@Engineer-Poet, come on, any combustible gas mixed with air and a spark will ignite, so what? Hydrogen is contained in hydrogen tank, no real danger. If there is a leak it will leak up in the air, if this is inside building it will be trapped in the ceeling. That is what happend in Fukushima. Process of producing hydrogen with electrolysis was at 60-80% efficiency, so this 97% could be a game changer, with fuel cell (eg. Toyota) 60% efficiency, the round trip efficiency is above 50% + waste heat from fuel cell, can be used for home heating. This good seasonal solution, for three winter months, where there is little to no solar energy.

@mahonj, the obvious answer is the price of electricity will control when this will operate. The price of electricity when there is no excess renuvables will get higher and higer. But I too, would like to know if this project is ment to work this way.

There certanly is shortage of dead battery waste when you consider NV Will produce hundrets of GWh of new batteries every year. Where Will they get 100,000+ tons of dead batteries to get 50% recycled lithium?

This is disappointing, It's like a mild hybrid thing, one MG between the transmission. They obviously went the cheap route, not sure it will pay out. What they should have done is ditch the mechanical 4x4 and make it independent with electric motors, maybe even each rear motor for each wheel. I know this means more cost (not just the motors but also power electronics) but the benefit would be much greater.

30% is not just electric efficiency, but overall vehicle efficiency. That is easier, start with an SUV and then improve with Prius type shape :)

The industry uses what works for them, Why does Toyota still use NiMh in their hybrids? Because it works for the target application. Current Giga factories that are in the pipeline will use graphite, that is just fact. Over time they may use less graphite per kWh with adding silicon (Tesla plan). Solid state won't ramp up as quickly as people think, just look at the QS presentation, 90 GWh by the 2029, World will be at 4+ TWh by then, predominantly on graphite anode. Installed capacities will then produce this "old school" cells for at least 10 more years, just because they will be cheap to make and good enough for target applications.

They will have to speed up this things, they are moving like 10 mph :)

I think it will be a lot slower than anyone thinks. When they come out with mass production in 2027 they won't be so far away in energy density to competitors, especially when you account the battery pack level density including structural rigidity. But that said they probably have much more margin for improvement from that point, but they will need another ~5 years to master that. This means that for at least 15 years current Li-ion tech will still be the dominant production capacity.

Nice to see Avancements in LFP, but there is no cycle life data, and that graph shows big voltage drop in the middle of SOC (from 4V to 3.5V). What does that mean when you have more cells in the battery pack? Does this complicate BMS or is this maybe a complete deal breaker? Anyone knows this?

Silicon specific capacity is 10x more than graphite. You roughly need 30,000 t of graphite anode for 30 Gwh, but you only need 3,000 t of silicon anode for the same capacity. If this is 40% or not is probably dependant on the cathode, a higher energy density cathode would see a boost of 40%, but something like LFP would benefit less, but still probably around 20%. As far as I understand the problem with anode material is that there is a long evaluation process, so this may take a while until it's used in EVs.

This type of shifting is only possible with electric motor, because it must cooperate and change load instantly without driver noticing it. I thing Renault is doing something similar with their hybrid without a clutch. No matter how instant the shift is, it means that motor must suddenly change rpm and that the motor is the integral part of transmission, you can't just bolt this thing to an EV and expect it to work.

I don't know what went wrong here but either this was not a good Hypermiling effort or ID.3 is just not an efficient EV. Hypermiling Kona EV resulted in consumption of just 6.3 kWh/100 km (1026 km), and Model 3 someone managed to do 7 kWh/100 km (975 km).

Did I miss something here, or is there really no AWD option???

30 miles of range with a 24 kWh battery??? What is the MPG when on gas engine alone? I think it's better not to know.

warranty is not equal to expected life, this two things may be far apart. Every EV should be designed so that battery outlast the car, just use it as energy storage when the car is not in use anymore.

The key thing is: "Silica, one of the most abundant metal oxides, is low-cost, easy to process..." Sulfur is also a low cost element 2.000 cycles is a good achievement I don't even care about energy density at this point, just give us cheaper batteries that last.

I think there is to much obsession with higher energy density, meanwhile existing technology is still incrementing slowly in energy density, but more importantly it's also surpassing 2000 cycle life and getting to 4000 cycles. What is more beneficial? Battery that will last 15 years in a car and then also have second life in storage for additional 15 years. Or super high energy density battery that will last "only" 10 years in an EV or 1000 cycles as stated in this article? And still currently this Technology is at 350 cycles, there is still long path to get to 1000.

Measuring PM is a difficult task, because a measurement alone doesn't tell us what this particles are. I heard that near the sea those measurements are increased because of salt in the air and salt is actually beneficial for respiratory system. This study is about diesel PM only and depending on your location this can be or it may not be a major component of air pollution. By the busy road in Europe where many cars are run on diesel not to mention trucks this sure is a big concern.

What am I saying? It's all about cost, making "normal" power EV go faster than 180 kph just means more cost or maybe even know-how, why bother when you already limited the whole range of models including ICE to 180 kph. Official Volvo argument is safety, but I think it's not the only reason :)

I think this is just preparing the field for EVs. If you have EV it's somewhat hard to make it go faster than 180 kmh, so why bother since every Volvo is already limited to 180 kmh ;)

Longevity is the key in battery chemistry, without it, field of use is severely limited. But it's a start with small production and then getting better and better.

Well, the title of this site is Green Car Congress, so sorry about my obsession about MPG. OK, even if this is performance model, there is not much to like about the architecture of this drivetrain, it's mechanically complicated. They should invest more in the electric part and get rid of 8 speed transmission, give it more powerfull el. motors on each axle.... As I said this is just a bolt on electric drive on existing outdated drivetrain.

I wonder what MPG this thing will get in hybrid mode. It has mechanical AWD, standard TC 8-speed automatic. It seems the hybrid part is just a bolt on and without a plug this thing would be an absolute failure... It may be a failure even with a plug.

TLJ and Roger. The problem with plug-in hybrids is power that is available when in EV mode, when you have charge in the battery you don't wan't gas engine to kick in, even if you do an overtake or you are merging on the highway. So then when you have 100+ kW of power in EV mode this is nothing special, it's like a normal car territory. But in hybrid mode you still have this additional 100 kW EV boost, so it's only logical to use it.

Better late than never ;)