The technology is particularly critical to the budding electric car
business. With such companies
as Dyson, GM, and Lightning
Car Company using the batteries in their upcoming commercial releases the
future of the electric car in the short term is riding on lithium-ion
Unfortunately, the costs of lithium-ion batteries are currently quite
high. An analyst estimated that the much-anticipated
Chevy Volt's battery pack would cost nearly
$10,000; about a fourth of the total projected cost. The pressing
demand from a variety of industries has fueled lithium-ion prices to rise even
Fortunately relief is in sight, thanks to a processing breakthrough from University
of Texas at Austin. The researchers found a way to possibly transform the
long and complicated baking process involved in one of the more common
lithium-ion battery materials into a quick and
Originally, most lithium-ion batteries used lithium cobalt oxide. Most of
the computer industry still relies on this material; however, the automotive
industry has turned to lithium iron phosphate, which is considered more
attractive as iron is cheaper than cobalt. It is also safer
than the more fire-prone lithium cobalt oxide, and is capable of being
crafted to release charge faster. A downside is it stores slightly less
Companies have invested big in developing and bringing lithium iron phosphate
to the market. A123 Systems, the Watertown, MA startup that is
manufacturing the Chevy Volt's battery, has already commercially offered
lithium iron phosphate batteries for power tools. It has managed to raise
$148M USD in investment capital to help fund its efforts.
With current technology, the biggest downside to the lithium iron phosphate is
the manufacturing. Currently, the process takes hours of baking at
temperatures in excess of 700 °C. The extra manpower and effort required
due to this has meant that Lithium iron phosphate batteries, which should from
a materials perspective be much cheaper than lithium cobalt oxide, are actually
more expensive than their competitor.
Led by Professor Arumugam Manthiram, a U of T professor of materials
engineering, the researchers at U of T examined how a microwave could be used
to speed the cooking process. The results were dramatic.
The team first mixed conventional materials -- lithium hydroxide, iron acetate,
and phosphoric acid -- in a solvent. They then popped the mixture in the
microwave for about five minutes, which heated the mix to about 300 °C.
The process yielded high performing rod shaped nanoparticles of lithium iron
phosphate. The best nanoparticles were found to be approximately 100 nm
long and just 25 nm wide. The small size allows the ion exchange to be
performed more easily. The finished particles were then covered with an
electrically conductive polymer doped with sulfonic acid to improve
The new particles performed extremely well in low-discharge scenarios.
The material achieved a capacity of 166 milliamp hours per gram, amazingly
close to the 170 milliamp hours per gram theoretical capacity. High
discharge scenarios were not so friendly to the new material, but Professor
Manthiram says that will be fixable. He says new versions have already
shown improvement in this metric.
It is unclear exactly how much will be saved using the new method. With
the short time higher production should be possible, and the lower temperatures
will reduce energy demands, both effects that should help to lower the cost of
production. Some are skeptical, though; whether the material will save
much at all. Stanley Whittingham a professor of chemistry, materials
science, and engineering at the State University of New York, at Binghamton
warns that the savings may be offset by the polymer cost and the cost of the
changes necessary to the production.
Professor Manthiram is also exploring other lithium ion materials and has
developed two key improvements on other materials. He is working with an
Austin, TX based startup, ActaCell to commercialize his tech. The startup
has licensed some of his technology with the help of the $5.58M USD in startup
funds in has raised, but declined to specify which technologies or whether the
new lithium iron phosphate production technology had been licensed yet.
quote: "His (and other Democrats) arguement was that we wouldn't see an effect from the drilling for 10 years and that we would have solved all our problems by then.Well, wouldn't you know. The Democrats don't want to drill for oil, again, because we won't see the effect for 10 years"
quote: You know it is funny. Clinton signed the bill that banned drilling in ANWR and off the US coast 10 years ago. His (and other Democrats) arguement was that we wouldn't see an effect from the drilling for 10 years and that we would have solved all our problems by then.
quote: Oh, and an idiot who makes lots of money from oil.
quote: Suddenly the price will skyrocket, and we'll be stuck with trying to push research into alternatives while the economy is self-destructing around us.
quote: The government incentives and taxes try to spread out that spike over time.
quote: It's about not having all your eggs in one basket.
quote: You speak as if this was theoretical. What do you think the $100 to $144 run-up was? Demand destruction took place, and is still occurring (largest reduction is highway miles driven monthly since data started being recorded). The US economy has shown amazing resilience, but it's taken oil on the chin. Private investment in alternative energy, meanwhile, has poured in despite the state of the economy.
quote: quote: The government incentives and taxes try to spread out that spike over time. How? Subsidies require taxes, and taxing energy makes it more expensive, thus simply making people more poor in real terms. Government-sponsored demand throttling, is that what you're really proposing? That's the net effect. There's no other way to "smooth" supply and demand other than either crushing it by force (taxes or production ceilings) or propping it up (subsidies). This has worked great with the ethanol sham, eh?
quote: In a fantasy where government can foresee both problems and their solutions, that's correct in that the government can force the proper diversification.
quote: In the real world, experience should really show us by now that the best case scenario is the free market one proposed by pauldovi; allow the price signal to shine through without interference (no subsidies or special taxes to any energy producing technology), and allow the industry to bring to market energy sources they need, not what we think they need.
quote: So we can continue the economic hardship of high oil prices, and continue to send several hundred billion dollars a year overseas for the next three or four decades, or we can do something about it now .
quote: Because a nationwide fleet of electric cars is at least 25 years away...and the extra power plants capable of providing that electricity are even further out.
quote: The results of the analysis indicate that significant portions of the U.S. gasoline-operated vehicle fleet could be fueled with the available electric capacity. For the nation as a whole, about 84% of the energy needed for operating cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs (or a maximum of 73% of the energy of the LDV fleet) could be supported using generating, transmission, and distribution capacity currently available. This would require power providers to use all the available electric generation, base-load and intermediate generation, at full capacity for most hours of the day. If charging periods are to be constrained to a 12-hour period starting at 6 pm and ending at 6 am, the technical potential would be reduced to 43% of the LDV fleet. From a regional perspective, there is some diversity in the technical potential.
quote: And what happens when it's 6am, your car isn't charged, and you have to be somewhere before evening?
quote: This would require power providers to use all the available electric generation, base-load and intermediate generation, at full capacity for most hours of the day.
quote: In other words, every single drop of generating capacity we have only gets us less than 3/4 of the way there.
quote: Those plants are cost-effective now only because they're run rarely.
quote: Finally, that capacity isn't spread equally over the entire country. Many areas have more than enough, whereas many others have hardly any at all. California -- as you yourself point out -- would experience problems before less than 10% of its fleet was converted to electric.
quote: The problem starts much, much sooner than when 75% of the nation's fleet becomes electric. For a state like California, the problem begins as soon as more than a few hundred thousand EVs are on the road.
quote: A lovely example of cherry picking statistics...however nationally, natural gas powers only 20% of our electric production. In most states, natural gas sees little use outside of peak hours.
quote: Why waste time doing the republican drill dance when you admit all electric is the answer?
quote: I don't think drilling will have any impact given that the oil companies barely use the oil leases they already have, and just want to go after the lowest hanging fruit. All this republican off-shore drilling propaganda is a RED HERRING. It's a simple way for the oil companies to deny any responsibility for pricing -- at the same time THEY ARE NOT EVEN LOOKING FOR NEW OIL! They can go screw themselves - we need to stop giving them subsidies.
quote: The unused lease argument is a bit of a red herring too. Those leases are made without knowing if there's oil there or not. Since they're exclusive and relatively cheap, the companies just snap them all up just in case there's something down there. Then they do the geological assessment
quote: at the same time THEY ARE NOT EVEN LOOKING FOR NEW OIL!
quote: They can go screw themselves