Since I am a fan of sodium batteries, I am particularly interested that this can help longevity in those as well as lithium ones.

That will help my, and much more importantly, Toyota's chief criticism of lithium battery technology, that it is in reality too expensive, and likely to remain so for ages, to power the average Joe's car.

Sodium should be way cheaper, if it can be done.

The next generation of battery design looks like it will be composed of earth abundant elements. This research looks at Calcium additives to enhance lithium and sodium metal anodes. Research at the Yao Group University of Houston also is enhancing sodium metal anodes.
“An electrochemically stable homogeneous glassy electrolyte formed at room temperature for all-solid-state sodium batteries”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30517-y
Drexel University with the Gamma Sulfur cathode could be the answer for a long life cathode.
https://drexel.edu/now/archive/2022/February/lithium-sulfur-cathode-carbonate-electrolyte/
The “Goldilocks Battery” of Lithium or Sodium Sulfur looks like it is developing soon.

@Gryf

Lets hope so! The real problem with batteries is their cost, not so much their energy density.

It's not cheaper if it takes more cells due to the low energy density

Davemart,
Toyoda says Li-ion EVs can't scale, but still insist in using a rare earths battery (NiMH) in all Toyota's hybrids and now FCEVs. I have a serious problem understanding his vision.

Criticizing subsidies is fine, but I want to know where is your threshold for $/kwh. Because the LiFePo4 price I mentioned is happening now, without subsidies.
At some price point even the most ardent BEV critic have to admit it makes sense economically. I just happen to think we are already there.

Absent from this discussion so far is the consequence of vastly longer cycle life to battery total cost of ownership (TCO).

Dahn at Dalhousie has recently reported on chemistry improvements that will produce a 1,000,000 mile, one hundred year battery.

The battery does not use exotic materials.

@electric car insider

Yep, increased life is great, although it should be pointed out that going for very fast charging makes that far more difficult.

Its best application though is not in a giant BEV battery.

Now maybe you can swap a battery out at the end of the rest of the vehicle's lifetime, although some of the notions of building the battery into the structure to by the likes of CATL make that far more difficult.

But in practical terms for most cars, around 3-500,000 miles is fine, after which the rest of the car is difficult to maintain, and pretty tacky.

Far better applications are in trucks, and yes, I certainly advocate BEV trucks, with hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen ICE trucks only really needed for long distances, but also for PHEVs.

A high cycle life means that even though it is way less than the 2,000,000 or so being talked about for big battery BEVs, it can comfortably be designed for the 3-500,000 lifetime needed for a private car, even if the battery is only 16KWh or so, especially since there is no need for fast charging.

That working with a fuel cell is a pretty awsome combination, especially for some of the HT PEMS coming along.

I repeat, I am an advocate of batteries, but applied and costed realistically, not shoved out regardless of the cost ( to others ) courtesy of the propaganda of the greatest salesman of the age.

@electric-car-insider.com,
while this is interesting, there is a limit where higher lifespan means nothing.
Most cars go to heaven around 300k km, even with an engine in working order.

Very long lifespan batteries are very interesting for heavy duty vehicles, like forklifts, quarry trucks, buses, trains...

@peskanov:

To reply to your point about battery prices, I find it difficult to give a definitive answer, as breakeven depends on the application.

And it is another area where bull has reigned, for the purposes of getting subsidy, just chuck the well off another few billion in subsidies and tax breaks, and we will have something cost effective 'real soon'

So all sorts of strategies were employed to bamboozle, often via surveys of interested parties to see what they forecast for prices! Much like asking detergent manufacturers whether they get shirts whiter.

Another ploy has been to routinely confound costs at the cell level with costs at the pack level, and without any margin.

Where bottom up costings are used, and some of the technological leaps blithely assumed not built in, things get a lot stickier, and a lot more conservative.

At the moment, with raw materials prices rising, costs are going up, not down, and notions of manifest destiny in battery prices are on hold anyway.

Just the same, your question is a fair one, which I do not seek to evade.

But the answer must be ' it depends on the application and legislative environment'

Much though Trumpians might wish otherwise, we are not going to return to the good old days, of releasing as much GHG toxic exhaust as the companies fancy, so my answer would be that in some use categories and applications batteries are already economic, or economic enough.

And what is economic as battery prices drop, and they will at some stage, is again dependent on the same two factors.

If we are going to enable SUV type vehicles, often with a sole occupant, then in my view fuel cells are a better option.

But I certainly do not advocate that.

And the smaller, lighter and more range limited the vehicle, the higher prices can be borne for batteries.

I think I am living in the city of the future here in Bristol, England:

https://mashable.com/article/lime-e-scooters-london

Street scooters, buses electric smart cars where needed etc can do the job

There is not and never has been a case for providing public funds for heavy private vehicles, not only consuming vast resources in the build, but for starters particulates from shredding tyres.

But to answer your question directly, the figure commonly used for universal replacement of ICE with batteries, is around $50 at the cell level.

You can't hit that with current batteries, but something like sodium can, sometime.

They sold current battery subsidies on a fake prospectus of more continuity with something which will actually do the job than is the case, although it does help to some degree.

And of the top four companies for battery research and development, one is Toyota, and another is their close associate Panasonic.

As soon as there really are cost competitive batteries against ICE for BEVs, there will be plenty with a Toyota badge on.

But they deal with present reality, to try to serve the average Joe, not fake prospectuses to scam subsidies and pump stock prices.

I think the concept of a million mile battery may be widely misunderstood.

If the world had a million mile battery today (and assuming a reasonable price), the legacy OEMs might shrug and do nothing. Ford for example, has publicly discussed wanting batteries with lower life.

But you can be certain that some entrepreneur will figure out a way for that to be an absolute game changer. Tesla has already discussed this enough to be certain that they'll take a serious run at it.

The idea that a car has to be discarded at a 200k miles is only because most automakers want it that way. Unless a car is destroyed in an accident, there's no reason it needs to be destroyed when the seats get worn or the paint faded. (both of these are imminently preventable).

Many of the systems that cause maintenance problems don't even exist on BEVs.

Look at the classic car market, it's a matter of care, and continued parts availability.

Better yet, look at the General Aviation industry. The average age of a general aviation aircraft is about 30 years. Many in-service aircraft, used daily by flight schools, are over 40 years old.

TBO on a typical ICE is about 4,000 hours. For an electric motor, it's about 100,000 hours. (273 years if you drive an hour per day)

When your motor and battery will last 100 years, you'll want the chassis to hold up that long also. Using something other than salt on the roads in cold climates would help, or, as Tesla and BMW have demonstrated, aluminum and composites.

Would you pay more for a car that can last 1 million miles without major repair? I would.

Long endurance cars will be passed through multiple generations like houses, and will not depreciate as rapidly. Those two facts will change the acquisition and financing industries entirely.

@peskanov

I can’t agree with your evaluation of Toyota.
Since their inception they have been at the forefront of the electrification of transport, pouring billions in over decades, and were the ones who developed the supply chains for electric hybrids, which supply chains enabled BEVs
In their patent portfolio etc they, together with Panasonic, are objectively and traceable two of the four top holders.

And any use of rare earths in rare earths in their 1.5KWh hybrid battery packs is hardly comparable to the many issues in building and recycling the 50+ KWh packs in a BEV.

For total emissions including build, lifecycle and particulate emmissions including non exhaust a Toyota Yaris hybrid remains the truly ecological choice, beating $40k BEVs weighing several tons with vast and inappropriate acceleration.

But as they get truly, not fake, better batteries available, Toyota will continue to do what it does, build cars for everyman, as opposed to being a business only enabled by loose money, stock pumps and subsidy for the wealthy