backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 88 comment(s) - last by cpuandme.. on Jul 20 at 9:07 PM
ZPower looks to the future of battery technology

Just a few weeks ago, Senator John McCain called for a $300 million USD prize to whoever can develop a new type of battery to "leapfrog" the abilities of current generation of commercially available plug-in hybrid and electric cars. 

In this age of skyrocketing oil and gas prices, such a proposition certainly makes sounds attractive.  After all, even the major car manufacturers seem to be announcing or rolling out new hybrid cars or at least focusing on smaller, more fuel-efficient variants every other week.  In fact, some car makers will even offer solar panels as an option on certain models of vehicles – though its actual practicality is questionable.

Would such an approach work though?

Probably not, according to ZPower CEO Ross Dueber, whose company is currently developing a new battery technology for use with laptops that is slated to be available early next year.  The problem here is that such a monumental effort requires huge sums of money upfront -- not at the back end.  Dueber reckons that $300 million is only a fraction of what it’ll actually cost to develop a new generation of superior battery for vehicles.

Dueber should have a pretty good idea here. After all, ZPower itself is in the midst of creating a new page in battery technology with its work in consumer-ready silver-zinc batteries. One of the key advantages of the silver-zinc battery technology is that it is inherently safe from explosions or from catching fire due to the complete absence of the relatively volatile lithium.

Another attraction of silver-zinc batteries lies in its power density.  It has about 40 percent higher density than lithium-ion batteries, with plenty of potential to safely increase its energy density.  In fact, the projected improvement in energy density could hit two-times that of lithium-polymer eventually.

In addition, the key materials in a silver-zinc battery are also fully recyclable.  Unlike downcycled lithium-ion cells, which can no longer be reused, the recycling process for silver-zinc results in materials that are the same quality as those that went toward the initial creation of the battery. Assuming proper recycling, the need to mine for new raw materials will be reduced, certainly making it more environmentally friendly.

However, are silver-zinc batteries the Holy Grail in terms of battery safety? Dueber was candid on the relative risks.  He explained, “Keep in mind though that we safely drive around today with highly flammable gasoline in our tanks, so personally I'm not quite sure of the  relative risks when comparing lithium-ion batteries to gasoline.”

Still, there is no doubt that silver-zinc batteries do offer increased safety and a higher energy density.  Assuming production costs does not prove to be a barrier; it is hard to see vehicle manufacturers not wanting to switch over to silver-zinc at some point in the future.

When asked, Dr. Dueber confirmed that vehicle batteries are definitely in their product development roadmap, though he was coy when it came to the details.  All that I could get was “timing is undefined pending our success in consumer electronics.”

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By MrJustin5 on 7/14/2008 10:56:17 PM , Rating: 1
Just yesterday, I was talking to someone who had seen the Documentary: "Who killed the Electric car?" and I believe there was a man in the video who had developed a radical new type of battery that was perfect for electric cars and was ready to be used NOW (NOT spending $300 MILLION to develop something that had ALREADY BEEN developed).

The inventor if this new battery was very excited and had sold the technology to General Motors. He was thrilled that he had sold it for millions and that it was finally going to be used in their new electric cars and it would help mankind through the auto industry, etc. Well, the new cars came out... WITHOUT his new battery technology in it?

What happened? He spoke at conferences and I believe it was colleges and technical meetings, etc and to the press. After a short time, he was sent a "cease and desist" letter from General Motors, which he showed on the video. He is now no longer even able to DISCUSS OR MENTION THE NEW, REVOLUTIONARY BATTERY TECHNOLOGY HE HAD DEVELOPED!

Where IS that technology? Just as I like to say: Its sitting on the shelf, waiting to be picked apart and trickled down through so-called: Trickle-down-technology. So, for instance, I or anyone else develops an amazing new battery, GM has something to instantly "discover" and come out with to dominate me in the market and put me out of business.

This is what Mickey$oft does. This is what IBM does. This is what Dupont does. This is what all major companies do with technology. A new technology is state of the art, years ahead of its time and then its put on the shelf for DECADES while they "struggle with R&D research, desperately trying to find something to solve all of the `problems` that exist."

End of story. RESEARCH IT! Dont bash me.. do the fact finding for yourself and wake up. Don't be indoctrinated and brainwashed. Dont believe what you see on TV or in most of the 'mainstream news'.

x Justin




By Comdrpopnfresh on 7/14/2008 11:07:00 PM , Rating: 3
Not sure if the plot you present is accurate or not, but the beginning of and end of the story are spot on.

The only reason why automobiles are so popular today is because general motors bought out all the cable car companies at the turn of the century and closed them down. People had no other way to get around but the automobile.

They don't want to use the technology because no one will need the same level of maintenance on their electric vehicle as with current cars. The car companies in the US makes a large share of their money on warranties, maintenance, and repairs over the life of a vehicle. A car that can fully replace a current gasoline vehicle with the same or better range, features, fill/charge time, and performance would only harm GM if they released it. So if a competing car company decides to leave the brotherhood and put one of these on the market, at least GM can rest well knowing they won't have to play catch-up.


By ultimaone on 7/14/2008 11:19:54 PM , Rating: 1
ya i saw that movie too

it was interesting that ALL the major car companies
had an electric vehicle, and once they fought back and
won, they ALL shredded their cars

they are running scared, cause like you said, a lot of their
money comes from basic maintenance, oil changes, brakes, timing belts, etc

an electric car....umm hmm no oil, no filters, no transmission, no valves, no gaskets to replace.

basically the auto industry as we know it would disappear

kinda like what the horse industry went through when the
car took over...now the car is out-doing the car.

however they can't hold out forever, since even little companies are coming out with electric cars, it'll happen

the reality is, it won't happen overnight and it'll be a good 20 years before the number of "old" gas and diesel really start to disappear off the streets


By Viditor on 7/15/2008 4:56:51 AM , Rating: 2
That's probably not the best candidate...
CNT based batteries (being developed at MIT) seem to have much more promise...

"A breakthrough technology is holding forth the promise of charging electronic gadgets in minutes, never having to replace a battery again, and dropping the cost of hybrid cars. Indeed, the technology has the potential to provide an energy storage device ten times more powerful than even the latest batteries in hybrid cars -- while outliving the vehicle itself.

The new technology, developed at MIT's Laboratory for Electromagnetic and Electronic Systems, should improve ultracapacitors by swapping in carbon nanotubes, thereby greatly increasing the surface area of electrodes and the ability to store energy"

http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/wtr_16326...


By FingerMeElmo87 on 7/15/2008 9:49:20 AM , Rating: 2
when a currently technology runs into a road block, just ram CNT's into it and you're fine. lol


By FingerMeElmo87 on 7/15/2008 10:08:52 AM , Rating: 2
By puckalicious on 7/15/2008 6:04:23 AM , Rating: 3
"they are running scared, cause like you said, a lot of their
money comes from basic maintenance, oil changes, brakes, timing belts, etc"

Actually, OEM's do not make any money on these things. It's possible some dealerships make a profit here but that has nothing to do with the OEM. FYI warranty items negatively affect the bottom line. OEMs spend alot of money trying to reduce how much warranty cost they incur and to reduce the amount of maintenance needed.

Get a clue about the auto industry.

"however they can't hold out forever, since even little companies are coming out with electric cars, it'll happen"

Virtually every OEM is trying to find a way to make a BEV or PHEV right now. The problem is making one that returns a profit as the cost to produce one that meets all requirements and is desirable by the public is very high. The reason the "little companies" can bring one to market quicker is they can side step many of the regulations that a "full line" OEM must meet.

Once again, you are clueless. Please refrain from posting when you know nothing about the topic.


By BansheeX on 7/15/2008 8:43:58 AM , Rating: 3
What a gross misrepresentation of capitalism. It isn't about gaining at the expense of others, it's about inadvertently benefiting both parties through the incentive of personal gain. Henry Ford revolutionized mass production of autos for personal profit and sold cars to millions of willing customers who thought it would make their transits faster. Individually, he accumulated the most money, but every person who transacted with him got a car. It was never his intention to benefit mankind, but that was the cumulative effect and he may never have done it without the incentive of reward in a capitalist system. You can apply this logic to just about any successful product in the market.

And since I have a crystal ball into the future, I can immediately foresee the socialist argument. "What about robbers and swindlers, aren't they operating for personal gain?" The difference is, you must define the legal environment. One of government's legitimate duties is protecting rights and offering recourse in courts. Does a robber or swindler infringe on rights? Yes. Does a seller of a properly represented product in a free market infringe on rights? No. It was a mutually agreeable transaction. Know the difference.

I further foresee the drug dealer argument. I'm fine with it, why aren't you? We already allow people to buy cigarettes to kill themselves, why not other things? We treat these people like criminals and throw em in jail when they're mostly non-violent, simply abusive to themselves. You can't legislate against self-infliction. Furthermore, it creates a black market when you illegalize drugs, driving the price to levels that creates corruption in police forces and allows real criminals to sell and profit enormously in order to fund their activities. Not only that, our government takes billions from people in order to fight it, making us poorer, almost creating a perpetual, self-fulfilling environment.


By William Gaatjes on 7/15/2008 2:30:28 PM , Rating: 3
Capitalism is about making money nothing more.

It is up to you an you alone if you want to do business in an honorable and noble way. And the problem is that if you want to make more money you have to scam it more from someone.

When Henry Ford started, there was a market waiting to fullfilled. When Microsoft started, there was a market waiting to be fullfilled and they did.
But it is up to them to delivere a product with the future in mind.

When Henry Ford started building his 1st production car he could have went for electric but he didn't. The ICE was there and the oil too.
Did you know that at that time they already had electric cars ?

Something else : When cars with ICE needed fuel research all over the world came up with fuel. But the point is they wanted to make it as cheap as possible in order to maximize profit. So instead of using some more expensive alternative alcohol mix to prevent knocking they used tetra ethyl lead. Although they knew how poisoness lead was. Look up the name : Charles F. Kettering and who he worked for : GM for example. He was not the only one afcourse.
It was advised by many scientists in the 1920 to not use lead but Kettering and others went ahead anyway. 50 years later there was the start of a ban on leaded gas in the USA and dumb Europe followed 10, 15 years later.

Boy are you short sighted when it comes to drugs.

I am not even going to explain myself. Extrapolate yourself what would happen to sociëty if people could just use pcp, cocaine ,heroine, speed , crystal meth (to name a few) all the time. Always people will pay a price, and most of the times their loved ones or someone who has or wants nothing to do with it. In a productive sociëty you need a clear mind. Drugs can't give you that.


By elgoliath on 7/15/2008 7:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
You are the short sighted one on drugs. Prohibition has never worked. I suggest www.leap.cc as a starting point if you would like to learn.


By William Gaatjes on 7/16/2008 10:01:46 AM , Rating: 2
Ha, i have more knowledge about the aftermath from drug (ab)use then you know and then i want to know to be honest. I know to many people who lost everything just because they thought they could handle/control it.
Bottom line, always someone pays a price. May that be a relative or a friend. I don't need your website to learn about the horrors that people under influence can do.

Example 1 : My collega got slashed by a guy under influence with a piece of glass. A 3 inch scar in his face and luckily a barely mist artery.

Example 2 : A young woman grown up as a girl with her addictive mother. She is now an addict to and is highly aggressive and has been in prison too, she has therapy now but it may be that the psychological scars are to deep to get ever a normal life.

Example 3 : Yet another young girl( ithink she is 15 now, i am not sure) giving her body away because that is what her mother did for drugs.

I have many more examples but i will leave it like this.

There is a reason why that stuff is illegal. And it should stay so.

For example :
I don't want to sit in a bus where the chauffeur is high or anything cause those things are bound to happen when drugs is freely available.

Only drug users want drugs legalized.
Other people care more about family and friends and don't want anything to with drugs.


By porkpie on 7/16/2008 10:25:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only drug users want drugs legalized.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. I've never taken an illegal drug in my life, and I strongly STRONGLY believe they should be legalized.


By William Gaatjes on 7/16/2008 10:32:19 AM , Rating: 2
Why do you want it legalized then ? Do you seriously think that crimes would drop ? It will get worse. Sure car stereo's will be stolen less but the more serious violent crimes will become more apparent. Talk to people who have been on drugs. Those that succesfully been able to stop using will tell you don't do it. And don't legalize it. Cause it brings the worst out in people.
Sure there is an exception to the rule, there always is.
But even with that exception always somebody gotta pay.


By porkpie on 7/16/2008 11:39:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why do you want it legalized then ?
Because its the right thing to do. The government doesn't have the right to play Daddy here.

And don't give me any BS about legalized drugs will "increase violent crime". Anyone who wants to do drugs is already doing them. You can buy them on any street corner now. Legalizing drugs would be no different than legalizing alchohol. It would cut out the huge profits from the industry and CUT crime.

quote:
Talk to people who have been on drugs.
I have. Half my friends in college were at one point or another. None of them ever committed any violent crimes. Why should they be punished and possibly imprisoned, simply because someone else can't handle their dope?