https://www.notebookcheck.net/Samsung-delivers-600-mile-solid-state-EV-battery-as-it-teases-9-minute-charging-and-20-year-lifespan-tech.867768.0.html
cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/3524209
This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/technology by /u/wish-u-well on 2024-07-27 02:37:53+00:00.
Sweet, I've been thinking about getting another EV. Which one is it in? I've got some time to go do test drives this weekend.
They said it would be in Lexus first if you read the article. There are power banks on the market with solid state batteries today if you like.
Not sure if you're joking but
Both Toyota and Samsung have vowed to begin mass solid-state battery production in 2027, and Toyota, too, advised that it will be installing them in premium electric cars under the Lexus brand first.
From the article.
I was responding to the comment that said "But now it's actually being produced and put into products."
Toyota is notorious for putting out FUD when it comes to EVs. They bet on hydrogen and missed the boat with EVs - and it shows. To prevent people from buying EVs from their competitors, they've been promoting new miracle battery tech for a while now. Why buy a Hyundai with 300 miles of range when a Toyota with 600 miles of range is just around the corner?
The fact of the matter is they're not producing these batteries right now in a car that you or I can buy. When the top comment joked about new battery tech being out, it's because there's a new article about this every other day. Toyota doesn't want you to buy an EV right now, so expect articles like this for years to come.
Why buy a Hyundai with 300 mile range? Because it's available today. And if I'm concerned enough about missing out on upcoming tech, Hyundai/Kia have good lease terms that give you the option of buying out or trading up at the end if the tech improves that much by then.
But yeah, I'm still annoyed with them championing hydrogen that hard when it was super easy to see how limited it would be compared to BEV for general purpose commuting, and how much easier the infrastructure would be to start up (a small amount of BEV infra will easily support a small amount of BEVs, but a small amount of hydrogen infra will support basically nothing at all since you can't refill at home)
Making a single prototype is easy and in no way indicative of being anywhere close to capable of mass production.
I bet they'll conveniently forget to make them have 20 year lifespans when they start actually selling them. Because otherwise that falls into "too good to be true" territory and this is Samsung, a large tech corporation.
There are probably more asterisks than starts inn that statement.
Is 20 years the average? The maximum under ideal circumstances? What would be the effective capacity of the battery at 19 years? What is the maintenance required?
So do I, but it's been a while and I'm kinda OK with it.
Although I got it stuck in my head after the 1000-mile comment.
How about phones? Surely Samsung would put their own new battery tech in their own phones right?
Based on the article they are more expensive than li-ion batteries (for now), so probably not yet. And the article doesn't mention anything about this, but I imagine there would be scaling issues.
According to Samsung SDI's VP, automakers are interested in its solid-state battery packs because they are smaller, lighter, and much safer than what's in current electric cars. Apparently, they are also rather expensive to produce, since it warns that they will first go into the "super premium" EV segment of luxury electric cars that can cover more than 600 miles on a charge.
Apparently not, though this is all marketing speak
Wow! A battery that can magically transport itself 600 miles! What a world we live in!
Or, you know, it's a no sense claim with made up numbers.
I have been seeing multiple battery tech claims per week, ever week, for the past 30 years and well over 99% of the claims are bull. Dumb claims like this battery goes 600 miles" tells you all you need to know.
Show me the money, then we'll talk
We are almost there. Doesn't the average internal combustion engine car go something like 600 to 1000 miles on a tank of fuel? If so just a little bit more and the "range anxiety" argument will no longer be valid.
No, it's more like 3-400. The key point here is not the range, but the charging time
Ah, so this actually be better than ICE in range, but time to charge will be the next challenge to tackle.
I honestly think both of those "arguments" are stupid anyway, given that you can charge it at home daily. I doubt anyone driving an ICE car empties anything close to their entire fuel tank in a single day.
A big tank in a fueled personal vehicle makes sense because you don't want to have to stop and fill up every day. However, big battery in an EV doesn't really make sense since it should be plugged in every day when you get home for a few hours.
However, big battery in an EV doesn't really make sense since it should be plugged in every day when you get home for a few hours
Except some people actually travel. Who wants to stop and charge every 100 miles?
An easy way to get around this would be replaceable batteries. Like how mobile phones used to work.
Running low? Pop to the nearest charging station and swap your battery for a fully charged one. Or bring a spare. I've seen a video of it being done for scooters, don't see why it can't be scaled up for cars
Been thinking about that since EV were just getting started. Of course it means you'd need to create new standards, get all the manufacturers and gas stations to use it, etc. But I really don't see why it couldn't work that way, park the car over the system, empty battery comes off and full battery goes in, pay a monthly subscription or something.
Then take mass transit or get a car that runs on fuel. Having all this extra battery mass everywhere is just bad all around.
I don't think most people appreciate this fact.
And the impact it will have to our roads that are already poorly maintained.
It seems we can only build infrastructure but can't fix it.
Exactly. I think a small, light and cheap battery plus a gas range extender for long trips makes way more sense than carrying around 2000 pounds of battery that only gets fully used once a year.
At the very least, vehicle batteries and fuel tanks should be limited to prevent drivers from driving too long without a break. It's kind of reckless to put 600 mile battery in a personal vehicle.
Only when we're road tripping and the 20 mins every couple of hours is all our bladders can take anyway.
Doesn't the average internal combustion engine car go something like 600 to 1000 miles on a tank of fuel?
I'm guessing you don't actually drive.
Just a matter of faster charging, takes me maybe 5-10 minutes to fill up and pay, would take a lot longer for an EV. Certainly not an issue if every accommodation had charging points, as I'd then be unlikely to need a full charge during the day.
And yes, for regular day to day driving I would just charge at home, as I'm fortunate to have a garage. Not the case for many folks, sadly.
Definitely great news, and it's looking good that my next car will be an EV.
One car I had I could just about reach 600 miles if driving carefully on the highway. That was a diesel with a large tank. No other car I've had did better. My first car has a 300 mile range.
I might tap the center of that if I was doing near 100% highway, hypermiling and ran out the tank. But typically 300-500 in either of mine and I drive about 20 miles a day maximum.
It doesn't matter. Cars are still an unsustainable and inequitable grift destroying the planet. Just ban cars and make a million light EVs instead.
Ban cars with most of the world lacking proper EV infrastructure...
This idiotic statements is how you bread opposition to the cause among working people in US who are required a car to exist
How are they opposed to bread? It's impossible to keep up with politics these days. And you can never tell if you're reading an actual post or just more big leaven lobbyist propaganda.
I love Americans 🤦 There's the whole world out there with working people depending on cars.
NOT*?
Yeah cool story but in us we don't have infrastructure so we gonna need it if people are to eat
Vehicles will always have specific use cases, it's just that most of North America's infrastructure is designed to accommodate vehicles with everything else being designed around that, put in as an afterthought or just not thought of in the first place (like cycling infrastructure). So people are using these machines for things that are outside their use case, as it has been for almost a century.
As things are right now, people would probably die if cars were outright banned. It's kind of funny how important personal vehicles have become and as such kind of scary how necessary they are (it's a bit of a paradox, isn't it?). To ban cars there first needs to be a good replacement option like well connected rail lines or cycling only roads (or at least protected bicycle lanes). These take time, money, resources and, most of all, political will to create. For most of the developed world money and resources aren't exactly an issue, the issue is politics that lock up those resources for vehicles.
I.e., funding for my cities major bicycle route that serves 1000+ people everyday is still only funded by my regions parks and recreation board which doesn't get enough money to maintain it properly. Even though it's really great, I can't use it after dark because there aren't any lights until I get to a shared route and there are a few bridges that are so uneven I have to walk across.
North America has to undo multiple decades of relentless car-centred development and the prevailing political climate means that will happen piecemeal at a municipal level, street by street, year by year. I personally don't want to wait for that though, so I'm learning Dutch.
I wouldn’t be able to get to work or buy groceries without a car. I also refuse to pay the cost to live in a walkable area, as everything is significantly more expensive. The change required to create a city that is both affordable and livable without a car is impossible at this point.
I disagree, but the USA just isn't willing to have that conversation right now. I work in a suburb and work in the middle of fucking no where 19 miles away; I regularly e-bike and take the bus to my place of employment. It takes the same amount of time to drive as it does to e-bike. The e-bike can also get me to all the places I run errands at as well. The only infrastructure I need is a dedicated, protected bike lane on the state and busy roads, and a well maintained public transportation system.
This is a solvable problem, even with the limited resources we have at our disposal.
The problem with arguing that we can't just redesign cities for mixed transit is that is EXACTLY what we did for cars. 🤷♂️