This would help to store energy to recharge our Tesla at home as well to charge quick charging stations at night while the energy demand is low and to quick charge the cars with high power (>100kW) through the day without putting stress on the grid.
This would help to store energy to recharge our Tesla at home as well to charge quick charging stations at night while the energy demand is low and to quick charge the cars with high power (>100kW) through the day without putting stress on the grid.
I certainly hope Moore's Law applies to both lightweight high-density batteries for autos and low-cost hi-cycling batteries for on-site storage. This is the key to driving an electric car infrastructure forward in an accelerated manner.
rabar10
Model 3 >> Focus Electric
Of course, the key to driving the electric car ITSELF forward, in an accelerated manner, is the go pedal :biggrin:
Sorry, couldn't resist... :wink:
roblab
Active Member
What's needed at a home is plain old storage batteries. They don't have to be lightweight. I have power stored for three days of house, well and car, in Sealed Glass Mat lead acid batteries. They do not need maintenance, and they are suspected to last 18 years. And they are cheaper than newer chemistries, which we surely do need in transport. I am not transporting my lead acids, and I don't mess with them at all. That's all we need for now.
smorgasbord
Active Member
Yes! We need less than 2 cycles of Moore's Law equivalent for battery technology to make electric cars a slam-dunk no-brainer.
Today we can easily drive our Roadsters 200 miles on a full charge - real miles, not ideal miles. 1.5 cycles of Moore's Law and we'll be driving 600 miles on a charge. With a 600 mile range, you're able to drive from SF to San Diego, from Boston to Washington DC, etc. without a recharge.
Most importantly, even in a very comfortable vehicle, 600 miles is more than most can physically drive without a good long sleep break. That means we won't have to worry about "fast charging" on the road. As long as you can do a full charge in, say, 10 hours, you're good to go - and that kind of charging is just about where we are with the 70 amp HPCs (3.5 hours today times 3). And that's not even including possible "top-ups" during meals.
Now, I don't really think battery technology will double every 2 years, but even so we're now only one double and a half away from turning Range Anxiety on its head, and without the necessity of building a big infrastructure for fast charging nor battery swapping.
I think Elon said that it's increasing at about 8% per year. Eight percent works out to doubling about every 9 years. So in 2008 it was 200 "real miles". Maybe in 2017 it'll be 400 "real miles". And in 2026 it'll be 800 "real miles".
AC Propulsion hat the T-zero with the same battery like the Roadster today. No change in capacity since then. Model S bring the first improvement in energy density. But i have the feeling, the current panasonic-cell are a better then to OEM-18650 cells
I was hoping to start at 2006 not 2008 (9 years =2015)
And for slimey marketeering types that's an advertisable 500 mile range and 1000 mile range. As Martin pointed out, once cars reach 500 miles, the limit anyone can drive in a day (unless young and stupid) that will be the end of range anxiety complaints and the floodgates will open on EV sales.
Today's batteries will take a Roadster 314 miles so we are on track.
I think we have to stay realistic about that. The normal consumption I'm seeing with a Roadster in NL is about 180Wh/KM, that is with radio on, the blower on 1 (AC off) and driving on the highway with about 110km/h (10km below the speedlimit).
If we say to the public: A Roadster can do 314 miles on a charge! They expect it to do so.
To be honest, with driving in regular traffic (without sticking to trucks), the range of the Roadster is about ~ 350km (+/- 200 miles).
Tesla says the same on their website:
I guess we'll see real 400 miles somewhere in 2018 ~ 2020.
But not to go offtopic, these kind of long lasting storage would be great!
In NL you get charged for your maximum A's you draw. I have 3x40A at home, that's triple!! the price of 1x25A and double the price of 3x25A. With these kind of batteries I'd be able to charge them with 3x20A and keep a 3x25A connection which would lower my monthly costs.
Ofcourse, these batteries won't be free, but I would get a big emergency power-supply for my home, pretty cool!
Last edited:
I meant today's batteries as in the ones that are going in the Model S, not the ones in the Roadster now. Sorry if I was not clear.
And as long as you bring it up, the 314 number is math like 244 is EPA math.
dhrivnak
Active Member
Agree 200 miles is the realistic range
I have to agree for most people in normal driving 200 miles is what one would expect in a Roadster and that is with planning ahead to charge in range mode and driving in range mose where power is limited to 50%. Sure one can go farther, and I have, but one may need to run the A/C, heat or want to drive with the top down all of which subtract from the ideal range. And keeping a car like the Roadster below 50mph does take considerable restraint.
I really look forward to a new battery pack where one could expect a 300 mile range. I think that is very possible with batteries available in the near term.
I have to agree for most people in normal driving 200 miles is what one would expect in a Roadster and that is with planning ahead to charge in range mode and driving in range mose where power is limited to 50%. Sure one can go farther, and I have, but one may need to run the A/C, heat or want to drive with the top down all of which subtract from the ideal range. And keeping a car like the Roadster below 50mph does take considerable restraint.
I really look forward to a new battery pack where one could expect a 300 mile range. I think that is very possible with batteries available in the near term.
S-2000 Roadster
#1244
- Apr 10, 2009
- 702
- 41
I agree. It's very doubtful that Moore's Law can be achieved with battery technology because the primary goal is actual power. The laws of physics make very real barriers to swift increases there. Moore's Law is generally applied to processor computation speeds and memory capacity, which are each independent of power. By making transistors smaller, processors can be made faster by reducing their power consumption and memory chips can hold more data by packing it in more tightly. In each case, the power consumption goes down as the size goes down. Getting back to batteries, we cannot afford to reduce the power in order to make gains elsewhere in the battery, because power output is the primary goal. Other than size and weight, there really is no other parameter to maximize besides power storage, and that's the tough one. Doubling real power every 2 years is not possible just because doubling speed or data capacity is possible every 2 years - they're different problems.
On one level, making batteries smaller is what's happening. One word. "nano".
Norbert
TSLA will win
Also, we will want to reduce battery size for mainly cost and also for weight reasons. So it will take a bit more until we are where we want to be, especially for mainstream cars.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
There is no Moore's law for batteries, nor should we expect one. 8% energy density improvement per year with an occasional bump from something new will more than double specific energy density in less than 9 years. Doubling density isn't all that necessary for range, around 300 real world miles is plenty with a reasonable fast charge network, but it is necessary for dropping cell costs. More energy per kg means less material per kwh, and as long as those materials aren't significantly more expensive than existing ones. Along with density, higher cycle life and cells that need less thermal management will also lower costs.
Similar threads
