The Battery 500 Project

The Battery 500 Project: The Future of Electric Vehicles from http://asmarterplanet.com.

Today, a vast majority of the worlds oil is burned for transportation. Energy sources such as wind, geothermal and solar power, fluctuate continuously and can do little to reduce oil consumption unless the energy produced can be harnessed and stored.

Many experts believe the solution may lie in the development of an efficient, affordable energy storage network. Simply stated, energy storage not energy generation is seen as an important step toward the future.

A key part of current electric energy storage research will be influenced by the work of a consortium that hopes to develop next generation lithium batteries able to power electric vehicles for 300 to 500 miles on a single charge. This research may uncover major advances in larger-scale power storage for future electric grid applications. This next-generation battery is called Lithium-air.

In this video, experts from talk about the research and development behind Lithium-air and why they feel it may represent the future of energy storage for electric vehicles.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• ev
• electric vehicle
• smarter planet
• smarter cities
• battery
• future
• technology
• IBM

[tomdorosz]

Hope they can do it soon.

[kmwinterfield]

good discussion of electric battery research. quite a challenge.

[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.

[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.

[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 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 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 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 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 (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.

[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,