backtop


Print 63 comment(s) - last by psychmike.. on Aug 3 at 6:53 PM


An electronic microscope image of the rod-like nanoparticles formed by the microwave production method. They perform extremely well in low discharge scenarios, but are being tweaked after disappointing performance in rapid discharge scenarios.  (Source: Arumugam Manthiram, University of Texas at Austin )
Could an affordable electronic car be in the future?

Lithium-ion batteries are in high demand, seeing strong growth in the consumer electronics, power tools, and automotive industry.  Lithium-ion batteries are prized for their outstanding energy-to-weight ratios, their lack of memory effect, and their slower charge loss rate than other battery technologies.

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 technology. 

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 higher.

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 easy process.

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 charge.

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 performance.

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.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Electric is the future
By masher2 (blog) on 7/30/2008 4:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "Why waste time [drilling] when you admit all electric is the answer? "

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.

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.

> "we could drill our country into a pincushion and it won't make much long-term or short-term difference "

Eh? Of course it will. ANWR and some additional development in continental coastal regions can easily mean 2.5M bbl/day, cutting a third of our foreign oil imports, and adding trillions of dollars to the nation's coffers. Not to mention the dramatic impact that will have on oil prices.


RE: Electric is the future
By StevoLincolnite on 7/30/2008 6:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
Power shouldn't be an Issue, if we start going all Nuclear.

Heck we have practically got an endless supply of energy Via Geothermal Energy (Which to me is a better idea than Wind or Solar Personally).

The Price of Petrol has already dropped about 45 cents a liter here thanks to the lower prices of the worlds Oil.
(That's $1.69 A Gallon drop I think), so that seems to have eased allot of peoples issues right now in the short term.

The most annoying thing I find about Fuel prices is that, as SOON as the Worlds Oil Prices climb, so does the Price of Petrol at the Pump Instantly, however as soon as the Price Drops, it sometimes takes over a week sometimes for the prices to lower. - I call foul on that one.


RE: Electric is the future
By jbartabas on 7/30/2008 7:11:27 PM , Rating: 1
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 .


Because of course we can do something about now ...


RE: Electric is the future
By Doormat on 7/30/2008 8:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
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.


True and false.

True a nationwide fleet of light duty electric cars is a ways out. I'd venture to say 2035, with 25% in 2020 and 50% in 2027.

However, the current grid can power up to 43% of volt-style vehicles with a 6p-6a recharge window. If we dont even get to 25% by 2020, we still have lots of time to get more of whatever your power source du jour is.

http://www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasib...

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.


RE: Electric is the future
By masher2 (blog) on 7/30/2008 9:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "However, the current grid can power up to 43% of volt-style vehicles with a 6p-6a recharge window."

And what happens when it's 6am, your car isn't charged, and you have to be somewhere before evening?

No matter how you slice it, when we start selling electric cars, a certain percentage of people are going to charge during peak hours. That will boost peak consumption...and the current grid can't handle it.

Outlets are unregulated; there is no effective way to force private individuals to charge only during off-peak hours. One can disincentivize it somewhat by boosting rates during peak hours...but given most consumption occurs during that period anyway, that tactic is going to be quite limited in effectiveness.


RE: Electric is the future
By Doormat on 7/31/2008 1:01:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And what happens when it's 6am, your car isn't charged, and you have to be somewhere before evening?

So plug it in! There aren't that many shift workers that work 12-8a. There just arent that many people.

Besides, if you would have read that entire paragraph, you'd have realized that everywhere except for maybe California can have cars charge during the day as well - a 24hr window indicated 72% of EREVs could charge compared to just 43% at night. So its not a big deal to charge during the day.

Besides, we were talking about EREVs , you can take it to the gas station and fill it up if you need to be somewhere so bad. You'll pretty much always need to leave a gallon or two in the tank because the engine will start once a week just to warm up.

If power conservation is needed so bad (in California for example, you'd be surprised about people following suggestions from the power utility. Just this year alone they have been several times where the power companies asked citizens to conserve power - and the response was enough to avoid rolling blackouts. Once situation had it where people cut enough demand to abate 1000MW of power needed (compared to the forecast from CAISO).

Unless you're a night shift worker, you probably wont fill up during the day.

Your post is a bunch of FUD.


RE: Electric is the future
By masher2 (blog) on 7/31/2008 8:49:04 AM , Rating: 2
> "Besides, if you would have read that entire paragraph..."

Did you? Let me quote a relevant piece:

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.
In other words, every single drop of generating capacity we have only gets us less than 3/4 of the way there. Worse, we can't run generators 100% of the time. Even coal and nuclear plants require some maintenance....most plants do well to average a 90% availability factor.

Furthermore, much of our excess generating capacity is gas generators -- cheap to build, but very expensive to run. Those plants are cost-effective now only because they're run rarely. But running them continuously would result in our being charged "peak" power rates 24 hours a day.

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.


RE: Electric is the future
By Doormat on 7/31/2008 4:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In other words, every single drop of generating capacity we have only gets us less than 3/4 of the way there.


More crap. You're worried about the current generation capacity for a problem (75% of vehicles being PHEVs) we're at least 20 years away from. You think that we wont ever grow our generation capacity between now and then?

Allow me to sum it up the entire issue in the following points.

From 6p-6a, we can charge 43% of the cars we have now if they were PHEVs/EREVs.

It will take us many many years to get to that 43% figure. Even 1M cars/yr wouldn't get us there, if ever because of the replacement rates of the vehicles. We have time to develop the additional power resources for this. Solar, wind, nuke, whatever.

For the first five years the impact of vehicle charging is negligible. Its about the same impact as building more houses, which no one had a problem with during the boom (a 2,200 sqft McMansion would use about 65kWh/day).

We have time to get the grid in shape and educate folks about charging EREVs.

quote:
Those plants are cost-effective now only because they're run rarely.


Rarely my ***. The graph in the article below show that natural gas powers a lot of Texas. Even at night, natural gas is making up 50% of the load, and during the day its higher than that.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/lat...

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.


Yes, that part I cant disagree with. Places like California and the NW would need more power sources. But 10% nationwide is still 25M cars, and that is about 10 years (or more) away. Again, you're worried about production capacity now, assuming we never ever build another power plant in this country, for a situation that is 10+ years away.

We have time to grow generation.


RE: Electric is the future
By masher2 (blog) on 7/31/2008 6:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
> "You're worried about the current generation capacity for a problem (75% of vehicles being PHEVs) we're at least 20 years away from"

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. That can easily happen within the next 6-7 years. Many areas of California are already struggling to meet demand at peak hours; any increase at all will greatly exacerbate the problem.

> "you're worried about production capacity now...for a situation that is 10+ years away."

First it was 20 years, now its ten? The problem is that power plants take a long time to build, especially nuclear ones...and our other generation options are either too dirty or too costly.

> "Rarely my ***. The graph in the article below show that natural gas powers a lot of Texas. "

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.

A decade ago, it was only about 12%...it's expanding at a prodigious rate because such plants can be brought online quickly, and environmentalists have succesfully blocked new coal and nuclear facilities.

However, the fact remains that natural gas production is substantially more costly than either, and is one of the major reasons for the price increase in peak electricity production.


RE: Electric is the future
By Doormat on 8/1/2008 1:19:10 AM , Rating: 2
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.


Again, the "problem" isn't one considering that 99% of recharging will be done at night. Go look at http://www.caiso.com and see that even during the summer, they have ~40GW of capacity available and are only using 27.5GW between 12-6a.

1GW of power will recharge roughly 500,000 cars assuming 2kW recharge rate (120V/20A, 4-5 hr to recharge the Volt). There wont even be that many cars on the market until 2018, and thats throughout the US - CA wont get them all. GM is only planning for 10,000 cars the first year. Even if they do manage to get to 60,000 units in year two (I don't think they will) and work up to 100,000/yr, California would be likely to see at most half, or 100,000 cars, or roughly 200MW.

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.


Maybe Pickens is on to something... we can keep natural gas generation constant with wind picking up the load. In 2007 5GW of rated capacity (which roughly translates to 1.25GW of actual power) was installed. If that rate is kept constant, thats more than enough to accommodate the influx of PHEVs - 625,000 cars/yr.


RE: Electric is the future
By masher2 (blog) on 8/1/2008 10:53:21 AM , Rating: 2
> "...considering that 99% of recharging will be done at night."

A fallacious figure concocted wholly from thin air. More than 1% of the population works at night...and even those people who work during the day will occasionally charge during daylight hours. The idea we can force an entire nation to buy electric cars, and not plug any of them into during the day is just silly.

> "Maybe Pickens is on to something... "

He sure is....vast personal profits from a misguided national energy policy.

> "Even if they do manage to get to 60,000 units in year two..."

Year two is only four years from now. Your original claim was for 20 years out...now you're moving the bar this low?

Yes, we won't have problems in 4 years. In 7 years, though, it's a diferent story for California, and within 2-3 years of that, many other states will follow.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














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