Channel Web says a quite simple adaptation of lithium-ion battery technology could make electric cars a hell of a lot more convenient. As reported in today’s issue of Nature Magazine, MIT researchers Byoungwoo Kang and Gerbrand Ceder have found that coating batteries with a thin layer of lithium phosphate allows small batteries to be loaded in twenty seconds, while car batteries could be good to go in just five minutes. That sure beats the six to eight hours plug-in vehicles currently need—provided you have access to an electricity outlet with a lot more than 110 or 220V. Anyway, MIT engineers have taken existing battery material and changed it to create what it calls a “beltway” that allows for the rapid transit of electrical energy.
As explained to Spiegel Online, Ceder says that coating the batteries is not particularly complicated and would come without extra costs. “The glassy coat grows chemically during the normal production process, just like the rest of the battery”. The new-type batteries would be less difficult or dangerous to handle than conventional Li-Ion batteries: “they produce no extra heat.” And here’s the punch line: since the changes required in the production process are relatively simple, the new batteries could be on the market in two or three years. Is this the long-awaited breakthrough in e-car technology?
Any of the B&B have access to the Nature article?
I don’t know the details about this battery but this does not change the amount of energy required to move an automobile. At current charging rates it takes hours to get the batteries filled – and the electrical current is not minor. If these new batteries can be recharged in seconds then the current flow must be large.
@Richard Chen :
Any of the B&B have access to the Nature article?
Even better…
MIT Article
I find this technology much more compelling for small devices. As above, the current requirements to charge a vehicle battery at this pace would be enormous. A commenter on another site quoted something around 900 amps, though different assumptions will lead to different figures. For perspective, a typical wall outlet is capable of 20 amps.
And battery technology takes another step forward. Maybe GM will be able to get the cost of the Volt down. Of course this is assuming they’re around to release the Volt or don’t cancel it like they seem to be doing to everything else.
“This work was supported by the National Science Foundation through the Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers program and the Batteries for Advanced Transportation Program of the U.S. Department of Energy. It has been licensed by two companies.”
Panasonic/Toyota and…. anyone?
Rather than think of this as “the breakthrough”, I think it simply points out that there is a lot of battery development still to be done out there.
Too many people dismiss electric vehicles because they insist no more progress can be made with battery technology.
Things like this simply serve to illustrate that a lot of incremental improvements can be made while we wait for Mr Fusion to come on the market…
As to the “20 Amp outlet” issue, remember that
Power = Current X Voltage, or rearranged,
Current = Power / Voltage.
It can’t happen overnight, and there are lots of issues to work out, but…
If the power companies run a dedicated 7200V line to our houses, instead of 220V (ie: skip the transformer on the pole), to charge a 20kW battery in 15 minutes would require less than 12Amps at 7200V, compared to 360Amps at 220V.
Dangerous? Sure. Doable? Well, we’ve learned to deal with 220V, and *that* can kill you, too. But if electric cars are to be accepted, they need to charge faster than 8 hours, which will require doing (and thinking about) things differently. If Billions are the new Millions, then 7200V could be the new 220V…
degrouch, yes, charging electric cars is a lot like filling a large pool with a garden hose.
Can be done; takes awhile.
I’m not at all “fond” of the idea of having 7200 volts running to my house.
In fact, PASS.
No NSFW’ing way, not a chance. Nada. Zip. Fuhgedaboudit.
I’ve been zapped (way back when in construction with my dad, in my late teens) with 220 as well as 110, and in no way do I want 7200 volts anywhere near my house, my family, my dogs, my cars….
Electric cars may not be the panacea people think they are – see my comments in the other article by Bertel.
We can already fast charge lithium (or nickle) based batteries, but their overall cycle life falls abysmally if/when this is done.
There is little indication within the MIT report that anything has changed in this regard, except a blanket statement that “the new material does not degrade as much when repeatedly charged and recharged”. No mention of how the speed of charge/discharge affects cycle life. In short, an evolution, not a revolution in terms of further development.
Thanks guys, for the MIT link.
When I speak of a breakthrough, by the way, I mean a technological step that can make plug-in feasible for popular use. I think high-voltage “filling stations” are no too big a hurdle. But anything that can reduce fill-up time to less than 15 minutes is just fantastic.
If the power companies run a dedicated 7200V line to our houses, instead of 220V (ie: skip the transformer on the pole), to charge a 20kW battery in 15 minutes would require less than 12Amps at 7200V, compared to 360Amps at 220V.
That solution makes sense for current gas stations, but I really don’t see the problem with eight hour recharging at home. The problem is the prospect of eight hour recharging when you can’t make it home. If you can occasionally recharge in 15 minutes, then that’s good enough for most commuters. It’s a more logical solution than the Chevy Volt. But then again, the Volt is really (or would be) a fuel cell vehicle that is just making do with an ICE until the mythical hydrogen economy arrives.
Geez, I hope they don’t run 7200V to a gas/electric hybrid station, unless they keep the two far, far apart.
menno, good point, and I agree! As another poster implied, save the 7200V for the “gas” station equivalent, and accept a 220V, 8 hour recharge, for home. If the charge time gets in the 3-5 minute range, home charging would not be needed at all–most of us don’t refuel our gasoline-powered cars at home…
(I’ve been “bitten” by 120V on several occassions, too, and THAT was unpleasant. I can’t imagine 7200V!)
It would cost $SaganUnits (billyuns and billyuns) to upgrade America’s residential infrastructure to 7200V.
Charging overnight at 220 is going to be pretty acceptable for most situations.
If very high voltage and/or current charging becomes part of the EV landscape, you’ll do it mostly at service stations. If caught at home with no charge, you can get enough charge at typical residential service levels in an hour or two to get to the nearest fast-charge station. If caught out on the road, AAA will bring you a small generator or a battery that gives you enough boost to get you along (or give you a tow).
It’s like running out of gas… you’d go to the gas station to get a gallon, not a whole tank and you’d put enough gas in the car to bring it in for a full fuelling.
Creating the necessary infrastructure in more remote locations to make rapid-recharge EVs convenient for long-distance travel will be challenging.
Aw, c’mon. If they can make compressing natural gas safe for the home, then they can make rapid recharging safe at gas stations. It’s not like the gas pumps run on steam as it is.
PeteMoran :
Panasonic/Toyota and…. anyone?
One of them is A123 (God what a stupid name!) from Mass.
You folks are aware that high voltage lines run right in front of your house, right? The lines along most residential streets carries 7200-19000V (depending on the particulars of your local utility). This is what is fed into the transformer that likely sits between the street and your home. Running the higher voltage into the house wouldn’t be much of an issue; it’s done all the time with industrial and commercial buildings. Combining commercial-grade enclosures and wiring practices along with something like an inductive charging interface should be safe enough for home use.
Anyways, back to the original post – fast-charge capability is great, but it doesn’t fix the worst problems of lithium battery technology. What does this do to the energy density and power density of the cells? Do we get an increase in the cycle life? What about calendar life of the cells? Cost per kW-hr?
I think I read somewhere that one of the benefits of this technology was that you’d get more bang for the buck from regenerative charging.
The real point here is that quick charging battery technology is coming (already was, before this excellent post). And obviously, the application is primarily for “charging stations”, not home use. Regardless of how these details play out, the direction is clear: batteries will increasingly be practical.
Part of what will drive EV (actually PHEV) market penetration is the fact that infrastructure is already there. The cost to add a 30 or 50A 220V plug is the same as an electric range or clothes dryer – well within an order of magnitude people understand. Not so with 7200V infrastructure!
Technical advances like this will merely make it easier to adapt EV’s to existing systems that we all know and understand- 220V outlets and “gas” stations.
Quick charging will certainly help, however there is still the price of a battery pack that will move a vehicle an adequate range.
Bunter
Speaking as a “once-upon-a-time” master electrician,
220v shouldn’t be run for much more that 250′ (before you start to run into voltage drop and need oversize conductors). I once ran a high-voltage underground service better than half a mile to a pad and transformer. The cable was a small central conductor, maybe 10 or 8 gauge aluminum, surrounded by about a 1/2″ insulation and an external stranded wrapped ground/return. Maybe even cheaper than the normal 3 conductor 1 2/0, 2 4/0 aluminum URD underground single phase cable. You see pad mounted transformer everywhere.
The problem would be designing an idiot and weather proof receptacle, wiring and plugging/unplugging system…and someway to be sure that the gear didn’t degrade over time. Even at a “service station”, I would think it would be utilized by trained profession.
The problem wouldn’t be delivering the hig voltage to your home, it would be in using it.
I’d have to say this falls in the category of “don’t try this at home”. Gasoline is *much* less dangerous.
Or will be until be get Shipstones. I’d ask Heinlein for a prognosis on that, but he’s not around any more. Gawd, how he would have laughed and enjoyed our “interesting times”!
And the electricity to power all these vehicles is going to come from where, again?
Let’s recap. The greenies don’t want any more coal fired plants. The greenies don’t want any more nuclear power plant. The environmental folks don’t want any more rivers dammed. You can’t touch the tidal basins either. That leaves “wind” power, and nobody wants a big-assed windmill in the back yard or front yard. So that leaves solar, right? And if your house was running on solar power, you wouldn’t be able to run your washer, dryer, fridge and TV at the same time when the sun was shining.
So, uh, where is all the power for electric cars coming from, again?
Rod Panhard :
So, uh, where is all the power for electric cars coming from, again?
From the current grid we have for now and hopefully from a cleaner grid in the future.
The power grid is sized to meat short term peak demand, usually in the afternoon when AC, cooking, computers, lights, office and home are all in full use.
Outside those few peak hours the grid has excessive capacity. So charging a large number of cars, 180 million according to a Department of Energy study, on the current grid would not be a mayor problem.
Furthermore, EV’s plugged to a smart charger during the day, could be trickled charged if there is excessive power on the grid or act as a battery bank to provide needed peak power, some thing similar to this system
Charge and discharge time from lithium-ion batteries has not been a bottleneck on developing better electric vehicles. Several companies have worked around that problem. Altairnano, for one, demonstrated a 10-minute charge of a 35 kWh battery in a Phoenix Motorcars car.
Nor will this invention do anything to help electric vehicles get to the roads. This new technology is a welcome advance for batteries. But not so much for electric cars. Energy density, cost, cycle life, operating temperatures — these are the problems that need better solutions for electric cars. Not rapid charging.
“Is this the long-awaited breakthrough in e-car technology?” Not hardly.
Quick charging may not be a major problem in the real world, but it sure comes up frequently in debates as an obstacle for general use of EV’s.
Most people know what their daily routine is going to be, 10 miles to work, 4 miles to the store, 14 miles back; 40 miles range not a problem.
Now what if you suddenly remembered that your dear old grandmother has her birthday today, but there is no way that you could drive the extra 27 miles to pay her a visit since it would leave you stranded with a dead car.
Arguments like this have been used on whatever proposed the range=n is supped to be, what if grandma lives at n+27, are you not going to visit her you heartless bas&*%#?
Stopping at the quick charging station may not be super cheap nor convenient but it would take poor grandma out of the argument.
The new lithium tech. gives ranges far exceeding 100 mile per charge. as for the recharge– some smart folks have come up with some great ideas. automated battery pack replacement stations that can change you pack in less than a minute. all underground and all that is needed is that you roll up in it just like an automated car wash.Its faster than fueling up at a gas station! heres the address—->>http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.gm-volt.com/p/bp.jpg&imgrefurl=http://gm-volt.com/2009/05/13/better-place-unveils-battery-switching-station-w-video/&usg=__e9oqIi42eqVYnjoXQ8fIbUND22M=&h=365&w=550&sz=32&hl=en&start=49&um=1&tbnid=cZ2kj1J6B8CBqM:&tbnh=88&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dautomated%2Bbattery%2Bpack%2Breplacement%2Bstation%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dstrict%26rls%3DGGLR,GGLR:2006-18,GGLR:en%26sa%3DN%26start%3D40%26um%3D1