backtop


Print 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?


By William Gaatjes on 7/16/2008 12:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because its the right thing to do. The government doesn't have the right to play Daddy here.


I just gave you 3 examples what drugs can do. I just explained to you that hard drugs alters your state of mind and long term use can do so permanently. I gave you enough examples.

quote:
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.


I explained that most people who get hooked on drugs already had a mental problem. Some of them are not even aware that they can get help, some are so far gone they think they don't need help.

Some are just regular people who prior before doing drugs where doing just fine in life. But the chance of genetics.
They rolled the dice and lost.

quote:
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?


And don't give me that marihuana crap. I am not talking about that however it is already proven that adolescents also do not benefit from smoking pot all the time.

When a mature person(21+ of age) smokes weed or hasj in a recreational way there is not a problem. As long as they don't have the feeling they need it to function. If so, something is wrong.
Some adhd people benefit from a carefully dosed joint. But that is more exception then rule.

When it comes to hard drugs, never legalize it.
And as i sad , it alters your state of mind. When you realize what is going on it is to late.
And there is always someone innocent that will pay a price.
Something you obvious can not understand.


By William Gaatjes on 7/16/2008 10:27:32 AM , Rating: 2
And another thing :

Most drug users on the street are people with psychiatric problems and drugs made their situation worse. Drugs don't solve anything, they just dissolve you !

And i have no respect for people who sell drugs to these poor souls. Beacuse of their mental state these poor souls are easy targets. Only a few are just plain evil( and even that can be just a mental disorder).


By elgoliath on 7/16/2008 3:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
First off, you are so misinformed it's not even funny. Add the fact that you won't even look at a website and try to educate yourself is asinine at best. For every one of your 'examples' there are thousands of counter examples, not to mention the whole "I know a friend/family member/person" line of reasoning is retarded and has absolutely zero merit.

The facts of the matter are:

The rate of addiction is still the same as it was before they were made illegal (i.e. the 'war on drugs' has had zero effect and only CREATED more criminals).

Making the drugs illegal created the drug related crime we see nowadays. How many dealer related drive by's do you think there would be if you could get your drugs from walgreens?

Certain people will take drug use to a point it affects other people, and I will feel the same about them as I do about alcoholics, work-aholics or any one else who takes things too far.

By your logic (or lack thereof) we should outlaw sex because of rapists, food cause of fat people and pretty much everything else. If you haven't notice, everything can be overdone.


By William Gaatjes on 7/16/2008 5:51:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First off, you are so misinformed it's not even funny. Add the fact that you won't even look at a website and try to educate yourself is asinine at best. For every one of your 'examples' there are thousands of counter examples, not to mention the whole "I know a friend/family member/person" line of reasoning is retarded and has absolutely zero merit.


In my country they have already done these tests.
They have legalized harddrugs partially and it did not help. Drug addicts could get it for free so they won't have to steal or sell themselves. Guess what it did not work cause their way of life did not improve. Drugs changes you, mentally and physically.
Period.

ALso those criminals behind the scene don't change. Something you don't seem to understand.
And i am not a usa citizen.

And it does not help. And as i sad, when you legalize it who do you think will start using it all the time. The children growing up or mature adults ? Right. There goes your future sociëty. And most adults aren't even mature enough.

You people seem to only be able to see it from your own point of view.

In my country they allow marihuana. Not a real problem.
But it becomes obvious that children from broken families or children who have personal problems have a tendancy to smoke more. As they would do with alcohol. This is serious cause it is shown that most children have difficulty learning after smoking.

Afcourse the exception on the rule calms down when smoking and learns better when smoking. As always there are exceptions to rules. I just want to say is it is not beneficial.

To come back to hard drugs :
You can throw around with websites but i see it in real life and that is way more important to me.

I know those people and it is not normal that their lives are being controlled by a chemical from "hell".

quote:
Making the drugs illegal created the drug related crime we see nowadays. How many dealer related drive by's do you think there would be if you could get your drugs from walgreens?


Your blaming this soley on illegal drugs.

I have to laugh.
First of all, learn more about the history why those things like driveby's happen. That is more a cultural thing then soley a drugs thing. I see poverty. I see people without a proper education. I see people who would not get far even if they tried. I see people who have no hope for the future. All they see as a child is that that guy has it all and he just takes what he needs wheter someone agrees or not. And the snowball starts rolling...

It is easier to say no when you have something you don't want to sacrifice. And even that is for some poor bastards not enough.

quote:
Certain people will take drug use to a point it affects other people, and I will feel the same about them as I do about alcoholics, work-aholics or any one else who takes things too far.


You are taking things out of proportion. Nothing to with that. Unless you mean the alcohlic who has to drink a few bottles of whiskey everyday. That person has a reason to do so and needs help.

And if the work-aholic does not want to be home cause nobody is there waiting for him or her it makes sense does it not.

When a work-aholic does not want to go home to his wife then they need to start talking to eachother or seek help. There is a reason for those situations. With hard drugs the only reason is that it is addictive and changes you into something you don't want to but you cannot help it.

quote:
By your logic (or lack thereof) we should outlaw sex because of rapists, food cause of fat people and pretty much everything else. If you haven't notice, everything can be overdone.


Totally out of proportion. Maybe we should stop blogs so people like you could not give such useless replies.

I don't know what is going on in the minds of rapists but i doubt they all are addicted to sex.
Some are even just under influence of some substance, some are raged by jealousy, some are idiots, some have an mental disorder. I just name a few examples.

Not all fat people eat all the time. Some have for example a failing thyroid.

Some eat all the time because they are unhappy and find it the only joy they have. Give them dope and they won't be fat for long. Before you know it, you can find them on the street at your precious corner.

Afcourse this does not go up for every fat person but most seem to have something in common.

Some just live in luxoury and you can tell by looking at them. However food is not addictive. I rest my case.

Most things in live you can trust on common sense.
Not with hard drugs you can.


By elgoliath on 7/16/2008 8:06:55 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, you really aren't worth the time if you won't even educate yourself, but I'm bored.

There are more productive, happy members of society on drugs than there are extreme cases you try to represent as the norm.

quote:
In my country they have already done these tests. They have legalized harddrugs partially and it did not help. Drug addicts could get it for free so they won't have to steal or sell themselves. Guess what it did not work cause their way of life did not improve. Drugs changes you, mentally and physically. Period.


"In your country" they've already done tests? Which country? Where are those tests? In my country we've done all those tests too and it showed that drugs only had positive effects... which is backed up as much as your statement.

I seem to understand more than you. You are just like homer simpson buying a rock to keep the tigers away. Obviously if those people are strung out on drugs before they are legalized, then it is only common sense that they would remain that way after legalization. Regarding drugs changing you mentally and physically, well, duh, that would be the point of taking them. Drugs are not used to remain sober in case you didn't know.

quote:
ALso those criminals behind the scene don't change. Something you don't seem to understand. And i am not a usa citizen


This is yet another place you are wrong. The criminals behind the scenes do change after legalization. In fact, again with this common sense thing, they are no longer criminals since what they are doing is not a crime any more! As far as dealers and the crime that comes with them, if the drugs are legal, no one is going to go to a dealer or their ilk to get the drugs pushed on them, they will go to an establishment, so there goes that crime as well.

quote:
And it does not help. And as i sad, when you legalize it who do you think will start using it all the time. The children growing up or mature adults ? Right. There goes your future sociëty. And most adults aren't even mature enough.


Legalizing drugs, FYI, would be the same as alcohol. 'Children' are not going to use drugs before their legally old enough any more than they already do with alcohol. The fact that you think adults aren't mature enough speaks volumes, but no, lets go ahead and base our laws for adults based on what kids do. You really seem to be off your rocker a bit.

quote:
You people seem to only be able to see it from your own point of view.


No, you are the one trying to justify infringing on peoples rights and are unwilling to look past your crappy examples.

quote:
In my country they allow marihuana. Not a real problem. But it becomes obvious that children from broken families or children who have personal problems have a tendancy to smoke more. As they would do with alcohol. This is serious cause it is shown that most children have difficulty learning after smoking.


They allow marijuana? And your society DIDN'T crumble?? Yes, it is obvious that people who have issues will turn to drug/alcohol/whatever to make themselves feel better. You, in your 'infinite wisdom' would rather take away that joy they have instead of fixing the REAL underlying problem that is putting them in that situation in the first place. Yeah, you really 'care' about these people, dontcha? Do you have anything showing that drug use inhibits learning or is this just something else you are just pulling out of thin air?

quote:
Afcourse the exception on the rule calms down when smoking and learns better when smoking. As always there are exceptions to rules. I just want to say is it is not beneficial.


What?

quote:
To come back to hard drugs : You can throw around with websites but i see it in real life and that is way more important to me.


Yes, I can see what is more important to you: living in ignorance. You seem unable to look past the surface of an issue and see the root cause. It sounds to me like you are just pissed that your friends aren't the same as they used to be.

quote:
Your blaming this soley on illegal drugs. I have to laugh. First of all, learn more about the history why those things like driveby's happen. That is more a cultural thing then soley a drugs thing. I see poverty. I see people without a proper education. I see people who would not get far even if they tried. I see people who have no hope for the future. All they see as a child is that that guy has it all and he just takes what he needs wheter someone agrees or not. And the snowball starts rolling...


lol, get a clue dude. Perhaps you need to learn a little history. Before prohibition in the U.S., how much alcohol related crime was there? How about during prohibition? And after? You honestly think drug related crime will not change if drugs are legalized??

quote:
You are taking things out of proportion. Nothing to with that. Unless you mean the alcohlic who has to drink a few bottles of whiskey everyday. That person has a reason to do so and needs help.


I'm not taking anything out of proportion. All of those things are just like drugs, you just have been led to believe for so long that drugs are bad, 'evil' even, and so you continue to carry the misinformed torch. All of those things, as with most things (if not everything), is just like drugs, yet you don't want to prohibit them. Why? Being obese is just as likely to kill you. Why aren't there mandated diets?


By William Gaatjes on 7/17/2008 7:07:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Meh, you really aren't worth the time if you won't even educate yourself, but I'm bored.

There are more productive, happy members of society on drugs than there are extreme cases you try to represent as the norm.


I noticed that. You have given me no arguments that make me think "hmmm, i guess he has a point there...".

I know many people who use drugs and al of them having some problems. And i know also many people who started with good jobs, houses, great relationships. They end up alone and have to start all over again. Hard drugs are addictive and they change you. Something you stll don't seem to realize.

And what do you know from the instances that deal with drug addiction, they give away figures that show an increasing rise of good productive happy memebers of sociëty seeking help cause they are loosing control. Luckily for them they accepted the problem fast enough or they could have ended up worse.

You make me laugh.

quote:
I seem to understand more than you. You are just like homer simpson buying a rock to keep the tigers away. Obviously if those people are strung out on drugs before they are legalized, then it is only common sense that they would remain that way after legalization. Regarding drugs changing you mentally and physically, well, duh, that would be the point of taking them. Drugs are not used to remain sober in case you didn't know.


Calling names is not an argument. And why do you need drugs to enjoy life ? Hahaha You are so obvious it is to easy.

We have smartshops here. People can try some hallucinegenics
.And because these are not addictive it is not really a problem. When it is kept as a 1 time experience it is not a reall issue. But if i rmember correctly the experts here also advice to not use it more then once every 6 months.

People can smoke weed or hasj not a problem. But the hard drugs are to addictive and dangerous. There are enough choices that can be done with soft drugs. Leave it at that. As long as there is proper guidance and strict education to minors to not use drugs until they are adults.
Unfortunatly...

quote:
This is yet another place you are wrong. The criminals behind the scenes do change after legalization. In fact, again with this common sense thing, they are no longer criminals since what they are doing is not a crime any more! As far as dealers and the crime that comes with them, if the drugs are legal, no one is going to go to a dealer or their ilk to get the drugs pushed on them, they will go to an establishment, so there goes that crime as well.


Oh sure. Base your profit on the addictive drugs. Crack for example, is one of the best markets for drugs. Why ? cause it's flash is short and the crash is severe. So you will immediately start to crave for more. It is a perfect customer - reseller situation. Heroine, once you have used it a couple of times, you need to go to a nasty withdrawal. Let alone the permanent damage it does to your body.
Why would anybody want to put other people through such a hell. People who do that don't care much about other people. That is what i am trying to say. You are so incredibly naive.

quote:
Legalizing drugs, FYI, would be the same as alcohol. 'Children' are not going to use drugs before their legally old enough any more than they already do with alcohol. The fact that you think adults aren't mature enough speaks volumes, but no, lets go ahead and base our laws for adults based on what kids do. You really seem to be off your rocker a bit.


Exactly and that is why we must prevent them from getting drugs even more easy. Children are dying because of this.
But you don't care do you. All you need is your shot.
Sounds you are on cocaine ?

quote:
They allow marijuana? And your society DIDN'T crumble?? Yes, it is obvious that people who have issues will turn to drug/alcohol/whatever to make themselves feel better. You, in your 'infinite wisdom' would rather take away that joy they have instead of fixing the REAL underlying problem that is putting them in that situation in the first place. Yeah, you really 'care' about these people, dontcha? Do you have anything showing that drug use inhibits learning or is this just something else you are just pulling out of thin air?


You don't even understand the meaning "soft drugs" and "hard drugs " do you.

But for example :
Most people who don't do marihuana also don't smoke, they don't like the smell or the effect. And since it is not addictive they don't start going back to it. People who can't stop using marihuana cause they have personal problems are easy targets when they are exposed to hard drugs. Ergo keep the hard drugs away. People don't benefit from it.

In tribes in for example in south America or in Africa they use chemicals similair to undergo certain rituels. But they don't use it anymore after cause they know it is not the right thing to do. If that may be becasue they think they anger the spirits or their own common sense.

quote:
Yes, I can see what is more important to you: living in ignorance. You seem unable to look past the surface of an issue and see the root cause. It sounds to me like you are just pissed that your friends aren't the same as they used to be.


Hahaha
Most of these people are not friends and never where.
I just like to understand and that is why i have had contacts with these people and i have learned a lot.
I even have experimented when i was younger , but i realized the danger it can be and kept it as a spiritual experience. I have never had any doubts but i am gifted with a powerfull character.
Some of my friends where not so lucky and 2 of them beat up their wifes while under influence.

quote:
lol, get a clue dude. Perhaps you need to learn a little history. Before prohibition in the U.S., how much alcohol related crime was there? How about during prohibition? And after? You honestly think drug related crime will not change if drugs are legalized??


I am not going to spell it out since you can only see your own small corner in life. I am not talking about alcohol.
I am and was talking about a cultural problem in the us.

quote:
I'm not taking anything out of proportion. All of those things are just like drugs, you just have been led to believe for so long that drugs are bad, 'evil' even, and so you continue to carry the misinformed torch. All of those things, as with most things (if not everything), is just like drugs, yet you don't want to prohibit them. Why? Being obese is just as likely to kill you. Why aren't there mandated diets?


Oh yes, i am going to sell my golden ring for 30 dollars to get more pizza. Because pizza is so addictive. Someone robbed his mother because he needed money to buy more icecream. Icecream is so addictive.

Hahahaha You make me laugh.

I am tired of you with you armchair knowledge.
Come back when you know what you are talking about.

You don't seem to understand the psychological impact drugs have on people and therefore on sociëty.

I guess i'll fart now to start another tropical storm on the other side of the globe. That is nonsense to but i guess you would believe it.


By William Gaatjes on 7/17/2008 4:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some of my friends where not so lucky...


I forgot to put friends between quotes. It should have read "friends". Cause they aren't.


By seamonkey79 on 7/15/2008 8:46:38 AM , Rating: 4
It's a shame you've never read history.

Maybe you should look at some of the peak civilizations of the past and how, when they turned from capitalism to socialism, they collapsed.

Ever stop to think that the more limits are placed on the capitalistic abilities of this country (health care, welfare, unions), the worse this country is off, and the more needs to be spent on health care and welfare and the more the unions demand, thereby decreasing the abilities of the country yet again, demanding more... etc.

It never ceases to amaze me how people get so caught up in the little things they think are wrong that they never see all the big things that are right.

Rising health costs? Yes, because every time you have a sniffle, you go to the doctor. That causes him/her to have less time to see patients that might actually be ill, causing a drop in health care performance. It also means they have more chance of doing something wrong, so they have to pay more in malpractice insurance. That means they need to see more patients so they can continue to make money. That means they have more chance of doing something wrong, so they have to pay more malpractice insurance... again, etc.

Welfare... well, I guess I just don't see much point in increasing what we're giving to a perfectly capable, just taught to be lazy, working class of people. I'm not speaking as a rich person, I'm speaking as a person who has asked them the question "you know, you've been on this 'assistance' stuff for awhile, why don't you look for some entry level thing and move on from there" response: "I figure if the government is going to pay me to do nothing, I'll do it." Granted, I feel a need for society to help those that cannot help themselves. I, however, do not feel a need for society to help those who will not help themselves.

Unions. Having been in a number of unions, I have first hand experience of what they can do to a company. Let's see... guaranteed pay raises, which means guaranteed price increases on a company's products, which means things cost more, which means we need a new pay raise, which means new price increases, which means new... etc. Also, you now have a group of people who OFTEN (not always, I know a few union, okay, a fair number of members who don't) feel that because they're guaranteed stuff, that means they no longer have to do what was once expected of them in order to earn something. Pay increases, I'm sorry, we're not going to work unless you promise to pay us more, whether we've done anything to deserve it or not. Health care, yes, we know it is called a 'benefit' but tell you what, give it to us, or we're not working. Breaks, we don't care if getting that done five minutes earlier will save the company thousands of dollars, it's our guaranteed hour and a half of work done break, we're not finishing it (literally, I was standing there when they walked away on a job a customer was waiting on that should have been done, but wasn't because the guys weren't working as quickly as they could have because they were upset with our manager so they were doing what they could to get him in trouble, and the customer had a contract and the company wound up losing about $4000 on that). I like the idea of unions, unfortunately, the reality of unions is far from what unions were originally. When car companies are near to or losing money on every car they sell, there's a problem. Chrysler, one of the icons of the automobile industry was sold to a holding group because there was no way that Daimler could make them profitable... why? Well certainly not because they weren't selling cars. They were losing money on every car they sold, because of the health care and pay of its employees. Companies have a responsibility to treat their employees correctly, however, unions seem to feel that they don't have a responsibility to treat their company correctly.

Take capitalism out of the picture and you end up with a lousy nation. The Russians tried socialism already, they failed miserably because we were working capitalism. I should think that would be example enough, but apparently people are as ignorant of recent history as they are of ancient.


By gmw1082 on 7/15/2008 8:48:45 AM , Rating: 2
People go into business to make money. You wouldn't knowingly invest your money in something that's guarenteed to lose money. I don't expect car companies (or any other company) to invest their money in something that loses money. That would only bankrupt a company in the long run. Capitalism is also beneficial to both sides. I'm sure you have benefited greatly from owning a car just as the company benefits when you buy the car.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2008 10:11:24 AM , Rating: 2
> "People go into business to make money...Capitalism is also beneficial to both sides"

It goes even deeper than this. If a company is losing money, it means it is consuming more resources than it produces. In a capitalistic society, such companies cannot exist for long, but in a socialistic one, they can persist forever, ultimately devouring the resources made by those few companies who do produce a net surplus.

The result? Miles and miles of empty shelves, and millions of consumers who, even if they had money, have nothing to buy with it. In other words -- exactly the situation which existed in Soviet Russia.


By FingerMeElmo87 on 7/15/2008 9:58:38 AM , Rating: 2
to play devils advocate here, no company can survive making a negative profit. if a company can't break even then they wont exist. you'll have a shiny new ultra-eco friendly car but no company to support it.


By Regs on 7/15/2008 9:39:58 AM , Rating: 2
Dear puckalicious, please remove stick from butt and refrain from posting when you have absolutely no social skills and get hard-on's from trying to manifest mental superiority of your fellow human.

Then again, you could just be a Martian for all I know. Most of you are. Don't lie.


By TheriusDrake on 7/14/2008 11:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
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.


I guess you havent read about how many millions of dollars GM is loosing right now because of their cars that have poor MPG ratings, nor have you read about how many millions of dollars GM is sinking into R&D to save their bottom line on an all electric car.


By Solandri on 7/14/2008 11:24:51 PM , Rating: 4
Look at the pounding GM is taking in sales and the stock market. Their shares are down almost 90% from their all-time high, 80% from their historical norm. There's even talk of them filing for bankruptcy. They'd have to be suicidal to be sitting on some revolutionary new battery technology and deliberately not bringing it to market.

More than likely, like 99% of the "exciting new research" stories you hear about, some difficulty or complication come up which made the idea impractical for widescale production. That's marketing 101 - when you're publicizing your idea, like, say, to the press, you don't talk about the downsides.


By StevoLincolnite on 7/15/2008 1:16:52 AM , Rating: 3
I have a VN SS Holden Commodore (Made by GM), it's done 470 Thousand Kilometers, I grabbed it at 300 thousand and haven't had any issues besides doing the basic maintenance, which is Oil, oil filter, belts and fuel filter, which i do myself which saves me a fortune over the years.

Heck the Idle Pully is still the original, not bad for 470 thousand kilometers!

Yet I had a Mitsubishi Manga TN Years ago, which was nothing but trouble.

Basically the way I have it worked out in my mind, I could be wrong but sometimes a car is just nothing but trouble, others will soldier on for many years, without even a hick-up, some are just freaks and *never* break down as long as they are properly maintained.

Some cars of the same model and year and what not consume more fuel than others, for instance my mates Commodore consumes on average 5-8 more liters per hundred kilometers than my car does, much like computer silicon "not all cars are created equal" - Just like all pieces of silicon have different overclocking potential.


By FITCamaro on 7/15/2008 5:51:39 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah and I'm at 46000 miles on my Cobalt and still smiling. Still on the original tires too. Only thing I've done now is replace the front brakes.

People like you with bad experience who then swear off any American car are the problem and the reason the US auto industry is suffering.

Enjoy your slave labor built Toyota.


By 67STANG on 7/15/2008 11:31:09 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure that's quite fair... I think I remember reading that Toyota is opening it's 11th United States plant soon? Not sure about the numbers, but I'm pretty sure it's the 11th...

Anyhow, cars are assembled by humans, from parts designed and manufactured by humans. There is something called human error. Not every car is built exactly the same, nor is it driven and maintained exactly the same. Nearly all the parts/hardware on American cars come from overseas anyhow, just like everyone "buying American" at WalMart is supporting China and Taiwan...

With that said, I had more problems with my Nissan Sentra SER SpecV at less than 40,000 miles than I have had with any of my other cars.

- 2000 BMW 528i [171,000+ miles and still going strong]
- 1997 Honda Accord SE [121,000+ miles... runs great]
- 1967 Mustang [X,XXX,XXX+ miles... engine/trans replaced once]


By Spuke on 7/15/2008 7:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
I had an 04 Spec V too and the only problem I had with it was the remote release for the trunk never worked. I never bothered to have it fixed either cause I really didn't care. That's it. Every other car I've owned has had more minor problems than that. Everything was always fixed with the exception of a door fitment problem on my old 92 Sentra SE-R. That never got permanently fixed.

Some people based reliability on recalls. A recall is a fix as far as I'm concerned and as long as it's fixed, it's ok with me. Now mind you, I don't like my car sitting in the shop 29 days out of the month but occasional problems are expected especially with first year cars.


By phxfreddy on 7/15/2008 12:16:07 AM , Rating: 1
Yeaah....I'd really prefer the cable car option if I only had it.....drat that GM !!!

Yikes get a clue!


By dblind1 on 7/15/2008 10:03:54 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the new technology will scare all the car manufacturers. Any major shift has inherent problems. The biggest is going to be training and equipment. Think about the change to vista. If you worked on computers over the last 8 years, you knew where every setting was and how to get to it is 3 clicks or less, and with vista it takes a short google session and 5 clicks (not counting the extra 2 for UAC). You have to retrain grease monkeys to work on giant alternators and generators (regen braking) and batteries. However, you still have to have belts and AC (refrigerant, compressors, etc), as well as suspension (that reminds me.. I got to replace my tie-rod ends) as well as other systems that I'm sure they will not fully re-engineer.

While you would lose some maintenance business, you would gain some in other ways. I'm sure you will want to check your battery cells for failure. Also you will want to make your regen brakes are working (I'm guessing there will still be some kind of pads), there are bearing in that electric motor that will have to be lubed. And I would guess that their will always be some kind of small i.c. engine because we in the US travel in our cars and unless we install toll outlets everywhere that can fully charge the cars in less than 2 minutes, their is no other way. So charge as you drive is the only option their is - be it hydrogen, methane, gas, etc. Now you have 2 motors to service.

That leads me to only one real conclusion. Training and the unknown are what has been keeping the mostly electric and fully electric cars from being mass produced. After all, we need these cars to be able to do 70 MPH safely on a interstate and have a range of 100 miles per day (200 miles for some of us) and be refueled/recharged with little to no downtime. If not, then these would be very expensive commuter cars but families would still need the same old gas cars for there long trips.

Just my 2 cents.


By walleyweez on 7/18/2008 12:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, if you listen carefully to the video of the battery inventor (NiMH), you learn that GM sold the battery company to Texaco. Where is the FTC when you need them. No Oil companies should be allowed to buy up battery technology or any other alternative energy source or technology. They have bled us enough. We need to to stand up and make sure that never happens again. Of course, the auto makers can buy the batteries, since their in bed with the oil companies. I would buy these batteries today if they were available.


By BladeVenom on 7/14/2008 11:58:59 PM , Rating: 3
They were just NiMH batteries. Nothing especially radical. They are inferior to lithium batteries in most respects, but they are safer. GM will be using them in their new hybrids.


By SilthDraeth on 7/15/2008 9:34:00 AM , Rating: 2
What the heck does this have to do with the article?


By someguy743 on 7/15/2008 12:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
I read about a month ago that batteries using a chemistry of manganese and titanium look pretty darned good for plug in hybrids and all electric cars.

The batteries have to meet certain criteria such as: power, energy, safety, life, and cost. The manganese-titanium batteries have excellent power, energy, and safety and moderate cost. They are still testing this battery chemistry for battery life. That takes time. They have to torture test these batteries in real world conditions to know it they will work well in cars.

http://bioage.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/phot...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/05/uc-davis-r...

There's also a lot of potential in Dr. Cui's of Stanford's silicon nanowire lithium ion battery technology.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january...


By randomly on 7/18/2008 10:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately for DR. Cui and his nanowire lithium Anodes the major limiting factor of Lithium batteries is not the Anode material but the cathode material. Without better cathode materials improving the anodes has little impact on improving the batteries. It's a really cool advancement, but it just doesn't help much for making better batteries.


By Pops on 7/15/2008 2:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
Forget batteries the way we know them. Do yourselves a favor and read this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor

Basically this private company(which means they don't need to disclose details) is claiming they made Super Capacitors that out preform chemical reaction based batteries in every single way. They are safe, and they can charge in 5 to 10 mins. It sounds too good to be true honestly. But some Canadian car company believes them and is releasing a car with this technology in the next year or 2.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2008 2:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
> "It sounds too good to be true honestly. "

It sounds like they're trying to steal some venture capital dollars. The "scam-o-meter" goes off the chart when I hear of any company refusing to disclose product details. Patent protection begins the moment you file, so there's rarely any reason to withhold such information.


By TETRONG on 7/15/2008 3:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
Lockheed Martin has established that it's legit.


By TETRONG on 7/15/2008 3:02:37 PM , Rating: 1
The "guy" that you mention who invented those batteries is a friend of mine named Stan Ovshinsky. He was a pioneer in the field of amorphous silicon. They were NiMH batteries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Ovshinsky

His company is called ECD, and was toured by bush a few years back when he was interested in alternative energy.
He is retired now.

The "guy" who came up with controller was Alan Cocconi who went on to found AC propulsion. Some of this tech ended up in the Tesla.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_Propulsion

This company has already created the future of battery tech.Not sure what McCain is on about.
http://www.a123systems.com/#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A123_Systems

Also, you want to read about Supercapacitors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitors

Lastly,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductrack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array

Which dovetails nicely into,
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12366


RE: Dont they ALREADY HAVE the "new battery technology"?
By pm on 7/15/2008 7:21:53 PM , Rating: 2

I have built my own electric vehicle, and I agree. LiFePO4, and specifically A123's implementation, are the next generation batteries. They resolve several of the issues with NiMH such as self-discharge, low-temp operation, charging complexities (dV/dt, dP/dt, dT/dt are all complex) while offering slightly higher capacities and substantially higher discharge rates - 50C discharge, vs. typically 5C for large prismatic NiMH. Charging rates are also much higher - I charge NiMH at 0.1C, and charge A123 at 5C.. you can charge NiMH at higher rates, but the cells then heat up near the end of the charge cycle and they don't last as long.

I agree - the next generation battery is already here... they just need to make them cheaper. $16 for an A123 M1 makes it barely practical.


By TETRONG on 7/15/2008 8:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
Surprised you were able to get your hands on one.
I was rejected by A123-Not sure why.


By pm on 7/15/2008 8:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
You can buy them at radio control shops. The electric helicopter guys particularly like them because they can pull fancy moves that draw a lot of current and the cells don't seem too bothered by it.

You used to be able to get A123's for as little as $12/cell... but A123 threatened to cut off vendors who sell below the MSRP of $16.50/cell.

These have them in stock:
http://www.aircraft-world.com/shopexd.asp?id=5041
http://www.battlepack.com/A123.asp
http://www.radicalrc.com/shop/?shop=1&cart=1873292...
http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewIt...

These guys sell as pre-made packs of A123 cells:
https://www.tanicpacks.com
http://www.maxamps.com/products.php?cat=62
http://www.modelelectronicscorp.com/view_products....


By cpuandme on 7/20/2008 9:07:55 PM , Rating: 2
1st, the ECar already out there, TESLA, is going manufacturing in CA.
2nd, the technology been proven that work and out performance the oil car. The reason it not popularize in US because giant motor companies own the oil stock, and they have blocking the mass production. That lead to these E-Car manufactures cannot put their foot on the market; if they can they have to pay enormous amount of tax e.g pollution tax, Ozon,.. which apply to the gas-engine only. But recently because the oil raise sky-rock the congress cannot hold back anymore.
These technology had so easy implement that you can buy it and do it yourself, that meant you can replace your gas-engine with electrical. But no! the DMV and congress say that illegal.
my point it that these technology R&D in America by American but sold the patten to Europe. And turn around the European take that to China and mass production and sell in America. (these stupid cycle drive me nut)
and don't even think that SRP, APS (BTW, they are one company) will let the consumer build the solar energy, nor support it, because, they hold the nuclear power generators.
- It all boozuu, and deceive; it all about $$$$, POWER (politic)... have nothing to concern about true-American spirit.


More details?
By icrf on 7/14/2008 10:07:22 PM , Rating: 3
How about time to recharge? Lifespan? Production costs? Good to hear about energy density. Couldn't care less about safety increases over Li-ion.




RE: More details?
By PrinceGaz on 7/14/2008 10:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
Those questions you ask are obviously important, but if you were driving the car, would you really not be bothered about the safety increases over Li-ion? If it were my car, I'd much rather have a battery which isn't inherently volatile if damaged or subjected to harsh conditions.

Cost has to be a concern with the new batteries as silver is used, but I would imagine the cost of silver (unlike most metals) has dropped in recent years as the former major consumer (the photographic industry) no longer uses much now most people have digital cameras.


RE: More details?
By Ringold on 7/15/2008 4:14:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it were my car, I'd much rather have a battery which isn't inherently volatile if damaged or subjected to harsh conditions.


If your gas tank is 'damaged' during 'harsh conditions', and you cant exit the vehicle rapidly, such as if you are pinned in, then you're dead.

Like the ZPower guy said, its a marginal issue. For most people, anyway.


RE: More details?
By jimbojimbo on 7/15/2008 3:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
Also, crack open your car battery now and stick your hand in there. Feels great doesn't it?


RE: More details?
By Adonlude on 7/15/2008 4:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
Um, lead acid batteries are super stable. They only have problems when you dump all their energy at once like shorting a car battery, which you have to be dense to do.

Lithium reacts with a relatively abundant chemical here on earth, water, to make fire. A bit more dangerous I would say.

Thats right, Lithium + Water or Water Vapor = FIRE = hard to avoid.

Hand + Lead Acid Battery = chemical burn = easy to avoid


RE: More details?
By pm on 7/15/2008 7:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
While you are correct that elemental lithium (Li) reacts to water by forming LiO2 + H2 in an exothermic reaction that causes spontaneous combustion, the lithium in a lithium ion (or lithium polymer) battery is not elemental lithium - it's a lithium salt or a metallic oxide. Lithium ion batteries do not react to water by catching on fire.

The anode of a lithium ion cell is usually made from carbon, the cathode is a metal oxide (such as lithium cobalt oxide) and the electrolyte is a polymer, a lithium salt or a organic solvent.

Lithium primary batteries (non-rechargeable) do contain metallic lithium. They are usually small and are used in things like hearing aids. But lithium batteries are not rechargeable.


RE: More details?
By Doken on 7/14/2008 10:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'm curious about those details as well.

The fact that these batteries will be nearly 100% recyclable is a big bonus. We already have enough electronics waste material.


RE: More details?
By Solandri on 7/14/2008 10:45:00 PM , Rating: 3
We used silver-zinc batteries in our robot submarines when I was in grad school. The biggest drawback (aside from the price) was that they were only good for about 50 cycles. This was 12 years ago - this 2006 article in Technology Review suggests it's been improved a bit. But a few hundred cycles is still less than a year's use for a car.

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?...

Otherwise they're really nice batteries. Hold a lot of charge, low self-discharge, flat discharge curve, and you can pull a lot of current from them.


RE: More details?
By Googer on 7/14/2008 10:47:29 PM , Rating: 3
Most people would rather have a 100 mile range and a car that charges in under 5 minutes than a car with 200-300 mile range (Tesla) and take 5-18 hours to charge (depending on energy sources).

It's not the capacity that's gonna bring the electric revolution, but a fast recharge time. Get the charge times down, then worry about density, and improve our antiquated electrical infrastructure so that it will cope with the added demands that electric transportation will be putting on it.


Slight Correction
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 10:52:01 PM , Rating: 2
> "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..."

Anything that stores energy at high density carries some risk. A silver zinc battery, if shorted, can release enough heat to cause what any normal person would call an explosion...it also can generate hydrogen gas, which can likewise explode.




RE: Slight Correction
By InternetGeek on 7/14/2008 11:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
hydrogen gas is kind of redundant ;)


RE: Slight Correction
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2008 12:01:04 AM , Rating: 3
A bit perhaps...I doubt these batteries will generate conditions capable of generating much metallic hydrogen. :)


RE: Slight Correction
By MC17 on 7/15/2008 12:42:46 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, hydrogen is not always in a gaseous form. In fact, one promising method of hydrogen storage relies on using a palladium sponge to store hydrogen as a solid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palladium_hydride


RE: Slight Correction
By tygrus on 7/15/2008 3:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
What's the weight of the palladium sponge and container verse the amount of storable/useable hydrogen (compare energy per Kg with other fuels)? Palladium is 100 times heavier than Hydrogen. You better have at least 20 Hydrogen atoms per Palladium atom. They quoted 900x per volume but I can't equate it back into solid (sponge has holes) or per atom.


I call PR bull$!@$
By randomly on 7/15/2008 3:40:29 AM , Rating: 4
Just another company PR puff piece to retain stock prices and make investors happy.

There is zero chance that silver-zinc batteries will be used in any meaningful quantity in electric cars. Silver is just too rare.

Indium is 3 times more common than silver and the LCD industry is using 50% of the worlds supply at only fractions of an ounce per display. Current prices for silver are already $300+ /lb. Any significant consumption by batteries of world silver production and the price will just go through the roof.




RE: I call PR bull$!@$
By martinrichards23 on 7/15/2008 8:54:03 AM , Rating: 2
Agree, but it depends on how much silver a battery actually needs. For example if it is just silver plated then the mass needed would be very small, otherwise price won't really matter, as the demand would outstrip supply by so much there just physically wouldnt be enough.


RE: I call PR bull$!@$
By randomly on 7/15/2008 8:59:14 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently it takes more than a little silver, since development/research dollars for silver-zinc batteries dried up as the silver prices went up.

Lithium chemistries have more potential and much cheaper materials cost. The A123 LiFePO4 chemistry has the cycle life(which is one of the toughest goals to meet), safety, and discharge rate needed for cars. It could use some help in the cost and energy density areas though. Other lithium chemistries can have three times the energy density of the A123 cells 107wh/kg.

Battery technology is definitely getting better, just not fast enough to keep people happy.


RE: I call PR bull$!@$
By albundy2 on 7/15/2008 6:05:36 PM , Rating: 2
time to buy silver ;)


Limited recharge cycles
By HrilL on 7/15/2008 12:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
I actually used to work for this company as a IT consultant. They used to be called Zinc Matrix Power. While they do have a higher power density, when I was working there they couldn't be recharged very man times. After 50 or so cycles they could only hold 40% of the power they could hold when they were new. Also after 150 cycles they were pretty much useless. This was a little more than a year ago or maybe 2. So I don't know if they over came these problems. Lithium ion batteries like the one in the iPhone can by cycled 480 times and still hold 80% of their capacity. I'll take the risk of explosions with longer life over safe with short life.




RE: Limited recharge cycles
By stryfe on 7/15/2008 3:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'll take the risk of explosions with longer life over safe with short life.

What if said explosions mean you have a shorter life?


New?
By bobsmith1492 on 7/15/2008 7:06:37 AM , Rating: 2
How new can silver-zinc batteries be, anyway? I made batteries out of silver coins and zinc nails when I was 10 years old.

This article is too shy on details to be of much use. Did they come up with a breakthrough as far as recharging said batteries?




Fast battery charger?
By flyingrooster on 7/15/2008 2:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not an electrical engineer, but why can't there be a 15 minute battery charger for an electric car? I have a 15 minute charger for AA nihm batteries. I know the power demands would be huge, so it's not feasible in homes unless there are giant capacitors or something, but why not at future gas stations?




Biased Much?
By stryfe on 7/15/2008 3:11:33 PM , Rating: 2
A company that's making an advanced battery technology says it would be nearly impossible for someone else to do the same thing (or better)?!? Gee, there isn't any reason I can think of for them to want to discourage others, I guess we just shouldn't bother!




By plug on 7/15/2008 7:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think electric and hybrid cars are starting to increase in popularity but engines seem to be getting so much more fuel efficient and less damaging to the enviroment. That, coupled with the fact that batteries have still gone a long way to go, we are still better off with petrol.

Just take a look at the new diesel[url=http://www.autowirez.co.uk/blog/bmw-118d-world-gre...]- BMW 118D World Green Car Of The Year.

Fuel efficiency seems to be progressing faster than battery technology.




By plug on 7/15/2008 7:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
I think electric and hybrid cars are starting to increase in popularity but engines seem to be getting so much more fuel efficient and less damaging to the enviroment. That, coupled with the fact that batteries have still gone a long way to go, we are still better off with petrol.

Just take a look at the new diesel - http://www.autowirez.co.uk/blog/bmw-118d-world-gre... - BMW 118D World Green Car Of The Year.

Fuel efficiency seems to be progressing faster than battery technology.




Who killed the electric car?
By JonnyDough on 7/16/2008 7:12:51 AM , Rating: 2
The government, and thank God they did.

Houses are generally less efficient than automobiles. That's right, the average American household is more polluting than the average American car.

If we started running our cars off of electricity the same way we do our houses we're in for a lot of smog. Do you realize how dirty coal power is?

First, they strip mine. That's right, they strip back the top layer of land with a bulldozer. A HUGE bulldozer. Think "bulldozer blade is bigger than front of your home" big.

Then, they refine the coal. A process which takes...electricity and a little water.

Finally, when they burn the coal for energy, it releases not only a ton of heat, but lots and lots of ozone eating gas.

Electric car? No thanks, I'll stick to the cleaner burning COMBUSTION ENGINE.

Now if we had better solar paint...




GM
By Mithan on 7/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: GM
By JustTom on 7/15/2008 12:50:08 PM , Rating: 1
What makes you believe this? Hope or do you have information?


McCain 08
By Googer on 7/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: McCain 08
By ChoadNamath on 7/14/2008 10:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
And if you had actually read past the first sentence, you would have seen this:

quote:
Would such an approach work though? Probably not, according to ZPower CEO Ross Deuber, 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. Deuber reckons that $300 million is only a fraction of what it’ll actually cost to develop a new generation of superior battery for vehicles.


RE: McCain 08
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 11:59:31 PM , Rating: 4
That statement is of course utter tripe, for several reasons. Firstly, as long as you have the money (and many corporations have far, far more than $300M to throw at this), it matters not one whit whether it comes at the front or back end.

Second of all, even attempting to estimate how much it will cost is wholly impossible. You can't predict a breakthrough in basic research -- it could come tommorrow, out of money already spent, or it might never come at all, even should we spend a thousand times McCain's figure.

One thing is certain, however. A guaranteed $300M prize will motivate more work than no prize at all. Look at how much activity (and results) the relatively paltry $10M Ansari prize has generated on private sub-orbital space craft.


RE: McCain 08
By SiliconAddict on 7/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: McCain 08
By mles1551 on 7/15/2008 1:09:46 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Meanwhile China sits on the side, positioning their pieces and chuckles at our stupidity over the last 7.5 years.

Only 7.5 years? I'm fairly certain it's been downhill for us since the 50's.
GM, Ford, Chrysler. Whats been their downfall? The assumption that they could continue to do business the same way they always had. That's also been the Gov't mantra since the 50's. We're better than everybody else and we'll do what we want when we want w/o any repercussions.
Our current political system negates any positive affect either Presidential candidate could or would offer.


RE: McCain 08
By SilthDraeth on 7/15/2008 10:10:54 AM , Rating: 3
Do you feel clever by using terms like "McSame" and "shrub"?

You will have better luck proving a point by sticking with real names and facts. Using talking point insults, including the one's thrown at Obama, just cause people on the other side of the argument to dismiss you out of hand, irregardless of what you have to say.


RE: McCain 08
By Whedonic on 7/14/2008 11:32:03 PM , Rating: 4
While I agree that this is a good move by McCain, that doesn't mean the rest of his politics are laudable.


RE: McCain 08
By BarkHumbug on 7/15/2008 6:22:56 AM , Rating: 3
And don't forget, McCain's older than Alaska!

http://www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com/alaska/


RE: McCain 08
By Googer on 7/15/2008 11:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
So are my parents and a lot of other people. Alaska is older than anyone alive today. It has existed for millions of years and people have occupied it for at least 10,000 years.


GreeD of human kind
By ZeroOne on 7/15/08, Rating: -1
"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki