Exploring Structural Batteries

[@UndecidedMF]

Do you think massless/structural batteries will have a long-term impact? If you liked this, be sure to watch Exploring When Solid State Batteries Will Arrive: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aYHciYRmir2eb9k

[@drhubs7049]

I think Structural battery makes more sense than massless battery. I love it. It allows us to take our energy and distribute it throughout the body instead of a heavy dense battery in one location that makes balancing the vehicle more of a challenge. I'm excited to see what it does for flightcraft

[@FilAmGabe]

More and more subscribers every time I watch

[@CUBETechie]

You should make a cooperation / livestream with the German you tuber "Breaking Lab" I bet Jacob would be open.

[@CUBETechie]

Did I understood it Right like normal airplane fuel tanks the structure battery storage is the whole wing?(or mostly of it)

[@uncletrashero]

heres the problem i see: hows it gonna go when the batteries have a fault and need to be replaced? HOW MUCH WILL IT COST TO FIX !?!?? its already REDICULOUS when a tesla battery breaks right now.

[@thetux459]

I get the feeling that "massless battery" was likely coined by marketing rather than a scientist/engineer. That or it was originally something like "added-massless battery".

[@Tore_Lund]

It is just another word for throwaway car. Like glued shut cell phones!

[@crazygrape]

Should call it a ZAM battery (zero-added-mass) or something

[@SamsaraRevolves]

It's a bullshit term I've never heard of until today. Definitely marketing lingo. Massless means no mass. Clearly there's mass. Maybe Matt fell asleep during Elon's battery day presentation, because the term used there was "structural battery."

[@gspaulsson]

It's like "no sugar added" jam, as if the natural sugar didn't count (It's fructose, the most damaging isomer of glucose). While on that topic, sucralose is so much sweeter than sucrose that to make it useable, they have to bulk it up. What with? Sugar.

[@thetux459]

@@gspaulsson I mean at least no sugar added jam doesn't have additional fructose beyond the native sugars found in the plant.

[@foxpup]

"massless" feels like a lie. "Structural Battery" sounds much better. 😀

[@Alberto-xw8vx]

Structural sounds something out of Apple brand book, sounds like something soldered on a pcb so if it fails you cannot repair it.

[@JonathanNelson-nelsonj3]

I see your point, and it does sound like marketing speak. Structural is more descriptive. I think they are meaning it doesn't add more mass than would already be there, so in net massless. But I don't like that name either.

[@turbopanda7012]

@@Alberto-xw8vx It probably won't be replaceable since Tesla follows the same anti right to repair business tactics

[@fiskfisk33]

@@Alberto-xw8vx well, still true though, good luck changing battery if the battery is the car itself

[@giin97]

@@turbopanda7012 it wouldn't be replaceable because it's the car itself, not merely a component :P

[@glidercoach]

A battery that is a structural component of the car, sounds impossible to replace when it reaches its service life.

[@Tuppoo94]

I know right? Batteries can last a long time, but only if they're taken care of. Since many owners of gasoline-powered cars don't bother to maintain their vehicles properly, I can't see EVs doing well in the used market when they eventually make the switch. There needs to be an attitude change.

[@SandstormGT]

First thing that came to mind.

[@markusfalk9459]

As SandstormGT said, that was the first thing I thought about. Remember, most batteries today are mulched and crushed when recycled. I really don't see how this is a step forward, looking at a full-loop cycle. From construction, to usage, and then recycling into new cells.

[@MiniDemonic]

@@Tuppoo94 Even properly maintained batteries degrade rather quickly. If the batteries were structural and thus pretty much impossible to replace then an old well used EV would basically be a big expensive paperweight even if it was properly maintained. If you maintain your car it will last for your lifetime and even several generations more. But even if you maintain an EV it doesn't matter if the battery can't be replaced eventually that EV won't be usable at all.

[@kidpitch]

It needs to be modular for repair to happen but knowing these companies with planned obsolescence will make them difficult to repair and favor replacement.

[@TheChzoronzon]

One year later and they still can't beat the Structural Massless Fuel that our planes and cars use to run

[@callmethreeone]

🤣🤣Good one! This guy clearly didn't think about the video before he made it. This is def not the place for tech info 😆

[@TexasScout]

Although very interesting, I think this creates a throwaway automobile. What happens when the batteries go bad? Replacing a super structure or frame of the automobile is monetarily ridiculous. Where did they end up in a landfill?

[@chrisemmert1387]

That is what I was wondering also. One thing I did NOT see addressed. When the battery is at the end of it's life (It will EVENTUALLY happen), how will it be REPLACEABLE? And at what cost if the vehicle would need to be (REBUILT). OR will the vehicle be (DISPOSABLE)?

[@justthink124]

Great point. And given Tesla’s anti Right to Repair mentality without legislation that’s even more likely to happen.

[@azzabouy8243]

it would be great to see what thunderfoots take on this, he's quite an elon fan

[@FootEnjoyer]

@@azzabouy8243 I use to love that guy but he became a cocky opinionated grifter

[@dazdoestip6459]

Unfortunately I'm tired commenting this on every similar video. There it goes: anyone remember when we could change battery in the phone? There it is, made to fail at its best, first bulbs that only allowed 1000 hours before fail then phones that need discarding when battery dies then integrated radios and sat navs that can only be upgraded by replacing the car and so on and so on ... Wake up people!

[@johnoriel4241]

When the battery wears out you throw the whole car away.

[@wolfgangpreier9160]

Yes. After about 600.000km for the small Models. And up to 2 Million kilometers for the Cybertruck e.g.

[@My-Pal-Hal]

Or,.. maybe they won't wear out in your lifetime. Hope you don't have the same response when your tires wear out. Or in your case,.. Your Wheels 😂

[@justinroysdon2630]

I mean, if they design it well, you just replace the body panel that's failing. People might want to even do this any way to change the look of their car to a new body style. Change your body style every 3-5 years would be a cool option while keeping the frame and motor and electrical wiring the same.

[@justinroysdon2630]

You could even add on a "case" like we do with smart phones. This "case" could add additional mileage. Replace your "daily drive" panels with "vacation drive" panels which are thicker. That would be pretty sweet. I mean you could even rent the thicker panels for your trip.

[@thejusmar]

@@wolfgangpreier9160 that's before they completely fail. You have 1500 charge-discharge cycles on it.

[@Bruchpilotenschreck]

sounds like a huge breakthrough in throw-away-applications

[@wimpie1990]

I agree. Instead of just replacing a faulty battery in your tesla you are required to buy a new car.

[@randomcracka3]

I'm sure they would start to install access panels to make easy access to everything. Most ideas dont start out complete. You've got to start somewhere

[@bullshitdepartment]

@@randomcracka3 the whole point is these panels make up the structure of a car...if something goes wrong you would literally need to rebuild the frame of the car to replace the batteries....

[@dynamitrex3975]

@@randomcracka3 the car is the battery

[@y0nd3r]

@@bullshitdepartment Make it cheap enough to create and to replace and work out how to recycle/reuse the remains of collisions and it won't matter.

[@jonasavory8339]

Energy storage is one of those themes where every two weeks a "groundbreaking invention" is announced and over 10 years nothing significant changes

[@Knightfire66]

tesla will unclude those structural batteries. which means easily up to 100km more range.

[@TrollProductionsMC]

I heard from a little bird that duracell bunny is a secret spy that sabotages these projects.

[@jamesbarrick3403]

Agreed. Although I do think it is a space to pay close attention to going forward. If you can get invested early in technology that replaces lithium it will pay for your retirement, and your kids.

[@edocms]

These channels are just lying/exaggerating for Tesla. They probably have shares in Tesla.

[@hell_pike9150]

Probably the defense industry bull guards it and we all suffer until they find something better.

[@xmodalloy]

"You keyed my car!!" Service tech: "Yeaaaah, you're gonna need a new battery now."

[@Lonech]

I don't think paint scratches will really be the issue

[@ceilinglight1413]

Get a new car

[@philipberthiaume2314]

Xmodalloy: lol, would be cool if the skin of the vehicle was the battery, it would make a fender bender a pretty big deal...

[@rhalfik]

The skin of the vehicle will be perovskity photovoltaic foil that will charging your car in the sun. If you try to key it, you will get electrocuted.

[@xmodalloy]

@@rhalfik If only touching a single point of any electrical system would actually do that. Then again, every bird sitting on every high voltage line would be dead.

[@Mothernatura]

"structural batteries" just lead to one way. You should start this kind of info with a disclaimer about non recyclable products and programmed obsolescence.

[@LostInAutism]

I agree, Tesla has been leading the charge in making cars unfixable. Throwing out a whole car because the battery died(and is a part of the structure) sounds ridiculous. Crashes may happen, the batteries obsolescence will happen.

[@informitas0117]

@@LostInAutism exactly

[@Sulq]

This was the first thing that came to my mind too

[@pierrekilgoretrout3143]

@@LostInAutism plus what about batteries that take fire or explode in case of crash?

[@andrasdudas8226]

There you go.

[@legomaniac]

"Massless battery" sounds a lot like "serverless architecture"

[@robertthomas5906]

LOL. I could hear a salesman saying that. Here's our new data center. No servers. This is a tremendous cost advantage. Then much to your horror, your boss says - OK.

[@kazwalker764]

Ya, I hate the term serverless, a better way to define it is "scale to 0", but even that's misleading in certain cases.

[@lordofthecats6397]

@@robertthomas5906 Hey, at least you'll have room for a ping-pong table or ten.

[@TurboBass]

"It's the CLOUD! There's NO COMPUTER!"

[@chaotickreg7024]

@@lordofthecats6397 You could host Table Tennis tournaments where the servers would have been, get extra income out of your business.

[@umountable]

Makes me happy to see critical thinkers in the comments, that this makes repariability infeasible, which even makes our not-sustainable world even less sustainable. Great breakthrough. Maybe sometime in the future someone will come up with a ingenious idea of how we could burn fossil fuels to power cars because it safes weight.

[@user-ic5nv8lj9d]

"Critical Thinkers" 🤓

[@SJ-xg1uf]

I'm sorry bro but I got news for ya. The world is never GOING to be "sustainable". People in third world countries want to become like people in first world countries and that doesn't show signs of stopping. the best we could do now is try to adapt and start using more MSR's & other zero carbon energy.

[@Beanskiiii]

@@user-ic5nv8lj9d rather be a critical thinker than a bot npc who believes every new tech because they WANT it to be real regardless of how idiotic the claims are

[@YouToobeism]

@@Beanskiiii, are you throwing shade on the hyperloop? How can that be. Elon said it was "easy" ten years ago, didn't he?

[@cislordsoyblue1349]

"Yes, I need to order a new fender" "That'll be $10,000"

[@paulmaydaynight9925]

a diy 'plastic string' instrument is cheaper ^_~ ohh you mean a self collapsing bumper rail

[@Maximum_777]

This is precisely why the entire car will not be made from these batteries.

[@TheOriginalEviltech]

What capacity and voltage?

[@paulmaydaynight9925]

@@TheOriginalEviltech how long is a peace of cordage, as long or short as *You make it.*

[@informitas0117]

Should be obvious to most that structural batteries won't be used bumpers etc..

[@mikariekki5708]

Yes, thats what we love about in our modern smartphones, batteries that can’t be changed easily.

[@olimpather]

Letting the Engineers do it's thing would probably be recommended.

[@narcis3720]

@@olimpather I don't think it's engineers who design product-user interactions; more likely industrial/interaction designers or sth

[@attilaedem101]

@@olimpather letting ppl. do what their want with the product THEIR BOUGHT would probably be THE BARE MINIMUM. This include modifying, opting out of something or heaven forbid repairing something instead of throwing away the entire (still mostly functioning) product.

[@WarBirdGhost]

They now have wheels.

[@faultline3936]

It's unnecessary for phones, they still use those kind of batteries like the ones in the past. They're still a module on its own and serves no other function but a power storage. With batteries like the one shown in the video makes a lot more sense.

[@destavin6694]

I'm worried how an Inovation like this could negatively affect the repairability of a product. If the battery wears out you are no longer able to replace it, you may have to buy an entirely new car or phone, etc. I'm sure big companies would love this, but consumers not so much

[@ThePilotGear]

very much agree.

[@amosbackstrom5366]

Yes but repairablity in EVs is already not usually an option

[@dwainhuntington3293]

Good point! But, this also brings about another problem. If this is not reusable and is made of minerals that are limited in quantities, this could be a huge wast of natural resources.

[@progenitor_amborella]

Will want to see Louis Rossmann’s take on this tech. DON’T SLEEP ON FIGHTING FOR RIGHT TO REPAIR!

[@AfonsodelCB]

I would assume that the idea is to get the technology to the point it's not so much a structural battery, as much as a chargeable structure. As in, the structure is the battery, and only if you break it in half does it stop working, otherwise even if lightly damaged or has a hole through it continues to both offer structural support and power. Something nice about this as well is that you don't have to replace normal battery systems with this, you can instead complement it, making devices last a whole lot longer for a few years and then be fully dependent on the separate charging system. Ideally this would mean that the device is constructed as if the structural battery didn't exist, so that while it functions it has double the normal battery life and when it doesn't it's just a normal device. Clearly battery technology is one of the biggest technological setbacks we have right now alongside power production, so anything that can help is welcome. Not much of a point dreading the ways marketing teams are gonna twist technology since there's plenty of ways to do that with or without innovation...

[@Wolfgang-the-Gray]

Uh, how do you replace the batteries when it is part of the body? In the heat of AZ, batteries only last 3-4 years. Do they propose to tear the frame out to replace the structural batteries?

[@tecyrizz]

no, for example, the doors of a car could be the battery. or the trunk. or the fenders.

[@cr4zyj4ck]

Just throw your whole car away and buy a new one. Of course, that negates, entirely I might add, the environmental benefit of buying an electric car.

[@eestaashottentotti2242]

Apple strategy for cars.

[@Dana5775]

"batteries only last 3 years in Arizona" those are lead acid (old school). Tesla claims their batteries outlast the car. Recent tec claims a million miles.

[@Sir_Uncle_Ned]

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Having batteries form part of the structure makes replacement near impossible.

[@ryanbrown982]

Not at all. If you design the structure to be easily maintained, then you could potentially swap out body panels and replace damaged or old components quite easily. But given Tesla's history on repairability, I wouldn't bet on them being the ones to do it.

[@MerkleAkrunphleuphle]

@@ryanbrown982 That's what I was thinking as well.

[@josefstalin4532]

@@ryanbrown982 no one is talking about body panels. The actual structural members of a car are very hard even today, impossible for most people in fact, to replace and this would make it way worse. In the end, I think it's highly unlikely this is ever used in cars due to it being too expensive and too dangerous (every car crash would impact a battery, and they would catch fire often). In airplanes however...

[@AaronSchwarz42]

@@josefstalin4532 Your right & that reminds me of the frame rails rusting out early on some older Toyota Tacoma pickups // called Taco's // by those affected or discussing the issue

[@alvingalang5106]

@@josefstalin4532 if you think about it, some main structures of a conventional car like swing arms and suspension can be designed to be replaceable. I think if we can make frame or any other structure modular, then it should be replaceable.

[@astrazenica7783]

Except repair ability is zero. A throw away cha$is! Genius

[@tomnwoo]

That is very unlikely to be the outcome, these batteries tend to have very long warranties on them and if they can't repair it they will have to give you a new chassis and that will cost them too much money.

[@sinephase]

yeah makes crashes sound extra dangerous too

[@tomnwoo]

@@sinephase to me it makes crashes sound less dangerous

[@fk319fk]

Having all my cars over 10 years old, maintenance is a big deal.

[@kirkrotger9208]

What do you think happens to car chassis now?

[@Nevir202]

Apple: When the battery is bad, you need a new phone. EV Makers: Write that down! Write that down!

[@nopeyoudontknowmyname9153]

Except EV battery degradation is much much slower compared to phones

[@stewartmoir9464]

I agree. This is the biggest issue with EV vehicles. I think removable cells are a better option. This allows older EV vehicles adopt new battery technology. Of course that is not where the money is for shareholders. They would rather you just buy a brand new vehicle every 5-10 years. If I owned a car manufacturer I would probably do the same.

[@Nevir202]

@@nopeyoudontknowmyname9153 Sure, but that's kinda irrelevant to my point. If you literally make the structure of the car the battery, that means that when the battery is bad, you have no choice but to get an entirely different car.

[@Nevir202]

@@stewartmoir9464 Ya, even with replaceable batteries it's already pretty ridiculous. My friends bought a Tesla Model X and were driving it like 80K miles a year. Not only did Tesla, after agreeing that battery degradation would be covered under warranty go back on it and say that it wasn't, they've said that they WILL NOT replace the battery, even if they pay for it. Presumably as the warranty is still covering the rest of the car, and by forcing them to be unable to use it as much, they're saving themselves way more money than they would make from the sale/installation of a new battery. And if they have a 3rd party put in a different battery, the warranty is also voided. So, they're stuck with a $100K+ car that they mostly can't use for what they bought it for.

[@rubenayla]

@@Nevir202 Are you sure that you are forced to throw the car away when the battery gets bad? It could be bolted, like structural members of crossbar trucks.

[@darkcognitive]

It's literally a battery cell sandwiched in-between layers of carbon. It's not massless AT ALL. It's a battery stored in the structure of the 'device', something that will never work for the body of a car because there is nowhere near enough density of cells to provide enough power. Not to mention one simple crash or ding could result in needing the entire body of the car replaced, or worse, the whole thing goes up in flames, because funnily enough, batteries don't like being bent out of shape and shorted.

[@TheTarrMan]

So if I understand the principle correctly, when (not if) the battery goes bad, since the entire structure of the car is the battery you have no choice but to "recycle" the entire vehicle. This would essentially destroy the second hand car market and increase company profits by requiring everybody to buy new cars. . . . . along with decimating the lower class who depend on finding sub $2000 cars when required to commute to work. Also, isn't it ALWAYS more environmentally friendly to repair rather than replace?

[@treelineresearch3387]

Working as desgined and intended. Just throw it away and buy a new one, as the current societal philosophy demands.

[@TheTarrMan]

@Mck Idyl Sorry, fixxed. Thanks

[@Stephenzaffarano]

Hope that enough competition is made available in these markets that some dealers could offer more of a leasing option; noting their improved safety features, GPS, and vehicles communicating with each other on the 'roads'...if done well, it could put the slick car salesmen out of business!

[@justinroysdon2630]

From my understanding of Tesla's CyberTruck, the same thing applies. Since it is a diecast frame you cannot just replace part of the frame or car if there is an accident. You just have to total it, collect the insurance check and buy a new one. So this would be no different if the battery was part of the structure.

[@RussFoote]

I'm so worried if there is a battery issue you'll need a new car.

[@ryanbrown982]

Yeah, this is already an issue. They're just exacerbating it. Apparently Tesla doesn't do Part replacement, they do Module replacement. Which means if there's a 50 cent part on your battery module that needs replacing, that's a $16,000 replacement. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rIe2qGaBiMqpe8U

[@sci-filover7541]

Be the last buyer

[@neotozo3789]

maybe if the designs include more straight lines and stuff the batteries could be delaminated for replacement. It would likely be very expensive, though.

[@AaronSchwarz42]

@@ryanbrown982 I saw that video too & it made my want to puke. I am device repair tech professionally & Tesla worse than Apple

[@jackanders9545]

Structural doesn't have to mean part of structural integrity.It can be exterior panels of a vehicle when damage replaced individual panels is what your insurance companies already demanding in most cases. The Aptara exterior panels are mostly solar panel can be replaced individually or all at once. So no Tesla's not going to make a disposable car

[@drhubs7049]

Massless? Being someone in the engineering field, this triggers me. Lol, I get wym though. It's an absolutely incredible breakthough

[@UndecidedMF]

Yes, not truly massless, but the general idea is there. I get why it triggers engineers. 😜

[@NexusGamingRadical]

Less-mass is accurate.

[@rmalaf]

Clickbait for the algorithm

[@drhubs7049]

@@rmalaf for Tesla maybe lol

[@aggeagge1234]

@@NexusGamingRadical I like no "added mass" batteries or "net-massless" batteries, but that's probably not chatchy enough.

[@tomrogers9467]

This reminds me of the Popular Science magazine of the ‘60’s. Every month a radical new invention that would change the world. Almost all never saw the light of day.

[@dboy6400]

I remember an article about the Wankel engine, maybe in the late 50s. Remained in the ether until Mazda put it in the RX-7, a very cool car.

[@Isometrix116]

I think this is something that, either in this form or another, will take off. We need things that’ll make storing energy more space, energy, and mass efficient. This does two of those three things. While structural batteries probably won’t change the world significantly, it’s the next step in the march of progress.

[@anthonyr.589]

This battery pack seems like it's more about keeping people from being able to replace the batteries in their EV's then extending the range of the EV.

[@billybob01234567]

Except it absolutely isn't

[@anthonyr.589]

@@billybob01234567 except... you should look up right repair..

[@AfonsodelCB]

There's so many people thinking like you in this comment section... I guess the thought of having a battery be so ingrained into a device is scary when you think of how old and bad batteries stop holding charge at some point, and the fact that devices are manufactured with the intent of being replaced in a few years doesn't help. But please realize, there are 2 separate issues here: the 70+ year strategy of reducing the lifespan of products to increase profits, and the low capacity of current battery technology. If instead of thinking of batteries being used as structure, you think of structures becoming capable of holding charge, I feel the benefits become a lot more obvious, "it's free real estate". As long as they are developed in a way that allows them to continue functioning as a battery when lightly damaged - just like a device continues to hold itself together when its structure is lightly damaged - this is an excellent way to increase energy storage space. Now obviously, if this is the only battery a device has and it has a lifespan of a few years, this is very bad for the environment specially if replacement is hard/expensive. But this doesn't have to be the only or even main battery of a device, it can just be extra energy storage, which would already give us a very nice boost. Before RAM was as cheap as it is now, disk space would be used as replacement RAM for some operations (I think it still is to an extent), and it did its job well.

[@MrUraniumProductions]

iPhone 12 sucks can’t repair it anymore only at apple .

[@anthonyr.589]

@@AfonsodelCB you are right, about the harddrive being used like ram. It is still done today in all modern operating systems. The argument about it being free real estate is also true. But this is truly about the right to repair. I used to watch a channel, I think it's called RichRebuilds or something like that. Rich used to fix Telsas on his channel the things tesla put him through are the reason he doesn't really do that kind of content anymore. They don't want people fixing their cars and are trying to engineer the ability out.

[@bkmack]

If you could build a trailer out of this stuff. It would definitely help in the trucking industry.

[@sepro5135]

No, to reach any sort of significant mileage you have to have a lot of Energy. Trying to get that through batteries is just not really viable because of their weight. You would either have low payload capacity or low range. There is no way around. There is a reason that the Tesla Semi that was announced like 2018 is still not available, far past the promised date; it’s not viable

[@zapperone7]

@@sepro5135 Tesla semi is not being produced due to battery supply constraints, not viability

[@sepro5135]

@@zapperone7 well in the original presentation they didn't show the reach and payload capacity, I think that the battery constraints may have played a role but to me it sounds like a cheap way out without having to admit that the whole concept was bs

[@Yaman-D-Chhaya]

@@sepro5135 😂😂 Dear friend your point has valid doubts, but with all load carrying capacity, now we have technologies that can do the job check out TOSA technology by Leyland, 20 seconds and a trailer bus with 80ppl capacity gets charged

[@Yaman-D-Chhaya]

Ben I promise to give what you want soon Brother, I have things rolling in that direction 👍🏻👍🏻

[@namaikati9112]

And when battery is over, then replace whole chassis. Genius!

[@sydmannachuk7941]

Ya....life cycle of the battery will last how long? I agree with you!

[@brendonhowbert9330]

Battery life is max 7 1/2 years, and that is if your lucky. 4-5 is average. So I agree, this is going to be fun to watch here in 6-7. :D

[@jerkfudgewater147]

Have you seen the price of replacing a Tesla’s battery now (it’s not currently reasonable) soo being able to just replace “the passenger side door” instead of replacing the whole battery pack would still be an improvement

[@chrispersinger5422]

@@jerkfudgewater147 Actually I have seen people replace them for 10-15G so it's not unreasonable, for a car that's worth 40G I would say that's easier than buying a new one at that point in the case of total battery failure. And I only say cheaper than buying a new one because people would likely do that similar to how they do with ICE cars plus replacing the whole chassis would be extremely pricey and a pretty long process. Usually batteries in the pack only fail cells at a time and are actually fairly easy and cheapish to replace.

[@alexczarnomski1116]

They could explore solar power designs that use reversible reactions to undo a lot of the effects of battery usage to increase lifespan

[@jspr49]

"If you pop a tire, just buy a new car!"

[@the87ghosts]

Can you explain the point to your comment? Are you just salty?

[@jspr49]

@@the87ghosts no? It's a joke. And why would I be salty about a car battery?

[@cr4zyj4ck]

@@the87ghosts if you glue the batteries into the car and make them totally unserviceable, then when the battery inevitably fails, you will have to purchase a new vehicle, rather than replacing the battery. This means you will need to spend another $60-$90 thousand dollars, and that an entirely new vehicle will have to be manufactured, incurring all of the environmental damage that manufacturing a new car causes. Metal has to be smelted, plastics created, glass melted and formed, leather sourced, computer chips shipped from overseas, all to build you a new vehicle. Meanwhile, the old vehicle, which is in perfectly useable condition aside from the battery pack, is scrapped and sold for parts. Then you have the environmental cost of recycling materials that dont need to be recycled yet. Everything about a nonreplaceable battery pack for an electric vehicle is completely irresponsible. The whole point of electrifying vehicles is to curtail global warming and reduce carbon emissions, and requiring consumers to replace the entire vehicle if and when the battery pack fails or reaches the end of its useful life is so environmentally irresponsible you might as well just continue driving a gasoline burning car.

[@patrickwashere1]

@@cr4zyj4ck lmfao you forget gas cars POLLUTE THE AIR YOU BREATHE causing very serious health problems, also the same thing applys to other cars I mean I normal gas car is gonna last about as long as a battery in a ev and maybe even longer so yeah its still FAR FAR FAR better for the environment to use a ev

[@patrickwashere1]

@@cr4zyj4ck also your whole argument about the assembly is very pointless when both cars are assembled the same way and the way you honestly believe that billions of people emitting greenhouse gasses daily is better then if they didnt like sir no

[@ZzzRoofus]

When you get a bill from the dealer to replace your battery pack: labor 200 hours. Parts: new frame. Price: new car.

[@MickH60]

With million mile batteries, who cares ?

[@the_bar]

I was thinking the same thing, does a battery failure mean the car is totaled

[@Conundrum888]

@@MickH60 I call bullshit, If it has a life that long why not make it user replaceable? This is just some BS ploy to kill right to repair

[@xavariusquest4603]

@@the_bar yes...well...very likely. The tech being used to make these batteries...thin film deposition...is a mature technology vital to micochip fabrication. It is not cheap to employ. This will raise the price of batteries 10 fold. They may last longer...but whether they can hold enough charge is the problem. But even with that solved, one accident could total the car if the damage were to undermine the battery based structure. You cannot put batteries on a frame straightener.

[@whatinthe4500]

@@Conundrum888 musk isnt in the business of user repair. i dont think you know how corporations work.

[@KonaSatori]

oh man cant wait to never hear about these again!

[@matthewtalbot-paine7977]

Yeah, you'll note no one ever mentioned the MJ/kg i.e. the energy density of the battery which is what makes cars go the long ranges because petrol has 46MJ/Kg and the best batteries have around 9MJ/kg and the lithium ion batteries tesla uses have about 0.9 MJ/kg.

[@LeyvatenLoop]

Those batteries sound really good for non-consumer market vehicles, like industrial aplications, space exploration probes, high speed aircraft etc... But for the consumer market? They sound WAY to expensive to manufacture to be worth it. I don't want to pay thousands of dollars to replace a body panel from my car, phones don't need to be lighter and thinner, in fact, many phones in the market could use some extra thickness for better ergonomics, not to mention how everything would get just straight up more expensive.

[@informitas0117]

@@matthewtalbot-paine7977 4:48 they mentioned the weight/capacity, no? Or did I misunderstand what you meant?

[@rhydonphilip]

From someone who worked at a research institude; that is tech that exists for battery and solar panels for a near future generation. And this is bound to happen unless it would get outdated by a better invention, which is doubtful for how high the demand for electricity storage optimization is right now and only seems to become more of. However I will instantly put a disclaimer the video absolutely did 0 effort to mention: What if x breaks and what if it needs to be replaced -> what to do with the waste. The reason why cars are kept simple is to avoid issues in addition to making them easier to locate, with integrated batteries like Tesla is doing it becomes harder for none-certified people to find and fix an issue. Which only helps them sell more units but not help the consumer. As for the carbon fibre, which will be next gen of solar panels, I will paraphrasing Sebastien Sellard, a guy who worked his entire life in the industry making leading edge tech for batteries: "We are producing marginally superior batteries that we DON'T have a way of recycling. It's to the extent of Carbon nanoparticle waste". One of the worst forms of waste in the chemical industry on a physical level, simply made for demand disregarding any recycling potential. In addition to that, regular batteries right now are already on their way of more efficient element doping with Cadmium and lead allowing again more marginal increase but outright making the lithium itself harder to recycle thanks to the doped impurities.

[@rjames7380]

Exactly. Just like graphine

[@thom1218]

These cars will be built to "throw away" and will make your favorite phone with no user serviceable battery seem like the pinnacle of right to repair...

[@redsable6119]

Are we sure Apple doesn't make this car?

[@MIHMediaInc]

Possibly so but it could also be seen as a potential earner considering the revenue from car parts like doors, bonets, boots, bumpers etc. Let's wait and see how this all plays out.

[@Flash_AU]

@@MIHMediaInc the only way this is an earner is by forcing you to get a new vehicle entirely.

[@PR-hl9pm]

Modern batteries last about a thousand cycles in a phone which is charged daily from 0-100% this amounts to only about 3 years of service but in a car with 400 km range this amounts to 400 000 km which is about 25% more than the average vehicle lifespan. So the real question will be what we will do with the batteries when the car is off the road

[@jyoungbr549]

@@redsable6119 Tesla is absolutely following apple's business model. Hopefully the FTC's unanimous vote on right to repair will lead to much easier to repair phones, computers, vehicles, tractors etc.

[@misahayase8854]

no got it wrong, I'm a pilot in training so here . . .no jets have gravity weight fed fuel lines. pumps are needed. the inside of the jet engine is air rushing through and its under pressure (air coming in and heating up and expanding), this is why there's a hot air rushing out the back . .. They keep fuel tanks in the wings because the inner space is empty and metallurgy or composite materials developed enough to to prevent leakage and lines and pumps reliable enough . . . they can fit fuel inside, they did it since the propeller engine days and they because it saves material, its not for structural purposes. If a plane crashes and the wings are damage fuel can leak and cause explosions. Also its easier to balance fuel in the wings because the center of gravity affects how well the plane flies.

[@zxcytdfxy256]

It's cool as long as it is easy to replace nad not some glued up bullshit for planned obsolescence.

[@ZeroGainZ]

imagine it as easy as replacing your front and back bumper and door pannels.

[@DarkstarNovembr]

Planned obsolescence is Apple's mantra if they made cars. Oh wait, that's Tesla...

[@steveo20007]

It sounds like they’re using the MacBook approach of having several small battery packs spread out around the interior instead of one large one. For cars it would have to be in the panels and empty spaces of the doors and interior tire wells. Not easy places to access which is why they’re empty in the first place. But considering Tesla owners don’t seem to care that they’ll need a $10k batter after 10 years makes me think they’ll just throw the car out and get a new one anyways. If they even keep it for that long before getting a new one. Using Apples business model for vehicles was admittedly a very smart move by Musk.

[@ZeroGainZ]

@@steveo20007 so open panels, replace battery.. Seems easy enough!

[@Laughing_Dragon]

ahhh, someones been dealing with Apple recently lol.

[@Redthumb45]

And now we have invented the disposable car.

[@christopherhamilton5557]

Well we already had Dodge… 😄

[@robertsteele474]

@@christopherhamilton5557 At least for a Ford, you could fix or repair daily...

[@hankster9940]

Anything “bonded” into the structure will result in totaling the car when a cell fails.

[@budgiefriend]

@Michael Hill You are comparing pears to apples.

[@daos3300]

@@budgiefriend the clueless negativists tend to do that a lot. new idea? let's see how many problems i can think of while completely ignoring both the benefits and possible improvements, and simultaneously contributing nothing of use to humanity.

[@budgiefriend]

@@daos3300 That covers entire swaths of everyday humanity I'm afraid. keep up the enlightenment. With regards from Denmark.

[@budgiefriend]

@Michael Hill They did mention the out gassing problem and how to solve it.

[@budgiefriend]

​@Michael Hill Gas generation, ( not out gassing ) my bad. (namely, the volume swelling of battery, called the gassing) Let's see what solutions they come up with, as long as there's money to be made they will persist.

[@__WJK__]

By moving from modular batteries to "structural battery panels" how is this going to affect "cost of repair" after a crash(?) Also, seeing how the battery panels also provide structural integrity... can the consumer replace this type of battery when the panels reach end of life(?)

[@LabGecko]

It's carbon fiber. Also, it's actually a capacitor, not a liquid filled battery panel. Cost of repair should be relatively economical depending of course on a crapton of situational caveats like how much electronics is needed, the separating material between the carbon fiber layers (I've seen the study), availability of replacements, cost of manufacture, etc.

[@__WJK__]

@@LabGecko - Agree with all that... was specifically trying to figure out how/where in the vehicle the batt would be placed and will the placement allow for easy accessibility, or would such a battery possibly be buried under lots of other vehicular componants(?)

[@LabGecko]

@@__WJK__ In that case, good question. Of course it will vary by manufacturer but I hope ease of access, repair, and cost e effectiveness are priority considerations.

[@__WJK__]

@@LabGecko - Hoping the same. If this particular battery tech is (ie) stuck/installed to all the very inner body surfaces... that would be a huge deal-breaker.

[@KristianHerner]

I would imagine the areas less prone to impact damage would be explored first? For example build your dashboard, seat structures, interior panels with structural batteries. These parts are already produced seperately, so could be replaced fairly easily?

[@2020Max1]

This doesn't sound like a concept that lends itself well to sustainability.

[@wolfgangpreier9160]

Not sustainability in itself but lower prices which mean easier sales to lower income which means faster removal of stinking fossil fuels coal rollers.

[@rsantos4378]

​@@wolfgangpreier9160 On the other hand, actually. This format of battery will probably be very exclusive and very expensive. It will see its application in aerospace surely, airplanes, maybe even super high-end Electric cars, since carbon fiber is super expensive to produce. Furthermore, carbon fiber is non-recyclable so it won't be nearly as sustainable as aluminium, for example. It's a cool bit of tech, but as a sustainable mass-market application, it leaves too much to be desired.

[@williamdafoe3567]

That's because the "sustainability" industry isn't actually in it for sustainability. They're in it for the grant money and government subsidies. That's why you have wind and solar farms, despite them being practically useless for power generation and more harmful to the environment than traditional sources like hydrocarbons.

[@Paul-A01]

Why not? This will sustain military activity in countries with lithium for decades.

[@HimitsuHunter]

@@williamdafoe3567 You started off good and then veered directly into Lies. Good job.

[@billygreen9915]

It takes "the battery fire" to a whole other level when your inside the battery lol

[@rookandpawn]

People will rationalize it away by saying EVs are less likely to be in a crash and just ignore the fact that an EV crash will be essentially hellfire in a brazen bull

[@zakuro8532]

Solid State Batteries don't spontaneously combust unlike Li-Ion Batteries.

[@augustaseptemberova5664]

1) Due to the large surface-to-volume ratio structural batteries are much less likely of the thermal runaway event that makes Li-based batteries explode. Bulk batteries and battery packs are waaaaay more dangerous in that regard. 2) The video says nothing about what type of electrode is used, and whether the electrolyte is flammable or not. They say the electrolyte is Li phosphate - an inorganic Li phosphate would not be flammable. This would eliminate the risk of fire in case of puncture and electrolyte coming in contact with water or air.

[@Unmannedair]

@@zakuro8532 lithium ion batteries don't spontaneously combust either... But once you get them going they're usually pretty deadly. I would imagine a lithium glass battery would have a similar characteristic. It's probably pretty damage resistant but I imagine that once you got it into a state where an energy discharge could feed the problem, you'll probably either have a fire or an explosion. And it probably won't be something anticipated by most of the research scientists. It'll be something they find by accident in the field when somebody dies. "when the world ends, the last sound that will be heard is the voice of an expert saying it can't be done."

[@Unmannedair]

@@augustaseptemberova5664 that may be true, but the composite itself is flammable. You get carbon fiber composite hot enough, and you expose it to an oxidizer like what's in a battery, and you got a pretty bad situation.

[@justsomeperson5110]

I think these batteries must either be V E R Y long lived, or the "structure" that they comprise must be easily replaceable, because batteries don't last forever. Vehicles can be on the road for a V E R Y long time ... but not if they're literally useless because their bodies served two purposes and one of them failed. I'm also, honestly, just not seeing much of a point with such a low energy density. This seems to be far more applicable to home building, like a solar roof. M a y b e ??? for space? But definitely not cars, and probably not airplanes.

[@TushhsuT]

wow-wow-wow. Dont say you dont want to remove a whole car and just the batteries. It is illegal! Ask Apple - they have a lot of users that want to just replace a battery! It is illegal!

[@hauptmann25]

Its made of carbon fiber so I think you could replace the whole structure of a plane with it. Plus the prototype is very thin, so you could stack several layers on top of each other and still save weight. Add to that the huge surface area of a plane compared to things like a car and I think it could work out. And even if it doesnt. If it means halving the battery weight you have to carry around its still a big success. The bigger issue I see is cost. Carbon fiber isnt cheap, and as batteries get cheaper, there just doesnt seem to be an appeal in making a cars structure and panels out of this kind of battery, unless its some kind of super- or hypercar where money is no issue.

[@petitio_principii]

Fuel physically is one of the most efficient and convenient energy storage, unfortunately. I think much of investment in chemical battery technology for some applications would end up being non-green when you do the math, maybe ideally we'd have more investment in "clean" fuels for much of this stuff. Even if perhaps paired with electric engines for increased efficiency, like maybe the first gear is electric, I don't know, this may be BSsy.

[@RubsNL]

@@petitio_principii hydrogen (from green sources) would be the ideal fuel. All the benefits of petrol like energy density and quick fill ups without emission or the need for environmentally harmful battery packs.

[@ShihadMan]

@@RubsNL From what ive seen Hydrogen is insanely expensive to process transport and store. And from an emissions stand point it uses so much more energy to manufacture that it completely offsets its "green" savings. Unless you produce it on a grid that is entirely made up of renewable energy sources. I could be wrong though Ive only seen 2 sources for this info Edit: Here is one source ( He doesn't show sources so this could be inaccurate but its logically sound) kzbin.info/www/bejne/nGiwq3mcqrOCqrs&ab_channel=RealEngineering

[@jayme3181]

"Elon, we've come up with a breakthrough idea to solve our battery weight problem. We are going to make it our customer's problem!"

[@hawkeye1836]

Yeah, let them pay for it, like everything else, Yeah !!

[@wagnergauer9133]

Now my car will have more range, what a terrible problem for me! Damn you Elon musk!

[@pasiutrial]

@@wagnergauer9133 more range for how long? 3-5 years if all goes well? And then what? Ah, I forgot. Just scrap the car and buy a new tech- breaktrough model, sooo eco we are!

[@ggLP42]

This would be interesting for drones

[@UndecidedMF]

Exactly! So many possible use cases.

[@FunBotan]

Yeah, single-use kamikaze drones.

[@FunBotan]

@E Van Thanks, that's terrifying

[@AaronSchwarz42]

@E Van Dope reference of the Switchblade by Aerovironment //

[@vampyr2936]

@E Van for short range low mass flights, yes For litterally anything else, not enough power/weight ratio or range

[@lyrapsi]

So, if the battery goes bad you have to replace the entire vehicle. This looks more like a stupid investment for something that will need it's batteries replaced in ten years so you have to replace the whole car instead, great idea for them, bad idea for the planet.

[@justinroysdon2630]

Most people replace their cars within ten years... for sure first time car buyers. They either crash it, or upgrade after 5-7 years (get a family, need a bigger car, have a higher paying job, etc). This would nearly eliminate the used car market which is what most first time car buyers purchase.

[@jerrychenwu]

Imagine someone rear ended your car, the whole chassis of battery need to be replaced

[@haatch999]

U mean when your car turns into a puddle on the groumd after u smack a metal pole lol?

[@sreejithsubhash7301]

He said they would be using thinner material than existing ones to separate battery. So incase of battery deformation, be ready to play ground is Lava

[@markymark5154]

Car hits your car you need new car. The USA corporate way

[@TpoJioJio47]

...after your vehicle just explodes in electro-chemical reaction

[@wolfgangpreier9160]

You are silly 😜

[@szymonzak6681]

that is literally a battery pack sandwiched in a carbon fibre case, like there is nothing spectacular about this

[@yaroslavk295]

Do these structural batteries age as the regular ones do? If so, such “disposable” vehicles are going to create more problems than they are trying to solve…

[@wadebrewer7212]

Hell....thats the case with current tech. I am concerned what the next 10 years look like.

[@primachpepe8597]

thats because they arent trying to solve the issue. They are trying to sell you cars and batteries. seems like the soo many people need to take a step back from eating the ass of Elon and actually think about what he and his business is about

[@JohnBrowningsGhost]

The only issue with this is what will happen if the battery needs to be replaced? Will the cost of replacement be so expensive that a new car would be more economical?

[@MrMediator24]

Probably it not 1 huge piece

[@BricklessFreak]

Cars that have to be replaced avery 2-4 years with a brand new one. The suits would instantly jizz themselves.

[@Bialy_1]

That is the whole point, Swedish scrapyards are full of cars that are lessthan 2 years old because electric cars are very popular there and any damage to the battery and its more expensive repair than buying new car...

[@maxmustsleep]

somebody has to fund elons base on mars this strategy has worked pretty well for apple in the past decade, so why not use it for cars too

[@231shivakumarvt2]

Yes, i think using this cannot be economical for cars. But it may have large impact on other electric locomotives like electric train etc

[@wes_d]

“huge amount of potential” Doubt that was intended as a pun, but I’m not seeing it.

[@looony]

This isn't a breakthrough. The battery still needs to weigh the same to hold the same amount of energy. The battery isn't structual at all, it's just integrated into the frame, but as long as the material in the battery itself isn't helping the structure (which it isn't, it's mostly liquid), you can just as easy put it in the bottom, where it helps with the vehicles weight distribution. Have fun flipping your car if the center of mass is on your eyelevel.

[@kimbo99]

"Huge amount of potential" is a way of saying its bloody hopeless

[@wolfgangpreier9160]

Yes. Not that they are not already starting the production. No sirre. Never! Not in Austin and surely not so fast in Grünheide. Takes at least a few months till the first produced vehicles come out of those places. But not for your stautet. Don‘t despair. GM and Ford will make your classical vehicles!

[@edwardpaulsen1074]

I would venture to say that the very same thing could be said about the top of a mountain... there is a HUGE amount of "potential" energy in there... but the chances of it actually becoming useful is astronomically low... whether something similar is in production or not is immaterial. The battery he is talking about is NOT the one that Tesla is putting into their vehicles... that is merely strengthening the battery pack and using it as a structural member... the actual statement, as written, is true under certain conditions.

[@georgegates526]

Almost all that we are promised never comes to fruition. :(((

[@kimbo99]

@@edwardpaulsen1074 So well said its worth framing

[@grahamstevenson1740]

Like most of his videos. He seems to be keen on backing every dead cert failure.

[@jutau]

So if something goes wrong with the battery parts, you gotta replace the whole car...

[@EC-dz4bq]

I would assume each battery can act independently... so if anything goes wrong... you lose range and power but the product will still run.. Given a long enough time, yes like everything it will need to be replaced.

[@FlatKitten]

Yeah, I think I've seen examples where that happens with ordinary EVs anyway because the battery is the expensive part making it essentially the entire car. So really that's just cost/benefit analysis on the individual that needs to replace versus what the company wants to do.

[@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344]

Well, that is the basic problem with combining things. Failure of one means failing of both. It also means that both things need to have similar life expectancy. With the fuel tanks on an airplane, the wings need to have structure anyway. They add to them to make them fuel tanks. The wings without the fuel are still wings. A better comparison for the battery would be to make the wings out of fuel (I recognize that this is absurd).

[@mr.mysteriousyt6118]

yep, cant fix that or hot swap

[@FlatKitten]

@@EC-dz4bq I do hope his concern would be addressed somehow. That and how we can make these cars better for end of life Recycling.

[@1OldWriter]

Neat idea until you need to replace the battery then you're screwed.

[@LunariosLP]

Wow, this sounds so smart at first and incredibly stupid, the more you think about it :D

[@maximilianbeyer9268]

Car salesman: *slaps roof of the car* Car: *burns down*

[@danisyx5804]

along with the next 4ft of pavement concrete and soil beneath it. nothing better than a car made of lithium thermite,.... RIGHT?!?!

[@tomrogers9467]

Built Ford Tough. Tough to extinguish, anyway.

[@QUEENVIONNA]

Car salesman: *throws rock at car window in front on hundreds* Car: *window breaks....*

[@MatthewHolevinski]

@@danisyx5804 my brain is going the same way along that point, are these batteries chemically inert when twisted, contorted, torn, ripped, shredded, crushed, in you know something like a wreck.

[@danisyx5804]

@@gpgamer4960 an incendiary bomb that is highly toxic, no doubt! just one more reason to add to the list i guess, along with con, man, vaporware salesman etc.. i always thought he was a douche and never understood the hype but , i will say the more i learn about the guy the more i dislike him, he is easily in the top ten for douchebags in the world who are currently alive.

[@markhaus]

All depends on just how much structural strength and battery density you get to trade between when building with these structural cells and how complex the interconnects for these cells need to be. With a 20% relative density compared to a pure battery pack, I'm a little skeptical, especially when you consider how difficult carbon fiber can be to work with, especially in an assembly line. For planes this kind of makes sense because of how insanely important weight savings are, in land vehicles weight saving importance is much less significant.

[@drhubs7049]

Yh but this is distributed throughout the body. Plus, you can still have a battery pack. This allows you to lose a significant amount of weight with the pack that you choose. It would likely be less brutal on the environment than using only regular batteries and would help supplement our demand for batteries. Hybridization of not only our energy, but also storage is usually the way you want to go for high efficiency designs

[@josefstalin4532]

@@drhubs7049 The problem is that weight has close to no impact on how much battery you use, so within reason it doesn't matter how heavy your car is.

[@drhubs7049]

@@josefstalin4532 you realize you're talking about electric cars right. I'm open to being wrong, however I do think you're full of bologna saying that a load has little to no effect on an electrical motor's power consumption in comparison to no load.

[@josefstalin4532]

@@drhubs7049 Obviously it doesn't have zero effect, but it's pretty close. Let's say this technology could decrease the total weight of the vehicle by 15%, which is being very generous considering the batteries in current electric cars only make up 25% of their weight: at highway speeds, 60mph, the rolling resistance only makes up about a fifth of the total energy required to stay at the same speed. The 15% (weight reduction) is directly proportional to the rolling resistance and no effect on aerodynamic drag, meaning you only save 15% of the roughly 20% of the energy that was lost to rolling resistance in the first place. This means you only use 3% less battery than you otherwise would at the same speed. This would be closer to 2% at 70mph. I don't intend to be rude, but I think it's pretty obvious that this particular approach is unpractical in cars, as opposed to airplanes, where it could be very useful.

[@drhubs7049]

@@josefstalin4532 I did say in an earlier statement that when it comes to the balance perk of this energy design I think it would be better used in flight. Thanks for taking time to evaluate and explain that. I do think, like most technologies in their infancy, it's hard to predict its far reaching potential and how far it's capable of going. P.S. I took nothing you said as rude as much as I did informative

[@grahamlewis6777]

I am concerned by the maintenance and recycling challenges of structural batteries. Matt, The developers must have considered this, what is their response?

[@josefstalin4532]

They're scientists, not marketing people.. This has no use whatsoever in cars due to costs, complexity and being close to impossible to repair.

[@Discrimination_is_not_a_right]

3:08 and insuring that there will be no aftermarket alternatives.

[@alexderpyracc4053]

So you need to buy theirs for a massive amount profit making it a monopoly so people will still go to regular battery's

[@Discrimination_is_not_a_right]

@@alexderpyracc4053 basically

[@DreamingConcepts]

the fact that people notice this, gives me a great deal of hope.

[@lorrygoth]

So they are designed to fail predictably, but how are they repaired/replaced? I expect it will not be consumer friendly but also recognize my bias.

[@TheTechmaster1999]

I'm not sure how they will be used, if if I was to design a car, It would have to be modular with the pieces able to be taking apart kinda like legos (albeit bolted in of course). Something that can be taken off and replaced within 30 minutes or less

[@honkhonk8009]

Apparently its confirmed you can just cut off certain parts and replace the battery through the chassis. This isnt an ICE car. Its probably lego level easy for mechanics to dissasemble. Theirs a reason they went with a bolted design over welding it shut. It shouldnt be any problem for legislators to enforce right for repair imo.

[@blackturbine]

can't wait to come back to this in 4 years asking for an update in development and getting no answer

[@matthewtalbot-paine7977]

Yeah I can imagine that they will find that the energy density of carbon fibre is not very good and they'll have to stop because that makes it not a very viable product.

[@DoubleTapCustoms]

this is the future of battery tech. solves weight problems for space ships.

[@peterpannemann4565]

"If the fuel pump fails the engines will still be feed by gravity." No offense, but do you even have the slightest understanding on how a jet engine works?

[@grahamstevenson1740]

I don't think he does. As for calling wing tanks structural, I call it using otherwise unusable space. It's convenient that jet fuel is liquid. It's a shame that batteries aren't liquid too ! Talk about comparing apples to oranges.

[@mikevega8712]

U forget that wings on a plane when flying in air are bending and the plane is always tilted up to a certain degree planes do not fly perfectly leveled. So put those two together and yes gravity will still feed engines also in world war 2 cant remember who did it u.s or japan but they had gas tanks that would shrink to match fuel capacity. Was mainly done to prevent fires in combat when fuel tanks got shot so there be no gas pockets that would suddenly combust. But also helped to regulate fuel pressure for if the fuel pump went out or was shot as well. Not intended purpose but a added benefit of the technology back then. Or so i heard i am no plane tech so who knows lol.

[@grahamstevenson1740]

@@mikevega8712 Those engines still have fairly high pressure fuel pumps so fuel flow is most certainly NOT 'by gravity' ! I suspect wrt WW2 etc that you mean 'bladder tanks'. Military fuel tanks have also been inerted using nitrogen gas for decades.

[@Unmannedair]

@@grahamstevenson1740 liquid batteries are some of the oldest types of batteries around. In fact the liquid fuel cell was invented before the battery. The only problem is things like liquid fuel cells and batteries use horrible fluids that are caustic and toxic on a level that most people can't imagine. Pumping stuff like that around is a whole nother kind of engineering problem in and of itself. You put a system like that in a car or an airplane, and you're asking for a disaster.

[@TheInevitableHulk]

The fuel pump from the tanks to the engines, not the engine's own high pressure pumps.

[@CodeKujo]

And, conveniently for Tesla, the batteries are no longer replaceable, adding to the planned obsolescence of the car. For as long as the expected life of the batteries is half the life I expect from the car, I want the batteries to be replaceable.

[@Artoooooor]

Maybe there will be somebody producing replacement parts. Overall this idea (merging structure and battery into one part) has some benefits - less mass or more energy stored for the same mass. Or we have to wait for other companies to catch up.

[@STho205]

Eventually for EVs to progress the engineers have to do something. Right now thr problem is mass/weight vs kW of stored energy vs charging time. A typical battery quandary, which is why NASA went with H2 fuel cells on Apollo and massive solar panels on Skylab and the ISS. The more potential kW of stored energy means adding mass, which means the car uses more kW for acceleration and terrain lift, which also means charging takes longer. It takes x time to charge y kWh into a chemical battery. You make the battery twice as big, it takes almost twice as long to fill. If you only fill 50% then you're dragging dead weight.

[@decayingsun5798]

Maybe they can put the vehicle on a lift and access the batteries via removal of the base. They have to have some way of accessing the batteries. If they have battery problems that are the company's fault or are covered by warranty they'd have to give you a whole new car with the same options. It doesn't seem viable for them.

[@AaronSchwarz42]

@@STho205 Aerospace batteries made in low single digit volumes in a clean room by scientists who meticulously & carefully assemble them one at a time // thats very different than what is possible for high volume manufacturing of feasible products Satellite batteries often cost $50,000 or more & are kind of heavy or high mass given their capacities, but designed for ultra long life since servicing a replacement battery not happening in all but the most rare of cases on the ISS, which is a regularly visited lower earth orbit asset collaborative built & maintained by the national budgets of many nations //

[@philliplarocque9328]

Literal throw away cars!

[@leslawangelo]

Price is the issue, not the range.

[@teriyakipuppy]

Mass production will drive down the price in tandem with efficient manufacturing.

[@intertan]

I would say both. some like myself have no problem paying the price but need the range. won't complain if became cheaper

[@drhubs7049]

3d printers were 18k+ when they released. Give it time

[@intertan]

@@drhubs7049 everything typically drops in price over time. Solar, price per kWh for batteries

[@drhubs7049]

@@intertan not sure what you were getting at on that last bit but I agree with your first bit!

[@GrandPrixDecals]

How about a follow up video?

[@yesterdayschunda1760]

Was just released kzbin.info/www/bejne/pH7Vc6qeo5qVhpI

[@fiodor94]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pH7Vc6qeo5qVhpI

[@joshuamorin2762]

"Save the planet, use electric" Proceeds to design car that you throw away when the battery goes bad...... See the problem?

[@ThePilotGear]

@Timothy Mckee funny how no one says that about oil. I'd like to see you produce your own gasoline.

[@ThePilotGear]

@Timothy Mckee so you can produce your own combustible fuel at home? Sometimes you read legitimate concerns about EVs, and sometimes you read about empty complaints.

[@ThePilotGear]

sounds like Texas needs a more robust infrastructure... Up here in Canada, we get shit weather for months per year, and we never have power outages. It's time you get with the times and update, or become irrelevant. You want the world to run on crude oil forever? Sending it from the well into the air has absolutely no consequence?

[@joshuamorin2762]

This has nothing to do with gore the energy is made its ability making cars even more disposable and more expensive. Its wasteful and no better than using gas. Hydrogen is the way to go. Literally unlimited.

[@ThePilotGear]

@Timothy Mckee i would say it makes sense to find something sustainable. Coal definitely isn't.

[@LordMejdi]

WHY do they have to be deceiving and call it massLESS??...

[@AaronSchwarz42]

Marketing to solicit investment & interest // smoke & mirrors like the early 5G mmWave 6GHz stuff today when the real deal 60GHz long range variable MIMI variable frequency broad spectral hopping version of 5G something like 5 years out, at least //

[@joshuacheung6518]

Someone probably said less mass and some pesky marketing bastard twisted it

[@nagualdesign]

Because, ideally, they won't add any mass to the vehicle. Didn't you watch the video?

[@ErgonBill]

Because marketing is dyslexic.

[@Chris-cv1ll]

Most cars and planes designed and built today have some carbon fiber parts as they have great strength to weight ratio. These can be also used for energy storage which means no added mass to your car or plane. Hell, no design changes needed to add this to modern ev and extend the range. If the carbon fiber battery goes bad and no longer holds a charge then your range is back to original specs due to there still being a battery pack.

[@ecognitio9605]

Like all battery "innovations" this'll be the last time we hear of this.

[@phyricquinn2457]

Na, this makes it to where replacing the battery means buying a whole new car. That's definitely worth the 10% improvement... for Tesla.

[@Angel24Marin]

The Tesla example is just smart placement of pieces already in use. I studied the carbon composite one in a university project and it's very straightforward, made by commercial and laboratory supplies. It seemed both attractive and relatively easy to implement in military/high end drones.

[@phyricquinn2457]

@@rogerstarkey5390 I realize that there might be a bit of a disconnect between what we are talking about, since there where two major structure batteries discussed in this video; The carbon fiber one that I think that you been talking about in the comments, and the tesla one where they just but a regular battery pack in the frame of the car in an inaccessible location which I've been talking about. I understand that I should have made that clearer. So for the sake of clarity, I think the carbon fiber batteries are awesome, innovative, and have great (although limited) potential uses. On the other hand I think that putting the battery pack, which will inevitably degrade faster than almost any other part on the car besides the tires and brake pads, glued into the frame of the car so that it can't be replaced is nothing more than a money grab trying to make sure that there is no secondhand market for the cars.

[@herrschaftg35]

You will definitely hear it again when it's time to part more fools from their money.

[@gafrers]

1000000% correct. Not only in the battery field but pretty much anywhere they use terms such as "revolutionary", "worldchanging," etc

[@sacr3]

You forgot about the center tank that exists on all commercial aircraft, a 747 even had a center tank blow up on it due to a short and a hot vapor filled center tank. As for structural batteries, I feel the cost won't cover the benefits. Having an extra 20-40 miles of range for an extra 20,000 dollar battery frame that may fail to work properly from a simple chip or rock strike.. I think there are better solutions out there, just haven't gotten the attention they need.

[@sharonbraselton3135]

Byeltrc 747 dubke Dec trntime batersyv620 mikevrage

[@gd.ritter]

If there isn't a method to repair/replace structural battery components from damage or end of life, then this doesn't sound like a net positive yet.

[@clivemitchell3229]

It doesn't take much damage these days to make replacing a car more cost-effective to the insurers than repairing it.

[@bagofholding]

@@clivemitchell3229 If a structural battery pack cannot be easily replaced after an accident then the insurance costs will go up substantially and they're already high as it is.

[@eggshellgoesgaming]

We were supposed to have Mr. Fusions about 6 years ago.

[@JM-bl3ih]

hahaha

[@x3Cay]

i thought in 50 yaers ? allways in 50 years :3

[@Yora21]

Well, we got hoverboards. Hoverboards that hover, in the same way as these massless batteries are massless.

[@berserkergandhi8492]

I think you sometimes forget that there are a loooot of engineers on the internet. Battery in the structure of a product is not a new concept. But do you see any products utilising it? Are mobile phone frames made of battery cases? Do you think any engineering team did not think about making the chasis of a laptop as a battery? The overwhelming flak in the comments are not unfounded.

[@ikickss]

Some bluethooth ear pieces have batteries inside the band that connects L+R pieces. I guess those qualifies as a primitive version of one.

[@brucejenner8620]

.😂🤣🤣😂Weight savings with less efficient batteries are fine because the cars will be lighter (because of the less efficient batteries)..?.🤣😂 Indeed… This video is Pure pseudo intellectual noise…..Plus, His cadence is UGH!.. Had to turn it off..

[@PixlRainbow]

@@brucejenner8620 I think they meant more that you keep the existing battery, but then the casing itself also becomes another battery, so you get more total capacity without any increase in weight.

[@kippert1987]

@@PixlRainbow Yeah, I'm thinking in the same way. If there is a structural material that can also be an energy storage device then why not just build it in, even though it isn't as efficient. It's a similar concept to the solar tile, right, create a roof tile that is also harvesting solar energy, rather than putting panels on top.

[@Weaver_Games]

This feels like one of those techs that get's demoed conceptually in a lab then we never hear about it ever again. To me the actual benefit of this would be energy storage that doesn't rely on cobalt and lithium which are mined in countries that mine destructively and/or use child labour. If you could stack a bunch of these on top of each other to form a battery and not use lithium or cobalt that would be awesome.

[@richardelliott9511]

Seems to me that this idea would work well working in conjunction with current batteries to extend range but not ready to replace them.

[@matthewconnor5483]

I can see a hybrid approach. Use this where it is easiest to implement and then filled in the rest of your needed capacity with a battery pack that is part of the structure like Tesla is doing.

[@Sir-Smiles]

Me: Clicking on a video about a cool tech breakthrough Me in 1 year: Clicking on a video about why cool tech breakthrough is nowhere to be found.

[@TannerCLynn]

My problem isn’t the “ideal” range when it’s new… my problem is having to pay $35k to replace the batteries after 100k miles cuz they stop holding charge.

[@johnbuck5181]

Well stop hating the earth and just get some new batteries at the store. If you really cared, the cost wouldn’t matter. (Sarcasm but seriously tho stop raping the earth with gas and use environmentally friendly EVs with their green batteries literally hitler) You still have time to change and prove to us all how much you love the environment with your “I replaced my environmentally friendly batteries with another fresh set of environmentally friendly batteries at 100,000 miles because they didn’t hold a charge anymore” bumper sticker. Yeah, that pretty long for a bumper sticker (made from recycled bumper stickers) but then people can get real close and get a glimpse of the guy who saved the earth with earth friendly, carbon negative, vegan safe batteries that power themselves.

[@orppranator5230]

John Buck What?

[@DounutCereal]

@@johnbuck5181 And this is why non ev people hate ev people

[@DounutCereal]

@Rainbow Capone Now now, no need to be condescending while the adults are talking

[@Satchel_Charge2]

I just love the idea of paying an extra 20k for a similar EV instead of what I know will work.

[@jacobs.803]

Glad to see people thinking along the same lines I was! My greatest concern with this is the need to replace the car if the battery fails, making personal transportation astronomically expensive. Playing devil's advocate, what if it was structural AND removable? What if it was something like strut braces, the fenders, or even the subframe? Then we could replace the battery and keep driving!

[@djano6519]

or like the doors/trunk

[@Channel-tr1hx]

so when the battery capacity goes down. we'll throw the whole thing to the landfield

[@davidmccarthy6061]

No, when the car is done the battery pack goes into energy storage systems for more years. Then at end of life they are recycled to recover the important resources to make new batteries.

[@Channel-tr1hx]

@@rogerstarkey5390 it's no obsession. not everyone deals with trash with white gloves. with a metal chassis everyone queues to sell it for scrap metal. good luck melting or taking that apart. the cost of recycling the chassis will be more than it takes to make it

[@Channel-tr1hx]

@@davidmccarthy6061 there is no battery pack. that's the point of the video. you'll need a pretty big garage for all those chassis.

[@nexus1g]

Hearing that the batteries are integrated into the body just says to me expensive to replace at battery EOL.

[@Cybergrip1]

The "joy" here is that you do not replace the battery, you replace the whole bloody car!

[@opencarry3860]

@@Cybergrip1 That should only cost $40,000 to $60,000.

[@Warbay57]

No Teslas new 4860 cells will outlast the car, it's been tested and confirmed to have a million mile battery life.

[@mangodoc10]

Think “boat hull”. The boat industry is a great testing ground for this concept (although it doubles down on the problem of repair/replacement).

[@omnimetabell]

The airplane fuel tank analogy is…meritless.

[@LabGecko]

Why?

[@omnimetabell]

@@LabGecko if the internal cavities of an electric car could hold the fluid medium that provides the electron Reserves, then there would be a point. Batteries retain complex structures and weight penalties beyond that of the fluidic mass. Structure-based energy storage for an electric car would be more advantageous then cavities built into the paneling. These are incompatible Concepts that merely sound good.

[@LabGecko]

@@omnimetabell Sure, it isn't a direct correlation, but I think the point he was making is that using the vehicle structure or fuselage to contain the energy that drives it is more efficient than adding another container, and more weight as a result. I think the analogy works for that.

[@FusionAero]

Agreed. Liquid fuel adds no structural strength, in fact it increases stress. They keep it in the wing because the fuel load is variable and gets lighter as it burns, and that's the largest structural void sitting on the center-of-gravity.

[@odnetnin4720]

Sounds like the end of the possibility of battery swapping.

[@dez7726]

they don't want you to own your car

[@MickH60]

Again, we are already talking about million mile batteries, I drive a lot of long distance, have owned the same car for 20 years and haven't quite reached 500,000 Kilometers, how many people do you know, for one, that do that many miles and for two, own just one car for that long ?

[@odnetnin4720]

@@MickH60 talk is not a million miles. For me a million mile car would have to last 66 years, I have yet to own a device with a battery that lasted 66 years. When it can be done that’s great, but in the meantime the right to repair should be defended.

[@BizAutomation]

You would never be able to replace battery packs, on a solution that has a limited number of cycles. Not ideal. I'll take the alternative approach.

[@TC-V8]

A failed battery would write the car off!

[@MichaelNNY]

Yeah imagine a phone that as an integrated battery. Cant even change it out when it goes bad or weakens, gotta throw out the phone. Nope! Separate batteries are the way to go.

[@adventurousloner]

Or, just line any structure with this type of battery for easy install and uninstall. It'll be like changing a phone's screen.

[@WhiteWolfos]

It makes sense for cars that already use carbon fiber as their chassis. Carbon fiber is slow and finicky to make so you'll likely never see it on affordable cars. CF also cannot be repaired once damaged.

[@bramza8853]

Okay I'm not an expert on this but I like free thinking so I would give it a shot. It's in the way the battery is made. Is it made as one big piece then it would be inrepairable, but what if we made small structure batteries that each resembles a part of the car and put them in a parralel order. Like for example the bumper of the car is broken. If you made the bumper as one car battery part you could replace the bumper of the car with a new one without having to demolish the rest of the car. When the batteries are out of their life cycles they could easily be replaced because we made small parts and not one big piece. Okay I understand that when you need to replace all the parts because the batteries ran out of their life cycles it would be very expensive. It al depends on the life cycle of these carbon fibers batteries. Maybe you could solve this by making the cars modular so that it is easy to remove parts from the cars structure and place in another structure. Make it easy to remove the engine in minutes and place in the the other car within minutes and that for every part of the car that isn't the structure. If it would be possible to remove everything from one car structure and place it in another car structure it would be groundbreaking by itself, but if we could made it with the right technology, tools and knowledge to happen in less than 1,5 hour it would be something that can become a key in the future for recycling and give this project a chance. The battery structure that will be left behind could be recycled so that nothing is wasted. I know this is a fake future scenario, but I think this could technology could work in the future if they can overcome the hurdles. What do you guys think of this? Did I make some mistakes (I'm a freethinker not an expert) or do you know a problem that I haven't faced yet? I comment this on multiple people btw to spark a conversation.

[@hiimapop7755]

I get its usefulness in cars, but for phones? That's something Apple would do to keep its products' reparability low. Hopefully it doesn't come to that (or the technology becomes repair-friendly) in the future.

[@-darnasek-1872]

I have a feeling these batteries will become the new life expectancy of many thing. Like what do you do when your structural battery isn't good anymore? You'll most likely change cars or whatever gadget your using.

[@emanate0]

those gains aren't enough to justify paying a whole lot more for carbon fiber

[@Kavriel]

Carbon fiber is expensive AF

[@davidmccarthy6061]

It will stay in the lab for a long time and then come out of specific uses.

[@GonzoDonzo]

Its funny, F1 turned to carbon fiber half a century ago because it was dirt cheap in comparison to aluminum. Maybe it was a supply and demand thing but i find it odd how it suddenly became a high end expensive product

[@jdockii]

Just imagine if there is a recall on a battery that’s bonded into the floor structure. That would make any repair practically impossible.

[@yourfriend5144]

Chalmers University Of Technology is where I study mechanical engineering. I have heard about this here in the university, but it is so cool to see it in your video as well.

[@jamesstricklerii5384]

One thing I didn't see mentioned about mass less batteries that would truly be a game changer is in the aerospace industry when operating in satellites, space stations, and orbital crafts. That's a HUGE improvement for this portion of the market, as every ounce carried into space costs more than gold, so this is extremely exciting and has much greater potential than just the mundane trappings of earth.

[@kenjudd3643]

Now they can layer a solar cell into the structure.

[@AaronSchwarz42]

NASA Helios // Solar Impulse // Lightspeed Solar Car Netherlands etc

[@iambliscanna1592]

Brilliant Application!

[@flcl64]

Sounds like he's missing the point of "What if it's in a collision?" The concern isn't whether it's safe or not, it's whether the car can be repaired and how expensive it would be. A fiberglass frame won't hold up like steel, and it's not easy to repair like steel either. Add the fact that it also powers the car and you end up with a really expensive, crumpled plastic car that won't run.

[@kevincornell1439]

don't forget the passible battery explosion from a simple fender bender. or hell bottoming out on a speed bump or pot hole. not to good of and idea to use unstable material for structural integrity lol.

[@xpen2007]

All these high integration and part reduction approaches these days stem from a very limited view on the problems automotive development faces. The biggest problems with these approaches are serviceability and recycling. A car with high integration or, as Tesla now does it, with big structural parts, results in very high insurance ratings because a small dent can cause a total damage easily. People tend to think that automotive research did not consider that before tesla came into the market, but they are very wrong. Tesla basically is making a lot of "noob" moves.

[@preston2603]

I wonder if the mechanical properties change with charge, I could see that being issue if your chassis starts to droop as you run out of power...

[@graphenepixel8231]

if they charge so fast, immagine the thud you'll hear, and how hot those cables get with high electrical currents like that.

[@neilbain8736]

So form over function and planned obsolescence every time there's a styling change.

[@cornpop7805]

Everyone knows that EV batteries degrade with use. In other words, batteries don't need to be damaged to need replacement. What happens when (not if) the battery's performance degrades to the point of necessary replacement? How much is it going to cost to completely strip down the vehicle and replace the chassis, in the case of Tesla's example?

[@UndecidedMF]

Tesla's upcoming batteries will most likely last the lifetime of the vehicle for typical usage. This type of battery (depending on chemistry and use case) could end up doing the same thing. It's still SUPER early days for this breakthrough, so time will tell.

[@cornpop7805]

@@UndecidedMF How the batteries are expected to perform and how the will actually perform are two different things. Go back and look at covers of old Popular Mechanics or Popular Science magazines, according to their speculations, we should all have jet-packs by now, but had no predictions aboun the internet. I want my damn jet-pack!

[@EpicTimeV7]

@@UndecidedMF what is the lifetime od Tesla? 10 years or less? Gas cars can be used for decades with maintenance. This is the same scheme like with cell phones. In early stages when battery died you bought new one and used your device for next few years. Later they made phones so you would need to buy new and throw old away. I would not be so enthusiastic. If they don't start to build cars that are long lasting and at least with option to repair by users or services, we will drown in trash. Right now it's almost impossible to repair Tesla. They don't sell parts and they themselves don't want to repair their cars. It's insane. The same guy is mumbling about climate crisis and selling products that could only be thrown away after few years. This is hipocrisy.

[@carholic-sz3qv]

@@UndecidedMF I'll have to disagree with you on that mate, also some cells can fail in the pack at a moment who knows, there are tousands of electronics in EVs anyways.

[@carholic-sz3qv]

@@EpicTimeV7 smartphones are also limited with their software, gas cars/diesel can work for the eternity if wanted, I still see 1970 mercedes used as taxi in Morocco and other very old cars around the world. There is also the problem with electronics, they don't last nearly as long as mechanical parts.

[@danmarquez3971]

Wow! Another great breakthrough!! Thanks for the video!

[@the_hanged_clown]

I'm reserving judgement unil thunderf00t addresses this...

[@matthewtalbot-paine7977]

Given that they didn't mention the MJ/kg in this video I'm going to guess that the energy density isn't very good. No doubt thunderfoot will make an hour long video out of it though.

[@thereinthetrees_5626]

@@matthewtalbot-paine7977 I cant remember when exactly, but im 99% sure they did, he mentioned how the density is about 20% of Lithium Ion

[@thereinthetrees_5626]

Im right along with you on that brother, he is my final word on "too good to be true" products like this

[@matthewtalbot-paine7977]

@@thereinthetrees_5626 ah right that sounds a lot lower...

[@thereinthetrees_5626]

@@matthewtalbot-paine7977 The argument for using it though, is that you don't need a battery in the first place, which throws a lot of weight off. And stuff you need in the first place, like body panels, could be made out of this, effectively, a "massless battery" because you are loosing weight while going for that style of battery

[@eco-techandtravel5258]

Can you explain ropeway transport system, it's sustainable? It accountable? Can this combine with gravity battery.

[@eco-techandtravel5258]

In specially forest and mountain are. And also Medline cable car system.

[@UndecidedMF]

It's a really cool piece of engineering. Added it to my list for consideration. Thanks for the suggestion!

[@sv595]

So Tesla has pretty much took a note out of Apple's book by making the battery unreplaceable; so when the battery degrades you have to through away a whole car and buy a new one.. Great idea to make extra profit for the company, not so good for customer's wallet.

[@vladimircurkoski1455]

Structural batteries would be a great addition to already existed batteries packs