MIT chemists developed a battery cathode based on organic materials, which could reduce the EV industry’s reliance on scarce metals.
MIT News reports Cobalt-Free Batteries Could Power Cars of the Future.
Many electric vehicles are powered by batteries that contain cobalt — a metal that carries high financial, environmental, and social costs.
MIT researchers have now designed a battery material that could offer a more sustainable way to power electric cars. The new lithium-ion battery includes a cathode based on organic materials, instead of cobalt or nickel (another metal often used in lithium-ion batteries).
In a new study, the researchers showed that this material, which could be produced at much lower cost than cobalt-containing batteries, can conduct electricity at similar rates as cobalt batteries. The new battery also has comparable storage capacity and can be charged up faster than cobalt batteries, the researchers report.
“I think this material could have a big impact because it works really well,” says Mircea Dincă, the W.M. Keck Professor of Energy at MIT. “It is already competitive with incumbent technologies, and it can save a lot of the cost and pain and environmental issues related to mining the metals that currently go into batteries.”
However, cobalt has significant downsides. A scarce metal, its price can fluctuate dramatically, and much of the world’s cobalt deposits are located in politically unstable countries. Cobalt extraction creates hazardous working conditions and generates toxic waste that contaminates land, air, and water surrounding the mines.
“Cobalt batteries can store a lot of energy, and they have all of features that people care about in terms of performance, but they have the issue of not being widely available, and the cost fluctuates broadly with commodity prices. And, as you transition to a much higher proportion of electrified vehicles in the consumer market, it’s certainly going to get more expensive,” Dincă says.
About six years ago, Dincă’s lab began working on a project, funded by Lamborghini, to develop an organic battery that could be used to power electric cars. While working on porous materials that were partly organic and partly inorganic, Dincă and his students realized that a fully organic material they had made appeared that it might be a strong conductor.
This material consists of many layers of TAQ (bis-tetraaminobenzoquinone), an organic small molecule that contains three fused hexagonal rings. These layers can extend outward in every direction, forming a structure similar to graphite. Within the molecules are chemical groups called quinones, which are the electron reservoirs, and amines, which help the material to form strong hydrogen bonds.
Those hydrogen bonds make the material highly stable and also very insoluble. That insolubility is important because it prevents the material from dissolving into the battery electrolyte, as some organic battery materials do, thereby extending its lifetime.
“One of the main methods of degradation for organic materials is that they simply dissolve into the battery electrolyte and cross over to the other side of the battery, essentially creating a short circuit. If you make the material completely insoluble, that process doesn’t happen, so we can go to over 2,000 charge cycles with minimal degradation,” Dincă says.
Lamborghini has licensed the patent on the technology. Dincă’s lab plans to continue developing alternative battery materials and is exploring possible replacement of lithium with sodium or magnesium, which are cheaper and more abundant than lithium.
Six Minute Charge Time
ACS Publications has a technical PDF on Layered Organic Cathode for High-Energy, Fast-Charging, and Long-Lasting Li-Ion Batteries
Eliminating the use of critical metals in cathode materials can accelerate global adoption of rechargeable lithium-ion batteries. Organic cathode materials, derived entirely from earth-abundant elements, are in principle ideal alternatives but have not yet challenged inorganic cathodes due to poor conductivity, low practical storage capacity, or poor cyclability. Here, we describe a layered organic electrode material whose high electrical conductivity, high storage capacity, and complete insolubility enable reversible intercalation of Li+ions, allowing it to compete at the electrode level, in all relevant metrics, with inorganic-based lithium-ion battery cathodes. Our optimized cathode stores 306 mAhg−1 cathode, delivers an energy density of 765Wh kg−1cathode, higher than most cobalt-based cathodes, and can charge−discharge in as little as 6 min. These results demonstrate the operational competitiveness of sustainable organic electrode materials in practical batteries
Lamborghini licenses MIT’s Cobalt-free organic battery tech for EVs
Energy World reports Lamborghini licenses MIT’s Cobalt-free organic battery tech for EVs.
If this technology works. it will dramatically speed up adoption of EVs, while lowering costs.
Any battery engineers care to comment?
This isn’t the only elephant in the room! This still doesn’t address the issue of the massive power generation infrastructure needed for the required increase in the amount of electricity necessary to charge the batteries and installation of charging stations, not to mention all of the CO2 produced by all of that construction. Most EV’s are charged at night when no green energy is produced. CO2 is not the problem. The problem is the elite scare mongers gifting off of government subsidies.
Climate change is a scam. Same tactics as Covid – false projections of doom to scare the masses into lower standards of living while our masters are made wealthier. And anyone dumb enough to wear a mask or get the Covid jab will likely fall in line.
Highly cancer causing?
Ahum. 87 non battery engineers have preceded me.
I’ve read many stories of such break throughs the past decade.
Usually it means they need funding to continue their research.
Although I hope someone comes up with miracle battery technology, I have learnt to wait and see.
The announcement of a breakthrough like this is great, but it is only the start, and it will take a few more iterations, and a few years (5-10 years) before it’s commercially available.
MIT develops faster than light drive for defense against Klingons.
That’s why we don’t see Klingons on Earth. Cause and effect.
And how long from research to my driveway? Likely I wont be safe behind the wheel of anything by then.
I love how they jacked the price of cheap pushmowers to the same price as electric ones.
We shall see. MIT has a recent history of announcing battery breakthroughs that haven’t panned out. The link features one that seems to work, until you read the second to last paragraph.
link to interestingengineering.com
With fundament research I don’t think we should expect a 100% success rate. Most don’t pan out but the ones that do go to the stratosphere so I am good with financing it.
Totally off topic. The Treasury just released Q4 Annualized Interest Expense:
$1,025,796,000,000
WOOHOO! We jumped past $1T, baby! Still waiting on Q4 tax receipts.
Federal government current expenditures: Interest payments (A091RC1Q027SBEA) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)
I think Janet would call that chump change. what is that about 5% of GDP. Wow
Comparing ANYTHING to GDP is absolutely ASCININE. It assumes there’s a huge untapped well of money, which is the farthest thing from the truth.
In general, we only tax income, so there’s a huge portion of GDP that we can’t tax. And anyone who thinks DC is going to raise taxes anytime soon needs to have their brain examined.
We’re running a $2T deficit, so half of that borrowed money pays the first bill even before SS, Medicare, defense, etc.
Comparisons to GDP are garbage, and I could give a rats a$$ what Yellen thinks. She’s a major part of our spending problem.
At least 50% of our so-called GDP is worthless garbage.
This is why its so critical to suppress interest rates otherwise we turn into Weimar. Hence the falsesuppressed CPI numbers. I don’t know how this mess eventually ends.
Suppressed interest rates simply bring Weimar a bit more slowly.
Where’s my billion?
I mean, they could give everyone 1 billion dollars each, and it would be less that the annual interest… what a vote winner! 😀
Not actually.
340,000,000 (population) x 1,000,000,000 = 340,000,000,000,000,000 (340 quadrillion).
I believe the best batteries currently under development are the Graphene+Aluminum batteries being developed by Graphene Manufacturing Group in Australia in conjunction with the University of Queensland. They have agreements with Rio Tinto (large battery development) and Bosch (factory design and development) and are proceeding steadily towards commercial sales in perhaps three years.
Their batteries use only graphene and aluminum, are competitive or superior in terms of service life, energy and power densities, charge times, and safety too, as they are not combustible. Also they are easily recycled.
They work a lot like capacitors, with only electrons moving within the battery.
They are probably large sheets of capacitors rolled up into thin layers.
I have a dashcam which has a capacitor battery. This is now a trend, the lithium batteries overheat in the sun, and cause failures.
Zenith was absorbed by LG S.Korea. Fairchild was Absorbed by BEA & LMT. The
Germans were absorbed by Turkey. Sony peaked in 2000 at 157.38. It dropped to 10.00 in 2012. After 24 years Sony reached 134 in 2022. In Oct 2022 Sony tested 2007 high. There is no surefire in the ev world.
There’s the Norwegian ketogenic battery made from 100% fish and containing zero carbohydrates.
It’s something call “Cod” and it contains almost no carbohydrates. I used it last night to recharge my biological battery by ingesting one last night. My mitochondria were overjoyed.
It takes a minimum of ten years to commercialize new battery technology. These kinds of university announcements are intentionally misleading.
When I’m able to fill excess electricity into a couple of gas cans (or equivalent) and put them in the trunk of my car, then I might think about an EV. When I’m able to get decent range (hundreds of miles) and be able to reliably refuel/recharge in below-zero temperatures, then I might think about an EV. When I’m able to drive across the country and find working chargers at regular intervals so I don’t get stranded, then I might think about an EV.
I’m retired, and my goal in the next couple of years is to travel the country in an RV (probably a truck and trailer). I’m not going to hang around cities and commute like average working people who don’t WFH (work from home) do, so my needs are a lot different than average EV buyers.
And as others have said, this all sounds great in a lab environment, let’s see you do that in the real world.
The real world is vastly overrated.
I recall chlorophyll being announced quite a while back as being the next greatest thing – a quick web search shows 2008 or so. Anyone run with a chlorophyll battery?
I recharge my batteries by eating things full of chlorophyll. Does that count?
🤣🤣🤣
Algae. One of the foods of the future
And bugs.
You need to be a plant.
We can innovate all we want, but until your solve the charging at home nut, BEVs are going to be stuck at early adopter phase for a good while longer. And prices still have a LONG way to drop before they’re competitive. I can’t wait to see how these 25% pay increases for the UAW workers drive up the cost of producing BEVs. It’s going to be a hoot as Mish would say.
Yes, and ironically, for fast charging, the better the battery tech, the more the strain on the electrical grid.
What i go from a quick read of the above is, that they are claiming that a charge of 765 kWh would take 6 minutes.
A quick calculation shows that (assuming 15% charging losses), based on those numbers, the electric demand for one charger would be 9 megawatts.
At 400 V work out the current, and from that work out the conductor size needed. Then ask can you actually move that cable?
As a reference, the shore power cable carried 400 amps at 480 V. It took three of them to power the boat, a 637 class SSN. I think the LA class took four, I could be wrong about that. Either way Average Woman is not going the be able to plug one of those in.
the only better conductor than copper is silver, and that weighs even more.
Aluminum is a very good conductor and is It is extensively used in electrical equipment and cables. It is just behind silver and cooper and much cheaper than both.
Pretty sure aluminum won’t be used at those voltages and amps. There is a reason homes with aluminum wiring are extinct (or burnt down) and it is no longer up to code.
Not used much in homes because of the fire hazard that came from improper installation back forty years ago but it is preferred to copper in high power transmission lines and large electrical equipment. It’s also used in wiring in airplanes. It may not come back into homes but certainly in the cables that provide the electricity to the homes because it is cheaper and has other advantages.
You forgot to be specific about the other advantages.
Are there other dis-advantages?
It takes compression better, is fully recyclable and nine times cheaper than copper.
The primary reason aluminum is not used is due to oxidation and the resulting resistance where the connections are made. A dielectric grease must be applied at each connection. Many long distance transmission cables are made of aluminum conductors around a steel core for strength.
I totally agree with others here – better battery performance does not solve the issue of inadequate grid capacity, generation capacity, or the copper supply deficit.
And aluminum is much, much, much bigger with a lower melting point and insulating oxide contact surfaces.
I get the same numbers. Actually 8.8 Mw, but that’s nit picking. At a voltage of 440V, and I would be reluctant to advise higher, that would be 20,000 amps. The size of the connecting cable blows the mind.
My diesel submarine carried 400V at 3000 amps through bus bars 3″ by 6″ and they tended to overheat.
You own a diesel submarine? Are you based in Columbia?
That is a remarkably silly reply and could be made only by someone who has never served in defense of his country. In the military the unit in which I served is always referred to as “my unit.”
That could be useful for folks with EVs in cold climates.
So install a 500 dollar charger? It took an hour.
There are new battery announcements every day.
I pay attention when CATL says anything. Everyone else seems to be noise.
CATL is mostly focusing on LFP batteries. They’re heavier, but they’re cheap, can be built at massive volume, don’t require critical minerals, and have much lower fire risk.
Unless something dramatic changes, most EVs will likely run on LFPs for the foreseeable. Vehicles that need more than ~200 miles of real life range will use an onboard generator to charge the battery.
99% zero emission is good enough. Run the generator on ethanol if that last 1% really bugs you.
99% zero emissions? Huh? I guess you don’t have to take into account all the emissions emitted in producing the things or charging them then, huh?
Ethanol does not arrive at your car’s generator with zero emissions from its production and transportation processes. It leaves your cars generator with zero emissions.
Another battery development….large scale…uses vanadium
link to interestingengineering.com
Seems to be a minor improvement if the technology proves out. Like all research places they tend to over exaggerate the benefits and under estimate the problems. How hard is it to manufacture? Are the constituent chemicals used to manufacture it toxic?. Is it really longer lasting? There are reasons to suggest otherwise in the story. Will it make the batteries more likely to expode?
The white coats always release papers around some new exciting world changing discovery only to have it never develop commercially outside a controlled university environment for a variety of reasons.
Hopefully battery tech will improve but I don’t look for any huge jumps more like incremental improvement over time. Maybe a short jump every so often.
Toyota and the solid state battery remains worth watching to see if they have developed it enough to withstand daily use. That on might just pan out.
Maybe MIT should work on stopping / preventing these run away battery fires, that would help with the adoption of EV’s more than a 10% improvement in battery life.
Anybody remember when Graphene was going to change the world? Anyone?
Remember what came before flat-screen TVs?
“Maybe MIT should work on stopping / preventing these run away battery fires..”
They’re a University. Fundamental science and engineering is what they do. As well as what they should do. They were never supposed to be some industry lab for highly specific problems facing narrow, highly specific companies nor processes. Other than indirectly, by way of graduating engineers who then go on to work on those more specific problems, in industry.
Of course, in the #DumbAge, when everything is “owned” hence ran by nothing but the lightest of lightweight Fed welfare recipients; there’s not much industry of much ability left in the once-was West. What we instead have, are middlebrow company “owners” far too dumb to differentiate between Einstein and a doorknob. Who do the best their meager intellects enable them to: Attempting to play “I’m with those guys” with one of the few institutions who still retains some legitimate claim to host someone intellectually significant, by using some of the wealth The Fed stole for them to “sponsor” and “license” and hype.
They’re a University.
Writing grant proposals no matter how absurd is what they do.
This is true 100%.
There are still _some_ people there, doing something a bit more involved. At least for now.
Who knows for how long, though: In the #Dumbage, noone in any position to offer grants anymore, can read nor count….. Which; while no doubt “empowering” for dilettante children of Fed Welfare Queens told to impress their illiterate parents and other “made-money-from-my-home-and-portfolio”ers with fancy sounding degrees way beyond their brain grade; makes it awfully hard to keep up with Chinese institutions for much longer, wrt actual research.
MSFT $2.99T. TSLA might cont down. If TSLA breaches Jan to Apr 2022 highs
resistance line TSLA might test its highs.
Mish isn’t anti ev. When ev batteries will be safer and cheaper the price of ev cars
will deflate ICE cars.
I agree. Why the downvotes??
Anything “organic” usually burns well….?
Wake me up when something useful actually happens in the ev arena. I’ve run out of popcorn so am going back to sleep for another 5 years. This whole ev thing runs on rumor.
Promises. Promises. I’m still awaiting my flying Jetson’s car that I was promised in the 1960s and the nuclear energy that’s too cheap to meter. These much ballyhooed ‘breakthroughs’ are a dime a dozen and most are rackets looking for funding…
But widgets and sprockets were awfully expensive so even that idyllic scenario wasn’t completely carefree.
Lab to full scale manufacture might be the challenge. Some years ago organic solar cells were touted as the next big thing; lightweight and cheap, but they were never commercialised as they degraded rapidly outside of ideal lab conditions.
Battery tech will surely improve though. The real issue is where to get all the electricity from, and how to upgrade local distribution networks that will have to take many more times the power they were initially designed for. If a small house consumes 4-5kw per hour, adding an EV will double or triple power use during charging time. This is the same as adding one or two new houses on the street.
I’ve got an engineer friend at Florida Power and Light. We’ve had a discussion about this. FPL apparently has close to enough generation power now, but they just have no way of using it because of wildly changing usage patterns at different times of the day and year. So their plan would be to run the plants at full tilt all the time but store the excess power in giant batteries to be released as needed. This also allows them to transition from nat gas to solar. Though he says solar is still too expensive. The actual panels are cheaper, but the real estate and operating costs are too high. The more interesting problem is the direction of the market. If companies compete on who can create the biggest, most powerful batteries, then that may eventually overload the system and force utilities to build more plants driving up prices for everyone. The technologies are apparently being tested now.
A lot of people raise the problem of local distribution networks that have to be upgraded to handle EVs and that is true but not more so than when people and industry move into a town. You have to spend the money to upgrade the network also. Using giant batteries to smooth out the electricity generation needs is the best solution to the problem. There is an interesting work going on. Utilities often have old plants in areas of high electricity demand and as those plants age, instead of replacing them, they turn them into distribution centers using giant batteries since they are already in the middle of areas of high demand. Since much electricity production now takes place in areas with solar and wind outside of cities, it’s a good match.
I think the Giant Battery is much like the Giant Meteor we’ve hear of.
Well they both exist so you are right.
I live at the Jersey shore, literally the end of the elect distro network. When weekenders look to charge up their Teslas for their Sunday drives back to NY metro lights will go out as they suck hard on the last straw. The entire system will have to be upgraded to handle a couple dozen peak days out of 365.
Compunding this problem is the fact that recharging at out local rates is a lot less than in & near NYC so people will count on recharging here to avoid charging during the week.
Tesla blackouts coming!
BS You have not done your homework.
Teslas have a range of ~250 to ~350 miles per charge depending on model & build. Cape May to the NW corner of New Jersey is 170 miles. Any Tesla owner would bring their charge cable and Level 1 charge (5 miles added per hour) or Level 2 charge (25 miles added per hour). I do Level 1 charging all the time when using a VRBO. 12 hours and I’ve put on 60 miles of range. Slow but steady. Two nights and I have an additional 120+ miles of added range charged back into my pack. The utilities should be able to handle that at night.
The MIT battery with 765 wh/kg energy density is a little over three times the purported 250 wh/kg of a Model 3 battery. A Model 3 with an EPA rating of 359 miles per charge with this battery instead would have an EPA rating of ~1080 miles.
The article mentions a 2,000 cycle test with little degradation of the battery which indicates that the 2,000 times 1,080 miles would be about 2 million miles of driving before the pack needed to be replaced. That’s approximately 2 human lifetimes of driving 20,000 miles per year for 50 years.
According to Exxon Mobil in their annual View to 2050 report shows a graph where World Oil supply used for transportation **peaked** in November of 2018. Supply may peak again around 2030 but after that, the graph shows a slow steady decline.
With the advent of such batteries and storage of excess solar based production, we will likely become “energy independent”. The question will come down to how the utilities and citizenry will cooperate to make this come true instead of ICE drivers finding less and less supply at affordable prices.
I do hope this battery works out. I know we are making progress.
Not a problem.
Just change the seasons around and move everyone’s vacation times.
Things always seem to “work” in the heavily controlled lab setting, but then when the idea is brought out into a real world setting it doesn’t come close to replicating what was done in the lab.
I have no doubt mass adoption of EVs is coming, but anytime some group says they’ve “cracked the code” it often ends up being the equivalent of vaporware.
Seeing is believing for me, and the devil is always in the details. I take annocuments like the one referenced in this blog post with a huge grain of salt.
That is true of all inventions. The only way to see if they work is to try them in a lab where you control the variables. You can’t skip that step.
Crack the code means give me more money to try to prove to you that it might work
Battery technology is a rapidly developing field and a lot of money in going into it because as Mish said, the payoff is tremendous. The object is not to just match ICE but to overtake ICE in every metric and that is definitely possible because the technology is still in its infancy.
Apparently, these MIT batteries and cheaper, longer lasting and charge faster than present ones and that is only the prototypes. With large-scale manufacturing we could see price drops that would make EVs compelling for just about everybody.
The real Holy Grail is room-temperature superconductors and a lot of money is being poured into that.
“Battery technology is a rapidly developing field..”
…was….
It’s still evolving, somewhat. But the low hanging fruit has been picked, and the rapid gains are behind us.
It was those rapid gains which enabled and powered the mobile revolution. And which, towards the end, even made BEVs appear somewhat viable for some uses.
At least for awhile: Mobile electronics’ improve quickly. Moore’s Law and all. Less rapidly improving alternative uses for the scarce resources consumed by high density batteries, will find it harder and harder to compete, as microelectronics can add more and more value, hence bid higher, for each unit of scarce battery ingredient consumed.
Also, many other, high draw, uses; have more readily viable alternatives: You CAN, technically, heat your home, or airport, from a battery bank. While simultaneously powering your mobile; or your real-time-all-languages-always-with-you-“AI”-translator; by keeping it plugged in to a generator that you drag around. It’s just makes more sense to do things the other way around. That pattern will only continue to strengthen, as Moore’s Law makes more and more, increasingly power hungry, mobile electronic uses first viable then “necessary.” Leaving usages less directly benefiting from Moore’s Law, increasingly struggling to provide sufficient value to bid against electronic uses which more directly do.
Still is a rapidly developing field. Look at the money being invested and the results being published and the new paths followed.
Yes, yes, yes.
Can you still spell Solyndra Corporation?
“Look at the money being invested…”
Noone with money to “invest”, can read. Nor count.
Exactly how on earth is some gaggle of Chimpanzees and Baboons throwing billions, stolen from more competent people, randomly around at other denizens of a zoo; supposed to result in anything particularly interesting being developed.
Less flippantly:
1) Inventions are driven by satisfying needs. The only “needs” the current Fed-created “investor” classes have, is for hyped paper to be further pumped up. Actual product is utterly irrelevant.
2)Real savings; Production minus Consumption; have been negative since before Vietnam: There are NO savings. Not anywhere. Savings = Investments. The two ARE exactly the same. Simply two words for exactly the same thing.
Hence: There are no “investments.” Just ever more consumption. Of, among other things, silly attempts at making dumb welfare recipients appear more significant than they are, by pretending that what they do (waste welfare money) is somehow related to “investing.”
The latter of which the idiots have been told is some sort of impressive sounding and important activity. Which it never was, never will be. _Withholding_from_consumption is both what’s important, and what’s investing. Something no amount of idiots in New York spending printed money “earned” by “investing” like drunken sailors, will ever contribute anything at all to.
I still think Toyota has the inside track. 2027 models will have solid state batteries, extended range and charge in 10 minutes. In the longer run, I believe solar cars will emerge initially as a complement to EVs as they are with a Dutch manufacturer of cars. They are making a tri-brid – solar, ev and gas – engine.This will be the best solution imo for multiple reasons.
I thought the hardest element to find to make these batteries was lithium, not cobalt. And lithium does not create “hazardous working conditions and generate toxic waste that contaminates land, air, and water surrounding the mines” ?
Lithium is actually a fairly abundant metal on the planet. It just doesn’t occur in giant, concentrated deposits in most places. So you end up sifting through a lot of stuff to get a little of it. But giant deposits do exist and are being commercialized as we speak, which is why the price of Lithium has collapsed over the last couple of years.
Cobalt is much scarcer than lithium. You can build a lithium battery without cobalt, lithium iron phosphate is one. But lithium iron phosphate can’t be charged at less than 32 F.
Cobalt containing batteries are good to lower temperatures (14 F?) and have a higher energy density.
With the Lithium Iron Phosphate battery chemistry, the packs are “preconditioned” to bring them up to above 32F. Norway has about a 25% uptake of EVs and doesn’t seem to have a problem recharging.
The problem is not knowing or understanding how to manage recharging a pack. I recharge at home when temperatures are in the mid teens and have no problems.
Cobalt’s already a goner. LFP batteries already got rid of Cobalt and have minimal degradation by charging. Half or more of all Teslas already have LFP batteries. No Cobalt No Nickel.
If the charging time speeds up, that’s great but nobody’s holding their breath.
It’s good to see so much research happening in batteries and H2 production. AI is also being deployed to assisting research and has helped discover thousands of new possible alloys that might help with better development and in other areas.
But as always, the time from initial development to commercialization of interesting technologies can easily turn into decades.
So 2000 cycles with minimal degradation? What about 3000, 5000 or 10,000 cycles?
A commercial vehicle might need recharging twice a day and work 300 days/year so it will pass 2000 cycles in 3 years 4 months. At 5 years it passes 3000 cycles so for all we know the life of this battery might fall off a cliff after a few years.
Also were the recharging cycles done in a lab at moderate controlled temps or did they do more tests using conditions found in the real world like high or low humidity, hot or freezing temps or in rapidly fluctuating temps?
Promising research but until others have these EVs for a few years I won’t trade in my 20 year old 260,000 mile car.
20-year-old 260,000 car? Sounds like the perfect object to discuss the Ship of Theseus thought experiment. Is it the original car or not?
EV range is now around 500km. But better to operate between 20-80 charge, so say 300km a cycle. That’s 600,000km
Not many ICE vehicles still worth fixing at that distance
If this is the pixie dust needed for EVs … I hope that it can happen faster than the current technology trends would normally allow. I also hope Lamborghini doesn’t eat all of the financial benefits (it’s their technology … so if it as good as it sounds, they should get some great remuneration … but hopefully that comes via scale and not margin)
EV tech is already there. Several countries are already well over 50% New Vehicles Slaes. China, the largest vehicle market by far is already 40%+ EVs New Vehicle Sales. This silly Fossil Fuels FUD is embarrassing. There will be between 18 to 20 MILLION EVs sold Globally this year. More than ALL Vehicles sold in the US in 2024 by a long shot.
If it’s an EV, it has to run 10 million miles or an ICE car is better.
Fake News
… and the slogan shouting moron contingent has checked in.
My all time favourite new energy source hahaha
link to bbc.com
If its on bbccnn the clowns believe it
Cuz clowns will be clowns
MIT? I’ll have to see it to believe it. The PDF download offers a fairly plausible explanation, but many engineering questions remain.