Nissan teases EVs with "game-changing" battery tech for 2028

Status
Not open for further replies.

someOtherGuy

Posts: 30   +19
Not true, but EVs are way more than just being "green". Read up.

They're mostly about politics, yes.

Already solved. Learn about thermal and mechanical storage.

Mechanical storage, really? Like in a spring powered car? A toy car, maybe, but a real car? for miles?

"Thermal" storage sounds like taken out of a scyfi movie: you have plenty of "thermal" energy (basically "heat") stored in Sahara's air/ground during the day, how can you use it? Just by cracking that you could deploy a Trans-Sahara train that would run the whole day by itself (no refueling necessary), or you could create some generation facilities there and power part of the continent (or sell it to Europe). Are you talking "thermal" as in volcano heat? Same idea, how would you "use" that stored "thermal energy"? other than the old steam turbine, that is.

Energy storage is done in chemical bonds, because it's the best way that we know so far, but if you found a new one it could end up being the "new battery technology" that we all have been waiting for.

That has been covered here REPEATEDLY. And you still don't know.

You're not an engineer, right? Say you design a system to handle X load, and add a 2%-5% overprovisioning, over the estimates (just to give yourself some wiggle room): how would you reply to the new boss saying that the system now has to support 1.5X load (plus a new 2%-5% of 1.5X)? You could have done more overprovisioning at higher cost that might blow back on you (either the project gets rejected as very expensive or you get political blow back if that capacity sits idle for too long) or you could go really tight with the projections (and end up blaming the people doing that part, if it wasn't you) but at the end of the day for this to fly you must have had projected 50% overprovisioning (according to theinsanegamer's numbers), which is probably not the case for most scenarios. If there's a solution to this question that was already explained, could you please point to it?

Odd you would say that (not really). Horses were why cars took so long to catch on. Mechanical breakdowns were at maddening levels, and horses never broke down. Damn man.

horses never broke down? They just got sick, died, had to eat, sleep, drink water... You would have to care for your horses every day of this life, the car (broken or not) could be left forgotten for extended periods of time and still "work". Like every other product, once the replacement got rid of most of it pain points it took over the market. That's not something that you could say of EVs, and I would say that the main pain point is cost: no matter how much intervention we get from the governments, in the form of subventions (you're paying for "an EV somewhere" even if you don't own one, isn't that nice?) or red tape on internal combustion cars (banned from places, impossible efficiency numbers, etc.) they hadn't been able to bring the prices down.

Again. Bullshit. And I speak from experience here. WAY off.

You could say that EVs are simpler than internal combustion cars, even though they share a lot of things (brakes, lights, infotainment, etc). Some things would be different, like the A/C or the power steering, but the main issue would be: power train. Have you been able to work on the power train of an EV and assert that is "simple enough" or that you could re-use the tools and knowledge of your years of work in combustion engine cars?

I had to toss this one in again. How can you be so out of touch?

Right, there's no reply to it. You could store all the energy you like but you can't generate energy from solar during the night or "really cloudy" days. Same with wind: only works when the wind blows. Again, if you found the solution for solar generation at night or wind generation on calm, please do share (generation, not "supplying" energy that you stored somewhere before).

Don't worry. There will still be plenty of lithium left by the time we dont need it anymore. Remember? That's what this very article is about.

How does the EVs today benefit from a technology that's, at least, 6 years into the future? That 6 years time frame feels more "this might work, if we get the right scientists" than "we got this working, we only need to clear all the red tape and fix some issues in the assembly lines".

In fact, EVs will continue to drop in price. Like they are.

Not sure what market are you in, but no car that I know of is dropping in price, to the contrary. Is it that the EVs don't use as much "electronics" as the other cars or is that their chips have seen no shortage (or maybe they sell more expensive so they're prioritized)?

Even if true, ever heard of a ........Used car?

On EVs there's a different equation: you don't buy a car, you buy a battery (with a car around it). So, now do your math with "battery" instead of "car". Your used EV will be valued depending on the condition of its battery, and it will come to a moment that it will simply die (you've probably experienced this with a phone or a laptop already). Basically programmed obsolescence applied to the car industry, so green, so environmentalist: because when it comes to buying a new battery, you'll be better off buying a whole new car (same idea with replacing a TV screen VS buying a new TV).

Only by a few folks that don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Guess who that includes!? ;)

Toyota, 8 years+ ago? It's the same idea as your EV, it just uses a "hydrogen combustion engine" (called "battery" for whatever reason) to generate electricity that is later used on an electric power train.

Natural gas is probably cheaper and more abundant than gasoline (and is said to be "cleaner") so it makes sense that you could adapt an existing internal combustion engine to burn this one instead. Those seem like "non-revolutionary" maybe useful ideas, time will tell.

A great way to conclude such a convoluted and fact free post. Complete confusion. And like it or not, facts are still everything, because without them, you know what we get? Right Wing CONServatism.

And now, if you don't mind, my throat hurts from the laughter. I need to get back into this century. And reality.

Don't you know that "today's facts" are basically opinions? That's what the courts said (about Facebook fact checks, for example) so that's not on me (I think differently fwiw).

I don't see a lot of knowledge in your comments, but maybe you're just using talking points over a very deeply knowledgeable life experience, that you skipped here for some reason (brevity, maybe?). Please use my questions to share it with the rest of the world, and thank you.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,645   +2,858
TechSpot Elite
They're mostly about politics, yes.
No. The less than educated. Yes.
Mechanical storage, really? Like in a spring powered car? A toy car, maybe, but a real car? for miles?

"Thermal" storage sounds like taken out of a scyfi movie: you have plenty of "thermal" energy
You could just read up on this stuff. But you wont.
And if your poor head wasnt already about to explode. Look up more storage methods such as flywheel and compressed air.
You're not an engineer, right?
No. I'm an Architect, and I know dozens of engineers. They are often the ones that point me to the information I want to know.
horses never broke down? They just got sick, died, had to eat, sleep, drink water
If you like, I will help with your studies and give you a few articles on why people back then refused the automobile over their horses. But you should want to succeed on your own.
You could say that EVs are simpler than internal combustion cars, even though they share a lot of things (brakes, lights, infotainment, etc).
And that is why I said near zero maintenance "EV related."
How does the EVs today benefit from a technology that's, at least, 6 years into the future?
Thats why I said "by the time we dont need it anymore". Slow day?
Not sure what market are you in, but no car that I know of is dropping in price, to the contrary
No model carry over has had even a penny rise in price over a smoker from year to year.
On EVs there's a different equation: you don't buy a car, you buy a battery (with a car around it)
That's not what I did with my toy Focus. You people need new crying points. New batteries arecquickly approaching $100 per kWh.

From Bloomberg:
"According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance's annual battery survey, annual battery pack prices dropped some 6 percent from 2020 to 2021. Back in 2010, lithium-ion battery pack prices averaged $1,200 per kWh. Today, they're down 89 percent, to an average of just $132 per kWh."
Natural gas is probably cheaper and more abundant than gasoline (and is said to be "cleaner") so it makes sense that you could adapt an existing internal combustion engine to burn this one instead.
You would know how dumb that sounds if you had a clue what it would take to build an NG infrastructure.
Don't you know that "today's facts" are basically opinions?
There are verifiable facts in everything I said. You would do well to educate yourself. A lot of us are tired of trying.
 
Last edited:

someOtherGuy

Posts: 30   +19
No. The less than educated. Yes.

If politicians get involved is political. You can "state as many facts" as you like, but it won't change the laws that the politicians keep writing (maybe you could vote for "EVs are not my business" politicians, but that's not what we have Today).

You could just read up on this stuff. But you wont.

The basics are not there, afaik. Maybe there was a "huge" discovery that only you and a few other know about, this was your time to shine. About "stuff in the Internet": no thank you, there are people talking about alien abductions and perpetual motion machines, so... (if you say is possible: build it and I'll agree that it works, otherwise is just hot air).

No. I'm an Architect, and I know dozens of engineers. They are often the ones that point me to the information I want to know.

I see what you did there, avoiding hard to explain stuff with true statements, it seems that you're a very clever architect :)

If you like, I will help with your studies and give you a few articles on why people back then refused the automobile over their horses. But you should want to succeed on your own.

I was giving you counterpoints, not that it invalidates other reasons: there will always be friction to "try new things", but that's part of the human condition. The way it is usually solved is by introducing a product that's so superior to the previous one that it compels most of the old schools to convert. That doesn't mean that "everyone" will, some people will die on their horse (literally).

That's not what's happening on the car market: we are been pushed EVs down our throats with policies, not with product superiority, which they might have but otherwise get eclipsed by politicians and "their work".

And that is why I said near zero maintenance EV related.

Cool.

Thats why I said "by the time we dont need it anymore". Slow day?

How can you know when we won't need more lithium? Do you know "for sure" when that will be? You're guessing, more like dreaming, so yes, we'll keep mining and pushing lithium for the time being and very well into the future. (this whole article is basically just a wet dream payed by Nissan)

No model carry over has had even a penny rise in price over a smoker from year to year.

I guess is a special market then, because EVERYTHING IN 4 WHEELS has gone up in the last 1-2 years: not because they're better or worse, or a technical breakthrough, just because of market forces. Maybe EVs live in a different market, and somehow "smokers" market don't affect them. Apparently you know more about that.

That's not what I did with my toy Focus. You people need new crying points. New batteries arecquickly approaching $100 per kWh.

From Bloomberg:
"According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance's annual battery survey, annual battery pack prices dropped some 6 percent from 2020 to 2021. Back in 2010, lithium-ion battery pack prices averaged $1,200 per kWh. Today, they're down 89 percent, to an average of just $132 per kWh."

That's great. They need to keep coming down, though. Remember that you need to replace them every X cycles. So, not only we need batteries for the new cars, we need for the ones that will be replaced.

You would know how dumb that sounds if you had a clue what it would take to build an NG infrastructure.

First, you would need to do liquified anything, because gas just doesn't have the energy density for the numbers to work. So, it will be a liquid, that you probably need to keep pressurized, that you'll store in tanks and move with pipes. Granted that the pressurization is a new thing, and some stuff might be able to carry over while others would have to be replaced, but it's not that crazy a change from one to the other. Now do electricity...

There are verifiable facts in everything I said. You would do well to educate yourself. A lot of us are tired of trying.

But you keep talking about "facts" and not "verifications". If you want to "educate" someone (kinda patronizing I would say) try with "verifications" first: if they reach the same conclusions that you did MAYBE you have a "fact", otherwise you're just "arguing conclusions". I understand you're an artist and not a scientist, but you have to stick to the scientific method on this one.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,645   +2,858
TechSpot Elite
If politicians get involved is political. You can "state as many facts" as you like, but it won't change the laws that the politicians keep writing (maybe you could vote for "EVs are not my business" politicians, but that's not what we have Today).



The basics are not there, afaik. Maybe there was a "huge" discovery that only you and a few other know about, this was your time to shine. About "stuff in the Internet": no thank you, there are people talking about alien abductions and perpetual motion machines, so... (if you say is possible: build it and I'll agree that it works, otherwise is just hot air).



I see what you did there, avoiding hard to explain stuff with true statements, it seems that you're a very clever architect :)



I was giving you counterpoints, not that it invalidates other reasons: there will always be friction to "try new things", but that's part of the human condition. The way it is usually solved is by introducing a product that's so superior to the previous one that it compels most of the old schools to convert. That doesn't mean that "everyone" will, some people will die on their horse (literally).

That's not what's happening on the car market: we are been pushed EVs down our throats with policies, not with product superiority, which they might have but otherwise get eclipsed by politicians and "their work".



Cool.



How can you know when we won't need more lithium? Do you know "for sure" when that will be? You're guessing, more like dreaming, so yes, we'll keep mining and pushing lithium for the time being and very well into the future. (this whole article is basically just a wet dream payed by Nissan)



I guess is a special market then, because EVERYTHING IN 4 WHEELS has gone up in the last 1-2 years: not because they're better or worse, or a technical breakthrough, just because of market forces. Maybe EVs live in a different market, and somehow "smokers" market don't affect them. Apparently you know more about that.



That's great. They need to keep coming down, though. Remember that you need to replace them every X cycles. So, not only we need batteries for the new cars, we need for the ones that will be replaced.



First, you would need to do liquified anything, because gas just doesn't have the energy density for the numbers to work. So, it will be a liquid, that you probably need to keep pressurized, that you'll store in tanks and move with pipes. Granted that the pressurization is a new thing, and some stuff might be able to carry over while others would have to be replaced, but it's not that crazy a change from one to the other. Now do electricity...



But you keep talking about "facts" and not "verifications". If you want to "educate" someone (kinda patronizing I would say) try with "verifications" first: if they reach the same conclusions that you did MAYBE you have a "fact", otherwise you're just "arguing conclusions". I understand you're an artist and not a scientist, but you have to stick to the scientific method on this one.
I have an idea. Rather than teach, I will let you learn. Slowly.
Why don't you tell us all what confuses you about facts and truth? One at a time, and I'm sure the many educated on this subject will help just like me.

And as a bonus, we can start with this:
The basics are not there, afaik. Maybe there was a "huge" discovery that only you and a few other know about, this was your time to shine. About "stuff in the Internet": no thank you
I cheated here because what you want to learn on the subject of this article goes on further in the two articles I posted above.

So if you can't handle the truth of what is out there because it is "on the internet" then why the hell are you posting a bunch of false points on the internet? What do you want, people to send you printouts in the mail?

Now, what did I post that is wrong? With proof. For most people, that is not too much to ask.

EDIT
I see what you did there, avoiding hard to explain stuff with true statements
I forgot to ask. You have never posted a shred of proof of what you say, and now you complain I am not? I have, many times, and a lot of others here have also.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.