Fisker Patents Solid-State Battery Tech, Commercialization By 2023

4 days ago by Domenick Yoney 81

 500 miles of charge in a single minute would change everything

Henrik Fisker has been raising eyebrows as of late. While his eponymous auto company has been busy preparing for the official launch of the Fisker eMotion at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in January, patents for its flexible solid-state battery have come to light and are creating some buzz. This despite the fact that it may only begin storing energy in its cars five years hence.

Fisker

Exploded view of solid-state battery

Still, there’s good reason to be excited. The energy density gains by the technology, allowing for 500 miles of range, are already noteworthy. Add one-minute charging to the equation and we’re talking game over for internal combustion. For real, this time. No worries about street-side charging in urban centers if the current energy distribution infrastructure (gas stations, essentially) can be adopted for electric vehicles.

According to the AutoExpress, this battery is said to offer two-and-a-half times the energy density of today’s cells at one-third the price. (Now that is how you start a revolution!) To underline the point, and give us a bit more color on his flexible solid-state battery, Mr. Fisker made the most of his appearance on Fox Business alongside host Stuart Varney.

During the interview, Fisker mentions the not-so-minute detail that his battery may be picked up by consumer electronics manufacturers a year or two prior to its debut in one of his designs. (We all want a phone that recharges in a minute or less and lasts for a couple days, don’t we?) As well, he also said they would be bringing the latest version of the cells to CES, along with the car.

At the risk of burying the lede, we should note that Fisker gave some strong clues as to how this “Ultracharger,” as he refers to it, will interface with the vehicle. He explains that an automated cable would come up from the ground beneath the vehicle, allowing people to remain in the car whilst the pack is quickly replenished.

All in all, Fisker and his patents paint a picture of a technology with the potential to significantly and positively affect the lives of practically every human (and probably other species as well) on Earth. We wish him and this effort only the best, of course, though we should also acknowledge that this is not the only effort in this area. Toyota is thought to be the leader in solid-state battery research and, while not be able to reach its original production goal of 2020, may have its version of the technology ready as soon as 2022. Korean automaker Hyundai is also independently working on the tech.

Source: AutoExpress, Fox Business via YouTube

Tags: , , ,

81 responses to "Fisker Patents Solid-State Battery Tech, Commercialization By 2023"

  1. Terawatt says:

    Let’s hope less than 90% of their cars catch fire this time.

    I lost absolutely all respect I’d ever felt for Henrik Fisker because of the Karma. A worse posers car isn’t even possible. It was ALL about superficial looks and an awful car in every way. Even if the thing hadn’t been basically tinder it should never have been released in the first place. The space was cramped. They stuffed the battery in the tunnel meant for transmission in a RWD car, instead of using the opportunity to eliminate this space problem in fossil RWDs.

    I feel I’m getting agitated just thinking about it. I really hope this dude crashes and burns!!

    1. L'amaata says:

      I believe “NOTHING” this Snake Face has to say.

    2. ffbj says:

      I have to agree though that charging a battery that gives a car 500 miles of range in 1 minute is impressive, almost as impressive as a car that is turned into a pile of ashes in 15.

      1. Dan F. says:

        A 500 mi. range would mean about 150 kwh. 150 kwh in one minute would mean a 9 megawatt average charging rate (that’s 9,000,000 watts. Not gonna happen.

        1. Cavaron says:

          Well, electric Trains have 8MW electric motors and the cables above the rails can handle that kind of power pretty well. Even with several Trains on the same track.

          Just saying it’s far from impossible. But I find it hard to believe too.

        2. Nick says:

          Why not?

          Even a small 115kv line can deliver 10 mega watts over 100 miles.

          1. John M says:

            Yeah, but do you really believe these batteries will be anywhere near 100 kilovolts.

        3. Bill Howland says:

          “Not gonna happen”.

          Agreed, unless it is gov’t subsidized.

          In the real world people have to PAY for things they want. Trains and Busses that have large charging systems’ cost is amortized over the large numbers of passengers or freight they carry.

          But a HUGE EXPENSE for only one privately owned passenger vehicle? I’m in total agreement – not gonna happen.

          1. Asak says:

            I have to disagree about this. If the tech is actually viable, it will happen. Maybe it will start with 5-15 minute charging at first.

            Of course the operative word here is IF.

      2. L'amata says:

        Anybody Can Get a “BS” Patent this is just another way To “SUCK IN INVESTORS”..Cash in Pay Himself TONS of money In Bonuses , Wages & Dividends etc: Keeps On Taking until he Runs the Company into the Ground AGAIN ! Cashes Out & Laughs ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK….Leaves Investors Holding the Bag! That’s been track Record..

    3. goodbyegascar says:

      Bad Karma.

    4. Doug Nelson says:

      Be nice and have show some grace

  2. Tom says:

    You guys need to chill. The dude made a car you didn’t like and you never spent any money on it. Get over yourselves.

    1. super390 says:

      Too many battery scams. They’ve increased cynicism and reinforced the status quo. Fisker owed it to everyone to show real proof of both energy density and manufacturability.

      1. earl colby pottinger says:

        This! Because of wild claims like these there are lots of people saying all EVs are scams because they have already been burnt more than once by companies like these.

        The charge rate is unbelieveable because what it would cost to deliver compare what a 5-15 minute charger would cost.

  3. ffbj says:

    burying the (lead).

    1. Doggydogworld says:

      Lede is correct. I have no idea why.

      1. Domenick Yoney says:

        From Merriam-Webster: “In journalism, the lede refers to the introductory section of a news story that is intended to entice the reader to read the full story. It appears most frequently in the idiom bury the lede.”

  4. ffbj says:

    Not buying it.

  5. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Patents are definitely not an indication that a technology is real, let alone capable of being commercialized. Patents are often used to promote a startup company, or a business proposal, to unwary potential investors. That’s even more true in the field of high-tech batteries; a field filled with an astonishingly high amount of claims which are complete and total B.S.

    EEStor filed several patents, too, for its “magic battery”… all of which are worthless.

    If Fisker claims commercialization by 2023, well that’s exactly what every battery startup claims: Commercialization in five years. (Or in this case, five years + two months.) It’s nothing but an expression of hope, and likely no better hope than the hundreds of similar claims we’ve seen over the past several years, none of which lead anywhere.

  6. mhpr262 says:

    A battery with enough capacity to move a full sized car 500 miles and it can be charged in a minute? I very much doubt the cables and connnectors required for that even exist, at least not in a size that can still be built into a car and still be handled by one person.

    1. Robotic Charging Connection, per the statement “He explains that an automated cable would come up from the ground beneath the vehicle, allowing people to remain in the car whilst the pack is quickly replenished.”

      Note: “automated cable”, hence ‘Robotics’ for ‘Handling’ the connection, not Human Handling.

      Still, a (Fisker) Man should have a Dream! We just say: “Don’t TELL US, SHOW US!”

  7. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    The article claims:

    “Still, there’s good reason to be excited. The energy density gains by the technology, allowing for 500 miles of range, are already noteworthy. Add one-minute charging to the equation and we’re talking game over for internal combustion. For real, this time.”

    Hmmm… “For real, this time”?

    Well, I remember how excited and gushing the first InsideEVs article was about Faraday Future… and how I got castigated by several people posting comments for expressing strong skepticism over FF’s over-the-top claims.

    Before proclaiming “For real, this time”, let’s wait to see the results of a third-party test of this latest claim for a “magic battery”. Without any such testing, there’s no reason to believe these claims are any more real than EEStor’s claims were.

    1. Ambulator says:

      There are a lot of warning signs here.

      Henrik is not a battery researcher. Who developed this?

      A comparison is made against existing battery energy density, which is a classic trick. They want you to think “current batteries are 600 Wh/l, so these will be 1500 Wh/l, and if they are comparing with the most advanced battery, even more.” But they are actually using obsolete 300 Wh/l batteries in the comparison, or even less.

      While the chemistry might allow charging it in one minute, no car will actually do that. It’s a meaningless number used to hype the stock.

      It’s announced on a business show, where the interviewer knows nothing about batteries. It would be much more effective to announce it in some technical venue unless the main purpose is to get investments.

      Still, I’m always hopeful. I just wouldn’t invest in Henrik’s company until he shows iron clad proof this works.

      1. Also, while a tiny ‘Button Cell’, in testing, might be chargable in a Lab, in one minute, is no Guarantee that even a Cordless Drill Sized pack of the same cells can also, safely, be charged in a Minute, let alone 100+ kWh packs!

      2. Doggydogworld says:

        The UCLA group that founded Nanotech Energy is developing Fisker’s graphene-based battery. They’re legit and have published their research in tech journals. Scaling graphene production up, however, will be a huge challenge.

        http://auvac.org/newsitems/view/2986

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Looks like multiple instances of the “honor by association” fallacy in that press release.

          Sure, graphene-coated electrodes offer an order of magnitude (or two) improvement in energy density for secondary batteries. And yes, those have been demonstrated in laboratory samples.

          But if merely demonstrating a “magic battery” in a laboratory sample was sufficient to transform the industry, then it would have happened decades or even centuries ago.

  8. Someone out there says:

    Now that sounds fantastic but I don’t trust a word that comes out of this guy’s mouth. I want 3rd party verification before I pop the champagne.

  9. Nix says:

    Cool. Now let’s see the test cells and FULL specifications documented with third party test results.

    1. William says:

      If you went to all that “trouble”, then this “Henrick Hoax”, would make the headlines on “Faux Business NEWS”.

  10. Roy LeMeur says:

    “500 miles of charge in one minute.” This is ridiculous on the face of it. This is an “impossible” amount of current. Only folks who are totally clueless would ever buy this claim.

    Let’s do the math quickly using nice round numbers and not taking into account “any” efficiency or transmission losses.

    I used these numbers. Please double-check me. I am an idiot.

    500 miles.
    300 Whs per mile.
    400 volt system.

    I came up with 22,500 amps for one minute. (Or 12,000+ horsepower for one minute)

    The current is “still” ridiculous even if you increase system voltage to 1000V (wattage remains the same).

    1. Dan says:

      He is making ridiculous claim, the prototype is a miniscule lab sample. Remember the room temperature 30 years ago? Where is it now?

      1. Dan says:

        He is playing the patent game to green mail all the serious big name manufacturers! Nothing special about this battery!

      2. Dan says:

        Room temperature superconductors

        1. ffbj says:

          Right. I had to think for a second, and then scrolled down, along with cold fusion, and so many others.

        2. Per “Only folks who are totally clueless would ever buy this claim.”, is that like the Flat Earth Video that showed an Amateur Rocket ‘Hit’ the Dome above the Earth? 😀

    2. John says:

      You Americans should stop using horsepower where it doesn’t belong. What’s the horsepower of your phone?

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “What’s the horsepower of your phone?”

        Irrelevant, since as the microprocessors used for both the phones and the equipment in cellphone towers become more efficient, they become cheaper and use less energy.

        Not so much with a passenger vehicle. It takes a lot of energy — or horsepower — to hurl the car down the highway at 75+ MPH, and improving the efficiency of the electronics beyond the already very efficient technology currently in use, is not going to substantially reduce the required power.

        How many newtons or joules does your car’s motor put out? …and who cares?

        1. Dan F. says:

          Better to use kilowatts. 1 hp = 760 ft. lb./sec.= 760 watts. See above: I estimated a charging rate of 9000 kw basically the same as 12,000 hp. noted here. Ridiculous nonsense as is everything else in this ‘article”.

          1. Bill Howland says:

            “…Better to use kilowatts. 1 hp = 760 ft. lb./sec.= 760 watts”.

            Wrong. You are engaging in Pig-Latin. Torque per second is a meaningless term since it gives no relation to the speed of the shaft. If the shaft is locked solid, placing 760 ft-lbs of torque on it for one second will expel ZERO energy at a rate of ZERO power.

            The real figure is 1 Horsepower is 550 pounds at 1 ft/ second, or 33,000 pounds at 1 ft/ minute.

            To correlate Torque with Horsepower, you can do it this way:

            A 1 HP, 1725 RPM motor (very common induction motor speed in 60 HZ areas (what we used to call Cycles-per-second (again, easily visualized) HERTZ used to be where you rented cars) = 3 ft lbs, or 36 inch pounds of torque at that speed.

            Therefore a 1/3 hp, 1725 RPM motor (think your furnace blower) would be providing exactly 1 ft-pound of torque at that speed.

            1. arne-nl says:

              “You are engaging in Pig-Latin. Torque per second is a meaningless term “

              And then you arrive at the same units: pounds * feet / sec (or feet * pounds / sec) that’s the same.

              ft.lb is force over a distance which denotes energy. Energy per second is power.

              Your confusion is that ft.lb is mostly used for expressing torque.

              But you can actually use it for both: torque AND energy.

        2. jimjfox says:

          He means, I think Pu-Pu that horse power is an obsolete term particularly inapt for things electrical, where power has ALWAYS been expressed in Watts or multiples thereof.
          OR milli-Ampere hours for low power DC devices like mobile phones; even in USA your phone battery is marked thus, is it not?
          It’s the old chestnut of USA being the [only?] country not to convert fully to the S.I. unit system? Though ‘Imperial’ units are still used in many ‘metric’ countries, mixed in with SI.

          Educating the young in SI is the answer, which will be accepted as we old farts fall off the perch. Which is 1.83m/6ft off the ground…

          1. jimjfox says:

            PS- not sure about ‘ALWAYS’!

          2. Bill Howland says:

            Jimifox my father always LOVED the metric system (even got the speedometers changed in his cars to metric scales back when they were difficult to obtain), whereas I have always strongly advocated for the English System (at this point only rarely used in the UK. USA is the last hold out).

            The Metric System is always based on mostly powers of ten, so you’d think it would be easy. But if you haven’t grown up with it, not so.

            The beauty of the english system is that the units relate to COMMON everyday items.

            Power: HORSEPOWER (746 watts in the US, 736 watts for the PS ‘pony power’ in Germany) – based on the amount of work the average London draw horse could do over a 4 hour shift.

            Torque: Foot-or-Inch Pounds. Pound force at a common radius distance.

            Enthalpy: BTU or British Thermal Unit – The amount of heat added to 1 POUND of water to raise it 1 degree fahrenheit.

            COOLING: TONS. 1 TON of cooling is 288,000 btu/day – namely the cooling power available from a refrigeration machine equivalent to 2000 pounds of ice changing from 32 degree F ice to 32 degree water over 24 hours.

            Volume: Fluid Ounce: volume of 1/16th of a pound of water (roughly). Or for large volumes, Cubic Feet (1728 cubic inches).

            Ounce – 1/16th of a pound.

            Now yes, over the centuries there have been plenty of variations – for instance in the states we weigh ourselves in Avoir-dupois pounds and ounces, where as the factors are all different with precious metal weightings such as Troy Ounces.

            But things such as pressure are easily visualized by someone growing up in the USA. When my tire (or TYRE – if you prefer), say to inflate to 40 Pounds per square inch, I can visualize the area of a square 1″ on a side, and the weight of 40 pounds.

            The weight of the atmosphere, at 14.7 PSI, is easily visualized as to exactly what it means.

            Not so much 101,000 pascals.

            This probably explains why BAR or TORR is used for atmospheres worldwide – at least there you have something you can visualize. 760 mm of Mercury column? Not so easy.

          3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            jimjfox said:

            “He means, I think Pu-Pu that horse power is an obsolete term particularly inapt for things electrical, where power has ALWAYS been expressed in Watts or multiples thereof.”

            Sure, I agree that the power of an electric motor would be better expressed in kW rather than HP, but only because HP requires conversion to/from the units of measure which are standard in electrical engineering, and not because it is or is not “obsolete”. But the comment I was responding to didn’t even mention kW, and was off on rather a different tangent.

            P.S. — I don’t want to make an issue out of it, but if you don’t mind, my preferred diminutives are “Pushy” or “PMPU”, not “Pu-Pu”. Thanks.

      2. Roy LeMeur says:

        I tend to use horsepower because it is something that Joe Sixpak in the USA can relate to. Most people can’t even define nor understand what a Watt or Watt-hour is.

        I use this one a lot because it illustrates to folks that they need to grasp this stuff- “Not knowing a Watt from a Watt-hour is like a car salesman not knowing the difference between horsepower and how much fuel the fuel tanks holds.”

        1. Oh, Come On! Per “Not knowing a Watt from a Watt-hour is like a car salesman not knowing the difference between horsepower and how much fuel the fuel tanks holds.”

          Every Salesman knows the answer to that! The Gas Tank holds ‘A Tank Full’ of Gas, that you can buy anywhere! 😀 😛

          THAT, us why Wh mean nothing to them! ;÷)

          1. Bill Howland says:

            Robert Weekley that is an arrogant statement.

            Most car buyers know vaguely what a Horsepower is.

            They know their Lawnmower isn’t 400 hp, while their family car is 3 1/2.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      I didn’t bother to check your numbers, but I remember some detailed discussion of the subject on the old EEStory forum. A charger capable of charging, let’s say, 300 miles in 10 minutes, should be capable of being built in a cost-effective manner, if high voltage charging is allowed.

      But a 1 minute charge is, as you say, not a practical goal. It would take far too much money to build that powerful a commercial charging system. And if someone did build it, there’s no way they could possibly make a profit charging that fast. Both the equipment and the charge from the local electrical utility for that high a level of power, would be cost-prohibitive.

      Once you get the charging time down below, let’s say, 5-6 minutes, then spending even more money on equipment to reduce the charging time by another minute becomes pretty pointless. Despite a lot of EV haters whining about EVs not being able to charge in the 2 minutes it takes to fill up a gasmobile’s fuel tank, few if any customers are going to be willing to pay a substantial surcharge just to save 4-5 minutes once every week or so.

      Remember, the reason most gas stations are now self-service is because customers can save a few cents per gallon over a full-service station! Are these same customers who prefer to pump their own gas just to save a buck or so on a fill up, gonna pay 30% or 50% or 100% or even more for a 1-minute or 2-minute charge vs., say, a 6-minute charge? Nope! Definitely not.

      1. Amperaguy says:

        There you have it. It is technically possible to make chargers and automated connectors for insane power levels, but it quicly becomes cost prohibitive.

        There are interesting diminishing returns. Getting charge time down from 5 minutes to 3 minutes takes higher power increase than getting down from 10 minutes to 5 minutes. Likely higher cost increase too. But those 2 minutes saved are way less significant for consumer.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Exactly, thank you.

          For each additional minute saved in charging time, the cost increases exponentially, but the value perceived by the customer increases linearly, or nearly so. At some point, as you say, you hit the limit of diminishing returns, and there’s no longer any commercial value in reducing the charging time any more. Will that limit be at 10 minutes? 5 minutes? I dunno. But that limit is certainly going to come before charging times get down to 2 minutes, let alone 1 minute!

          1. Doggydogworld says:

            Tesla just built a 40 stall Supercharger between LA and Vegas. It can charge 40 cars to 80% in 40 minutes. A single automated “Ultracharger” could also charge 40 cars in 40 minutes.

            Which would be cheaper to build?

            1. Bill Howland says:

              Answer: Obviously the way Tesla did it with 20 Supercharger bays – since they use the same equipment in the states that they use for the car chargers in the states.

              Obviously if the single Megacharger was cheaper they would have done it that way. But they didn’t because it is not.

              I’d think that would be obvious.

              If no one can afford the car, no one will buy it. A model “S” is expensive enough as it is.

            2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Doggydogworld said:

              “A single automated “Ultracharger” could also charge 40 cars in 40 minutes.

              “Which would be cheaper to build?”

              We’ve been ignoring half of the practical limit: Not only must the charger be capable of charging the car in 1 minute, the electrical system inside the car has to be capable of handling the power needed to charge the car in 1 minute!

              Perhaps I’m being short-sighted, but I just can’t see any auto maker mass producing a car capable of being charged in 1 minute; not now, and not in the future. Again, it’s not that the engineering is impossible, it’s that it’s much too expensive to justify the benefit.

              Add in the cost necessary to build the cars capable of charging that fast, and Super-Duper-Mega-Hyper-Ultracharging will be far more expensive, even if it uses only a single charger.

              (The logistical challenge of organizing a system whereby a line of cars could literally, in the real world, be charged in 1 minute, without any time wasted unplugging one car and plugging in the next, is left as an exercise for the student. Obviously that would require, at the very least, multiple charging cables; so the claim here for a “single” charger is at best questionable.)

              1. Bill Howland says:

                Another content-less clueless paragraph.

                “without any time wasted… is left for an exercise by the student”.

                Kindergartner self-styled College Professor Pushi is implying he already knows the answer.

                Uh, CHIEF, that’s not the problem here.

    4. Foob says:

      Sure, but it’s irrelevant to Fisker’s claim, which is about batteries. He reckons he has a battery with high energy density that can charge at 60C. That the infrastructure to support that doesn’t exist isn’t enough to falsify that. That the claim is being made by Henrik Fisker on the other hand…

  11. bjrosen says:

    2.5X energy density improvement for solid state batteries is in line with everyone else’s claims and the time frame is reasonable. However 1 minute charging time is terrifying. Assuming that means 50KWh delivered in a minute that’s 3MW, if that’s a 200A cable you would need 15KV, if it’s a 1000A over a solid copper bar then it’s still be 3KV * 1000A, really really scary. Also completely unnecessary for a car with 500 miles of range. It’s really hard to drive 500 miles in a day and unless you have some sort of super bladder you can’t make that trip without a couple of 15 minute rest stops so there is plenty of time to recharge at a reasonable rate

    1. K says:

      Indeed :The length of a trip should be directly related to the human bladder

      1. After All these Years, is there no Data, Formula, or Principle to understand this?

        Maybe some observations by a group if High School Students could gather a few hours empirical data?

        Set aside 1 day per year in all High Schools, Students go 1/2 to City Gas Stations, 1/2 to Freeway Service Center Gas Stations: Time the customers time out of their car, how long at the Pumps, plus how long away getting food, coffee, or using the washrooms!

        Ask them how many miles or hours they have driven today, and how many to go by days end; how many restroom and food breaks they will take over their trip!

        We could distill this reasonably quick, at the School Level, and a bit longer at a State Level, then at a National Level!

        1. For myself, even on a 4 Hour long Trip, I usually split it into a 2 leg hop, with a restroom &/or a Snack Break at 2 Hours. Not always, but usually!

          On Very long Drives, I seldom go over 3 Hours per leg, before breaks! Irrelevant to needing Gas, and in addition to, depending on the car!

          1. John Norris says:

            I rarely travel more than 1.25 hours without a break. All part of my “life in the slow lane” strategy as I get older 🙂

    2. Dan F. says:

      50 kwh would be more like 150 – 200 miles. Tesla model S does +/- 300 miles on 100 kwh. The electric motors are already 90+ % efficient at converting electric energy into work so no real room for gain there.

    3. FakeFisker says:

      50Kwh ??
      30Kwh Leaf does 107 miles (EPA)
      So lets try again with 5x that, which is 150kwh, or 3x your value, and we get even more ridiculously high numbers.

      And as you said, everyone should stop at 2-3 hours. For toilet, relaxing, stretching, oh and possibly charging 🙂

    4. floydboy says:

      Arc flash anyone?

  12. silversod says:

    Why is everything always a never ending 5 years away?

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Because five years is the maximum amount of time most investors are willing to wait to see a return on their investment. If a startup predicts it will take more than 5 years to see a return on investment, then they will have a very hard time finding investors.

      It’s always been that way. I found the nonfiction book A Thread Across the Ocean: The Heroic Story of the Transatlantic Cable to be fascinating reading. The principal in that startup had a very hard time finding investors, despite the obvious potential for huge profits, precisely because he could not realistically predict that it would take as short a time as 5 years to complete the project. Well, at least not the first couple (or three or four) times they tried. Later on, using new tech, maybe the final and successful effort took less than 5 years.

      https://www.amazon.com/Thread-Across-Ocean-Heroic-Transatlantic/dp/0060524464

    2. Bill Howland says:

      Not everything is 5 years away. Climate Change FORECASTS are almost always 50 years away.

      Reason? People will conveniently FORGET the dire predictions made 50 years earlier.

      1. Ambulator says:

        Sure, they’ll be too busy dealing with the awful future.

      2. Mark.ca says:

        If i were you I wouldn’t be worried either, Bill. You will be long gone by the time your kids will be dealing with this future problem. Maybe that’s a good thing…

        1. Bill Howland says:

          I’ve covered all this area before. It is too sophisticated a subject to bring up in this forum.

          Too many people can’t understand what a 230 MPG VOLT is… No chance for any deeper concept.

          50 years ago the worry was about “Global Cooling”. Just look at Time Magazine covers at the time.

          1. Foob says:

            But be careful not to look in reviewed journals because you won’t find it there.

      3. Asak says:

        Yeah, too bad we’re already dealing with the effects today.

  13. Rich says:

    1 min. charge time. LOL. While I would never trust a word out of his mouth, I remain hopeful that solid state battery tech is moving forward and will be commercially available in the 2022/2023 time frame.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      I certainly hope so! But it’s unrealistic to the point of being almost mathematically impossible to believe that the first commercial use of solid state batteries would be in a production EV. The first use will almost certainly come in a cellphone or a laptop or some other consumer electronic device(s) where frequent charging is a necessity.

      Jay Cole says it takes about 5 years to design a completely new model of car. That can be rushed somewhat, but it can’t be rushed that much; certainly it can’t be rushed to the point that it would be faster than designing and producing a new type of cell phone!

      And you couldn’t just yank the existing battery pack out of a production EV and shove in a solid-state battery pack. It doesn’t work that way. An EV has to be designed to work with a specific battery pack.

      I feel confident in predicting that we can safely wait until after we see practical solid state batteries working reliably in some mass produced consumer electronic device, before we have good cause to start getting excited about the possibility of an EV powered by solid state batteries.

  14. jake brake says:

    Fisker doesnt have this tech, they are just working towards it because it would be cool if they did

  15. JR says:

    After 10 years of headlines about battery breakthrough, you get a bit reluctant.
    But solid state battery has been in the labs for some time, Sakti3, was the first time i heard about it, and the dobbeling in capacity, does not sound unachievable, and mass production does drive prices down.
    how i understand on the video, the car has to drive over a plate for charging, so i think it is charged by induction, and battery pack may have 6- 8 battery modules if the car have seperate induction plates for each battery modul, this could be very fast, 1 minut is just to good to be true, but 5 minutes doesn’t seem far of, and then you have just enough time for a pie before you continue your trip!

    1. John Norris says:

      I always have a pie when I stop on a long journey 🙂

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        MR. TWEEDY: What is it?

        MRS. TWEEDY: It’s a pie machine, you idiot. Chickens go in, pies come out.

        MR. TWEEDY: Ooh. What kind of pies?

        MRS. TWEEDY: Apple.

        MR. TWEEDY: My favourite!

        MRS. TWEEDY: Chicken pies, you great lummox!

        — “Chicken Run” (2000)

  16. Bill Howland says:

    If this was from a more serious person I’d believe it – besides Fisker’s Forte is in styling beautiful cars, not in the nuts and bolts of making them actually work.

    I test drove a Fisker Karma 2 or 3 times when it was still available, and noticed each time they had a problem with the Drive Inverter ‘COGGING’ the motor when parking.

    Any other manufacturer would have fixed this at once trivial, yet annoying problem in a $100K car.

    Now this guy is going to do 9000 kw (theoretical) charging of a car?

    So he is going to do this, yet did NOT know that if you don’t put a $4 fuseholder in the radiator fan circuit you’ll burn down peoples’ garages.

Leave a Reply