"We supplied samples to customers from the end of last year to the beginning of this year and are receiving positive feedback," Samsung SDI VP Koh Joo-young said at SNE Battery Day 2024 in Seoul, according to Korean outlet The Elec and translated by Google."
This would be more convincing if reviewers could order samples.
Yoshino seemed to be shipping a solid state battery, but several people have bought and disassembled the thing, and it has liquid/gel components. That was disappointing.
CATL has some good comments.[1] Wu Kai of CATL was quoted as saying that the maturity level of the technology and the manufacturing process can currently be categorised at 4 on a scale of 1 to 9. CATL wants to be at 7 to 8 by 2027, which is equivalent to the production of solid-state batteries in small quantities. CATL also mentions that they have 1,000 people in R&D working on this. This is a big project in China. The China All-Solid-State Battery Collaborative Innovation Platform is getting government funding and has all the big battery makers in China on board.[2]
Toyota's roadmap shows solid state batteries around 2028.[3]
There are solid state battery announcements all over, but the big players all admit that the manufacturing is really tough.
A US startup exists.[4] They mostly make press releases, not products.
I just don't get why don't they put it in consumer electronics first. You need big volume for supplying EVs, and having a $1000/kWh pricetag would be prohibitive for even premium EVs as it would cost $100k for a 100kWh battery alone, but would be totally OK for an $1000 laptop, as it would cost $100 for a 100Wh battery.
Batteries don't have bigger capacities because people want to carry them inside of planes, which have a limit of 100Wh, the MacBook Pro has a 99.6Wh battery.
This regulation is only because specific lithium battery chemistries like NMC or Li-Polymer.
Once proven safer chemistries like LFP or sodium-ion are used more commonly in laptops (including SSBs like this Samsung one) then regulation should shift to accommodate.
That said, who really needs over 100Wh of battery when most long haul flights have plugs available?
Since they care more about reducing laptop thickness by 1mm that adding battery, I just don't see laptop manufacturers be interested in this. Even if they did, they would just make the laptops even thinner instead of increasing capacity. Apple just won't be satisfied until you can use your ipad as a kitchen knife.
Precisely because they want to reduce thickness they will need higher battery density and use a thinner battery with the same battery life. Not to mention the battery will last much longer than current battery.
In the case of the iPad, the thinness (and corresponding weight reduction) makes it more usable as a tablet, especially with the 13" model. It also fixed - or at least, mitigated - a few problems with the keyboard attachment.
Granted, that attachment shouldn't exist, but that's a different problem whose root cause is "Apple expected the iPad to replace the Mac like the Mac replaced the Apple ][".
I dont understand it either and wish if those how knew, while may not have the time to explain it but just give me some pointers or direction.
I would have thought, as shown by Chinese EV maker it may be better to have bulky larger cheap battery in an EV intended for long range driving, than an expensive long range EV because of solid sate.
On the other hand Solid State Battery on Smartphone could have been a major marketing point for many consumer.
Because the cost is probably closer to $10,000/kWh. Makes sense for a $1,000,000 supercar. Fundamentally all the new battery chemistries have serious underreported problems that make them dead-on-arrival. Either short cycle life (nanowire) or impractical manufacturing (solid state) or middling performance versus LiPo (sodium). Hopefully some of these may find niche applications where their advantages outweigh their problems but don’t expect more than a 50% improvement in density over the next 20 years.
I guess they will... once they actually have them. The batteries probably only exist in the lab at this point, but what do execs get paid for if not pretty roadmaps?
You can cleanly divide by 1000 and you get exactly the capacity of a 16“ MacBook Pro. So you‘d need a 350 Watt charger (ca like a vacuum cleaner) to charge that MBPro in 9 minutes, if it supported that kind of throughput.
Such a charger might need air cooling, and would probably not be as portable. But certainly doable.
I can’t ever seem to find it, but does someone have that checklist of the “oh you’ve invented a great new battery, here are the issues?” This one will probably either be toxic, explosive, expensive, fragile…
- can be scaled up to a large battery (so many solid state batteries are these small demo cells, and an action car-worthy one that is 100x bigger never materializes
- cooling requirements/support equipment reduce overall pack density (LFP and I think sodium ion do not require cooling systems, which substantially closes the battery density at pack level with nickel/cobalt chemistries
This information is worthless for electric vehicle owners who charge mostly or exclusively at home.
A Tesla Model Y battery pack is 75 kWh and the highest rated connection within the typical American home with 200 amp 120/240 volt split-phase service is 50 amps over both phases: 12,000 watts.
75 kWh / 12 kW = 6.25 hours assuming the battery can be hit with maximum wattage continuously throughout its charge cycle (this is unhealthy).
To charge the Tesla Model Y 75 kWh battery pack in nine minutes the 240 volt cable would need to carry 2083 amps. This is hilariously far beyond the capacity of a 50-amp rated wire.
6 AWG copper wire which is rated for 50 amps has an 0.000395 ohms per meter (at 20°C). Assuming a ten meter length of wire, the resistance is 0.00395 ohms. Power dissipation in the wire P = I^2 * R. 2083^2 * 0.00395 ohms = 17,166 watts.
Temperature rise in the wire delta T = P / (A * k) where P = 17,666 watts, A = pi * 0.00411m * 10m. Assuming PVC insulation whose thermal conductivity is k = 0.19 W/m·K. Delta T is approx 700,615 degrees K. The surface temperature of the Sun is approximately 5773 K, so our wire would get about 121 times hotter than the surface of the sun if it did not instantly explode.
It’s for fast DC charging at 350kw+. Home charging is solved, but there is still travel range anxiety to squeeze out of the human, as well as use cases with high utilization and turnaround need (taxi, livery, law enforcement). 9 minutes to charge and a 20 year service life is awfully close to “you have no excuse this is suboptimal compared to liquid fuel refueling.”
High level, EVs have almost killed combustion vehicles, we’re almost there [1] [2]. Batteries will only improve over time as EV production scales up.
Home charging is "solved" as in my car will always need to be charged all day or all night at best and if you want a truck that tows anything - such as for landscaping - forget it.
Home charging will not be that fast in the conceivable future. Just too much power for homes. Just thinking about it, my ford lightning with the extended battery has enough capacity to power the average house for something like 8 days. That'd be crazy be be about to demand that much power at home to charge it in nine minutes.
But, it doesn't mean it's worthless to those that charge at home. I only own EVs. Even if I do 99.99999% of my charging at home, I still need to be able to charge during road trips. The faster the better. My partner and I have been eyeing the ev6 with it's 18 minute charge time. That's way easier to swallow than the 48 minutes the truck takes.
9 minutes and every seven hours of driving would be a god send, instead of our current 48 minutes every 4 hours
I'm sorry, you're right about 12kW charging. The battery pack is made up of 4,416 individual cells. The cells are arranged in series to achieve the required voltage. If there are 96 cells in series, the pack would have a nominal voltage of around 400 volts (since each cell has a nominal voltage of about 4.2V when fully charged). The pack has multiple strings of these 96-series cells connected in parallel to increase capacity. 12kW/400V = 30A. 30A/(46 parallel strings) = 0.652A per cell or 652 milliamps. This is quite a slow and healthy charging speed.
I just did a 1400mile round trip in our 9yo Model S. 80→20kW just doing my nut in. At least it was free.
This sort of battery makes that sort of trip easy.
There are already 3m liquid-cooled charging cables that allow 600kW+ DC charging. Many use more than one conductor per polarity to increase the capacity.
To achieve 250 kW of power, the Supercharger must supply much higher voltage and current than what is available from standard 120/240V circuits. For instance, Tesla Superchargers typically operate at voltages around 400-500V DC and deliver currents of up to 500 amps or more.
Unlike residential power, which typically uses single-phase electricity, Superchargers often use three-phase power. Three-phase power allows for more efficient transmission of large amounts of electricity and is commonly used in industrial settings.
The voltage supplied to a Tesla Supercharger is typically in the range of 480 volts AC (alternating current) for three-phase power. Inside the Supercharger, this 480V AC is converted to a higher DC (direct current) voltage, typically in the range of 400-500 volts DC, which is suitable for charging the vehicle's battery.
The cables used in Tesla Superchargers are specially designed to handle very high currents. For instance, to deliver 250 kW at a voltage of around 400V DC, the current would need to be around 625 amps. To manage the heat generated by such high currents, Tesla employs liquid-cooled charging cables. These cables have an internal liquid coolant system that actively removes heat from the cable as electricity flows through it.
A 400 V DC setup is common for this sort of application, so:
667 kW / 400 V = 1667 A
How physically large do the cables and related apparatus need to be in order to deliver this sort of current? What sort of training and personal protective equipment will people need in order to plug and unplug these cables? (Hint: Arc flashes are no joke!) What sort of service would you need to order from the electric company to be able to power just one of these installations?
Furthermore charging cables are locked while charging. (The latch is on the cable for CCS, and the latch is inside the car for NACS.) Unless the lock mechanism is mechanically broken, it's impossible to unplug a cable that's charging.
The latch is on the car for CCS. It is only on the cable for chademo. Regardless, the main issue with high current is the cable resistance. You need very thick cables or they will melt. Higher voltage helps, but cable weight is a real issue at higher power.
Even if the lock is broken, the pilot connector of the CCS connector is longer, so it would disconnect before the DC connectors would disconnect. Similar to how the D+ and D- lines of USB-A are shorter than the VCC/GND lines.
Arc flashed are no problem I think, because these cables don't unleash the whole power before everything is connected and protocol negotiation finished.
But agree with the rest. Regardless of voltage and current, you still need half-megawatt delivery somehow.
I think the Hyundai Ioniq 5 uses an 800 volt battery. So you can get half a megawatt at 625 amps. Although most new fast chargers are about 350kw (Usually charging around 230kw on average) right now so you are only pulling about 435 amps.
> The voltage range was increased to 1000 V and it supports up to 615 A (charging cable) / 1000 A (charging pole) for power delivery.[14][15] However, they are currently software limited to 250 kW.[12][16]
v4 charger already features thermally conductive liquid to dissipate heat. Maybe one could get rid of cables and car could park near charger and some serious metal rods could automatically connect somewhere under the car.
Anyways, that 1000Vx615A already supports 615kW so very close as far as we consider cables/connectors.
Though 3.7MW is mostly theoretical there’s already 700kw chargers in the wild. The cables end up thick, but they can be supported by an overhead gantry which helps.
Note that charging curves usually have a drop in charge rate as the battery gets closer to 100%, so it’s probably an even higher peak than this for this to be the average.
> Samsung's latest solid-state battery technology will power up premium EVs first, giving them up to 621 miles of range.
Whenever I see text like this, my opinion of the editors, and thus the entire publication, immediately plummets. Did they think that 1000 KM was an accurate figure to be converted literally to three significant digits? Do they even understand the field that they are covering? Was it a machine conversion? What else should I not trust in their publication?
What's the alternative? Taking the liberty to round it up or down? Both could lead them to trouble. The best would be to mention the stated number with conversion in parenthesis.
Standard procedure in physics is to round to the closest number with the same number of significant digits. In this case, rounding down to 600, so people have a sense of how approximate the number is.
I'd be less concerned about sig figs and more about real-world battery chemistry, load limits, charging times, risk of fire, etc.
Even if they rounded it to 600 mi, that's still huge. It's less about the precision, since batteries are inherently imprecise, and more about whether this can live up to the marketing...
I would rather have a battery pack that's half the size and half the price because 300 miles is enough for most of my work. Really I would be fine with 100 miles in about 45-50 weeks/year.
Do EV range estimates ever have three significant figures? My understanding is that true range depends heavily on things like external temperature, what speed one is driving, whether it’s stop-and-go, the ground one is driving on, …
I think it was the other way around. Officials at the CDC determined that 6ft would be a good guideline for social distancing and it translated to 2m for countries that more widely used the metric system.
>Do they even understand the field that they are covering?
They are doing a programmatic conversion of 1000km to miles, because most Americans don't have a clue about the metric system. What's the problem?
>What else should I not trust in their publication?
I'd love to hear about what you think is "untrustworthy" about converting from kilometres to miles so the audience can visualize the distance. 1000 km = 621 miles, this is a fact.
> I'd love to hear about what you think is "untrustworthy" about converting from kilometres to miles so the audience can visualize the distance. 1000 km = 621 miles, this is a fact.
1000km is not an exact figure. It’s rounded, probably up. Somewhere between 900km and 1100km. Likely closer to 999km than 1099 because they’d want to publish the biggest number they can reasonably claim. So you can assume the real range is between 900km and 999km.
The correct translation to miles would be “600mi”. Because 621 invents precision that wasn’t there in the original figure.
Charging speed is too overrated as a metric, in my opinion. For the overwhelming majority of people, you're almost never driving more per day than the capacity of your battery. And even on an 11 kW home charger, you're easily back up to 100% during the night, especially since you're never starting from 0% or even close to it.
Even my Nissan Leaf which has notoriously slow AC charging (being single phase), the max 6,7 kW charging is very rarely a concern for me.
Charging speed is a big issue when you’re renting or road tripping. When people use shared infrastructure, charging time corresponds to how many customers you can serve per parking spot/charging station. With gas, hoards of cars can be serviced quickly. Thus it’s really important that the car can be meaningfully charged during an extended rest stop or lunch break. Consumers disproportionately buy for these “happy” occasions, even if it would make much more economical sense to just rent once or twice a year.
Me + partner rented a small e-fiat in Mallorca and it was really fun to drive, but there was a lot of anxiety around finding charging stations and wandering around for hours while charging. Note we didn’t have overnight charging at the hotel though.
> how many customers you can serve per parking spot/charging station. With gas, hoards of cars can be serviced quickly
For gas stations the throughput matters, because cars are blocking the queue. BEV charging is more comparable to parking. This is simply solved by having more charging stations (dispensers) at parking spots.
BTW: even in shittiest EVs, DC charging doesn't take hours. You probably have been misdirected to an AC charger designed to be used overnight. Unfortunately, many satnavs still treat charging stations as all equal like gas stations, and send you to the nearest one, instead of the fastest one.
A ton of people live in flats, apartments, condos and other shared housing that do not provide home charging capabilities. Just because it’s not a big deal for you and your situation doesn’t mean it’s the same for everyone else.
But a LOT of US apartments have mass parking or even a parking garage. These should be PERFECT for cheap efficient rollout of a charging infrastructure.
I've been pretty disappointed that cities or the federal government have not been proactive in providing incentives to apartment buildings to put in charging, even just normal 110v or 220v plugs.
Urban centers have not completely won the car pollution war, incentivising EV ownership in cities should be a paramount concern in infrastructure planning.
Street parking should be able to provide 110v charging as well. I mean, there are street lamps, right?
> Charging speed is too overrated as a metric, in my opinion
Then you will _never_ electrify the entire fleet of vehicles and you will always have ICE vehicles to fill the space that you feel is "overrated."
> charging is very rarely a concern for me.
Ostensibly because you live somewhere where large ICE vehicles bring the goods within range of your EV for you. This is great it's adequate for you. This is not sustainable.
I always get mistaken on these issues, as I think EVs are important, but the way we've deployed and built them is precisely backwards. We hoisted EVs on you because you would pay for them but it's made a complete mess of the transition.
1000km in the slow-charging Leaf takes 14 hours. 1000km in quick-charging cars takes 9h-9.5h, compared to 8.5h in a gas car[1].
For the trivial case of a city-only car with a home charger all battery metrics are irrelevant, so even the terribly outdated Leaf is adequate.
But when leaving the perimeter of the home charger, the car will need to be recharged. Charging speed is primary factor that makes long road trips in BEVs take longer than in gas cars.
Battery sized large enough for a longest road trip adds a lot of weight and cost, which is a waste in daily city driving. Quick to recharging makes long trips possible, without need for a huge battery.
> 1000km in the slow-charging Leaf takes 14 hours.
> 1000km in quick-charging cars takes 9h-9.5h, compared to 8.5h in a gas car[1].
There are so many variables here. 1,000 cumulative km for my normal usage requires no waiting since I charge at home, so the it’s the ICE car that eats up time since I have to visit a fuel station.
On a 1,000km road trip I would be stopping anyway, so as long as it charges within the 30 min window it would not be additional time here either.
While that's true in the ideal case, there are still many areas in America where you need significant range to make it from one charger to the next. I have a Leaf which can fast-charge via Chademo, but the low range means that if I go anywhere rural I often have to spend several hours at a level 2 charger because it doesn't have the range to drive directly to the next fast charger.
People are OK with added weight and cost. You can't sell a truck without the added 500lbs and $12k of 4x4 shit under the front end. It lives there dragging down tow capacity, fuel, and driveability the entire life of the the vehicle, rarely used if ever.
It is a big deal in the US considering that almost 20% of Americans say they’ll plan to make a road trip of between 250 and 500 miles, and almost 10% of Americans plan to take a trip between 500 and 1000 miles by car.
Overall, 75% of Americans surveyed said they intend to take some kind of road trip.
Everyone replying to me as if I said charging speed is totally irrelevant and are bringing up contrived edge cases. If all you're doing is commuting to work, which is what most of us are doing, unless you have an absurdly long commute you will never need fast charging. Can I do a trans-european road trip in my Leaf. No. But I'm not buying a car for what I might do some day, and neither should you unless you like wasting money. If I was going on a trip like that I'd rent a car or swap cars with a friend. My point is, people place far too much importance on it, when it for most people, most of the time is not that big of a deal.
In Norway in mountains charging stations are often literally in the middle of nowhere with their placement dictated by availability of high-voltage power lines. They are fully automated with just few charging boxes and nothing else. Although the view is often nice with mountains and valleys, when it is snowing or raining spending an extra hour on top of 7 hours of driving is not nice especially as for toilet and food one needs to stop at other places. So I would appreciate if I do not need to spend that extra hour sitting in a car and watching rain.
Now, Norway may be an extreme case, but driving for 1000 km daily in Europe while rare is still a normal event. For example, from Paris to Mediterranean coast it is like 800 km. And if one drives 130km/h that 1000 km of battery will be reduced to 500km so one will need to charge once and it will be nice if that can be done within 15 minutes not to add too much time to the trip.
This is a nonproblem inflated by petrolheads routinely doing 1000 kilometers in one go, which are overrepresented among journalists. Most people don't do that and are doing longer stops at least twice, vacations make that even more likely.
And cherry picking distinct worst aspect of long distance driving in Norway and France and mashing them together them as one argument is disingenuous. There's plenty of stuff to stop and enjoy between Paris and Med.
My “expensive” electric (battery) mower works for three mowings on my lawn and cost less than 6 months paying a lawn service. Perhaps someone with an acre needs a gas riding mower but anyone with the average sized yard probably can do electric today easily.
I bought an electric one because it was still quick ROI vs paying for lawn service, and also noise dB and avoiding breathing the gas exhaust.
But here in KY the other week it rained for a whole week, the grass was really tall and thick, and the mower couldn't handle it at all. My neighbor's old, cheap gas mower worked just fine.
Readit News
This would be more convincing if reviewers could order samples.
Yoshino seemed to be shipping a solid state battery, but several people have bought and disassembled the thing, and it has liquid/gel components. That was disappointing.
CATL has some good comments.[1] Wu Kai of CATL was quoted as saying that the maturity level of the technology and the manufacturing process can currently be categorised at 4 on a scale of 1 to 9. CATL wants to be at 7 to 8 by 2027, which is equivalent to the production of solid-state batteries in small quantities. CATL also mentions that they have 1,000 people in R&D working on this. This is a big project in China. The China All-Solid-State Battery Collaborative Innovation Platform is getting government funding and has all the big battery makers in China on board.[2]
Toyota's roadmap shows solid state batteries around 2028.[3]
There are solid state battery announcements all over, but the big players all admit that the manufacturing is really tough.
A US startup exists.[4] They mostly make press releases, not products.
[1] https://www.electrive.com/2024/04/29/catl-expects-to-produce...
[2] https://www.electrive.com/2024/05/30/china-solid-state-batte...
[3] https://electrek.co/2024/01/11/toyota-solid-state-ev-battery...
[4] https://www.electrive.com/2024/08/06/ion-storage-systems-ann...
Once proven safer chemistries like LFP or sodium-ion are used more commonly in laptops (including SSBs like this Samsung one) then regulation should shift to accommodate.
That said, who really needs over 100Wh of battery when most long haul flights have plugs available?
Granted, that attachment shouldn't exist, but that's a different problem whose root cause is "Apple expected the iPad to replace the Mac like the Mac replaced the Apple ][".
I would have thought, as shown by Chinese EV maker it may be better to have bulky larger cheap battery in an EV intended for long range driving, than an expensive long range EV because of solid sate.
On the other hand Solid State Battery on Smartphone could have been a major marketing point for many consumer.
which one of 'Hyundai, Stellantis, and General Motors' makes any supercars?
Do people have the equivalent to charge laptops with the respective speed of what they’ll need to match the 350?
100 kWh / 9 minutes = 667 kW
It could also be a planned obsolescence thing.
- time to recharge
- materials industrial scaling (eliminates/reduces nickel and/or cobalt and/or lithium)
- can be scaled up to a large battery (so many solid state batteries are these small demo cells, and an action car-worthy one that is 100x bigger never materializes
- cooling requirements/support equipment reduce overall pack density (LFP and I think sodium ion do not require cooling systems, which substantially closes the battery density at pack level with nickel/cobalt chemistries
Otherwise, these things are pretty near ideal. Higher cycle life and power density with pretty much the same materials as standard lipo cells.
A Tesla Model Y battery pack is 75 kWh and the highest rated connection within the typical American home with 200 amp 120/240 volt split-phase service is 50 amps over both phases: 12,000 watts.
75 kWh / 12 kW = 6.25 hours assuming the battery can be hit with maximum wattage continuously throughout its charge cycle (this is unhealthy).
To charge the Tesla Model Y 75 kWh battery pack in nine minutes the 240 volt cable would need to carry 2083 amps. This is hilariously far beyond the capacity of a 50-amp rated wire.
6 AWG copper wire which is rated for 50 amps has an 0.000395 ohms per meter (at 20°C). Assuming a ten meter length of wire, the resistance is 0.00395 ohms. Power dissipation in the wire P = I^2 * R. 2083^2 * 0.00395 ohms = 17,166 watts.
Temperature rise in the wire delta T = P / (A * k) where P = 17,666 watts, A = pi * 0.00411m * 10m. Assuming PVC insulation whose thermal conductivity is k = 0.19 W/m·K. Delta T is approx 700,615 degrees K. The surface temperature of the Sun is approximately 5773 K, so our wire would get about 121 times hotter than the surface of the sun if it did not instantly explode.
High level, EVs have almost killed combustion vehicles, we’re almost there [1] [2]. Batteries will only improve over time as EV production scales up.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41191790
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41207048
But, it doesn't mean it's worthless to those that charge at home. I only own EVs. Even if I do 99.99999% of my charging at home, I still need to be able to charge during road trips. The faster the better. My partner and I have been eyeing the ev6 with it's 18 minute charge time. That's way easier to swallow than the 48 minutes the truck takes.
9 minutes and every seven hours of driving would be a god send, instead of our current 48 minutes every 4 hours
Are you sure it's unhealthy if you're already charging this slow? I'd expect 12 kW to still be below the slow part of a fast charge.
I need to make a 310 mile 1-way trip fairly regularly through _very_ rural parts of Texas. That trip is specifically why I don't own an EV.
At 600 miles, it makes it to where the humans in the car are now the likely limiting factor on how far you can go between stops.
This sort of battery makes that sort of trip easy.
There are already 3m liquid-cooled charging cables that allow 600kW+ DC charging. Many use more than one conductor per polarity to increase the capacity.
Deleted Comment
12kW is nowhere near the max charging speed. Here is the charging curve with a peak at 250kWh when DC charging: https://evkx.net/models/tesla/model_y/model_y_long_range/cha...
To achieve 250 kW of power, the Supercharger must supply much higher voltage and current than what is available from standard 120/240V circuits. For instance, Tesla Superchargers typically operate at voltages around 400-500V DC and deliver currents of up to 500 amps or more.
Unlike residential power, which typically uses single-phase electricity, Superchargers often use three-phase power. Three-phase power allows for more efficient transmission of large amounts of electricity and is commonly used in industrial settings.
The voltage supplied to a Tesla Supercharger is typically in the range of 480 volts AC (alternating current) for three-phase power. Inside the Supercharger, this 480V AC is converted to a higher DC (direct current) voltage, typically in the range of 400-500 volts DC, which is suitable for charging the vehicle's battery.
The cables used in Tesla Superchargers are specially designed to handle very high currents. For instance, to deliver 250 kW at a voltage of around 400V DC, the current would need to be around 625 amps. To manage the heat generated by such high currents, Tesla employs liquid-cooled charging cables. These cables have an internal liquid coolant system that actively removes heat from the cable as electricity flows through it.
80 kWh / 0.8 = 100 kWh
To charge in nine minutes:
100 kWh * 60 min/hr / 9 min = 667 kW
A 400 V DC setup is common for this sort of application, so:
667 kW / 400 V = 1667 A
How physically large do the cables and related apparatus need to be in order to deliver this sort of current? What sort of training and personal protective equipment will people need in order to plug and unplug these cables? (Hint: Arc flashes are no joke!) What sort of service would you need to order from the electric company to be able to power just one of these installations?
Furthermore charging cables are locked while charging. (The latch is on the cable for CCS, and the latch is inside the car for NACS.) Unless the lock mechanism is mechanically broken, it's impossible to unplug a cable that's charging.
P.S. NACS is just CCS with a different connector.
But agree with the rest. Regardless of voltage and current, you still need half-megawatt delivery somehow.
> The voltage range was increased to 1000 V and it supports up to 615 A (charging cable) / 1000 A (charging pole) for power delivery.[14][15] However, they are currently software limited to 250 kW.[12][16]
v4 charger already features thermally conductive liquid to dissipate heat. Maybe one could get rid of cables and car could park near charger and some serious metal rods could automatically connect somewhere under the car.
Anyways, that 1000Vx615A already supports 615kW so very close as far as we consider cables/connectors.
Anyway, if you’re just interested in big connectors/cables MCS targets up to 3.75 multi megawatts for commercial vehicles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megawatt_Charging_System
Though 3.7MW is mostly theoretical there’s already 700kw chargers in the wild. The cables end up thick, but they can be supported by an overhead gantry which helps.
Why stop there? Heat management is the key limitation.
Whenever I see text like this, my opinion of the editors, and thus the entire publication, immediately plummets. Did they think that 1000 KM was an accurate figure to be converted literally to three significant digits? Do they even understand the field that they are covering? Was it a machine conversion? What else should I not trust in their publication?
Deleted Comment
From the article: "We supplied samples to customers from the end of last year to the beginning of this year and are receiving positive feedback,"
Even if they rounded it to 600 mi, that's still huge. It's less about the precision, since batteries are inherently imprecise, and more about whether this can live up to the marketing...
Dr Fauci talks about this point at the 1:50 mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EETzkOjpyg
Deleted Comment
They are doing a programmatic conversion of 1000km to miles, because most Americans don't have a clue about the metric system. What's the problem?
>What else should I not trust in their publication?
I'd love to hear about what you think is "untrustworthy" about converting from kilometres to miles so the audience can visualize the distance. 1000 km = 621 miles, this is a fact.
1000km is not an exact figure. It’s rounded, probably up. Somewhere between 900km and 1100km. Likely closer to 999km than 1099 because they’d want to publish the biggest number they can reasonably claim. So you can assume the real range is between 900km and 999km.
The correct translation to miles would be “600mi”. Because 621 invents precision that wasn’t there in the original figure.
Even my Nissan Leaf which has notoriously slow AC charging (being single phase), the max 6,7 kW charging is very rarely a concern for me.
Me + partner rented a small e-fiat in Mallorca and it was really fun to drive, but there was a lot of anxiety around finding charging stations and wandering around for hours while charging. Note we didn’t have overnight charging at the hotel though.
For gas stations the throughput matters, because cars are blocking the queue. BEV charging is more comparable to parking. This is simply solved by having more charging stations (dispensers) at parking spots.
BTW: even in shittiest EVs, DC charging doesn't take hours. You probably have been misdirected to an AC charger designed to be used overnight. Unfortunately, many satnavs still treat charging stations as all equal like gas stations, and send you to the nearest one, instead of the fastest one.
Incentivizing workplaces, grocery stores, malls, and apartment complexes to install slow chargers would make a huge impact on feasibility.
All for a lot less money than it takes to install L3 chargers.
But a LOT of US apartments have mass parking or even a parking garage. These should be PERFECT for cheap efficient rollout of a charging infrastructure.
I've been pretty disappointed that cities or the federal government have not been proactive in providing incentives to apartment buildings to put in charging, even just normal 110v or 220v plugs.
Urban centers have not completely won the car pollution war, incentivising EV ownership in cities should be a paramount concern in infrastructure planning.
Street parking should be able to provide 110v charging as well. I mean, there are street lamps, right?
Then you will _never_ electrify the entire fleet of vehicles and you will always have ICE vehicles to fill the space that you feel is "overrated."
> charging is very rarely a concern for me.
Ostensibly because you live somewhere where large ICE vehicles bring the goods within range of your EV for you. This is great it's adequate for you. This is not sustainable.
I always get mistaken on these issues, as I think EVs are important, but the way we've deployed and built them is precisely backwards. We hoisted EVs on you because you would pay for them but it's made a complete mess of the transition.
1000km in the slow-charging Leaf takes 14 hours. 1000km in quick-charging cars takes 9h-9.5h, compared to 8.5h in a gas car[1].
For the trivial case of a city-only car with a home charger all battery metrics are irrelevant, so even the terribly outdated Leaf is adequate.
But when leaving the perimeter of the home charger, the car will need to be recharged. Charging speed is primary factor that makes long road trips in BEVs take longer than in gas cars. Battery sized large enough for a longest road trip adds a lot of weight and cost, which is a waste in daily city driving. Quick to recharging makes long trips possible, without need for a huge battery.
[1]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V6ucyFGKWuSQzvI8lMzv...
There are so many variables here. 1,000 cumulative km for my normal usage requires no waiting since I charge at home, so the it’s the ICE car that eats up time since I have to visit a fuel station.
On a 1,000km road trip I would be stopping anyway, so as long as it charges within the 30 min window it would not be additional time here either.
Overall, 75% of Americans surveyed said they intend to take some kind of road trip.
https://thevacationer.com/summer-travel-survey-2024/
This is on top of what other people have brought up about people who live in apartments, rent, or have no garage space.
Now, Norway may be an extreme case, but driving for 1000 km daily in Europe while rare is still a normal event. For example, from Paris to Mediterranean coast it is like 800 km. And if one drives 130km/h that 1000 km of battery will be reduced to 500km so one will need to charge once and it will be nice if that can be done within 15 minutes not to add too much time to the trip.
And cherry picking distinct worst aspect of long distance driving in Norway and France and mashing them together them as one argument is disingenuous. There's plenty of stuff to stop and enjoy between Paris and Med.
It won’t happen in the first round, which is for luxury vehicles, though.
But here in KY the other week it rained for a whole week, the grass was really tall and thick, and the mower couldn't handle it at all. My neighbor's old, cheap gas mower worked just fine.