Or, better yet, they could provide the same range in smaller, lighter vehicles with less resource use.
From the article:
“Moreover, the silicon-gel electrolyte system demonstrated ion conductivity comparable to conventional batteries while achieving a remarkable 40 percent increase in energy density. This represents a significant leap forward in battery technology, offering a practical solution ready for immediate application.”
So, same energy output, lower weight, similar range. Would be good if this soon becomes a drop in replacement option for older EVs that are nearing EOL on their batteries and require new ones anyway.
I’ve always said that about one of my big reasons for buying an EV several years ago. By the time I’m in need of a replacement battery, it will be better in virtually every way - safer, faster to charge, higher capacity, lighter, and (potentially) cheaper. The first replacement battery might not be much of an improvement, but my 3rd might be light-years ahead.
Looking at past actions of capitalism, it is more likely that same type of batteries will be sold for older cars and the new tech batteries will be only made for newer models, unless right to repair takes off, but who knows, still I do hope for a better and more sustainable future.
My only regret was not buying a more popular model. There are fantastic drop-in battery upgrades for the Prius and leaf, but less popular cars like mine will probably never get upgraded
Lots of surveys show one of the primary barriers to EV adoption is range anxiety. I’ve seen people trying to “educate” potential customers out of this anxiety, but it’s pissing into the wind. You’re not going to convince most people to downgrade their current ICE experience while paying the same or usually even more. I think the inflection point is above real world range for ICE. For example my 2016 Honda Civic can get about 7-800km of range on a single tank, and stops are as quick as a few minutes. This provides a lot of flexibility about where and when one stops. The range needs to account for:
-
The 20-40 minute charge vs five minutes for gas.
-
The lack of chargers relative to gas stations.
-
The 30% drop in range in the cold.
Our annual Austria ski trip takes about 30% longer in our Model Y than the Civic. That’s hours extra on an already very long drive, and the Y costs a lot more. That’s a big downgrade in experience. An appalling experience with a family. We won’t be buying another EV until affordable range is above 1,000km (620 miles). I know many current, former, and non-EV owners who feel the same.
There is a market for commuter cars with poor range, but primarily in rich places where owning 2-3 cars is common. These rich places have already bought EVs as they are. Most of the world relies on just one car, if they own one at all. That one car needs to perform well in all conditions.
The concerns for range anxiety are well founded too. I had to rent a car the other day, and the only thing they had available was a Tesla model 3. Aside from the issues Teslas themselves have, the 90 miles I had to travel became an immediate concern because it was in a rural area and the town I went to literally had two chargers, and they were privately owned.
The 280 miles I was quoted as range quickly became 170, despite turning off the heat, not charging my phone, using cruise control at 3MPH below the speed limit, and changing all the settings I could conceivably find to turn down my power consumption. I wound up having to beg a private owner to let me use their charger because what would normally be a simple trip became a massive chore. My other option was waking up hours early to drive to a town 40 miles away where they had a super charger and leaving from there, also just barely making it back to the rental car return.
The time to charge the Tesla on a 220v charger btw was over 5 hours from 48%. Absolutely none of my experience matched that of the advertised and it’s completely turned me off electric cars until they can start fixing some of these issues.
Or, here’s a crazy idea, for the one week each year where you actually need the range you rent a Honda Civic and leave your EV at home.
That’s not a good solution. Renting is a terrible experience too. This is what I would have to do:
-
Book a rental in advance or pay horrendous rates.
-
Take an overpriced taxi to the rental place on the day. Uber is banned in my country.
-
Wait in line, then stand through the strong arm sales tactics to get me to buy the overpriced insurance. I politely decline.
-
Take a hundred pictures of the exterior to prove I’m delivering it in the same conditions I picked it up because I’ve been scammed too many times.
-
Drive back to my house, then do all the usual packing.
-
Gingerly drive this strange car for 12 hours there and back and pray I don’t scratch it because that’s thousands of dollars in extortionate fees.
-
On return, unpack the car, then give it a clean (or more fees).
-
Drive it back to the rental agency and argue about the level of gas in the tank and the scratches I didn’t make and the level of general cleanliness inside and out.
-
Take another overprice taxi back home.
I’ve rented a lot of cars in my life and they’re all bloodsucking leeches. This is not only a much worse experience than simply owning a car which suits our needs, but it’s more expensive.
“Save the planet? Sure, but only if it doesn’t slightly inconvenience my leisure activities or make me wait a bit longer.” This mindset perfectly encapsulates why we’re in such a mess: an astounding commitment to personal comfort at the expense of the planet’s future. It’s like saying, “I’ll help fight climate change, but only if it’s on my terms and doesn’t affect my ski trips.” Because, obviously, ensuring our convenience is far more critical than addressing a global crisis. It’s this precise “me first, planet later” attitude that’s steering us towards an ecological disaster, yet here we are…
If you already have a car with a combustion engine and it runs fine, you shouldn’t just buy an EV because “it’s better for the environment”. If you’re doing that, it’s actually worse for the environment.
I’m fine with only being able to buy EVs in 10 or 20 years, once batteries are better and the vehicles are actually affordable. Until then, we need better and more hybrids.
Sorry, but if your argument is “here’s a shit product. It’s also more expensive, but you should still buy it because it’s marginally better for the planet,” it’s going to fail to achieve mass adoption. I care very much about environmental sustainability, but I’ve been around the sun enough times to know that the way to achieve that is with better and cheaper products. We should use technology to reduce environmental impact and improve our lives. It’s not one or the other.
To be fair… Electric cars have many of the same planet-damaging properties of gasoline powered ones. They’re a step in the right direction and necessary for the cases where we can’t replace cars, but they’re still an incredibly energy-intensive means of transportation that release enormous amounts of particulate pollution from the tyres and take up huge amounts of land. When combined with other changes we’ve made to our built environment to accommodate cars, they also leave many people in a catch-22 where they’re forced to pay hundreds of dollars every month for car ownership because we’ve demolished and rebuilt our cities in a way that makes not owning a car impractical.
