A new type of ultracapacitor could eventually have you throwing out your conventional batteries.
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start losing their ability to hold a charge after a year or two, they could still be going strong long after the device is obsolete.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.
Guest (Rob)
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.
Guest (Dave v.)
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.
Guest (me)
scrue that safty thing lets just ban law suits
that would be a good insenteivie to drive "savely" hahaha
Guest (bill)
more generating capacity - maybe not
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.
Guest (Keith)
Re: more generating capacity - maybe not
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.
Guest (Keith)
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.
Guest (o)
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.
Guest (RemyC)
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!
Guest (Blind-Summit)
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!
Guest (RexF)
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/
Guest (nanoguru)
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!!!!!!
Guest (Rick)
Too much power under my seat!!!
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!
Guest (Tim)
Transport Energy? Only if you have to!
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.
Guest (Rob)
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.
Guest (Rob)
What are they getting for solar cells these days? What's the installed price?
Guest (DVB)
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/).
Guest (Richard Samuel)
Ultracapacitors and conventional batteries
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!
Guest (Gosuckabee)
Kevin,ease,off,on,the,commas.
Seriously, take an english class or something.
Guest (Tr editor)
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.
Guest (srinivas)
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!!!
I believe YOU need an English class. The only EXTRA comma he used incorrectly was before 'too'. You also could just buy the book, "English for Dummies" to learn how to use commas correctly in complex sentences. :)
Guest (V)
Not the auto makers, the Oil Industry
>>> 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.
Guest (Cory)
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.
Guest (Bob)
I think its alot safer to have a capacitor charged with electricity in an accident than a tankful of napalm's key ingredient. If the capacitor gets into an accident, the worst that will happen is that a static charge will shoot into the ground, and you'll be protected by both the fadaday cage effect (look it up, its the reason you're safe from lightning inside a car, not the rubber tires) and the fact that the current will have been shut off because your foot is probably not on the accelerator by that point (electric motors don't idle).
Another good point was that we won't be using lead or any other harmful, or limited/rare, elements. Although it should be noted that lithium is in no way toxic, and car batteries are recycled by law.
Also, why would we use trucks to transport electricity? Why do you think we have power lines?
Guest (nano fan)
what was the mPhase announcement?
on November 30, 2006 mPhase was supposed to have made a live, public, online webcast about its progress with their CNT ultracapacitor. I was not able to go online at the time of the announcement, and was expecting to be able to log onto their website to find out what the announcement was, but was very disappointed to see a message saying the live talk was not archived, and I have been unable to find any mention of what was said. Can anyone please tell me?!! Thanks!
Green Electricity (GEL) Initiative: Replacing Batteries with Capacitors
While heated debates still persist about the validity of global warming problem/resolution, there is one particular heavily-overlooked issue of Global Environmental Contamination by the Batteries disposed from portable electronics. This issue is REAL and URGENT AND it is continuously getting worse as Batteries production is increasing every year and many of them would be potentially improperly disposed (see the link below):
http://www.alexanderbell.us/Project/GreenElectricity.htm
My Green Electricity (GEL) Initiative, addressing this issue and proposing the solutions, which include the replacement of the Batteries with big (multi-Farad) Capacitors (SuperCap™ or Ultracaps, or PowerCaps, whatever you call tem) in conjunction with alternative renewable primary energy sources, is detailed at:
http://www.alexanderbell.us/Initiative/GEL.htm
Ultracapacitors in portable devices: best practices
Couple good practical examples of using multi-Farad Capacitors (SuperCap™ or Ultracaps or PowerCap, whatever you call them) as power source in portable devices are described in my early articles, published in EDN Magazine:
1). Single capacitor powers audio mixer, Alexander Bell, USA, EDN, March 14, 1997 (published almost 10 years ago the article introduced a commercial grade Audio electronic solution powered by SuperCap™ and was recognized by EDN’s “Best Design Idea” award) http://www.edn.com/archives/1997/031497/06di_04.htm
2). Muscle power drives battery-free electronics, Alexander Bell, EDN, 11/21/2005 (Describes autonomous, cost-efficient and environmentally-friendly solution utilizing Ultra-capacitor in conjunction with alternative energy sources to power portable electronic equipment)
http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6283833
new exciting ultracap just announced
EEStor, a startup in Texas, has just announced a new, competing ultracapacitor that, unlike the MIT ultracap in the story above from 2/13/06, this ultracap is said to be inexpensive to produce, but also unlike the one above, it's made of ceramic materials that may be vulnerable to vibration when used in electric cars (EVs) or other mobile applications such as laptops, PDAs, aircraft, etc. Let's hope it proves to be durable to shock, or maybe they'll be able to insulate it from shock well enough to work without trouble in EVs.
It's a brand new product, so it needs to go through independent testing to see just how well it performs, but even if it does not prove to be useful for automotive applications, it is almost sure to be a boon for home and industrial applications for storing energy during the day produced by solar panels, to be used at night.
One of the exciting aspects of EEStor's ultracap is that it does not leak down quickly like is usually the case with capacitors and ultracapacitors... batteries have always been better at that... but if EEStor is right, this ultracap can be charged and will still retain its charge months later.
Since EEStor's ultracap would be competing in the same market as the MIT ultracap above, I'm surprised there is not yet a link from this page to that one. I ache for the day we can all dump the gas guzzling, polluting, noisy, inefficient internal compustion engine in favor of an inexpensive, safe EV with good range, quick charging, and long lifespan.
Until this webpage is linked with the EEStor page, here is the site addy:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/
Keep your fingers crossed, everybody. This just might be our Holy Grail.
The EEstor ultra cap could very well be the solution to electric transportation. They have already made a deal to supply a small car manufacturer with these caps. The problem with EEstor is that they are a small company and they could easily be absorbed by a large auto company or petroleum company. Fortunately, there are several companies developing similar products. Weather the public or other companies will be able to purchase these items is another story. An electric vehicle with tremendous distance capabilities could be built now if you were able to get your hands on the right type of ultra cap such as the one EEstor has designed. If you could find an ultra cap that can disapate its energy slower than the time it takes to recharge it, you have the capability to make an extended distance electric vehicle. Remember that auto and oil companies obviously do not want these items on the market. Detroit still claims that a practical electric vehicle is not yet possible, which of course is no longer true.
No matter what you hear about clean coal or that oil is clean or sequestration of co2 is safe, it's all lies and ddouble speak. there is no such this as clean pollution it's an oxymoron and if you think oil companies that claim it's got a clean method of burning somthing ,I've got bridge I'd like to sell you. All this apperent worry about pollution from the companies that cause it is CYA on their part. We must stop buring things period. We must get the planet off the oil standard NOW. In 25 years it will be too late to change the damage thats been done. Solar, wind, tidal, geo AND NUCLEAR MUST be impimented ASAP and a complete conversion in 15 yrs form oil based energy production. That will help world employment. As a planet it's time to think globally act locally. The world is too small a place to foul it up, and there's no place to run to when it's been ruined. As a civilization we better get our act together for as a wise man once said " if we do not hang together we will surly hang seperatly". I personally don't have high hopes people will change their way of thinking and save it's self.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Guest (Mike Temple)
Ultracaps
Ultracaps getting more attention here.
Reply
Guest (kitk)
future power
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.
Reply
Guest (paul)
why hybrid?
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.
Reply
Guest (ron rubin)
ultracaps
can I get more technical info
Reply
Guest (Paul Chernoch)
get the lead out
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.
Reply
Guest (Jeff)
Transmission losses, gasoline
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.
Reply
Guest (Shultz)
Nuclear plant
Nuclear power plant won't emit any CO2. If nuclear fussion technology matures we won't have radio waste, either.
Reply
Guest (Tim)
true but
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.
Reply
Guest (ken jones)
Cars with batteries
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.
Reply
esanon
1 Comment
Re: Cars with batteries
I vote yes for the cars with battery
Reply
SPARKY2012
1 Comment
Re: Cars with batteries
Are you suggesting that a hybrid, with turbine and generator, Batteries, powering an electric motor, getting 80-90% efficency... This, I would like to see.
Conversly, I think that grid loss would be more than 5%.
Next Gen Batteries, for a 400 mile range, would be fine. SPARKY
Reply
erockr11
1 Comment
Re: get the lead out
To my knowledge, lithium ion batteries are the leading technology for electric cars. Not lead-acid. Tesla uses lithium ion, and get upwards of 200 miles per charge, and they claim their next car will be able to recharge in 45 minutes.
The EV1 used lead-acid at first, then switched to NiMH, which reduced the weight and nearly doubled the driving range.
I think it's safe to say that when electric cars become common they will not be using lead-acid. And hopefully by then with more government requirements for utilities to use renewables, the energy won't be coming from coal or natural gas.
Reply
Guest (Vince)
Sunbelt filling stations
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'!
Reply
Guest (CatoTheElderII)
Solar Collectors In Space
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?
Reply
Guest (Rob)
Too expensive
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.
Reply
Guest (John)
electric cars
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.
Reply
Guest (steve)
more photons
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?
Reply
Guest (cliff)
solar, wind, micro hydro, whatnot
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.
Reply
Guest (MD)
It Still Is Energy...
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!
Reply
Guest (cliff)
just build in safety features
usually they reduce efficiency or capacity, but are not that difficult to envision.
Reply
Guest (AKohler)
Lost Jobs
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.
Reply