 Now, can I have one of these? |
A new twist on the familiar lithium ion battery has yielded a type of power-storing material that charges and discharges at lightning speed. The finding could offer a boost for plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles and possibly allow cell phone batteries to regain a full charge in seconds rather than hours.
Rechargeable lithium ion batteries are small and light, yet can store copious amounts of energy, making them ideal for use in everyday electronic devices such as iPods and laptops. This valuable property, called energy density, can be scaled up for hybrid cars as well as for the all-electric Roadster built by Tesla Motors that relies on lithium ion batteries…and the similarly powered Chevy Volt plug-in electric, about to hit the market.
One downside: lithium ion batteries do not dispense their charge—carried by lithium ions and electrons, hence the power source’s name—very quickly compared with some other types of storage batteries. Like a huge auditorium that only has a few doors, getting a large volume of patrons (lithium ions) in and out is a drawn-out affair…The slow exchange of ions also means lithium ion batteries recharge slowly—just think of how long you have to charge your tiny cell phone.
In an attempt to pick up the pace, the M.I.T. researchers coated the lithium iron phosphate material with an ion conductor, which in this case was a layer of glasslike lithium phosphate. Sure enough, the charge-carrying ions traveled much faster from their storage medium; a prototype battery the scientists built completely charged in about 10 to 20 seconds…
Two companies have already licensed the technology, according to Byoungwoo Kang. Researchers are not sure how much these batteries will cost when they hit the market, but Kang says they should be reasonably priced, given that it should be relatively cheap to produce them.
Good possibilities of this tech hitting the streets within the next couple of years. No changes in basic production technology or components. Just one change along the way.
Which is why companies are already licensing the tech.
# 20 Misanthropic Scott said, “You see it as a moot point that in a hybrid the solar panels increase efficiency by 30-60%??!!?”
No, because it only added 30 miles to the electric only range. You should read the links you post.
#20, M. Scott, never try to teach a pig to sing. It’s not worth your time and it annoys the pig.
#21 – Paddy-tr0ll,
I did read the post. 30 miles additional range is not bad. Now make it 60 or more because we remove the weight of the gasoline and gasoline engine. Getting somewhere?
You really should read your posts before you click submit.
#22 Thank you KD Heinlein. Of course, you’re correct. Long pig in this case, I think.
# 23 Misanthropic Scott said, “I did read the post. 30 miles additional range is not bad.”
30 miles is insignificant.
Haven’t we seen the village idiot do this a hundred times? He’s obviously smarter than all of us, combined, and has insights everyone on the blog clearly misses. Let him whack himself off, no need for anyone here to help him.
#25 – Paddy-trZEROll,
30 miles is insignificant.
It’s 3/4 of the range of a Volt before it hits the gasoline, but only 1/5th of the range of an EV-1. Either way, it’s a gallon of gasoline to me now. I’ll take it for free. Think of it this way, assuming a 300 mile range, drive 10 miles, get one free.
# 27 Misanthropic Scott said, “30 miles is insignificant. It’s 3/4 of the range of a Volt before it hits the gasoline”
As I stated, and apparently you can’t comprehend, I’m talking about an ALL electric vehicle. So, no, 30 miles isn’t significant.
#28 – Paddy-mOran,
If the range of a vehicle goes from 150 to 180 miles, that is significant.
Further, you still missed the point that if we can get an extra 30 miles on a hybrid dragging a gasoline engine everywhere it goes, we’ll get more than that on a full electric vehicle that weighs a few hundred pounds less.
Besides, even if it were 30 miles on a 300 mile range, most trips are less than 30 miles. So, parking in the sun means most trips are free. It may be the first 30, not the last.
# 29 Misanthropic Scott said, “If the range of a vehicle goes from 150 to 180 miles, that is significant.”
No, that isn’t enough to replace current gasoline vehicles. So, not significant.
Next.
F**K BIG OIL
#30 – Paddy-Zero,
How often do you drive 180+ miles at a time? Personally, I need a bathroom break around then. If I can charge my car in 20 seconds, I can’t even pee that fast.
Perhaps if your bladder is bigger than your brain, you need a longer range.
# 32 Misanthropic Scott said, “How often do you drive 180+ miles at a time?”
Several times a month. Like I said. There are currently no electric cars that can REPLACE a gasoline car. Wish there was, but there aren’t.
There is also some hope for capaciters. They can take a charge very fast and discharge very fast. They can be recharged a more less unlimited number of times.
There is an electric drill that can do this on the market.
#33 Paddy-O-Troll
If everyone had your negative attitude to solar power and electric cars, there never will be a replacement for oil driven vehicles. Its almost as if you have shares in Big Oil.
I suppose once the corperations have found a way to own sunshine, you’ll be all for it.
# 35 Hugh Ripper said, “If everyone had your negative attitude to solar power and electric cars,”
Attitude has nothing to do with mathematical facts. I’ve designed photovoltaic power systems. I’m aware of the limitations. Eco nuts aren’t.
#36 “I’ve designed photovoltaic power systems. I’m aware of the limitations.”
If the technology received the same funding and investment that oil gets, I’m sure that some of these limitations could be overcome. I doubt that solar could become a base load po
Mr Fusion, please add Electrical Engineer to your list of dodgy Paddy-O qualifications. Im sure his resume would be an entertaining read.
Damn….premature submit button ejaculation…
I doubt that solar could become a base load power source but once the cost of application of photovoltaic materials resches a certain level, it could be widley use to supplement the power grid and increae efficency.
# 37 Hugh Ripper said, “I doubt that solar could become a base load po…”
Which is what the eco nuts propose. Without wind/solar being able to be a “base” source, Omama’s plan crumbles as he is doing nothing with Nuc. That leaves us with only fossil fuel as a base source.
End of story.
#39 Paddy-O-Engineer
The story continues…by supplementing the grid with a myriad of localised “green” power sources, dependant on what sources are appropriate to the location, the need for coal and nuclear as the ONLY source of power can be reduced, efficiency of transmission and storage increased and pollution decreased.
Of course Big Coal and Big Nuke interests dont like this one bit. They want centralised monolithic power thats easy to monopolise.
Coal and/or nuke may still be needed for maintaining base load, but the idea is to increase efficiency and decrease pollution through renewable resources. This is totally doable with current technology. Prudent investment in renewable energy and freedom from the disrupting influence of Big Energy will increase efficency and eventually decrease cost.