Featured Solid-state battery wars

Combative press releases.

Bob Wilson

 

Why would he expect the competitors to report to him? It is not like Toyota need investors to fund for their solid state battery program.

 

Along with hydrogen fuel cells and fusion power plants. Solid-state batteries are the batteries of the future where they remain like the future of hydrogen fuel cells and future fusion power plants:

• hydrogen fuel cells - impractical for small vehicles and not found in cell phones, pads, or laptops
• fusion power plants - research is OK but there are no practical grid power plants
• said-state batteries - not found in cell phones, pads, or laptops

Promised for cars, they have yet to show up in personal devices. Conquest there and my opinion will change.

Bob Wilson

 

Toyoda also said his cooking analogy during the question phase of a public appearance.

QuantumSpace's CEO statement is based on not knowing everything about the competitors product, because they aren't going to share everything at this point. Just like QS isn't sharing everything on theirs.

The fact is that Toyota and Solid Power are moving onto large scale testing in cars, and might be making batteries for that before QS gets their plant running. Nio already has plans to have theirs available to the public.

Their batteries might actually be flawed, but they haven't been proven to be yet, and they are competitors to QS. it is the CEO's job to downplay their level of threat to keep investors coming.

 

Anyone care to help us better understand what he means when he explains the difference between standard single layer of cells lined up in a series versus what their design is?

 

Good points... It must be added that they aren't going in this direction because they've found a new more efficient way to build a better battery, but instead they're trying to find a design that first and foremost they can hold the patent on and exclusively control the market with those rights. That's same reason why they put so much effort into hydrogen fuel cells and that has thus far been a failure. Can't imagine solid-state will be much different?

Meanwhile a few years pack Tesla opened their patent portfolio to other automakers and with some huge exceptions in their software licensing, Tesla said getting away from fossil fuels is more important to our future than holding patent rights for the purpose of maximizing profits.

 

I don't think there is anything altruistic in Tesla's actions. They allowed for access to their patents, but only limited time and then royalties will be charged. That's not an uncommon way to build a market for an asset. Once you get a business to create designs that use your product you can make a decent product later. Of course, you can also later restrict the use of those patents to cripple competition.

The analysis at A Closer Look at Tesla’s Open-Source Patent Pledge - Lexology does a good job of looking at the restrictions that come with the Patent Pledge. It seems that to use the Tesla patents you have to be willing to let Tesla use YOUR intellectual property with out fear of lawsuits.

If Tesla really thought that "getting away from fossil fuels is more important to our future ... than profits" they would have added a standards based charger to ALL of their charging stations and make accommodations for billing like other charging companies do. That would make ALL the EVs more practical. Instead, Tesla only adds level 2 charging to the destination chargers.

But back to the battery wars. It's easy to claim that you have the world's best product, harder to get it into every home.

 

Link? .... there's no authority cited by the article in that regard - rather the author 'thinks' that may be the case .... that tesla 'might' be trying to rope companies into overreaching agreements.

Not unless you signed bad deal without understanding what you are agreeing to.
- a patent use is only as restrictive as the contract you sign. The one that wants to use the patent can always walk away from the deal if it's a bad deal.

the article writer says it "seems" you have to do whatever. That's simply their assertion, not based in any substantive content in their article.
.

 

As per usual... Any mention of Musk's attempt at being more altruistic than other auto-makers is discredited and turned in another silly Tesla bashing effort.

Point being Toyota is searching and still failing to find a patent-based monopoly for non-fossil fuel vehicle power supplies of the future... Until then, they'll do all they can to defend polluting the planet to death until doing otherwise is more profitable. Wonder who's gonna ultimately win? Capitalism or life on earth?

 

In my opinion, you don't need to cite 'authorities' to read and interpret a published legal document.

You could read the "pledge" here: Privacy & Legal | Tesla . It seems pretty clear. If you want to use their patents you indemnify Tesla from legal action if they infringe on your Intellectual Property.

 

That would entail a not insignificant cost on Tesla to do so. They already operate the Supercharger network as a non-profit in order to have the lowest rates for their customers. This would increase costs, and possibly increase waiting times at busy stations as other brand cars use them. The financial burden could also put them at a disadvantage to the competition.

Just because you don't harm yourself in order to do the right thing doesn't mean your belief in doing it is insincere.

The others have the option to join the Supercharger network. They didn't want to pay the price, just like they don't want to pay the price for any public chargers or hydrogen stations. VW doing so is part of their community service for cheating with diesels.

 

Hard to fight awar with no bullets, no guns and no troops

 

I've only recently begun to frequent this forum. If it is "usual" for any mention of Musk's alleged altruism to be met with being discredited... maybe you should check into what Tesla is really doing. Are they making that $25,000 car? Are they pushing for highest efficiency or are they trumpeting long ranges and high speed? Did they find a way to minimize the use of toxic chemicals in they batteries? Are they pushing for cars with fewer batteries, or are they pushing for more?

No, I don't see Tesla doing much to minimize their impact on the environment. They are, however, doing great at selling stock. A 10x increase in capitalization in one year? Wow. A capitalization that is 20 times the asset value? Nice work! An earnings per share of pennies? Yuck.

 

Let's see...

• There is just one BEV for under $25k MSRP in the US; the Kandi K27. For $17.5k, you get a car the size of a Chevy Spark, has a top speed of 68mph, and range of 59 miles. It is 19% less efficient that the most efficient BEV available; the Model 3 SR Plus. The K23 is $10k more; is a little bigger, a little faster, has almost double the range, and worse efficiency. The Electric Mini is almost $30k with 110 miles range, and still not as efficient as many Tesla's. Every other BEV is over $30k. Now the Bolt can be had for under $25k, because of GM discounts, but that is probably only sustainable by supplying CAFE credits for their trucks. I can see Tesla doing a more affordable car, but they are still a relatively small company in comparison to much of the auto industry. R&D resources are limited, and a BEV pick up that sells will do more to reduce oil use than an econo car.
  
• Tesla is pushing efficiency, range, and speed, by giving buyers a choice within a model. Generally, there is a base trim with shortest range and best efficiency, and long range model, and then a performance. Even the long range and performance trims best most of the competitors in efficiency.
• haven't really followed their battery development closely, so can't say about them reducing toxic materials, but their next gen cells are 85% to 95% recyclable.
• Tesla's design goal for a BEV car was for it to be a total replacement for a traditional car, not just the second car of a household. That requires a larger battery for the range, and to better handle fast DC charging. Smaller battery packs will mean less materials used, but may not work out to a substantial cost sayings, nor improvement in efficiency.
• The Gigafactories are designed to run on 100% renewable energy. The roofs are built for PV panels, and the buildings orientated for best position of those panels. They use alternatives to fossil fuels for production processes, and they worked to improve process efficiency.

 

Ok. I see.

a) Others can do a $25K car, but when tesla charging $100K for a car they can't funnel some of that profit into an affordable model. But they can pump that money into a $200K roadster which I'm sure will be quite green.

b) Tesla is pushing efficiency, range, and speed, by giving buyers a choice within a model. That ensures that high profit LR and Performance models are sold despite the cost to the environment.

c) Tesla wants to make a car that can totally replace a traditional $25,000 car. And for some reason that requires a half ton of batteries. And smaller battery pack may not work out to substantial profits.

d) The gigafactories are designed to run on 100% renewable energy. That's nice. So's my house, according to my local utility. All I have to do is check a box and my power company will buy clean electricity with my money and route it to my house. You know, the funny thing for such an environmentally conscious company is that there is nary a solar panel on the Fremont factory. You'd think that if eBay can cover their roofs with panels, and if the local high school can cover their parking lot with them, then a solar energy company would want to showcase the technology at their factory too.

Don't get me wrong. I don't hate tesla. If given one I would probably drive it once in a while. But I do dislike hypocrites who justify overly expensive and wasteful cars by claiming that they are doing it to clean up the environment.

 

I found your answers


Many are buying the expensive versions because they would otherwise buy a super car.

Etron and Tesla are sometimes cross shopped for some reason.

Tesla is mearly following their market and the sad part is these days you can buy a garbage gas Kia or Hyundai, etc for the same money as a M3 which means not just Tesla is “expensive “

When I bought my Volt it was because brand new it was as cheap as a Chevy Cruze.

 

A lithium-ion battery is paper-thin (well, thick paper), and thus a small area of it holds very little energy because there just isn't much battery there.

There are basically two ways to make them bigger - roll them up into a cylinder so you have a very long roll of "paper" (battery), or stack a whole bunch of the paper-thin sheets together, putting them in parallel electrically to make a thicker rectangle with more capacity than a single sheet has.

Tesla uses the former, cell phone and modern laptop batteries use the latter.

 

a) Are you actually claiming that people will buy an EV microcar, with just 59miles of range, over a midsize Corolla? The other BEVs available for under $30k aren't much bigger, and their better range is still tens of miles less than the others on the market.

You are right, Tesla can't simply funnel money into supporting a low margin, entry level car like the traditional car companies do. Their manufacturing base is smaller than those; they are just getting to the production amounts that bring in the mass level savings that other car companies have had for decades. Tesla doesn't have a full model line up of cars and trucks, which means less revenue coming in to support loss leaders

GM and Nissan can afford huge discounts on the Bolt and Leaf because they have those resources to absorb any loss in dollars. Their accounting for the BEVs include the money saved not buying CAFE credits for their large trucks and SUVs.

Tesla is working on a $25k car, but resources are limited. Considering segment sizes, the Cybertruck will do more good for the environment. The new Roadster will be very green compared to what buyers could get instead.

b) What cost to the environment? All the Tesla models are among the most efficient cars available. The Model 3 LR AWD is more efficient than the Prius Prime, which couldn't get through the EPA tests without firing up the engine. You think a smaller battery and less powerful engine will make a BEV automatically more efficient? There are examples already for sale that prove otherwise.

You want a Priusfied Tesla, but not everyone wants a Prius. If there isn't a green choice of the car they want, they won't buy a Prius, but the non-green option. Tesla's success is offering a car that people want that is also green. Yes, some came from a Prius, but others came from a BMW, Mercedes, etc.

As for implying Tesla is greenwashing their long range and performance models with the standard range one, that is how all the car companies work. Toyota sells the Prius so they can sell more Tacomas without buying CAFE credits or paying fines.

c) If the BEV is suppose to totally replace a traditional car, it has to be able to do everything that car can do. That means being able to do long trips. Doesn't matter if a person doesn't take long trips. It is well established that the public buys cars based on what they might need, or we wouldn't have AWD SUVs everywhere. So the long range version of this future Tesla will have a big battery.

There will very likely be a standard range one with smaller battery, but this segment competes on price, which results in small margins on the car. There are fixed costs in development and testing with bringing a car version to market. If too few of the smaller battery model sell, those fixed costs can exceed any profits brought in. This is exactly why Tesla never made a 40kWH Model S in the beginning. Too few perorders meant they would lose money after certifying that trim for sale.

d) Why didn't GM or Toyota put solar panels on that building? Maybe because it wasn't designed for solar panels. A possible installation may not be the most efficient use of those panels, and then the California grid already has a large portion of renewables. So it would just be a showcase that didn't do much. For being so concerned about battery use in cars, you should be against putting up solar panels for just showing off.

There are at least 5 Gigafactories being built or already running. They are all designed to make the best use of solar panels over their entire roofs. i know nothing about eBay's building, but schools use a fraction of energy that factories run through.

Batteries were quite expensive in beginning. The segments Tesla competes in are also pricey, but with higher margins. An affordable, everyperson car only makes a company profit when sold in huge numbers. Tesla's founders knew they couldn't grow fast enough to reach those type of numbers before going under. That's why they went after the luxury and performance segments. They could make the money there that they needed for growth. If Tesla started with the BEV you wanted, they would not have survived long enough for you to buy one.

In terms of production, Tesla is still a small car company. Last year, they made just over 500k cars. In the same time frame, Toyota made 8.8 million. VW, as a group, made 9.3 million. Mazda is a small car company, and they made 1.13 million, ignoring their commercial business. In the US, Mazda sells itself as a cheaper alternative to a Volvo, because they wouldn't be able to compete directly with Toyota and VW on pricing.

You haven't shown in what way Tesla's are wasteful. For most of the US, they result in less carbon emissions than a Prius. Even on dirty grids, they are close to the Prius, and far better than the cars most people are buying. Over the life of the car, the reduction in GHG emissions from use will make up for the production emissions by far, and Tesla is working to reduce those.

Tesla could make smaller battery packs, and many people don't need ranges over 200 miles. Neither of those points matter if no one buys the shorter range BEV. Here are the sales figures for some of the BEVs in the US last year.

2020 US Electric Vehicle Sales Report
The top five all have over 200 miles of range(models not shown don't best the Bolt by other sources). The Leaf is the best selling model with an available range below 200 miles, but it also has a 200+ mile range option. Nissan doesn't report the breakdown.