New EV Batteries are Making Electric Cars Cheaper and Safer (msn.com) 91
The Washington Post looks at a new kind of battery that "could make American EVs cheaper and safer, experts say."
If you bought an EV with a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery, you could expect lower car payments, less fire risk and more years of use out of your car — but you wouldn't be able to go as far on a single charge as you could with the nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) batteries commonly found in American and European electric cars. That trade-off has made LFP batteries the go-to choice for standard-range EVs in China, helping to make electric cars more affordable and limit pollution. Now, American companies are starting to build their own LFP batteries to catch up to their Chinese rivals... But there are plenty of barriers for U.S. companies that want to adopt a technology dominated by Chinese firms. Tariffs and tax credit restrictions have made it too expensive for most American automakers to import LFP batteries from China, and national security concerns have made it hard for American companies to partner with Chinese battery makers to build factories in the United States...
Although American scientists invented LFP batteries in 1997, U.S. automakers didn't invest in the technology. Instead, they bet on NMC batteries because they have longer range, a big concern for American EV buyers. "Everyone in the West thought LFP was a nonstarter five or six years ago," said Adrian Yao, who founded STEER, a technology research group within Stanford University. "We really did have a myopic focus on" range, he added. That left the door open for Chinese companies to perfect LFP batteries, which have a few advantages. Instead of pricey nickel and cobalt, they use iron, which makes them 20 percent cheaper than NMC batteries, according to the International Energy Agency. While NMC batteries can be recharged up to about 1,000 times before they go kaput — which is enough to put 200,000 miles on most EVs — LFP batteries can last two or three times as long, according to Moura. Plus, LFP batteries' chemistry makes them less likely to catch fire and easier to extinguish. An NMC battery, on the other hand, is so flammable that "you could put it underwater or in space, and it'll keep burning because the oxygen it needs to keep the flame going is embedded within itself," Moura said.
That safety advantage is key, because Chinese firms figured out they could pack LFP cells closer together inside a battery pack without risking a fire. That meant they could cram more energy into LFP batteries and nearly catch up to the range of NMC batteries. Last year, the Chinese battery giant CATL made the first LFP battery with more than 600 miles of range. Since LFP batteries are made from common materials and last longer, they also have a smaller environmental footprint than NMC batteries.
Ford used LFP batteries in its Mach-E sedan (2023) and F-150 Lightning pickup trucks (2024), according to the article, "while Rivian began using them in the basic trims of its R1S SUV and R1T pickup truck this year... American LFP factories are slated to open this year in St. Louis and next year in Arizona." And an environmental engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley predicts LFP battery factories in the U.S. will "grow quite rapidly over the next five to 10 years."
Although American scientists invented LFP batteries in 1997, U.S. automakers didn't invest in the technology. Instead, they bet on NMC batteries because they have longer range, a big concern for American EV buyers. "Everyone in the West thought LFP was a nonstarter five or six years ago," said Adrian Yao, who founded STEER, a technology research group within Stanford University. "We really did have a myopic focus on" range, he added. That left the door open for Chinese companies to perfect LFP batteries, which have a few advantages. Instead of pricey nickel and cobalt, they use iron, which makes them 20 percent cheaper than NMC batteries, according to the International Energy Agency. While NMC batteries can be recharged up to about 1,000 times before they go kaput — which is enough to put 200,000 miles on most EVs — LFP batteries can last two or three times as long, according to Moura. Plus, LFP batteries' chemistry makes them less likely to catch fire and easier to extinguish. An NMC battery, on the other hand, is so flammable that "you could put it underwater or in space, and it'll keep burning because the oxygen it needs to keep the flame going is embedded within itself," Moura said.
That safety advantage is key, because Chinese firms figured out they could pack LFP cells closer together inside a battery pack without risking a fire. That meant they could cram more energy into LFP batteries and nearly catch up to the range of NMC batteries. Last year, the Chinese battery giant CATL made the first LFP battery with more than 600 miles of range. Since LFP batteries are made from common materials and last longer, they also have a smaller environmental footprint than NMC batteries.
Ford used LFP batteries in its Mach-E sedan (2023) and F-150 Lightning pickup trucks (2024), according to the article, "while Rivian began using them in the basic trims of its R1S SUV and R1T pickup truck this year... American LFP factories are slated to open this year in St. Louis and next year in Arizona." And an environmental engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley predicts LFP battery factories in the U.S. will "grow quite rapidly over the next five to 10 years."
How far would a semi-rig... (Score:1)
...connected to a trailer packed full of batteries could go?
Re:How far would a semi-rig... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's actually an interesting question and I don't know why you felt the need to post as AC to ask it.
With rockets trying to reach orbit, there's something called the Tyranny of the Rocket Equation. As you want to lift more mass you need exponentially more rocket and more fuel because you have to take the entire journey's worth of rocket with you (though rocket stages reduce this problem to make launching from Earth practical up to a certain mass). You have to lift all the new rocket and fuel and THAT needs more rocket too. At some point you're adding rocket and your performance gets worse, not better.
The same would apply to a long distance EV that couldn't recharge. The further you go, the more battery you need, and the more battery you have the more charge you need to move it. Eventually you'd have a vehicle too heavy to even get started rolling. In more practical terms, if you were trying to carry a coast-to-coast load across Canada or the US, if it's possible at all, I'd bet your effective cargo capacity would make it useless anyway.
It'd still be fascinating to see someone do the math and graph the results.
Re: (Score:2)
The equivalent calculation would be based on steepest hill gradient. The very same problem that freight trains on the railways are bound by.
Re: (Score:2)
While that's a good point, I only deal in spherical cows when discussing theoreticals.
Hills vary based on route, it introduces too many variables and eventually you're talking about what might as well be an infinite number of possible answers (though you could limit to best, worst, and average case).
Re: introduces too many variables (Score:2, Informative)
ALL those hills have known slopes that were calculated BEFORE the roads were built, all are mapped out (on things called maps) and freight is shipped with the endpoints known.
Not too many variables, in fact easily calculated even before the internet existed.
Also, those hills don't actually vary measurably between trips lacking a catastrophic earth shifting event.
Steepest hill gradient (Score:4, Interesting)
Steepest hill gradient - that sounds like a calculation that wouldn't be figuring out range, but total power required. Would that be correct?
By all reports, EV semis are beasts power wise - more efficient motors tend to be bigger and more powerful. So Semis end up with beastly sized motors, very efficient, but also powerful enough to haul them over hills easily.
Then there's regenerative braking when going downhill, so hills wouldn't cost as much in mileage as it would a diesel semi, I'd think.
For range though, you might want to look at starting and stopping altitude, and applying that as a bonus/cost to range. For spherical cow stuff though, we can assume the start and destination to be at the same altitude.
Taking a 37 metric ton truck up 1 km would be ~363M J, or right around 100 kWh. At the Tesla's 105 kWh per 100 km, that 1 km of lift would cost 100 km of range.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The equivalent calculation would be based on steepest hill gradient.
It's a little more complicated than that, though.
...but when I coast back down the other side after cresting the mountain, I regenerate charge back into my battery.
When I drive up a mountain or ridge or whatever in my EV I obviously drain charge from my battery.
Is it a net loss? Yes. Because physics & chemistry. But it is a much smaller net loss than in a fossil-fuel powered vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
"hill gradient" is the issue. On a perfect flat leveled surface you can add as much battery as you want and the car will still move. The acceleration will suffer though. Resistance increase on a flat leveled surface for a car when adding more weight is really low.
Re: (Score:3)
It'd still be fascinating to see someone do the math and graph the results.
Engineering Explained on Youtube does as far as I can tell a lot of the math in this video for the Tesla Semi and he does a good job of not making it extremely boring and it covers most of the EV range/weight math in general.
Does The Tesla Semi Make Any Sense? [youtube.com]
Re:How far would a semi-rig... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, we know that a semi-rig can have 500 miles of range with current batteries, the Tesla Semi. Doing some looking, it's currently the longest ranged listed.
It has a 850kWh battery, and can haul 37k kg (82k DOT limit in pounds). They have shown that it can get a real world 500 miles from that, 1.7 kWh/mile, while hauling a full DOT weight compliant load. .186 kWh/kg.
Looking around, 22kg would be closer to the extra batteries we could carry once we deduct the weight of the truck and a trailer for the batteries.
That 850kWh battery pack should weigh around 4570 kg. [torquenews.com]
That's
That means that we could stuff another 4k kWh in the trailer.
That would be 2,353 miles off the trailer, 2853 once you add the integral battery pack.
With a little luck, that's enough to get you from coast to coast in the USA, like Charleston, SC to LA. Mind you, zero cargo otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
unless we have autonomous vehicles there's no reason to make anything that could drive much further than the driver is permitted to travel without a rest break during which the batteries could be recharged.
Driving teams are a thing, particularly for perishable goods. One person sleeps in the sleeper while the other person drives. Some of them have toilets and kitchenettes, you really only need to stop for fuel. There are still rules about rest breaks but cross country non-stop is totally a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand, despite the advantages, most trucking on the road is NOT done by team driving, so it can be addressed later. However, I wasn't able to find any statistics on how common it is.
But there's a solution available for high-speed cargo available too: Simply swap tractors. Takes 15-20 minutes, done right by experienced drivers. Then the driver who just dropped the trailer can go charge up while waiting for a load to come in that is going the other way to get back home with. It isn't don
Re: (Score:2)
As for self-driving (in the sense of not needing a safety driver) cars and trucks, I don't think they will be a common thing in my lifetime, but I'm sure the future holds many things I won't be here for.
Re: (Score:2)
Trucking is low margin and complexity will increase costs. Some increases might be tolerated, while some other traffic may move to rail or air freight instead. In any case any increased costs are pretty much entirely borne by the end consumer so best avoid that as much as possible.
One of the other links had an analysis that an EV Semi could save ~$750k in fuel costs over the course of a million miles.
That alone would justify some complexity if companies are willing to pay more for faster delivery.
Then you have that one of the biggest expenses for a semi is the driver, so if you get rid of them, even for just depo to depo routes, well, another cost saver.
For self driving, they're already demoing it in Texas for semis, and there are driverless, as in no safety driver, taxis in SF and a
Re: (Score:2)
One of the other links had an analysis that an EV Semi could save ~$750k in fuel costs over the course of a million miles. That alone would justify some complexity if companies are willing to pay more for faster delivery.
I've said many times if EVs are better (and for many things they are) then they will replace ICEs organically without need of government intervention. That is how it should work.
I'm willing to count Teslas as "common" at this point, because I generally see at least one when I go driving.
Teslas are common here too. Teslas without drivers not so much though. They will become common when people can go to the dealership and buy one. The "self driving" available to consumers now is just glorified cruise control. I suppose if I live to be old and infirm and unable to drive it would be nice to have a car I could just
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the government should be involved.
Fortunately they can also be unelected. Here in Canada the carbon tax is soon to be history, and hopefully the EV mandates too. The less government involvement in our lives the better. People can decide for themselves to put their money towards climate mitigation, adaptation (a much, much better return on investment), or nothing at all.
I speak for many people when I say government is a far bigger threat to our standard of living than climate change is.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Zero people in the truck (Score:2)
On the other hand, a team is still limited to 22 hours/day, a self-driving semi would also only need to stop to refuel. Maybe fully robotic, maybe it pulls up to a charger and a guy pops out to hook up the charger/remove it once fully charged.
That would save a LOT of money on drivers, given that apparently team driving is more than twice as expensive as an individual per mile.
Re:How far would a semi-rig... (Score:5, Insightful)
All good, but one observation: the rocket gets less massive as you use up the fuel. That's not true for an EV. (*)
(*) Well, at least not meaningfully. Einstein would tell us that there's some equivalent mass in the stored electrical energy, but that amount is spectacularly tiny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if the EV has induction braking. And most do.(*) Not 100% efficient, but a huge bonus.
(*) I'm not aware of any that don't. Be kind of silly not to have it. Even hybrids have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence why a diesel semi has only about twice the horsepower of a RAV4 but can move 20x the weight.
Acceleration is very slow going up a hill. But only in very rare situations would a truck start on a hill. With a rocket, you need to accelerate very quickly so that you can escape gravit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I got closer to 4.6k km when I figured it out.
Looking for differences:
I figured on a bit higher energy - 186 Wh/kg, based off of Tesla numbers, but only 22 tons of batteries (4k kWh vs 5.1k).
The biggest difference is that I used the real-world results of 1.7 kWh/mile, which works out to only 105 kWh per 100 km.
Re:How far would a semi-rig... (Score:5, Funny)
...connected to a trailer packed full of batteries could go?
African or European?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...connected to a trailer packed full of batteries could go?
Oddly, the Edison Motors guys haven't really covered that in any of their video's. They're building a hybrid semi, and documenting it all on YouTube. Electric drive, with a battery pack and regenerative breaking, and a large genset in place of the traditional diesel. The regenerative breaking has been mentioned a couple times as particularly good for logging trucks, but no mention of an absolute range, which I'm sure is entire load profile dependent. It apparently is capable of perhaps several hours of
Or, the other explanation is (Score:3)
22 year old USA patents on LFP ran out a couple of years back so it's now okay to freely export LFP tech without a license - Having ignored those patents for national use in the interim.
Re: (Score:3)
The USA patents don't explain why the USA didn't apply some more serious R&D to USA tech.
The reality is a patent license is only as good as its defence. The Chinese started developing LFP tech when the primary patent on it expired in 2017, but two of the other critical patents licensed out by the LiFePO4+C Licensing AG group were simply never contested in China. Additionally the Chinese government has heavily subsidised cathode development for LFP batteries.
Sure China likes ignoring IP rules, but that o
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good explanation, and a good reason to start using the technology.
more /. insights (Score:3, Informative)
'And an environmental engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley predicts LFP battery factories in the U.S. will "grow quite rapidly over the next five to 10 years."/
Really sticking the neck out there. Sure can see how he could become a professor at Berkeley!
I love the pretense about this battery is somehow new or overlooked. It never has been. Furthermore, the technology has improved making it more and more viable. Still, it's adoption in BEVs is based solely on it being cheaper.
Re:more /. insights (Score:5, Insightful)
I love the pretense about this battery is somehow new or overlooked. It never has been. Furthermore, the technology has improved making it more and more viable. Still, it's adoption in BEVs is based solely on it being cheaper.
The "new battery technology" spin is mostly just clickbait. The article is primarily a thinly-veiled political opinion piece about how our current trade policies have resulted in China leapfrogging over us with LiFePO4 battery production technology.
Thing is, we already know this. China has gone all-in on EV tech and in the USA we collectively voted in the last election to keep rollin' coal.
Re: (Score:1)
China has gone all-in on EV tech and in the USA we collectively voted in the last election to keep rollin' coal.
More than that. Based on recent actions from the Puppet in Chief, it appears the US is choosing to actively unmake much of the EV tech work it had previously finished.
Re: (Score:2)
>"The "new battery technology" spin is mostly just clickbait."
Indeed. There is nothing new or interesting in this article.
>"The article is primarily a thinly-veiled political opinion piece about how our current trade policies have resulted in China leapfrogging over us with LiFePO4 battery production technology."
^^^ This. Where "current" means the last several years, minimum.
Re: (Score:1)
>"the USA we collectively voted in the last election to keep rollin' coal."
Or you could choose to reword that as the ability for people to choose the best technology that works for their needs without being punished/shamed/nagged. And to lower the price of energy, which also translates to lower prices of everything.
Has little to nothing do with coal. Unless you are talking about China, who produces most of their electricity with coal and builds more coal plants than the rest of the world. They account
Re: (Score:2)
If this was a straight forward market choice like Betamax vs VHS then yes but this is clean vs dirty toxic pollution so "carrot and stick encouragement" is required for the selfish knuckleheads out there
Re: (Score:1)
>"but this is clean vs dirty toxic pollution"
If you ignore all reason and externalities.
First, this isn't the 1970's. Modern ICE cars produce very little toxic pollution compared to then. They have steadily and tremendously improved. And because fuel economy is so much better, that magnifies the improvements a lot.
Moving to CO2, which one might call "pollution", but is certainly not "toxic". Both EV's and ICE vehicles require a lot of CO2 to create (with EV's being significantly more). EV's shift th
Re: (Score:2)
>"As for "selfish", the average SUVs require 50% to almost twice as much CO2 to make than an average sedan"
Typo, that was meant to say "require 50% more to almost twice as much"
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, LFP is really "the readily-available tech that we ignored because of a weird obsession with range", typically from people who drive 5km to work and back each day. Friends of mine have LFP EVs and for the very few times they have to go beyond the range of the batteries they stop off for a coffee and danish while the car refills at a charging station. The rest of the time they drive with zero "fuel" costs (they have solar panels), and who knows when the cars will need servicing or have other problems.
Re: (Score:2)
China is already moving in to silicon carbon batteries. LFP doesn’t handle cold weather well. Its range in cars drops 40% or more compared to 20% with the old tech.
Re: (Score:2)
So, Wh/L is not such a simple objective thing in an a
Re: (Score:2)
It's not new, just new to the USA as it was actually overlocked there. There's no pretence here. Just a basic market analysis which shows a major difference in battery tech between Chinese EVs and USA EVs and what was being researched by either of them.
Mainstream news vs cutting edge news (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I love how outdated this mainstream news summation is already.
Not really? Solid-state batteries are going to be the next generation of batteries, but they're at best 3-4 years away from mass production. Realistically, we can expect them to become a factor for cheap EVs only around 2030. Meanwhile, the LFP technology is available right now.
Another interesting technology is sodium-ion batteries. They are even cheaper, so they're really well-suited for energy storage and very cheap EVs.
Re: (Score:1)
For what it's worth (very little) Toyota claims they'll be shipping semi-solid state batteries in production quantities by 2027 and full solid state by 2030 with ranges from ~700 to ~1000.
They've been talking about solid state for many years but it's only recently they drew a line in the sand with real dates that weren't in some mythical future so there's some hope for this one soon.
Re: (Score:3)
Toyota have been giving dates for solid state for about twenty years. They've never once got close. There's a funny article out there which lists all their claims -- can't find it easily or I'd post a link.
Likely not what's hindering EV adoption in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Battery technology is only part of the equation, you've still gotta get the average American over the idea that buying an EV amounts to settling for a vehicle with a bunch of caveats and compromises. Winter range loss is a very real thing, and the availability of charging infrastructure is still nowhere on par with the availability to refuel an ICE vehicle. You have to be a lot more aware of your vehicle's charge level and can't just coast into the next exit on fumes, assuming there'll always be a place to fill up. Then you've got residential dwellings where there's simply no availability to charge an EV, such as apartment buildings and condos. For some folks, that aspect alone is always going to make EV ownership a tough sale.
Re: (Score:1)
I've had this one out countless times on conservative message boards where they call EV exploding golf carts.
Once I disabused them of the low performance notion and the "every EV is going to explode at any moment" they fell back on the things you list, which is good.
The real problem with EVs is none of that, though. It is mandates. People should have the option to buy whatever it is that works best for their situation not what the government allows them to have. For some uses EVs are fantastic. For othe
Re: (Score:2)
But, here are people out there who would refuse to breathe if the government mandated it. The government trying to force the issue is, at this point, probably s
Re: (Score:1)
EV are not superior for all situations. That's one of the key problems with mandating them. It is literally the government forcing people to buy a vehicle that is inferior _for their situation_.
I found my 3 is awesome for local drives up to about 30-45 minutes away. 45 is pushing it. The next major city is 90 minutes away (the international airport is there so I have to go there fairly often). 90 minutes requires that I plan ahead, fully power to 100% the night before etc. vs my other car, I don't even
Re: (Score:1)
As soon as I have to worry about how many miles my phone can go and it needs a special charger during which time I can't drive my phone, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Mine at 100% after charging for a few hours at home after normal use can do about 275 miles. It's a 2019.
No, that is not long range.
My ICE has an 18.5 gallon tank and averages highway+streets 24 mpg which is 18 * 24 =432 miles. But for pure highway drives it's more like 28-30 mpg which is 29 * 18 =522 before I need to refill. If I'm silly about gas savings on the highway I've seen long range mileage at 35 mpg but my foot is too heavy to do that consistently. If I could chill more on long trips that woul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Winter range loss is a very real thing
Winter range loss is irrelevant for basically 90% of the country. And the few people who do live in the actual cold parts of America will be mildly inconvenienced at best. It's just not an issue as evidence by the fact that Canada (a country for whom the winter range loss is actually relevant for 90% of the population) has a higher EV market share than the USA.
and the availability of charging infrastructure is still nowhere on par with the availability to refuel an ICE vehicle
Availability of EV charging infrastructure is far better than for gasoline engines. Virtually no one can refuel a gasoline vehicle at home. Virtually
Re: (Score:2)
Geez, stop playing the "OMG, I can recharge my car at home" card like it's some sort of a HUUUGE deal.
It's not a "huge deal". It's FUNDAMENTAL TO THE USE OF THE CAR.
Guess what, getting the same thing is trivial for gas engines - just install a 1 cubic meter tank in your garage, with a hose, heck, possibly even elevated off the ground so you don't even need a pump, and order a cistern once a year for a refill. All for lower upfront cost than wallboxes that for some unfathomable reason cost unbelievable amounts of money too.
That's the dumbest fucking idea anyone has ever posted here, and it's done precisely by *looks around* no one. On the flip side throwing a cable in to the end of the circuit breaker and a charger on the wall is done by most EV users. It's so common that it actually was part of my offer on the car - the dealer literally sold the charger with the car.
Why noone ever bothered to do that? Guess what, avoiding that once a month 5 min visit at the gas station isn't as big of a damn deal as you EV cultists seem to believe.
No one bothered to do it because it's a dumb fucking idea to turn your own house into a major haza
Re: (Score:2)
Battery technology is only part of the equation, you've still gotta get the average American over the idea that buying an EV amounts to settling for a vehicle with a bunch of caveats and compromises.
I have a number of electric vehicles. None of them are cars. You absolutely ARE settling when it comes to certain aspects of driving an electric vehicle.
At 30% charge left, you can not accelerate anywhere near as quickly as you can at 99%. Additionally, discharge is not even across the battery percentages. What I mean by that is if you get 1 mile of range per 10 watt hours, you will only get that above 30% charge. The last 30% is always a lie.
Manufacturers INSIST with manic energy that batteries are not swa
Go to an RV show... (Score:4, Interesting)
If you go to an RV show, you'll find things have changed significantly in the RV world. They're all switching to 12v LiFePO4 battery banks in the 200 - 300 AH range, dropping 120 - 400+ watts of solar panels on the roof, or at least pre-wiring for it. And they're getting rid of the ammonia absorption refrigerators in favor of residential freon units with door locks.
There's a reason they haven't gone that way before. The risk of Li-ION batteries in a mobile house situation was too great. The LiFePO4 batteries are safe enough for their lawyers...
T
Re: (Score:2)
They could have done the solar with the flooded batteries a long time ago, though. The reason they didn't was cost. They're always trying to cheap out like everyone else. They actually went to AGMs for a while, especially in motor homes. AGMs cost more on the street than flooded (or even than most "deep cycle"* batteries) but they must have been able to get them cheaper in bulk. AGMs are trash because you can't service them, nobody should be using them ever anywhere unless they need to mount them upside dow
Re: (Score:2)
They could have done the solar with the flooded batteries a long time ago, though. The reason they didn't was cost.
And weight.... And maintenance... And poor cycle lifespan.
Off-grid solar has been using golf-cart batteries since the 1970's. I still have one of the "Real Goods" handbooks, a company started by the Hippie diaspora into far Northern California. It worked, but it didn't work very well. You can only cycle a lead/acid battery to 50% of capacity. Anything more than that and they degrade rapidly, and if you lean on them in exceptional weather the electrolyte can actually freeze. Obeying the 50% rule, you get
Re: (Score:2)
They could have done the solar with the flooded batteries a long time ago, though. The reason they didn't was cost.
And weight.... And maintenance... And poor cycle lifespan.
The weight of the batteries that were already there? The maintenance of the batteries that were already there?
Re: (Score:2)
The weight of the batteries that were already there? The maintenance of the batteries that were already there?
They're not already there. No RV TT I've seen carries around 600 AH of lead acid batteries. Not factory anyway... They usually have one group 27, maybe two, mounted on the tongue. In 5er's usually the genset cab (w/ an open bottom) up front between the landing gear. Now... Some of the redneck s**t I've seen out in the oil patch, or down on the Texas gulf coast... Ummm... Yea... Let's just say those oil patch types have never heard of "GCWR".
And maintenance... As I said the RV'ers are not very meticulous
Re: (Score:2)
They're not already there. No RV TT I've seen carries around 600 AH of lead acid batteries.
Moving the goalposts.
What you originally said was:
They're all switching to 12v LiFePO4 battery banks in the 200 - 300 AH range
This is upthread where anyone can find it, you've doubled to tripled your claim in order to make what you said make sense. It's common for RVs to have had 4x GC2, which is ~450Ah or 225 usable Ah @ 12V. They have often had exactly what you claimed they didn't have in your original comment.
You've not proven any point, or disproven any of mine
No, you disproved your point, through logical fallacy.
My point was that way more RVs should have been coming with solar for a lot longer. That they also should have been co
Re: (Score:2)
This is upthread where anyone can find it, you've doubled to tripled your claim in order to make what you said make sense. It's common for RVs to have had 4x GC2, which is ~450Ah or 225 usable Ah @ 12V. They have often had exactly what you claimed they didn't have in your original comment.
I suspect we're not agreeing on what an "RV" is. The common "family travel trailer" or "5th wheel" is (was...) a 1 to 2 battery (group 24/27, and very rarely group 29) deal. That's where my observation was made. I have not looked at class A motorhomes, class B's, Vans, Jeep "boondocking" teardrops, or any other style of coach. Just towable RV's in the 6,000 to 14,000 lb category.
My math was based on the 300 AH LiFePO4 batteries capable of 80% discharge without significant damage, and 100% discharge wit
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect we're not agreeing on what an "RV" is.
It includes MHs and TTs of all descriptions. I would also be inclined to add truck campers, with the caveat that they usually have half as much of everything or less.
GC2's are 6 volt, and have to be used in 2S or 2S2P sets, etc... Those are more common in the Class A's and larger 5th wheels that have extra space.
We're talking about what they should have done in the past, right? Those used to be a much bigger part of the market. I have serviced batteries on dozens of rigs like that, and they have been about 50/50 between GC2s and group 27s.
GC2's are the same chemistry as the starting battery, and can be charged directly from the tow vehicle. The LiFePO4's cannot, they require a converter as the voltages are slightly different.
There is that, and also that they have much lower impedance. If your vehicle had a big enough charge wire to do the
Re: (Score:2)
12v LiFePO4 battery banks in the 200 - 300 AH
AH is a semi-deceptive way to talk about batteries. In this case, it was not, because you provided the voltage too. Let's put this in perspective: What you have described is a ~2400 WH system. In a small electric vehicle scooter/bike/unicycle, that will propel you for about 40 miles of casual riding. (just giving perspective, the batteries are clearly not large)
SUV (Score:2)
>"Ford used LFP batteries in its Mach-E sedan (2023)"
The Mach-E is not a sedan. It is an SUV. Ford even says so:
https://www.ford.com/suvs/mach... [ford.com]
Ford now only makes a single sedan, the Mustang. Everything else are SUV's, trucks, and vans.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a SUV. It's a CUV. Its unibody says so. It is a tall sedan.
Forget what Ford and the other manufacturers who want you to believe nonsense are telling you and look at the platform involved. The Ford GE1 platform the Mach E is based on is itself based on the C2 platform used for the Focus, Mondeo etc.
As for the Maverick, which is also on the C2 platform, that its name was taken from what was basically a stretch Mustang is a big clue. It's not a pickup. It's a ute.
Tariffs == jerbs? (Score:1)
New factories in St. Louis and Arizona? Weird. I thought tariffs couldn't do that, and the silly trumpanzees that believe they might were dupes, listening to a fool. I suppose I thought that because every mention of tariffs is instantly met by a phalanx of "expert" economists and policy wonks professing metaphysical certitude that tariffs are a pure evil, incapable of leading to the slightest bit of US reindustrialization, or any other conceivable benefits.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought tariffs couldn't do that,
Yes that's because you're not thinking, you appear to be consuming a diet of ultra simplified right wing media. Reality is too complex to be readily distilled into good vs evil, no matter how much you want it to be the case.
Plus, good grief, factories are planned on the timescale of many many years, one month isn't enough to have a massive impact on such large spending decisions. You can't just buy a factory, and Trump will be out of office long before it'll pay back, so
Re:Tariffs == jerbs? (Score:5, Informative)
They are being built in Arizona and Missouri because those are the two US states that have electricity prices cheap enough to be competitive with China.
I don't like Trump. I voted for Harris. I do like the tariffs partly because I think they will benefit our country in the long term and party because I'm personally enriched by inflation.
But to say that these factories that started construction when Biden was president are somehow the result of Trump's tariffs is a reality distortion too far even for right-wing media, I think. Although maybe I'm being too generous.
Re: Tariffs == jerbs? (Score:1)
lithium iron phosphate batteries are designated (Score:2)
LiFePo, not LFP
Re: (Score:2)
lithium iron phosphate batteries are designated LiFePo, not LFP
No. They are LiFePo4, not LiFePo. And no again, because that is commonly shortened to LFP, which to a typical person who doesn't think in periodic tables makes more sense as a way to describe Lithium Ferrous Phosphate.
Pedanticism requires correctness.
Next technology is silicon carbon (Score:2)
More and more Chinese companies have been using silicon carbon batteries recently in their smartphones. They have 20% higher energy density, The first one was released by Honor in 2023. Baseus released their first power bank with it for laptops a month or so ago. I suspect we’ll see it in cars soon enough once production and supply increases.
could (Score:2)
I always stop reading gee whiz articles once I hit the word "could."