Toyota says battery breakthrough will lead to 745-mile EVs

[donnieD]

Counterpoint: when traveling long distance, charging to 100% is pointless. 80% is much easier to achieve and can be done quickly.

The tesla model 3 is using an older 400v battery arch, not bad, but it does limit fast charging due to heat buildup. The newer EVs are now shipping with 800v packs, like the kia EV6, which can go from 10-80% in 18 minutes, or 217 miles. That's with a max of 230kW charging, compared to the model 3's 250kW. Larger batteries will be able to handle the full 350kW of current high power chargers. At that level we could easily be seeing 320 miles in 18 minutes, which is 4 hours of driving at 80 on the interstate.

High voltage batteries are rapidly changing how well charging works, and the industry is now looking into 1000-1200v batteries that can charge even faster.

Hydrogen's future will likely be in heavy duty equipment, like tractor trailers, where the weight and size of batteries becomes a major roadblock to implementation. For cars and light trucks, its highly unlikely, as the benefits dont really outweigh what EVs can do today. The Mirai really shows that off.

I have never said charging to 100%, I have only stated that at 5miles per kW, you would spend 149kW in 745miles (in ideal circumstances). Whatever the case, battery should have enough juice +20% on a top. So, back to that Kia that can do 18 minutes charge for 217 miles with 230kW charger, extrapolated comes back to the very similar figures I've already posted. The main reason for using 800V+ in newer vehicles is simply to reduce current (check under Ohm's law), however, at the end of the day you will still use 1kW of energy per 5miles in the best case scenario. Ever wondered why the long range electricity transmission is at 120kV AC?

As for Hydrogen cars, we are still in infancy there, Jason @ EngineeringExplained YT channel has explained quite well all the issues with hydrogen, however, until we find a cheap way for electrolysis, they are doomed, plus quite complicated design. Don't forget the hydrogen pumps infrastructure....

On the note of wind turbines, check UK's production of a few months ago when the wind stopped, fall back was.....guess what?.....natural gas generators, and the well kept secret is that those seems to be used more often than not. Green my lower backside.....

 

[donnieD]

We get news about such groundbreaking breakthroughs every darned week. I don't even raise an eyebrow anymore. Bring it to market, until then it's just an empty promise. Btw. Toyota originally promised their solid state tech in 2022, in the form of an EV you can buy in masses. End of story.

...and we are still 30 years away for the Nuclear Fusion generators...for the past 60 years

 

[kiwigraeme]

May have hit the news 31st of May for people trading price has climbed from 1908 jpy to 2327 jpy

Buy on a rumour .... one quick sell off in that period still tracking upwards afterwards

 

[TechZel]

4. Libs care about CO2, not environmental damage. You point out the destruction to jungles and waterways from nickel and cobalt mining, and they simply shrug and call you a chud. The toxic sludge from the solar manufacturing process? Just throw it into the yangtze, who cares? THINK OF THE CO2!!!!! Disposable tech that cant be maintained and create immense amounts of toxic waste? MUH WIND TURBEEENES!!!!!!

This is a very strawman argument you have here, and it reveals that you don't actually have conversations with "liberals". Contrary to popular belief, online screaming matches are not the place you find educated individuals discussing difficult topics. It's only where you find the terminally online.

Nobody thinks the pollution from manufacturing batteries or solar panels or whatever is a good thing. But nobody who takes a swipe based on that pollution ever seems to compare it with the amount of environmental damage caused by obtaining, processing and using fossil fuels (spoiler alert, it's worse). Because they're not interested in doing anything about the problems, they just want to take political pot shots. Not to mention that being able to do something about localised environmental damage kind of requires the global environment to not, you know, collapse entirely.

One side of this debate seems to want any fossil fuel alternative to be untouchably perfect in every single possible way and require no lifestyle changes before we even think of implementing it at scale, regardless of how incrementally better that technology was in the many years leading up to the point it was "perfect". But that's not how technology works, and perfect is the enemy of good.

However in my personal opinion the whole EV "debate" is more of a distraction than anything, given how relatively low the emissions from personal transport are percentage wise. It's been a monumentally successful and politically motivated campaign that has provided nothing but benefits for the fossil fuel industry. Ultimately us consumers are not empowered to make a real difference to the emissions that enable our lifestyle, and while Joe Schmoes sling it out in the comments about EVs, heavy industries run by wealthy, powerful and politically connected people continue to pump out as much CO2 and destroy as much habitat as they please with impunity. And frankly the number of Joe Schmoes who seem to cheer for that outcome is highly depressing.

 

[toooooot]

10 min recharge would be amazing. It is evn hard to believe it is possible. In any case, reliable grid that can charge millions of cars and cheaper batteries could make the real change possible

 

[Theinsanegamer]

We get news about such groundbreaking breakthroughs every darned week. I don't even raise an eyebrow anymore. Bring it to market, until then it's just an empty promise. Btw. Toyota originally promised their solid state tech in 2022, in the form of an EV you can buy in masses. End of story.

I think this is getting more attention because NASA recently built such a battery.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

This is a very strawman argument you have here, and it reveals that you don't actually have conversations with "liberals". Contrary to popular belief, online screaming matches are not the place you find educated individuals discussing difficult topics. It's only where you find the terminally online.

LMAO.

Nobody thinks the pollution from manufacturing batteries or solar panels or whatever is a good thing. But nobody who takes a swipe based on that pollution ever seems to compare it with the amount of environmental damage caused by obtaining, processing and using fossil fuels (spoiler alert, it's worse). Because they're not interested in doing anything about the problems, they just want to take political pot shots. Not to mention that being able to do something about localised environmental damage kind of requires the global environment to not, you know, collapse entirely.

Nobody claims that fossil fuels cause no damage. "green" cheerleaders, OTOH.....

Also, wold enviroment isnt going to collapse. That's been predicted time and time again, and it has never happened. And it never will happen. That kind of climate alarmism is what gets normal people to roll their eyes.

One side of this debate seems to want any fossil fuel alternative to be untouchably perfect in every single possible way and require no lifestyle changes before we even think of implementing it at scale, regardless of how incrementally better that technology was in the many years leading up to the point it was "perfect". But that's not how technology works, and perfect is the enemy of good.

And the other side wants to rush head first into embracing new technology, when it cannot demonstrably replace our current methods of transport, with absolutely no regards for the logistics required, the infrastructure needed, or the consequences of rushing forward, economic, political, or social be damned.

However in my personal opinion the whole EV "debate" is more of a distraction than anything, given how relatively low the emissions from personal transport are percentage wise. It's been a monumentally successful and politically motivated campaign that has provided nothing but benefits for the fossil fuel industry. Ultimately us consumers are not empowered to make a real difference to the emissions that enable our lifestyle, and while Joe Schmoes sling it out in the comments about EVs, heavy industries run by wealthy, powerful and politically connected people continue to pump out as much CO2 and destroy as much habitat as they please with impunity. And frankly the number of Joe Schmoes who seem to cheer for that outcome is highly depressing.

In this we are in total agreement. EVs are a neat idea, but if the government wants to mandate them, they need to put int he legwork first, to build out the charging infrastructure, upgrade out grid, and make investments in nuclear power to out-mode our coal and nat gas infrastructure.

 

[scavengerspc]

Compare an EV to a COMAPRABLE gas vehicle, and they are indeed significantly more expensive.

Go ahead then. Compare a $40000 EV and smoke pump ans see what you see.

EV emissions are in the factory, and are significantly higher there then gas cars. Adn they DO produce emissions, when charged via coal or natural gas,

How are they more pollutant in the factory? I want to hear that. And coal only to the knowledgeable. NG emissions are downright acceptable next to coal. And coal is under 30% of the US supply, so no. Building them is a miniscule pollutant compared to a lifetime of burning gasoline.

Oh yeah, just shell out for a new $25k battery, no big dealio

You said that. Not me. And yes many are doing the new battery route to get another 10-12 years of cheap low maintenance driving.

Libs care about CO2, not environmental damage

Dumb a** comment of the week. Rush Limbaugh passed a while back, you know.

In this we are in total agreement. EVs are a neat idea, but if the government wants to mandate them, they need to put int he legwork first

The leg work is in. Folks like you just ignore it.

I actually like talking to folks like you. Its like a blast back to 2010.

 

[adamada72]

I have to watch Family guy more, I have a lot to watch (recover) from US cartoons series.
Just discovered South Park last month

South Park may be the best political commentary show ever. They totally get that everyone who goes political regardless of side becomes ridiculous.

 

[nulll]

For those of us in the frozen north aflush with Hydro generation potential the EV switch can't come soon enough, though for now I'll stick with my 15 y/o car and my 10 y/o SUV that have long since offset the carbon footprint of their manufacture. For the few summer months I'll stick with my 06 CBR and 09 Ninja 250R (spectacular commuter bike once the gearing is lengthened) both of these get well over 50Mpg and the lil baby Ninja can get closer to 80 if ridden quite succinctly.

There is no one solution here folks, it is going to be a complex venn diagram of overlapping and synergizing solutions, refinements and innovations that deals with this issue. That is going to include keeping plenty of ICE vehicles that have already been produced on the roads for many years so long as they're well maintained and relatively efficient. Hell, simply generating public awareness around having your tires properly inflated would resolve a not insignificant percentage of the emissions concerns while engineering more effective solutions to traffic congestion and city planning will alleviate another chunk. There is still an awful lot of accessible fruit on the tree to be plucked by those willing to look. Free or subsidized motorcycle training courses offered in all sunshine belt US States to those willing to commute on 2 wheels with a subsidy package around scooters or E-bikes is another easily implemented solution to cut another few percent out of the issue.

To be clear though as it relates to Toyota, they aren't even in the race and are likely not to make it out of this decade. You need look no further than their current product portfolio, their cost of R&D and their publicly available margins and it gets pretty bleak very quickly. There are plenty of legacy car makers that have "plans" for EV's but it's all smoke and mirrors thus far while a certain US based EV maker just rewrote the rule this past weekend with yet another record setting sales quarter. 10 years from now less than half the currently extant car makers will be left in business and a lot of former Titans are looking like the first to go, for now it still seems unlikely to most folks that this could ever happen but in the next 18-36 months once on or more EV specialist manufacturers have a sub 25K USD compact car on sale with modern A/V tech a solid fit and finish and 200 mile range (more than enough for the average commuter with a tiny cost of ownership) the other shoe will drop and you'll see the likes of GM and Toyota withering very quickly.

Yes GM technically had EVs but their losing their bloody shirts on every unit sold and the batter tech doesn't scale to other platforms at all. Their much touted "Optium" battery tech is wildly inefficiently designed which is why the Hummer EV weighs nearly 10,000lbs. while only having the same energy capacity as Tesla that weighs less than half. Toyota is lacking in direction of any kind and that's no secret, there is currently serious upheaval in the Japanese parliament regarding exactly this as Japan's economy is more tightly linked to success of their automotive sector than any other country and to be quite frank they're shook! They're firmly on the back foot for the first time since they swept into the European and American markets in the 70's, Tesla is currently doing to them what they did to British Leyland in the 70's. We all know how that went don't we?

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/0...s-so-now-its-lobbying-to-slow-the-transition/

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/02/toyota-ceo-akio-toyoda-electric-vehicles-happy-dance.html

 

[Tantor]

How are they (EVs) more pollutant in the factory? I want to hear that. And coal only to the knowledgeable. NG emissions are downright acceptable next to coal. And coal is under 30% of the US supply, so no. Building them is a miniscule pollutant compared to a lifetime of burning gasoline.

Manufacturing EV batteries is extremely 'carbon dirty'. By the time the average new EV arrives on the showroom floor, the manufacturing process has already 'generated' about twice as much carbon as a comparable new IC. Sure, operating an IC creates a little more carbon but it takes about 7 years before it catches up to the EV.

FYI - Most people only keep their car for 6 years. So they're deluding themselves if they think they're helping the environment by buying an EV. It's all about virtue signaling.

And yes many are doing the new battery route to get another 10-12 years of cheap low maintenance driving.

Not good. Remember that EV battery manufacture is the core environmental problem of EVs. Every new battery dumps another huge load of carbon into the environment. It will take another 7 years for the IC to catch up. Battery manufacture also creates environmental nightmares in other ways. Toxic pollutants, etc.

In contrast, rebuilding an IC motor and trans generates very little new carbon or pollution.

So best for the environment is to buy an IC, maintain it properly, and have it thoroughly rebuilt when it starts to burn oil. Do NOT buy a new EV battery. EV batteries are literally death for the environment.

Dumb a** comment of the week. Rush Limbaugh passed a while back, you know.

At least he didn't pass gas. LOL.

 

[Tantor]

LMAO.

Nobody claims that fossil fuels cause no damage. "green" cheerleaders, OTOH.....

Also, wold enviroment isnt going to collapse. That's been predicted time and time again, and it has never happened. And it never will happen. That kind of climate alarmism is what gets normal people to roll their eyes.

And the other side wants to rush head first into embracing new technology, when it cannot demonstrably replace our current methods of transport, with absolutely no regards for the logistics required, the infrastructure needed, or the consequences of rushing forward, economic, political, or social be damned.

In this we are in total agreement. EVs are a neat idea, but if the government wants to mandate them, they need to put int he legwork first, to build out the charging infrastructure, upgrade out grid, and make investments in nuclear power to out-mode our coal and nat gas infrastructure.

Very true.

EVs are touted as the successor to the IC. But all the EVs so far are expensive, boutique products. They still don't have a real 'people's EV. Something like the early Honda Civic or VW Beetle.

EVs cannot succeed unless they are

1. Low cost
2. Simple and easy to work on
3. Durable
4. Have long range
5. Potential for high performance

But EVs were never intended to be a replacement for the IC.

Here's the problem. EVs have at least two goals. The first is to lower carbon production. The more important goal is to force the common person out of car ownership. Make it so expensive, cumbersome and complicated to own a car that the average person will just give up and switch to a bicycle or public transport. And the rich who do have the money for an EV will find that their every EV trip is tracked, and every word spoken in their EV is recorded. Full spectrum social dominance has been a dream of the Western elites since the beginning of the industrial age.

 

[scavengerspc]

Now here is the thing with your 15-year-old "thoughts" in this post

Manufacturing EV batteries is extremely 'carbon dirty'. By the time the average new EV arrives on the showroom floor, the manufacturing process has already 'generated' about twice as much carbon as a comparable new IC. Sure, operating an IC creates a little more carbon but it takes about 7 years before it catches up to the EV.

FYI - Most people only keep their car for 6 years. So they're deluding themselves if they think they're helping the environment by buying an EV. It's all about virtue signaling.


Not good. Remember that EV battery manufacture is the core environmental problem of EVs. Every new battery dumps another huge load of carbon into the environment. It will take another 7 years for the IC to catch up. Battery manufacture also creates environmental nightmares in other ways. Toxic pollutants, etc.

In contrast, rebuilding an IC motor and trans generates very little new carbon or pollution.

So best for the environment is to buy an IC, maintain it properly, and have it thoroughly rebuilt when it starts to burn oil. Do NOT buy a new EV battery. EV batteries are literally death for the environment.



At least he didn't pass gas. LOL.

And in this one

Very true.

EVs are touted as the successor to the IC. But all the EVs so far are expensive, boutique products. They still don't have a real 'people's EV. Something like the early Honda Civic or VW Beetle.

EVs cannot succeed unless they are

1. Low cost
2. Simple and easy to work on
3. Durable
4. Have long range
5. Potential for high performance

But EVs were never intended to be a replacement for the IC.

Here's the problem. EVs have at least two goals. The first is to lower carbon production. The more important goal is to force the common person out of car ownership. Make it so expensive, cumbersome and complicated to own a car that the average person will just give up and switch to a bicycle or public transport. And the rich who do have the money for an EV will find that their every EV trip is tracked, and every word spoken in their EV is recorded. Full spectrum social dominance has been a dream of the Western elites since the beginning of the industrial age.

Everything you regurgitate in every last thread like this, you post the same things even though you are disproven time and again. And your comments here have been discussed right here in this thread, yet you ignore the facts. Again.

Not to sound off too badly, but as an actual EV owner, your 5 point list is an honest to God source of comedy relief.

 

[Porkous]

Dont forget: 30% degradation is considered "fine" and will not warrant a replacement according to OEMs.

Add in 15% range loss during the winter.

So for that 300 mile EV, you want a 500-600 mile range battery underneath,

30%? The latest discoveries put the life cycle at 2000-3000 times. That's enough for million miles and even then, the degradation is futile since it can basically go another half.

What range loss in winter when the battery is warm like a tea kettle on automatic warming up systems.

This anxiety is outrageous. Why not make batteries that last traveling 1 million light years away, let's step that up to 10 million, just to be certain in our uncertainty about each mile of travelling though.