 Now, can I have one of these? |
A new twist on the familiar lithium ion battery has yielded a type of power-storing material that charges and discharges at lightning speed. The finding could offer a boost for plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles and possibly allow cell phone batteries to regain a full charge in seconds rather than hours.
Rechargeable lithium ion batteries are small and light, yet can store copious amounts of energy, making them ideal for use in everyday electronic devices such as iPods and laptops. This valuable property, called energy density, can be scaled up for hybrid cars as well as for the all-electric Roadster built by Tesla Motors that relies on lithium ion batteries…and the similarly powered Chevy Volt plug-in electric, about to hit the market.
One downside: lithium ion batteries do not dispense their charge—carried by lithium ions and electrons, hence the power source’s name—very quickly compared with some other types of storage batteries. Like a huge auditorium that only has a few doors, getting a large volume of patrons (lithium ions) in and out is a drawn-out affair…The slow exchange of ions also means lithium ion batteries recharge slowly—just think of how long you have to charge your tiny cell phone.
In an attempt to pick up the pace, the M.I.T. researchers coated the lithium iron phosphate material with an ion conductor, which in this case was a layer of glasslike lithium phosphate. Sure enough, the charge-carrying ions traveled much faster from their storage medium; a prototype battery the scientists built completely charged in about 10 to 20 seconds…
Two companies have already licensed the technology, according to Byoungwoo Kang. Researchers are not sure how much these batteries will cost when they hit the market, but Kang says they should be reasonably priced, given that it should be relatively cheap to produce them.
Good possibilities of this tech hitting the streets within the next couple of years. No changes in basic production technology or components. Just one change along the way.
Which is why companies are already licensing the tech.
Don’t forget the charger-side electronics must also be upgraded to handle the load.
One comment in the story struck me, that LiIon cells can’t release their charge as fast as other cells.
Well, I recently worked with some A123 LiIon cells, and built a 24-cell pack of them for a robot. Those friggin cells, at 3V each, pack a wallop. Their max current discharge “should be limited to 75A per cell”. 75 amps! The limiting factor is the solder tabs…they’re too small for more than 75A.
Making those packs with half-charged cells was careful business. So, maybe in theory NiMH or lead-acid can deliver more current in a shorter time, but I’ve never worked with cells that had that kind of power.
If the recharge time is low enough this just might allow for a viable electric car.
Coupled with this new solar cell technology, this could be just the thing for a viable electric car.
On Cage Match, the Koenigsegg, where the entire car is one large Pyradian photovoltaic cell.
The car has an average photovoltaic conversion efficiency of 38%, depending on ambient conditions, and a peak performance of over 50%
It makes the Tesla look like yesterday’s car.
What’s the towing capacity on that? I don’t want to give up my boat just to look like a homo who cares about the environment.
Yep, batteries have come a long way.
I read the article. Engineering the semi-conductor to maximize electron flow is such a “Duh!” head-smacking “why didn’t we think of that before”.
Even capacitors will benefit from this research.
Paddy-O, if you have fast discharge, automatically you have fast recharge capability – meaning the heat problem was licked.
By building “pathways” of roads & highways for improving the electron flow, less resistance, less heat.
One thing to consider…
As the rate of discharge and power density increase we get the ideal characteristics of a bomb.
For peaceful purposes, like powering your sports car, we’d like to have huge power density with unlimited discharge rate (assuming no accidents).
For a bomb we need huge power density, unlimited discharge rate and no accidents.
I don’t have any proposal for handling this problem, just thought I should point it out.
# 4 KD Martin said, “Coupled with this new solar cell technology, this could be just the thing for a viable electric car.”
The P/square foot generated vs. consumption of a car means this won’t have much impact for an electric car.
Paddy-O, it’s P/cubic foot. And you haven’t a clue about electric cars. Again, you fail to cite any relevant backup.
Oh, wait, I don’t argue with pretentious know-it-alls anymore, I’ll leave that for bobbo and Mr. Fusion.
# 9 BubbaRay said, “Paddy-O, it’s P/cubic foot.”
Umm, no. To measure the potential energy from the sun as it strikes a surface it is square feet. What was the highest grade you completed in school? 3rd?
Again, you failed to make your case. You were citing battery specs, not solar cell. How confusing. Read the article. Submit some relevant specs. 38% is a nice conversion rate and 50% is darned efficient for today. That’s a decent charging accessory, especially since it requires no maint. and needs no replacement for 20 yrs.
# 11 KD Martin said, “Again, you failed to make your case. You were citing battery specs, not solar cell.”
No, apparently you can’t read. I was commenting on your mention of solar cells which I put in quotes with my response.
Do try and read what people write.
Paddyo, yawn. You just don’t get it, do you? It’s battery tech plus charging. When you’re so indeterminate in your responses (battery vs. solar cell), take a hike. You are an offensive troll, little man.
Interesting and in-depth discussion about the charging issues at ARS Technica. Bottom line: see post #1…we can’t charge that fast because it’s too much energy. With short times it’s huge voltage and HUGER (!) current. IOW, not safe.
Huger current….yikes, and I write about this stuff for a living.
#13 Spoken like someone who was well and truly owned. Thank you.
Paddy-O looks like KD already owns you. I need not apply.
lol! I love internet fights. Two fags trying to “own” one another on the web. It doesn’t get any better than that.
#1 – smartalix,
Yes. They mention that in the article.
I’d rather drive into an energy station and refill batteries in 20 seconds than my fuel tank with smelly disgusting gasoline in 2 minutes. Hey, even if it takes 5 or 15 minutes, I’d take the electric.
Paddy-tr0ll,
You’re arguing with rocket scientists, literally, and accusing one of them of having a 3rd grade education. I think you might consider going back to your sand box, at least until you can figure out whether you are a homo sapien or a homo erectus, personally, I’m betting you don’t even make australopithecine.
As for the actual topic you three are discussing, I think that a solar prius getting 30-60% improvement in fuel economy means that solar power could extend the range of an electric vehicle, even if it isn’t the primary source of power. Remember, we’re not talking about absolutes here. Incremental improvements count.
# 18 Misanthropic Scott said, “As for the actual topic you three are discussing, I think that a solar prius getting 30-60% improvement in fuel economy”
The actual topic I was discussing was an ALL electric car, so your point is moot.
#19 – Paddy-tr0ll,
You see it as a moot point that in a hybrid the solar panels increase efficiency by 30-60%??!!?
I think it means the effect would be greater for an all electric that would not have to haul around the extra weight of the gasoline and gasoline engine.
Think a bit before you type.
# 20 Misanthropic Scott said, “You see it as a moot point that in a hybrid the solar panels increase efficiency by 30-60%??!!?”
No, because it only added 30 miles to the electric only range. You should read the links you post.
#20, M. Scott, never try to teach a pig to sing. It’s not worth your time and it annoys the pig.
#21 – Paddy-tr0ll,
I did read the post. 30 miles additional range is not bad. Now make it 60 or more because we remove the weight of the gasoline and gasoline engine. Getting somewhere?
You really should read your posts before you click submit.
#22 Thank you KD Heinlein. Of course, you’re correct. Long pig in this case, I think.
# 23 Misanthropic Scott said, “I did read the post. 30 miles additional range is not bad.”
30 miles is insignificant.
Haven’t we seen the village idiot do this a hundred times? He’s obviously smarter than all of us, combined, and has insights everyone on the blog clearly misses. Let him whack himself off, no need for anyone here to help him.
#25 – Paddy-trZEROll,
30 miles is insignificant.
It’s 3/4 of the range of a Volt before it hits the gasoline, but only 1/5th of the range of an EV-1. Either way, it’s a gallon of gasoline to me now. I’ll take it for free. Think of it this way, assuming a 300 mile range, drive 10 miles, get one free.
# 27 Misanthropic Scott said, “30 miles is insignificant. It’s 3/4 of the range of a Volt before it hits the gasoline”
As I stated, and apparently you can’t comprehend, I’m talking about an ALL electric vehicle. So, no, 30 miles isn’t significant.
#28 – Paddy-mOran,
If the range of a vehicle goes from 150 to 180 miles, that is significant.
Further, you still missed the point that if we can get an extra 30 miles on a hybrid dragging a gasoline engine everywhere it goes, we’ll get more than that on a full electric vehicle that weighs a few hundred pounds less.
Besides, even if it were 30 miles on a 300 mile range, most trips are less than 30 miles. So, parking in the sun means most trips are free. It may be the first 30, not the last.
# 29 Misanthropic Scott said, “If the range of a vehicle goes from 150 to 180 miles, that is significant.”
No, that isn’t enough to replace current gasoline vehicles. So, not significant.
Next.