Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5493Re: [evworld] Re: Batteries

Expand Messages
  • Yodda Pierce
    Oct 15, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for the information Eric. I had been looking
      for someone with experience with these batteries
      before making a purchase. At the time, the
      specifications and cost of these batteries seemed
      impressive and blew away most other lithium ion and
      lithium polymer batteries out there in cost. 3M had a
      30 Kwh pack for $100,000 and other companies that made
      the lithium ion cells had a pack for $30,000 - $50,00,
      but had over heating issues. So the Thunder Sky pack
      at $14,000 seemed like a good deal. The question I
      had was, can the CHinese be trusted and be honest with
      their specifications, and will they honor their
      warranty? My experience from past dealings is they
      canno be trustedw. And being that they are located on
      the other side of the planet they are pretty much
      immune from US law and prosecution. As a result I was
      cautious about making a purchase. There was a price
      increase last year too. I will be interested to speak
      to Mr. Tikonov about his experiences with the
      batteries.

      Scott, please tell us more about the zinc/air
      batteries and where we can get samples for test
      purposes. If I could have reduced weight over lithium
      polymer, reduced cost per Kwh, and the ability to
      easily rebuild the zinc/air battery at low cost after
      say 100 cycles, I would definitely have more interest
      in the zinc/air batteries. But to date I have not
      seen a zinc/air battery that meets these criteria.
      Hope yours can achieve these goals.

      Yodda


      --- Eric Penne <epenne@...> wrote:

      > Victor Tikhonov at metricmind.com is using the
      > Thundersky in his
      > conversion. Contact him before purchasing anything.
      >
      > Scott Provost wrote:
      > > I looked at both web sites. While they talk about
      > 1100 cycle
      > > longevity the specs on the 100ah and 200 ah say
      > >300 cycles 80%DOD.
      > > If they could be purchased for a dime a wh they
      > would be very
      > > attractive. I will try to purchase a few cells and
      > try them out. I
      > > also have a Powerzinc battery coming with a couple
      > sets of plates. I
      > > will test them as well but when the plates are
      > used up the nearest
      > > recharger is in China.
      > >
      > > Thanks.
      > >
      > > --- In evworld@yahoogroups.com, "ntsl532"
      > <ntsl532@y...> wrote:
      > >
      > >>They used to be very competitive a few years ago.
      > I have not
      > >
      > > followed
      > >
      > >>their pricing recently, but you can take a look at
      > their web site
      > >
      > > and
      > >
      > >>see what they have. The marketing firm is called
      > Everspring.
      > >
      > > Best of
      > >
      > >>luck!
      > >>
      > >>--- In evworld@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Provost"
      > <cxdsew32@h...>
      > >
      > > wrote:
      > >
      > >>>Who at Thunder Sky did you talk to to get
      > pricing? Do they have
      > >
      > > a US
      > >
      > >>>dealer or english web site? Valence is around
      > $1.50 a wh.
      > >>>
      > >>>--- In evworld@yahoogroups.com, Yodda Pierce
      > <ntsl532@y...>
      > >
      > > wrote:
      > >
      > >>>>I just wanted to answer your last question here.
      >
      > >>>>Perhaps your question was rhetorical, but you
      > asked
      > >>>>what applications would require 3000 Wh/Kg. My
      > >>>>thought would be like military vehicles like
      > tanks,
      > >>>>amphibious assault vehicles, aircraft,
      > commercial and
      > >>>>military, perhaps trucks. Those are a few I can
      > think
      > >>>>of. The advantage would be if we had a battery
      > with
      > >>>>this type of energy, fuel cells would not be
      > needed
      > >>>>due to their high cost. Then all the resources
      > could
      > >>>>focus on batteries and the result would be to
      > get a
      > >>>>high output EV batery available to the public.
      > The
      > >>>>problem right now seems not to be that we do not
      > have
      > >>>>a battery that meet the criteria for electric
      > >>>>vehicles, but rather that the cost for such a
      > battery
      > >>>>pack is very expensive making the electric
      > vehicle
      > >>>>50-100% more than the cost of the ICE vehicle.
      > >>>>Therefore, additional resources need to be spent
      > not
      > >>>>only to improve battery technology, but rather
      > to
      > >>>>improve production methodologies to make these
      > >>>>advanced battery chemistries affordable in a EV
      > pack.
      > >>>>The lowest cost I could find for a 30 Kwh
      > battery pack
      > >>>>was from a company called Thunder Sky in China.
      > It
      > >>>>was about $15,000-20,000 which was a decrease of
      > >>>>$80,000 from the $100,000 price tag for a
      > similar
      > >>>>lithium polymer battery from 3M. Hopefully we
      > can see
      > >>>>the prices fall to $1000-$5000 range in the
      > future and
      > >>>>we can then see the BEV become very close to the
      > price
      > >>>>of the ICE car and have similar range. Of
      > course new
      > >>>>battery technologes still need to be considered,
      > >>>>however we are now in th e position where
      > existing
      > >>>>technology can produce a low weight, high power
      > output
      > >>>>EV battery pack. We just need to get the price
      > down.
      > >>>>
      > >>>>
      > >>>>
      > >>>>--- Paul Scott <pscottvfx@e...> wrote:
      > >>>>
      > >>>>
      > >>>>>Hi All,
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>I'm enjoying the talk about batteries. Yes,
      > it's the
      > >>>>>crux of the matter. A
      > >>>>>while back, I asked a question to the EV lists
      > about
      > >>>>>the theoretical limits
      > >>>>>to batteries. I got several great responses,
      > but
      > >>>>>William Kortoff's seemed to
      > >>>>>be the best. I'm reprinting it below:
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>At 07:30 PM 3/29/2004, Paul Scott wrote:
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>> A question for you engineers on the lists.
      > This is
      > >>>>>a quote from "Power To
      > >>>>>the People" by Vijay Waitheeswaran in a section
      > on
      > >>>>>the battery electric
      > >>>>>vehicle:
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>> "The trouble is that battery systems are
      > pushing
      > >>>>>the upper limits of
      > >>>>>specific energy - the number of watt-hours they
      > can
      > >>>>>store for a given
      > >>>>>weight. The best that conventional batteries
      > can
      > >>>>>achieve theoretically is
      > >>>>>300 watt-hours per kilogram (Wh/kg), though
      > most
      > >>>>>manage barely half that in
      > >>>>>practice. That is nowhere near enough for the
      > armed
      > >>>>>forces. The Pentagon has
      > >>>>>said that it wants to deploy portable equipment
      > >>>>>loaded with energy-guzzling
      > >>>>>features that would require up to 3100 Wh/kg by
      > >>>>>2006. The physical
      > >>>>>properties of batteries make it impossible for
      > them
      > >>>>>to ever achieve such
      > >>>>>goals."
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>> His comments on the needs of the military
      > >>>>>notwithstanding, are his facts
      > >>>>>and figures correct on the battery's
      > theoretical
      > >>>>>limit? I had not heard of
      > >>>>>such a limit and he doesn't explain it at all.
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>> Paul Scott
      > >>>>> 310-399-5997
      > >>>>> pscottvfx@e...
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>This does remind me of gloom and doom
      > >>>>>anti-technology predictions from
      > >>>>>the past. It is possible to know and calculate
      > the
      > >>>>>theoretical maximum
      > >>>>>energy from specific battery
      > combinations---that's
      > >>>>>basic electrochemistry.
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>The theoretical limits of current batteries are
      > >>>>>actually much higher than
      > >>>>>300 wh/kg. The basic reactants of lead acid
      > imply a
      > >>>>>limit around 120
      > >>>>>watt hours per kilogram, and actual batteries
      > >>>>>deliver 20 to 40 wh/kg.
      > >>>>>At the other extreme, I believe the reactants
      > of
      > >>>>>current lithium battery
      > >>>>>chemistries imply a theoretical value around
      >
      === message truncated ===




      __________________________________
      Yahoo! Music Unlimited
      Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
      http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic