Tesla's Battery Revolution Just Reached Critical Mass (bloomberg.com) 201
Tesla is all set to cut the ribbon on a massive battery storage facility in the California desert -- the biggest of its kind on earth. It joins similarly huge facilities built by AES and Altagas, which are both set to launch around the same time. Combined, the plants constitute 15% of the battery storage installed globally last year. From a report: Tesla Motors is making a huge bet that millions of small batteries can be strung together to help kick fossil fuels off the grid. The idea is a powerful one -- one that's been used to help justify the company's $5 billion factory near Reno, Nev. -- but batteries have so far only appeared in a handful of true, grid-scale pilot projects. That changes this week. Ribbons will be cut and executives will take their bows. But this is a revolution that's just getting started, Tesla Chief Technology Officer J.B. Straubel said in an interview on Friday. "It's sort of hard to comprehend sometimes the speed all this is going at," he said. "Our storage is growing as fast as we can humanly scale it."
But they use lithium-ion (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a stationary setup. Weight and size shouldn't matter. They should use nickel-iron for longer durability, a hundred years or more.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention safety. I'd hate to be the nearest Fire Department to that place...
Re: (Score:3)
Why? We like to watch earth shattering kabooms.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention safety. I'd hate to be the nearest Fire Department to that place...
Have you ever seen video of a refinery going up? Or a propane storage facility?
You should look sometimes. This is little more dangerous than those. In face with other fuels, things like gas and liquid fuels are transported by pipeline, truck and rail. All have had accidents near populated residential areas.
Any sufficiently dense energy storage can be dangerous if it somehow releases that energy quickly. I would rather that be at a stationary facility that is isolated and perhaps less manned than tru
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries can be divided into sections with firewalls in between.
This is what makes a battery a battery. If it's not compartmentalized, it's a cell. A battery of cells is a battery.
Your average AA/LR6 "battery" is more accurately referred to as a "cell".
Re: But they use lithium-ion (Score:4, Informative)
Don't forget that lithium ion batteries are about 85% efficient round-trip power where is nickel iron batteries are something more like 70%. That's double the energy loss in addition to requiring nearly 10 times the weight and volume. Nickel-iron batteries also need maintenance, that's cheaper than replacement, but it adds up over time.
Re: (Score:2)
Sodium sulphur is used elsewhere. It used to require high temperatures but now runs at more manageable levels. There are some deployed in Hawaii, Japan and Europe.
Re:But they use lithium-ion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: But they use lithium-ion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Size and weight do matter. As well as the cost to maintain the batteries, self-discharge rate, charge rate, discharge rate and efficiency.
There really is a reason Nickel-Iron batteries are niche products and it isn't because smart people in the field don't know about them.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, what really matters is economics, and what happens a century out from now is so thoroughly discounted by the time value of money that no businesses seriously consider it.
So I expect the biggest thing is the economies of scale of the Li-ion cell manufacture and Teslas expertise and ability to supply the components of the system. If you run the numbers and the net present value works out better for Li-ion then Li-ion it is, even if you have to replace it in ten years -- by which time the batteries will
Re: (Score:2)
Even in stationary setups size and weight matters - because these directly affect any number of design details of the building.
Re: (Score:2)
It can matter but most of the time it does not matter. For example in the UK most houses have suspended floors at ground level without basements which provides a space for a large amount of batteries without impacting the normal living space. My gut feeling is that even with lead acid batteries I could run my house for a couple of days if I filled that space up. Nickel-Iron would be much more sensible though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Economics doesn't matter
This is not about "economics". It is about PR and meeting a political mandate, and not because the project actually makes sense. Alternative energy actually fits the demand curve fairly well (people run ACs when the sun is shining), and "smart meters" can help to shift demand to fit available supply. Car batteries, which are likely to be a major power consumers in the future, can be built with "smart chargers" that charge only when surplus energy is available (and thus the price is low). There is no act
Re:But they use lithium-ion (Score:4, Informative)
Battery storage is needed when you want more than ~10-20% of your generation to be from solar. Demand-side management can handle some of the issues, but won't let solar grow (easily) past 25%.
That said, I am surprised the Li-Ion pencils out, even with subsidies. The charging characteristics must be a big part of the formula for it working-- being able to quickly absorb power would give it an advantage over sodium and the flow batteries, I think the nickel iron batteries have the same challenges.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
California's peak demand is now about an hour before sunset to an hour after,
That demand is already met by NG "peaker" plants, which are very cost effective because THEY ALREADY EXIST. Electricity demand is falling, thanks mostly to LED lighting and variable speed DC motors, so there is no need for more capacity.
renewable generation falls off a cliff
Solar drops. Wind power tends to rise in late afternoon.
making it difficult for base-load plants to ramp up quickly
Yet they do it every day. California has no coal plants and few nukes. Most power comes from NG, which can ramp up quickly, especially when the demand peak happens predictably every afternoon.
Battery storage is needed when you want more than ~10-20% of your generation to be from solar.
1. We are no where nea
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But they use lithium-ion (Score:4, Informative)
It's up to the storage suppliers to bid on the project and choose the technology, and they have all the motivation to choose the most cost-effective one for the project. They know that capacity will degrade with some rate, and probably decided that the likely cost of adding capacity in 10 years would be less than doing something different now. Perhaps there aren't fully proven ready-to-go nickel battery storage units.
The requirement from the utility was to get something installed, successfully, now. No time to waste with a technology that wasn't production ready or had supply problems.
Re: (Score:2)
In general, grid-scale batteries are an odd solution, but Mira Loma substation is transmission-constrained, or at least was several years ago. It has an on-site peaker plant to address some of the constraints, but there are issues with tha
Re: (Score:2)
Car batteries, which are likely to be a major power consumers in the future, can be built with "smart chargers" that charge only when surplus energy is available (and thus the price is low).
This works until charging cars becomes more than a microscopic blip in the overall demand. As more people charge their cars, however smartly, the exploitable demand curve flattens, and the area under the entire curve increases. If electric cars start to replace regular cars, energy prices will go up, up, up and the opportunity to charge your car during "off-peak" times for a relative discount will go down, down, gone.
If you want a car analogy for charging your car, try this. Uber "surge" pricing. The mo
Re: (Score:2)
And the market response on supply from increased prices? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?
If utilities start to see more overall electricity demand from vehicles, they will also have more money. Some of the money which used to go to petroleum will go to them. They will have more money to add capacity and storage. Mo
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really expect the invisible hand of the free market to work out for loosely-regulated electricity monopolies?
Have you heard of the state of California?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more a case of we're going to have a shitload of Li-ion batteries that will be too soggy for long range vehicle use, but are perfectly fine for other uses that don't require 100% capacity. They're using fresh batteries now, gaining economies of scale and will be able to recycle in used vehicle batteries as the opportunity arises.
I'm not sure about the cost of recycling a Li-ion cell, but I bet it's pretty hi; lithium is potent stuff and shouldn't trivially. Dumping good batteries into the recy
Economics (Score:5, Insightful)
Without a new breakthrough technology in our pocket, batteries technology should be determined by the real use case. Lithium ion is a good technology when weight is very important, but a lousy technology when does not matter. Why use a bad technology when a pretty good on is on hand?
Several reasons, all economic.
1) Economies of scale. Producing two types of batteries is more expensive than producing the same number of a single type of battery.
2) Standardization. Picking the exact optimal battery type for every application instead of using a standard battery actually results in product fragmentation and added cost. It's actually cheaper in many cases to use a standardized product instead of an optimized one.
3) Excess capacity. If you already are producing a product it's often cheaper to make extras and use those than to build a whole new production system for another product for marginal efficiency gains.
Re:Economics (Score:5, Insightful)
I imagine they are planning to recycle a lot of cells that have been used in cars and have maybe 80% capacity remaining after a million miles. As they come onto the market in quantity the price of energy storage will fall even more rapidly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, Tesla has stated that it's actually cheaper and easier to simply recycle used batteries and then turn the recycled batteries into new batteries than to try to refurbish used batteries.
Elon Musk stated this at AGU 2015:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
So, wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good article, but...
"Critical Mass" indicates that there are more facilities coming online, or at least publicly planning to. No indication of that in TFA... in fact, the closest they got is this:
"...may change in the next five years..." is nowhere near actual activity that would indicate a "critical mass" in industry.
How about they call us when it actually gets in motion - regionally, if not nationally or globally.
Re:So, wait... (Score:4, Interesting)
Good article, but...
"Critical Mass" indicates that there are more facilities coming online, or at least publicly planning to. No indication of that in TFA... in fact, the closest they got is this:
"...may change in the next five years..." is nowhere near actual activity that would indicate a "critical mass" in industry.
How about they call us when it actually gets in motion - regionally, if not nationally or globally.
Well, my definition is that "Critical Mass" means enough market share and sales for a company/product to have consumer acceptance and brand recognition. Plus, there is a component where it has been scaled to the point where manufacturing costs have been optimized. Given that the plants have just gone online and the products have yet to reach the market at any level of market share and that there hasn't been enough time to optimize the manufacturing process, I think that its a bit premature to be talking about "Critical Mass".
Perhaps a better phrase would be "Critical Capacity". There is finally have enough manufacturing capacity to meet Tesla's needs so that they can start rolling out their home/corporate products and the more affordable versions of their cars.
Finally! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be nice to be able to buy 18650's directly from Tesla so we know for sure they're not fake ones.
Dead Ends (Score:3)
Highly variable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar in combination with energy storage using batteries to balance out variations in both load and supply might well be the wave of the future. However, it seems unlikely that these Tesla battery packs, optimized as they are for use in automobiles and thus designed to meet standards for compactness, weight, and collision safety, are also optimal for grid energy storage, which has different requirements. Assembling grid-scale energy storage from individual cells is probably a technological dead-end and will be supplanted by flow batteries. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Dead Ends (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the general idea was to use the technology, not necessarily to use identical specs. There are better overall battery designs out there, but the point here is to use the same basic battery system to gain some economies of scale. In other words, Tesla is looking beyond simple optimization of storage capacity. They want to build enough batteries to bring down overall production costs for both cars and for other storage systems.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so. Or not entirely. I think there are two kinds of batteries that are economically viable for this. One is, as you said, optimized for this application, and will come later. The other is used car batteries. They are not good enough for a car anymore at 60-70% or so remaining capacity, but can still take a _lot_ of charges before they become non-viable in stationary installations like this one, typically many more then the viable lifetime in a car. True, they may have new batteries in there at
Critical mass? (Score:2)
Battery storage reaching critical mass? I hope they are not talking about nuclear batteries...
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't they just go with adiabatic compressed air energy storage?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so easy. Compress air enough to be useful and it gets too hot to contain. Bleed off the heat and you get inefficiency. Still, the losses might be kept low enough for it to work eventually. Just not yet.
Re: (Score:2)
If only there were a way to turn that heat into electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
There is but you lose efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
Adiabatic compression is close to 100% efficiency, although you lose some due to friction. If you have to recover heat your efficiency goes down.
Re: (Score:2)
Typically salt domes are used for storage. At high enough pressure to be usable the salt melts. Rocks and steel would eventually, too. If you extract the heat you are subject to the Carnot limits to efficiency. Batteries avoid this.
Ok, now I feel dirty. Using 'Carnot' in a general discussion feels wrong.
Re:Why (Score:5, Interesting)
Adiabatic compressed air energy moves the heat from compression into an insulated thermal mass chamber, and uses that to heat the expansion vessel. It recouperates that loss and has 70% total effective energy storage--higher is possible, up to 90%.
Batteries can store and discharge about 6-10 times the energy required to create them in their lifetimes. Adiabatic compressed air energy storage plants can cycle 240 times their energy cost. Batteries are pathetic technology at power grid scale and will never catch up to modern methods of grid-scale energy storage.
Re: (Score:3)
Batteries can store and discharge about 6-10 times the energy required to create them in their lifetimes.
That number seems very low. Got a source?
Re:Why (Score:5, Informative)
Well, there's Wikipedia...
The cell's energy is equal to the voltage times the charge. Each gram of lithium represents Faraday's constant/6.941 or 13,901 coulombs. At 3 V, this gives 41.7 kJ per gram of lithium, or 11.6 kWh per kg. This is a bit more than the heat of combustion of gasoline, but does not consider the other materials that go into a lithium battery and that make lithium batteries many times heavier per unit of energy.
There's a paper from a DOE lab [anl.gov] that suggests:
On a per-unit-mass basis, the Evm values for battery production are quite large, especially when compared to the overall VMA burden. Indeed, the incremental manufacturing energy rate is 13.3 MJ/kg of vehicle whereas the values are 91 MJ/kg of Li-ion battery and 105 MJ/kg of NiMH battery (Burnham et al., 2006).
91MJ/kg for Li-ion battery manufacture to store 0.0417MJ/kg as of 2006. With 6,000 full discharge cycles, that's 250MJ of energy storage in its lifetime, or 2.75 times the energy required to make the battery itself.
It's ten years later; energy cost of Li-ion manufacturer has fallen with newer manufacture technology. Recent reports suggest anywhere from 6 to 10 times energy stored than used to create the damned things. Pumped storage (raising water behind a turbine) is 210:1 and adiabatic compressed air is 240:1.
It gets a bit worse than that: once a battery is expended, you need to remove and dispose of it. That means disassembly and recovery of the lithium, the housing, etc., along with transportation fees for the extreme weight of the thing. Adiabatic CAES requires recertification or replacement of storage tanks, hoses, fittings, pumps, and the like. The latter is going to be easier to improve than the former, so future CAES will likely be more-efficient and require less maintenance, and plants will benefit from these improvements as they upgrade tanks and turbines; future batteries will be more-efficient, but not likely to as great a degree--definitely not without inventing a whole new type of battery.
The actual cost is higher, too. Imagine the cost per kWh to stabilize a grid when you have to have people constantly remanufacturing and recovering batteries, as well as monitoring the station to make sure the battery bank isn't showing signs of failure which could lead to explosion. Compare that to the cost of people remanufacturing what is essentially a large structure (those tanks aren't going to be trucked in and bolted down; they'll be built on-site from plates and seals) 1/24 as often, and monitoring temperature and pressure for lower-criticality events (a damaged battery may run away and explode immediately; an overpressurized tank should have enough safety overhead and valves to fail more-slowly or, preferably, non-critically). It's not all about energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. This is why I read slashdot. I wish that I had mod points to give you for this answer. I'd never heard of such a technology but I am certainly going to look into it now. Thanks for posting this.
Will
PS: Sorry for reposting. I accidentally posted as AC the first time!
Re: (Score:2)
Adiabatic compressed air energy moves the heat from compression into an insulated thermal mass chamber, and uses that to heat the expansion vessel. It recouperates that loss and has 70% total effective energy storage--higher is possible, up to 90%.
The way you describe it sounds not at all like an adiabatic (no heat exchange) process but rather like a thermodynamically irreversible process. Maybe you mean an isothermal process?
And from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] :
"real compressors and turbines are not isentropic, but instead have an isentropic efficiency of around 85%, with the result that round-trip storage efficiency for adiabatic systems is also considerably less than perfect."
Wikipedia doesn't say so much about isothermal compression in pra
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at your Wikipedia link:
The theoretical efficiency of adiabatic storage approaches 100% with perfect insulation, but in practice round trip efficiency is expected to be 70%.
Practically-infeasible?
Re: (Score:2)
Hum, I guess I should have read the article front to end rather than skim it...
Re: (Score:3)
Compression is not by magic wand.
It's done using an energy source.
Why not cut out the crap and just use the original energy source?
The laws of thermodynamics makes energy conversion a losing strategy.
Re:Why (Score:4, Informative)
The point of any kind of storage system is to still be able to deliver electricity when primary generation isn't happening. Whether you're talking about a battery, about compressed air, pumped dams, the point is to convert an inconsistent primary generation system like solar or wind into a system that can produce power all the time, and in particular during peak hours.
Re: (Score:2)
They can use Congress as the source of the hot air!!!
Re: (Score:2)
They couldn't get the politicians to shut up for a long enough time period.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the rational solution is to put the pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast refineries; drill over here; have jobs here; and financially starve Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you were on vacay when the fucking oil glut hit ...
Re:Critical mass?!?! DAMN that Trump! (Score:5, Interesting)
Oops. I guess increasing supply ruined that foolish prediction.
We do have a "glut". Good. Let's keep crude oil prices to screw Saudi Arabia. How about we drill here, have refineries buy at the reduced price (due to increased supply) and we place a use tax on the gas. Then we use the tax dollars to increase wind and solar production, energy storage (battery, flywheels, whatever).
End result is we don't send money to fanatics; we have blue-collar jobs; we fund solar and wind.
Re:Critical mass?!?! DAMN that Trump! (Score:4, Insightful)
So long as the glut continues, you're not going to be making a lot of people rich, and where the oil is more expensive to get at, like oil sands in Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Dakotas, or even North Sea oil, you're finding production falling off because the lower prices reduces the economic argument for grabbing the oil. That's the real problem here. Cheap oil is great if you're a consumer, it's probably pretty damned good if you're a refiner as well, but if you're a producer it sucks really bad, and while technology has indeed allowed cheaper access to some sources like shale oil, all in all low oil prices have actually had a pretty shitty effect, to the point where Shell is selling [theguardian.com] its North Sea assets.
It's the great irony of oil production that it seems it is low prices, rather than high prices, that are causing the industry problems, and may in the medium term lead to more development of renewables. The Saudis, at least, seem to know this, which is why they've set up their massive sovereign wealth fund. They're going to grab the money while they can, because they know in the long term, fossil fuels are a dead end.
Re: (Score:2)
The Saudis, at least, seem to know this, which is why they've set up their massive sovereign wealth fund. They're going to grab the money while they can, because they know in the long term, fossil fuels are a dead end.
That's what they said about the olive oil trade, back when Christ was a corporal.
Re: (Score:2)
Oil will be done as an energy supply in a generation or so (20-40 years). Solar production has been increasing exponentially since the late 1970s. We just haven't noticed it since early doubles 2 to 4 to 8 are not noticed as clearly as later ones 2048 to 4096 to 8192.
You're correct that when crude oil price
Re: (Score:2)
Just a comment on the price. Oil prices are reflective of global supply and demand, and unless there are geographic constraints on a particular supply, ie no access to export points, changing where you buy the oil from won't change the price.
Lets say the US decides to only buy its oil domestically, this would have the immediate effect of pushing the domestic price up and the international price down. But it would be a fleeting change, as anyone who was buying from the US will shift to the now cheaper inte
Re: (Score:2)
Of course lower prices could mean increased use - thus higher prices. (And a waste of resources and US tax dollars).
It would only work if industrialized countries worldwide continue conversion to alternative energies.
If they don't then we would have to cut production sub
Re: (Score:2)
This, and look at what's happening to a boom in the Bakken oil fields:
Extraction is way faster than distribution, so transporting the shit is a golden job.
Trucks, rail, boats and barges used to ship the product have attracted the boomers who live in tiny trailers because the surrounding cities refuse to provide municipal services like water, gas, sewage, and electricity, and fire and police protection.
The cities know that all those jobs are going to disappear once pipelines become the transport of choice.
Bu
Re: (Score:2)
What "oil hungry" nations are there right now? With the price of oil globally pretty cheap, it's not as if the US is the country pumping oil out of the ground, or selling it abroad. Everyone has an oversupply, which is why the price is low.
Re: (Score:2)
A side-by-side comparison of imports [wikipedia.org] vs exports [wikipedia.org] answers that question.
Appreciate that if I send a barge of crude to you, you're probably going to reject it and ask for some refined stuff, instead.
Guess who has the largest refining capacity [hydrocarbo...nology.com]? (hint: USA)
Many countries who have refineries have crude, but they don't have enough.
China, India, parts of Africa and others.
Remember Aramco [wikipedia.org]? I do.
In the article, notice the companies, Texaco and Mobil Oil.
I worked for both.
My brothers worked for Gulf Oil.
My dad worked
Re: (Score:2)
We need to stop using fossil fuels. That's not something you and I are going to agree on, I suspect.
Re: (Score:2)
Your suspicion is logical, but unfounded.
My DNA is in oil patch, but I have evolved to despise it.
It's a filthy source of energy and killed my dad with cancers in the brain, liver, pancreas, stomach and lungs.
My post was not an advocacy for fossil fuels, it was a strategy to exploit it, if we're going to let that pussy-grabbing son of a bitch destroy us, we should flameout with dollars in our hands.
I litigated tobacco and it was a bitch to get those mother fuckers to stop killing us, and it still is.
At leas
Re: (Score:2)
My apologies! That's what I get for drawing hasty conclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, and no problems. Your conclusions were my fault.
Musk as an advisor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are mistaken, Tesla and SpaceX both employee people here in the US who are not American citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would all SpaceX employees covered by those regulations or only those with access to certain knowledge. Ie could their sales team for example be non US-Citizen?
Conflict of interest (Score:3)
Anyone who's president should not have any stocks whatsoever. Conflict of interest.
Same is true of Congress. However Congress has given themselves the legal right [npr.org] to engage in insider trading.
Re:Critical mass?!?! DAMN that Trump! (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with Trump is that he hasn't done this, and has shown absolutely no intention of doing so. He still knows where his money is invested, and still has control/influence over those investments. He claims that he doesn't, but it's grossly clear since his name is plastered all over it. What's more, it's his children that are now running the business, and if you think he couldn't quietly make his wishes known to them, you're deluding yourself. He therefore can easily take that information into account when he's making decisions, and directly benefit his own financial interests thereby.
To give an example, his travel/immigration ban covers several Middle Eastern countries, and cited terrorist attacks including 9/11 as cause. And yet, none of the countries the 9/11 hijackers came from are included in the ban. Why? Possibly because those countries happen to be ones that the Trump Organization does business in, since there's zero overlap between the banned country list and the list of countries in the Middle East where Trump's business has ties? Now, it's impossible to prove that was the reason why, but wouldn't it be better for everyone involved if we didn't have to even worry about that in the first place?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
1) The voters didn't care (enough) that this was his long-running modus operandi (using any position of influence or power for personal gain, even at the expense of everyone else around him, has been a consistent theme for him), or that he made a particular point of ignoring/flouting political norms and expected behavior (this was seen as a plus by many, in fact).
2) Congress has become so completely polarized that it is at best hindered in, and at worst incapable of, acting as a check on
Re:Critical mass?!?! DAMN that Trump! (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump did not even have control over the countries on the travel ban list, they were put there years ago,
He had full control. He decided to use that particular list. He could have used another list, he could have written a brand new list. Instead he picked a list that conveniently did not impact any of his business partners.
There are liberals, and then there are leftist lunatics.
This would be the latter.
Please explain what is so lunatic about the point he's making. This but Obama made me do it argument is so staggeringly dumb that nobody with a mental age above 5 takes it serious. I mean, Trump? Accepting recommendations from Obama? That's almost as dumb as the whole spiel about the `huge' inauguration attendance.
That leaves the adults wondering what the real reason is. The business interests explanation is not very convincing to me, but it is miles ahead of the but Obama made me the list explanation.
And that's ignoring the blatant insinuation that the Obama administration made that list for the kind of asshole measures that Trump has now ordered.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to know whether you're trolling, or really are a fucking retard.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, comparing a short lived lithium ion battery fire to Chernobyl, a nuclear wasteland for the next 100+ years.
Where do you get your alternate facts from?
Re: (Score:2)
that doesn't sound right
Re: (Score:2)
It did with my Nexus 4. My Nexus 5 and current iPhone 7 seem to be holding up better.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
These devices aren't going to be used like a phone battery. They will be setup for optimal life rather than longest possible runtime. Industry will be doing all the little "tricks" to keep them in longest lifetime condition. Not charging to 100%, not discharging to 0%, storing in a temperate controlled area, etc.
My post wasn't entirely serious Mr Logic.
Re:Battery Storage Facility? (Score:5, Informative)
It sounds nice, but after 2 years, the capacity of the battery storage facility will be about 70% of what it is today and a couple of years later it will drop to 5%. Let's hope they built the facility with a user replaceable battery.
My 4 year old Tesla (car) battery is at 98% of new capacity, not 5%. Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Battery Storage Facility? (Score:5, Interesting)
I often wonder why people think engineers are too stupid to see obvious engineering problems. I'd assume the Tesla engineers would reckon on capacity losses and simply size the installation large enough to deliver the required performance over the planned service lifetime. It's not like they don't understand battery technology.
Li-ion batteries are not nearly so bad as you paint them to be -- although obviously you can abuse them into early failure. Tests of electric cars shows battery aging to be less of a problem than anticipated. Tesla Roadsters retain over 80% of their range after 100,000 miles, for example, and data suggests the batteries in the Model S are aging even better on average -- almost negligible after 100,000 miles.
If you're extrapolating from your experience with your phone, phones probably represent the worst case. They often have barely adequate batteries so users deep-discharge them then top them off to 100%, every single day. That's the worst thing you can do to Li-ion batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
FFS, is no joke safe from the ASD crowd?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd keep my day job if I were you...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Still better than buying fuel every week.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Typo,
"Dessert"
Death by chocolate.