If solid state batteries are better, why aren't they already in cars? A glance into the future at initiatives that might be?
If solid state batteries are better, why don't we have them in cars now?
Two reasons: cost and cost (and size).
This is the third and final installment in the three-parter on solid state batteries. I want to talk now about why it is that solid state batteries aren't in everything right now if they're better.
The short answer is, again despite the wads of cash that people are throwing at companies like the one in Louisville that I mentioned in post 1, we are not there yet on solid state batteries. I.e. the theory has been around a long time now, but the technology to make them cheaply and to avoid some of the problems is not there yet.
Let's back up a step and get a quick reminder as to the dynamics inside a battery. Lithium and ions have been chosen because the chemical reactions involving lithium and other things give a higher voltage than other chemical reactions (my comparison being to the traditional automotive battery which reacts lead and sulfuric acid). Outside of that, the performance of a battery is influenced by design.
That's no different when we come to solid state batteries. The voltage in the battery (how hard it can push on the electrons) is controlled mostly by the choice of lithium and its reaction partners, but, as often happens, when engineers and designers got motivated to start looking at solid state batteries, they start finding ways to maximize what we have now.
Problems remain now from both categories. You have problems related to the chemical/electrical processes of solid state batteries (for example, finding materials that work well even when it's cold and dealing with the expansion that solid state batteries undergo** when being used). There are also problems related to the pragmatic concerns involved in manufacturing.
One approach to design challenges has been to move from thicker (what are termed "bulk") materials to thinner ones. That is, batteries with the same essential chemistry, but made with thin films of materials instead of thicker ones . See screenshot 1 attached for a schematic drawing from the thesis linked first below.
Quick aside, be aware here that "thin" and "bulk" (thick) batteries are relative. Thick might be 0.00001 m and thin might be 0.0000001 m.
That is what the company out here in Colorado is working on and the thin film technology does hold promise compared to other ways you can set up solid state batteries. Look again at the screenshot. With a thinner electrolyte to move through, it's easier to get current to flow here. The problems associated with this, however, are finding materials that have the right electrical properties at this scale and figuring out how to cheaply manufacture things this thin.
This doesn't mean that the problems can't be overcome. It does mean, however, that the solution will involve (at least in the short term) high costs. To get a sense, I'm going to return to the power point I put up in part 2. If you are interested in lots more detail, check it out starting on page 46. It will be enough for us to pull up an indicative screenshot.
See screenshot 2. That is the biggest impediment. Thin films and the potential to make them cheaply hold promise. They will also improve the function of EV's, we know this to a near certainty. The thing is, the thin film batteries come at a cost that goes well beyond what the term "prohibitive" could be applied to.
Everything I've seen so far points to us being years to a decade away from thin film batteries being cheap enough and reliable enough to take the place of current battery technology for things like EV's.
A decade's a long time.
That's it. If you have any questions about solid state or thin film solid state batteries, please add to the comment
**A curious thing about solid state batteries: as you use them, they start to expand. A clear indication that the products of the reaction giving rise to free electric charges take up more room than the chemicals that are there are the start!
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320169965_Probing_Li-ion_transport_in_Sulfide-based_solid-state_batteries
https://ehcar.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/rapport206-1.pdf
A glance into the future at initiatives that might be?
I had a couple of articles on initiatives (in addition to a recent email--I'm on the update list for initiatives), and that spurred me to take a pass through the Secretary of State's Initiative Tracker site. It's linked first below for reference with the articles following.
The two articles linked below detail a couple of initiatives that I can't find on the initiative tracker: I don't see either a measure that anyone is putting out there to fund a passenger rail line from Pueblo to Ft. Collins nor do I see one about preventing any sort of natural gas ban.
I'd be almost inclined to say that neither has popped yet, but I can't help but wonder. You see, in the CPR article on the natural gas ban it says that the natural gas initiative might be a bargaining chip to get the environmental group that was pursuing an initiative to stop oil and gas drilling to go away. That is, they proposed this initiative to scare off the one on oil and gas drilling.
Given that the oil and gas drilling initiatives were withdrawn (see screenshot 1 attached from the Initiative Tracker site), the absence of the natural gas ban might indeed make sense.
Then I look further up on the site to the things that are moving along (see screenshot 2) in the process and see stuff about fracking and oil/gas**, so I'm not so sure.
Time will tell I suppose; after all, none of these are going to be on the 2023 ballot and there's time yet.
What, so far, does have a chance to make it to the ballot? Take a look at screenshot 3. I've read through these three and hope they get out for signatures.
Let me close with a quick note from behind the scenes.
Focus in with me on Initiative 31, the one that would reduce state income tax. The Title Board set the title as in screenshot 4. Look at that sticky little word I underlined in red, the word "will".
This measure WILL (absolutely, positively, with no room for doubt or possibility of any other outcome will) reduce government revenue.
If the wording boxed in red looks familiar it ought to. It's not only something that many object to, it's not only the subject of rehearings in front of the Title Board, it's the subject of a current lawsuit. There was a law in 2021 that required this particular wording be included in any initiative that would lower taxes (see the fourth link below).
The reason why it causes heartburn is pretty easy to explain: not all tax rate reductions result in a loss of overall revenue to the government. And, it is not guaranteed that kittens and orphans and butterflies will suffer (sorry, the actual language is just as sympathetic, if not as overblown, it's the schools and health care that will suffer).
Whether or not any particular line item does or does not lose any funding is up to the Assembly. It's a choice they make and it's not automatic.
Hence the lawsuit. I wish them luck (and they may have a decent chance seeing as how they went to Federal court instead of the Colorado "Rubberstamp for Liberal Policy" State Supreme Court.
I will keep watching initiatives and report as I hear more. Keep watching here (and come across something important) for more.
**Quick aside: note that this concerns fracking used to extract oil and gas. Fracking for things like geothermal energy are perfectly fine. That kind of fracking (quoting from the initiative's own declaration of purpose) doesn't apparently contribute " ... significantlyto water shortages and degradation, ozone pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, which leadto increased drought, wildfires, and dangerous air quality, which results in significant harm topublic health and safety, agriculture, winter sports, and other sectors of our economy;" Just FYI.
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/
https://www.cpr.org/2023/08/30/fossil-fuel-advocates-stop-natural-gas-ban-2024-ballot-measure/
https://www.cpr.org/2023/08/31/gov-polis-pushing-for-front-range-rail-vote-in-2024/
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts/lawsuit-challenges-required-language-description-of-colorado-ballot-measures/article_2e1d44aa-3159-11ee-9b13-878c8209eb36.html