"...5 times more powerful..."

Do they mean 5 times the energy density? We have batteries with enough power to shred the rubber off the tires now.
Of course, the upside of more power is they fast charge better and usually have better cycle life.

Hell, I would have been really happy with 2-2-2-5: 2 times more powerful, 2 times more energy density, 2 times cheaper within 5 years. LOL

We're closer than people think. These people asking for 500-1,000 mile range on EVs are wasting our time. Not needed and getting people into that mind set is the problem.
A 200 mile range with 10 minute fast chargers would be good enough for easily 95% of the population if they were being honest with themselves.

Do they know something real about these goals?

The five prior DECADES didn't gain fives X power X 1/5th cost, did they?

The problem they should be pushing is how to test, to prove and to scale up current lab batteries to production level and to do so ASAP. This will accelerate acceptance of EVs greatly. Didn't anyone at DOE get the message from Tesla? Increase the range of EVs and the drivers will buy. If Tesla had a $25,000, 200 mile EV that could keep up with freeway traffic, they could sell a million a year.

There are companies with completed-research, working, near-production, prototype batteries right now. In fact Dow has a battery ready for production that is a 15% increase in density over current batteries. Nissan has announce a 15% increase in the range of their 2013 Leaf mostly because of a more dense battery. We don't need another research fund, We need to bring current improved batteries to market.

Goals easily set; are not easily met.

"The five prior DECADES didn't gain fives X power X 1/5th cost, did they?" [kelly]

Nope, neither one.

More like 5-5-5-$120M.

But hey, if they get either of the 1st 2 5s, we will all be ahead.

It only takes one advance going into production to put batteries over the performance threshold to be ICE-killers.  The silicon-graphene-amylopectin advance appears to be such.  That battery would make hybridization a no-brainer, and being able to charge at 30 C would allow a sub-5-minute recharge after 2 hours of driving.

Reducing cost is good, but not essential; if performance goes up far enough, the battery becomes cost-effective at the same price per kWh.

Interesting years ahead for long range electrified vehicles.

I agree with E-P, if one or more of the latest battery technologies is mass produced in 5 years time, we will have practical affordable long range EVs by 2020 or so.

By the way, that's what I maintained for the last 2 or 3 years?

Note: By making those future much higher performance batteries 'modular plug-ins' , EV owners could select the e-range at will and/or add extra modules latter for longer e-range, if really required. By starting with less modules, the initial EV cost would be much lower. Total car weight would also be lower for more Km per charge etc.

CalBattery has a graphite anode with embedded nano-silicon that stores 525 Wh/Kg in lithium-ion batteries. It came out of the Argonne lab.

Envia has a cathode that stores 400 Wh/kg in lithium-ion batteries. This has been confirmed by the Electrochemical Power Systems Department at the Naval Surface Warfare Center.

400 Wh/kg is more than 3x better than what is in the Nissan Leaf. A very solid 200 mile range is fine for almost anyone as long as they have access to Level 3 chargers on long trips.

Cost is simply a matter of scale. The materials, purchased in bulk, are not expensive. Lithium, high-purity, battery-grade lithium hydroxide range from $6,000 to $7,000 per tonne. The Nissan Leaf battery pack uses 4kg, <$30 of lithium. Manufacturing, large scale, can be largely automated thus minimizing labor costs.

Seems to me we could get to where we need to be in less than five years.

Really, all we ever needed was a big market for traction batteries without a lot of nonsense legal requirements.  We could have had PHEVs in the 1970's or even 1960's with brush-type motor-generators if the regulators hadn't been fixated on ICEVs and considered traction batteries a "pollution control device" requiring a 10-year warranty.  It wouldn't have mattered if they only lasted 3 years if they were cheap enough to replace.

Once a billion-dollar-a-year traction battery market existed, the relentless forces of applied R&D would have done the rest.  We're getting to it about 30-40 years late.

"Under my plan energy prices would necessarily skyrocket." I hope that's not a blanket statement.

By 2020 or so, many ICEVs will do 50 mpg, many HEVs will do close to 70 mpge and many PHEVs will do 125 mpge with much lighter more aerodynamic bodies and more efficient drive trains.

By 2020 or so, new updated BEVs with next generation energy storage units and light weight bodies will do 10+ Km/kWh and handle 800+ Km per quick charge and/or slow overnight charge.

The current decade will be difficult because the essential high performance storage units and light materials may not be mass produced at an affordable price before 2020 or so. However, during the next decade 2020-2030, we will see BEVs competing (successfully) with ICEVs, HEVs and PHEVs most everywhere.

Till then, lower price (50 to 70 mph) HEVs may be acceptable interim solutions?

BTW, Beacon Power (now bankrupt) had a baseline flywheel unit size of 25 kWh, so it would only take a couple of them to fully buffer a charging station able to deliver 55 kWh in 5 minutes.

How big was that Beacon 25kWh flywheel?.. probably scary big.