-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
500 kWh Battery
- Thread starter ssiegler
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Future Tesla
habanero69
I Dont Need Cialis. I Drive an EV.
Or maybe the ride height of the S or X will increase by a foot or more to accommodate the enormous battery.
Gonna need that ride hight auto-adjust thingy option for sure...
JOEV1
*****joe
Lithium-air (aka lithium-oxygen) batteries are the promising tech of tomorrow. In concept there are claims they could increase densities as much at 10X and some scholarly articles predict the possibility of rivaling gasoline energy density (33X). That tech is still in the lab and there are significant engineering challenges before it's ready for even experimental production. It's estimated that new battery tech takes about 10 years from release from the lab environment to quantity production. Li-O batteries aren't even to the point of release from the lab with no idea that's ever going to happen.
It could end up like sustained fusion reactions, theoretically possible, but so far impossible to achieve for more than a very brief time.
I do believe aircraft will be the last area to quit using petroleum. It is such a dense energy source and weight is so critical to anything with aircraft. We will need something that performs as well as petroleum first.
Ships will likely keep using petroleum for some time, but I expect we'll see hybrid ships come along in the next few years. There have been proposals to bring back sail propulsion for merchant ships since the 70s. With computerized sail deployment, the size of the crew could be kept down. The maximum speeds possible with sails isn't great compared to petroleum fueled ships. Another thing that could be done with ships is plaster solar panels across the top of them and run a hybrid fuel/electric propulsion system. Ships could start out with a full charge and run on batteries until they went flat, then get a little extra propulsion from what they could pull from the sun on the voyage.
The two kickers there would be the space lost to batteries, that's space that wouldn't be carrying cargo. And it would be a large solar panel farm for only a small boost to the overall propulsion of the ship. Ships use a lot of energy.
At least on some routes we could see electric trains. Diesel locomotives now have electric motors and the diesel is used to run a generator. Today they run regenerative brakes, but they just run that energy through resistors and vent the heat out the top. If they had batteries, they could put that energy back into the batteries. On mountain runs and such they would probably still run diesels, but on flat stretches electric locomotives are possible. If there were stretches with overhead wires, the locomotives could connect and recharge on the fly.
They would probably still need the diesel as a backup at least on the initial versions.
I think the current large packs can put out around 500 KW now. With a full charge, the voltage is around 400V, which would mean about 1250A. I think they said the ludicrous upgrade enabled something like 1500 A output from the battery. With the nominal voltage (less than full charge), the pack voltage is around 350V. At 1500A, that's 525KW.
I may be misremembering the current output of the 90 pack with ludicrous.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
This is the most likely explanation. People confuse kW and kWh all of the time, even some who should know better.
It also fits with the recent update to the P90DL battery to produce over 500 kW, which was released to production shortly before the new 100 kWh battery.
GSP
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
As I understand it, the diesel electric trains do have batteries. The diesel generator charges those batteries. The electric motors are driven from the batteries. I would hope that if they added regenerative brakes, those would also put energy in the batteries.
david_42
Member
No, the engine drives a generator, which supplies electricity directly to the traction motors. The only battery is for starting the engine.
TFgalactus
Member
Wow fast forward to Nov, 2017 and look...the Roadster 2.0 is here!!!!! It is all coming true!
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
That's usually quite easy actually, you can see it, but also hear it when they both speak English
@ssiegler
The worst thing about this story of a 500kWh battery is this: even if one assumes that the battery technology in question has good enough numbers of power and energy and weight and cost to fit in a car, it still makes more sense from mathematical optimisation to have less:
And don't get me started on charging tech and how long it would take a household to charge.
I don't care how much of a optimist or fanboy or expert these people say they are. It is genuinely too much capacity in terms of relative physical fact, alone, that is, regardless of hypothetically having no trade-offs, and possibly resulting from any lack of tradeoffs. Batteries are an all in one source: energy and power per weight. It is so much, it is actually turned into a disadvantage.
To be particularly damning, there is already a type of vehicle that could utilise this same shitty to an even greater extent: internal combustion.
Yes, your average Audi or BMW sedan could well have no transmission to the back and a 400-500 litre tank stuffed in the equivalent area to a Tesla (Yes, the back seats and boot remain free. Don't think I'm falling for that fob-off comparison.) which would give 5,000 miles of range.
And last time I checked, the ability to traverse the Sahara Desert is not exactly an extensive market.
This story is nonsense.
Therefore, the story is ended.
It is a dead story.
The story has been.
It is an ex-story.
End of story.
The worst thing about this story of a 500kWh battery is this: even if one assumes that the battery technology in question has good enough numbers of power and energy and weight and cost to fit in a car, it still makes more sense from mathematical optimisation to have less:
- If the battery has 500kWh and can charge in 20 minutes: Why not nerf it to 200kWh and have it fill up in seven to eight for 600-800 miles range, like a petrol/diesel car, and have less degradation to boot?
- If the battery is cheap enough at 500kWh: Why not reduce to 200-250 kWh to increase production efficiency, over what is really going to be a very small, relatively speaking, marketing advantage of the increased range from 600 to 1500 miles?
- If the battery can only provide the power at 500kWh: Then why not increase contact area and cooling at expense of energy density? This is a fact common to the majority of battery chemistries: energy is a result of optimum chemistry, but power transmission is due to mechanical facts such as surface area, conductance preventative heat transmission and cooling requirements. Hence discoveries of Lithium-ion leading on to higher power, lower energy, longer lasting variants: LTO, A123's iron-nanophosphate types etc.
And don't get me started on charging tech and how long it would take a household to charge.
I don't care how much of a optimist or fanboy or expert these people say they are. It is genuinely too much capacity in terms of relative physical fact, alone, that is, regardless of hypothetically having no trade-offs, and possibly resulting from any lack of tradeoffs. Batteries are an all in one source: energy and power per weight. It is so much, it is actually turned into a disadvantage.
To be particularly damning, there is already a type of vehicle that could utilise this same shitty to an even greater extent: internal combustion.
Yes, your average Audi or BMW sedan could well have no transmission to the back and a 400-500 litre tank stuffed in the equivalent area to a Tesla (Yes, the back seats and boot remain free. Don't think I'm falling for that fob-off comparison.) which would give 5,000 miles of range.
And last time I checked, the ability to traverse the Sahara Desert is not exactly an extensive market.
This story is nonsense.
Therefore, the story is ended.
It is a dead story.
The story has been.
It is an ex-story.
End of story.
I believe it was about something else - the Model X.
Even that would only be 250 kWh max. At 2.5 miles per kWh pessimistically, that's still 620+ miles.
I read nothing in the post about the X getting the 500kWh pack, just that the OP had an X and an excited engineer told him that there would be a 500kWh pack and that there would be a new roadster with a new pack. Everything there is now at least announced, so nothing was nonsense.
Similar threads
