4680 is good enough for aviation. Its obvious for rail. But it can disrupt super heavy marine right now. In super heavy marine 2-3 years of use buys a new ship in fuel costs. So huge savings over time. The replacement electric motors are comparatively tiny and ripping out all the ICE junk like the fuel compartments and huge engines and stacks go a long way to covering the weight and space of the battery. States will like the 100% green (don't use dirty electric) and its a good duck curve sump even though the duck curve is total BS if any fossil fuel is still being sold during the day. Thought about this before but just had data for the older cells and there it looked harder. Battery will cost more than the ship by a few times but totally worth it for the savings because massive container ships and car haulers put out the pollution of millions of cars something like 7-15 million cars each. If your talking pollution/CO2 saved per $$ invested these are matchless. 5 gigawatt battery ought to do it- can go less if will to charge more often. Suspect the economics will be so compelling ships get retrofitted quickly. Still probably worth covering these in marine solar. As for charging guess the load from 1000 Tesla semi chargers would charge it in 5 hours. Think that is the same speed as conventional fueling- regardless this would get underway quicker. The electric motors for this already exist from Northrup Grumman.
Actually the ratio, 4680 and tab-less design works for pretty much for any size including smaller: 4680 - initial 2340 - 1/2 for power tools, flashlights, laptops, battery assisted bicycles, and TVs 1220 - 1/4 for tablets, mobil medical devices, and handheld 0610 - 1/8 for wearables, button cell devices, and overlaps the insanity of flat cells The reason is the ratio of shell material to active content works well. Shell material thinness can be proportionally reduced for the smaller ones. Bob Wilson
