The Battery 500 Project

[bucsaholic93]

why not use nuclear technology to fuel our cars instead of using it for weapons?

[fortnightshowcase]

The primary auto brands are still pushing cars with a lousy 100 mile range that is 1996 level. From 2003 there has been 300 mile3 battery systems available off the shelf, Two of those in an SUV gives 600 mile range.

In addition to new electric cars we need mass conversion of existing cars, remoing the engine and fuel tanks and rebuilding the inners with an all electric system.  Throwing away existing cars is not eco or resource friendly. Mass coversion will make the conversion affordable,

[TrembledLove]

e.e

[JRP3]

We don't need ten times better batteries, we just need cheaper batteries. The Tesla Roadster can go 240 miles on one charge but costs $110K, the Nissan Leaf can go 100 miles on a charge and only costs $32K. Better battery technology will be good to have, but todays best are plenty good enough, if the price can be brought down, which it will with greater production volumes. Batteries are getting better and cheaper every year.

[Joeviocoe]

@JRP3

I completely agree. And I put that very opinion in my comments on AutoBlogGreen

[KuraIthys]

@JRP3 (OK, this was a year ago, but never mind) That's not the only problem. The Tesla's battery weighs 500 kg. That's about 1/3 the weight of the entire car. A smaller battery would be much better, because there's an inherent efficiency penalty in carrying around that much weight if you don't actually need the range it provides. A better battery tech could give a car like the Tesla a 2400 mile range... Or alternately, make the battery 50kg, and thus make the car more efficient.

[JRP3]

@KuraIthys Sure, but we don't need a 2400 mile range in any vehicle, nor do we need a battery that is only 50 kg. Neither is necessary nor realistic. With lightweight vehicle materials, plus aerodynamic design, cheaper versions of today's best cells would allow affordable 300+ miles of range. More is simply unnecessary. Even a moderate fast charge network will allow reasonable long range trips in such an EV, while the reality is that very few people ever take such a trip.

[KuraIthys]

@JRP3 I wouldn't think it's a trivial matter though. But I found a different battery project more significant. It actually reduced the capacity of Li-ion batteries to about 80%, but the upshot was the batteries remained usable for about 20 years instead of 2.

As for range, depends on where you live. In parts of Australia, trips of around 400 miles or more can happen quite often. In some places, the distance even between two petrol stations is 340 miles or so. With literally nothing inbetween.

[JRP3]

@KuraIthys An 80% capacity reduction would make a useless EV battery, it wouldn't matter if it lasted 100 years. Also, I don't know why you would think EV batteries only last 2 years, we have 5 year old lithium packs still going strong. Again, if the cost were less replacing a 10 year old pack would be no big deal. As for the very few who think they actually need to make completely impractical long range trips on a regular basis, get a hybrid. An EV won't work for you, but it will for most.

[KuraIthys]

@JRP3 No. No. not an 80% reduction. 80% of the capacity. (0.8 times current batteries). If a battery would currently give a range of 100 miles, this one would give a range of 80.

As to range, there's a reason 100 miles is the range of most EV's. Someone worked out 95% of all trips could be accomplished with a vehicle with that kind of range. Which makes the idea of longer ranges inherently rather pointless unless they cover relatively extreme cases.

[JRP3]

@KuraIthys OK, so if longer ranges are "rather pointless", why do we need a battery that is 10 times better as you previously argued? My point is, and has always been that we don't necessarily need better batteries, we need cheaper batteries. It's not a problem to build a car with 200+ miles of range, it's just not cost effective at this time for most people. Next year Tesla's Model S will be available with 160-300 mile range, between $50-70K, a larger car yet cheaper than the Roadster.

[KuraIthys]

@JRP3 Longer ranges are rather pointless until they get quite a bit past 100 miles. But yes, cost is a big deal. But all of this stuff is inter-related. Batteries with a longer shelf life... Or with higher energy densities, should, all things being equal be cheaper.

[KuraIthys]

@JRP3 Longer ranges are rather pointless until they get quite a bit past 100 miles. But yes, cost is a big deal. But all of this stuff is inter-related. Batteries with a longer shelf life... Or with higher energy densities, should, all things being equal be cheaper. - Charging time is also significant. quick charging makes lower ranges more viable in unusual situations.

[Queeranus]

This is a bulls*** video... The tesla CAN and DOES go hundredS of miles before crashing.

[jayandersons]

im not seeing new cars or battery facts,  nore can i buy a eletric car( afordable)

[wiseguyproductions]

the technology does exist! Shares / Rights to it were purchased by Exxon! GM EV 1 could go 400miles back in 1985! It was so fast and so powerful that is had to be GOVERNED back to 90mph max! Please see "Who Killed the Electric Car" Oil companies don't want this. They want us coming back to the pumps like a heroin addict!!!

[Joeviocoe]

It looks like you need to watch the movie first...

Cause you got all the facts wrong!

The "patents" for the Ni-MH batteries were bought by "Chevron", not Exxon!

The EV1 could go only 160 miles max!

Electric motors have to be governed because the windings would melt.

And the EV1 was first produced in 1996, not 1985! The ZEV mandate that made GM produce the EV1 didn't exist until 1990.

Get your facts straight before exaggerating and looking like an idiot.

[JRP3]

@Joeviocoe

Joe, the EV1 had a governed top speed of 90mph to save the battery pack. An ungoverned unit was run on a test track at up to 160mph I believe, and the motor did not melt. I'm sure the pack didn't last long at that speed however.

[Joeviocoe]

@JRP3

That's nice to know... but you are talking about speed.  I was talking about range.

[JRP3]

@Joeviocoe Yes but you said "Electric motors have to be governed because the windings would melt" but that's not exactly accurate. They are usually electronically governed so that they either don't fly apart from over speed and/or so they don't prematurely drain the pack. Also, I don't think the EV1 ever went 160 miles on a single charge in the real world, link?

[Joeviocoe]

@JRP3

Yes, I suppose I did say that. I apologize for being overly dramatic. The motor winding could take a hell of a lot more current than the battery can safely provide. The battery is the first concern and the primary reason for governing.

EV1 owner, being the enthusiast they were, did get the EV1 past 160, but I am sure they were using some hypermiling techniques... but do that on my Jetta TDi. :)

[EcoChampion]

initeresting concept on how car batterys are going to develop

[tomdorosz]

Hope they can do it soon.

[CroDriver]

There are thousands of companies that claim to make such a battery. I do not believe anyone until they offer their product on the market!!

[kmwinterfield]

good discussion of electric battery research. quite a challenge.

[Trackfresh]

Why not invent a car that converts water to hydrogen or a magnetic motor that recharges itself? Oh that's right because they already exist

[Queeranus]

LOL, why does this have 7 thumbs down?? The ignorance of people both saddens and astounds me...