Re: New battery technology
On Saturday 09 April 2005 11:36, Jed Rothwell wrote: Standing Bear wrote: The legal problems were caused by the Three Mile Island accident. It was the most expensive industrial accident in history by far. It nearly bankrupted the power company. The detractors never cause 0.01% as much trouble as the people who designed that plant, Opposition to nuclear power existed in force long before the Three Mile Island reactor number 4 incident. It was based on the flawed and empty logic that if some isotopes had a half life of thousands or more years and had any non zero possibility of being created in any reactor even in quantities of a few atoms, then we as a society should neither construct nor operate them; and we should influence our free world allies to do the same. This was to be done in the face of a crash program to construct them in the non-free world nations. Later the possibility of sabotage was added as another 'fear factor' militating the aggressive pacifists desire for our nation to disarm and depower,.and later deindustrialize itself. The very idea that nuclear opponents caused 0.01% as much trouble is a big lie straight out of Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'---tell a big lie and tell it often and sooner or later it will be believed. The three mile island disaster was only a random event that played into the hands of the anti-nuclear crowd and its foreign financed and advised propaganda machine. It served to accelerate the campaign among apathetic Americans numbed by their television sets, but it ocurred long after the agitation was started. As for it being the most expensive industrial accident. That is another tarnished jewel in the crown of thorns of the anti nuclear propaganda campaign. If one wants to count lives as well as money, that award could go to Union Carbide. Its Bhopal, India plant was a sterling example of American jobs exported to wherever it was cheapest. Cheapest in terms of safety, of wages, of environmental protectionyou name it. It turns out Union Carbide was right. They are even now getting the best foreign justice that money can buy, and its victims are too economically weak to be listened to, especially by a Congress Party government. Who remembers them here? If they are cut, do they not bleed as well as we? Were they not, in terms of the religious among us, also created in God's image; or are they of less value because they are of a different faith..or race? The three mile island was also worth quite a bit to the anti-nukers for teaching them that financial and legal tools were potent weapons in the hands of the proper barrators. The lawsuits flowing out of the affair were continued for years and all out of proportion to the real damage. It was here that the lesson that there was profit to be made from yelling fire in a crowded theater was driven home in thousand dollar bills. Never had treason prospered more, as frivolous lawsuit followed preposterous claim; and all had to be defended in court and the expenses counted in the balance sheets of the utilities. It was found that frivolity made money even when there was no real cause, as suits and motions were rained down on a hapless power industry whose only mission was to make money. They did not care how they made money, and discontinuing the nuclear option was an easy way to quite the noise and money drain. The anti-nukers then fatuously claimed that nuclear power plants were expensive when the anti-nukers themselves had caused the expense!! Well the anti-nuke Americans had their say, no more nuclear plants were constructed here since then. But that does not mean the rest of the world followed. snip Plant construction stopped all over the world, including in Japan and Russia, which were not affected by the Viet-Nam war or draft dodger mentality. - Jed Plant construction was slow to arrive in Japan due to a national phobia against nuclear power arising from the actual use of nuclear weapons on Japan in the great war. Arrive it did, however. It is a sad, bad fact of life in Japan that they are a hard working people who have had the bad luck to inherit a piece of this rock with little in the nature of real industrially usable energy resources. True, parts of the island are among the windiest places on earth (wind power); and parts of the island have really wild surf (wave power). Other parts of the island are geologically quite active (geothermal power). Where economically feasible, these either have or will be exploited. However, Japan's population is large for the size of the nation, and problems of expense in developement of these resources involve designing for some of the largest destructive forces in nature. Typhoons with wind speeds in excess of 300 kilometers per hour strike this island (really STRONG windmills); Waves from these same storms and from Nor'easters that have to be seen to be believed can wreak their own havoc as well (really
Re: New battery technology
Standing Bear wrote: and half truths. The detractors of nuclear power in this case deliberately caused financial and legal problems for the industry . . . The legal problems were caused by the Three Mile Island accident. It was the most expensive industrial accident in history by far. It nearly bankrupted the power company. The detractors never cause 0.01% as much trouble as the people who designed that plant, and the Federal regulators who allowed it to operate. It was an accident waiting to happen. Two identical accidents occured in plants of the same design previously, but nothing was done to correct the problem. The third time, it lead to a meltdown, which destroyed half the core. The nuclear power constructing utilities realized that by the late 60's and early seventies the national political will for further plant construction had evaporated in the social ferment and draft dodger mentality of the Viet-Nam war. Plant construction stopped all over the world, including in Japan and Russia, which were not affected by the Viet-Nam war or draft dodger mentality. - Jed
Re: New battery technology
On Tuesday 29 March 2005 13:59, Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote: The biggest problem with charging stations would be lack of customers. I think most people would find it more convenient to recharge at home overnight, rather than interrupt their commute. In other words, charging stations would only be economically viable on highways where people travel hundreds of miles from their houses and offices, but you would see no charging stations in major cities. When a third of gasoline cars are replaced by electric cars, the demand for gasoline would fall, most gas stations would close, and you would soon see no gasoline stations in major cities either. That would be an advantage, not a problem. Gas stations are ugly. If most of them went out of business that would force the rest of the gasoline vehicle fleet owners to switch over to electricity, which would be a plus. I think this kind of transition could occur much faster than most people realize. (I am not saying it will, but it could.) It would take 10 or 20 years if government and industry got serious. Gasoline at $5 per gallon would do the trick. On March 28, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman suggested that the government should impose a tax on gasoline to keep the price at $4 per gallon. See: Geo-Greening by Example. That is an excellent idea but it would never fly. Still, it is remarkable that serious newspapers are suggesting such radical steps. Friedman wrote: By doing nothing to lower U.S. oil consumption, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism and strengthening the worst governments in the world. Friedman also advocated building nuclear power plants again. That may happen. It is much more likely than the advent of a tax to raise the price of gas to $4/gallon. I sense a groundswell of support for conventional nuclear power in the national press. Unfortunately I have seen no reference whatever in the press to cold fusion -- or hot fusion for that matter. - Jed Once the anti nuclear leftovers from the maoist antiwar subversion campaign by the heirs of the old Comintern of the 1970's are mostly dead or quiet, and that is happening now as most of these were drug users and have had short lives; then the new atmosphere of nuclear common sense will have an even fairer chance at success. Price will undoubtedly drive the politics of the issue as energy is short everywhere. Like William F. Buckley said once about energy being fungible around the world, so it is today as well, as the laws of economics do not change very much. Only now we will need nuclear rockets as well. Chemical rockets have to low, far far too low a coefficient of performance to even be considered for even intra-system travel. We will have to come to terms with the idea of a nuclear primary booster.orgood heavensa nuclear shuttle of only one stage to orbit. Alternatively, JP Aerospace's idea, when they aren't busy making their main business of Pong-Sats, is to use solar electric dirigibles of great size to first ascend with a sturdy craft of about 1000 ft or so to a height of about 200,000 ft to a large transfer station (Dark Sky Station) about 6000-1 feet in diameter, thence transfer cargo to a true space ascender that can be flimsier but must be larger to take advantage of what was left of the atmosphere before its solar electric thrusters can build up enough speed for orbital velocity. Another alternative is the mirror fusion engine for main power. It is powered by a nuclear reactor. If these things can get us to the moon where we can mine the tritium, then pure fusion mirror devices become feasible. In any case, the moon's resource of tritium will open up our system to us for exploration as it will be our fuel station for space craft for many years. Pure fusion devices will be far more efficient and far less polluting that any of the other alternatives available to us plausibly at present. Standing Bear
Re: New battery technology
On Friday 08 April 2005 18:13, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Standing Bear's message of Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:42:28 -0400: Hi, [snip] mirror fusion engine for main power. It is powered by a nuclear reactor. If these things can get us to the moon where we can mine the tritium, then pure fusion mirror devices become feasible. In any case, the moon's resource of tritium will open up our system to us for exploration as it will be our [snip] I suspect you mean He3. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Yes Robin, that is what I really meant, just had not thought of it, and wanted to get the letter written before going grocery shopping. I read the various responses to my reply to the battery tech post. I had heard all of Jed's comments before, but they were out of the mouths of other people back in the 1970's. It was almost as if it was scripted as an automatic response to a Pavlovian stimulus. Nuke plants were expensive for various reasons, not the least of which was the cost to defend against the various harrassment litigations brought by the critics of the industry on every pretext imaginable. This litigation expense was considerable and was borne by the power industry and ultimately its ratepayersthe defense part of it. The offense was paid partly from foreign enemy treasuries and partly from the pockets of useful fools who were taken in by faulted logic based on fear and half truths. The detractors of nuclear power in this case deliberately caused financial and legal problems for the industry, and then turned and slyly stated that the industry's legal problems were reason enough not to have that industry. The nuclear power constructing utilities realized that by the late 60's and early seventies the national political will for further plant construction had evaporated in the social ferment and draft dodger mentality of the Viet-Nam war. To build a new nuke plant required many permits, and the permit process came to be controlled by avowed enemies of the industry, and in reality, enemies of the people. With no way to legally build plants, the industry refocused on dirtier but in a twisted logical way still legal fossil fuel facilities. The industry did want to build these plants; but they were prevented from doing so by former opponents who had traded their levis for business suits and their signs for MBA. Then these same new 'MBA's now come with the empty lies that industry did not want to do it. I suppose Pol Pot's victims in Cambodia did not want to live either. Many of these reluctant fossil fuel plants were coal. Ask any real civil engineer and he will tell you that coal is a garbage can. More radiation and certainly more noxious chemicals are released by coal burning facilities every day than one could plausibly imagine. Coal plants create much more radiation pollution than any nuclear plant in normal operation. And this radiation is more insidious. Take radon, for instance. It is a gas! It is in all coal. And it is released unchanged when coal is burned, as it is a chemically inactive gas that was trapped in coal bearing seams where it was created by natural decay of unstable naturally occuring elements. The end of the war left a shadow 'army' of luddites and traitors with idealogically nowhere to go. Rather than see them disperse, their handlers sought new directions for those that they could hang on to. Anti nuclear power and environmental concerns fit the bill, as successful campaigns in this could weaken our energy position, making potentially more valuable the vast manual labor resources of China. It became a quiet revolution as operating contrary to our own national interest became mainstream 'chic'. Veterans were frozen out of the job market by a button down collar army of former draft dodgers and avoiders who had gone to college in the war years and got the good jobs and promotions first, and later set the agenda in local businesses all over the country. Patriotism was not 'chic'. Quiche was 'chic' Treason had become mainstream, and quietly validated Von Clausewitz's dictum about what happens to a state when treason prospers. China is now selling that labor to an energy starved world. You buy products of it every day in your local Wal-Mart store. The loss of the war had another by product. By running away from our responsibilities in South Viet-Nam, we further lost respect in the world. Now tin horn dictators everywhere took advantage of the situation. OPEC would not have dared to do in 1949 what they did in 1973! Neither would we then in 1949 have stood by while the the Panama Canal was taken from us the way it was taken in the Carter years by a cabal of tinhorn Panamanian politicos and internal American traitors masquerading as 'progressive statesmen'. Now we have the spectacle of Chinese People's Army front companies operating the Panama Canal. Suppose these folks would be
Re: New battery technology
Mike Carrell wrote: MC: I said *at the wheels*. I don't have the exact numbers at hand, but there are a lot of losses between the engine crankshaft and the wheels. One is the power necessary for the hydraulic system. Good point. The NREL Hydrogen Program Plan cites a JPL study from 1985 showing that with conventional automobiles, 85% of Rotary Power is delivered to Vehicle Propulsion. By 2020 they hope to raise this to 90%. I should upload images of these NREL diagrams for automobiles and electric power. They are very handy. I will look around on the web to see if I can find a copy. - Jed
Re: New battery technology
Steve wrote: snip I understand that this is how they work but I've never understood why. Why is it not better to use a gutsy electric motor, a small gasoline or diesel engine, and a battery pack? That always seemed like the reasonable way to build a hybrid -- take a tip from diesel electric locomotives, that run the diesel engine at a very efficient constant RPM, and use the electric wheel motors with their very wide dynamic range to do the impedence match to the terrain. The battery pack gets you onto the expressway and up the hills, and the petroleum based motor/generator provides all the electricity that you need while cruising. Obviously my intuition here is wrong. Is there a 20 word explanation of why? I can do it in two words: your'e right. You have sketched the hybrid rationale. Mike Carrell
Re: New battery technology
At 1:39 PM 3/29/5, Jed Rothwell wrote: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Horace Heffner wrote: This is a significant development provided the price is right. It means vehicles can be charged in a manner similar to filling up on gas, and that home charging is also feasible. Home charging of electric vehicles is already feasible. I cannot imagine an electric car design that would make it difficult or inconvenient to recharge at home. At most you would need some sort of external transformer. Sorry I didn't make the point clear. Noting that home charging is feasible is merely meant to point out an advantage clearly not present as compared to liquid nitrogen, liquid air, home hydrogen filling, or even home methane filling, all of which require expensive equipment and which might be hazardous. We had a discussion electric power filling stations this some months ago. When I suggested that rapid recharge batteries would allow something like a filling station, Mike Carrell pointed out that this would require very large capacity electric power mains to the gas station. I suppose that if the rapid recharge batteries are reasonably cheap, a gas station could be equipped with a bank of the batteries to smooth out demand. You have answered your own objection there. They would only have a problem if a solid stream of customers came, without a break, and there was a car charging at every outlet, every minute, for several hours. That almost never happens with ordinary gas stations, except during emergencies such as an evacuation or when the power goes out nearly everywhere and only one gas station is left open. Gas stations run out of fuel during these rare events, so an overwhelmed electric charging station would probably not be much worse than a gas station. During an evacuation, electric cars could always be charged at emergency charging stations or at people's houses and offices. You can set up a temporary charging station much more easily than you can established a temporary gas station. The biggest problem with charging stations would be lack of customers. I think most people would find it more convenient to recharge at home overnight, rather than interrupt their commute. True, unless residential energy is taxed out of reach. The principle value of recharging stations is that electric vehicles are no longer limited to commuting. Assuming existing filling stations are converted to charging stations, long distance travel can be made with no significant changes to gasoline refuling habits. If these batteries are reasonably light, they might allow electric vehicles with a 200 mile (300 km) range. That would be enough for nearly all travel and commuting applications. There also schemes to use high-capacity capacitors for urban buses. Every bus stop would be equipped with power mains to recharge the bus while the passengers get on and off. This seems impractical to me. It doesn't solve the energy source problem . . . I think it would solve the energy source problem, at least in the US. The US has plenty of fuel suitable for electric power generation, including coal, uranium and wind. You are suggesting burning coal is the solution to the energy source problem?! It appears we are not talking about the same energy problem. Also, electric cars are far more efficient than gasoline powered model, so if all cars and trucks were replaced with electric powered models, and all electric generators were brought up to close to state-of-the-art efficiency (40%) overall demand for energy would drop by ~13 quads out 101 total. Overall demand for oil would drop by ~70%. Electricity is three times as expensive as fossil fuels. A 40 percent increase in generating efficiency will just not cut it. This provides no improvement in distribution and other energy and cost overheads which cause the high price of electricity. Total demand for fossil fuels should actually increase if all vehicles are battery powered. Also, overall transportation costs will rise. They might drop temporarily until the government figures out they have to find a way to convert the gasoline tax to an electric tax. Batteries are not a source of energy. True, some energy is recovered from regenerative breaking, but transportation is only about 1/3 of the energy expenditure of the US, and the US expends only about 1/4 the world energy. Effective batteries do not solve the energy problem, even if they are cheap, light, and rechargeable without a water cooling supply in the charge connector. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: New battery technology
Horace wrote: snip. There also schemes to use high-capacity capacitors for urban buses. Every bus stop would be equipped with power mains to recharge the bus while the passengers get on and off. This seems impractical to me. Not so. In Europe there have been bus systems with flywheel energy storage operating for years. Bus stops have a charging pole that can be contacted by a bus to recharge at every stop. In all the discussion about batteries, there is a case to be made for flywheel storage, which has been refined for years. The key issue is very high strength fibers for the flywheels, for the faster the flywheels can go, the higher the energy density, and it is an exponential function of the flywheel speed. Mike Carrell
Re: New battery technology
The quote below, seemingly attributed to me, is actually from Jed. At 6:59 AM 3/30/5, Mike Carrell wrote: Horace wrote: snip. There also schemes to use high-capacity capacitors for urban buses. Every bus stop would be equipped with power mains to recharge the bus while the passengers get on and off. This seems impractical to me. Not so. In Europe there have been bus systems with flywheel energy storage operating for years. Bus stops have a charging pole that can be contacted by a bus to recharge at every stop. In all the discussion about batteries, there is a case to be made for flywheel storage, which has been refined for years. The key issue is very high strength fibers for the flywheels, for the faster the flywheels can go, the higher the energy density, and it is an exponential function of the flywheel speed. Mike Carrell Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: New battery technology
- Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:21 AM Subject: Re: New battery technology Batteries are not a source of energy. True, some energy is recovered from regenerative breaking, but transportation is only about 1/3 of the energy expenditure of the US, and the US expends only about 1/4 the world energy. Effective batteries do not solve the energy problem, even if they are cheap, light, and rechargeable without a water cooling supply in the charge connector. We still need PAGD powered cars that will recharge the batteries on the fly and not draw power from our other sources. So far I can't do it, the Correas won't do it, and I don't know of anyone else trying.
Re: New battery technology
Michael Foster wrote: Wouldn't such a quickly chargeable battery be able to store much more energy from regenerative braking than is currently possible? These batteries are apparently more efficient (meaning they generate less waste heat when they recharge) so they would do a better job of regenerative braking. However, regenerative braking already works fine with lead-acid batteries. They discharge quickly enough to drive the car engines at high speed, and apparently they also recharge quickly enough to absorb kinetic energy at high speeds. The point that Mike Carrell has made about a very rapid recharge is that it would require the batteries to absorb energy much faster than they ever discharge it. Suppose you have a car with a 200 mile range that recharges in six minutes. The batteries have to absorb enough energy in six minutes to drive the engine at top speed for three hours, a 30:1 difference (900 hp in, 30 hp out). This is much more demanding than regenerative braking. 30 hp, by the way, seems a little low even for a lightweight electric car, based on the performance of my 40 HP Geo Metro. I think you need more like 70 to 100 HP, even with a light, aerodynamic car. The Honda Insight has a 73 hp engine and a 10 kW electric motor. The Toyota Prius has 110 hp, gasoline-electric combined. See: http://eartheasy.com/live_hybrid_cars.htm - Jed
Re: New battery technology
I would speculate that Toshiba headquarters knowing that their RD teams were working on the promising nano battery designs made the decision to discontinue the more conventional lithium-ion technology more than a year ago. They knew that if their RD teams proved successful conventional batteries sales would likely be toast, so you might as well dump them now in preparation of the brave new world. It's a bit disconcerting from the perspective of an outsider, not knowing what internal strategies were in the process of being playing out. I bet headquarters made the decision to dump the convention lithium battery the second they were fully convinced the new nano batteries were economically feasible to build and sell. Mike, Jed, how much of a corporate secret was this? Strategically speaking, would this RD have been kept completely under corporate wraps, or would it have been possible to have acquired an inkling of what was about to unfold it if one had been savvy enough to have read the right technical journals? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com reply Description: null
Re: New battery technology
Horace Heffner wrote: At 10:05 AM 3/30/5, Jed Rothwell wrote: 30 hp, by the way, seems a little low even for a lightweight electric car, based on the performance of my 40 HP Geo Metro. I think you need more like 70 to 100 HP, even with a light, aerodynamic car. The Honda Insight has a 73 hp engine and a 10 kW electric motor. The Toyota Prius has 110 hp, gasoline-electric combined. [snip] Gasoline is roughly 20,000 Btu/lb, and 6 lbs/gal, thus has about 120,000 Btu/gal. A car that gets 30 mi/gallon at 60 mi/hr uses 2 gallons per hour, or 240,000 Btu/hr = 94 hp. However, if the motor is only 30 percent efficient, the motor is really only putting out about 21 hp. A car or motorcycle that cruises at 60 mi/gallon at 30 percent efficiency is using only about 10 hp to cruise. For some reason I just find this fascinating. The extra horsepower, which is indeed needed for normal and safe driving, is really needed primarily for accelerating and hill climbing. This is obviously one of the reasons hybrids work so well - they can combine energy sources when a power boost is needed, but cruise on a smaller motor. I understand that this is how they work but I've never understood why. Why is it not better to use a gutsy electric motor, a small gasoline or diesel engine, and a battery pack? That always seemed like the reasonable way to build a hybrid -- take a tip from diesel electric locomotives, that run the diesel engine at a very efficient constant RPM, and use the electric wheel motors with their very wide dynamic range to do the impedence match to the terrain. The battery pack gets you onto the expressway and up the hills, and the petroleum based motor/generator provides all the electricity that you need while cruising. Obviously my intuition here is wrong. Is there a 20 word explanation of why?
Re: New battery technology
Jed wrote: snip The point that Mike Carrell has made about a very rapid recharge is that it would require the batteries to absorb energy much faster than they ever discharge it. Suppose you have a car with a 200 mile range that recharges in six minutes. The batteries have to absorb enough energy in six minutes to drive the engine at top speed for three hours, a 30:1 difference (900 hp in, 30 hp out). This is much more demanding than regenerative braking. 30 hp, by the way, seems a little low even for a lightweight electric car, based on the performance of my 40 HP Geo Metro. I think you need more like 70 to 100 HP, even with a light, aerodynamic car. The Honda Insight has a 73 hp engine and a 10 kW electric motor. The Toyota Prius has 110 hp, gasoline-electric combined. See: MC: I said *at the wheels*. I don't have the exact numbers at hand, but there are a lot of losses between the engine crankshaft and the wheels. One is the power necessary for the hydraulic system. It needs high pressure, which has to be generated constantly, so there is a bypass around the pump which wastes energy constantly. There is talk of future designs with 48 and 72 volt electric systems. At that level, magnetically activated brakes and power steering are possible and the hydraulic system is yesteryear. The deal with hydrids is that the engine provides the necessary power for cruising and battery charging while running at a constant speed for which it is optimized. The batteries provide the surges for acceleration, with some recovery in braking. The torque from electric motors and batteries can be very high. One hybrid SUV has the acceration of a sports car and is attracting customers on that basis. In a normal car the engine can provide more power for acceleration [inefficiently] than is needed for cruising, with no recovery in braking. Mike Carrell
Re: New battery technology
Now THAT'S an important breakthrough. Something like this quick recharge battery could revolutionize transportation, and greatly reduce the need for oil. - Jed
Re: New battery technology
At 10:34 AM 3/29/5, R. Wormus wrote: Press Release: New battery offers unsurpassed recharge performance and high energy density TOKYO -- Toshiba Corporation today announced a breakthrough in lithium-ion batteries that makes long recharge times a thing of the past. The company's new battery can recharge 80% of a battery's energy capacity in only one minute, approximately 60 times faster than the typical lithium-ion batteries in wide use today, and combines this fast recharge time with performance-boosting improvements in energy density. This is a significant development provided the price is right. It means vehicles can be charged in a manner similar to filling up on gas, and that home charging is also feasible. It doesn't solve the energy source problem, but it could greatly improve city air quality and vehicle efficiency. Too bad there are no more EV's being maufactured into which to drop the new batteries. No worries. Hybrids will benefit as well. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: New battery technology
wow. its a battery capacitor! definately increase the effectiveness of solar vehicles. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:14:25 -0900, Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:34 AM 3/29/5, R. Wormus wrote: Press Release: New battery offers unsurpassed recharge performance and high energy density TOKYO -- Toshiba Corporation today announced a breakthrough in lithium-ion batteries that makes long recharge times a thing of the past. The company's new battery can recharge 80% of a battery's energy capacity in only one minute, approximately 60 times faster than the typical lithium-ion batteries in wide use today, and combines this fast recharge time with performance-boosting improvements in energy density. This is a significant development provided the price is right. It means vehicles can be charged in a manner similar to filling up on gas, and that home charging is also feasible. It doesn't solve the energy source problem, but it could greatly improve city air quality and vehicle efficiency. Too bad there are no more EV's being maufactured into which to drop the new batteries. No worries. Hybrids will benefit as well. Regards, Horace Heffner -- Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write Voltaire
Re: New battery technology
Horace Heffner wrote: This is a significant development provided the price is right. It means vehicles can be charged in a manner similar to filling up on gas, and that home charging is also feasible. Home charging of electric vehicles is already feasible. I cannot imagine an electric car design that would make it difficult or inconvenient to recharge at home. At most you would need some sort of external transformer. We had a discussion electric power filling stations this some months ago. When I suggested that rapid recharge batteries would allow something like a filling station, Mike Carrell pointed out that this would require very large capacity electric power mains to the gas station. I suppose that if the rapid recharge batteries are reasonably cheap, a gas station could be equipped with a bank of the batteries to smooth out demand. They would only have a problem if a solid stream of customers came, without a break, and there was a car charging at every outlet, every minute, for several hours. That almost never happens with ordinary gas stations, except during emergencies such as an evacuation or when the power goes out nearly everywhere and only one gas station is left open. Gas stations run out of fuel during these rare events, so an overwhelmed electric charging station would probably not be much worse than a gas station. During an evacuation, electric cars could always be charged at emergency charging stations or at people's houses and offices. You can set up a temporary charging station much more easily than you can established a temporary gas station. The biggest problem with charging stations would be lack of customers. I think most people would find it more convenient to recharge at home overnight, rather than interrupt their commute. If these batteries are reasonably light, they might allow electric vehicles with a 200 mile (300 km) range. That would be enough for nearly all travel and commuting applications. There also schemes to use high-capacity capacitors for urban buses. Every bus stop would be equipped with power mains to recharge the bus while the passengers get on and off. This seems impractical to me. It doesn't solve the energy source problem . . . I think it would solve the energy source problem, at least in the US. The US has plenty of fuel suitable for electric power generation, including coal, uranium and wind. Also, electric cars are far more efficient than gasoline powered model, so if all cars and trucks were replaced with electric powered models, and all electric generators were brought up to close to state-of-the-art efficiency (40%) overall demand for energy would drop by ~13 quads out 101 total. Overall demand for oil would drop by ~70%. See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/diagram1.html - Jed
Re: New battery technology
I wrote: The biggest problem with charging stations would be lack of customers. I think most people would find it more convenient to recharge at home overnight, rather than interrupt their commute. In other words, charging stations would only be economically viable on highways where people travel hundreds of miles from their houses and offices, but you would see no charging stations in major cities. When a third of gasoline cars are replaced by electric cars, the demand for gasoline would fall, most gas stations would close, and you would soon see no gasoline stations in major cities either. That would be an advantage, not a problem. Gas stations are ugly. If most of them went out of business that would force the rest of the gasoline vehicle fleet owners to switch over to electricity, which would be a plus. I think this kind of transition could occur much faster than most people realize. (I am not saying it will, but it could.) It would take 10 or 20 years if government and industry got serious. Gasoline at $5 per gallon would do the trick. On March 28, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman suggested that the government should impose a tax on gasoline to keep the price at $4 per gallon. See: Geo-Greening by Example. That is an excellent idea but it would never fly. Still, it is remarkable that serious newspapers are suggesting such radical steps. Friedman wrote: By doing nothing to lower U.S. oil consumption, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism and strengthening the worst governments in the world. Friedman also advocated building nuclear power plants again. That may happen. It is much more likely than the advent of a tax to raise the price of gas to $4/gallon. I sense a groundswell of support for conventional nuclear power in the national press. Unfortunately I have seen no reference whatever in the press to cold fusion -- or hot fusion for that matter. - Jed
Re: New battery technology
Before we divide the bear into all of its succulent parts it might be wise to verify the source of the news. So far I can't verify it. On top of that, according to Toshiba they were planning on getting out of the rechargeable lithium ion battery business See: http://www.toshiba.com/taec/cgi-bin/display.cgi?table=FamilyFamilyID=8 Can somebody supply the link? It's not quite April 1st yet. Fess up Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com From: R. Wormus [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/03/29 Tue PM 05:34:20 GMT To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: New battery technology Press Release: New battery offers unsurpassed recharge performance and high energy density TOKYO -- Toshiba Corporation today announced a breakthrough in lithium-ion batteries that makes long recharge times a thing of the past. The company's new battery can recharge 80% of a battery's energy capacity in only one minute, approximately 60 times faster than the typical lithium-ion batteries in wide use today, and combines this fast recharge time with performance-boosting improvements in energy density. The new battery fuses Toshiba's latest advances in nano-material technology for the electric devices sector with cumulative know-how in manufacturing lithium-ion battery cells. A breakthrough technology applied to the negative electrode uses new nano-particles to prevent organic liquid electrolytes from reducing during battery recharging. The nano-particles quickly absorb and store vast amount of lithium ions, without causing any deterioration in the electrode. The excellent recharging characteristics of new battery are not its only performance advantages. The battery has a long life cycle, losing only 1% of capacity after 1,000 cycles of discharging and recharging, and can operate at very low temperatures. At minus 40 degrees centigrade, the battery can discharge 80% of its capacity, against 100% in an ambient temperature of 25 degree centigrade). Toshiba will bring the new rechargeable battery to commercial products in 2006. Initial applications will be in the automotive and industrial sectors, where the slim, small-sized battery will deliver large amounts of energy while requiring only a minute to recharge. For example, the battery's advantages in size, weight and safety highly suit it for a role as an alternative power source for hybrid electric vehicles. Toshiba expects that the high energy density and excellent recharge performance of the new battery will assure its successful application as a new energy solution in many areas of society. Major Specifications of New Battery Excellent Recharge Performance The thin battery recharges to 80% of full capacity in only a minute. Total recharge takes only a few more minutes. High Energy Density Small and light, the new battery offers a high level of storage efficiency. The prototype battery is only 3.8mm thick, 62mm high and 35mm deep and has a capacity of 600mAh. Long Life Cycle A prototype of new battery (a laminated lithium ion battery with 600mAh capacity) was discharged and fully recharged 1,000 times at a temperature of 25 degrees centigrade and lost only 1% of capacity during the test. Temperature The new battery operates well in extremes of temperature. It discharges 80% of its capacity at minus 40 degrees centigrade, against 100% at an ambient temperature of 25 degrees centigrade, and loses only 5% of capacity at temperatures as high as 45 degrees centigrade after 1,000 cycles. These characteristics assure the wide applicability of the battery as a power source for products as diverse as hybrid vehicles and mobile phones. Eco-friendly Battery The new battery can quickly store energy produced by locomotives and automobiles. This speedy and highly effective recharge characteristic of the battery will support CO2 reduction, as the battery can save and re-use energy that was simply wasted before.
Re: New battery technology
http://news.google.com/news?hl=enned=usq=toshiba+battery[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before we divide the bear into all of its succulent parts it might be wise to verify the source of the news. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
Re: Re: New battery technology
From: Terry Blanton http://news.google.com/news?hl=enned=usq=toshiba+battery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Before we divide the bear into all of its succulent parts it might be wise to verify the source of the news. Thanks, Terry! I love it when my suspicions can be proven wrong! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com
RE: New battery technology
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communiquenewsid=7681 RENO, NV--(MARKET WIRE)--Feb 10, 2005 -- Altair Nanotechnologies, Inc. (NasdaqSC:ALTI - News) announced today that it has achieved a breakthrough in Lithium Ion battery electrode materials, which will enable a new generation of rechargeable battery to be introduced into the marketplace, as well as create new markets for rechargeable batteries. These new materials allow rechargeable batteries to be manufactured that have three times the power of existing Lithium Ion batteries at the same price and with recharge times measured in a few minutes rather than hours. -DonW- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:11 PM To: vortex-list Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New battery technology Before we divide the bear into all of its succulent parts it might be wise to verify the source of the news. So far I can't verify it. On top of that, according to Toshiba they were planning on getting out of the rechargeable lithium ion battery business See: http://www.toshiba.com/taec/cgi-bin/display.cgi?table=FamilyFamilyID=8 Can somebody supply the link? It's not quite April 1st yet. Fess up Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com From: R. Wormus [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/03/29 Tue PM 05:34:20 GMT To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: New battery technology Press Release: New battery offers unsurpassed recharge performance and high energy density TOKYO -- Toshiba Corporation today announced a breakthrough in lithium-ion batteries that makes long recharge times a thing of the past. The company's new battery can recharge 80% of a battery's energy capacity in only one minute, approximately 60 times faster than the typical lithium-ion batteries in wide use today, and combines this fast recharge time with performance-boosting improvements in energy density. The new battery fuses Toshiba's latest advances in nano-material technology for the electric devices sector with cumulative know-how in manufacturing lithium-ion battery cells. A breakthrough technology applied to the negative electrode uses new nano-particles to prevent organic liquid electrolytes from reducing during battery recharging. The nano-particles quickly absorb and store vast amount of lithium ions, without causing any deterioration in the electrode. The excellent recharging characteristics of new battery are not its only performance advantages. The battery has a long life cycle, losing only 1% of capacity after 1,000 cycles of discharging and recharging, and can operate at very low temperatures. At minus 40 degrees centigrade, the battery can discharge 80% of its capacity, against 100% in an ambient temperature of 25 degree centigrade). Toshiba will bring the new rechargeable battery to commercial products in 2006. Initial applications will be in the automotive and industrial sectors, where the slim, small-sized battery will deliver large amounts of energy while requiring only a minute to recharge. For example, the battery's advantages in size, weight and safety highly suit it for a role as an alternative power source for hybrid electric vehicles. Toshiba expects that the high energy density and excellent recharge performance of the new battery will assure its successful application as a new energy solution in many areas of society. Major Specifications of New Battery Excellent Recharge Performance The thin battery recharges to 80% of full capacity in only a minute. Total recharge takes only a few more minutes. High Energy Density Small and light, the new battery offers a high level of storage efficiency. The prototype battery is only 3.8mm thick, 62mm high and 35mm deep and has a capacity of 600mAh. Long Life Cycle A prototype of new battery (a laminated lithium ion battery with 600mAh capacity) was discharged and fully recharged 1,000 times at a temperature of 25 degrees centigrade and lost only 1% of capacity during the test. Temperature The new battery operates well in extremes of temperature. It discharges 80% of its capacity at minus 40 degrees centigrade, against 100% at an ambient temperature of 25 degrees centigrade, and loses only 5% of capacity at temperatures as high as 45 degrees centigrade after 1,000 cycles. These characteristics assure the wide applicability of the battery as a power source for products as diverse as hybrid vehicles and mobile phones. Eco-friendly Battery The new battery can quickly store energy produced by locomotives and automobiles. This speedy and highly effective recharge characteristic of the battery will support CO2 reduction, as the battery can save and re-use energy that was simply wasted before. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 3/27/2005
Re: New battery technology
They are now available for your human transporter: http://segway.com/segway/lithium_ion.htmlMike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I assume lithium ion batteries can be designed for automotiveservice.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: New battery technology
I wrote: That's pretty hot, but with a good radiator and exhaust fan it would not vaporize the battery or cause a fire. With a lead-acid battery, which is 70% efficient, it would produce 200 or 300 kW, which *would* cause a fire. I should have said: If a lead acid battery could recharge this quickly it *would* cause a fire. He would have to pull into a Dunkin' Donuts store and use their friendly customer emergency charge slot which would take 15 or 20 minutes for a partial recharge (say, 20 kW), and cost him $5. As I said earlier, it is much easier to set up a low-capacity or emergency charge station than a gasoline station. You can put small electric car charge stations in parking lots anywhere. A few Atlanta malls already have some, in fact. Stores were people are likely to stop along the way to work anyway, such as Dunkin' Donuts, will probably offer a few. A Dunkin' Donuts might even have a 2-car BBB, which would allow a person to recharge in six minutes. This calls for much less infrastructure than today's gas station. Safety and equipment maintenance would be a much smaller problem. Judging by the size of the bank of batteries needed in today's electric automobiles, and taking into account the fact that the new Toshiba battery is smaller and lighter, a 2-car BBB would be a box roughly the size of household external air-conditioner unit, or a kitchen stove. It would not be huge or expensive. If gasoline goes up to $4 or $5 per gallon, you will see this kind of thing implemented with lightning speed -- much faster than anyone has predicted or imagined lately. By comparison, consider how long it took to equip nearly every city, town and highway in the US with gasoline stations. That transition occurred from 1908 to 1925 -- 17 years -- and it was not done in response to a dire national emergency. - Jed
Re: New battery technology
and you are makeing a big assumption. that everyone would do a full charge everytime. do people fill the tank every time? so for ten cents on your order, or maybe even free, mcdonalds will charge your car as you go through the drive through. 2 minutes of charging, last you a couple hours driving. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:30:32 -0500, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote: That's pretty hot, but with a good radiator and exhaust fan it would not vaporize the battery or cause a fire. With a lead-acid battery, which is 70% efficient, it would produce 200 or 300 kW, which *would* cause a fire. I should have said: If a lead acid battery could recharge this quickly it *would* cause a fire. He would have to pull into a Dunkin' Donuts store and use their friendly customer emergency charge slot which would take 15 or 20 minutes for a partial recharge (say, 20 kW), and cost him $5. As I said earlier, it is much easier to set up a low-capacity or emergency charge station than a gasoline station. You can put small electric car charge stations in parking lots anywhere. A few Atlanta malls already have some, in fact. Stores were people are likely to stop along the way to work anyway, such as Dunkin' Donuts, will probably offer a few. A Dunkin' Donuts might even have a 2-car BBB, which would allow a person to recharge in six minutes. This calls for much less infrastructure than today's gas station. Safety and equipment maintenance would be a much smaller problem. Judging by the size of the bank of batteries needed in today's electric automobiles, and taking into account the fact that the new Toshiba battery is smaller and lighter, a 2-car BBB would be a box roughly the size of household external air-conditioner unit, or a kitchen stove. It would not be huge or expensive. If gasoline goes up to $4 or $5 per gallon, you will see this kind of thing implemented with lightning speed -- much faster than anyone has predicted or imagined lately. By comparison, consider how long it took to equip nearly every city, town and highway in the US with gasoline stations. That transition occurred from 1908 to 1925 -- 17 years -- and it was not done in response to a dire national emergency. - Jed -- Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write Voltaire
Re: New battery technology
Jed Rothwell If gasoline goes up to $4 or $5 per gallon, you will see this kind of thing implemented with lightning speed -- much faster than anyone has predicted or imagined lately. even as things stand now, one wonder how long it will take... In trying to equate battery recharge costs to a gasoline powered ICE, it is challenge to get figures which reflect an accurate cross-comparison. There should be an online site for this ..?? A figure of 30 kilowatts is often used as an adequate power for normal driving. It is easy to see that with electricity at $ .10 / kwh you could drive for an hour at top speed for not much over $3, using electricity, if you didn't experience too much heat loss in the recharge ... and if electricity doesn't go way up soon (let's hope not) and the motor/battery is ~95% efficient. With gasoline having an energy content of 114,000 btu/gallon and an ICE engine having an efficiency of ~25% you are getting about 28,000 btu equivalent or 8.2 kwh for your same $3. Therefore to get the same 30 kwh equivalent from a gasoline powered automobile, it would seem to cost over three times more with gas at $3 gallon, which it will be this summer, without some kind of voodoo economics at work. If I got the numbers right, that is. That comparison does seem high - does anyone have an accurate site for finding these comparison numbers? Jones
Re: New battery technology
A lot of fascinating Vortexian discussion has been generated on this topic, as it well should. Meanwhile, I performed an unscientific Reality Check and noticed that CNN.COM has yet to report on this apparent technological breakthrough, particularly in the Technology section. We are instead presented with, ...yawn..., another allegation of child porn - in the case of a former top Boy Scout official. If this technological breakthrough is as significant as some claim it could turn out to be, I think it would be fascinating to observe how the ramifications will be received and implemented within our society. Details to pay special attention to might be: 1. Who gets wind of the technology first? What do they do about it? 2. What happens to stocks? Which companies benefit, and which ones suffer. 3. When does the news hit the general public? The general public IMHO, is usually the last to get wind of these things. They seem to be far more titillated with yet another porn case. Obviously, these leaner and meaner batteries are welcome news. OTOH, I would estimate that this technology would be no where NEAR as disruptive as, oh, let's say, a verified ZPE device or CF reactor the size of a close hamper that is capable of generating ten to twenty kilowatts of power. IOW, these batteries might generate what I might describe as a Minor Technological Disruption. How BIG or LITTLE is the 64 dollar question. Ok, Jed, and the rest of you heavyweights, how do you think this technology will play out? At present, I will add only one speculation of my own: It seems logical to assume that this recent breakthrough may only be the harbinger of a long line of brand new technological breakthroughs within the nano-field of energy storage devices. Since Toshiba has apparently proven that this technology is economically feasible it seems logical to assume that EVERYONE will now want to get in on the ground floor and try to improve on the battery concept since everyone now knows it is possible. It is now proven technology From the RD point of view it's not as risky an endeavor. I bet they will succeed. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com
Re: New battery technology
Jed made some good comments: Mike Carrell wrote: delivered to the battery in 1/12 hour, at a rate of (75)(12) = 900 kW, which will vaporize the battery. Obviously if these batteries can charge 10 times faster than normal batteries, as advertised, they must be remarkably efficient so they do not produce much waste heat. MC: That doesn't follow. Fast charging batteries requires monitoring of the charge state so as not to over charge, with drastic effects on the batery chemistry. The Toshiba design, with management circuits, may allow faster charging, but you are still doing work against chemical and other losses. My lithium ion camera batteries take many hours on trickle charge, and about three hours with a fast charger, so 10% is 30 minutes, not five. In principle, it may be possible to dissipate the waste heat, but don't count on it. 900,000 watts is a lot of power. Realize that power will be delivered at 12 V intially, but more like 48 volts for advanced electric automobiles -- it's still 18,750 amps. Most of the 900 kW would convert directly into electric potential, and only about 90 kW converting to heat. That's pretty hot, but with a good radiator and exhaust fan it would not vaporize the battery or cause a fire. With a lead-acid battery, which is 70% efficient, it would produce 200 or 300 kW, which *would* cause a fire. MC: Even with Jed's optimistic number, that's 90 radiant bathroom heaters in your car. Designing the heat dissipation system for that is no easy task. MC: Think about this carefully, and multiply by 10 cars at a time. Ot think about it in a remote rural station on the road from nowhere to nowhere else. Ah, but imagine the rural station equipped with buffer battery of batteries (BBB). Let's say enough to charge 5 cars. This would smooth out the flow and allow a reasonably small main electric feed. A huge charging station on a major highway with 20 charge bay slots might require a BBB large enough to hold a charge for ~100 cars, and an electric power main large enough to recharge the BBB in 2 or 3 hours. It would not need power mains capable of charging all 20 slots simultaneously. MC: Ah so, but no matter how you sturcture it, it is a massive problem. Just as the expressway gas station has big storage tanks, fed by tanker trucks, one can postulate big battery piles. After a while, it begins to look like an electrified railway system. snip The Toshiba site describes hybrid engine applications: The new battery can quickly store energy produced by locomotives and automobiles. This speedy and highly effective recharge characteristic of the battery will support CO2 reduction, as the battery can save and re-use energy that was simply wasted before. MC: It sounds good, and a valuable contribution to the transition to another energy structure. Mike Carrell
Re: New battery technology
It's not vaporized batteries we need to worry about, it is the power grid and generating stations. The combined output of all of our automotive engines may be more than the combined output of all our generating facilities. We can't replace the nations automotive power by tapping our electric supply. We simply don't have enough. Jeff - Original Message - From: Mike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 6:17 PM Subject: Re: New battery technology Jed made some good comments: Mike Carrell wrote: delivered to the battery in 1/12 hour, at a rate of (75)(12) = 900 kW, which will vaporize the battery. Obviously if these batteries can charge 10 times faster than normal batteries, as advertised, they must be remarkably efficient so they do not produce much waste heat. MC: That doesn't follow. Fast charging batteries requires monitoring of the charge state so as not to over charge, with drastic effects on the batery chemistry. The Toshiba design, with management circuits, may allow faster charging, but you are still doing work against chemical and other losses. My lithium ion camera batteries take many hours on trickle charge, and about three hours with a fast charger, so 10% is 30 minutes, not five. In principle, it may be possible to dissipate the waste heat, but don't count on it. 900,000 watts is a lot of power. Realize that power will be delivered at 12 V intially, but more like 48 volts for advanced electric automobiles -- it's still 18,750 amps. Most of the 900 kW would convert directly into electric potential, and only about 90 kW converting to heat. That's pretty hot, but with a good radiator and exhaust fan it would not vaporize the battery or cause a fire. With a lead-acid battery, which is 70% efficient, it would produce 200 or 300 kW, which *would* cause a fire. MC: Even with Jed's optimistic number, that's 90 radiant bathroom heaters in your car. Designing the heat dissipation system for that is no easy task. MC: Think about this carefully, and multiply by 10 cars at a time. Ot think about it in a remote rural station on the road from nowhere to nowhere else. Ah, but imagine the rural station equipped with buffer battery of batteries (BBB). Let's say enough to charge 5 cars. This would smooth out the flow and allow a reasonably small main electric feed. A huge charging station on a major highway with 20 charge bay slots might require a BBB large enough to hold a charge for ~100 cars, and an electric power main large enough to recharge the BBB in 2 or 3 hours. It would not need power mains capable of charging all 20 slots simultaneously. MC: Ah so, but no matter how you sturcture it, it is a massive problem. Just as the expressway gas station has big storage tanks, fed by tanker trucks, one can postulate big battery piles. After a while, it begins to look like an electrified railway system. snip The Toshiba site describes hybrid engine applications: The new battery can quickly store energy produced by locomotives and automobiles. This speedy and highly effective recharge characteristic of the battery will support CO2 reduction, as the battery can save and re-use energy that was simply wasted before. MC: It sounds good, and a valuable contribution to the transition to another energy structure. Mike Carrell
Re: New battery technology
not yet. we'll be moving over to a different economy, if this works. as for general public, links have been submitted to totalfark (a pay news site with about 2500 members that im part of) and a lot of discussion has been generated. news tends to go there from slashdot, and from there to the rest of the net. rest assured, people will know about this and some of the possible uses in 48 hours, tops. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:04:17 -0500, revtec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not vaporized batteries we need to worry about, it is the power grid and generating stations. The combined output of all of our automotive engines may be more than the combined output of all our generating facilities. We can't replace the nations automotive power by tapping our electric supply. We simply don't have enough. Jeff - Original Message - From: Mike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 6:17 PM Subject: Re: New battery technology Jed made some good comments: Mike Carrell wrote: delivered to the battery in 1/12 hour, at a rate of (75)(12) = 900 kW, which will vaporize the battery. Obviously if these batteries can charge 10 times faster than normal batteries, as advertised, they must be remarkably efficient so they do not produce much waste heat. MC: That doesn't follow. Fast charging batteries requires monitoring of the charge state so as not to over charge, with drastic effects on the batery chemistry. The Toshiba design, with management circuits, may allow faster charging, but you are still doing work against chemical and other losses. My lithium ion camera batteries take many hours on trickle charge, and about three hours with a fast charger, so 10% is 30 minutes, not five. In principle, it may be possible to dissipate the waste heat, but don't count on it. 900,000 watts is a lot of power. Realize that power will be delivered at 12 V intially, but more like 48 volts for advanced electric automobiles -- it's still 18,750 amps. Most of the 900 kW would convert directly into electric potential, and only about 90 kW converting to heat. That's pretty hot, but with a good radiator and exhaust fan it would not vaporize the battery or cause a fire. With a lead-acid battery, which is 70% efficient, it would produce 200 or 300 kW, which *would* cause a fire. MC: Even with Jed's optimistic number, that's 90 radiant bathroom heaters in your car. Designing the heat dissipation system for that is no easy task. MC: Think about this carefully, and multiply by 10 cars at a time. Ot think about it in a remote rural station on the road from nowhere to nowhere else. Ah, but imagine the rural station equipped with buffer battery of batteries (BBB). Let's say enough to charge 5 cars. This would smooth out the flow and allow a reasonably small main electric feed. A huge charging station on a major highway with 20 charge bay slots might require a BBB large enough to hold a charge for ~100 cars, and an electric power main large enough to recharge the BBB in 2 or 3 hours. It would not need power mains capable of charging all 20 slots simultaneously. MC: Ah so, but no matter how you sturcture it, it is a massive problem. Just as the expressway gas station has big storage tanks, fed by tanker trucks, one can postulate big battery piles. After a while, it begins to look like an electrified railway system. snip The Toshiba site describes hybrid engine applications: The new battery can quickly store energy produced by locomotives and automobiles. This speedy and highly effective recharge characteristic of the battery will support CO2 reduction, as the battery can save and re-use energy that was simply wasted before. MC: It sounds good, and a valuable contribution to the transition to another energy structure. Mike Carrell -- Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write Voltaire
Re: New battery technology
Jeff writes: It's not vaporized batteries we need to worry about, it is the power grid and generating stations. The combined output of all of our automotive engines may be more than the combined output of all our generating facilities. It is much more than all of our generating facilities, but this is irrelevant. Automobile engines are only used for an hour or less per day, and most of the time they run at a small fraction of maximum output capacity (around ~10%). If you floored a 250 HP car and kept it floored, you would hit race-track speed in less than a minute. You would be going 150 to 200 MPH. Even on the highway you seldom need more than 40 HP. Furthermore, electric cars use two or three times less energy than ICE only (non-hybrid) automobiles. I know what I am talking about here. I am one of the few people who as actually floored the accelerator on the open highway, and left the pedal on the metal for 10 minutes or more. My 40 HP Geo Metro will hit 65 MHP on a level stretch! Even more going downhill. We can't replace the nations automotive power by tapping our electric supply. We simply don't have enough. We have more than enough, especially at night. Of course this would use up more fuel, or wind, as the case may be. But generating capacity would not be a problem. I do not think the power distribution network would need to be expanded much, either, except possibly along large highways. Electric vehicles are probably much more practical than people realize. Even the experts are wrong. They keep asking the public would you be willing to drive an electric car with only a 100 mile range. Most people say no, so the auto companies have never offered one. Most people have no idea what would satify their needs, or how they might organize their lives around a new technology. A 100 mile range might be a problem for a few people, but once you learned to live with it, most people would hardly notice. They do not realize that an electric car sitting in traffic not moving uses no power (except for air conditioning.) Suppose in 1985 you were to ask people in charge of churches or the PTA: would you be willing to purchase a computer for $1,500 knowing it fail at any moment erase all of your correspondence and your PTA financial records in an instant? They would all say no. They would say that's a ridiculous amount of money -- we only collect $3,000 in dues per year. Y! et within a few years all churches, clubs, PTAs and other organizations had computers. People came to understand the benefits. Most people learned how deal with computers, and how to back up the data. (Although the Atlanta office of Planned Parenthood -- I think it was -- recently lost all of its records when a single computer crashed.) If electric vehicles become available at a reasonable price, people would soon learn how to use them and how to live with the limitations of the present lead-acid battery technology. - Jed
Re: New battery technology
Mike Carrell writes: MC: To which I add, yes, of course, if they had to. When gasoline hits $5 per gallon they will have to. Many people cannot afford that. Battery cars were used locally in the 30s. They had a huge problem: they were much slower than gasoline cars. I think their max speed was 25 to 30 mph. They could not be used on the highways. There are no similar make or break limitations with today's electric cars except range, and that is only a problem for a fraction of the driving public. A traveling salesmen who drives hundreds of miles a day could not use today's electric car, obviously. But someone like me, who drives to Washington or Virginia three or four times a year, could easily adapt to owning one. I would simply rent a gasoline car (or hybrid) for those trips. I do not own a truck or an SUV, even though from time to time I need to move large, heavy objects. I can rent a truck or van at Lowes for $20, a mile away from my house. It is no harder than renting a rug shampoo machine. Most of the problems people imagine they would encounter with electric cars would probably turn out to be trivial. Some would turn out to advantages. People tend to see the drawbacks of alternative technology, but they are blind to problems with the technology they have now and are used to. Imagine if the U.S. were like France, and we generated 80% of our electricity with nuclear fission. Now imagine someone comes along and suggests we build thousands of coal fired plants to generate half our electricity, even thought this will kill 20,000 people, blight the air over half the country, and the mines will destroy millions of acres of spectacularly beautiful mountain country. Every citizen would rise up in outraged protest. The environmental movement would declare war. There would be demonstrations in the streets. But as a transition from today's expectations, battery-only cars will find only a niche market . . . That is because the marketing has been so abysmally bad. Computers would still be selling ~40,000 units a year today (as they did circa 1975) if personal computer manufacturers were as inept as today's automakers. and will not solve the oil problem. Electric cars, hybrid cars, wind power and other conventional technology could have solved the oil problem, the pollution problem, and all of our other energy quandaries any time after 1945. A new system could have been built in 10 or 20 years back then, and it could be built in 10 or 20 years now. Hybrid cars were first patented in 1906. The solutions to these problems have been at out fingertips for nearly a century. We lack only the will and the intelligence to use them. I will grant, it would cost a lot of money at first, but it would save far more money once the job is done. - Jed
Re: New battery technology
--- Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So... which announcement is the April Fool's joke? http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=1221 Let me repeat once again (let's cut out those enquiring emails right now) it is NOT an early April Fools (I hate those) and besides Toshiba said it wasnt, so for it to change its mind now after we all got excited would be sneaky! And: http://www.physorg.com/news3539.html __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: New battery technology
Wouldn't such a quickly chargeable battery be able to store much more energy from regenerative braking than is currently possible? M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
