backtop

Print 40 comment(s) - last by FaceMaster.. on Aug 23 at 8:48 PM

New battery could cut thousands from the price of EVs like the Volt  (Source: Chevrolet)
Company plans to have new battery on the market in five years

There is much promise in the evolving world of battery technologies for many of the devices that we use every day. Better battery tech means notebooks that can operate longer per charge, cell phones we can talk on for longer, and electric cars that can travel longer distances. With all of the aspects of technology that the battery touches, a breakthrough here can have very far reaching effects.

Yet-Ming Chiang, a researcher and founder of A123 Systems, has developed a new battery design that he claims could make electric vehicles much cheaper. Chiang has started a new company to commercialize the battery technology called 24M. The researcher says that the new battery he has designed could cut costs of the battery packs for electric vehicles, such as the Chevrolet Volt, by as much as 85%. 

That cut in price on the battery pack, which can cost as much as $10,000, has the potential to significantly affect the price of electric vehicles and make them more cost competitive with traditional gasoline vehicles. A24 has raised $10 million in venture capital and an additional $6 million from Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy or ARPA-E. The money will be used to fund collaboration between A24, MIT, and Rutgers University.

Chiang is offering no details on the battery technology and only gives cryptic details on the battery he has developed. What information he will offer is that the battery is a semisolid energy storage device and that it uses tech that combines the best attributes of conventional batteries, fuel cells, and flow batteries. 

Chiang said, "In a typical rechargeable battery, only half of it is actual energy-storing materials. The rest is supporting materials. That's a problem I've been thinking about for years--how do you improve the efficiency of the design?"

Chiang says that a fuel cell doesn’t have to deal with that problem, but the hydrogen isn't easy to come by today for a fuel cell. Like a fuel cell, Chiang says that his battery can store large amounts of energy, but it doesn't need huge amounts of supporting materials like a typical flow battery. The design is also said to work with a wide range of chemicals. A proof-of-concept battery has been produced and works, which was used to secure the funding granted by ARPA-E.

The goal is to have the new battery in the field within the next five years.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
That's a Big IF
By Nutzo on 8/16/2010 11:48:13 AM , Rating: 3
If they could reduce the battery cost by 85%, that $10,000 battery becomes $1500. That would go along way to making the cars affordable.

Of course that's a BIG IF, since we've heard similar stories for years, that end up only being a small 10-20% improvement.




RE: That's a Big IF
By geddarkstorm on 8/16/2010 2:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
The fact he's made a working prototype, and is partnered with MIT, and Rutgers University, lends credibility to his claims. I have a good feeling about this, though 85% savings seems high; I'd think probably 40-50% by all markups and everything.

By the sounds of it, what he did was cut out a lot of the expensive supportive materials by redesigning the very layout of the battery. Batteries, in design, haven't actually really changed for a long, long time; we just improve one component or reactant or another. I really look forward to seeing what was done.


RE: That's a Big IF
By jimbojimbo on 8/16/2010 3:18:30 PM , Rating: 4
That's $8500 more dollars the executives can put in their pockets!


RE: That's a Big IF
By dgingeri on 8/16/2010 6:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
More big "IF"s:

IF heat doesn't degrade the battery quickly.

IF charging the battery doesn't produce enough hydrogen gas to make it explode.

IF water exposure doesn't degrade the battery.

IF freezing conditions don't damage the battery.

etc.

then it would be a great advancement. I'm hoping it works well. Reducing laptop batteries from $100 to $15 would be great. Reducing electric car batteries from $10,000 to $1500 would be awesome.


5 years
By magneticfield on 8/16/2010 10:41:41 AM , Rating: 2
Five years is like forever these days.

I sure hope they pull it off, but I still have the feeling that we're going to wait too much for the really revolutionary things in life. We need them now!




RE: 5 years
By mindless1 on 8/17/2010 12:44:35 PM , Rating: 2
No, we really don't. Life is not about the next big thing, it is about enjoying every moment. Your capacity for happiness does not depend on tomorrow's toy.


RE: 5 years
By FaceMaster on 8/17/2010 8:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
we're going to wait too much for the really revolutionary things in life. We need them now!


Yeah, what happens to all these advancements we read about on the Daily Tech? I read it and feel we're moving one step closer to Star-Trek land, then I walk outside and everything's exactly the same as it always has been.


RE: 5 years
By Spuke on 8/20/2010 11:51:04 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I read it and feel we're moving one step closer to Star-Trek land, then I walk outside and everything's exactly the same as it always has been.
Because ideals are not based in reality. Todays world is what you live in, not tomorrows. If you want to enact change, then work to make change. Sitting on the internet bitchin at people to get out and do "something" doesn't do anything. Historically, the only time you see massive change is when nearly everyone decides to do so. Outside of that, you have small groups of people beating their heads against a wall. Waste of life but to each his own.

I have discussions with my daughter about conservation on a national level. She believes she can get people to do so with education. I know she can't. It would take a significant amount of people make a significant change. And since, as a group, we tend to start over with every generation, the people trying to "educate" the masses have to start over too.

She thinks it's better to do something than to do nothing. I think it's better to live your life according to your own ideals and let your actions speak for themselves. If someone else is interested, then they'll ask which gives you the prime opportunity to share. If they don't ask then they aren't interested. Not interested != not care BTW.


RE: 5 years
By FaceMaster on 8/23/2010 8:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
That's right, you tell your daughter that she's the reason there isn't massive change in the world. Pessimists like you are really helping the world to become a better place!


Cost schmost
By YashBudini on 8/16/2010 2:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
What does this battery weigh? It's in a car after all, and handling is still an issue.




RE: Cost schmost
By Spuke on 8/16/2010 6:04:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What does this battery weigh? It's in a car after all, and handling is still an issue.
I think that the people buying these cars are concerned about fuel savings/planet savings first, handling 15th. I figure they'll be happy as long as it handles similar to the cars they've owned before.


RE: Cost schmost
By Schrag4 on 8/19/2010 11:51:00 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. However, if this tech will weigh twice as much, store less power, and is less efficient to recharge, then it's actually worse for the environment (in their eyes) than the current, expensive batteries.

I have a battery that costs one one-hundredth of one percent of current car battery pack, and it fits in the palm of your hand! Oh, but it won't move your car. My point is we need more details. Cost is only one of several critical factors.


Watch out!
By HercDriver on 8/16/2010 12:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
That's pure capacitance gel!




RE: Watch out!
By xpax on 8/16/2010 12:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
He's going for the car's battery core!


RE: Watch out!
By InvertMe on 8/17/2010 10:48:14 AM , Rating: 1
The problem is not the defacement
of public buildings or...

...the noise pollution caused
by the exploding devices.


RE: Watch out!
By InvertMe on 8/17/2010 10:48:19 AM , Rating: 1
The problem is not the defacement
of public buildings or...

...the noise pollution caused
by the exploding devices.


Wonder what the tech is?
By zephyrprime on 8/16/2010 12:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
So in a regular battery, half of the battery is just substrate materials that hold and separate the chemicals that are actually chemically active. Somehow, this guy claims to have dispensed with the need for such a substrate? How might this be done?

He also compares his tech to fuel cell tech. Fuel cells keep their fuel and the reaction site separate. Batteries keep their chemicals at the reaction site (which makes batteries very portable). He also says that the primary problem with fuel cells is that they need hydrogen which is tough to store.

Maybe his tech is like a fuel cell in that the reaction site is separated from the chemical reagents? Maybe it uses battery chemicals instead of hydrogen? On the other hand, the article also states that the devise is semi solid (like a battery). A setup like I'm talking about would be a liquid with holding tanks and reaction chambers so my speculation doesn't match what the article says.

Any other ideas?




RE: Wonder what the tech is?
By zephyrprime on 8/16/2010 1:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
The more I think about it, the more I am realizing. Batteries are what they are because they are portable and cheap to make. A battery is good in a portable stereo because it is cheap and has simple parts. You don't want to put tanks and a powered, mechanized reaction chamber into a portable stereo because such a device would be too big and too expensive.

However, a car is a large, expensive, long lasting device. A car is large enough to hold tanks and a reaction chamber. A car is also expensive enough to justify the expense of a reaction chamber. Instead of a battery, you could have some sort of reversible chemical reaction system in a car that uses the same sort of chemical reagents as a battery but places all the membranes and etc in a permanent reaction chamber instead of within the battery itself. This would afford you substantial weight savings. You would also dispense with all the expensive battery layer/membrane manufacturing cost. However, you would incur the new cost of some sort of reaction chamber.

If you used lithium battery tech, you would have to liquify lithium in some way. Emulsified maybe? Somehow, you would have to dispense with the need for carbon as a substrate in the anode. Doing this is the key to weight savings. Then you would flow the lithium to the reaction chamber. The lithium is the anode. It would be separated from the cathode by some sort of permanent version of the same sort of membranes used currently in batteries. Then the lithium could react with the cathode. I guess the cathode could be liquid too which would allow you to expel cathode material as it became saturated and the membrane could then be reused. Or if the cathode were solid, you would need more membrane material.


RE: Wonder what the tech is?
By jpbattaille on 8/22/2010 5:48:06 AM , Rating: 2
Good point - lot to investigate and design in this reaction chamber !


What's In a Name?...
By DougF on 8/16/2010 11:56:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Chiang has started a new company to commercialize the battery technology called 24M.
quote:
A24 has raised $10 million in venture capital...
Is it 24M or A24? And, if he was already working for A123, a bleeding-edge battery company, why the split? Mutual disagreement on ability to bring this to market? Chance at being the next Bill Gates of batteries? "Lone Wolf" kinda guy? Enquiring minds would like a few more details than "YET ANOTHER BREAKTHROUGH THAT PROMISES TO REVOLUTIONIZE (insert industry here)"




RE: What's In a Name?...
By epobirs on 8/16/2010 3:25:51 PM , Rating: 3
The new company may be structured to be absorbed into A123 if its work proves viable. Having it as a separate operation has advantages for pitching to investors and not having failure penalize A123. It isn't that unusual for pursuing a new line of R&D.


Could
By adiposity on 8/16/2010 2:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
New Battery Tech Could Cut Electric Car Battery Pack Costs by 85%


But won't.




RE: Could
By jimbojimbo on 8/16/2010 3:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
It's all about money so even if they were able to create a battery that costs 85% less to make they'd only charge a little less than the batteries of today. That way they'll still take over all the sales and yet have a huge profit margin. Then as other products potentially come in the picture they'll reduce their prices a little yet again, just enough to win out over the competition.


Cold Fusion
By Ammohunt on 8/16/2010 3:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
Still waiting for Cold Fusion.. And whatever happend to that magnetic perpetual motion machine generator?




RE: Cold Fusion
By marvdmartian on 8/16/2010 3:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
Just give me my Mr. Fusion, and a flux capacitor, and watch out!!


By Jeff7181 on 8/16/2010 7:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's amusing that people are questioning things like whether the design is portable, safe, heat resistant, etc. etc. As if they're so much smarter than the people working on this technology.

"Yeah, I've got a great new battery, it costs $12, will power your car for 500 miles or your laptop for 48 hours or your cell phone for 15 days. However, it will add 18 pounds to your laptop, heats up to 460 degrees F in use so you have to use a bluetooth headset with your phone to avoid burning your face and it's almost as explosive as nitroglycerin so don't crash your car!"




Fuel Cell Technology
By ghendric on 8/17/2010 9:50:07 AM , Rating: 2
Why not pursue fell cell technology? What we need is technology where a car for example, could produce its own hydrogen for the fuel cell by simply filling a tank with water and have the system convert it to hydrogen. I know that some people say that it takes a huge amount of energy to convert water into hydrogen but some people say that it doesn't. There have been videos of people making hydrogen from their homemade fuel cells that didn't take a lot of energy to do it. If someone was to come up with a system like that, they would become billionaires..




Tooth Fairy
By owyheewine on 8/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Tooth Fairy
By MarcLeFou on 8/16/2010 10:11:44 AM , Rating: 5
That's be a worthwhile comparison were it not :

1) Proof of concept battery has already been produced and shown to DARPA
2) This is not from some obscure startup in battery tech but from one of the leading innovators in the field of automotive batteries.

Try again next time.


RE: Tooth Fairy
By StevoLincolnite on 8/16/2010 10:23:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Try again next time.


But the article doesn't exactly detail anything on this battery technology like material composition or even how it's built.

If it works and does as it's advertised... Then great! But I do wan't more details on it first for starters.


RE: Tooth Fairy
By Dr of crap on 8/16/2010 10:32:31 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with the above post.
Every other week we get some news of some tech that will GREATLY reduce the cost of batteries.
DON'T make a claim of 85% off price if it's 5 years away.
Everyone knows that a lot can happen in 5 years.
And stop with the claims that "this tech is the holy grail".
Unless you have something that is 3 months from me getting my hands on it stop telling me you can make things SO MUCH BETTER!!!


RE: Tooth Fairy
By Jedi2155 on 8/16/2010 11:45:36 AM , Rating: 2
Although I agree with you on your points, the thing that gives this article any merit is that the researcher is from A123 systems who has made some commercial products.


RE: Tooth Fairy
By knutjb on 8/16/2010 4:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
And Ford made the Edsel... Until the part is on sale its only vaporware. As others have mentioned there are a number of reasons to be doubtful of a commercialization of a research product.

I hope they are successful but in light of all similar miracle advancements I have read recently I have serious doubts...


RE: Tooth Fairy
By Dribble on 8/16/2010 12:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
He's just trying to get investors - he's basically saying "give me your money and in 5 years I'll make you rich".

Obviously whether he will or not is a different question, I'd be pretty sceptical if I were about to give him a chunk of my hard earned cash.

It would be very unusual - mostly high tech ideas like this come out of research labs.


RE: Tooth Fairy
By JediJeb on 8/16/2010 6:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It would be very unusual - mostly high tech ideas like this come out of research labs.


Well they guy was a founder and researcher for A123 battery company so I imagine it did come out of a research lab. He is starting a new research company just to focus on this tech, and to isolate the project from A123 in case of failure, so it is still in a research lab.


RE: Tooth Fairy
By Paj on 8/16/2010 11:14:31 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with what youre saying, its a bit frustrating. However I imagine hes hard at work securing all the patents and stuff for this first, hence the veil of silence over the whole thing.


RE: Tooth Fairy
By fic2 on 8/16/2010 2:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, because DARPA has never funded speculative research that went nowhere. DARPA funds all kinds of things that never work. If I was writing checks with other peoples money I guess I would, too.

I would probably be more for DARPA funding stuff if they/we/taxpayers actually got a piece of it if successful. But if this does work the only people that will make money off of it is the researcher and the vulture funds.


RE: Tooth Fairy
By epobirs on 8/16/2010 3:22:32 PM , Rating: 2
DARPA actually is far and away among the most cost-effective research agencies within the government. If they all ran like DARPA the nation would be in much better shape. A big part of that is the things DARPA tends to fund are items that have commercial potential rather than pure academic wankery. A modest investment by DARPA can suffice for a proof of concept that brings in the private investors.

Considerable numbers of products had their origins in DARPA projects, thus providing a very good return on investment compared to some of the truly dopey research funded by taxpayer dollars. Look at some of the nonsense pursued by psychology and sociology types if you want seriously wasted tax dollars. There is a lot of stuff the government does with our money that I would happily defund long before DARPA came up for consideration.


RE: Tooth Fairy
By knutjb on 8/16/2010 4:53:23 PM , Rating: 3
I know an engineer who did some work for DARPA and said it was his best work with the least headache with the biggest bang for the buck of any government program he's worked on (30+ years doing so) and he can't talk about it due to the classification. Simply they have the least red tape and are far more efficient with the money.

DARPA is the template the rest of government should follow.


RE: Tooth Fairy
By fic2 on 8/16/2010 6:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree with you that there is WAY more useless research done probably by every part of gov't.

What I would like to see is an actual return on that investment. If any private company gave an inventor money for a proof of concept they would own at least 50% of that concept. I would be ok with the taxpayers owning 5-10%. I just think we should get some kind of return on our "investment".


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki