|
Thursday, June 07, 2007 New Batteries Readied for GM's Electric VehicleThe technologies behind the battery packs for the GM Volt are being tested and could be ready within a year. By Kevin Bullis
This week, General Motors (GM) announced its selection of battery makers to develop and test battery packs for use in its proposed electric vehicles. The selected battery makers, Compact Power, based in Troy, MI, and Continental Automotive Systems, based in Germany, say that they've overcome the performance and cost limitations that have been an obstacle to electric vehicles in the past. Over the next 12 months, researchers from, Compact Power, Continental Automotive Systems and GM will be testing the battery-pack designs in the lab and in vehicles to confirm that the packs can work for the life of the car--at least 10 years, says Denise Gray, director of hybrid energy storage devices at GM. Initial tests of individual battery cells, along with projections about the performance of battery packs that can contain hundreds of these cells, have Gray optimistic that her company will have proven packs by June 2008. If the packs perform well, they are slated for use in the proposed Chevrolet Volt, an electric concept car announced by GM in January. The Volt marks a change in emphasis for GM, which previously focused on more distant plans to bring hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered cars to market. The Volt could be ready within a few years. Until now, however, it has been unclear who would develop its advanced batteries. There are a number of design variations for the Volt, but they will all be propelled by electric motors. In one version, the battery pack, which can be recharged by plugging it in, will provide 40 miles of range. Then an onboard gasoline- or ethanol-powered generator will kick in to recharge the battery, providing an additional 600 miles of range. A proposed hydrogen-fuel-cell version would have a smaller battery pack and no onboard generator. To make batteries that are up to GM's specifications, battery makers have had to redesign the chemistry of lithium-ion batteries, a type of battery widely used in mobile phones and laptops. While lithium-ion batteries are light and compact, the type of lithium-ion battery typically used in electronic devices relies heavily on cobalt, an expensive metal. The cobalt oxide used in one of the battery's electrodes isn't thermally stable, making the batteries prone to bursting into flame if damaged or poorly manufactured--a shortcoming that led to the massive recall of millions of laptop computer batteries last year. (See "Safer Lithium-Ion Batteries.") This could be a problem in vehicle battery packs, which would be much larger than those in portable electronics, so an accident could be more dangerous. One alternative is to replace cobalt with manganese. Mohamed Alamgir, director of research at Compact Power, says that manganese-oxide electrodes are significantly more thermally stable than cobalt oxide, and less expensive. The battery maker has also developed a new material for keeping the electrodes separate: the material remains stable at higher temperatures than conventional materials, further guarding against the runaway heating that causes batteries to catch fire. What's more, the company makes the batteries in a flat shape rather than in the typical cylindrical design. Alamgir says this flat shape prevents heat from building up at the center of the cell, making it easier to keep the battery at an even, cool temperature. |
 |
|
|||
| ||||
Audio »
Share »
Digg this
Add to del.icio.us
Add to Reddit
Add to Facebook
Slashdot It!
Stumble It!
Add to Newsvine
Add to Connotea
Add to CiteUlike
Add to Furl
Googlize this
Add to Rojo
Add to MyWeb
Favorite
Print
E-mail
Comments
stuppamnon on 06/07/2007 at 2:28 AM
3
What is the equivalent savings in fuel?
larryrose11 on 06/11/2007 at 5:03 PM
2
A gal of gasoline has about 120 M Jules of energy which is equal to 33.5 kW hr
Boyceg on 06/12/2007 at 2:16 AM
5
Lets assume that we do half our driving in plug-in battery powered cars. Lets further assume that we can get half the power from what is now on-peak power at night. It is my estimate that we will need 50 Brown’s Ferry 3000MW nuclear power plants running 24/7 to generate the other half of the power for battery powered cars. If you had rather use coal, then plan for 150 power plants like TVA’s Bull Run power plant. Don’t forget about the low sulpher coal, coal cars, track, locomotives, green house gases, earth moving equipment… Don’t know about you, but Arab oil is looking a bit better especially if we drive less.
GM EV was tested by Popular Science or Popular Mechanics when the EV was in use. As I recall, they tried to get it to run 40 miles between charges and it just would not do it. It used lead batteries. Keep in mind that state of the art lead batteries are said to have enough energy storage to lift themselves about 15 miles. Gasoline has enough energy to lift itself 1000 miles and has the courtesy to not still be hanging around at the end of the trip. Not only did the EV have its dead battery still strapped on, but it was heavy as, well, lead. I don’t think GM sold an EV, but leased it just as Chrysler did their gas turbine powered car of the late 50s, early 60s.
The book, “Bottomless Tank” is an interesting read. One idea it suggested is that more energy efficient cars and light bulbs don’t save energy. Sure we get more miles per gallon and more light per watt-hour. Since it is cheaper to drive, what do we do? Drive more. The 18 MPG Oldsmobile stayed home a lot. The 30 MPG Lumina is racking up miles. The engine never cools off in the 40 MPG Saturn. Those 50 watts of CF lights in the living room have been on all day. At 7 cents per 14 hours, it is not worth the trouble to go turn them off.
fran on 07/05/2007 at 9:31 PM
2
||||
The book, “Bottomless Tank” is an interesting read. One idea it suggested is that more energy efficient cars and light bulbs don’t save energy. Sure we get more miles per gallon and more light per watt-hour. Since it is cheaper to drive, what do we do? Drive more. The 18 MPG Oldsmobile stayed home a lot. The 30 MPG Lumina is racking up miles. The engine never cools off in the 40 MPG Saturn. Those 50 watts of CF lights in the living room have been on all day. At 7 cents per 14 hours, it is not worth the trouble to go turn them off.
||||
You make an excellent point. Make things too cheap and they will be used profligately. That's OK if profligate use isn't a problem, but mostly it is.
What really should happen with motor vehicles, for example, is a change in the way vehicle use is charged. Charges should relate to the total impact of a particualr person's vehicle usage, which would obviously have to take into account the nature of the vehicle, when it was used and where, the competence of the driver and so forth.
As to the pricing of electricity usage, it could be scaled progressively, so that the second watt-hour is just a tad more expensive than the first and so forth, and so that watt-hours off peak were cheaper than during the peak, and so that watthours from renewables were cheaper than from non-renewables.
Similarly, those people returning energy to the grid through the use of renewables could be paid the rate that other customers were being charged for the same supply, which would encourage people to conserve their own energy to get the carrot at the end.
Fran
robert.hargraves on 06/07/2007 at 7:45 AM
5
tina juarez on 06/07/2007 at 9:46 PM
1
Charging at night, my electricity come from Hydro electric & thermal sources already. If rebates were available to owner-installers in my state I would have a solar powered car - right now
Vick Fisher on 06/14/2007 at 4:05 PM
1
...At the moment, uranium is enriched at Paducah, Ky., where they have two 1,500-megawatt filthy, old, coal-fired plants to produce the electricity to enrich the uranium. Also, 93 percent of the CFC 114 gas released in the United States is through leaking pipes at that plant in Paducah. CFC not only destroys the ozone (layer) and is banned under the Montreal Protocol--and the nuclear industry is being grandfathered from that--but it also is a potent global warmer 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. There are other such gases released during the production of uranium fuel.
When uranium is mined, millions of tons of uranium tailings, emitting radioactive gas, radon and other such elements, are left lying on the ground.
casadore on 08/16/2007 at 5:51 PM
1
nekote on 06/07/2007 at 8:51 AM
114
That said, the continuing "secretiveness" / lack of independent confirmation / sample availability obviously leads to speculation of "vaporware" (or worse).
If those ultracapacitors are "real", they might eliminate the need for cars to have engines. A tremendous savings in complexity, cost, weight and maintainability (no engine, cooling, fuel or exhaust systems) - in exchange for "plugin" *only* "refueling".
jsibert1 on 06/07/2007 at 12:37 PM
1
The other possibility is that the miltary has stepped in and shrouded the company in the veil of "national defense" , thereby restricting any news on the company.
There claims are truly revolutionary, and personally one of the most interesting and important development in the field of energy.
rhapsodyinglue on 06/07/2007 at 4:15 PM
54
It's undeniable that their claim is one of the most important developments. I only hope they claim global warming over soon... then we could all breath a sigh of relief.
I personally never get tired of reading yet another post about EEStor.
theBike45 on 06/09/2007 at 8:18 PM
13
devices to install in their electrics and test.
They own a piece of EEStor. I would hazzard a guess that an electric car company can evaluate a battery without the need for a panel of Nobel prize winners.
enoch on 06/12/2007 at 3:33 PM
3
lasertekk on 06/07/2007 at 1:35 PM
18
Erentil on 06/07/2007 at 3:45 PM
1
As far as battery recharge costs, Tesla claims 2 cents per mile and I can't imagine the Volt being much different than that.
Okbear on 06/07/2007 at 8:31 PM
1
Gypsy_EV on 06/11/2007 at 2:26 PM
15
larryrose11 on 06/11/2007 at 5:21 PM
2
A typical EV uses 150-200 W-Hr/mile. 60 Miles would be 12 kW-hrs assuming 200 W-Hr/mile, about $1.20 here in MI at peak rates ($0.10/kW-hr). The Bulk usage night rate here is $0.02/kW-hr making that same 60 miles $0.24
Tesla's Roadster is at the lower end of that range, probably 160 W-Hr/mile since the redesign.
Gypsy_EV on 07/31/2007 at 1:40 PM
15
davidcg on 06/07/2007 at 10:16 PM
3
A 35 Kwh battery system is being showcase on an all electric vehcile (a 5 passenger truck) which has a top speed of 95 mph, 0-60 in 10 secs, range of 135 miles, and again, can be recharged in under 10 seconds.
This isn't vaporware. This is here working today!
Why isn't GM using this battery on their Volt?
www.altairnano.com (stock symbol ALTI)
hamid on 06/08/2007 at 12:36 AM
10
ALTI batteries = 80 Wh/kg
A123 batteries = 120 Wh/kg (the new huge 32157 cell).
50% more energy density.
Also, A123 has published specs and is selling these batteries on its website and also to Black & Decker line of tools.
ALTI is yet to publish specs and sell them to independent parties.
And in other respects, there are no advantages by Altairnano, AFAIK.
asdar on 06/08/2007 at 9:01 AM
61
Altairs battery does have less energy density, but the life cycle is so long. The recharge time is better for Altair as well, although we don't know what A123's final product will look like for GM.
I think their advantage is more about price and production capacity right now. They can't produce the battery GM wants in the numbers or for the price that they want it.
davidcg on 06/08/2007 at 10:23 AM
3
"Even when cycled at 10C discharge rates, our cells deliver in excess of 1,000 full depth-of-discharge cycles."
Somehow A123 takes that performance and "projects" a life of 10 years? Maybe, maybe not. My guess is thats why there will be testing until June 2008. Projecting, and seeing the actual results are two different things.
Altairnano's pack has been tested to 25,000 cycles.
On top of that, I haven't seen any claims from A123 for quick charging as Altair claims of less than 10 minutes to charge with no degradation to charge capacity.
As for third party, Altairnano's battery is being tested by AeroEnvironment. So far the claims of Altairnano have been true, though it is still early in the testing. To read more about this independent third party testing:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070530/20070530005396.html?.v=1
Knightskye on 06/08/2007 at 7:16 PM
2
Because Altairnano has a three-year (I believe) exclusive agreement with Phoenix Motorcars. GM would have to go through Phoenix to get their hands on some batteries, and might have to pay a lot more money for the batteries than Phoenix does.
But GM has a possible battery supplier. All they need now are the cars, hah. GM's first hybrid, the world's first (soon to be) mass-produced PHEV; let's hope they don't screw this up. If Ford does something like this, I think they could give Toyota a run for its money.
But I heard 9,000 - 10,000 life cycles for Altair's batteries - significantly lower than the 25,000 figure you guys are throwing around. I mean, that's still amazing for battery technology, but what's with the big difference in numbers?
asdar on 06/08/2007 at 9:31 PM
61
They're up to 20,000 now.
Just the same, A123, is probably smarter. I just wouldn't say Altair is inferior.
ttiwkram on 06/27/2007 at 12:50 PM
1
With "only" 10,000 cycles I can recharge my vehicle every day for over 27 years. There's not much chance the rest of the car (or maybe even myself) will last that long.
If the claimed recharging time of ten minutes is accurate, it would seem the most important development priorities should now be range (a.k.a. energy density) and cost.
sbabinchak on 06/08/2007 at 9:42 AM
4
davidcg on 06/08/2007 at 10:30 AM
3
Plus coal, which gets us off crude oil from the middle east, we happen to have plenty of.
Personally I think we need hundreds of smaller pebble bed nuclear reactors which do not, by design, have the capability of nuclear meltdown. If you're not scared of the reactor in your backyard blowing up and spewing radioactive material, then not too many people should object. But only if cost and regulation steps out of the way to make it a reality. If FRANCE can go almost all nuclear, why can't we?
nickbates on 06/08/2007 at 2:30 PM
3
No, unfortunately, GM can not be trusted to do the right thing any longer since their EV blunder in the late 1990's.
My money is on the newer independent companies like Tesla Motors who already have a cool looking electric sports car (designed and built for them by Lotus) with a 250 mile range per charge, 0 to 60 in 4 seconds and top speed of 150 mph. Unfortunately, because they are a small company and can't mass produce like GM can, it is expensive (double the price of a Lotus Elise.) oh well...
asdar on 06/08/2007 at 9:38 PM
61
The car was a huge money loser for GM, the battery started at too short a range and quickly degraded to way too short a range.
The battery in the EV-1 cost too much, had a lot of performance problems and wouldn't last.
GM made a good business decision, that made sense. If you want to help the environment, then you shouldn't hold hollywood designed grudges.
The Tesla you're hoping for is using technology developed at GM for both the motor and the battery management system. They upgraded both to new systems, but GM did the groundwork.
nickbates on 06/09/2007 at 12:03 AM
3