Technology Review - Published By MIT
Log in to My.TechnologyReview.com | Register
Advertisement

Monday, February 13, 2006

The Ultra Battery

A new type of ultracapacitor could eventually have you throwing out your conventional batteries.

By Kevin Bullis

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

A breakthrough technology is holding forth the promise of charging electronic gadgets in minutes, never having to replace a battery again, and dropping the cost of hybrid cars. Indeed, the technology has the potential to provide an energy storage device ten times more powerful than even the latest batteries in hybrid cars -- while outliving the vehicle itself.

The new technology, developed at MIT's Laboratory for Electromagnetic and Electronic Systems, should improve ultracapacitors by swapping in carbon nanotubes, thereby greatly increasing the surface area of electrodes and the ability to store energy.

Ultracapacitors, a souped-up version of the capacitors widely used in electronics, have been around for decades. They're well-known for being powerful, that is, able to quickly absorb and release electricity. But they can't store much energy so their stored electricity is depleted in a matter of seconds. As a result, they've been limited to niche applications, such as providing quick bursts of power in some hybrid transit buses.

Now researchers at MIT have found what they believe is a way to improve the endurance of ultracapacitors several-fold -- allowing the devices to retain the power and longevity advantages, while storing about as much energy as the batteries used in hybrids.

The amount of energy ultracapacitors can hold is related to the surface area and conductivity of their electrodes. The researchers have increased surface area by "more than an order of magnitude" by using carbon nanotubes, says Joel Schindall, professor of electrical engineering at MIT and one of the researchers on the project. One square centimeter of conductive plate when coated with the nanotubes has a surface area of about 50,000 square centimeters, compared with 2,000 square centimeters using the carbon in a commercial ultracapacitor today. The highly pure carbon nanotubes are also extremely conductive, which should increase power output over existing ultracapacitors, the researchers say.

The technology may find applications beyond hybrids, too. Ultracapacitors could allow laptops and cell phones to be charged in a minute. And unlike laptop batteries, which start losing their ability to hold a charge after a year or two, they could still be going strong long after the device is obsolete. "Theoretically, there's no process that would cause the [ultracapacitor] to need to be replaced," says professor John Kassakian, another of the researchers.

The main hurdle the new technology is likely to face is not technical but economic. "The nanomaterials are probably a hundred or a thousand times more expensive, today, than the materials that we use," says Michael Sund, spokesperson at Maxwell Technologies, San Diego CA, a maker of commercial ultracapacitors. "The markets that we serve are price-enabled. If our product stored a hundred times more energy, but cost a hundred times more, there might not be any market for it."

However, the MIT researchers hope that over time, and with help from economies of scale, nanotube ultracapacitors can be made for the same cost as batteries.

The next step is to measure the performance of a device using the carbon nanotubes and to grow the nanomaterials on a flexible substrate that can be rolled into a large-scale ultracapacitor.

Comments

  • Ultracaps
    Guest (Mike Temple) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Ultracaps getting more attention here. 
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • future power
      Guest (kitk) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      This is a fascinating possibility! Imagine filling stations with power outlets, or same in parking areas. Small city services or commuter cars could run on this. Also endless energy hungry devices not presently portable.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • why hybrid?
        Guest (paul) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        i find it a little disconcerting that the article is focusing on hybrid cars, when the ultracap will allow all-electric vehicles.  in fact, current technology allows for all-electric vehicles,,, so where are they?  we simply have to get over using fossil fuel altogether.
        perhaps the thought of people charging their cars for free from the sun has auto manufacturers scared.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • ultracaps
          Guest (ron rubin) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          can I get more technical info
          Rate this comment: 12345
        • get the lead out
          Guest (Paul Chernoch) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          One reason I have heard that we cannot (at this time) run most cars on batteries is that there are not enough proven lead reserves in the world for all the lead-acid batteries that would call for, and technologies that do not use lead are still under development or are still too costly to produce, or use other materials that are similarly scarce. Furthermore, when you charge a battery today, the energy is probably coming from a gas or coal fired plant (read hydrocarbons) and you lose a phenomenal amount of energy in the transmission lines. Thus in your overall system, gasoline pollutes less and is more efficient than many of the alternatives some people are touting.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Transmission losses, gasoline
            Guest (Jeff) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
            Posts:
            1
            First, transmission losses are actually quite small, especially at very high voltages (765,000 volts).  Second, most central generating stations are relatively efficient compared to gasoline engines (35 - 40% vs. 15 - 18%).  Finally, central generation offers at least some possibility of carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, which are inconceivable with fossil-fueled vehicles.
            Rate this comment: 12345
            • Nuclear plant
              Guest (Shultz) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
              Posts:
              1
              Nuclear power plant won't emit any CO2. If nuclear fussion technology matures we won't have radio waste, either.
              Rate this comment: 12345
          • true but
            Guest (Tim) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
            Posts:
            1
            This is 2 orders of magnitude better charge/discharge than the best theoretical batteries (aluminium at 3000 cycles). At 300k these ultracaps will change.

            If you can store electricity you can make their own when possible. Even if 20% of the people who could put in wind or solar did so that would create a great amount of freed up electricity.

            Produce the electricity closer to where you use it and forget the long distance transmission loses. Quebec must be nervous right now.
            Rate this comment: 12345
          • Cars with batteries
            Guest (ken jones) on 07/28/2006 at 12:00 AM
            Posts:
            1
            A gasoline engine is about 30% efficient.  An electric motor is 95% efficient.  Large gas driven turbines producing electricity are 60% efficient.  Electrical power distribution is usually less than 5% loss.  Therefore if we all drive elec cars powered from gas driven turbines we could see a 80 to 90% increase inefficiency of the use of our gas resources.  I know this is simplified but the point is to use the gas the most efficient.
            Rate this comment: 12345
      • Sunbelt filling stations
        Guest (Vince) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        I can imagin filling stations in the middle of the desserts, financing ever bigger arrays of solar collecters, depending upon their volume of business.  I can also imagine large trucks transporting electric power much like gasoline is transported now. Hauling it to less sun or other less energy rich places in citys.
        All depends how energy dense this new battery is. Think 'jump drive' Vs old 'commodore tape drive'!
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Solar Collectors In Space
          Guest (CatoTheElderII) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          Why not have the solar collectors in space, transmit the energy into microwave beams certain locations on the earth surface (such as out on ocean platforms)?  Conversely, you perhaps we could store the space gleaned energy into compact ultra capacitors and glide it down to the oceaon on space-factory made air gliders that land on the ocean at weather appropriate locations.  Ideally the gliders would be reusable, perhaps by "floating" them back into space on electromagnetic lifts to be picked up at high atmosphere and tugged to the energy accumulator stations?   Science fiction, or way of the future? 
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Too expensive
            Guest (Rob) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
            Posts:
            1
            When they proposed this in the 70s (solar collectors in space which beamed power to Earth), they concluded that a full scale project would cost the equivalent of the GNP at the time.  A demo project would cost $600 billion dollars.  Space elevators may someday come into being, but not in the immediate future.
            Rate this comment: 12345
            • electric cars
              Guest (John) on 02/22/2006 at 12:00 AM
              Posts:
              1
              When economics and greed determine the collapse of a nation rather than give the technology to the common man, i say TO HELL WITH ALL THE RICH...........LET THE MUSLIM GET THEM ALL.   
              Rate this comment: 12345
          • more photons
            Guest (steve) on 08/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
            Posts:
            1
            The problem with global warming is photons that don't escape into space.  Now you want to catch some photons that would normally miss Earth and pump them down here?
            Rate this comment: 12345
        • solar, wind, micro hydro, whatnot
          Guest (cliff) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          can be stored and utilized in place of utility stations.

          wait till cheap larger scale (houshold size) energy storage becomes available- goodby utilities

          politics will hinder no doubt.
          Rate this comment: 12345
      • It Still Is Energy...
        Guest (MD) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        One thing not to forget... Stored electrical energy is still energy. Spilled gasoline doesn't release its energy unless a spark is present. If a super-capacitor is involved in an acident, what happens? The equivalent of a tankful of gasoline's energy, released in a blinding flash that turns the carbon nanotubes and the immediate vincinity into vapour when a flash of heat from stored potential energy is released in milliseconds from a damaged "battery"...

        Woof!
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • just build in safety features
          Guest (cliff) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          usually they reduce efficiency or capacity, but are not that difficult to envision.
          Rate this comment: 12345
      • Lost Jobs
        Guest (AKohler) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Has anyone thought about what this will do to the oil industry? So many jarbs will be took. What about the Alaskan pipe layers? The drunken ship captians. Iraq will no longer be able to afford WMDs. They will be defenceless against the infadels, er, I mean us.
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • Problems to overcome
    Guest (Rob) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    This will be great if costs can come down enough to make it competitive with current technologies.  Distribution will be easy since it won't cost much to add a few outlets to a service station.  However, it will take about 13 1/2 years to replace the fleet as it stands today (230 million cars replaced at a rate of 17 million a year).  Also, we have now shifted from getting the energy to run the fleet from gasoline to the grid.  This is cool in the sense that it lowers dependence on foreign oil (only about 1% of generating capacity comes from petroleum), but now we have to increase the generating capacity of the grid.  I read somewhere (so take it for what it's worth) that the increase would need to be on the order of 100%.  I think PBMRs are interesting, but these aren't online yet and will probably face huge political problems.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Would pay $500 today if...
      Guest (Dave v.) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      So... put them in two $250 AAA cells.. have an adapter for AA. I would buy them... and hope to never lose them.  Designing around a standard AAA batterys is not so bad... even for a cell phone...and if they NEVER wear out I can put them in my will.  This is their biggest obstacle... investers hate stuff that never wear out.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • scrue that safty thing lets just ban law suits
      Guest (me) on 02/14/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      that would be a good insenteivie to drive "savely" hahaha
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • more generating capacity - maybe not
      Guest (bill) on 02/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Since most people would be charging vehicles at off-peak times, this would actually allow utilities to be more efficient.  Here in Austin, the city owned electric utility is trying encourge manufacturers to develop plug-in hybrids to take advantage of this.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: more generating capacity - maybe not
        Guest (Keith) on 07/29/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        the assumption that more people will be charging during off peek hours might be a mistake. the way to determine if a commuter will be charging at home or if they will be stopping at a station or charging while at work during peek hours is to take the average commuters energy needs to get their vehicle to and from work, and hope your ultracapacitor has energy to spare.
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Problems to overcome
      Guest (Keith) on 07/29/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      I belive by the time carbon multi walled nanotubes are in mass production for ultra capacitors of the size needed for autos, carbon nanotubes would be replacing existing power lines. Don't forget nano technologies aiding in local generation of power from alternative energy sources that will reduce loads on national grid.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • bulls##t
    Guest (o) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    god dammit, I am getting pretty sick and tired of these frieken nanotech bulls##ts--always "bla bla so good" but then "but ovcourse its this and this and too expensive or something like that for it to be viable at this moment"

    F##K NANOTECH, F##K IT RIGHT IN THE EAR--F##K IT IN THE ###HOLE--F##K IT IN THE ANAL RECTUM OF A CAVITY.

    F##K NANOTECH.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • MIT
      Guest (RemyC) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      This tech is owned by MIT, so their licensing office will make sure to offer the exclusive to a company that will sit on it for the next ten years! That's what happened to roll-to-roll solid state Li-Ion batteries!
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • @ the bulls##t comment
      Guest (Blind-Summit) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      You are an idiot. Without research, how can things ever become cheaper. Look at any other technology out there. With more research, industry will be able to produce these nanotubes at a reasonable cost. It's not that complex in all honesty - I have friends working on naotubes at a Phd level in terms of ultra filtration.

      Think about your comments before writing such crap. I think this research has the potential to do a lot of good things!
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Nanotubes
      Guest (RexF) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      It is with great minds like bulls##k NANOTECH that we could disregard the wheel and other frivolous devices, an excellent arguement for mediocrity rising to its own level/
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Dude !take it cool
      Guest (nanoguru) on 02/23/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Quite obviously u are extremely ill-informed!!

      things could get cheaper truely with more research!!

      no point in f##king nanotech!!

      a good lot might happen if u f##ked ur nasty ,ill informed hole!!!!!!
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Too much power under my seat!!!
    Guest (Rick) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Just what I want, a mega volt capacitor under my seat during a car crash.  Batteries are bad enough, but the device described would be jumping sparks across the street!
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • safety
      Guest (cliff) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      circuit isolation and contingency resistance drawdown will reduce the charge per wieght or volumn, but i think it is managable.

      don't be to caught up.  enjoy the idea.  details are surmountable.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Transport Energy? Only if you have to!
    Guest (Tim) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Beam power from space? Old idea (PS. I'm a 2 decade member of SSI.org). Nukes? Generate and ship it? Think outside the box people! This could change the whole way we view energy. If you can store it then you only need to transport the amount required to top up the local supply. Lots of wind and sun at off peak times. Check out RMI.org for what is possible with efficiancy and renewables. If we can store it the whole picture changes.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Huh?
      Guest (Rob) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Where does it say that the cap has to be Megavolt?

      BTW, you now drive around with the equivalent of over 100 sticks of dynamite.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • How much are solar cells
      Guest (Rob) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      What are they getting for solar cells these days?  What's the installed price?
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • If lifespan stuff is true...
      Guest (DVB) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      There would be little reason to wait for the costs to come way down, if the lifespan arguments are right. Eventually, there would be a break-even point, then all upside. Check out the Stirling Generator project for a really good use (http://www.stirlingenergy.com/).
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Ultracapacitors and conventional batteries
    Guest (Richard Samuel) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    The article also misses the BIG fact that by using plain old carbon in place of nasties like lithium, lead, etc. the environment will be improved several fold also.... something that should be added into the cost equation!
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Ease off
    Guest (Gosuckabee) on 02/14/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Kevin,ease,off,on,the,commas.

    Seriously, take an english class or something.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Thanks
      Guest (Tr editor) on 02/14/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Gosuckabee: Thanks for the critique about too many commas. We've removed a half dozen of them. Hope it didn't give you too much pause.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Pause?
        Guest (Sean) on 02/18/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        I really hope that was a pun...
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • we need the basics
      Guest (srinivas) on 02/23/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Everything said might be possible.

      but it will be so only when we have the basics__the nanotubes and easier methods to make the nanotubes__economical and eco-friendly!!!

      no point in robbing jack to pay
      jill!!or something like that!!!!

      so it is more important to first stick to basics and once everything is ready we can have the revolution!!!

      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Not the auto makers, the Oil Industry
    Guest (V) on 02/14/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    >>> perhaps the thought of people charging their cars for free from the sun has auto manufacturers scared. <<<
    no, that would be the petro industry blockading that door.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Better Batteries
    Guest (Cory) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    This is one of the more promising technologies to help us become energy independent. Too bad it stands no chance because we (all of us) lack the political will to take our future back. Big Oil and Detroit won't let Washington even consider it much less fund the R&D.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • power generation
    Guest (Bob) on 06/03/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Actually 20% of our generated power comes from oil.
    Rate this comment: 1234