hemanthaa@mail.com

Electric cars may make driving too expensive for middle classes, warns Vauxhall chief

Recommended Posts

Except that shorter range batteries will be LFP

Under strict test conditions, commercially available lithium cells of both types were repeatedly discharged and charged from 0% to 100%. The result? According to the paper, “The LFP cells exhibit substantially longer cycle life spans under the examined conditions.” The tests were performed at the Sandia National Laboratories as “part of a broader effort to determine and characterize the safety and reliability of commercial Li-ion cells.” The study examined the influence of temperature, depth of discharge (DOD), and discharge current on the long-term degradation of the commercial cells. 

LFP chemistry is superior compared to NMC LFP chemistry is superior compared to NMC

All cells were charged and discharged at a 0.5 C rate or the amount of discharge that will deplete the full capacity of a battery in two hours. In the graphical representation shown (taken from the Journal’s 2020 technical paper), you can easily see that the discharge capacity retention for the LFP lithium battery (blue data points) far exceeded the NMC battery retention (indicated by the black data points) for each round of charge/discharge cycling. The graph indicates that the NMC degrades almost twice as quickly as the LFP, showing the superior overall performance of the LFP cells. The testing showed LFPs had a better RTE (round trip efficiency) than NMCs, calculated by dividing the discharge energy by the charge energy. This calculation shows that the LFP is the more efficient, economical choice. Lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide battery, or NCA, was also a part of this experiment and performed similar or worse than NMC. We do not focus on NCA in this article as it is not mainstream in the commercial use of lithium batteries for Material Handling, mainly due to safety and cost issues. Both NMC and NCA cells demonstrated strong dependence on the depth of discharge, with greater sensitivity to full SOC range cycling compared to LFP cells. LFP cells had the highest cycle lifetime across all conditions, but this performance gap was reduced when cells were compared according to the discharge energy throughput.

https://onecharge.biz/blog/lfp-lithium-batteries-live-longer-than-nmc/

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Yes, in climates where it does not freeze, LFP will dominate.  It is already fait a compli at this point. All boats and RV's have already switched to LFP.  Every house could be on LFP today. 

My Ebike I switched to LFP when the NiMh died.  Was easy to do. 

PS: If you want LFP cycle rates, you can go with Carbon Foam lead acid.  Only drawback of those cells is their overall efficiency. Much heavier... comes down to manufacturing cost, but they can be used where it freezes at least. 

Edited by footeab@yahoo.com
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2021 at 11:31 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Actually does not work with EV's.  Smaller battery = dead battery much quicker as its Depth of Discharge is greater for the average driver which means the battery capacity dies MUCH quicker.  Because it is a smaller battery, the current discharge rate per cell is higher thus it degrades the battery even faster yet.  Same goes for the charging, but here at least you can just slow the charge rate down.   Thus the economics of buying such a car disappear as you can't own it for a long time or buy said car used as the battery is dead or can only drive around town but not to the next town over and back.    Now if batteries become cheap?  They could.  Then who cares, just replace it and move on.  1 or 2  hour repair.  Everyone will sign up.  No one loves going to the gas station or getting their oil changed.  Still need to grease them, have their bearings changed out etc, but that is small peanuts. 

High performance EV's with big batteries will be around for a LONG time, as their batteries are large enough to NOT be charged above 85%.  They are large enough to NOT have a high current drain.  They are large enough to only have a small portion of their DoD and thus hurt the cells less.  They are large enough to NOT heat up quickly and therefore require less cooling.  They are large enough to be quickly charged even when old, but even they have their current restricted as they get older.  (Why the AWD Teslas have worse battery degradation than the RWD only same battery, but higher current drawdown which hurts the cells). 

I agree with this. At the same time, I think batteries will become cheaper and their lives will be extended, in which case your concerns will be addressed.

I'm interested to see what happens with battery tech in the next 2-4 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I agree with this. At the same time, I think batteries will become cheaper and their lives will be extended, in which case your concerns will be addressed.

I'm interested to see what happens with battery tech in the next 2-4 years.

Absolutely nothing in next 2-->4 years is on the horizon from what I can tell or even 5-->10 years.  There hasn't been anything new in the last 5-->10 years.  Only "***new*** thing is that LFP increased energy density by 50% by going to rigid aluminum cases instead of spongy plastic truly making them viable for cars now. And their cells can be made MUCH larger much more cheaply than NMC.  Of course they can't be charged below freezing so...

I'm still hoping for aluminum iron phosphate ion batteries as anyone should be able to make them.  3.2V/cell = perfect for 12V systems and shouldn't have freezing problems.  Aluminum ion still has the potential for far greater energy density than any Lithium chemistry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2021 at 8:40 AM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I agree with this. At the same time, I think batteries will become cheaper and their lives will be extended, in which case your concerns will be addressed.

I'm interested to see what happens with battery tech in the next 2-4 years.

I agree with @footeab@yahoo.com that in the next 2-4 years we won't see any major changes in battery technologies.  There will be some tinkering with current chemistries, some manufacturing efficiencies, and improvements in serviceability and ease of recycling, but I don't think there will be any big changes - prices ought to come down some as a result of manufacturing process improvements, but this could be offset by increases in the cost of raw materials if demand rises as much as a lot of forecasts suggest.  I disagree on the 10 year time horizon though - I wouldn't be a bit surprised if something that is currently niche/odd/unworkable beats current battery technology in cost, weight, or energy density (pick 1 or 2, but not all 3) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2021 at 11:31 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Actually does not work with EV's.  Smaller battery = dead battery much quicker as its Depth of Discharge is greater for the average driver which means the battery capacity dies MUCH quicker.  Because it is a smaller battery, the current discharge rate per cell is higher thus it degrades the battery even faster yet.  Same goes for the charging, but here at least you can just slow the charge rate down.   Thus the economics of buying such a car disappear as you can't own it for a long time or buy said car used as the battery is dead or can only drive around town but not to the next town over and back.    Now if batteries become cheap?  They could.  Then who cares, just replace it and move on.  1 or 2  hour repair.  Everyone will sign up.  No one loves going to the gas station or getting their oil changed.  Still need to grease them, have their bearings changed out etc, but that is small peanuts. 

High performance EV's with big batteries will be around for a LONG time, as their batteries are large enough to NOT be charged above 85%.  They are large enough to NOT have a high current drain.  They are large enough to only have a small portion of their DoD and thus hurt the cells less.  They are large enough to NOT heat up quickly and therefore require less cooling.  They are large enough to be quickly charged even when old, but even they have their current restricted as they get older.  (Why the AWD Teslas have worse battery degradation than the RWD only same battery, but higher current drawdown which hurts the cells). 

Well, you just gave another great reason NOT to expect electric cars to become popular among folks like myself. I don't buy expensive cars. I buy economical cars. It looks like electric car batteries will be going up in price instead of down. Maybe another ten years before they become economical. 

It seems like the econobox battery will become affordable when larger batteries become affordable. They will be built on the sled concept with varying structures above.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

image.thumb.png.c58254e4a51980bfdf296995959c9ffe.png

The first Blade Battery-powered vehicle in Europe is the Tang SUV.

With the launch of the the Tang model in Norway, BYD is also introducing in Europe its new Blade Battery - lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) chemistry in a cell-to-pack (CTP) system.

BYD Blade Battery general info (see unveiling here

  • lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) chemistry
  • "The Blade Battery refers to a single-cell battery with a length of 96 cm, a width of 9 cm and a height of 1.35 cm, which can be placed in an array and inserted into a battery pack like a blade"
  • cell-to-pack (CTP) system: skips the module stage through using thinner and longer cells (designed to become structural parts - beams - of the pack)
  • about 50% greater volumetric energy density compared to conventional LFP battery pack
    the batteries take 60% of pack volume instead 40% in conventional system
  • high longevity of 3,000 charging/discharging cycles or 1.2 million km (nearly 750,000 miles) of mileage
  • high safety - BYD showed the results of a nail penetration test - of NCM, LFP and Blade Battery cells, in which the Blade Battery "emitted neither smoke nor fire after being penetrated, and its surface temperature only reached 30 to 60°C"
  • reduced cost compared to conventional LFP battery pack
  • can provide range comparable to ternary lithium batteries (NCM)
    BYD Han is rated at up to 605 km (376 miles) NEDC
  • can be charged from 10% to 80% of its full capacity within 33 minutes
  • https://insideevs.com/news/495023/byd-blade-battery-entering-european-market/
 
Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2021 at 9:40 PM, ronwagn said:

Well, you just gave another great reason NOT to expect electric cars to become popular among folks like myself. I don't buy expensive cars. I buy economical cars. It looks like electric car batteries will be going up in price instead of down. Maybe another ten years before they become economical. 

It seems like the econobox battery will become affordable when larger batteries become affordable. They will be built on the sled concept with varying structures above.

It all depends on what you want out of your EV... single purpose do everything vehicle --> No.  If you own 2 cars as most do.... Yes, but still will only be ~50% of the market. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2021 at 5:16 PM, Eric Gagen said:

I agree with @footeab@yahoo.com that in the next 2-4 years we won't see any major changes in battery technologies.  There will be some tinkering with current chemistries, some manufacturing efficiencies, and improvements in serviceability and ease of recycling, but I don't think there will be any big changes - prices ought to come down some as a result of manufacturing process improvements, but this could be offset by increases in the cost of raw materials if demand rises as much as a lot of forecasts suggest.  I disagree on the 10 year time horizon though - I wouldn't be a bit surprised if something that is currently niche/odd/unworkable beats current battery technology in cost, weight, or energy density (pick 1 or 2, but not all 3) 

It occurred to me that we might need to be more precise about what constitutes major changes and what is merely tinkering. E.g. would you consider switching from tabbed 2170 to tabless 4680 cells a "major change"? Should we even define changes that way, or is there some metric we should measure changes against?  I don't mean to be pedantic; it just seems like this conversation could go in circles if we're not careful.

I've seen some claims of battery advances, but of course most never leave the lab. Tesla is a different story as they're pouring commercial-scale resources into their development, and of course there are other producers in this race. I'd be curious to know what you've seen that makes you confident improvements will be minor in the next 2-4 years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

It occurred to me that we might need to be more precise about what constitutes major changes and what is merely tinkering. E.g. would you consider switching from tabbed 2170 to tabless 4680 cells a "major change"? Should we even define changes that way, or is there some metric we should measure changes against?  I don't mean to be pedantic; it just seems like this conversation could go in circles if we're not careful.

I've seen some claims of battery advances, but of course most never leave the lab. Tesla is a different story as they're pouring commercial-scale resources into their development, and of course there are other producers in this race. I'd be curious to know what you've seen that makes you confident improvements will be minor in the next 2-4 years.

I did some research on the materials in modern lithium batteries, and there's a lot of ideas out there, but the presently commercial ones for vehicles are all some combination of lithium, graphite, nickel, and cobalt, with plenty of copper for wiring and general conductivity.  There are some other ideas out there - in the non-vehicle market - phosphorus iron batteries are commercial for residential solar storage arrays, phosphorus aluminum batteries are under development, people are doing interesting things with boron, there are a variety of electrolytes being worked on,  but none of them are even remotely close to 'prime time.  In fact other than the phosphorus iron batteries which in their current forms are not suitable for vehicles (too heavy) none of them have even made it out of the lab yet.  2-4 years is a VERY short time to bring anything genuinely new to production. 

The time frame outside of a major emergency (ex - the manhattan project or the apollo project are the only ones I can think of on a similar scale) for things on this scale tends to go as follows:  Once an idea is overwhelmingly obviously successful on the lab scale, then it takes 1-2 years to convince a company/country/organization to build some of them on a pilot scale (not yet commercial, or being sold only to get some market exposure) if that goes well, then 1-2 years later, a decision will be made to develop a full scale commercial production facility. Getting permits, sourcing raw materials, designing and constructing the plant, training the workforce, developing a supply and distribution chain, etc.  will take 3-5 years if everything goes perfectly.  If there are NIMBY issues, or unexpected SNAFU's it may be more like 5-10 years. Then add another year (at least) to ramp up production, and satisfy the demand required to fill distribution channel. At any point in any of these years the whole process can get short circuited and either killed, or delay for any number of reasons (the organizer goes bankrupt, the lead scientist runs away with his girlfriend to Thailand, the civil engineering company constructing the plant is incompetent, something else leapfrogs the technology, existing interests purchase the technology and slow roll it, the country it's being based in changes it's laws, an economic bobble takes place at the wrong time, a financial backer gets cold feet, there is patent wrangling, etc.)   We haven't even reached the 'overwhelmingly successful on a lab scale' point for anything yet.

 

therefore, any real breakthrough is 2-4 years away from being discovered (when something is so good that it's worth making for something other than an experiment) and getting it to the point  where we see a 'major breakthrough available for purchase' is a solid 7-11 years out if nothing goes wrong.  Thus I predict that nothing special will happen in the short term (2-4 years) but this could change in the medium term (5-10 years) 

Edited by Eric Gagen
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eric Gagen said:

I did some research on the materials in modern lithium batteries, and there's a lot of ideas out there, but the presently commercial ones for vehicles are all some combination of lithium, graphite, nickel, and cobalt, with plenty of copper for wiring and general conductivity.  There are some other ideas out there - in the non-vehicle market - phosphorus iron batteries are commercial for residential solar storage arrays, phosphorus aluminum batteries are under development, people are doing interesting things with boron, there are a variety of electrolytes being worked on,  but none of them are even remotely close to 'prime time.  In fact other than the phosphorus iron batteries which in their current forms are not suitable for vehicles (too heavy) none of them have even made it out of the lab yet.  2-4 years is a VERY short time to bring anything genuinely new to production. 

The time frame outside of a major emergency (ex - the manhattan project or the apollo project are the only ones I can think of on a similar scale) for things on this scale tends to go as follows:  Once an idea is overwhelmingly obviously successful on the lab scale, then it takes 1-2 years to convince a company/country/organization to build some of them on a pilot scale (not yet commercial, or being sold only to get some market exposure) if that goes well, then 1-2 years later, a decision will be made to develop a full scale commercial production facility. Getting permits, sourcing raw materials, designing and constructing the plant, training the workforce, developing a supply and distribution chain, etc.  will take 3-5 years if everything goes perfectly.  If there are NIMBY issues, or unexpected SNAFU's it may be more like 5-10 years. Then add another year (at least) to ramp up production, and satisfy the demand required to fill distribution channel. At any point in any of these years the whole process can get short circuited and either killed, or delay for any number of reasons (the organizer goes bankrupt, the lead scientist runs away with his girlfriend to Thailand, the civil engineering company constructing the plant is incompetent, something else leapfrogs the technology, existing interests purchase the technology and slow roll it, the country it's being based in changes it's laws, an economic bobble takes place at the wrong time, a financial backer gets cold feet, there is patent wrangling, etc.)   We haven't even reached the 'overwhelmingly successful on a lab scale' point for anything yet.

 

therefore, any real breakthrough is 2-4 years away from being discovered (when something is so good that it's worth making for something other than an experiment) and getting it to the point  where we see a 'major breakthrough available for purchase' is a solid 7-11 years out if nothing goes wrong.  Thus I predict that nothing special will happen in the short term (2-4 years) but this could change in the medium term (5-10 years) 

Are you familiar with what Tesla has been doing with batteries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

I did some research on the materials in modern lithium batteries, and there's a lot of ideas out there, but the presently commercial ones for vehicles are all some combination of lithium, graphite, nickel, and cobalt, with plenty of copper for wiring and general conductivity.  There are some other ideas out there - in the non-vehicle market - phosphorus iron batteries are commercial for residential solar storage arrays, phosphorus aluminum batteries are under development, people are doing interesting things with boron, there are a variety of electrolytes being worked on,  but none of them are even remotely close to 'prime time.  In fact other than the phosphorus iron batteries which in their current forms are not suitable for vehicles (too heavy) none of them have even made it out of the lab yet.  2-4 years is a VERY short time to bring anything genuinely new to production. 

The time frame outside of a major emergency (ex - the manhattan project or the apollo project are the only ones I can think of on a similar scale) for things on this scale tends to go as follows:  Once an idea is overwhelmingly obviously successful on the lab scale, then it takes 1-2 years to convince a company/country/organization to build some of them on a pilot scale (not yet commercial, or being sold only to get some market exposure) if that goes well, then 1-2 years later, a decision will be made to develop a full scale commercial production facility. Getting permits, sourcing raw materials, designing and constructing the plant, training the workforce, developing a supply and distribution chain, etc.  will take 3-5 years if everything goes perfectly.  If there are NIMBY issues, or unexpected SNAFU's it may be more like 5-10 years. Then add another year (at least) to ramp up production, and satisfy the demand required to fill distribution channel. At any point in any of these years the whole process can get short circuited and either killed, or delay for any number of reasons (the organizer goes bankrupt, the lead scientist runs away with his girlfriend to Thailand, the civil engineering company constructing the plant is incompetent, something else leapfrogs the technology, existing interests purchase the technology and slow roll it, the country it's being based in changes it's laws, an economic bobble takes place at the wrong time, a financial backer gets cold feet, there is patent wrangling, etc.)   We haven't even reached the 'overwhelmingly successful on a lab scale' point for anything yet.

 

therefore, any real breakthrough is 2-4 years away from being discovered (when something is so good that it's worth making for something other than an experiment) and getting it to the point  where we see a 'major breakthrough available for purchase' is a solid 7-11 years out if nothing goes wrong.  Thus I predict that nothing special will happen in the short term (2-4 years) but this could change in the medium term (5-10 years) 

I think you have overlooked LFP and the amazing advancements being made with it, such as I have posted above. Note that it does not use nickel or cobalt. Lithium and graphite  are not much of a constraint on production, plenty of both to be had. Copper is a minor component of the battery. It is mostly in the motor and wiring. As a constraint, copper will be the same for any EV regardless of the battery.

As to more exotics, there are several large companies who claim to be well down the path to a next gen breakthrough battery that will be on the market in a few years. e.g. Toyota, Voldswagen, Nissan and their solid state batteries scheduled for 2025. 

But the problem is that even getting to a basic production version does not mean that production is scalable. Without scalabilty the batteries remain expensive and rare. 

 

 

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I think you have overlooked LFP and the amazing advancements being made with it, such as I have posted above. Note that it does not use nickel or cobalt. Lithium and graphite  are not much of a constraint on production, plenty of both to be had. Copper is a minor component of the battery. It is mostly in the motor and wiring. As a constraint, copper will be the same for any EV regardless of the battery.

As to more exotics, there are several large companies who claim to be well down the path to a next gen breakthrough battery that will be on the market in a few years. e.g. Toyota, Voldswagen, Nissan and their solid state batteries scheduled for 2025. 

But the problem is that even getting to a basic production version does not mean that production is scalable. Without scalabilty the batteries remain expensive and rare. 

 

 

I specifically mentioned LFP, but I called them phosphorus iron batteries.  They aren't a possible vehicle battery for most cases however because they weigh too much for each unit of electricity they store.  They have enormous potential for grid scale storage however because their cost per unit of electricity stored is really outstanding.   I agree that graphite isn't a construction constraint.  Lithium, in theory isn't, but because the installed capacity to mine and refine it is tiny compared to what will be required, it will suffer from a series of supply shortages lasting a few years each, followed by overproduction for a few years, as the supply and demand chain works in a herky jerky fashion.  Copper isn't a component of the batteries themselves, but it is, as you and I both pointed out absolutely critical for wiring.  This is important, because it's a major new use of copper which existing ICE vehicles do not require.  Rhe weight of copper required for each EV clocks in somewhere around 80 - 100 lbs, and combined with the numberof EV's likely to be produced suggests that the world demand for copper will roughly double in the next 20 years or so.  That is not nearly as great an increase as it is for other materials, but it's against a backdrop of a world copper mining industry which is already struggling to increase production at record high copper prices.  

With respect to the solid state batteries, IMHO they aren't a massive change from current options.  They are still constructed with the same basic materials (lithium, graphite, nickel, cobalt) but with alterations to the electrolyte.  This will be an improvement, but I don't think large enough to qualify as a major breakthrough.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Are you familiar with what Tesla has been doing with batteries?

In general, I tried to research them.  Any particular point of interest or reference you had that you wanted to discuss? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

I specifically mentioned LFP, but I called them phosphorus iron batteries.  They aren't a possible vehicle battery for most cases however because they weigh too much for each unit of electricity they store.  They have enormous potential for grid scale storage however because their cost per unit of electricity stored is really outstanding.   

At least for now the blade battery has made LFP competitive for EV use by weight of pack, which is the metric that matters in the end. Throw in the improved safety, longer life cycle and lower cost and I think LFP has a strong future in the EV market. Particularly in China, India, etc. 

1*qHWxBUoq9wq7dNTaB0BAbg.png

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

As per my post in this thread on page 3, post #10, we can pinpoint exactly where this development falls in the development process. By analysing the parts of their product which they leave out, we can also make some important observations  This announcement qualifies as 'lab breakthrough' if it is true, and the article explicitly notes it as such (note that there are a range of statements in the article which are projections, not yet based on full scale data) 2024 is the earliest noted start for any production of any type: From the article

"“We will bring the coin cell to market first. It recharges in less than a minute, and it has three times the energy than with lithium,” the Barcaldine product said.  960x0.jpg%3Ffit=scale 

This is the 'pilot production' stage which I mentioned.  The 'final product' they indicate a desire to make  is battery fuel cells for automobiles, but they fully realize that they can't jump from a successful lab experiment to a mass produced half ton product, so they are planning to start on a much smaller scale - in fact they are not even seeking contacts or data about automotive applications at this time - also from the article:

 "GMG has not locked down a supply deal with a major manufacturer or manufacturing facility. “We are not tied in to big brands yet, but this could go into an Apple iPhone and charge it in seconds,” Nicol confirmed."

This is the stage of the process I labeled pilot scale production, and per my previous comment: " it takes 1-2 years to convince a company/country/organization to build some of them on a pilot scale (not yet commercial, or being sold only to get some market exposure) " They specifically acknowledge that they haven't inked a deal with a company which can actually make their pilot production start.  They have carefully made a statement such that this sounds like an advantage "we are not tied to big brands yet" but in fact it's a problem, and this statement is a speculative one, acknowledging that they have to sign a contract with someone who has the capital to finance the pilot production.  They handwave this stage of the process away, possibly out of an excess of optimism,  possibly as a careful marketing strategy, or possibly out of genuine ignorance of how commercial production deals are organized, but my experience with investing in, and operating wit technology and manufacturing suggests that it will take them 1-2 years to actually make this deal, then another  1-2 years before it yields the coin type cells for small consumer products. 

Their later statement in the article

"GMG plans to bring graphene aluminum-ion coin cells to market late this year or early next year, with automotive pouch cells planned to roll out in early 2024."

Is not supported by the previous ones indicating that they have no commitment from a partner to manufacture anything - this is merely a hypothetical 'best case' scenario, where an agreement for pilot production of coin cells commences immediately, then pilot production of automotive cells starts immediately after the coin cells prove themselves.  That's a commendable concept, but it won't happen that way in reality.  The reason they made the announcement is clear however:

'Listed on the TSX Venture exchange in Canada, GMG hooked itself in to UQ’s graphene aluminum-ion battery technology by supplying the university with graphene."

So GMG is a publicly listed company, seeking to boost it's stock prices (the Toronto stock exchange has notoriously lax rules for reporting, and stock manipulation) which is fine - you can buy/invest in it right now!

But there is one thing the article doesn't so much as hint at, and the author, and GMG really hope you don't either, and that is the price of the cells.  Reading between the lines, it's obvious they aren't ready for automotive use yet, but in small electronic devices the price of the battery is a much smaller portion of the cost of the overall device, and the need for more storage capacity or charging speed is obvious.  

QED:  Good lab data.  There may be a product that is suitable for small electronic devices in a couple of years.  It's entirely unclear if the product even has potential for scaling to automotive or utility battery scale uses at all.  The company GMG is hoping to hype itself through articles such as this, in hopes that insiders can sell stock and make a lot of money, or that they can ink a deal with a major partner to sell batteries to and get capital from, or sell the company and it's patents to them outright (or some combination of the 3) These are all good and healthy parts of the development of a new technology, and yet another sign that there are real opportunities in battery developments in the mid term (5-10 years) but this is not in the short term advance that is about to take over the market. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 6/20/2021 at 7:05 AM, Eric Gagen said:

In general, I tried to research them.  Any particular point of interest or reference you had that you wanted to discuss? 

I'm interested in how quickly they develop and commercialize technologies. You clearly described the traditional technology pipeline - and I appreciate the clarity you provided. I'm not convinced it will apply to the future though.

Silicon Valley in general and Tesla in particular saw the traditional process, realized there was an advantage to be had in compressing it, and succeeded in doing so. For at least two decades - possibly longer - they've been rolling out advanced technologies more quickly than their competitors thought possible. It started with software, but they're now applying it to hardware.

Sandy Munroe's company has been tearing down vehicles and selling reports on them; he also offers some free insight on his Youtube channel, Munroe Live. His analysis of Tesla over the years has consistently followed this pattern:
First teardown: Tesla is 1-2 decades behind competitors.
Second teardown: Tesla has mastered the traditional technologies.
Third teardown: Tesla has commercialized technologies that no one even knew was in the R&D pipeline. The first we're hearing of these technologies is when we take apart production vehicles.

Tesla's technological journey - from decades behind to beyond the bleeding edge - occurs in <4 years. I.e. Much of that time is consumed by mastering the old technologies, which means Tesla is going from concept to commercialization in < 3 years. Depending on the technology, they may even be doing it in months.

How is this possible? It's the wartime effort you alluded to in a previous post. World War II proved that new tech could be commercialized quickly. One need only assemble world-class people, give them appropriate resources, and describe a clear goal. Tesla has recreated that wartime process.

More generally, all of Silicon Valley realized that speed creates an overwhelming advantage and built their culture around it. They teach their people that the best way to learn is to fail fast and often. The companies following the wartime model are the companies taking over traditional industries. One by one, they're identifying easy industries and tearing into the market share. There will be progressively less room for traditional R&D processes to operate.

 

Edited by BenFranklin'sSpectacles
Removed an accidental emoji.
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eric Gagen said:

As per my post in this thread on page 3, post #10, we can pinpoint exactly where this development falls in the development process. By analysing the parts of their product which they leave out, we can also make some important observations  This announcement qualifies as 'lab breakthrough' if it is true, and the article explicitly notes it as such (note that there are a range of statements in the article which are projections, not yet based on full scale data) 2024 is the earliest noted start for any production of any type: From the article

"“We will bring the coin cell to market first. It recharges in less than a minute, and it has three times the energy than with lithium,” the Barcaldine product said.  960x0.jpg%3Ffit=scale 

This is the 'pilot production' stage which I mentioned.  The 'final product' they indicate a desire to make  is battery fuel cells for automobiles, but they fully realize that they can't jump from a successful lab experiment to a mass produced half ton product, so they are planning to start on a much smaller scale - in fact they are not even seeking contacts or data about automotive applications at this time - also from the article:

 "GMG has not locked down a supply deal with a major manufacturer or manufacturing facility. “We are not tied in to big brands yet, but this could go into an Apple iPhone and charge it in seconds,” Nicol confirmed."

This is the stage of the process I labeled pilot scale production, and per my previous comment: " it takes 1-2 years to convince a company/country/organization to build some of them on a pilot scale (not yet commercial, or being sold only to get some market exposure) " They specifically acknowledge that they haven't inked a deal with a company which can actually make their pilot production start.  They have carefully made a statement such that this sounds like an advantage "we are not tied to big brands yet" but in fact it's a problem, and this statement is a speculative one, acknowledging that they have to sign a contract with someone who has the capital to finance the pilot production.  They handwave this stage of the process away, possibly out of an excess of optimism,  possibly as a careful marketing strategy, or possibly out of genuine ignorance of how commercial production deals are organized, but my experience with investing in, and operating wit technology and manufacturing suggests that it will take them 1-2 years to actually make this deal, then another  1-2 years before it yields the coin type cells for small consumer products. 

Their later statement in the article

"GMG plans to bring graphene aluminum-ion coin cells to market late this year or early next year, with automotive pouch cells planned to roll out in early 2024."

Is not supported by the previous ones indicating that they have no commitment from a partner to manufacture anything - this is merely a hypothetical 'best case' scenario, where an agreement for pilot production of coin cells commences immediately, then pilot production of automotive cells starts immediately after the coin cells prove themselves.  That's a commendable concept, but it won't happen that way in reality.  The reason they made the announcement is clear however:

'Listed on the TSX Venture exchange in Canada, GMG hooked itself in to UQ’s graphene aluminum-ion battery technology by supplying the university with graphene."

So GMG is a publicly listed company, seeking to boost it's stock prices (the Toronto stock exchange has notoriously lax rules for reporting, and stock manipulation) which is fine - you can buy/invest in it right now!

But there is one thing the article doesn't so much as hint at, and the author, and GMG really hope you don't either, and that is the price of the cells.  Reading between the lines, it's obvious they aren't ready for automotive use yet, but in small electronic devices the price of the battery is a much smaller portion of the cost of the overall device, and the need for more storage capacity or charging speed is obvious.  

QED:  Good lab data.  There may be a product that is suitable for small electronic devices in a couple of years.  It's entirely unclear if the product even has potential for scaling to automotive or utility battery scale uses at all.  The company GMG is hoping to hype itself through articles such as this, in hopes that insiders can sell stock and make a lot of money, or that they can ink a deal with a major partner to sell batteries to and get capital from, or sell the company and it's patents to them outright (or some combination of the 3) These are all good and healthy parts of the development of a new technology, and yet another sign that there are real opportunities in battery developments in the mid term (5-10 years) but this is not in the short term advance that is about to take over the market. 

 

Time will tell I guess Eric.

I agree that to get to the point of scalable manufacturing for the auto industry this will take many years, and that's if it works as they claim.

Then again as @BenFranklin'sSpectacles says, get with a manufacturer such as Tesla and it may be a whole lot quicker than we think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BenFranklin&#x27;sSpectacles said:

I'm interested in how quickly they develop and commercialize technologies. You clearly described the traditional technology pipeline - and I appreciate the clarity you provided. I'm not convinced it will apply to the future though.

Silicon Valley in general and Tesla in particular saw the traditional process, realized there was an advantage to be had in compressing it, and succeeded in doing so. For at least two decades - possibly longer - they've been rolling out advanced technologies more quickly than their competitors thought possible. It started with software, but they're now applying it to hardware.

Sandy Munroe's company has been tearing down vehicles and selling reports on them; he also offers some free insight on his Youtube channel, Munroe Live. His analysis of Tesla over the years has consistently followed this pattern:
First teardown: Tesla is 1-2 decades behind competitors.
Second teardown: Tesla has mastered the traditional technologies.
Third teardown: Tesla has commercialized technologies that no one even knew was in the R&D pipeline. The first we're hearing of these technologies is when we take apart production vehicles.

Tesla's technological journey - from decades behind to beyond the bleeding edge - occurs in <4 years. I.e. Much of that time is consumed by mastering the old technologies, which means Tesla is going from concept to commercialization in < 3 years. Depending on the technology, they may even be doing it in months.

How is this possible? It's the wartime effort you alluded to in a previous post. World War II proved that new tech could be commercialized quickly. One need only assemble world-class people, give them appropriate resources, and describe a clear goal. Tesla has recreated that wartime process.

More generally, all of Silicon Valley realized that speed creates an overwhelming advantage and built their culture around it. They teach their people that the best way to learn is to fail fast and often. The companies following the wartime model are the companies taking over traditional industries. One by one, they're identifying easy industries and tearing into the market share. There will be progressively less room for traditional R&D processes to operate.

 

Tesla is a good example of a company doing it right, but they aren't 'breaking the model' with respect to technological uptake, and neither is silicon valley in general.  Their 'catchup' phase was fast, and that would be expected.  I tend to agree with you on Tesla's ability to go from 'unknown' to 'commercial' in 3 years. 

However Tesla is NOT taking ideas straight from the lab into full scale mass production in 3 years.  They are taking ideas from the lab into pilot scale production in 3 years.  That's still damn impressive,  and they are doing it consistently, which is even more impressive.  My 'tech develoment' timeline assumes no screwups, and Tesla is doing a great job of reducing/eliminating screwups.  That takes a LOT of work. 

Another thing they are doing,  in the vast majority of cases, they have set up their pilot production in such a way that it  is a miniature version of full scale production, or that it can be easily scaled up.  They are also 'pre-selling' items they don't yet have in full scale commercial production, then back filling the production capacity later.  The only reason they can do this is because there is high demand for their products, and they have consistently been able to convert planned projects into actual products, which gives the general public confidence that they can count on them.   This is why in my 'timeline of innovation' I purposely left out any years/time between pilot production and going full scale.  IF they are doing it right (and Tesla is) there isn't any real 'gap between the two - only the logistical effort it takes to move from small scale pilot production to large scale production. 

A final thing that Tesla is doing is making it more or less painless for their customers. If you are 'one of the first' to get a new Tesla product and it doesn't work,  they will repair, replace or fix it for you more or less at no cost.  This additionally inspires people to be willing to take a chance on something they wouldn't normally do.  This is part of the phase that I mentioned in 'preparing the destribution and sales network' Because Tesla at this point is more or less constantly innovating, internally they see this as just 'the way it is' but other companies will have to work hard to develop this mentality (some will not, and will fail - I'd never lay a finger on a GMC electric car for example) 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US Government Says Electric Vehicles Cost 40% Less To Maintain

In its latest study, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy says,

“The estimated scheduled maintenance cost for a light-duty battery-electric vehicle (BEV) totals 6.1 cents per mile, while a conventional internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) totals 10.1 cents per mile. A BEV lacks an ICEV’s engine oil, timing belt, oxygen sensor, spark plugs and more, and the maintenance costs associated with them.”

EV-maintenance-costs.png

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/06/22/its-official-us-government-says-electric-vehicles-cost-40-less-to-maintain/

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2021 at 2:20 PM, ronwagn said:

I think it should be sold here, but if for highways it should meet safety standards. Slow drivers, driving the minimum speed, are really not safe in my opinion. It should be used for suburbs and crossing highways. If it can maintain a sixty miles per hour speed, that would be ok on highways, but not freeways. 

In and around Houston that little car would be a death trap. 4-8 lane freeways are the arteries you can’t escape. Once you’ve taken the off ramp it does get a little safer since the speed drops and there are more traffic lights. Can autonomous tech make driving safe? Kind of like herd immunity, only if the majority have it and use it. And of course it has to work like advertised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

It will be very interesting to see how the new graphene battery performs when they install it into the Aion V which they are stating goes into production in September 2021 using these new batteries. If the claims are realised this car and its battery will be a game changer in the EV market and Tesla and others will be playing catch up.

https://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=5655

https://www.graphene-info.com/gac-group-announces-its-aion-v-sporting-graphene-battery-will-start-production

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aion_V

http://chinamobil.ru/eng/gac/aion-v/?view=props

As you can see the price at $25-37K depending on what model you have is very competitive with ICE as well based on the CATL lion battery, hopefully the graphene battery doesn't add cost.

Edited by Rob Plant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The middle class could care less about all this “Green” bullshit, they just want to make the best life possible for themselves! 
 

Its always extreme groups on one end or the other that push this bullshit no matter what the current topic! Look back 50 years and all the JUST CAUSE MOVEMENTS are mostly the same extreme groups from opposite ends of the spectrum and the middle class could care less!

You are not going to change the minds of the majority when billionaires, Hollywood shitbags and political groups are the only ones interested!

What they will accomplish if by erasing cheap energy is an extreme backlash when these millions by millions of middle class Americans get pissed off !

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

US Government Says Electric Vehicles Cost 40% Less To Maintain

In its latest study, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy says,

“The estimated scheduled maintenance cost for a light-duty battery-electric vehicle (BEV) totals 6.1 cents per mile, while a conventional internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) totals 10.1 cents per mile. A BEV lacks an ICEV’s engine oil, timing belt, oxygen sensor, spark plugs and more, and the maintenance costs associated with them.”

EV-maintenance-costs.png

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/06/22/its-official-us-government-says-electric-vehicles-cost-40-less-to-maintain/

I see two problems with this analysis: brakes and tires. If you learn to use regenerative braking properly, you use your actual brakes very rarely except to hold the car after it has stopped, so I expect that there is very little wear. However, most EVs have so much torque that drivers tend to accelerate too quickly, which wears out the tires more quickly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.