Fisker makes luxury electric cars. They have filed a patents on breakthrough solid state batteries.
Fisker’s solid-state batteries will feature three-dimensional electrodes with 2.5 times the energy density of lithium-ion batteries. Fisker claims that this technology will enable ranges of more than 500 miles on a single charge and charging times as low as one minute—faster than filling up a gas tank. Fisker anticipates the technology to be automotive production grade ready from 2023 onwards.
Above – Fisker solid-state technology is capable of constructing bulk three-dimensional solid-state electrodes with 25 times more surface area than flat thin-film solid state electrodes and extremely high electronic and ionic conductivities, thereby enabling fast charging and cold temperature operation.
Current limitations in solid-state technology include low electrode current density, limited temperature ranges, limited materials availability, high costs and non-scalable manufacturing processes. Early results show that Fisker’s solid-state technology enables the construction of bulk three-dimensional solid-state electrodes with 25 times more surface area than flat thin-film solid-state electrodes and extremely high electronic and ionic conductivities—enabling fast charging and cold temperature operation.
Fisker’s battery delivers 2.5 times the energy density of typical lithium-ion batteries, with the potential of costing one third of the 2020 projected price of those batteries due to advances in materials and manufacturing.
Solid State batteries would also charge very quickly and should not have the fire issues with lithium ion batteries.
Toyota and Dyson are both planning to leapfrog Tesla with Solid state batteries in the 2020s.
SOURCES- Fisker. Greencar congress
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
20 thoughts on “Fisker patents breakthrough solid state batteries with 2.5 lithium ion energy density and one third the cost”
I’ll believe it when I see it. I’ve been following battery technology for years. None of this so far has paned out. All claims and no action.
Looks like patent challenge may be likely:
One minute charge – not likely.
2.5 times energy density – alternate ways may exist.
25 times surface area – miniaturization alone may not be protectable.
Alternate patents may be infringed.
Elec power generation & distribution system overload.
For that reason any fast recharge stations would need some large fast discharge batteries sitting there recharging themselves slowly from the grid between times they are charging the car battery.
The other options which are likely better are:
1) Battery swap stations
2) Plug in hybrid cars that have a liquid fueled motor/generator to take the car past the range provides by the battery
The higher the energy density of a battery gets, the more it gets to looking like an explosive. That’s kind of unavoidable, unless you’re going with something like a metal/air battery, where half of the chemical equation isn’t located in the battery.
So, 2.5 times the energy density, you can cram that energy in, in a few seconds, but can’t explode or catch fire? Yeah, right.
I suspect what they mean is that it doesn’t have the risk that current Lithium batteries have of exploding/fire under something approaching normal operating conditions. But all bets are still off if the car it’s in hits a bridge abutment at 50mph.
But that’s just as true of gasoline.
Tell that to diesel fuel and jet fuel, or plain coal. All of which have several times the energy density of Li-ion batteries.
This is completely wrong. Reactivity has nothing to do with energy density.
These solid electrolyte batteries are in fact much safer. You can puncture them cut them with a scissor an nothing of not will happen. The danger in contemporary batteries is the flammable liquid electrolyte and the potential for short circuits to form.
if the first vehicle with this battery isn’t in the light duty truck segment i’ll be disappointed.
Get ready to be disapointed.
I think refilling a 500 mile range battery in 1 minute is going to be a little bit dangerous. That is a fair piece of energy.
You are right. For example, for a 100 kw-h battery this means 6 MW of power (with 100% efficiency) injected in a car during this minute. If only a 10% of this power were “vented” during the process, 600 KW have to be cooled from the feeding point. I think this is more dangerous than refill a petrol car…
FYI, 600 kW will turn 1 litre of cold water to steam every 4,3 seconds, so need 13,8 litres to keep the cool while refueling.
But it will look awesome.
I get your point. Though I think that 90% efficiency for chargin is unrealistically bad.
But even at 99% efficiency you’ll need to do something with 60kW of energy. A four zone induction hob can only manage 7,2kW at full power.
If you inject such energy into the car by using 10 separate cables, and stored in 10 separated battery pack, it will be safer. You can connect battery packs together then start your car.
.. so.. then.. make it already?
Reminds me of a recent episode where in three hours of plot time the crew of the latest Star Trek show managed to crack Klingon cloaking devices.
Which is to say two things:
1. Trek writers have a bad habit of conjuring up miracle solutions.
2. In the real world it is hard to go from idea to mass produced product.
I thought this elec car company went out of business some years ago. I guess they didn’t actually die just ran the BK process to clean the books maybe?
Fisker went bankrupt and got bought out. Then the buyer stopped using the “Fisker” name, so Fisker is using it again. At least he isn’t trying to hide his role…
So. From failed car company to patent troll?
Comments are closed.