The Future of Battery Technology

Chevy Spark EV Forum

Help Support Chevy Spark EV Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

nozferatu

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
575
This is a very interesting and somewhat technical video that I thought is a good piece of information for EV owners and people interested in such things. It's quite long but well worth the watch I think.

Enjoy!

http://youtu.be/OtfKux9BUnE
 
Very interesting indeed. Sounds like the lithium air would be the way to go in the future!
 
xylhim said:
Very interesting indeed. Sounds like the lithium air would be the way to go in the future!

Yes indeed. The interesting is that while energy density definitely needs to improve (in order to reduce mass of the battery pack and increase range), it may not have to improve all that much due to the fact that the efficiency of energy use is about 5 to 1 currently for battery vs fuel.
 
Ran across this today not just for the spark.For all EV'S a gamechanger.

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/21153-sufiy/161327-dbm-energy-kolibri-lithium-batteries-passes-safety-tests-new-independent-range-test-confirms-455-km-on-one-charge-tnr-v-czx-v-rm-v-lmr-v-alk-ax-lun-to-cgp-v-abn-v
 
Such announcements are a weekly if not daily matter, usually from some company/lab trolling for venture capital. Most never get commercialized. See the battery archives at Green Car Congress for endless examples:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/batteries/index.html
 
Other articles suggest that being cautiously optimistic would be prudent.

Just how exactly they are going to dissipate approx 6KW heat during the four minute charge of a 65amp hr battery pack is uncertain. In particular if the pack is already warm from ambient temperatures of from a recent drive.

http://gm-volt.com/2011/04/12/cost-effective-ev-battery-reportedly-passes-tests-recharges-in-minutes/
 
Like with anything, new and unproven technologies are going to play a role in the future of battery technology.

Anyone who predicts things will slow down or speed up or take a different direction are falsely prophesying a situation that has yet to fully unfold.

This is a material science issue more than anything else...and large steps are being taken in developing materials that are are useful and adaptive to a wide range of technologies...including battery tech.

Graphene is one of those materials but as of yet issues with layering, bundling, and cost need to be resolved. I'm sure other material enhancements will follow.

I say give it another 5-10 years if outside influences do not hinder the progress of such science and we don't piss it away on warfare and military garbage first...which unfortunately I believe will be the case.

Either way it's an exciting time and the rate of improvements are, for the most part, faster than they have ever been for IC vehicle tech. It took over a 100 years to get to where we are with IC vehicles. Yet the real improvements in batteries has taken place in a far shorter span of time mostly due to better focused, more funded projects and a vaster array of electronics that depend on portability.
 
All we need now is source of electricity that is cleaner and cheaper than operating an ICE.
Wind is not reliable and solar doesn't worth a darn at night, in the north or south with short days or snow upon the panels.
Power transmission lines linked around the world able to carry an entire continents power isn't practical either.
Nor is there a way to store power utility amounts of electrical energy.

http://www.conecolor.com/toxicity.html

http://www.semiconductorlitigation.com/practiceareas/semiconductor.aspx



Hazardous materials

Many toxic materials are used in the fabrication process.[1] These include:

poisonous elemental dopants, such as arsenic, antimony, and phosphorus.
poisonous compounds, such as arsine, phosphine, and silane.
highly reactive liquids, such as hydrogen peroxide, fuming nitric acid, sulfuric acid, and hydrofluoric acid.

It is vital that workers not be directly exposed to these dangerous substances. The high degree of automation common in the IC fabrication industry helps to reduce the risks of exposure. Most fabrication facilities employ exhaust management systems, such as wet scrubbers, combustors, heated absorber cartridges, etc., to control the risk to workers and to the environment.
 
There is so much misinformation here I don't know where to start.

You could start by comparing the amount of resources wasted and pollution caused and trouble taken to find, acquire, fight over, and build equipment to get oil, transport it, go to war for it, destroy lives for it, and then trash the planet by both spills and use of it.

Secondly, power plants CAN be made cleaner and more efficient...harvesting oil and burning it cannot....particularly in light of the facts that getting to it is getting much harder and more pristine areas of the planet are now going to trashed to harvest it.

Controlling pollution at the source..i.e. a power-plant...can be far more regulated, controlled, and improved...burning of oil by millions of cars that run in all sorts of operating conditions from well maintained to extremely poorly maintained cannot.

I've not even touched on start-up emissions by millions of vehicles every single day all over the world...many times a day, the mismanagement of used oils and fluids, the dumping of oils and fluids and containers that hold them, etc etc etc.

Funny you mention all those poisonous materials for fabrication of semi conductors and such...yet the materials used for drilling, clean-up like Corexit and other wonderfully ocean compatible substances to disperse the toxic sludge dumped and leaked everywhere doesn't seem to phase anyone.

Not mention, the whole loads of highly toxic sludge running off daily in massive tail ponds so large you can see from space by the fiasco we know as the Canadian Tar Sands joke. For every barrel of bitumen mined from the oilsands, 1.5 barrels of toxic tailings waste is produced...now that's definitely more efficient than transmission lines.

Also, here's a review of what's in those tail ponds:

Tailings contaminants include naphthenic acids, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, phenolic compounds, ammonia, mercury and other trace metals.
The liquid found in oilsands tailings ponds is acutely toxic to aquatic organisms and mammals. Naphthenic acids are considered to be one of the most significant environmental contaminants resulting from the development of the oilsands the effects of which are still largely unknown.

The National Pollutant Release Inventory publicly reports the amount of toxic materials disposed in tailings ponds each year. While more than 75 toxic are tracked, some specific aggregate amounts for 2010 include:

Arsenic: 300,905 kg
Benzene: 178,200 kg
Lead: 756,793 kg
Mercury: 824 kg
Toluene: 1,169,000 kg
Sum of all PAH compounds: 341,997 kg

Power plants also have the potential of becoming cleaner and we can ultimately have a choice of energy source to power the vehicles....with IC cars you do not...the whole carbon neutral thing is baloney.

You seem to think progress doesn't happen in alternative energy industries yet it does in oil and gas.

So let's put things into a little perspective before criticizing them.
 
There is a long line of people on the "Hate the Tar Sands" bandwagon. As for CO2, if all the Tar Sands oil was burned. It may contribute to 0.02 degrees climate temp increase. Burning all the world's coal is over 15 degrees worth of global warming.
As for all those nasty petro chemicals laying on the ground around the tar sands ? Where do you think they came from? They were already in the ground sitting there.
A reflective surface is easy enough to see through 220 miles of clear sky, so a tailing pond 400 yards across is not a big deal.
There is some corporate sponsorship from competing energy suppliers funding the "Hate the Tar Sand" campaign.
Have you ever thought about all the oil and gas that is constantly bubbling up from the ocean floor in the Gulf of Mexico alone?
If you want to get concerned about greenhouse gas, checkout methane leakage from oceans and swamps. Concerned about toxic compound emitted into the atmosphere? Find a way to plug volcanoes.
Sometimes we humans give ourselves more credit than what we deserve in our ability to pollute.

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/when-seafloor-meets-ocean-the-chemistry-is-amazing

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/while-oil-gently-seeps-from-the-seafloor
 
buickanddeere said:
Sometimes we humans give ourselves more credit than what we deserve in our ability to pollute.

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/when-seafloor-meets-ocean-the-chemistry-is-amazing

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/while-oil-gently-seeps-from-the-seafloor


Pollution is by definition a human caused byproduct of our activities. If we weren't around, pollution would not occur. A supervolcano, a giant hurricane, a high magnitude earthquake, these are natural disasters. These events could very well impact biomes around the planet, but these disturbances are of a significantly lower frequency than the constant impacts of human activity. Life on this planet has survived for billions of years in spite of natural disasters, in fact, some organisms need disturbance in order to flourish (fire adapted trees and shrubs, for example), but if disturbance isn't followed by periods of calm, ecosystems cannot recover.
 
Back
Top