backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 32 comment(s) - last by William Gaatje.. on May 21 at 6:58 PM
New Hitachi battery offers 1.7 times more power while being smaller and lighter than previous generations

One of the key areas of research for alternative power sources for vehicles is in batteries. As batteries become more powerful, smaller, and lighter, the range of electric and hybrid vehicles will increase making them more viable alternatives for drivers.

Hitachi is one of the companies pouring much research time and money into developing new battery technologies for the automotive and other industries. Hitachi Ltd. and Hitachi Vehicle Energy Ltd. announced a new battery development this week that offers the world's highest power density lithium-ion battery.

The new fourth generation battery has 4,500W/kg power density; Hitachi reports that number is about 1.7 times the output of its mass production automotive lithium-ion batteries currently in use. The company says that the new batteries will be sampled to domestic and overseas carmakers starting this fall.

The impressive gains in power output for the new battery are thanks to a new manganese cathode and a Hitachi original battery structure. The original structure uses thinner electrodes, a new power collection method, and more effective configurations.

The battery technology could also see adoption by the consumer electronics industry as a replacement for current notebook and cell phone batteries. Hitachi is currently delivering a lithium-ion battery for the automotive and railway industry that offers 2,600 W/kg power density.

A third generation lithium-ion battery that has a power density of 3,000W/kg will go into mass production in 2010.

In automotive applications, lowering the weight and size of batteries is as important as higher power densities. Longer driving ranges can be realized on electric and hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius by reducing weight and/or improving the power density of batteries.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Electric racing vehicles
By FishTankX on 5/20/2009 11:03:19 AM , Rating: 1
Does anyone else see the value of a 100 pound battery pack (About the weight of a full gas tank) delivering nearly 250HP? Double it up to 200 lbs and you've got 500HP.

Seems like a good recipe for an electric racer to me.

You'd have to have significantly bigger batteries for range, sure. But with a 400 lb battery pack peak power would be amazing, and usually DC motors take short term overload quite well, allowing quick passing.




RE: Electric racing vehicles
By dflynchimp on 5/20/2009 11:51:42 AM , Rating: 1
The problem with high discharge battery packs is they inherently can't hold nearly as much energy in terms of weight as an equivalent tank of gas. Also traditional ICE for cars convert the energy stored in gas directly into mechanical energy, whereas electric motors are less efficient in translating energy into useful power.

These battery packs would see good use in hybrids as secondary power sources or additional power boosting, but the fact remains that pure electric vehicles remain, at least with current technologies, inefficient.


RE: Electric racing vehicles
By bobsmith1492 on 5/20/2009 11:59:35 AM , Rating: 5
I agree that batteries can't store as much energy as gas. However, I beg to differ on efficiency - electric motors are extremely efficient, up to 95% or so.

LiIon/LiPo cells are over 99% efficient at charging and discharging (99.8% efficient per Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-polymer)

The Tesla roadster shows 80% battery-to-wheel efficiency: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=58#more-58

So, the losses in power are mostly in the power supply circuitry and mechanical interfaces.


RE: Electric racing vehicles
By bobsmith1492 on 5/20/2009 12:07:50 PM , Rating: 5
I should add, in contrast, gas engines show up to ~30%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency


RE: Electric racing vehicles
By Jimbo1234 on 5/20/2009 1:32:03 PM , Rating: 2
However you should note that a typical powerplant is on the oder of 40% efficient as well. Every powerplant that uses fuel to make electricity still uses the Rankine cycle.

So I'd say it's a wash in terms of efficiency. The 1 major difference is that when not moving, an ICE is using energy, whereas the electric motor is not.


RE: Electric racing vehicles
By Jimbo1234 on 5/20/2009 1:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
That's order, not odor. Where's my spell checker?


RE: Electric racing vehicles
By Tegrat on 5/20/2009 2:27:48 PM , Rating: 5
Don't you mean "Smell Checker"?

I'm sorry... Couldn't resist!


RE: Electric racing vehicles
By jwilliams4200 on 5/20/2009 3:26:56 PM , Rating: 3
Are you a superconductor?


RE: Electric racing vehicles
By Visual on 5/21/2009 8:27:21 AM , Rating: 2
Tickets, please!


RE: Electric racing vehicles
By grandpope on 5/21/2009 3:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the spell checker is at fault. You can't even spell the typo correctly. :D


RE: Electric racing vehicles
By bobsmith1492 on 5/20/2009 10:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
Hydro power is as efficient as the turbine and generator.

But in a nuclear plant, efficiency doesn't really matter because the fuel contains so much energy and is so abundant.

That leaves coal, oil, and gas plants, which I believe we should be moving away from simply because coal is so dirty (or tough to clean as required in modern plants) and we need gas and oil for other things because they are so convenient.


RE: Electric racing vehicles
By William Gaatjes on 5/21/2009 4:02:25 AM , Rating: 2
Do some research how much energy is spend in refining crude oil into gasoline. Then compare the whole chain of energy production to energy usage between ICE engines automobiles and electrical motor automobiles. You do not want to know how lot it is.

Your claim is one of the biggest misconceptions existing.
Extracting oil is easy , just digg a hole. But you have to process that oil too. Now where do you think that energy comes from ?

An example link :

http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining2.htm

And when optimised, an electrical propulsion is a closed system without pollution. This is a lot easier to do. Making an ICE propulsion a closed system is not impossible but the efficiency would be so low one would be just insane to even try.

Do the calculation yourself.

In the long run electricity always wins.
It will not be long before someone finds out a way to modulate the voltage and the frequency of the ac voltage superpositioned on the dc voltage applied to the battery. This together with a enhanced metallurgic design will significantly increase the amount of storage that a battery can perform.

It will be the same principle as proposed in the super wave fusion principle but with different materials and different voltages and frequencies :

http://superwavefusion.com/

Click the video.


RE: Electric racing vehicles
By shin0bi272 on 5/21/2009 11:28:47 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for the info on the refining process. but what you started talking about isnt what you finished talking about. You started off by ripping the OP about expending energy refining oil into gasoline (which for those who didnt check the link is essentially heating the crude to 700+ deg F and collecting the distillates at certain temps) but you never finished that thought. You went right into talking about how electrical propulsion is a closed system (and its not btw you have to charge the batteries some how over and over again).

You say to do the math yourself but you provide no evidence to support your claims for electrical systems and only a single link about oil refining. You dont take into account the energy it takes to mine the lithium, refine/forge the lithium, make the refined ingots into batteries, and then charge those batteries. The us gets over 50% of its electrical power from coal plants so every time you charge your batteries you are more than likely using fossil fuels to do so. IIRC a report came out back in 07 that said a hybrid like a prius pollutes 3x more over the course of its lifetime when you take into account the production of the vehicle and all of its parts than a Hummer.

Plus CO2 is 3% of the atmosphere... that's with all the people and animals and machines that spew co2 combined with all volcanic eruptions. THREEEEE PERCENT... so if we kill all the animals and plug up all the volcanoes and disassemble all the machines and then kill all the people the co2 levels would eventually go down to 0%... and then the plants would all die from lack of co2 to breathe.

If you want the co2 levels to go down (and at this point why would you? its 3%!) the solution isn't to drive a horrible electric or hybrid car that gets worthless mileage, its to make a machine that pulls co2 out of the air (like the university of calgary did) or plant more trees. But doing this doesnt "promote a greener lifestyle" and doesnt give the EPA or the federal government any way to regulate your life so it will never happen. We are all going to be herded like cattle into the meat grinder until we look up and we have no choices left in life except do I buy this government owned car or that government owned car? Every one just keep your head down and keep "voting for change" because that's how it happens ... you vote for oppression one 4 year term at a time till you have voted away all of your freedoms.


By William Gaatjes on 5/21/2009 6:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You went right into talking about how electrical propulsion is a closed system (and its not btw you have to charge the batteries some how over and over again).


Well it is a matter of perspective. I mean here that there is no hazardous waste. With an ICE it is impossible to catch all the waste because you need a compressor and a big tank to store all the chemicals leaving the exhaust. That puts on weight and effiency goes down even more.

quote:
You say to do the math yourself but you provide no evidence to support your claims for electrical systems and only a single link about oil refining. You dont take into account the energy it takes to mine the lithium, refine/forge the lithium, make the refined ingots into batteries, and then charge those batteries. The us gets over 50% of its electrical power from coal plants so every time you charge your batteries you are more than likely using fossil fuels to do so. IIRC a report came out back in 07 that said a hybrid like a prius pollutes 3x more over the course of its lifetime when you take into account the production of the vehicle and all of its parts than a Hummer.


I had this kind of replies before but i will answer again :

There are so many coal plants because all of you people believe the FUD about nuclear power plants.
However, a coal plant is polluting but it is a stationary form of polution. If designed properly it is possible to catch all the waste materials and pollution from a stationary powerplant. That is something you simply cannot do with every ICE based automobile out there for reasons as stated above.

And i am all for state of the art nuclear powerplants as a primary electrical power supplier and renewable sources as secundairy electrical power supplier. With that in mind your entire story does not hold up with respect for electrical energy production and usage for electrical driven vehicles.

And complaining that a prius is dirtier then a hummer is an empty comment. The prius is the first generation. It is a hybrid. That means that it is a nice try to build a bridge between internal combustion engine vehicles and electrical enigne vehicles. It is in both cases not that good. But it is a start when it comes to positive thinking. When comparing an electrical car where the batteries are charged with electricity from a nuclear plant it is cleaner. Especially when we start talking about 10 million vehicles driving each day. And that number is an understatement.
And to really start :The maintenance for an ICE causes more waste then an electrical car will ever produce when performing maintenance over the lifetime of a vehicle. I mention a yearly carter oil change for example. I dont know what happens to that oil tho. Maybe its refined, maybe it is dumped.

quote:
Plus CO2 is 3% of the atmosphere... that's with all the people and animals and machines that spew co2 combined with all volcanic eruptions. THREEEEE PERCENT... so if we kill all the animals and plug up all the volcanoes and disassemble all the machines and then kill all the people the co2 levels would eventually go down to 0%... and then the plants would all die from lack of co2 to breathe.


I do not have those numbers but i do not believe you either. But then again on a nice hot day you just breath the smog in your city and tell me again it has no influence. I am not a global warming fanatic, i even doubt it. But i do believe in local pollution. And that is simply true. Besides, a vulcano may spit out a lot of toxic materials but that als causes devastation to flora and fauna. I don't know what you are trying to say. Toxic materials in nature are dangerous. Just because it is found in nature does not mean that it cannot be hazardous.

quote:
If you want the co2 levels to go down (and at this point why would you? its 3%!) the solution isn't to drive a horrible electric or hybrid car that gets worthless mileage, its to make a machine that pulls co2 out of the air (like the university of calgary did) or plant more trees.


Plant more trees. Oops, thats too bad, you just cleared the ground so you can farm biofuels like is done in Brazil.
And you can say that the co2 goes into the corn and then back into the fueltank but you forget that in this universe nothing comes for free. You think of perpetual motion when thinking of biofuel and co2 levels. Yeah right...

quote:
But doing this doesnt "promote a greener lifestyle" and doesnt give the EPA or the federal government any way to regulate your life so it will never happen. We are all going to be herded like cattle into the meat grinder until we look up and we have no choices left in life except do I buy this government owned car or that government owned car? Every one just keep your head down and keep "voting for change" because that's how it happens ... you vote for oppression one 4 year term at a time till you have voted away all of your freedoms.


What are you talking about ? It is the short term thinking and easy money hunters who cause all the problems. Do some background research and have the strenght to doubt what people tell you. You can doubt my words, please do... But also do the background research and you will see my point. I am not a politican, i never will be cause i have a conscience. I just want humanity to grow and become enlightend.


RE: Electric racing vehicles
By relztes on 5/20/2009 12:37:30 PM , Rating: 3
You are correct that batteries have a much lower energy density, but you are wrong about efficiency. An ICE converts the chemical energy of gasoline to heat and then converts heat to mechanical energy. Heat engines are subject to thermodynamic limits to efficiency as well as practical limits. An electric motor is far more efficient and is not inefficient at low speeds like a gasoline engine.


RE: Electric racing vehicles
By heiwashin on 5/21/2009 6:38:05 PM , Rating: 2
Also traditional ICE for cars convert the energy stored in gas directly into mechanical energy, whereas electric motors are less efficient in translating energy into useful power.

That's wrong on every level. Gas is good at storing energy, but in reality your getting an extremely low power to the tires. Somewhere south of 50%. Heat, mechanical resistance, losses in gas that doesn't even burn, all crank this down severely. Electrical motors don't give off nearly as much heat, nor do they face as much mechanical resistance, and do achieve upwards of 80% efficiency. The only problem is that we can't hold enough power cheaply enough to make use of this widespread. In fact, electric motor's are even more effecient at higher rpm's than they are at lower rpm's due to the fact there's pretty much no mechanical resistance. It's not unreasonable to assume that at 30% of a motor's speed you'll be losing 30% of the power in heat, but at 90% of the speed you'll be losing significantly less. You should learn about dc motor's a bit before slandering them anymore. ;)


Awesome.
By 67STANG on 5/20/2009 11:00:32 AM , Rating: 1
Does this mean that if the new Volt used these batteries instead, it could go 68 miles (40 x 1.7) before needing to be recharged?

By the way: mass produce d




RE: Awesome.
By FishTankX on 5/20/2009 11:04:25 AM , Rating: 4
No, power density does not equal energy density.

power density is how much peak energy it can deliver to the motors, energy density is how much energy it can hold.

What you would likely see, is a volt that could handle 70% more HP with the same size battery pack.


RE: Awesome.
By SpaceJumper on 5/20/2009 11:31:38 AM , Rating: 3
Power density is Watt per Weight. It is not peak energy or power. The battery can store a lot of energy, if the battery efficiency is low or high internal resistance, the power density would be low because some of the energy is wasted in the internal resistance as heat.


RE: Awesome.
By 67STANG on 5/20/2009 12:52:09 PM , Rating: 1
I'm quite aware of the differences between power density and energy density, thanks.

My post was based upon the article that was originally posted. The wording in the article was changed AFTER I posted... The way it was worded orginally as that it could store 1.7 times the energy...


Why not just more power?
By MozeeToby on 5/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why not just more power?
By FishTankX on 5/20/2009 11:10:29 AM , Rating: 2
The article states the batteries can deliver more amps, not store more energy.

Sadly, this technology has no direct application to laptops.


RE: Why not just more power?
By FITCamaro on 5/20/2009 11:51:51 AM , Rating: 2
Well it could allow higher power laptops. Granted that just means even shorter battery life.


RE: Why not just more power?
By Starcub on 5/21/2009 11:10:04 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed, imagine being able to use your laptop as a space heater too!

Seriously though, the advantage to using this tech in smaller devices I think would be in lowering charging times.


RE: Why not just more power?
By MozeeToby on 5/20/2009 11:10:58 AM , Rating: 2
Nevermind to all of the above, I just realized from the other comments that they are talking about power density, rather than energy density.

So basically, ignore me :)


So basically
By FITCamaro on 5/20/2009 11:51:08 AM , Rating: 2
This allows better and faster electric sports cars. It does nothing to solve the problems of limited distance or long recharge times in electric vehicles.

I'm not saying it isn't an important breakthrough. Just pointing out that this doesn't really bring the electric car that's practical for everyone any closer to reality.

Props to Hitachi for making faster electric cars.




RE: So basically
By Chernobyl68 on 5/20/2009 12:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
agreed. I'd rather see them working on Energy Density than Power Density.


RE: So basically
By TomZ on 5/20/2009 1:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
Right, and this quote in the article is wrong:

Longer driving ranges can be realized on electric and hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius by reducing weight and/or improving the power density of batteries.

Hitachi is basically announcing a battery with a higher discharge rate, not one that stores more energy.


W/kg Is Meaningless
By nodak on 5/20/2009 12:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
W/kg has absolutely no meaning, as it is a measure of power, not capacity. Do you mean W*h/kg , a.k.a. Watt-hours per kilogram?




RE: W/kg Is Meaningless
By TomZ on 5/20/2009 1:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
RE: W/kg Is Meaningless
By menace on 5/20/2009 2:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think the point is if you increase power density without a corresponding increase in energy density you are just getting a battery you can pump the charge out of faster. That doesn't help the "how far can I drive on a single charge" problem but it may allow you to be able to drive a larger motor load with fewer batteries (but also having faster charge depletion, because energy storage capacity would be less if energy density was the same).

I suspect they also would have a higher energy density but the article doesn't give any clue.


By cpeter38 on 5/20/2009 1:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
I have looked at many EV configurations and every one I have looked at is NOT limited by instantaneous power available. The battery pack size is dictated by total energy requirements. The power density of the "energy batteries" being used is more than enough to sustain the acceleration requirements.

This MAY be useful if there is a similar improvement in the charging rate. Unfortunately, that is not mentioned.

If Hitachi could come up with a similar energy density improvement, they would own the LI battery market!!




"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




12 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki