Maybe on a motorcycle.
Toyota's 745-mile Battery
- Thread starter Shel_B
- Start date
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Moore's law doesn't apply to batteries though
Lithium was chosen because it has a high electrode potential:
Standard electrode potential - Wikipedia
It also has very high electropositivity (low electronegativity):
You've basically got Lithium, Sodium and Potassium there as the best elements; the elements with the highest electropositivity, all of which have been experimented with. The chemistry and physics of batteries are extremely mature. Yes, we'll get incremental improvements as new techniques and compounds are developed, but it's nothing like Moore's law.
There's no battery equivalent of evolving lithography where the incremental reduction in transistor and die size exponentially increased the number of transistors and subsequently the capability.
To put that into perspective, if battery technology were to scale with Moore's law, a battery equivalent of a 486 DX4/100 (1994) would have to match the performance of an Intel Core i9-13900KS 6GHz CPU today, a 60x increase in just clock speed alone.
The commercial lithium-ion battery started production in 1991 by Sony, Li-Po was commercialized in 1994, the same year as the DX4. They were around 110-125Wh/kg. The best example from that linked article was 500Wh/kg, a 4x increase.
You could buy a Pentium II 400 (the 4x increase) in 1998, just 4 years later.
Yes, and Iron is more brittle and oxidizes faster than aluminum, until you mix it with carbon and nickel to make stainless steel.Moore's law doesn't apply to batteries though
Lithium was chosen because it has a high electrode potential:
Standard electrode potential - Wikipedia
It also has very high electropositivity (low electronegativity):
View attachment 178725
You've basically got Lithium, Sodium and Potassium there as the best elements; the elements with the highest electropositivity, all of which have been experimented with. The chemistry and physics of batteries are extremely mature. Yes, we'll get incremental improvements as new techniques and compounds are developed, but it's nothing like Moore's law.
There's no battery equivalent of evolving lithography where the incremental reduction in transistor and die size exponentially increased the number of transistors and subsequently the capability.
To put that into perspective, if battery technology were to scale with Moore's law, a battery equivalent of a 486 DX4/100 (1994) would have to match the performance of an Intel Core i9-13900KS 6GHz CPU today, a 60x increase in just clock speed alone.
The commercial lithium-ion battery started production in 1991 by Sony, Li-Po was commercialized in 1994, the same year as the DX4. They were around 110-125Wh/kg. The best example from that linked article was 500Wh/kg, a 4x increase.
You could buy a Pentium II 400 (the 4x increase) in 1998, just 4 years later.
Ability to donate an electron is something that can be enhanced - potentially ( Pun intended).
Moores law is about manufacturing mostly - how small a transistor can be made in to a wafer. Wrong comparison. This would be more akin a jump from a mechanical calculator to a transistor in the first place.
Last edited:
Why?
Please explain.
I never saw a statement that the 745 will be in an actual car and actual production dates. “Developing” was made quite clear.
It was made quite clear that they will have batteries that will travel as far as gas and recharge faster with specific years as a time frame.
Pretty impressive and I bet they have the time line correct for the batteries that will claim going as far as a gasoline vehicle unlike other EV companies that promise products that come out years behind so called production times.
The story you posted/linked to, spells out pretty specific dates. Still trying to figure out the “way back” in your statement.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yes, but that doesn't increase its strength by 60x or set it on a path to exponential increases in capability.
Sure, hence my comments about incremental increases in capacity.
Right, but you were the one making comparisons to technologies tied to Moore's law, which batteries are not. I see no evidence presented that the move to solid state (which already exists), will enable the sort of quantum leap in capability that the shift from vacuum tubes to the transistor did. And of course early transistor-based tech was rapidly refined (hence Moore's law), which would again need to take place with batteries for that comparison to make sense. It's just not a very good thing to compare it to, it sets unreasonable expectations, because the same mechanism isn't in play (advancements in lithography that allow for constantly shrinking dies and transistors, which in turn exponentially increases capability).
I'm excited for advancements in this sector, I just try and keep my expectations tempered to reflect the reality of the 30 years already put into lithium battery chemistry. I'd love to be wrong and there's some breakthrough, but it's highly unlikely.
It was an analogy not a technical comment. I didn't mention moore's law specifically or anything technical at all, simply that in 40 years computing power has progressed to the point where I hold the computing power of 1965 Nasa in my hand.. I could easily have said that once no one would believe you could get east by sailing west, or fly faster than sound, or fly at all. Human ingenuity is always increasing.
You can believe what you like. I know of tons of money being invested into the space by private ventures. Billions in fact. There working on solid electrolyte's, different anodes, different cathodes and other technologies altogether. I don't think they would if they didn't think they would get anywhere. They frequently site 10X improvement in electrical density. Which part gains what , well I doubt we will find out until they have something they can patent or commercialize.
I believe it will happen - likely in my lifetime. You can feel free to disagree.
Sure, the new headline reads. "Toyota promises new EVs coming in 2026 with nearly 500 miles of range" Thats a big retrograde from 750 no?
There is now no date on the 1200KM battery on their roadmap. They dont even claim the type of battery for the 1000 or 1200KM version.
Toyota never did claim what car would be powered by any of these batteries simply claiming new "X mile" batteries.
Their roadmaps and dates have been an ice rink.
Quoting electrek - Toyota claimed they would have their first EV powered by a solid-state battery out in 2021, and then in 2017, it moved to 2022 and then 2025. Call me a skeptic, but now they are claiming around 2028.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I understand that, but it was an allusion to Moore's law, and that's why I responded to it in the way I have. The progress made on the transistor front, nothing else compares. Even if we look at going from the Wright Brothers to the SR-71 Blackbird, that's 50 years at a rate massively slower than we saw with Moore's law, and then it just sort of plateau'd.
Absolutely, no disagreement, but we do tend to hit walls (like alluded to above) due to limitations of physics and chemistry. Fusion has been 10 years away for 50 years, we still haven't invented anything better than fission or a method more efficient than the century+ old Rankine cycle for harnessing it.
I don't think efforts are being made to dictate what each other believes? I've simply outlined my reasons for my expectations as to the pace at which batteries will improve. You've done the same. We differ on this.
And sometimes this stuff ends up not panning out. Solar thermal for example, had billions invested in it, has been an unmitigated disaster. Crypto, lots of people have lost money there. Fusion, which I've already mentioned. That's not to say there won't be advancements, I completely agree that there will, I'm just far less optimistic about the size and rate of those improvements than you are.
Yes, and we've seen citations for massive increases in efficiency from solar cells too, in a lab, that aren't cost effective. Eventually some of that technology makes its way into commercial panels, but the gains have been incremental and small in the overall scheme of things.
I'm not sure how old you are, so it's difficult to gauge that comment. If you are in your 30's, believing it will happen in the next 50 years is different from you being your 70's and thinking it's going to happen in the next 10.
I'm clearly more pessimistic on this stuff than you are. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't expect to be. If I am, I'll be pleasantly surprised and celebrate alongside you however.
Honestly, I don't expect battery density to increase too much. I do expect its cost, safety, and durability to improve over time and therefore make the same vehicles more affordable to the mass.Moore's law doesn't apply to batteries though
Lithium was chosen because it has a high electrode potential:
Standard electrode potential - Wikipedia
It also has very high electropositivity (low electronegativity):
View attachment 178725
You've basically got Lithium, Sodium and Potassium there as the best elements; the elements with the highest electropositivity, all of which have been experimented with. The chemistry and physics of batteries are extremely mature. Yes, we'll get incremental improvements as new techniques and compounds are developed, but it's nothing like Moore's law.
There's no battery equivalent of evolving lithography where the incremental reduction in transistor and die size exponentially increased the number of transistors and subsequently the capability.
To put that into perspective, if battery technology were to scale with Moore's law, a battery equivalent of a 486 DX4/100 (1994) would have to match the performance of an Intel Core i9-13900KS 6GHz CPU today, a 60x increase in just clock speed alone.
The commercial lithium-ion battery started production in 1991 by Sony, Li-Po was commercialized in 1994, the same year as the DX4. They were around 110-125Wh/kg. The best example from that linked article was 500Wh/kg, a 4x increase.
You could buy a Pentium II 400 (the 4x increase) in 1998, just 4 years later.
Look back at horse drawn wagons, they are much lighter than gas car today (at least not the large SUVs), and moving to gas vehicles over time with increased weight didn't bother the riders / drivers because gas is cheap. I don't see larger battery packs being a problem if they are affordable, reliable, and durable. If anything larger batteries can be used to soak up excessive generations during off peak with more flexibility.
Well, the Roadster II will be out in 2020, right? Elon time for the win! Here's mine in the driveway. Wanna take her out for a spin?
Sincerely,
No and this is why I say this. It's only the reporters (if you can call him that) that leads one to believe Toyotas 750 mile battery but Toyota never made any such statement that it is going to be in a production car anytime soon.
Meaning, the "reporter" wanted catchy headlines (click bait) and made a story about Toyota working on a 750 battery. Yet nothing in the story that Toyota said this is coming to a production car any time soon.
All manufacturers work on projects and products but this reporter decided to make a story that would generate clicks.
Now to the second factual news story from Electrek the reporter in this case is actually reporting Toyota news and factual statements not leading one to believe anything other than Toyota it self statements = "Toyota promises new EVs coming in 2026 with nearly 500 miles of range" This is a statement by Toyota and not some click bait headline by the OP.
I think I look at the so called "news" pretty fairly and I too at times get caught believing a story as in the OP of some so called writer creating news that skews the public into believing more than it is in order to create, well, a story.
Then in contrast we have the Electrek story based on actual statements from Toyota, big difference.
I dont follow EVs as much as others in here but to me, Electrek seems like a real publication with consistent factual information vs other wanna be's
Electrek even points out that up to 700 mile battery but not in the way the OP reporter has. Also points out and words it as "working on"
"Looking further out, Toyota is developing a high-performance battery that will further increase the cruising range to over 620 miles "
Im truly not looking to defend Toyota in anyway. Anyone knows me long enough knows my skepticism towards the media, one really has to waddle through to find reliable news sources vs the garbage out there. Thats really all what my post is about.
It's true Toyota never mentions the car that will enable any of their battery mileage claims in quotes, but in roadmaps they claim it's an improved BZX4, or maybe it's more accurate to say they use that as the benchmark for improvements to come.
Keiji Kaita, president of the company’s research and development center for carbon neutrality quoted the "745 mile battery" to the Guardian so it wasnt simply a journalist making a statement. Kaita has claimed several dates the last one I read was 2028.
In this last roadmap the "745 mile battery" has no date at all, and the 1000KM battery is 2028.
Using the BZX4 as the benchmark presents its own problems.
The latest roadmap shows the BZX4 with a 500KM/300m mile range.
The furthest I've seen this car in any test is 219M or about 350km.
I want toyota to succeed. I wish they would quit damaging their credibility like this.
The prior roadmap.
Last edited:
Thinking aloud here, in the past, money follows innovation, the inverse was never true. Today, it is only a way to make oneself rich through empty promises. The recent push for electric airplanes is a great example. Plenty of money follows the promise of performance. Yet, not one "innovator" has produced anything of note. Not one.
However, if I, as a scientist and inventor, come up with a viable. massless propulsion drive for space travel, or cold fusion using a mix of common elements, you can bet the money will flow. Again, neither innovation will ever happen if money is pushed in those directions.
What we have today, is a bunch of people who "believe" that throwing money at the problem, will find a solution. Not unlike Eliz Holmes and Theranos, the blood testing machine. The periodic chart says otherwise with regard to battery energy density. There are only so many ions we can move, and we know exactly how many that is.
https://thedriven.io/2023/04/03/sci...y-with-4-times-energy-density-of-lithium-ion/
Theranos is a bad example. They promised to make an existing technology (blood testing) cheaper - not invent anything new.
I'd prefer the larger capacity battery, because, among other reasons, under cold conditions and / or when it gets old it will still have decent capacity.
I agree, if you're going to be an early adopter you might as well have the biggest and the best at the time, so at least you have a fighting chance when the tech is improved upon. Or in this case when the battery ages and range takes a hit. All you need is the money required to buy into the latest and greatest.
Elizabeth Holmes went crazy from the adoration she received. It's possible she believed her scientists could deliver the blood testing miracle machine. But Theranos kept the scientists apart from the business people to purposely buy time.
Holmes and Balwani created a fake lab for investors and the media. They were simply crooks and frauds.
It's kinda fun to go by their HQ off Page Mill Road in Palo Alto.
Holmes and Balwani created a fake lab for investors and the media. They were simply crooks and frauds.
It's kinda fun to go by their HQ off Page Mill Road in Palo Alto.
One of my employees kids worked there a few years.
More than a year before Carreyrou blew this whole thing up she told me their Edison device never remotely worked as promised and basically everyone there knew it.
No, not correct.
They promised one drop of blood was enough to do a full blood work up versus the traditional way of having to acquire a vile or more of blood.
This turned out to be a scandal of the largest magnitude and fools made of the drugstore chain Walgreens into promoting this technology that did not exist.
Walgreen executives went against their own safety control department and overruled their opposition to this blood testing technology which was never evaluated, nor allowed to be evaluated by Theranos under the threat they would go to CVS if they did not agree, right then and there at the meeting.
What was worse was blood test results were also not only in accurate, in some cases falsified.
It’s an incredible fascinating doc you miniseries. Fantastic and I would highly recommend it.
Elizabeth Holmes even had our ex secretary of the treasury invest in this technology and her company, yet there was no product.
Every aspect, every machine, every display of a working machine was falsified.
Magazines when naming a woman of the year all across this country in the technology world, offer a product that was never proven to work. Anybody interested in the stuff would be absolutely positively fascinated what took place. The most scary scary scary part of all was peoples. Blood was getting tested through a fake system.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt10166622/
Last edited:
