BYD has already produced its first solid-state cells
80 comments
·February 23, 2025ksec
omgJustTest
Grid scale batteries would immediately impact electricity costs. The potential is 2/3 of the cost of current electricity costs.
Mistletoe
Am I being too pessimistic to think we would actually get the same electricity costs if we are lucky and 1/3 more profits going up to the executive portion of the company?
haliskerbas
It could even go up, the customers will cover the cost of transitioning to new tech!
baq
Economically viable safe methane fuel cells would be revolutionary, too.
audunw
If we’re could get a breakthrough in fuel cells it’d be even nicer if it was an efficient fuel cell for a liquid fuel. And to get an efficient way to make it from CO2 and electricity.
Though I think for ground transportation, batteries will always be preferable.
tastyfreeze
Direct methanol fuel cells are a thing. It may not fit your definition of efficient but that is the technology I think should be pursued. There are multiple biological, chemical and electrochemical pathways to produce methanol. That means that there could be an economic way to produce it nearly everywhere.
Another interesting technology is redox flow batteries. The fluid itself is charged. Fluid storage can be sized to the charge/use requirements. Or you can haul in "charged" fluid. But since the fluid is not consumed, discharged fluid would need to be taken away. Making hauling is less efficient.
AtlasBarfed
Still releases carbon. Better than ICE and gasoline, but the cheapest methane is still from the ground.
Svoka
I believe fuel cells with ubiquity of electricity is just beating the dead horse. Like, what are cons and pros?
EVs:
+ Much simpler design
+ Literally zero maintenance required
+ Centralized power production is extremely efficient
+ Power production can be 100% carbon free in 10 years, if there's will with nuclear and other 'renewables'
+ Can be charged literally everywhere where's sun in theory, but in every home with outlet in practice
+ Batteries are crucial to every part of our tech today so they will become better
- Heavy (low energy density compared to fuel, which isn't great for planes etc)
Fuel Cells: + high energy density
+ less dirty than gasoline
+ allow oil producers to stay in business
+ keeps mechanics in business
- requires mechanics and expensive maintenance
- complex designs for combustion engines + gearboxes + drive trains
- requires immense infrastructure change to adopt
Unless I miss something. What is the point of fuel cells/combustion engines for consumer use? I understand there are applications where energy density is necessary, like cargo ships, rockets or airplanes.
But for consumers, what is the point? This is honest question.If I missed some obvious con/pro let me know I'll add it.
number6
Fusion!
SebFender
In the next few years you'll witness AI won't be so important... true advancement is always energy management.
dartos
> true advancement is always energy management
Idk about that, but yeah I agree AI has got a good 3-5 years left in its hype run.
Mistletoe
I’m not that optimistic I’m just hoping it makes it to the end of the year.
mannders
IMO AI was extremely important, but the breakthroughs are mostly done. I’m just expecting incremental improvements with LLMs now.
A Turing complete personal tutor to explain any concept already exists. You can prompt a logo or video into existence. This is crazy.
The real value will be the creative people who use AI to self teach and build real world value, like energy management, or anything else.
Not this pipe dream that AGI will be achieved and automate the entire world, which for some reason gets so much focus. Seems like procrastination to obsess over this.
rusk
> AGI will be achieved and automate the entire world
That’s what’s driving investment. Once the next AI winter descends we will see whose boats are in deep water.
davedx
Meh, we need better charging networks more than we need better battery chemistry at this point.
skellington
Hard disagree (as a person that owns EV).
While it's true that most people don't drive that far daily, it's also true that most people want their cars to be multipurpose.
Most EVs can only be time-efficiently charged to 80% while DC fast charging because the charge curve drops a lot.
And nobody want the pucker factor of getting much below 10% while road tripping.
So, you're really only working with 70% of the max range. At 'normal' freeway speeds of 70mph+, most EV max ranges are less than 300 miles, and 70% of that is 210 usable miles.
You can make it work, but it feels like you're always managing and thinking about charge level vs a car which usually has 400+ miles of range on the freeway.
IMO the base range for EVs needs to be 500 miles, to get 350 miles of usable range, plus 350kW+ charging so charge stops are 10 minutes ish. And the Chinese EV companies have 400kW+ charging cars already, with announcements for 600kW charging!
So battery energy density is critical to getting the range that people want without making the cars even heavier.
Gareth321
I disagree. Range anxiety is one of the top concerns for EV car buyers and telling them they can just charge more frequently won't assuage their fears, for many reasons. No matter how many stations we build (at enormous cost) there will inevitably be issues related to access from time to time. Today this presents as chargers offline, slow, or full with queues. Worst of all is that no matter how ubiquitous, one still needs to exit the freeway and navigate to one of these chargers. Today my Model Y gets about two hours on the Autobahn before I need to charge it. That's just not enough, and it has what is considered good range for an EV.
There are undoubtedly people who like to take frequent breaks. Many people are not like that. The future is both ubiquitous chargers and much larger battery capacity.
arghwhat
Two hours at the Autobahn is just 200-250km in what is effectively optimal conditions (steady driving over long distances). That number doesn't check out.
Most people drive significantly less than a full charge in a given day. Overnight or workplace charging solves like, 95% of car needs. And remember, it's not much of a problem if 5% or less of road cars need to still be (efficient) fossil fuel cars.
Battery advances should mainly be used to make cars lighter at decent range, not to give more range at same weight. Electric cars are too heavy in the current state, fixing that should come first.
AtlasBarfed
I'm not THAT pessimistic about buildout of charging if it was a politically rational era, but the Ramcharger style 50-100 mile PHEV really is a great compromise for EV transitions.
We should have mandated PHEVs 20 years ago for consumer cars (you know, with a 5-10 year transition period), but it was the Bush administration. Then again Obama and Biden didn't do that much either, and even California didn't do and still hasn't.
varelse
[dead]
johanvts
For cars I agree, but a significant energy density improvement would enable aviation and other fields to electrify.
prododev
Better batteries require less frequent charging, reducing pressure on networks. But also, better batteries enable electrification of other modes of transport much more easily. Cars are bad, electric cars are at best "less bad".
smegger001
fortunately we can do two things
SideburnsOfDoom
These are 2 different things; "better batteries" is scientific and engineering breakthroughs. Engineering in the sense of building them in on time, in quantity, to quality and on a budget.
"Better charging networks" is infrastructure rollout that is underway. If it's an engineering issue, it's civil engineering. Charging networks are on the whole continually getting better. But maybe not at a fast enough pace.
Both can happen, though. Both would make a difference.
mi_lk
> In theory, replacing the current liquid electrolyte in a battery cell with a solid offers a number of advantages. As the flammable liquid electrolyte is no longer required, solid-state cells are generally safer. At the same time, higher energy densities and more power are possible, resulting in a longer range and shorter charging times.
In case you wonder why it can be important
uxhacker
What difficult to find metals do these batteries need?
throw-qqqqq
Maybe this can satisfy your curiosity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_battery#Material... ?
jmisavage
This is just pilot production is the first of many steps towards mass production. They don’t expect actual production until 2027.
It even mentions that CATL is at roughly the same stage. So while good news its still going to take some time to get these into production cars and to get the costs down.
jillesvangurp
Exactly. In order to be able to start production in 2027 they'd have to logically be quite far with the development of their battery cells to be able to say with confidence they'll be ready for that in 2027. You see the same with announcements from other manufacturers like CATL, Factorial, Quantumscape, Toyota, etc. Most of these are talking about timelines from 2026-2028 currently.
They have each been testing battery samples for years and making announcements about roughly where they think they'll be going to production. It's not like battery cells suddenly pop into existence fully formed and ready to go. There's a lot of work and problem solving that needs to happen.
2027 isn't when mass production starts but when early, low volume production begins. It takes time, and many billions, to build large scale factories. They'll want to see low scale production work first. Early batteries are likely to be scarce and expensive for a while.
People have unrealistic expectations about solid state batteries in general. Currently the best selling batteries aren't those with the highest density but those with the lowest cost of materials and production. That's why LFP is so popular currently. Solid state won't change that. LFP will be widely used for years to come. A logical place for relatively expensive early solid state batteries to be used would be in aviation related use cases and maybe some high-end vehicles or sports cars. Forget about these showing up in budget cars anytime soon.
audunw
Isn’t quantum scape at a similar stage as well?
Gareth321
And Toyota: https://electrek.co/2024/01/11/toyota-solid-state-ev-battery...
I'm hopeful that in the next few years we will see some serious range improvements across the board with EVs. Then mass adoption really takes off.
louwrentius
> However, BYD does not expect series production in the near future.
That's the most important part of this article I believe.
underseacables
According to the battery business CTO, BYD expects to start “mass demonstration” of solid-state batteries around 2027. However, he did not provide any information on the number of prototype cells produced to date.
Awesome if true, but I'll believe it when I see it. Until then like similar announcements from Toyota and others, I'll hold my enthusiasm.
readthenotes1
It is another Better Battery Bulletin
cmrdporcupine
at least BYD is mass producing lithium-ion consumer vehicles in the interim.
Toyota is just spreading FUD as a delay tactic and milking the petroleum cow
kubb
[flagged]
themgt
Better just short all legacy automotive and include Tesla in that group, but at that point you have to wonder about these economies more generally. Tesla is falling behind but the rest of these companies are barely even in the game. The idea that Laotians and Chileans will all have $10k self-driving BYD sedans to complement their $10k Unitree robot servants while "the west" drives Toyota Corollas with v6 engines and folds their own laundry out of the dryer ... doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
frodo8sam
Shorting is often a bad strategy due to the hight cost if you plan to hold for the long term. And with these companies with irrational evaluations you gave no idea when the stock price will correct. Better to exlude stocks that you can't price accurately from your portefolio.
Imustaskforhelp
but then it moves us away from index fund.
jmyeet
"Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent."
-- John Maynard Keynes
Tesla simply shouldn't be a $1T company and that's been true for some time. Last year they sold ~1.8M vehicles in 2024 (down 1.1% from 2023), which values the company at roughly $600k per car sold.GM has a market cap of $46B and sold roughly 3 times as many cars and that was an increase over 2023. That values GM at under $10k per car sold in 2024.
Consider Tesla sales by country [1]. A large chunk of those sales were in China. Those will get eaten by BYD and others. That says nothing about Tesla. The Chinese government always plays favorites with local companies. There is no "winning" in China for foreign companies.
Tesla relies on trade barriers to exist. In the US, Europe and Australia, the floodgates could open to much more affordable EVs from China. Even if they can survive that, it'll drive down average selling prices.
The Supercharger network is a competitive advantage but one with a ticking clock on it.
On top of all this, Elon's personal politics hurt him most with the very people who are most inclined to buy EVs: people who live in cities and care about the enviroment.
The American government tends to protect large American companies so maybe Tesla is a safe bet. But you're betting this administration or a later one not having a falling out with Elon or simply eviscerating the EV market because it's "woke". We're already getting rid of Biden's EV tax credit. That's going to hurt Tesla too.
[1]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/tesla-sal...
jajko
[flagged]
bigthymer
Theoretically, you could short TSLA in the same amount that you own it within the ETF. This would be functionally equivalent to owning a custom market cap ETF minus TSLA.
loeg
Can't reply to the dead parent comment (which is lame, it's not stupid or offensive -- just asking how to buy a TSLA-excluded stock index), but:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41246686
Direct indexing allows you to go long ~approximately some stock index like SPY, but you can easily exclude specific stocks (like TSLA) without dealing with options or shorts. Would I do this? No. But it's probably one of the better ways to achieve this goal.
rafaelmn
With the difference that you could get wiped out on the short ? Edit: I was wrong, if ETF has same amount of Tesla it should even out.
cthor
You can short without tail risk, e.g. buying puts.
adastra22
How would that work? You are simultaneously long by the same amount. The ETF would go up by whatever amount you are short.
Imustaskforhelp
yea literally my exact thought.
Wish there was some better financial instrument for such purpose instead of shorting.
whereismyacc
well not if the short matches the amount you hold in tesla stock through the ETF right?
echelon
Don't short a meme stock. Any irrational behavior can continue longer than your solvency.
Buy puts to limit your downside, or do some other combination of options trading to prevent unlimited losses.
kjrfghslkdjfl
It's not. If you're shorting, you're paying to borrow the stock.
nwatson
I would believe ... plan to buy the ETF, find the number of shares of Tesla integrated into your ETF purchase, and then buy the ETF and short-sell that number of shares of Tesla "simultaneously". Keep checking the composition of the ETF and rebalance your Tesla short, or perhaps also the ETF.
Without fractional shares it might be difficult to get an exact counterbalance, and there will be inconvenient short vs long term capital gains tracking for rebalancing events.
Edit: spelling
dgacmu
I wish this existed more generally, but it doesn't. However, you can do it in a few different ways:
(1) As another commenter noted, you can short TSLA in rough proportion to the amount of it in your ETF. This incurs some borrowing costs but you also get to park the money from the short, so it's not too bad overall.
(2) You could go for mid-cap funds like VO instead of total-market funds. But this does change your overall investment picture. I kind of like it as a way of reducing my tech exposure, but historically, the total market / s&p 500 funds have outperformed the mid-cap funds, so it's worth recognizing the risk here.
The shorting approach is pretty low risk given that it's counterbalanced by owning those shares indirectly through your ETF holdings.
baq
Go long etf, short tesla weighted by etf weight. Relatively basic stuff. You can also go long TSLQ etf if you can't or don't want to short outright.
kkarpkkarp
If you are not in US but for example Europe or other areas where most of people lives in blocks, not houses, start buying car garages. The own place to charge your car will be luxury in such areas.
kubb
They’ll build street chargers.
kkarpkkarp
of course they will and they do. But still having your own will be luxury: no need to cruise looking for free one.
Garages are overlooked (by most of investors) real estate but rules are the same as for houses: in general prices goes up and EV-revolution will just give it a boost.
I've already bought two (they are relatively cheap), one from a guy who has over ten already in his portfolio. I am still parking on the street and renting them for passive income.
Imustaskforhelp
I had created a similar (but for AI) based request on r/bogleheads on reddit , because though it has its uses , it just feels too close to the web3 hype which I have equated so deeply in my mind with scam.
The response was generally to buy a etf which pays high dividends and since these tech companies don't pay high dividends , but that puts you away from a whole market.
On internet , it seems that most people mention tesla doesn't give dividend so you are safe with that option.
Shorting doesn't feel like it would work in the long run , I am not sure but it seems that you just don't want to take any (not profit nor lose) risk associated with tesla but shorting puts you at a you win if they lose kind of situation. I am not sure.
Fade_Dance
All you need to do is proportionally short out Tesla, and keep your portfolio up to date with the SP500 rebalancing to make sure you are aligned.
That said, it's probably not a good idea. Think of Index Flows as a container (the index tracking vehicles) with water inside that sloshes around to constituents.
Because there is essentially a mega-trend of migration to low fee Index tracking funds (on many levels, resulting from Global Capital flows being net positive for the U.S. and the intra-U.S. migration from active to passive as well as complexes like the 401k space), the underlying characteristic of market cap weighted funds propping up to Size factor is dominant (the inflows proportionally get directed to the largest constituents).
As shown with Tesla, it can seemingly look a bit arbitrary when it comes to which names float to the top. Take Tesla's case, where a perpetual short squeeze, constant expectation beats, high retail ownership, and extreme upside option activity vaulted the name to extremely high valuation. What most didn't expect, of course, was for Tesla to stay at a $1 trillion market cap. But you have to realize that flows into index funds are consistently positive, and even forces like option flows that were once a volatility enhancer and took liquidity can act like a volatility suppressor under more normal circumstances (depending on if Dealers are long or short gamma/convexity, and they are usually long). So you have a sort of typical case where a name vaults to a high valuation and then pins there, supported by flows, while the water now flows around this large entrenched name and moves around other illiquid names.
Of course this process isn't actually arbitrary, it's just esoteric, and it's a huge part of what trading is today, even compared to 5 years ago. In many ways, the tail wags the dog, so to speak, and when you're looking at something like Tesla's stock price, you're really looking at the derivative of the option positioning. If there is a large block of option open interest on a name, that's now included in all of the trader oriented reports of the name, and nobody is going to want to come in and take a position against these mean reverting flows, somewhat reinforcing that process.
Conversely, traditional active value evaluation is less dominant of a force in the markets than it used to be. Index funds buy big things, and they reinforce momentum factor as well. This is reflected in investor behavior on all levels, including the active fund management space, because you can't fight these forces or you will lose your accounts.
That's not to say that price discovery isn't happening. The saying that markets are voting mechanisms in this short term and weighing mechanisms in the long term still holds true. The short and even mid term movements are less of a random walk combined with animal spirits from sweaty men in trading pits, and is instead a sort of bizarre "gamma vortex" battlefield, and then the long term price moves are increasingly dominated by these distortions from market cap weighted domination. Price discovery works within this cadence, and often happens in short ferocious bursts and sector rotations.
So back to why it's not a good idea. I said that because of the interplay of forces above not because of Tesla's actual valuation or even Tesla's outlook. The moment you step against the index flows, you are taking a negative expected value position. I'm somewhat up to date on markets and am constantly exposed to them during the day, and I've personally lost 1mm on TSLA over the past decade because I refused to let the lessons above really get into my bones ("lost", as other trading positions with opposite exposure have netted out to more than compensate for that, but it's a good anecdote to share here).
In many respects, Tesla's valuation is fairly arbitrary and it represents a sort of token of the strange interplay of forces within the walls of index flows. Unless you specialize in that area, it's probably best to just let it play out. With TSLA in particular your short is very much stepping into an active trade where forces like options flows are running at extremely high heat. If you are buying the S&P 500, you want pure access to these positive megatrends. If you aren't comfortable with it, and I certainly don't blame you, then instead of shorting out Tesla against your index investments, Consider putting some money aside in investments that do not track the index and maybe do something more traditional like small cap value that is perpetually undervalued as a result of these very same index flows. It goes without saying, but these investments will not include Tesla either. I would strongly argue for taking this approach instead of meddling with SP500 weighting. Get your pure SP500 exposure (which is guaranteed to participate in future TSLAs/NVDAs/etc), and then pick something else pure that steps away from the somewhat arbitrary market cap weighting that dominates markets today. In return for stepping away from the crowd flows (which arguably comes at a cost) you are then rewarded in kind by mindfully taking advantage of the lack of interest in certain market factors (again, using SmallCap Value as an example, since there is a rich academic literature on many of these traditional factor areas, but there are many areas with sound academically supported areas which gain steam from stepping against the index forces, ex: part of my cash is permanently in volatility trading that harvests the volatility expansion and contraction cadence within which price discovery happens in modern markets).
fnord77
> A truly large-scale introduction of solid-state batteries could possibly only take place after 2030, Sun is quoted in the reports
So they're a bit behind Toyota
SideburnsOfDoom
Everyone else is behind Toyota in promising EV breakthroughs "any year now". Announcements are their main EV product.
Considering Lithium ‘semi-solid-state battery’ (SSSB) already does 25% to 45% higher capacity with roadmap at 55% next year and double the battery capacity before 2030. I wonder what could we expect from ‘all-solid-state batteries’ (ASSB).
Most people think current AI development is the most important research, I actually think ASSB ( or any massive battery improvement ) would bring us far more real life, quality improvement with things that previously were not possible.