Tesla Battery Day 2020: Is foresight 20/22?

[Results45]

So.......lots to show, lots to tell! Now on to Elon and one of his team leads:

 

 

The hilarious honk-a-thon in response to Elon:

Spoiler

.

.

.

 

The industry-kicker stats:

• 54% range increase total (from both battery chemistry and manufacturing process improvements)
• 56% dollars per kilowatt-hour cost reduction
• 69% reduction in dollars invested per gigawatt-hour
• Future battery + body factories will be 35% more compact
• $25,000 model coming in 2022/2023

Spoiler

.

.

 

 

Batteries & Cell Manufacturing Developments:

• Transition from 21700 to 4680 batteries
• up to 16% more range compared to existing power packs
• New cells made without tabs.
• Dry-cell manufacturing (dry electrode forming) process reduces factory space utilization and energy footprint by 90% (aka down to 1/10th compared to existing process)
• Each new assembly line produces 7 times more batteries that existing 2170 assembly lines.
• New process of "forming" cells into battery packs reduces footprint by 75% (aka down to 1/4th compared to existing process)
• Terafactory (1 terawatt-hour of annual capacity output) is 1/10th the footprint of an equivalent 150GWh Gigafactory (1 gigawatt-hour annual output).
• Full-scale production starting 2021 (the current low-scale factory is apparently "just around the corner" from where this event was held)

Spoiler

.

.

 

Battery Chemistry, Raw Materials, and Reusing Spent Batteries:

• Silicon will be used for anodes (apparently stores 9 times more lithium than graphite)
• Using silicon increases range by up to 20%
• Efforts in the near future will be focused on replacing Cobalt with Nickel for cathodes (is more cost-effective than iron and helps provide more energy density than cobalt ~ not to mention environmental & humanitarian rights issues with mining cobalt)
• Using nickel reduces per-cell cathode cost by 15%
• Iron, manganese, and/or nickel will be used depending on the product.
• "Terawatt-scale" amounts of Lithium will be mined from clay in Nevada soil for the foreseeable future using and "acid-free" saline extraction method
• More than 80% reduction in distance between raw material source and lithium/cathode processing plants.
• Raw materials from recycled batteries will be reused to make new "Million Mile Batteries" (referring to battery packs that will last 1,000,000 driven miles instead of 500,000 miles before needing to be replaced)
• Recycled cells from spent battery packs contain 18.8% more nickel, 2% more lithium, and 1.8% more cobalt than the "typical" freshly-mined ore.
• Supply of spent battery cells expected to grow exponentially

Spoiler

.

.

 

 

Model Y autobody casting process improvements & structural battery packs:

• 370 total fewer parts per vehicle (79 part reduction from casting)
• 10% reduction in completed mass
• Up to 14% range increase
• 40% cost reduction in new rear underbody casting process
• New "Giga Casting" process (larger shot size, higher velocity/pressure, increased tonnage)
• New custom aluminum alloy does not require heat treatment or coatings
• New battery packs will also serve as structural reinforcement

Spoiler

.

.

 

 

 The Plaid Model S:

• Less than 2 second 0-to-60mph acceleration (beats the world record of 2.218 seconds from 2019)
• 200MPH top speed
• 1100 Horsepower
• 520-mile range
• 1 min, 30.3 second Laguna Seca lap time or better
• Deliveries start late 2021 (aka next year)

Spoiler

.

.

 

 

The End:

Spoiler

.

.

 

 

Livestream recording & other sources:

• https://www.tesla.com/2020shareholdermeeting
• https://cleantechnica.com/2020/09/22/tesla-battery-day-liveblog-livestream/

 

There are many more details that are not listed above both from the main presentation and the following Q&A. If you find any more of these info nuggets, please point them out!

Edited September 23, 2020 by Results45
Tesla stock is LIT right now.

[Antistatic12]

The structural talk about how planes have no wings, but fuel tanks, that are in the shape of wings. Was something I had not thought about. And that Telsa will adapt that to their cars, with that added benefit of the batteries being solid, so it is easier to implement. Why have batteries that need securing and structures around them, when instead build the batteries to support the car itself. Genius.  Starts around 2:45:50 for those interested.
 

[Antistatic12]

8 minutes ago, epicdotexe said:

I've got an idea guys! Instead of burning fossil fuels we're going to use up the world's lithium supply to make silly cars with giant stupid doodle jump tablets on the dashboard! Yes, you heard that right! And then we're going to dump all of the worn out batteries in third world countries under the guise of recycling!

 

Thank you for saving the world Elon!

Elon actually talked about this.

He is and wants to harvest all Telsa batteries to reuse and recycle.
Also there is more than enough lithium in Nevada alone to replace the entire fleet of cars in the USA
Timestamp in video above is 02:40:00

[Mihle]

Cool.

[strajk-]

6 hours ago, Antistatic12 said:

Elon actually talked about this.

He is and wants to harvest all Telsa batteries to reuse and recycle.
Also there is more than enough lithium in Nevada alone to replace the entire fleet of cars in the USA
Timestamp in video above is 02:40:00

Don't bother, like most critics, they repeat by word of mouth, don't watch anything or research anything at all, and just keep hating.

Tesla is going into the right direction and so are their products at this moment time, I'm still pissed off at the DRM Locked features though.

[Doobeedoo]

Interesting, fun to see insight about battery tech.

[Monkey Dust]

10 hours ago, Antistatic12 said:

The structural talk about how planes have no wings, but fuel tanks, that are in the shape of wings. Was something I had not thought about. And that Telsa will adapt that to their cars, with that added benefit of the batteries being solid, so it is easier to implement. Why have batteries that need securing and structures around them, when instead build the batteries to support the car itself. Genius.  Starts around 2:45:50 for those interested.
 

Because crash structure.

 

Cars have to deform in a non-uniform way to absorb impact energy without comprising the passenger compartment, while also reducing the acceleration forces acting on the occupants. 'Body on frame' cars are rubbish at this, and it why the handful of cars that still use it, such as the Jeep Wrangler, have low safety ratings. Using the batteries as a structural element would have similar issues to body on frame, possibly worse as you absolutely cannot risk the lithium batteries deforming.

 

I'd imagine they'd also be chasing pretty slim weight savings with it too, car body shells aren't that heavy.

[BuckGup]

11 hours ago, epicdotexe said:

I've got an idea guys! Instead of burning fossil fuels we're going to use up the world's lithium supply to make silly cars with giant stupid doodle jump tablets on the dashboard! Yes, you heard that right! And then we're going to dump all of the worn out batteries in third world countries under the guise of recycling!

 

Thank you for saving the world Elon!

If you think what Elon is doing is bad, man please don't look at any countries military, oil companies, central banks, or even car manufacturers like GM. You don't have to like Elon but what he is doing helps everyone. Lithium batteries aren't the answer but I don't really see you coming out with something better anytime soon. You also have to realize the amount of lithium used in cars compared to that of mobile devices is not even close. Just looking at iPhone sales alone they used 1.73684211×10^13 Wh of lithium while Tesla has used closer to 185 million Wh. Now factor in androids, smart wearables, and laptops (which can have 99Wh batteries) and your argument towards Tesla falls straight through

[wanderingfool2]

20 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Lithium batteries aren't the answer but I don't really see you coming out with something better anytime soon

While there might be better alternatives in the future, the newer Li batteries actually aren't that bad (especially if the cost reduction turns out to be practical).  The worst part is the cobalt, but it looks like we are moving away from that.  (Well there's the exploding aspect, but anything that gets energy dense will likely have similar issues).  Hydrogen is less efficient, at the moment, and requires special tanks (otherwise it's more explody than Lithium).  Lithium batteries might be what we are stuck with for the answer.

 

11 hours ago, epicdotexe said:

I've got an idea guys! Instead of burning fossil fuels we're going to use up the world's lithium supply to make silly cars with giant stupid doodle jump tablets on the dashboard! Yes, you heard that right! And then we're going to dump all of the worn out batteries in third world countries under the guise of recycling!

 

Thank you for saving the world Elon!

There is plenty of lithium to go around, it's not like it's a scarce product.  As other's have mentioned at least listen to the presentation before making uninformed criticism...or you know...do like 2 seconds of googling to find out that Lithium isn't in short supply

https://www.thegreenage.co.uk/facing-lithium-shortage/

https://web.archive.org/web/20090502142924/http://www.ioes.saga-u.ac.jp/ioes-study/li/lithium/occurence.html

(The last one, est. 230 metric billion tonnes in sea water alone which would be more than enough for 230 billion cars/power walls)

As Lithium becomes more and more important, you will see more diversity in who produces it.

 

There is currently only 5% Lithium recycling (back in 2017 study), but that is also because up until recently most batteries were just tossed away in consumer devices.  For things such as cars, it's a lot easier to recycle the lithium.  As recycling becomes more prominent it may very well lead to recycling being a cheaper option as well for many of the metals used in the battery.

 

[BuckGup]

10 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

While there might be better alternatives in the future, the newer Li batteries actually aren't that bad (especially if the cost reduction turns out to be practical).  The worst part is the cobalt, but it looks like we are moving away from that.  (Well there's the exploding aspect, but anything that gets energy dense will likely have similar issues).  Hydrogen is less efficient, at the moment, and requires special tanks (otherwise it's more explody than Lithium).  Lithium batteries might be what we are stuck with for the answer.

 

I mean technically we have much better tech like nuclear based batteries that will last 25 years. The only issue is price and power output. 

[Results45]

1 minute ago, BuckGup said:

I mean technically we have much better tech like nuclear based batteries that will last 25 years. The only issue is price and power output. 

 

Not to mention highly stable air-cooled mini nuclear power plants (made from my home state no less):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power

https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/technology-overview

[wanderingfool2]

29 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

I mean technically we have much better tech like nuclear based batteries that will last 25 years. The only issue is price and power output. 

Price, power output and form factor I'm not saying that nuclear won't have it's place, but it will always be fraught with fear (even if it is perfectly safe).  Lithium is here to stay,  the only thing that could usurp it in my opinion is a composite material that can outperform it (which could happen, but that would be decades out).

 

Lithium batteries, for better or worse, might be the only answer we have.  (As they will be driving factor in the use of electricity)

[cj09beira]

41 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

I mean technically we have much better tech like nuclear based batteries that will last 25 years. The only issue is price and power output. 

those are not ever going to work, have you looked at the continuous output figure, its in the uW range, cool to power small things for a long time, not useful for anything else.

7 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Price, power output and form factor I'm not saying that nuclear won't have it's place, but it will always be fraught with fear (even if it is perfectly safe).  Lithium is here to stay,  the only thing that could usurp it in my opinion is a composite material that can outperform it (which could happen, but that would be decades out).

 

Lithium batteries, for better or worse, might be the only answer we have.  (As they will be driving factor in the use of electricity)

which is something we really need to change if we want to have actually good practices for keeping the environment safe (which involves not covering it with solar panels), nuclear is so much better its not even funny

[wanderingfool2]

15 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

which is something we really need to change if we want to have actually good practices for keeping the environment safe (which involves not covering it with solar panels), nuclear is so much better its not even funny

I still think Solar does have potential (but focus needs to be more producing recyclable panels)  [Just like how battery production is really starting to move away from cobalt]

[cj09beira]

5 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I still think Solar does have potential (but focus needs to be more producing recyclable panels)  [Just like how battery production is really starting to move away from cobalt]

not as a main power source it doesn't, as a auxiliary power source sure, its power density is way too low, you simply can't get more than 1kw/m², which is not nearly enough, specially as we progress and most likely start using more power per capita, the way forward is nuclear and fusion one day.

[BuckGup]

1 hour ago, cj09beira said:

those are not ever going to work, have you looked at the continuous output figure, its in the uW range, cool to power small things for a long time, not useful for anything else.

Actually they are a lot more practical and have been used many times with space exploration even on the Apollo missions. Curiosity was the latest to use one and it outputs 110 Watts constantly and they figure it will be able to power it for 14 years.

 https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/spacecraft/rover/electrical-power/

 

[Bensemus]

15 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Actually they are a lot more practical and have been used many times with space exploration even on the Apollo missions. Curiosity was the latest to use one and it outputs 110 Watts constantly and they figure it will be able to power it for 14 years.

 https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/spacecraft/rover/electrical-power/

They use plutonium dioxide. About 11 pounds to produce 110W. Electric cars need kW’s of power. The US has only recently started making plutonium dioxide again and only for use by NASA for space missions. it’s not at all a viable power source for electric cars.
 

It works well for space missions as the only alternative is solar which loses efficiency rapidly as you move away from the Sun. 

[soldier_ph]

17 hours ago, Results45 said:

$25,000 model coming in 2022/2023

Fuck yes. I can't wait to own a Tesla myself in the future.

[BuckGup]

2 hours ago, Bensemus said:

They use plutonium dioxide. About 11 pounds to produce 110W. Electric cars need kW’s of power. The US has only recently started making plutonium dioxide again and only for use by NASA for space missions. it’s not at all a viable power source for electric cars.
 

It works well for space missions as the only alternative is solar which loses efficiency rapidly as you move away from the Sun. 

Yeah I wasn't saying it is practical for cars but it can make a lot more than a couple micro watts

[wanderingfool2]

4 hours ago, cj09beira said:

not as a main power source it doesn't, as a auxiliary power source sure, its power density is way too low, you simply can't get more than 1kw/m², which is not nearly enough, specially as we progress and most likely start using more power per capita, the way forward is nuclear and fusion one day.

It might not be practical for an urban environment, but detached homes or pretty much anything but high-rises it could become quite viable for a primary power source (coupled with a Lithium battery pack) [Only tapping into the grid for secondary power].  *This does become less in winter* but it's better than nothing.  In terms of density, when it can be plunked on rooves the density can matter a lot less (e.g. at my house, if I were to line my roof with solar panels I would get considerably more power than needed).

 

Considering that on average in the NW, a 6kW system can generate over 15kWh per day.  Not saying that it's a silver bullet, there isn't one, but that would be enough to power most homes.  [If we are looking forward to the developments in nuclear and fusion, then we could argue that solar panel development will continue...as it's only 20% efficiency for the panels at the moment].

 

I'm not saying that there wouldn't be a need for alternative types of power generation, but just that it could become a main power source (and the others are just supplementary).  Not holding my breath for fusion reactors though, as exciting and interesting that it is it seems like we are always decades out from meaningful results (i.e. extracting actual power)

[zheega]

1 hour ago, soldier_ph said:

Fuck yes. I can't wait to own a Tesla myself in the future.

I have some bad news for you;

 

 

Meanwhile, Mercedes just announced their first vehicle (a bus) with a solid-state battery. Very revolutionary, and it is mass transportation, so it actually does what Tesla's "mission" claims to be about - fighting climate change.

[cj09beira]

31 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It might not be practical for an urban environment, but detached homes or pretty much anything but high-rises it could become quite viable for a primary power source (coupled with a Lithium battery pack) [Only tapping into the grid for secondary power].  *This does become less in winter* but it's better than nothing.  In terms of density, when it can be plunked on rooves the density can matter a lot less (e.g. at my house, if I were to line my roof with solar panels I would get considerably more power than needed).

 

Considering that on average in the NW, a 6kW system can generate over 15kWh per day.  Not saying that it's a silver bullet, there isn't one, but that would be enough to power most homes.  [If we are looking forward to the developments in nuclear and fusion, then we could argue that solar panel development will continue...as it's only 20% efficiency for the panels at the moment].

 

I'm not saying that there wouldn't be a need for alternative types of power generation, but just that it could become a main power source (and the others are just supplementary).  Not holding my breath for fusion reactors though, as exciting and interesting that it is it seems like we are always decades out from meaningful results (i.e. extracting actual power)

i am not against usage of solar where it makes sense, but what you are describing is still well into solar being a secondary source, most power usage isn't from suburbs, its industry and apartments/offices

[niofalpha]

10 hours ago, strajk- said:

Don't bother, like most critics, they repeat by word of mouth, don't watch anything or research anything at all, and just keep hating.

Tesla is going into the right direction and so are their products at this moment time, I'm still pissed off at the DRM Locked features though.

God, he's literally just filling the role that religious figures usually fill for the terminally online at this point, isn't he.

5 hours ago, BuckGup said:

If you think what Elon is doing is bad, man please don't look at any countries military, oil companies, central banks, or even car manufacturers like GM. You don't have to like Elon but what he is doing helps everyone. Lithium batteries aren't the answer but I don't really see you coming out with something better anytime soon. You also have to realize the amount of lithium used in cars compared to that of mobile devices is not even close. Just looking at iPhone sales alone they used 1.73684211×10^13 Wh of lithium while Tesla has used closer to 185 million Wh. Now factor in androids, smart wearables, and laptops (which can have 99Wh batteries) and your argument towards Tesla falls straight through

Making over priced, overhyped electric cars absolutely does not help anyone. If anything, taking government subsidies from alternatives that would actually help with these problems is hurting people. The only thing he's done with Tesla is make a status symbol for affluent liberals, and take billions in government subsidies, while defrauding investors and using it to fund his other scams that sound cool and innovative in theory, but end up being little more than snake oil (see Boring company, The whole Neuralink presentation verifiably being a fraud, how he bought the right to call himself the founder of Tesla, how his whole story is a fraud).

 

And the people who complain about the pollution caused by batteries in electric cars are also probably the ones who complain about other e-waste, or how putting billions of subsidies into electric vehicles isn't the most optimal way to help reduce congestion or pollution. The argument about phones having more battery wastes is pretty shitty, especially when you consider how much quicker larger batteries die out, and how they're probably going to be contribute considerably more e-waste than an iPhone, and factoring in how over 14x as many iPhone 11 sales have happened than the total number of Teslas sold, and there are significantly more parts that go into a Tesla than an iPhone. When Tesla inevitably starts retiring support for older models, and given the parts for repairing vehicles being proprietary (and much more complex), their lives are going to be much shorter than traditional vehicles, further contribution to waste. Then there's the fact that the larger batteries are likely going to be harder to recycle

17 hours ago, Antistatic12 said:

Elon actually talked about this.

He is and wants to harvest all Telsa batteries to reuse and recycle.
Also there is more than enough lithium in Nevada alone to replace the entire fleet of cars in the USA
Timestamp in video above is 02:40:00

What exactly do you think the guise of recycling is, exactly? This is literally what the guy was talking about, verbatim. I'll believe a Tech Company is effectively and ethically recycling their E-Waste when Nestle ethically sources their water.

And there will Never be large a large scale mining operation in a western country. It's too expensive, and it is massively unpopular. Besides that, those numbers seem way off. Google says it's upwards of 10 KG/ Tesla battery, and there is 630000 metric tons (630000000KG) of known Lithium in the US, that there are 17 million new car sales in the US a last year. That's 17000000 KG of lithium a year. That ends up being enough to last just over 37 years, assuming all the lithium mined in the US (in line with the claim that "There's enough Lithium in Nevada to replace the entire US car fleet") goes exclusively to manufacturing Teslas. There are 273.6 Million cars in America, which comes out to a demand of about 2736000000KG of lithium, or 40% of the total supply. While it's true, that there is TECHNICALLY enough Lithium in America (not even Nevada as he mentioned, just most of the known domestic lithium deposits are in Nevada), it's unlikely that enough of it could effectively be mined, let alone enough to be used for electric cars exclusively, given that today less than 40% of all mined lithium is used for batteries.

[wanderingfool2]

22 minutes ago, zheega said:

I have some bad news for you;

 

Meanwhile, Mercedes just announced their first vehicle (a bus) with a solid-state battery. Very revolutionary, and it is mass transportation, so it actually does what Tesla's "mission" claims to be about - fighting climate change.

Please note, that it was an article headline that they pulled from this statement

Quote

"I think in order for us to get up to...a 25,000 car, that's something we can do," he said. "But if we work really hard I think maybe we can do that in about 3 years," Musk added, saying it depended on both time and scale. He compared car making to the early years of the cellphone, which were bulky and lacked functionality.

Saying something in an interview, and giving an example of being able to do something in 3 years is quite a bit different announcing it.

[Results45]

Tesla by 2023: affordable $25,000 car

 

Meanwhile........100% solar-powered car

 

 

IMO both are going to be important. The former will be a semi-selfdriving Model 3 with 50%+ more range that a lot more people will be able to buy or lease while the latter will prove the viability of a solar car in sunny climates and at least halve emissions compared to hybrids in less sunny places.