I didn't see anything in the article about battery capacity or the density. This (with the other info in the article) would tell us if this is groundbreaking or not.
Hmm batteries don't have range, vehicles have range. Battery have energy storage capacity and I don't see it listed anywhere very annoying.
I bet a could get 470 miles out of 75kwh battery under the right conditions with the right vehicle. A Chevy Silverado EV got 1000 miles out of a 200kwh and its a brick.
Saying a battery has range is a nonsensical statement. Tell me how much energy it stores and how much it weighs thats whats important.
Gravimetric energy capacity limits range, which is why ICE cars outcompeted electric cars for a century until the batteries got Goodenough.
Basically the problem is that, once most of the vehicle's weight
is battery, adding 5× the battery capacity adds 5× the weight and thus 5× the rolling resistance, so it only increases the range slightly.
LFP has historically been inferior to other lithium-ion chemistries like NMC in gravimetric energy density, so the range of the resulting vehicle is a major consideration.
That's why vehicles like Semi trucks can get by with batteries that are only ~4x bigger than a Silverado EV, weigh 8.5x more, and still manage to also produce higher ranges.
TFA says it’s 470 miles of range under the WLTP which seems to be a fairly standardized test procedure for light vehicle fuel economy and emissions.
One could in good faith assume it means “install this in a normal light vehicle (sedan?) and you’re likely to get about 470 miles of range when driven under normal conditions”.
That said I agree that range is NOT the best way to measure a battery’s energy storage capacity - definitely not the right unit, it’s like measuring computing capacity in megahertz. Oh wait :)
This reads like a propaganda piece written by CATL. Batteries don't have range cars have range so I'm not even sure what this means sure a battery with four wheels would get great mileage otherwise it's not clear what this even means
This is useless without energy density. For example NCM batteries in most American EVs are around 170Wh/kg while the Shexing PLUS is at 205Wh/kg. Significant but not mind blowing. I doubt the new pro version has a dramatically higher density.
It's just LiFePO4 though (which laptop batteries have been using for many years now), still not solid-state. Still a liquid electrolyte susceptible to dendrite formation, thermal runaway/self-ignition, ejecting flammable gases and hot sparks, still capable of contributing to explosions.
I think you're confusing li-poly and lithium ion, with lifepo4. There's no shortage of videos on youtube of people cutting open lifepo4 with kitchen knives, band saws, and hammers without ill effect.
False equivalence IMO... cutting into an unconnected battery is not how battery fires typically start, not a typical act people perform with their batteries, nor really related to self-ignition, dendrites or thermal runaway at all.
If you want to look at it from another angle, you often can't get insurance for a boat with "regular" lithium house batteries, however most/all insurance companies have a carve-out for lifepo4 as it's recognized industry-wide as one of the safest battery technologies available under a wide variety of conditions.
Lifepo4 is much much less likely to runway self ignite than li ion batteries, at the cost of lower energy density. I'm surprised to hear of laptops with lifepo4 -- what are some examples?
You are incorrect. Laptop batteries are overwhelmingly NMC or similar chemistries. I don't know of any LiFePo4 laptops. Also LiFePo4 is extremely safe. So like another poster suggests I think you've got your chemistries mixed up.
Dear battery technology claimant, Thank you for your submission of
proposed new revolutionary battery
technology.
Your new technology
claims to be superior to existing
lithium-ion technology is is just
around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your
technology will likely fail, because:
[ ] it is impractical to manufacture at
scale.
[ ] it will be too expensive for users.
[ ] it suffers from too few recharge
cycles.
[ ] it is incapable of delivering current
at sufficient levels.
[ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or
high temperatures.
[ ] it lacks the energy density to make
it sufficiently portable.
[ ] it has too short of a lifetime.
[ ] its charge rate is too slow.
[ ] its materials are too toxic.
[ ] it is too likely to catch fire or
explode.
[ ] it is too minimal of a step forward
for anybody to care.
[ ] this was already done 20 years ago
and didn't work then.
[ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances
will match it.
More than half of vehicles sold in China currently are battery electric or plug in hybrids. Similar for 25% of global vehicle sales as of this year. Batteries have already won, it’s just how fast they scale up that’s up for discussion.
This joke was funny a decade ago. EVs have been practical for ages now. See how well early model Teslas fared. Some people doing 1-2 million miles. 300k miles is not uncommon.
You don't need revolutionary batteries (similarly you don't need next generation nuclear plants, ordinary ones create so immense amount of wealth for generations). Batteries improved like 10-15% since early Teslas. Similarly motor/aero/electronics efficiency. Overall 30% gain in range. If right charge infrastructure it's perfectly enough for 99% of passenger cars.
It was funny a decade ago, now it’s no longer funny… but it’s still completely relevant. Battery bullshit is still as prevalent as ever.
Toyota, for example, is seemingly trying to outdo Musk’s “self driving next year” claims with their own “solid state batteries next year” claims. Toyota have been making these promises for nearly a decade now, and it looks like Musk’s lies will come true before Toyota ever ships a single solid state battery to a customer.
When it comes to new battery tech, I treat “shipping tomorrow” as identical to “our engineers came up with a crazy new idea yesterday”.
They have even been some next-gen battery products that actually launched and actually got reviewed by “legitimate“ YouTubers, and later turned out to be not as advertised. As far as I’m concerned, it’s all bullshit until it’s in the hands of independent labs.
