News
Solid State Battery Technology, a Tesla Gigafactory Killer?
With 2014 coming to an end, automotive battery news has been trickling out and solid state battery technology appears, again.
In early December, Volkswagen acquired a small equity stake in Stanford-based QuantumScape and Daimler recently announced that its lithium production output will be larger in 2015 due to a new battery plant in Kamenz, Germany, said to be ready by mid-2015.
The VW news keeps the the solid state battery thread for 2014 going as scientists point to its reported improved energy density over lithium-ion technology. A solid state battery does not use a liquid electrolyte like a lithium battery does and, in theory, a solid electrolyte can hold more energy. Yes, please.
Getting rid of an electrolyte—no liquid—can also improve battery safety and reduce costs due to less cooling electronics and micro-controllers needed for pack management, thus reducing weight too, according to Harvard Business Review.
What about downsides to this technology? A solid-state battery has electrical contacts or, electrodes, that are applied to a solid electrolyte—similar to a thin-film solar panel process—and if there’s a lack of uniformity in this process, it can cause short circuits. However, this type of manufacturing application has been done in the thin-film solar area and these obstacles should be easy to overcome.
The evolution of battery technology according to Satki3. Source: Satki3
Earlier this year, Scientific American did a profile on Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Sakti3 and their push with solid-state battery technology and move closer to the “god” battery.
Ann Marie Sastry, co-founder and CEO of the company, said, “that the company’s prototype solid-state lithium battery cells have reached a record energy density of 1,143 Watt-hours per liter—more than double the energy density of today’s best lithium-ion batteries.”
However, as Elon Musk said in the most recent Tesla earnings call,
“Talk is super cheap, the battery industry has to have more BS in it than any industry I’ve ever encountered. It’s insane.”
So is this technology an immediate challenger to Tesla Motors’ Gigafactory strategy? Will this battery technology get ahead of Tesla, due its battery equipment investment at the Gigafactory being close to complete and, thus, no turning back?
No and the reason is battery development takes a lot of time and these recent statements by Sakti3 in the Scientific American article bear this out.
Sakti3 says it’s close to the end of lab work—custom prototype manufacturing line—but then the next step is on to small scale production and this could take a another year or two of testing before you hit mass production.
That rules out GM going with this type of battery for their mass-produced battery electric vehicle for 2016 or 2017. Plus, Sakti3 mentioned its first aim is small-scale electronics and smartphones.
More importantly, JB Straubel and Tesla Motors aren’t looking for the God battery for 2017. Everyone seems to be looking for this right chemistry to scale with at this point. Granted, these are big automakers that could scale quickly as long their company culture is rowing in the same direction.
Tesla has their battery composition set and plan to cut 30 percent or more of costs out of their current battery price, which stands anywhere from $260 to maybe $220 kWh. Take the high end and with the cost savings, the battery pack is at $185 kWh, approximately.
That’s just over $10,000 for a battery pack for a 55kWh battery pack—assumption 30% battery cost reduction translates to battery pack. Also, my assumption above is that a Gen 3 car will be smaller and could get 220 miles with a smaller battery pack.
The rub for me is that the roadmap is in place for Tesla Motors battery chemistry and this should get them to a mass-market electric vehicle, first. Maybe other automakers are close to a new chemistry, but automotive testing and applications take time.
In the end, I’m all for the god battery sooner rather than later but Tesla Motors just isn’t waiting for it.
Elon Musk
SpaceX issues statement on Starship V3 Booster 18 anomaly
The incident unfolded during gas-system pressure testing at the company’s Massey facility in Starbase, Texas.
SpaceX has issued an initial statement about Starship Booster 18’s anomaly early Friday. The incident unfolded during gas-system pressure testing at the company’s Massey facility in Starbase, Texas.
SpaceX’s initial comment
As per SpaceX in a post on its official account on social media platform X, Booster 18 was undergoing gas system pressure tests when the anomaly happened. Despite the nature of the incident, the company emphasized that no propellant was loaded, no engines were installed, and personnel were kept at a safe distance from the booster, resulting in zero injuries.
“Booster 18 suffered an anomaly during gas system pressure testing that we were conducting in advance of structural proof testing. No propellant was on the vehicle, and engines were not yet installed. The teams need time to investigate before we are confident of the cause. No one was injured as we maintain a safe distance for personnel during this type of testing. The site remains clear and we are working plans to safely reenter the site,” SpaceX wrote in its post on X.
Incident and aftermath
Livestream footage from LabPadre showed Booster 18’s lower half crumpling around the liquid oxygen tank area at approximately 4:04 a.m. CT. Subsequent images posted by on-site observers revealed extensive deformation across the booster’s lower structure. Needless to say, spaceflight observers have noted that Booster 18 would likely be a complete loss due to its anomaly.
Booster 18 had rolled out only a day earlier and was one of the first vehicles in the Starship V3 program. The V3 series incorporates structural reinforcements and reliability upgrades intended to prepare Starship for rapid-reuse testing and eventual tower-catch operations. Elon Musk has been optimistic about Starship V3, previously noting on X that the spacecraft might be able to complete initial missions to Mars.
Investor's Corner
Tesla analyst maintains $500 PT, says FSD drives better than humans now
The team also met with Tesla leaders for more than an hour to discuss autonomy, chip development, and upcoming deployment plans.
Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) received fresh support from Piper Sandler this week after analysts toured the Fremont Factory and tested the company’s latest Full Self-Driving software. The firm reaffirmed its $500 price target, stating that FSD V14 delivered a notably smooth robotaxi demonstration and may already perform at levels comparable to, if not better than, average human drivers.
The team also met with Tesla leaders for more than an hour to discuss autonomy, chip development, and upcoming deployment plans.
Analysts highlight autonomy progress
During more than 75 minutes of focused discussions, analysts reportedly focused on FSD v14’s updates. Piper Sandler’s team pointed to meaningful strides in perception, object handling, and overall ride smoothness during the robotaxi demo.
The visit also included discussions on updates to Tesla’s in-house chip initiatives, its Optimus program, and the growth of the company’s battery storage business. Analysts noted that Tesla continues refining cost structures and capital expenditure expectations, which are key elements in future margin recovery, as noted in a Yahoo Finance report.
Analyst Alexander Potter noted that “we think FSD is a truly impressive product that is (probably) already better at driving than the average American.” This conclusion was strengthened by what he described as a “flawless robotaxi ride to the hotel.”
Street targets diverge on TSLA
While Piper Sandler stands by its $500 target, it is not the highest estimate on the Street. Wedbush, for one, has a $600 per share price target for TSLA stock.
Other institutions have also weighed in on TSLA stock as of late. HSBC reiterated a Reduce rating with a $131 target, citing a gap between earnings fundamentals and the company’s market value. By contrast, TD Cowen maintained a Buy rating and a $509 target, pointing to strong autonomous driving demonstrations in Austin and the pace of software-driven improvements.
Stifel analysts also lifted their price target for Tesla to $508 per share over the company’s ongoing robotaxi and FSD programs.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Version 3 booster crumples in early testing
Photos of the incident’s aftermath suggest that Booster 18 will likely be retired.
SpaceX’s new Starship first-stage booster, Booster 18, suffered major damage early Friday during its first round of testing in Starbase, Texas, just one day after rolling out of the factory.
Based on videos of the incident, the lower section of the rocket booster appeared to crumple during a pressurization test. Photos of the incident’s aftermath suggest that Booster 18 will likely be retired.
Booster test failure
SpaceX began structural and propellant-system verification tests on Booster 18 Thursday night at the Massey’s Test Site, only a few miles from Starbase’s production facilities, as noted in an Ars Technica report. At 4:04 a.m. CT on Friday, a livestream from LabPadre Space captured the booster’s lower half experiencing a sudden destructive event around its liquid oxygen tank section. Post-incident images, shared on X by @StarshipGazer, showed notable deformation in the booster’s lower structure.
Neither SpaceX nor Elon Musk had commented as of Friday morning, but the vehicle’s condition suggests it is likely a complete loss. This is quite unfortunate, as Booster 18 is already part of the Starship V3 program, which includes design fixes and upgrades intended to improve reliability. While SpaceX maintains a rather rapid Starship production line in Starbase, Booster 18 was generally expected to validate the improvements implemented in the V3 program.
Tight deadlines
SpaceX needs Starship boosters and upper stages to begin demonstrating rapid reuse, tower catches, and early operational Starlink missions over the next two years. More critically, NASA’s Artemis program depends on an on-orbit refueling test in the second half of 2026, a requirement for the vehicle’s expected crewed lunar landing around 2028.
While SpaceX is known for diagnosing failures quickly and returning to testing at unmatched speed, losing the newest-generation booster at the very start of its campaign highlights the immense challenge involved in scaling Starship into a reliable, high-cadence launch system. SpaceX, however, is known for getting things done quickly, so it would not be a surprise if the company manages to figure out what happened to Booster 18 in the near future.
SpaceX issues statement on Starship V3 Booster 18 anomaly
Tesla analyst maintains $500 PT, says FSD drives better than humans now
