Skip to main content

The makers of the batteries for today's modern EVs have much to be proud of.  A little over a decade ago, the best EVs on the market ran on lead-acid batteries (a technology so primitive that Thomas Edison didn't find it suitable for the EVs of his era) and nickel-cadmium cells (toxic enough to make lead-acid look clean).  Today's battery upstarts like A123 (lithium phosphate) and AltairNano (lithium titanate) are already becoming superstars in the EV community with their long-life, high performance cells.

That said, their achievements pale in comparison to what's coming our way.  Read on to learn how over a dozen technologies in the lab today promise not only to have EVs match the range of gasoline cars, but completely blow it away.

A typical wall socket provides 1.8kW of electricity.  A mere pound of titanate batteries or just over a pound of lithium phosphate batteries will do the same.  Your typical lead-acid car battery is highly toxic, lasts 500-800 charge cycles, has 85% charge efficiency, and holds 30 watt hours per kilogram (Wh/kg).  A titanate battery is has low toxicity, will last for at least 25,000 cycles, is near 100% efficient, and holds around 100Wh/kg.  Lithium phosphate batteries have similar stats -- they are nontoxic, but have so far only been tested to a mere 7,000 charge cycles.  Did I mention that both kinds can be "fast charged" -- in under ten minutes (and that's only the start)?

These are on the market today.  By any standard, batteries have advanced by leaps and bounds in the past 5-10 years, partially thanks to our greater understanding of nanotechnology.  But this is absolutely nothing in comparison to what next-generation batteries are going to be like.

-----------------

As anyone who remembers the cellphones of the early '90s can attest, an advancement in battery technology can make a huge difference in size, weight, and general convenience.  While more and more people are becoming familiar with conventional lithium ion and lithium polymer batteries, fewer are familiar with their phosphate, titanate, and spinel brethren.  These are mainly working their way into our lives in new cordless power tools and remote control cars and aircraft.  While they sacrifice some of the energy density (amount of energy you can get out of a battery of a given weight), they gain lifespans of decades or more, high power output, fast charging, and low toxicity.  But this is only the beginning.

First, a little background on lithium ion batteries of all stripes.  Energy is stored and used in a lithium ion battery by -- as the name suggests -- moving around ions of lithium.  On one side of the battery is the cathode, which in conventional cells is made of lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2).  This comprises about 60% of the cost of mass-produced lithium ion batteries thanks to the cost of the cobalt and is the only relevantly toxic component.  Any battery that can ditch this (like the phosphates and spinels do) stands to gain tremendously.  On the other side is a graphite anode which, while cheap, can't hold much lithium.  In-between is an electrolyte, a solution that ions of lithium can move through, and a thin polymer membrane that keeps the cathode and anode apart but lets lithium past.  When charging, the lithium moves from the graphite anode to the LiCoO2 cathode, and when discharging, it moves back.

Any improvement in either the cathode or the anode can have significant improvements in the energy density of the batteries, but when you improve both of them, that's when the changes really shine.

Now, some of our more astute readers may be thinking, "isn't the energy density of even the best batteries two orders of magnitude lower than that of gasoline?"  Why yes, it is!  The more traditional li-ions have an energy density of around 160Wh/kg, while the new safe, long-life, high power batteries have only 100Wh/kg.  Gasoline has an energy density of about 12,000Wh/kg.  That's a big difference!  However, all is not as it seems, for batteries don't compete with gasoline for space and weight -- they compete with the massive weight that is the internal combustion engine, since they use electric motors, which are smaller and lighter.  You can see the full calculations here, but to sum up, a typical car with a 12 gallon gas tank would run on par weight-wise with an EV of the same range if the EV's batteries got about 340Wh/kg.

Well, what are we looking at, battery-wise?

---------------

Cathodes:

Argonne Laboratories' composite Li2MnO3/LiMO2 or LiM2O4 (M=nickel or manganese) cathode: Entering commercial production.  200Wh/kg, 500Wh/L.  Charge rate unknown, but likely high due to stability.  Combines high energy density with long life and safety.  Cheap (1% the raw material cost of a LiCoO2 cathode)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)

Hybrid Technologies' "superlattice" manganese-cobalt-nickel-titanium cathode: 936Wh/kg is claimed for the cathode alone (over a 2x improvement over LiCoO2).  The cathode material is reportedly already produced at an industrial scale, and allows for a wide range of possible voltages per cell.  Fast charge/discharge reported.(1)

Nanocomposite metal fluoride cathode: 400-500Wh/kg for the battery as a whole with high power density, being developed by Electro Energy with grants from the USAF.(1)

Anodes:

Lithium vanadium oxide anode (such as Samsung's prototype): 695Wh/L when paired with a traditional LiCoO2 cathode, boosted to 745Wh/L by vapor deposition of a Li metal film.  This is 2-3 times the volumetric density of traditional li-ion.  Slightly lower expansion than a graphite anode, suggesting longer life.  80% capacity after 500 cycles (not as much of a problem with high energy density batteries, as you go farther on a cycle).  Subaru's prototype G4e uses such a battery, and is capable of fast charging.(1)(2)

Graphite-encased tin nanoparticle anode: Tin nanoparticles are trapped inside tiny graphite spheres, allowing them to swell extensively without cracking.  Allows for higher voltages, no charge loss through solvent interaction, and energy densities of 831 maH/g (depending on the voltage, this would equate to thousands of Wh/kg, although this only applies to the anode, not the complete battery).  Higher voltage eases fast charging.  Currently loses ~30% of charge capacity in 100 cycles -- still very energy dense. (1)(2)

Silicon nanowire anode, such as the Stanford/Yi Cui prototype: As reported on in Going EV #2: The Kingdom and the Ion.  Uses nanowires on a stainless steel substrate to avoid the major problem of cracking in silicon anodes due to their swelling as they absorb lithium.  10x the lithium absorption on the first charge as compared to a normal graphite anode, 8x on subsequent charges, leading to "several" times the energy density without a cathode improvement and the full improvement with a corresponding cathode advance.  1000-cycle validation expected by summer of 2008, and commercialization expected in five years, with a cost cheaper per Wh than conventional li-ion.(1)(2)(3).

Carbon nanotube/silicon nanoparticle anode: Nanoparticles of silicon that have carbon nanotubes grown atop them, then are bonded together with carbon, manage to prevent silicon cracking.  727mAh/g after 20 cycles (thousands of Wh/kg for the anode alone).(1)

Cathode and anode advances can be combined for a dramaticly amplified effect.  Of course, Li-ion isn't the only game in town...

Other energy storage technologies:

Lithium-sulphur: 250Wh/kg.(1)
 
Sodium-ion batteries: 400Wh/kg with only minimal expansion/contraction during charge/discharge and a very high surface area.(1)  

EEStor's EESU ultracapacitor: Scheduled to hit the market in early to mid 2008, also with a rapid charge time (4-6 minutes) at 342 Wh/kg and 1600Wh/L(1).  

---------------

What's to make of all of this?  A couple general conclusions can be drawn:

  1. The odds of all of these advances failing is staggeringly low.  It is foolish to bank on any particular technology in the lab making it to market.  However, once you have this many (and many more that I've probably missed), it becomes foolish to bet against them all.
  1. What we're looking at here is, within the next decade, commercial production and sale of batteries with energy densities ranging from several hundred to a thousand or more watt hours per kilogram.  Batteries that likely cost no more (and even potentially significantly less, due to the ability to ditch the cobalt) than today's lithium-ion batteries.
  1. These advances mean vehicles with ranges matching or significantly greater than that of conventional cars with internal combustion engines.  The upper end of this energy density spectrum means an entire day's worth of nonstop highway driving on a single charge.

As for the main criticism that you occasionally hear -- world lithium supplies -- read this or wait for my next diary.  As for toxicity, as I mentioned earlier, the phosphates and spinels are nontoxic, and the titanates have low toxicity.  The worst aspect of the phosphates and spinels is the electrolyte which is corrosive and irritating (but non-persistant), non-teratogenic, non-mutagenic, and poses no reproductive toxicity.  The resource requirements are minimal and likewise relatively mild.  In the case of lithium phosphate batteries, the cathode is made from phosphoric acid, an incredibly common chemical which, among other things, is found in soft drinks; iron; and a lithium salt (discussed above), with the particles bonded together by carbon from burning sugar.  The anode is just graphite, like you find in pencils.  The membrane is an incredibly thin piece of plastic.  This compares to internal combustion engines whose weight comes from steel (produced in a very polluting smelting process), in vehicles whose main environmental issue, despite all that steel, is that they burn several times their own mass in toxic gasoline into the air.

For more on EVs, check out part 1 and part 3 in the "Going EV" series.

Originally posted to Rei on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:22 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The only problem is... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fatherofdragonwagon

    Those batteries are not good for our environment either and mining for the resources to make them has been tragic for poor people all over the world.

    The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion. --Thomas Paine

    by David Kroning on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:25:39 PM PDT

  •  Capacitors (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Kroning

    I like capacitors. What do you think about their potential as a battery replacement?

  •  With Tesla (5+ / 0-)

    and several other ev's coming online the rampning up of this technology is just underway. This will revolutionize the auto industry. This truly is the end of the age of oil.
    Great post

    When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon. Thomas Paine

    by Hamsun on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:37:09 PM PDT

    •  yeah right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      crankyinNYC

      until Chevron buys the patent and flushes it.  

      The government should take control here and give the first 3 auto makers in the US tax free for life if they can mass produce EVs for under $30K.  By tax free i mean, they dont pay tax on their toilet paper on up.

      "McCain had conflicts with higher-ups, and he was disinclined to obey every rule, which contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899)" - wikipedia.org

      by glutz78 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:45:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fast Charge (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, Marlyn, esquimaux

    Fast charge is the second hurdle (after energy density) EV cars need to get over.  I can imagine a 10 minute charge for a cell phone battery, but I'm trying to imagine the amount of energy that would have to go through a cable to charge a 250kg car battery in 10 minutes.  Wouldn't that be like hooking your car up to an electric chair and throwing the switch?

    Editor of the Harvard Law Review vs. Mr. 894 out of 899. How has having a stupid President worked out the last eight years?

    by Tod on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:37:46 PM PDT

    •  The Nissan-Renault solution to charging... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tod, Got a Grip, Losty

      "Without bitterness, all chocolate is a Hershey bar." -- Harry Shearer

      by tbetz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:57:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fast charging (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      retrograde, Tod, Got a Grip, Zydekos, JeffW, Losty

      Some things much bigger than cars are already running on electricity; even slow charging a full-size Smith EV truck is like fast charging a car.  To get an idea of the size of cable you need for a big car, let's look at some work EVs -- the Phoenix SUVs and SUTs.  I can't seem to find, offhand, a pic of one charging, but here's one under the hood:

      The cables between the batteries are about the same as the fast charging cable.  A smaller vehicle needs less power and thus smaller cables.  Active cooling can also shrink cable size.  One can also use a "docking station" approach rather than cables, so the user never handles anything and there's no limits on thickness.

      Yes, there's danger in electricity, but there's danger in a household power outlet, too, and those have almost no safety systems in comparison to what you can put on an EV charging cable (a sheath that cuts current if it's damaged, a system that doesn't start current flow until it detects a clean connection, etc).  There's also danger in gasoline.  Remember the Pinto disasters?  Where there were cases where one in an accident would catch fire and the doors would jam shut, so barely injured occupants burned to death?  Gasoline isn't harmless, either.  We've largely tamed gasoline by proper safety design.  The same can apply to electricity.

    •  Solar panels on the roof of the car (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jaime Schulte, Got a Grip, Losty, Hamsun

      you can drip charge when ever the car is in the sun, even driving it will keep some going.

      Most of the time when I drive on my commute, the car is parked in a non-shady spot.  

      To a tapeworm, man exists for the tapeworm. - Edward Abbey

      by jimraff on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:56:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Run the numbers (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tod

      The Tesla uses about 400 kg of batteries. At 100 Wh/kg that's 40 kWh = 144 MJ. In 10 minutes that's 240 kW. 1 W = 1V x 1A. Don't try this at home, kids.

      •  Tesla (0+ / 0-)

        Tesla actually uses conventional laptop batteries.  They started back before the LiPs and the like became widely available.  So, the cells are 160Wh/kg, but since regular laptop cells (18650 format) are at risk of fire and have short lifespans, they have to have a well-reinforced, air conditioned pack with lots of control circuitry.  Thus, the pack energy density is only 130Wh/kg.  They have 56kWh of batteries (not nearly as energy efficient as, say, the Aptera  :) ).  Yeah, lots of power.  Of course, you wouldn't want to fast-charge a Tesla anyways; 18650 cells won't take it very well.  But Phoenix fast charges a pretty sizable pack -- their charger is rated for 250kW.

        You need good safety systems when dealing with that much electricity, but that's certainly easier to achieve than things like car accident survivability.  It all comes down to preventing cord damage, detecting cord damage, and making sure the connection is secure before charging.  In extreme cases, humans can be removed from the process via a docking station.

  •  Isn't there an explosion risk w/ lithium batts? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Got a Grip

    I'm remembering a chat with a former neighbor who was an electrical engineer and built robots and such. He made a comment that a liability with the lithium based batteries was explosion and fire. Perhaps that was an older variety...
    Thanks for putting all this info together. Tip'd & rec'd.
    I trust you support wind/solar etc. to power all these EVs of the future.

    What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?!? Elvis Costello

    by BigVegan on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:37:53 PM PDT

  •  This is a good thread for a question I have had. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Got a Grip, Hamsun

    Why can't gas stations be placed with battery stations, where we can quickly pull out a 20 pound battery, and put in a new one, while the station recharges the old ones?  Kind of like how propane works today.

    Would that work?

    Could that be a shortcut to the electric vehicle economy?

    Rick
    08 Preference - Obama
    -9.63 -6.92
    Fox News - We Distort, You Deride

    by rick on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:47:13 PM PDT

  •  What. (0+ / 0-)

    A typical wall socket provides 1.8kW of electricity.

    This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.

    A "wall socket", or rather, the vast transnational electrical grid, is a means of getting power from the electrical company to you and whatever devices you happen to plug into it. All meaningful electrical measurements are made by looking at the amount of energy consumed over a given time.

    Hence the unit "Kilowatt-Hours", or kWh. This measures the amount of power (watts) used over an hour, and factored by a thousand (kilo) to keep your electric bill under 20 pages.

    To say that a wall outlet has 1.8kW is about as meaningful as if someone asked you how fresh a battery was, and you said: "Well, it's got about two "A"s.

    Not a penny to Clinton. Not a single goddamned penny. She is a millionaire.

    by George Hier on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:49:33 PM PDT

    •  You mean (0+ / 0-)

      that isn't a good answer to battery freshness?  Oops.

      "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

      by newfie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:55:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, but (6+ / 0-)

      Wall sockets are rated for a given power output.  Normal household outlets usually are rated for 15A (kitchen outlets are 20A).  Voltages vary, but are usually around 117V.  15A * 117V = 1755W -> 1.8kW.

      Yes, energy density (Wh/kg) is very important.  Energy density equates to range.  But power density (W/kg) is important, too -- that equates to acceleration, top speed, etc.  Lead-acid powered EVs earned a reputation (usually rightfully) for very poor performance.  The high power density of li-ion variants is enough to match or beat most gasoline cars.

  •  I'm guessing EV = (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, wayoutinthestix

    Electrical Vehicle?

  •  Thanks for a great diary! One question... (0+ / 0-)

    Do you know of any potential lower-cost alternatives to the batteries you have described?

    I think a university in New Zealand where I live has, over the past few years, had a small research team looking at significantly extending the lifespan of low-toxicity, low-cost Zinc-based batteries (like NiZn and AgZn) to make them more favorable for EV use, but I am not aware of any developments in that research since this PDF link of a presentation in 2007: http://www.cleantechnology.com.au/...

    •  Low cost (0+ / 0-)

      Lithium phosphate and spinel batteries aren't currently cheap (in bulk, about $0.50/kWh or more), but it's due to the fact that they're not mass-produced yet; the raw ingredients are only a small fraction of their costs.  In mass production, they should be very cheap indeed.  

      Silver zinc will probably never be cheap because of the silver.  They may find use in portable electronics, though, where you don't need a big battery, but that silver cost is always going to be a sticky issue.  Nickel-zinc is only 60Wh/kg, and doesn't have very good cycle durability (power density is so-so).

  •  Great diary (0+ / 0-)

    I have to re-read it when I get a moment again to understand the technical side better but first I have a question for you:

    What can you tell me about the NiMH battery patent that is now owned by Chevron?  Is this really owned by Chevron - I cant find much info on this online. I believe NiMH was used in the GM EV2 cars made in 2000, right?  And related to this - what is the likelihood that Chevron or another oil co, purchases and kills the patents for the batteries you are discussing here?

    Thank you.

    "McCain had conflicts with higher-ups, and he was disinclined to obey every rule, which contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899)" - wikipedia.org

    by glutz78 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:48:23 PM PDT

    •  Ah, Cobasys :) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Got a Grip

      First off, you mean the EV1  :)  The second generation of the EV1 used NiMH.

      NiMH was unfortunately caught up in the whole CARB fiasco.  Basically, the big car makers never wanted to make EVs.  California made them in the 1990s, so they immediately started working to overturn the rules.  When it looked like they might have some success in overturning the rules, GM sold off their share of Ovonics (the battery maker) to Chevron, forming Cobasys (if that gives you any idea of how much they cared about the EV1; they also shut down a lot of their other part lines).  At the same time, PEVE was making large format NiMHs for the Japanese companies' EVs (like the much beloved RAV4EV), and weren't paying a licensing fee.  GM hadn't bothered to try to make them.  The new joint venture, Cobasys, changed this policy, fought them in court and won, but not without being bloodied first.  They were only selling packs by the hundreds and losing a lot more money than they made and stopped selling them.  They still have a large format pack design in their catalog, but they refuse to sell or license it unless large volumes are ordered.  They do still make (and license) small format packs for hybrids.  Also, the Vectrix electric motorcycle was grandfathered in.  As a note: Cobasys only owns the US rights to large-format packs, not world rights.

      The rest, as they say, is history.  The car makers did succeed in overturning CARB, and all the major auto-manufacturers killed off their EV programs about as fast as physically possible.  Some did it more gracefully than others -- a few sold off their EV branches, but most wanted to recollect their leases (and destroy the cars rather than leaving them sitting around until the end of time, of course).  Toyota had a change of heart after a lot of pressure and sold off some of their RAV4EVs to their lessees.  GM didn't.  They left a couple dozen gutted for universities and a few ungutted ones for museums like the Smithsonian.  The owners were understandably ticked off and made a very critical movie about the whole fiasco ("Who Killed the Electric Car").  GM execs now go out of their way to beat themselves up over cancelling the program, because everything that could have gone wrong with that decision -- global warming being an increasing concern, high gas prices, the popularity of hybrids, a huge amount of negative PR, etc -- did.  They're making the Volt, a plug-in hybrid, but needless to say, a lot of people burned by the EV1 program are still ticked at them and don't trust them.

      As for NiMHs -- they're on their way out.  They were much better than lead-acid for EVs, but they're inefficient, leak charge fairly quickly, temperature-sensitive, overheat easily, and they don't hold more charge than the safe, long-life lithium ion variants (and have significantly less power density).  Toyota is the only big manufacturer that I can think of off the top of my head not moving over right now; they're pretty heavily invested in NiMH.  Some companies are not only moving over, but already starting to move to some of the next-gen batteries.  For example, Subaru's G4e concept car uses batteries with lithium vanadium oxide anodes.

  •  Silicon nanowire breakthrough promises battery (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Got a Grip, JeffW, Hamsun

    revolution. On December 18, 2007 the Stanford University News Service released this:

    Stanford researchers have found a way to use silicon nanowires to reinvent the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries that power laptops, iPods, video cameras, cell phones, and countless other devices.

    The new technology, developed through research led by Yi Cui, assistant professor of materials science and engineering, produces 10 times the amount of electricity of existing lithium-ion, known as Li-ion, batteries. A laptop that now runs on battery for two hours could operate for 20 hours, a boon to ocean-hopping business travelers.

    "It's not a small improvement," Cui said. "It's a revolutionary development."

    This looked like the dreamed about breakthrough for electric vehicles and all kinds of battery dependent technology. Now some disturbing news may threaten this developement.

    Saudis invest in silicon nanowires, trying to bury battery breakthrough?
    Posted Apr 13th 2008 8:04PM by Sam Abuelsamid
    Filed under: Emerging Technologies, EV/Plug-in

    All right everyone, it's time to warm up your conspiracy theories. Back in December we reported on a potential breakthrough in battery technology from Stanford University's Professor Yi Cui. Dr. Cui developed a silicon nanowire material for use in battery electrodes. The beauty of the tiny wire bundles is that they have exponentially more surface area than a conventional flat surface electrode. That allows the electrodes to absorb and release far more electrons for greater energy density. Now we have news that Cui has received a $10 million grant for the expansion of his research. The money will be used to hire more students and staff for Cui's research lab at Stanford.

    All this is well and good, except ... the money is coming from Saudi Arabia. The new King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) in the oil-rich monarchy is giving grants to Cui and eleven other researchers around the world. Cui and the other grant recipients will spend time each year at the new university helping to develop curriculum. The important question is what conditions are put on the research results. Will silicon nanowires ever see the light of day?

    [Source: Palo Alto News]

    Maybe the Saudis just wish to diversify and provide alternatives for the day that oil eventually runs dry. I'm hoping that's the case.

    Life may select the picture, but you choose the frame.

    by sea note on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:17:06 PM PDT

    •  I broke this story... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Got a Grip, JeffW, Losty

      in an earlier diary in this series, The Kingdom and the Ion.  As far as I can tell, it was over a month after I published before anyone else caught on to the Saudi connection.  :)

      And yes, my general conclusion is that the investment is benign.  The Saudis don't get to own anything; their side of the deal is that Dr. Cui has to work with their students as well as his own research lab.  Saudi Arabia has a nascent solar and battery research program.  Wouldn't that be amazing, the world's biggest oil supplier running on EVs charged with solar power?  It'd be majorly to their advantage because they could sell all the oil that they currently consume domestically.

      •  Thanks for the link to your (0+ / 0-)

        earlier post. I've read some and will follow it through to the end. It's informative; your area of expertise is little followed in the corporate media.

        Thanks.

        Life may select the picture, but you choose the frame.

        by sea note on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:23:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good writeup (0+ / 0-)

    Another good writeup is at batteryuniversity.com  But as a watcher of things EV, I'm compelled to note that very very few claims have been independently validated (I can think of maybe 2 cases in all). The majority are from lab tests or extrapolations. This is especially true of nanotech solutions. Also especially true for EEStor.

    •  Check out the rcgroups link (0+ / 0-)

      There are lots of people on that forum who've written about their experiences with lithium phosphate (and they're pretty rough on batteries, too).  One person even conducted a 1000 cycle "stress test", where they charged them to full then drained them, both at an extreme rate (3-4C charging, 6-8C discharging), over and over.  Even with all that abuse, the cells only lost about a quarter of their capacity.  They even did tests where they drained them all the way to zero volts over and over and got the same results.  This was all done without a custom charger designed optimized for A123 cells.  That's some serious abuse!  If they can take that, they should take typical car use (90% of the time slow charging at home overnight, 10% fast charging for long trips, in a pack designed specifically for them), you'd hardly lose anything over the car's whole lifespan.

      Also, check out reviews on Dewalt and other power tools that use A123 cells.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site