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

Re: [evworld] Re: Batteries

Expand Messages
  • murdoch
    ... To some extent, I think some of the stumbling-in-the-dark we are doing in trying to bring ourselves up to speed on batteries is not just how fast this
    Message 1 of 16 , Oct 8, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 10:57:14 -0800, you 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:

      To some extent, I think some of the stumbling-in-the-dark we are doing
      in trying to bring ourselves up to speed on batteries is not just how
      fast this nascient industry is moving, or can move, but also that we
      live in these bizarre times where, taken as a whole, our (U.S.)
      country's industries and media and government and some populace are
      resisting progress and enlightenment when it comes to technologies
      that can help obsolete our oil addictions.

      That said, these wh/kg barriers are something we should definitely
      discuss more. I wish I knew more, such as by attending a conference
      that could help bring me up to date.

      One somewhat-outdated-but-perhaps-still-slightly-useful perspective is
      available as part of this group's files here:

      http://f4.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/UDNIQ2Uq-xds56Ka3XB-eGWKsEpr40RSp13PpAaOyxnmO4RkcPoiUH4rwG2fYeEBZsV_FshNUWECFqmcaLJV/EV%20%20Documents/btapsum.pdf

      Note that it was prepared for CARB in 2000, and as it ages, it's
      interesting to look back on it, as something you've sort of paid-for,
      and see how its conclusions hold up.

      A top industry person mentioned to me one of these thresh-holds, I
      think it was 300 wh/kg for Lithium based batteries, in terms of trying
      to devise aerial vehicles. It's been far too long since I looked at
      relevant charts (I'm sure others will come up with some good links for
      us) but as we continue to make the reasonably-expected-progress on
      better "advanced" batteries, these previously-difficult numbers start
      to look perhaps reachable. If we go back a few years, it always
      seemed like there was a "catch" to the batteries with better energy
      density per unit mass.

      William responds to you:

      >I can't see what practical applications would need 3000 wh/kg.

      How about "any"? Isn't there some famous quote from Bill Gates not
      seeing how anyone would need more than 640K of RAM?

      If we specifically look at the aerial applications issue, and how the
      US Military has apparently gone somewhat out of its way to deal with a
      more advanced battery such as Aerotech's, we can see how the energy
      per unit mass issue becomes critical and nearly impossible to put
      limits on the benefits of improving the number. If we ever want to
      dare to think of moving some aviation away from the present
      technology, we'll need to think big with a lot of different
      technologies, not just batteries (and let's not forget that ACP's
      Li-Ion tzero came about in part due to batteries that were being used
      by model airplane enthusiasts).

      Since weight is such a critical element in getting better mileage with
      vehicles, I think any improvements we can make in weight with
      batteries are something I look for.

      When I hear "zinc-air", even though I don't think they're always
      rechargeable so much as "rebuildable", I think that maybe some of the
      "fuel" is being carried outside the vehicle itself (just as an IC
      engine uses mass that is from outside (Oxygen combusted with
      gasoline).

      With conventional vehicles, the fuel weighs something (6-8 pounds per
      gallon?) and the powertrain weighs something. Manufacturers have been
      in earnest seeking powertrain weight improvements and generally
      nowadays advanced engines often seem to incorporate some sort of
      aluminum alloy. Likewise, the non-powertrain-relevant aspects of the
      car also employ weight-saving measures in some more advanced cars. One
      car that stood out about 10 years ago was the original Acura (Honda)
      NSX in terms of its use of Aluminum in the frame, and not just in some
      more conventional areas. Likewise, some of the recent public-policy
      organizations, that are pushing for better-mileage vehicles in terms
      of how they can help us all on various fronts, have started mentioning
      such issues as bringing more carbon-fiber focus to bear and lowering
      the weight of vehicles.

      When I think of the specific-energy-by-mass limitations on batteries,
      I think about the challenge of creating a charge differential and
      holding it and then delivering current to power something. A certain
      number of protons and neutrons would appear to be necessary and so it
      has always seemed somewhat logical that a Lithium-based approach
      (incorporating a lighter-weight element) might hold promise for saving
      weight. Obviously, we're going to go through a lot more innovation
      than that over the next few centuries in this field and others that
      are related.

      Maybe we should think about developing some of our own data, if none
      is conveniently available, though surely there must be some good stuff
      around. Just for the heck of it, I'd be curious to see how mechanical
      springs stack up (yes, mechanical springs), as well as some of the
      other technologies that some group participants often ask that we not
      leave out of the discussion, such as compressed air, hydraulic energy
      storage, boron, Hydrogen (there must be some fans amongst us) etc.
      Some of these are conventional "fuel-users" though, whereas with a
      battery or a spring or something, the onboard-mass does not change as
      the vehicle is fueled-up or down.

      I guess my last thought for now is that at some point one of the
      better Lithium cars was mentioned as storing 50 kWh and this is a lot.
      That's still less than half a gallon of gasoline, in terms of energy
      content, or maybe about 25 times less than what we might find in an 11
      gallon fuel tank. I agree with absolutely not shutting the door on
      making progress in this area, but it is useful to know what we are up
      against.
    • Yodda Pierce
      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
      Message 2 of 16 , Oct 9, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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@...> 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@...
        >
        > 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
        > 1500-3000 wh/kg. The
        > difference between the theoretical and actual values
        > results from the
        > weight of case, electrical conductors, separators,
        > electrolyte, important
        > non-reactant ingredients, and reactants that don't
        > get used.
        >
        > Fifteen years ago, the best practical and known
        > rechargeable batteries
        > delivered maybe 70 wh/kg. Today, commercial
        > batteries are reaching
        > 200 wh/kg. It is fair to argue on a technical basis
        > that a specific
        > chemistry will have a definite practical performance
        > limit. But new
        > combinations will continue to be developed in the
        > future; I wouldn't
        > want to predict where things will go in the future.
        > I certainly wouldn't
        > want to predict that technology won't improve beyond
        > a certain point.
        >
        > I can't see what practical applications would need
        > 3000 wh/kg.
        >
        >
        > /wk
        >
        >
        > > All good points Ernie. To look at electric
        > vehicles today, one would think
        > > they all have
        > > to be small and extremely ugly. Also looking at
        > hybrids and plug-in
        > > hybrids gives the
        > > impression that we will always have an internal
        > combustion engine in our
        > > vehicle. But
        > > predicting the future can make everyone look
        > silly.
        > >
        > > For now, the plug-in hybrid looks like the best
        > "vehicle" to blaze the
        > > trail to a pure
        > > electric vehicle. Biofuels definitely fit well
        > with a plug in hybrid and
        > > hopefully we
        > > will see both these technologies blossom soon.
        > With the history of battery
        > > electric
        > > vehicles, it's easy to understand why they seem
        > limited to small marginal
        > > units. But
        > > every single limitation of the battery electric
        > vehicle that I've been
        > > able to think of,
        > > all leads back to the battery. The next question
        > one must ask oneself is,
        > > has battery
        > > technology already reached its zenith. If we
        > listen to General Motors and
        > > others, this is
        > > the case. They claim that they've given up on the
        > battery and have moved
        > > on to the
        > > hydrogen fuel cell. What they actually claim is
        > that they've given up on
        > > the electric
        > > vehicle, but we all know a hydrogen fuel cell
        > vehicle is nothing but an
        > > electric vehicle
        > > that gets its electricity from the fuel cell.
        > >
        > > Possibly the battery has run up against a
        > technological brick wall.
        > > Possibly General
        > > Motors is being genuine and does not have a hidden
        > agenda in their
        > > campaign to explain to
        > > us why they have given up on the battery electric
        > vehicle. But while
        > > General Motors and
        > > US Car may have given up, others still have some
        > hope for the battery. My
        > > belief is that
        > > battery technology is still in its infancy.
        > Materials science along with
        > > growing need
        > > from all sectors of society may still produce some
        > very pleasant and
        > > exciting battery
        > > technology surprises for us in the future.
        > >
        > > Why should a battery be any different than the gas
        > tank? Why can't a
        > > battery be superior
        > > to a fuel tank? If the battery can be recharged in
        > about the same amount
        > > of time it takes
        > > to fill the fuel tank, that eliminates one of the
        > biggest gripes. If the
        > > battery can be
        > > made to work in all weather conditions, another
        > common gripe goes by the
        > > wayside. And if
        > > range can be achieved similar to that of liquid
        > fuel vehicles, no one will
        > > have that to
        > > complain about. There or still cost and
        > environmental and other issues to
        > > consider but I
        > > see no brick wall.
        > >
        > > Why couldn't a large truck be a pure battery
        > vehicle? What, other than our
        > > current
        > > perceptions or misperceptions makes something like
        > this impossible. It's
        > > tough to twist
        > > our minds in new ways and as we predict the future
        > were sure to look like
        > > fools at times.
        > > There is also a lot of inertia to break through,
        > as with any new concept.
        > > The electric
        > > vehicle is generally understood to have certain
        > characteristics. Even
        > > people who are
        > > usually up on the latest technologies and are
        > knowledgeable about vehicles
        > > in particular
        > > will often hold some very incorrect views about
        > electric vehicles. Battery
        > > electric
        > > trucks may still be a long way off but the view of
        > all electric vehicles
        > > as being slugs
        > > on the road is about to be shattered.
        >
        === message truncated ===





        __________________________________
        Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      • Scott Provost
        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.
        Message 3 of 16 , Oct 14, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          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
          > > 1500-3000 wh/kg. The
          > > difference between the theoretical and actual values
          > > results from the
          > > weight of case, electrical conductors, separators,
          > > electrolyte, important
          > > non-reactant ingredients, and reactants that don't
          > > get used.
          > >
          > > Fifteen years ago, the best practical and known
          > > rechargeable batteries
          > > delivered maybe 70 wh/kg. Today, commercial
          > > batteries are reaching
          > > 200 wh/kg. It is fair to argue on a technical basis
          > > that a specific
          > > chemistry will have a definite practical performance
          > > limit. But new
          > > combinations will continue to be developed in the
          > > future; I wouldn't
          > > want to predict where things will go in the future.
          > > I certainly wouldn't
          > > want to predict that technology won't improve beyond
          > > a certain point.
          > >
          > > I can't see what practical applications would need
          > > 3000 wh/kg.
          > >
          > >
          > > /wk
          > >
          > >
          > > > All good points Ernie. To look at electric
          > > vehicles today, one would think
          > > > they all have
          > > > to be small and extremely ugly. Also looking at
          > > hybrids and plug-in
          > > > hybrids gives the
          > > > impression that we will always have an internal
          > > combustion engine in our
          > > > vehicle. But
          > > > predicting the future can make everyone look
          > > silly.
          > > >
          > > > For now, the plug-in hybrid looks like the best
          > > "vehicle" to blaze the
          > > > trail to a pure
          > > > electric vehicle. Biofuels definitely fit well
          > > with a plug in hybrid and
          > > > hopefully we
          > > > will see both these technologies blossom soon.
          > > With the history of battery
          > > > electric
          > > > vehicles, it's easy to understand why they seem
          > > limited to small marginal
          > > > units. But
          > > > every single limitation of the battery electric
          > > vehicle that I've been
          > > > able to think of,
          > > > all leads back to the battery. The next question
          > > one must ask oneself is,
          > > > has battery
          > > > technology already reached its zenith. If we
          > > listen to General Motors and
          > > > others, this is
          > > > the case. They claim that they've given up on the
          > > battery and have moved
          > > > on to the
          > > > hydrogen fuel cell. What they actually claim is
          > > that they've given up on
          > > > the electric
          > > > vehicle, but we all know a hydrogen fuel cell
          > > vehicle is nothing but an
          > > > electric vehicle
          > > > that gets its electricity from the fuel cell.
          > > >
          > > > Possibly the battery has run up against a
          > > technological brick wall.
          > > > Possibly General
          > > > Motors is being genuine and does not have a hidden
          > > agenda in their
          > > > campaign to explain to
          > > > us why they have given up on the battery electric
          > > vehicle. But while
          > > > General Motors and
          > > > US Car may have given up, others still have some
          > > hope for the battery. My
          > > > belief is that
          > > > battery technology is still in its infancy.
          > > Materials science along with
          > > > growing need
          > > > from all sectors of society may still produce some
          > > very pleasant and
          > > > exciting battery
          > > > technology surprises for us in the future.
          > > >
          > > > Why should a battery be any different than the gas
          > > tank? Why can't a
          > > > battery be superior
          > > > to a fuel tank? If the battery can be recharged in
          > > about the same amount
          > > > of time it takes
          > > > to fill the fuel tank, that eliminates one of the
          > > biggest gripes. If the
          > > > battery can be
          > > > made to work in all weather conditions, another
          > > common gripe goes by the
          > > > wayside. And if
          > > > range can be achieved similar to that of liquid
          > > fuel vehicles, no one will
          > > > have that to
          > > > complain about. There or still cost and
          > > environmental and other issues to
          > > > consider but I
          > > > see no brick wall.
          > > >
          > > > Why couldn't a large truck be a pure battery
          > > vehicle? What, other than our
          > > > current
          > > > perceptions or misperceptions makes something like
          > > this impossible. It's
          > > > tough to twist
          > > > our minds in new ways and as we predict the future
          > > were sure to look like
          > > > fools at times.
          > > > There is also a lot of inertia to break through,
          > > as with any new concept.
          > > > The electric
          > > > vehicle is generally understood to have certain
          > > characteristics. Even
          > > > people who are
          > > > usually up on the latest technologies and are
          > > knowledgeable about vehicles
          > > > in particular
          > > > will often hold some very incorrect views about
          > > electric vehicles. Battery
          > > > electric
          > > > trucks may still be a long way off but the view of
          > > all electric vehicles
          > > > as being slugs
          > > > on the road is about to be shattered.
          > >
          > === message truncated ===
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > __________________________________
          > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
          > http://mail.yahoo.com
          >
        • ntsl532
          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
          Message 4 of 16 , Oct 14, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            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
            > > > 1500-3000 wh/kg. The
            > > > difference between the theoretical and actual values
            > > > results from the
            > > > weight of case, electrical conductors, separators,
            > > > electrolyte, important
            > > > non-reactant ingredients, and reactants that don't
            > > > get used.
            > > >
            > > > Fifteen years ago, the best practical and known
            > > > rechargeable batteries
            > > > delivered maybe 70 wh/kg. Today, commercial
            > > > batteries are reaching
            > > > 200 wh/kg. It is fair to argue on a technical basis
            > > > that a specific
            > > > chemistry will have a definite practical performance
            > > > limit. But new
            > > > combinations will continue to be developed in the
            > > > future; I wouldn't
            > > > want to predict where things will go in the future.
            > > > I certainly wouldn't
            > > > want to predict that technology won't improve beyond
            > > > a certain point.
            > > >
            > > > I can't see what practical applications would need
            > > > 3000 wh/kg.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > /wk
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > > All good points Ernie. To look at electric
            > > > vehicles today, one would think
            > > > > they all have
            > > > > to be small and extremely ugly. Also looking at
            > > > hybrids and plug-in
            > > > > hybrids gives the
            > > > > impression that we will always have an internal
            > > > combustion engine in our
            > > > > vehicle. But
            > > > > predicting the future can make everyone look
            > > > silly.
            > > > >
            > > > > For now, the plug-in hybrid looks like the best
            > > > "vehicle" to blaze the
            > > > > trail to a pure
            > > > > electric vehicle. Biofuels definitely fit well
            > > > with a plug in hybrid and
            > > > > hopefully we
            > > > > will see both these technologies blossom soon.
            > > > With the history of battery
            > > > > electric
            > > > > vehicles, it's easy to understand why they seem
            > > > limited to small marginal
            > > > > units. But
            > > > > every single limitation of the battery electric
            > > > vehicle that I've been
            > > > > able to think of,
            > > > > all leads back to the battery. The next question
            > > > one must ask oneself is,
            > > > > has battery
            > > > > technology already reached its zenith. If we
            > > > listen to General Motors and
            > > > > others, this is
            > > > > the case. They claim that they've given up on the
            > > > battery and have moved
            > > > > on to the
            > > > > hydrogen fuel cell. What they actually claim is
            > > > that they've given up on
            > > > > the electric
            > > > > vehicle, but we all know a hydrogen fuel cell
            > > > vehicle is nothing but an
            > > > > electric vehicle
            > > > > that gets its electricity from the fuel cell.
            > > > >
            > > > > Possibly the battery has run up against a
            > > > technological brick wall.
            > > > > Possibly General
            > > > > Motors is being genuine and does not have a hidden
            > > > agenda in their
            > > > > campaign to explain to
            > > > > us why they have given up on the battery electric
            > > > vehicle. But while
            > > > > General Motors and
            > > > > US Car may have given up, others still have some
            > > > hope for the battery. My
            > > > > belief is that
            > > > > battery technology is still in its infancy.
            > > > Materials science along with
            > > > > growing need
            > > > > from all sectors of society may still produce some
            > > > very pleasant and
            > > > > exciting battery
            > > > > technology surprises for us in the future.
            > > > >
            > > > > Why should a battery be any different than the gas
            > > > tank? Why can't a
            > > > > battery be superior
            > > > > to a fuel tank? If the battery can be recharged in
            > > > about the same amount
            > > > > of time it takes
            > > > > to fill the fuel tank, that eliminates one of the
            > > > biggest gripes. If the
            > > > > battery can be
            > > > > made to work in all weather conditions, another
            > > > common gripe goes by the
            > > > > wayside. And if
            > > > > range can be achieved similar to that of liquid
            > > > fuel vehicles, no one will
            > > > > have that to
            > > > > complain about. There or still cost and
            > > > environmental and other issues to
            > > > > consider but I
            > > > > see no brick wall.
            > > > >
            > > > > Why couldn't a large truck be a pure battery
            > > > vehicle? What, other than our
            > > > > current
            > > > > perceptions or misperceptions makes something like
            > > > this impossible. It's
            > > > > tough to twist
            > > > > our minds in new ways and as we predict the future
            > > > were sure to look like
            > > > > fools at times.
            > > > > There is also a lot of inertia to break through,
            > > > as with any new concept.
            > > > > The electric
            > > > > vehicle is generally understood to have certain
            > > > characteristics. Even
            > > > > people who are
            > > > > usually up on the latest technologies and are
            > > > knowledgeable about vehicles
            > > > > in particular
            > > > > will often hold some very incorrect views about
            > > > electric vehicles. Battery
            > > > > electric
            > > > > trucks may still be a long way off but the view of
            > > > all electric vehicles
            > > > > as being slugs
            > > > > on the road is about to be shattered.
            > > >
            > > === message truncated ===
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > __________________________________
            > > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
            > > http://mail.yahoo.com
            > >
            >
          • Scott Provost
            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
            Message 5 of 16 , Oct 15, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              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
              > > > > 1500-3000 wh/kg. The
              > > > > difference between the theoretical and actual values
              > > > > results from the
              > > > > weight of case, electrical conductors, separators,
              > > > > electrolyte, important
              > > > > non-reactant ingredients, and reactants that don't
              > > > > get used.
              > > > >
              > > > > Fifteen years ago, the best practical and known
              > > > > rechargeable batteries
              > > > > delivered maybe 70 wh/kg. Today, commercial
              > > > > batteries are reaching
              > > > > 200 wh/kg. It is fair to argue on a technical basis
              > > > > that a specific
              > > > > chemistry will have a definite practical performance
              > > > > limit. But new
              > > > > combinations will continue to be developed in the
              > > > > future; I wouldn't
              > > > > want to predict where things will go in the future.
              > > > > I certainly wouldn't
              > > > > want to predict that technology won't improve beyond
              > > > > a certain point.
              > > > >
              > > > > I can't see what practical applications would need
              > > > > 3000 wh/kg.
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > /wk
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > > All good points Ernie. To look at electric
              > > > > vehicles today, one would think
              > > > > > they all have
              > > > > > to be small and extremely ugly. Also looking at
              > > > > hybrids and plug-in
              > > > > > hybrids gives the
              > > > > > impression that we will always have an internal
              > > > > combustion engine in our
              > > > > > vehicle. But
              > > > > > predicting the future can make everyone look
              > > > > silly.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > For now, the plug-in hybrid looks like the best
              > > > > "vehicle" to blaze the
              > > > > > trail to a pure
              > > > > > electric vehicle. Biofuels definitely fit well
              > > > > with a plug in hybrid and
              > > > > > hopefully we
              > > > > > will see both these technologies blossom soon.
              > > > > With the history of battery
              > > > > > electric
              > > > > > vehicles, it's easy to understand why they seem
              > > > > limited to small marginal
              > > > > > units. But
              > > > > > every single limitation of the battery electric
              > > > > vehicle that I've been
              > > > > > able to think of,
              > > > > > all leads back to the battery. The next question
              > > > > one must ask oneself is,
              > > > > > has battery
              > > > > > technology already reached its zenith. If we
              > > > > listen to General Motors and
              > > > > > others, this is
              > > > > > the case. They claim that they've given up on the
              > > > > battery and have moved
              > > > > > on to the
              > > > > > hydrogen fuel cell. What they actually claim is
              > > > > that they've given up on
              > > > > > the electric
              > > > > > vehicle, but we all know a hydrogen fuel cell
              > > > > vehicle is nothing but an
              > > > > > electric vehicle
              > > > > > that gets its electricity from the fuel cell.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Possibly the battery has run up against a
              > > > > technological brick wall.
              > > > > > Possibly General
              > > > > > Motors is being genuine and does not have a hidden
              > > > > agenda in their
              > > > > > campaign to explain to
              > > > > > us why they have given up on the battery electric
              > > > > vehicle. But while
              > > > > > General Motors and
              > > > > > US Car may have given up, others still have some
              > > > > hope for the battery. My
              > > > > > belief is that
              > > > > > battery technology is still in its infancy.
              > > > > Materials science along with
              > > > > > growing need
              > > > > > from all sectors of society may still produce some
              > > > > very pleasant and
              > > > > > exciting battery
              > > > > > technology surprises for us in the future.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Why should a battery be any different than the gas
              > > > > tank? Why can't a
              > > > > > battery be superior
              > > > > > to a fuel tank? If the battery can be recharged in
              > > > > about the same amount
              > > > > > of time it takes
              > > > > > to fill the fuel tank, that eliminates one of the
              > > > > biggest gripes. If the
              > > > > > battery can be
              > > > > > made to work in all weather conditions, another
              > > > > common gripe goes by the
              > > > > > wayside. And if
              > > > > > range can be achieved similar to that of liquid
              > > > > fuel vehicles, no one will
              > > > > > have that to
              > > > > > complain about. There or still cost and
              > > > > environmental and other issues to
              > > > > > consider but I
              > > > > > see no brick wall.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Why couldn't a large truck be a pure battery
              > > > > vehicle? What, other than our
              > > > > > current
              > > > > > perceptions or misperceptions makes something like
              > > > > this impossible. It's
              > > > > > tough to twist
              > > > > > our minds in new ways and as we predict the future
              > > > > were sure to look like
              > > > > > fools at times.
              > > > > > There is also a lot of inertia to break through,
              > > > > as with any new concept.
              > > > > > The electric
              > > > > > vehicle is generally understood to have certain
              > > > > characteristics. Even
              > > > > > people who are
              > > > > > usually up on the latest technologies and are
              > > > > knowledgeable about vehicles
              > > > > > in particular
              > > > > > will often hold some very incorrect views about
              > > > > electric vehicles. Battery
              > > > > > electric
              > > > > > trucks may still be a long way off but the view of
              > > > > all electric vehicles
              > > > > > as being slugs
              > > > > > on the road is about to be shattered.
              > > > >
              > > > === message truncated ===
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > __________________________________
              > > > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
              > > > http://mail.yahoo.com
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • Eric Penne
              Victor Tikhonov at metricmind.com is using the Thundersky in his conversion. Contact him before purchasing anything.
              Message 6 of 16 , Oct 15, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                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
                >>>>>1500-3000 wh/kg. The
                >>>>>difference between the theoretical and actual values
                >>>>>results from the
                >>>>>weight of case, electrical conductors, separators,
                >>>>>electrolyte, important
                >>>>>non-reactant ingredients, and reactants that don't
                >>>>>get used.
                >>>>>
                >>>>>Fifteen years ago, the best practical and known
                >>>>>rechargeable batteries
                >>>>>delivered maybe 70 wh/kg. Today, commercial
                >>>>>batteries are reaching
                >>>>>200 wh/kg. It is fair to argue on a technical basis
                >>>>>that a specific
                >>>>>chemistry will have a definite practical performance
                >>>>>limit. But new
                >>>>>combinations will continue to be developed in the
                >>>>>future; I wouldn't
                >>>>>want to predict where things will go in the future.
                >>>>>I certainly wouldn't
                >>>>>want to predict that technology won't improve beyond
                >>>>>a certain point.
                >>>>>
                >>>>>I can't see what practical applications would need
                >>>>>3000 wh/kg.
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >>>>>/wk
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>All good points Ernie. To look at electric
                >>>>>
                >>>>>vehicles today, one would think
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>they all have
                >>>>>>to be small and extremely ugly. Also looking at
                >>>>>
                >>>>>hybrids and plug-in
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>hybrids gives the
                >>>>>>impression that we will always have an internal
                >>>>>
                >>>>>combustion engine in our
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>vehicle. But
                >>>>>>predicting the future can make everyone look
                >>>>>
                >>>>>silly.
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>For now, the plug-in hybrid looks like the best
                >>>>>
                >>>>>"vehicle" to blaze the
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>trail to a pure
                >>>>>>electric vehicle. Biofuels definitely fit well
                >>>>>
                >>>>>with a plug in hybrid and
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>hopefully we
                >>>>>>will see both these technologies blossom soon.
                >>>>>
                >>>>>With the history of battery
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>electric
                >>>>>>vehicles, it's easy to understand why they seem
                >>>>>
                >>>>>limited to small marginal
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>units. But
                >>>>>>every single limitation of the battery electric
                >>>>>
                >>>>>vehicle that I've been
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>able to think of,
                >>>>>>all leads back to the battery. The next question
                >>>>>
                >>>>>one must ask oneself is,
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>has battery
                >>>>>>technology already reached its zenith. If we
                >>>>>
                >>>>>listen to General Motors and
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>others, this is
                >>>>>>the case. They claim that they've given up on the
                >>>>>
                >>>>>battery and have moved
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>on to the
                >>>>>>hydrogen fuel cell. What they actually claim is
                >>>>>
                >>>>>that they've given up on
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>the electric
                >>>>>>vehicle, but we all know a hydrogen fuel cell
                >>>>>
                >>>>>vehicle is nothing but an
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>electric vehicle
                >>>>>>that gets its electricity from the fuel cell.
                >>>>>>
                >>>>>>Possibly the battery has run up against a
                >>>>>
                >>>>>technological brick wall.
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>Possibly General
                >>>>>>Motors is being genuine and does not have a hidden
                >>>>>
                >>>>>agenda in their
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>campaign to explain to
                >>>>>>us why they have given up on the battery electric
                >>>>>
                >>>>>vehicle. But while
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>General Motors and
                >>>>>>US Car may have given up, others still have some
                >>>>>
                >>>>>hope for the battery. My
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>belief is that
                >>>>>>battery technology is still in its infancy.
                >>>>>
                >>>>>Materials science along with
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>growing need
                >>>>>>from all sectors of society may still produce some
                >>>>>
                >>>>>very pleasant and
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>exciting battery
                >>>>>>technology surprises for us in the future.
                >>>>>>
                >>>>>>Why should a battery be any different than the gas
                >>>>>
                >>>>>tank? Why can't a
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>battery be superior
                >>>>>>to a fuel tank? If the battery can be recharged in
                >>>>>
                >>>>>about the same amount
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>of time it takes
                >>>>>>to fill the fuel tank, that eliminates one of the
                >>>>>
                >>>>>biggest gripes. If the
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>battery can be
                >>>>>>made to work in all weather conditions, another
                >>>>>
                >>>>>common gripe goes by the
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>wayside. And if
                >>>>>>range can be achieved similar to that of liquid
                >>>>>
                >>>>>fuel vehicles, no one will
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>have that to
                >>>>>>complain about. There or still cost and
                >>>>>
                >>>>>environmental and other issues to
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>consider but I
                >>>>>>see no brick wall.
                >>>>>>
                >>>>>>Why couldn't a large truck be a pure battery
                >>>>>
                >>>>>vehicle? What, other than our
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>current
                >>>>>>perceptions or misperceptions makes something like
                >>>>>
                >>>>>this impossible. It's
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>tough to twist
                >>>>>>our minds in new ways and as we predict the future
                >>>>>
                >>>>>were sure to look like
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>fools at times.
                >>>>>>There is also a lot of inertia to break through,
                >>>>>
                >>>>>as with any new concept.
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>The electric
                >>>>>>vehicle is generally understood to have certain
                >>>>>
                >>>>>characteristics. Even
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>people who are
                >>>>>>usually up on the latest technologies and are
                >>>>>
                >>>>>knowledgeable about vehicles
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>in particular
                >>>>>>will often hold some very incorrect views about
                >>>>>
                >>>>>electric vehicles. Battery
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>electric
                >>>>>>trucks may still be a long way off but the view of
                >>>>>
                >>>>>all electric vehicles
                >>>>>
                >>>>>>as being slugs
                >>>>>>on the road is about to be shattered.
                >>>>>
                >>>>=== message truncated ===
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>__________________________________
                >>>>Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
                >>>>http://mail.yahoo.com
                >>>>
                >>>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Yodda Pierce
                Thanks for the information Eric. I had been looking for someone with experience with these batteries before making a purchase. At the time, the
                Message 7 of 16 , 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/
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.