check ups are going to be key. No point buying a dirt cheap car if battery replacement is 30k.
The issue with this mentality is that lots of people (or even most) can't charge at home or at work. If you have fast charging cars and enough stations then you don't need to address this issue and you now have a drop in fossil fuel replacement rather than something that needs lots of new local infrastructure.
Lots of people, yes but far from most. If you live in a house you can at the very least do level 1 charging which will meet you 30-50 miles of range per day.
It's not remotely realistic to expect a sudden drastic change in infrastructure like that. While we should work toward such goals, statements like this are ignorant of the time and efforts necessary to affect such change.
I'm getting so sick of the anti-car crowd commenting this stuff on anything related to cars. Like yes, we know, public transportation is good and a great goal. But they're just so out of touch with reality most of the time.
Damn, you really incensed a whole bunch of people who seem to like living in soulless, identical car-centric hells. What normal person thinks you expect "a sudden drastic change" from a silly comment like this?