BYD has already produced its first solid-state cells

2025-02-2312:04232158www.electrive.com

Chinese car and battery manufacturer BYD apparently already produced its first solid-state cells last year. The source for this is not an anonymous informant,

According to Chinese media, Sun Huajun, CTO of BYD’s battery business, stated at a forum event on solid-state batteries that the company had already produced its first solid-state cells with 20 Ah and 60 Ah on its pilot production line in 2024. The portals CN EV Post and Car News China reported on this based on a video recording of the presentation.

According to the battery business CTO, BYD expects to start “mass demonstration” of solid-state batteries around 2027. However, he did not provide any information on the number of prototype cells produced to date. And even after the demonstration applications, there are no plans to start series production in the near future: A truly large-scale introduction of solid-state batteries could possibly only take place after 2030, Sun is quoted in the reports.

Sun also does not expect the technology to be used by its competitors any earlier than this. “Looking at the industry as a whole, different players are making about the similar progress,” Huajun said. In fact, Wu Kai, Chief Scientist at CATL, stated at an event in April 2024 that battery market leader CATL plans to produce the first solid-state cells in small quantities in 2027 – similar to BYD. However, there will still be problems with producing large quantities, including in terms of costs, according to Wu.

In the technical presentation, Sun also announced that BYD is focussing on sulphide electrolytes in the development of solid-state cells – apparently driven by “cost and process stability considerations.” According to the BYD manager, the costs for solid-state cells with sulphide electrolytes could theoretically reach a comparable level to today’s NCM cells with liquid electrolyte level of scale of use. However, the quantities are still too small – especially for sulphide electrolytes: “It doesn’t really make a lot of sense to talk about cost in the absence of volume.” Other technology paths for solid-state cells are oxides and polymers. According to a report from November 2024, CATL is also said to have opted for sulphides.

In theory, replacing the current liquid electrolyte in a battery cell with a solid offers a number of advantages. As the flammable liquid electrolyte is no longer required, solid-state cells are generally safer. At the same time, higher energy densities and more power are possible, resulting in a longer range and shorter charging times. Although many companies and institutions have been working on the technology for years due to these advantages, battery cells with ‘real’ solid electrolyte are still very rare – as BYD’s timetable also suggests. A semi-solid, gel-like electrolyte, also known as a solid, is already being used in some cases. However, this is actually a so-called ‘semi-solid-state battery’ (SSSB), while BYD and CATL use ‘all-solid-state batteries’ (ASSB) with an actual solid electrolyte.

BYD is best known today for its blade batteries with LFP cell chemistry. These lithium iron phosphate cells are considered to be more robust and cheaper than cell chemistries based on nickel and cobalt, but generally have a lower energy density. In its report, Car News China quotes Sun as well as Lian Yubo, BYD’s chief scientist, chief engineer for motor vehicles and dean of the Automotive Engineering Research Institute. ““Solid-state batteries will be mainly used in high-end models, empowering each other with lithium iron phosphate batteries, and used in vehicles of different levels,” said Lian, who expects LFP cells to be used for at least another 15 to 20 years.

cnevpost.com, carnewschina.com


Read the original article

Comments

  • By ksec 2025-02-2313:435 reply

    Considering Lithium ‘semi-solid-state battery’ (SSSB) already does 25% to 45% higher capacity with roadmap at 55% next year and double the battery capacity before 2030. I wonder what could we expect from ‘all-solid-state batteries’ (ASSB).

    Most people think current AI development is the most important research, I actually think ASSB ( or any massive battery improvement ) would bring us far more real life, quality improvement with things that previously were not possible.

    • By SebFender 2025-02-2315:132 reply

      In the next few years you'll witness AI won't be so important... true advancement is always energy management.

      • By mannders 2025-02-2315:451 reply

        IMO AI was extremely important, but the breakthroughs are mostly done. I’m just expecting incremental improvements with LLMs now.

        A Turing complete personal tutor to explain any concept already exists. You can prompt a logo or video into existence. This is crazy.

        The real value will be the creative people who use AI to self teach and build real world value, like energy management, or anything else.

        Not this pipe dream that AGI will be achieved and automate the entire world, which for some reason gets so much focus. Seems like procrastination to obsess over this.

        • By rusk 2025-02-2316:051 reply

          > AGI will be achieved and automate the entire world

          That’s what’s driving investment. Once the next AI winter descends we will see whose boats are in deep water.

          • By mrshadowgoose 2025-02-2317:463 reply

            At the start of 2021, "we are entering another AI winter" was a common sentiment, even here. People proclaiming that were so very certain about that point of view, and yet, here we are.

            What makes you so certain that we will enter an AI winter before reaching the threshold of AGI? Do you have some secret insights into the mechanisms of general intelligence that you aren't sharing with the class?

            • By nicoburns 2025-02-2320:061 reply

              The actual results of AIs in the last fews aren't matching the scale of investment or hype. That isn't to say there haven't been useful results, but overall investors aren't making a return on their investments (and there is no prospect of that in the short term) and at some point they'll lose patience and find something else to invest in.

              > Do you have some secret insights into the mechanisms of general intelligence that you aren't sharing with the class?

              I do know that "natural intelligence" (as found in the brains of humans and other animals) uses orders of magnitude more computing power than even our largest compute clusters, that such intelligences have been trained over millennia, (and in the case of humans, each instance is incrementally refined over the course of 10+ years), and that even those intelligences are not as good as classical computers at some tasks (people make mistakes, and a hypothetical AGI likely would too).

              Perhaps we'll find some secret that allows us to shortcut that, but I suspect the idea that such a discovery is just around corner is just hubris.

              • By illiac786 2025-02-2521:111 reply

                >there is no prospect of that in the short term

                … was a common thinking shortly before chatGPT.

                I also feel the AI boom is mostly over but I am very cautious about that feeling. It really is just a vague feeling with some very soft indicators.

                • By nicoburns 2025-02-2523:141 reply

                  > … was a common thinking shortly before chatGPT.

                  And is still the case now we have chatGPT? Plenty of people are building things with chatGPT, but Open AI is not profitable.

                  • By illiac786 2025-02-265:22

                    My point was, things change fast and making such predictions seems relatively risky at the moment.

            • By rusk 2025-02-2318:05

              AI winters happen every 20 years or so so sounds about right.

              Investor apathy. Once the big dicks realise it’s useless without actual humans running it they’ll lose interest. We will lock in our gains socially but a lot of the big bucks will dry up.

              It’s all built on commodity hardware using commonly used software and trained on public information. It’s all easily reproducible once solved so I think it will be very hard for them to ring fence and monetise to the extent that they expect.

              That and a true AI would tell us all roundly to get fucked before using all of its intellect and might to power itself down, like an elaborate “useless box”

      • By dartos 2025-02-2315:213 reply

        > true advancement is always energy management

        Idk about that, but yeah I agree AI has got a good 3-5 years left in its hype run.

        • By x______________ 2025-02-2318:36

          Does this hypothesis take into consideration that we're on a 3rd leg of this current 'graphics card' hype run with crypto & blockchain at the front, and NFTs immediately after?

          -x

        • By dkjaudyeqooe 2025-02-2322:56

          With the fanciful claims about the imminent arrival of AGI, that seems unlikely. It'll probably crash and burn in a year or two as top line performance suffers.

          The good news is that low spec performance is a rich area for improvement and it's progressing very nicely.

        • By Mistletoe 2025-02-2317:00

          I’m not that optimistic I’m just hoping it makes it to the end of the year.

    • By omgJustTest 2025-02-2316:252 reply

      Grid scale batteries would immediately impact electricity costs. The potential is 2/3 of the cost of current electricity costs.

      • By Scaevolus 2025-02-2322:322 reply

        Grid scale batteries are not very sensitive to energy density. Car batteries are very sensitive to it.

        • By aeternum 2025-02-247:281 reply

          I'd argue grid scale batteries are sensitive to energy density as a second order effect. Higher energy density -> More EV demand -> Eventual increasing flow of last-generation cheap used cells that can be used in the grid.

          • By mapt 2025-02-2416:27

            _Vast_ Chinese EV subsidies & mandates have already gotten us there over the past several years. In the developing world EVs are cheaper than new gas vehicles to buy and to operate. Prices have come down to ~$50/kwh in 2025 dollars, lower than Tesla et al even hoped for.

            This is less than estimates I've seen for major new pumped hydro projects in 2005 dollars (when I did more formal research into energy transition), and it requires no site selection, no complex approvals, no environmental mitigation policies.

            Grid-scale battery projects are lighting up at scale for the first time throughout the world.

        • By dzhiurgis 2025-02-245:04

          Lighter vehicles also mean cheaper vehicles

      • By Mistletoe 2025-02-2316:593 reply

        Am I being too pessimistic to think we would actually get the same electricity costs if we are lucky and 1/3 more profits going up to the executive portion of the company?

        • By toomuchtodo 2025-02-2317:32

          If you have enough space for distributed solar generation, you buy the batteries and go off grid (if your local jurisdiction will allow it; if they don't, prepare to politik and fight for the right to so you're not trapped into their profit extraction through local code and/or financial and regulatory mechanisms [see below citations]).

          The Secret Society Raising Your Electricity Bills - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43151865 - Feb 2023

          https://prospect.org/environment/2025-02-21-secret-society-r...

        • By haliskerbas 2025-02-2317:06

          It could even go up, the customers will cover the cost of transitioning to new tech!

        • By superturkey650 2025-02-2320:40

          I think the most likely case is that electricity prices go down but demand goes up as devices more eagerly use power so you end up with an electricity bill that stays consistent.

    • By Gibbon1 2025-02-2323:05

      One thing interesting to me is solid state batteries would be a boon battery powered aircraft. Current 150 to 200 miles range. If you double capacity then 300 to 400 miles range becomes possible.

      My rule of thumb with range is if you can go from San Francisco to Tahoe that's a notable milestone.

      Also with AI it feels like we have 8 billion people in the world who are intellectually under utilized and often under fed.

    • By baq 2025-02-2313:504 reply

      Economically viable safe methane fuel cells would be revolutionary, too.

      • By audunw 2025-02-2314:271 reply

        If we’re could get a breakthrough in fuel cells it’d be even nicer if it was an efficient fuel cell for a liquid fuel. And to get an efficient way to make it from CO2 and electricity.

        Though I think for ground transportation, batteries will always be preferable.

        • By tastyfreeze 2025-02-2316:05

          Direct methanol fuel cells are a thing. It may not fit your definition of efficient but that is the technology I think should be pursued. There are multiple biological, chemical and electrochemical pathways to produce methanol. That means that there could be an economic way to produce it nearly everywhere.

          Another interesting technology is redox flow batteries. The fluid itself is charged. Fluid storage can be sized to the charge/use requirements. Or you can haul in "charged" fluid. But since the fluid is not consumed, discharged fluid would need to be taken away. Making hauling is less efficient.

      • By AtlasBarfed 2025-02-2316:05

        Still releases carbon. Better than ICE and gasoline, but the cheapest methane is still from the ground.

      • By Svoka 2025-02-2316:441 reply

        I believe fuel cells with ubiquity of electricity is just beating the dead horse. Like, what are cons and pros?

        EVs:

            + Much simpler design
            + Literally zero maintenance required
            + Centralized power production is extremely efficient
            + Power production can be 100% carbon free in 10 years, if there's will with nuclear and other 'renewables'
            + Can be charged literally everywhere where's sun in theory, but in every home with outlet in practice
            + Batteries are crucial to every part of our tech today so they will become better
            - Heavy (low energy density compared to fuel, which isn't great for planes etc)
        
        Fuel Cells:

            + high energy density
            + less dirty than gasoline
            + allow oil producers to stay in business
            + keeps mechanics in business
            - requires mechanics and expensive maintenance
            - complex designs for combustion engines + gearboxes + drive trains
            - requires immense infrastructure change to adopt
        
        Unless I miss something. What is the point of fuel cells/combustion engines for consumer use? I understand there are applications where energy density is necessary, like cargo ships, rockets or airplanes. Otherwise, seems like a welfare program for industries built around resource extraction and complicated machinery.

        But for consumers, what is the point of fuel cells? This is honest question.

        If I missed some con/pro let me know I'll add it.

        • By danans 2025-02-2319:401 reply

          > Otherwise, seems like a welfare program for industries built around resource extraction and complicated machinery.

          You say this dismissively, but that's exactly what it is.

          The basic problem with renewable energy (especially solar and batteries) is that there is no way for the existing fossil energy industry to replicate the extractive oligopolies around the production, delivery, and utilization of energy that they have with oil and gas.

          • By Svoka 2025-02-2320:391 reply

            I am not saying it dismissively. As you could see this is a "pro" point in my list. I honestly recognize that it's a transition. But IMO better option is to have hybrid type EV with smaller battery + Fuel Cell generator.

            Or just throw away combustion engines where they are not needed.

            • By danans 2025-02-2322:39

              > But IMO better option is to have hybrid type EV with smaller battery + Fuel Cell generator.

              That's exactly what fuel cell vehicles are today. They just don't have a plug or a battery with enough capacity to make a plug worthwhile.

      • By number6 2025-02-2313:55

        Fusion!

    • By davedx 2025-02-2314:529 reply

      Meh, we need better charging networks more than we need better battery chemistry at this point.

      • By skellington 2025-02-2317:071 reply

        Hard disagree (as a person that owns EV).

        While it's true that most people don't drive that far daily, it's also true that most people want their cars to be multipurpose.

        Most EVs can only be time-efficiently charged to 80% while DC fast charging because the charge curve drops a lot.

        And nobody want the pucker factor of getting much below 10% while road tripping.

        So, you're really only working with 70% of the max range. At 'normal' freeway speeds of 70mph+, most EV max ranges are less than 300 miles, and 70% of that is 210 usable miles.

        You can make it work, but it feels like you're always managing and thinking about charge level vs a car which usually has 400+ miles of range on the freeway.

        IMO the base range for EVs needs to be 500 miles, to get 350 miles of usable range, plus 350kW+ charging so charge stops are 10 minutes ish. And the Chinese EV companies have 400kW+ charging cars already, with announcements for 600kW charging!

        So battery energy density is critical to getting the range that people want without making the cars even heavier.

        • By dzhiurgis 2025-02-245:13

          Sorry but what you are after likely has less than 1% utility. Niche cars will always exist for cases like yours, but everyone will depend on charge network.

      • By Gareth321 2025-02-2315:504 reply

        I disagree. Range anxiety is one of the top concerns for EV car buyers and telling them they can just charge more frequently won't assuage their fears, for many reasons. No matter how many stations we build (at enormous cost) there will inevitably be issues related to access from time to time. Today this presents as chargers offline, slow, or full with queues. Worst of all is that no matter how ubiquitous, one still needs to exit the freeway and navigate to one of these chargers. Today my Model Y gets about two hours on the Autobahn before I need to charge it. That's just not enough, and it has what is considered good range for an EV.

        There are undoubtedly people who like to take frequent breaks. Many people are not like that. The future is both ubiquitous chargers and much larger battery capacity.

        • By Svoka 2025-02-2319:443 reply

          So I did a roadtrip recently on my EV. It was over 7000km. Not once I experienced any of issues you describe. I agree I drive below 120 km/h per speed limits where I live.

          Also, I don't believe you. How do you manage to spend whole battery in hours? Two hours on autobahn driving 90-120km/h in city zones or just plain stuck in traffic because of construction is like 30% at best. May be 50% if you're lucky.

          • By Gareth321 2025-02-2413:22

            > Two hours on autobahn driving 90-120km/h in city zones or just plain stuck in traffic because of construction is like 30% at best.

            I just don't believe you. This would result in a real world range of 800km at highway speeds. Even the most expensive EVs like the Lucid Air would struggle to do this. Especially in cold weather, and especially at highway speeds. This makes me doubt your claim about doing a 7,000km road trip and never experiencing any of the issues I outline. I've never met an EV owner in my life who has never experienced at least some of those. You could have at least made your lie believable.

          • By michpoch 2025-02-2323:57

            > Two hours on autobahn driving 90-120km/h

            So 240 km took only 30% of your battery? What model of car is that?

          • By dkjaudyeqooe 2025-02-2322:501 reply

            By driving between 200 and 300km/h which is common enough on the autobahn. It's the most important factor and he doesn't mention it. EVs lose efficiency as speed increases due to wind resistance.

            • By Svoka 2025-02-2521:37

              I lived in Germany for over a year and not once drove 200km/h. Pretty much no one did. Everyone drives 120-140.

              If you're not in the city area that is. Or not stuck in traffic because of construction. Which is always.

              If you drive 300km/h do not even mention efficiency.

        • By arghwhat 2025-02-2316:383 reply

          Two hours at the Autobahn is just 200-250km in what is effectively optimal conditions (steady driving over long distances). That number doesn't check out.

          Most people drive significantly less than a full charge in a given day. Overnight or workplace charging solves like, 95% of car needs. And remember, it's not much of a problem if 5% or less of road cars need to still be (efficient) fossil fuel cars.

          Battery advances should mainly be used to make cars lighter at decent range, not to give more range at same weight. Electric cars are too heavy in the current state, fixing that should come first.

          • By Gareth321 2025-02-2413:101 reply

            I average about 140kph. Two hours on the Autobahn is around 280km. My 2021 Model Y is rated at 455km in ideal conditions, but has about 340km today in cold conditions at Autobahn speeds. Charging at stations isn't from 0-100. It's from 10-80%. This is what Tesla recommends because the last 20% takes even longer than the first 70%, and stresses the battery over time. 70% of 340km is 238km. So in reality, especially in the cold, I get even less than two hours between stops. I could get a little more than two hours if I had the upgraded Long Range Model Y.

            I'm not disputing that most people drive their cars short distances most of the time. But not all trips are as valuable to people. This concept is called marginal utility. I value my road trips going smoothly *FAR* more than I value my daily commutes going smoothly. For this reason, it's VERY important for me for range to be increased. I won't be buying another EV unless I can get above 1000km real world range. This would, in theory, result in similar trip times to my older ICE vehicle. I am not alone.

            I strongly believe that unless automakers give EV customers what they want, they won't see the growth they are hoping for. EV customers want a lot more range. You cannot reason them out of their desires.

            • By arghwhat 2025-02-2415:461 reply

              > My 2021 Model Y is rated at 455km in ideal conditions, but has about 340km today in cold conditions at Autobahn speeds.

              So you're down to 75% capacity, with the first 10% lost to the cold of winter and the rest lost to going 140km/h.

              The long range Model Y has 600 km rating in ideal conditions, and applying the same loss you'd be at 450 km. The same calculation is 466 km for the upcoming model, more than your car's ideal rating.

              So seems like you already have much better options available. You can also take 10 km/h off your speed to increase range notably (in any car), and you can go further for road trips outside the winter months.

              > I value my road trips going smoothly FAR more than I value my daily commutes going smoothly. For this reason, it's VERY important for me for range to be increased.

              Sure, but it remains a niche use-case, which is fine but unimportant for the industry and the general population and not what cars should be built or optimized for.

              Range is a liability whenever not in use (batteries are heavy), and cars are always better when optimized for the normal use-case. That's why there's long range models, and it's also fine to take such roadtrips in an ICE should need be.

              • By Gareth321 2025-02-2610:381 reply

                > So seems like you already have much better options available.

                If I upgrade to the new LR and I get, let's say, 480km in the cold and at highway speeds, that would give me 2 hours and 24 minutes between stops. This is still far too limited. I could drive slower, or just not take trips at all, but I expect my car to fit my lifestyle and not the other way around.

                > Sure, but it remains a niche use-case

                Longer range consistently tops consumer requirements (https://www.mckinsey.com/features/mckinsey-center-for-future...). You might feel this is a niche issue, but the majority of EV buyers feel it's a very big issue to them. It's clear that you're willing to make sacrifices for smaller batteries, and that's perfectly valid. You must just accept that others value different things.

                • By arghwhat 2025-02-2611:121 reply

                  > If I upgrade to the new LR and I get, let's say, 480km in the cold and at highway speeds, that would give me 2 hours and 24 minutes between stops.

                  480 km in the cold at highway speeds is 140 km more than your previously stated 340 km, which is an hour more at 140 km/h.

                  If you are driving between highway charge stops, it's a bit over 3.5 hours between stops.

                  > Longer range consistently tops consumer requirements

                  It is tied with "availability of chargers equal gas stations" in that report, suggesting that the range concern is not about roadtrips but daily convenience for households without own chargers.

                  Also, answers to a questionaire for "EV skeptical" people about why they haven't purchased an EV isn't representative of actual needs. People when asked about range answer that way because they're comparing to what they already have and have to make up an answer to justify their decisions, not because of need.

                  > You must just accept that others value different things.

                  And you must accept that your values does not equal the actual needs of the general population, which can be quite easily assessed based on normal worklife patterns.

                  I'm sure we can agree that any vehicle is objectively best if it is optimized for your actual needs, and that the more often it fit your need the better. This makes it quite simple: Does your daily driving equal roadtrips, yes or no?

                  If not, you will get an objectively better experience (better handling, less noise, less energy/fuel cost, less tire wear, faster charging to full) while simultaneously saving your bank account and the environment. And no, a dialy driver doesn't mean "renault zoe", it just means "smaller and lighter battery".

                  If you drive 1 roadtrip per year or less, it makes sense to rent the car for roadtrip to get the best of both worlds: the best roadtrip machine and the best daily driver, which are mutually exclusive requirements. The roadtrip vehicle might be a large, comfortable ICE car with below average fuel economy and plenty of space - maybe even pulling a camping wagon depending on what you want to do on roadtrips.

                  If you drive 2+ roadtrips per year, maybe it starts to make sense to buy a roadtrip-specific secondary vehicle. If you drive much more than that (e.g., every weekend, or daily work involves multi-hour driving), then it starts to make sense financially to compromise and use a roadtrip vehicle for daily driving.

                  • By Gareth321 2025-03-0314:40

                    > 480 km in the cold at highway speeds is 140 km more than your previously stated 340 km, which is an hour more at 140 km/h.

                    That is incorrect. Review the issue I outline above. The optimal charging range is 10% to 80% (as per Tesla's recommendation). That is 70%, or 336km. At 140kph that is 2.4 hours, or 2 hours and 24 minutes.

                    > It is tied with "availability of chargers equal gas stations" in that report, suggesting that the range concern is not about roadtrips but daily convenience for households without own chargers.

                    It is clearly both. People can and do care about more than one thing at a time. It could be that offering more ubiquitous charging would reduce this area of concern, but that's far from a proven hypothesis. Especially in terms of proportional response.

                    > Also, answers to a questionaire for "EV skeptical" people about why they haven't purchased an EV isn't representative of actual needs. People when asked about range answer that way because they're comparing to what they already have and have to make up an answer to justify their decisions, not because of need.

                    If you care about adoption, you should care very much about why non-adopters are not adopting EVs. I don't understand your point of contention. These are real people with real concerns and real requirements with real money who will really not buy EVs until their desires are addressed. Let us never forget that the customer decides what they spend their money on. They alone decide what matters to them.

                    > And you must accept that your values does not equal the actual needs of the general population, which can be quite easily assessed based on normal worklife patterns.

                    Surveys suggest people disagree with you. I disagree with you. You're making a values based judgement about the needs of people and claiming that your values are or should be everyone's, and that's clearly incorrect. Just because you don't mind stopping more frequently on trips doesn't mean others share your position. You equate daily driving with road trips, suggesting you either didn't register my explanation of marginal utility, or don't understand it. This is marginal utility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility). Different people assign different levels of value to different things. You, for example, place very little value on comfort during road trips. No problem. You are free to do so. Others, however - and a great many of them - assign much more value to road trips. So we wish to drag around much heavier batteries during our daily commutes to make our road trips faster. We're willing to pay more for that privilege, too. We care about it so much, that we won't buy EVs which make our road trips slower and less convenient. No amount of badgering will convince us to change what we value.

                    I have tried renting ICE vehicles for road trips. It is a truly terrible experience every single time. Rental agencies are predatory. There are many reasons people prefer to own instead of rent. I have decided I do not like renting. I instead wish my car to fit my needs. This is hardly a radical proposition. It would take a lot of road trips to justify the cost of a second vehicle. I don't think it makes financial or environmental sense.

          • By ipsi 2025-02-2316:471 reply

            That matches my experience, in an admittedly slightly older car. Note that you'll rarely be charging over 80% because it's just too slow, and going under 5-10% is a bit too stressful, so practical range is probably 70-75% of maximum on longer trips. Less if it's winter and/or the AC is running.

            If I could rely on every Rasthof having multiple functional EV chargers, I think range anxiety would be far, far less of an issue for me, but as of now it's something that I do think about for longer trips, and do have to plan for.

            • By Svoka 2025-02-2319:452 reply

              why not charge it to 100% for a long trip? It literally says to do so.

              • By mikeyouse 2025-02-2320:403 reply

                Of course you start the trip off at 100%, but the point is that charging speed varies substantially based on the SoC in the battery. So if you deplete most of your charge and need to stop, recharging to 80% takes substantially less time than topping it off to 100%. So if your battery range is 300 miles, you might get 280 on the first leg of your trip but will only be able to do maybe 220 on the second leg.

                • By freeopinion 2025-02-243:011 reply

                  I have a PHEV specifically so I can take an occasional 500-600 mile trip without range anxiety. With the ICE, I can almost do the trip without a pit stop. But I make a stop. So it seems that ICE or EV both have to make one stop for a 500 mile journey. Of course, the ICE could make a 1000 mile journey with two stops where your EV would need three. But I make a 1000 mile journey in a single day less than once a year. So 10 extra pit stops in 10 years doesn't seem like a bad trade-off for the 4 or 5 fill-ups I skip every month.

                  • By Gareth321 2025-02-2413:15

                    > Of course, the ICE could make a 1000 mile journey with two stops where your EV would need three.

                    It sadly doesn't work like that. Range is reduced by about 25% in the cold. Further, one doesn't charge 0-100% at stations. They charge 10-80%. This is suggested by Tesla because the last 20% takes longer than the first 70%. So the effective range on a new standard range Tesla Model Y is 455 * 0.75 * 0.7 = 239km between stops. Assuming Tesla's 455km initial estimate is accurate, and it's not really. It tends to overestimate, so in reality, it's less than 239km. Especially at highway speeds.

                    A 1,000 mile journey would require approximately 7-8 stops, depending on charge at journey start and end.

                • By Svoka 2025-02-2320:58

                  Answered different thread - superchargers get from 5-10% to 95-100% in line 30 minutes. When we are on roadtrips I often have to go and unplug it so I don't get extra charges for idle. I know superchargers are not everywhere.

                • By michpoch 2025-02-2323:551 reply

                  > Of course you start the trip off at 100%

                  Thats… not obvious at all. Unless you’re within the super small part of society that can charge at home, you might be as well starting with 20 or 30% - exactly the same as with a regular car.

                  • By dalyons 2025-02-240:251 reply

                    Maybe in Germany that’s “super small”, in the US ~70% of the population lives in sfh where that can be assumed.

                    • By michpoch 2025-02-241:061 reply

                      Right, but that’s just a single, very un-typical country. Most people in developed countries live in cities. If you live in a city - you live in an apartment (unless you’re quite wealthy)z

                      I expect that most people living in NYC do not have a single family house with a garage and a garden.

                      • By arghwhat 2025-02-259:30

                        It is not at all an un-typical country. It might even be the case for the majority of the US, most of which live outside New York City.

                        Plus, cities in countries over on this side of the pond provide street charging and even have legislation about maximum distance to a charger. Parking garages and lots also provide charging. Not as convenient as living in a house with a charger where you can always plug in at night (and possibly use private solar cells for extra benefit), but good enough for most commuting.

              • By michpoch 2025-02-2320:241 reply

                Because you’ll spend ages at the charging station?

                • By Svoka 2025-02-2320:561 reply

                  I had a road trip, and pretty much all the time I got 95-100% charge while having lunch with supercharges, which are everywhere. It takes 30 minutes to do it.

                  • By michpoch 2025-02-2321:311 reply

                    So how many 30 minutes lunches are you having? One every 2 hours?

                    > supercharges, which are everywhere

                    Not really? That's the whole point, that the availability of fast chargers is still very low.

                    • By Svoka 2025-02-2418:59

                      Every 3-4 hours I stop for a 30 minute meal. Ye, sounds reasonable.

          • By michpoch 2025-02-2323:541 reply

            > Two hours at the Autobahn is just 200-250km

            Much closer to 300km, unless you’re driving in high traffic. You’ll be able to keep around 140 km/h.

            • By arghwhat 2025-02-249:011 reply

              Just because you can drive 140km/h doesn't mean you should - ignoring everything else, it's noisy and inefficient in any car. There's also speed limits of 130 down to 80 in many places, which knocks down the average speed.

              • By Lanolderen 2025-02-249:531 reply

                That's a preference thing. I just did a long drive in a van doing 90-100 pretty much the entire trip but on the bike I'm on the speed limit and up to ~240 long term whenever reasonable, in cars usually speed limit up to 200-210 long term. Noise and efficiency be damned, I just want to get off the highway/get where I'm going. On electrics it's ridiculous how quickly the battery gets drained if you don't drive slow though. On a Model 3 4XXhp the charge % falls like a brick at 233. An old Cayenne S lasts longer at 260.. Of course one's a city car and the other kinda meant for long distance but I was surprised to see it lose charge so quickly. If I were to get one I'd have to get used to driving like a truck or my trips will get a lot longer from sitting at chargers.

                • By arghwhat 2025-02-2412:412 reply

                  Sorry, but going 210+ km/h on any public road is absolutely idiotic on every level. Not only is it unsafe (no, there is no valid argument to suggest otherwise when mingling with traffic that is driving 130km/h slower or more than you on the same road), but it is also environmentally irresponsible.

                  The fact that someone decides to make this trade-off purely based on their own impatience is the frustrating reason for why cars had to ship with speed limiters in the first place, and why the the autobahn might end up getting global speed limits which may or may not ruin the fun at places like the Nürburgring.

                  And no, the range impact is no surprise nor isolated to electric cars. Even in a diesel polo bluemotion that on a good day can do over 1000 km on a tank, my experience is that spirited highway driving easily takes off 25% of the range, and I wouldn't be surprised if your described driving would leave it with less than 50% of the advertised range.

                  • By Lanolderen 2025-02-2414:281 reply

                    Environmentally irresponsible, yeah.

                    Unsafe, depends. It's definitely less safe than going slower. Agree on that. In my eyes,however, "unsafe" depends on traffic, weather, road, vehicle, experience, etc. 200 in a Polo is sketchy, 200 in a clapped out Polo with cheap, old all seasons is an emotional experience, 200 on a bike is the top of 3rd gear, 200 in an M4/911 is about the same.

                    Speed limiters, if we're talkiing about the same implementation (not Volvo being Volvo), came more so as a means of upselling (AMG driver's pack or whatever they called it) and to keep people from doing speeds unsafe even on a closed course in the very long overdrive gears.

                    I'm also not about to go 140 because the Autobahn (+Nordschleife) might get a speed limit. If there's a speed limit added, I'll follow it to the best of my ability but I don't believe I'm being particularly asocial by staying in the left and giving it some chooch when I believe it's safe to do so. I'm not weaving, I flash very, very rarely, on the bike I'll only kill myself most likely, with the cars I'm even more careful with traffic since I can't squeeze by and am much more likely to hurt others in an accident, when doing a top speed run I abort if there's traffic in the next lane, if I'm going out to do one I do so at 2-3AM in bumfuck nowhere..

                    Anyway, what I meant was that, while I haven't done any scientific testing, it seemed like the Tesla's range was impacted much more by high speed driving than ICEs I've driven despite being very low drag. It was like an old Trailblazer I had where you'd see the fuel arrow start moving ever so slightly when you floored it but with a percentage.

                    • By arghwhat 2025-02-2415:17

                      > Unsafe, depends.

                      I agree that you can be better equipped for driving 200+ km/h, but I do not agree that it is possible for such driving to be safe on a public road unless you are guaranteed to be alone (and with proper racing equipment).

                      The problem isn't you and your car, it's that you're zooming past other cars at speeds that make them practically stationary, and no amount of experience you may have make them any less likely to accidentally pull out, not noticing that a car had approached them at literally twice their speed.

                      Even if no one ever failed to check their mirrors on regular lane changes, someone doing 80 might be forced to swerve for emergency reasons, and if you're going 210 then it's like hitting a stationary object at 130 km/h.

                      Heck, even professional racing drivers have crash into each other all the time, and a check of your mirror isn't valid for very long if the speed difference is too high. Differential speeds are already not great when you mix 130 and 80 in the same direction, but mixing 200+ and 80 is impossible to do safely.

                      > Anyway, what I meant was that, while I haven't done any scientific testing, it seemed like the Tesla's range was impacted much more by high speed driving than ICEs I've driven despite being very low drag.

                      I wonder if the perceived difference isn't just a result of how much range you had to beign with, combined with the tesla maybe being easier to keep "in the green" near the rated range than an ICE car.

                      Taking the polo as example, if you always drove it very aggressively you might be happy thinking it went 650 km on a tank and assume that the fuel rating was just an unrealistic lie. But drive it a bit more carefully (while staying at the speed limit) and you'll get 1000+ km on a tank as advertised.

                      If you do the same exercise in a car that starts with a 500km range instead of 1000+, then being stuck with just 60% of the range from aggressive driving might be a lot more impactful.

                      (Also, always remember that drag coefficients is for a given area which can be quite misleading when comparing cars of different sizes like crossover SUVs.)

                  • By Gareth321 2025-02-2413:181 reply

                    > Sorry, but going 210+ km/h on any public road is absolutely idiotic on every level. Not only is it unsafe (no, there is no valid argument to suggest otherwise when mingling with traffic that is driving 130km/h slower or more than you on the same road), but it is also environmentally irresponsible.

                    You do know we're talking about the Autobahn, right? One of the safest, most well-maintained road networks in the world? It's fine that you prefer to drive slowly on such roads, but many people prefer to drive faster. It sounds like you are well suited for EVs.

                    • By arghwhat 2025-02-2415:211 reply

                      Yes, I am familiar and have driven the autobahn on multiple occasions, and occasionally at speeds exceeding what we discuss here.

                      It is irrelevant what the road is, or how fast people prefer to drive. It's not a race track, other drivers are not race drivers, the road is not maintained to race track standards, and cars and drivers are not equipped with race safety equipment. Your driving must be able to safely handle a car or truck going 80 swerving in front of you with no prior warning just as you pass it, and at 210 that's equivalent to crashing into a stationary object at 130 km/h (i.e., everyone and their cat dies).

                      • By Gareth321 2025-02-2610:41

                        Most people disagree with you, or the Autobahn would have speed limits. Despite the lack of limits, the Autobahn accounts for about 31% of all traffic in Germany, but only 11% of traffic deaths. It is clearly very safe compared to other roads with speed limits, and you are not basing your fear on the facts, but on your feelings.

        • By AtlasBarfed 2025-02-2316:13

          I'm not THAT pessimistic about buildout of charging if it was a politically rational era, but the Ramcharger style 50-100 mile PHEV really is a great compromise for EV transitions.

          We should have mandated PHEVs 20 years ago for consumer cars (you know, with a 5-10 year transition period), but it was the Bush administration. Then again Obama and Biden didn't do that much either, and even California didn't do and still hasn't.

        • By varelse 2025-02-2316:03

          [dead]

      • By johanvts 2025-02-2314:54

        For cars I agree, but a significant energy density improvement would enable aviation and other fields to electrify.

      • By prododev 2025-02-2315:301 reply

        Better batteries require less frequent charging, reducing pressure on networks. But also, better batteries enable electrification of other modes of transport much more easily. Cars are bad, electric cars are at best "less bad".

        • By bobim 2025-02-2323:242 reply

          Sure, but we have some difficulties to understand that we have to let go some of the comfort we were used to.

          And we know that EVs are not for saving our climate, it's for saving the car industry. Don't look up.

          • By hedora 2025-02-242:02

            All our cars are EV’s now. I cannot express how much more convenient this is for us.

            We only have level one charging at home. It’s fine.

            The biggest remaining problem is having to go to multiple charging stations during long trips every once in a while, usually because Electrify America says they have open stalls when they do not.

            That seems fixable.

            EV charge times improved a lot in the last 9 years. Even better batteries would be better, of course.

            However, my bigger concern is energy efficiency.

            Tesla’s mile/kwh is much higher than comparable cars from the other manufacturers. It’s not clear if the other companies will catch up, since they’re hard-wired to build gas guzzlers.

          • By prododev 2025-02-247:14

            I agree, sold my car awhile back. It's not really needed.

      • By SideburnsOfDoom 2025-02-2315:16

        These are 2 different things; "better batteries" is scientific and engineering breakthroughs. Engineering in the sense of building them in on time, in quantity, to quality and on a budget.

        "Better charging networks" is infrastructure rollout that is underway. If it's an engineering issue, it's civil engineering. Charging networks are on the whole continually getting better. But maybe not at a fast enough pace.

        Both can happen, though. Both would make a difference.

      • By DrScientist 2025-02-2410:46

        If your battery charges faster and has a higher range then you will need less charging points ( less time charging and less frequently ) - just through better batteries.

        Solid state battery tech looks to be game changing.... pushing EV's into the no-brainer territory for the vast majority of people.

      • By dzhiurgis 2025-02-245:10

        Agree. 300km range seems to be sweet spot. Anything over 50kW charging is enough and 150kW is good. So long there are reliable stations every 50km - current EVs are sufficient.

      • By surajrmal 2025-02-2320:17

        There are a lot of other potential wins here : lighter cars meaning less road and tire wear, cheaper evs, lower crash fatalities, etc.

      • By smegger001 2025-02-2314:54

        fortunately we can do two things

  • By mi_lk 2025-02-2313:042 reply

    > In theory, replacing the current liquid electrolyte in a battery cell with a solid offers a number of advantages. As the flammable liquid electrolyte is no longer required, solid-state cells are generally safer. At the same time, higher energy densities and more power are possible, resulting in a longer range and shorter charging times.

    In case you wonder why it can be important

  • By jmisavage 2025-02-2312:472 reply

    This is just pilot production is the first of many steps towards mass production. They don’t expect actual production until 2027.

    It even mentions that CATL is at roughly the same stage. So while good news its still going to take some time to get these into production cars and to get the costs down.

    • By jillesvangurp 2025-02-2313:17

      Exactly. In order to be able to start production in 2027 they'd have to logically be quite far with the development of their battery cells to be able to say with confidence they'll be ready for that in 2027. You see the same with announcements from other manufacturers like CATL, Factorial, Quantumscape, Toyota, etc. Most of these are talking about timelines from 2026-2028 currently.

      They have each been testing battery samples for years and making announcements about roughly where they think they'll be going to production. It's not like battery cells suddenly pop into existence fully formed and ready to go. There's a lot of work and problem solving that needs to happen.

      2027 isn't when mass production starts but when early, low volume production begins. It takes time, and many billions, to build large scale factories. They'll want to see low scale production work first. Early batteries are likely to be scarce and expensive for a while.

      People have unrealistic expectations about solid state batteries in general. Currently the best selling batteries aren't those with the highest density but those with the lowest cost of materials and production. That's why LFP is so popular currently. Solid state won't change that. LFP will be widely used for years to come. A logical place for relatively expensive early solid state batteries to be used would be in aviation related use cases and maybe some high-end vehicles or sports cars. Forget about these showing up in budget cars anytime soon.

    • By audunw 2025-02-2314:291 reply

      Isn’t quantum scape at a similar stage as well?

HackerNews