What Does EEStor Have in Store (or in its store)?

20 Responses to “What Does EEStor Have in Store (or in its store)?”

1. 
   
   

   OptimisticMF Says:
   September 7th, 2007 at 9:54 am

   For additional information:

   http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:EEStor  
   
   (Quote)

2. 
   
   

   kent beuchert Says:
   September 7th, 2007 at 10:53 am

   In general, there are two camps – those that are totally skeptical and those that are highly skeptical, and those camps include some well versed university and industrial battery brains. We all hope that EEStor succeeds – they are talking a lot more than simply extemely dense capacities – they are also talking very low costs – around 25% of the cost of lithium batteries (I’m not sure WHICH li ion batteries theywere referring to). Actually, successful EESTor’s would lead to GM creating a battery range of 350 miles for the VOLT and leaving the range extender in place until the world creates public recharging stations for long trips and those without a place to plug in.

   The EEStor CEO recently claimed commercial production within 10 months, which had been voiced a few days earlier by ZENN Motors’ CEO. EESTor is definitely THE big unknown factor in the battery development arena. If their batteries do what the company claims they can do, every other battery maker may as well either shut down , or obtain a production license from EEStor. Enormous amounts of both hope and skepticism have surrounded this 11 year old company for more than a year now, and I’ve been following every news item thru Google alerts. Such a device has extensive implications for non-dispatchable alternative energy sources as well. It would have an enormous impact and should garner a Nobel Prize if it works. It certainly would be far more important than
   virtually every Nobel prize they’ve handed out over the past 40 years.  
   
   (Quote)

3. 
   
   

   Don Says:
   September 7th, 2007 at 10:56 am

   Assuming it is more than vaporware then speed of recharge at home is still limited by the AC power source available BUT it opens up the possibility of interstate rest stops with rapid charging stations available (for a fee), thus giving the functionality of cross-country travel without using an ICE as a range extender. Problem is that such a distribution is unlikely in any near term future as ZENN is unlikely to suddenly sell many thousands of vehicles.  
   
   (Quote)

4. 
   
   

   Mark Bartosik Says:
   September 7th, 2007 at 12:21 pm

   There is one thing that I do not understand about EEStore. If they are only months from production then presumably they have something that can be demonstrated.

   If they have something that can be demonstrated, even in secret or subject to non-disclosure agreements, then why haven’t they signed contracts with someone bigger than ZENN?

   I can think of a few reasons, but nothing that I find convincing myself?

   Possible reasons:
   1) Unsure of strengths of patents, and thus prefer to be secret for as long as possible.
   2) Don’t want strings that might come with a bigger partner.

   Most of the other reasons I can think of make me more skeptical about them, hopefully, I’m just jaded.  
   
   (Quote)

5. 
   
   

   Mark Bartosik Says:
   September 7th, 2007 at 12:31 pm

   If they do have a break through you can expect a few charging issues at your home.

   You may have a 200 amp supply, but that is rather theoretical. If you actually draw 200A, then are likely to start pulling the LOCAL grid voltage down (due to local grid impedance). If you and your neighbor draw 200A together it is worse. The local grid is not bad at supplying average loads. Peak loads it copes with. But when a lot of people increase their typical peak load from 60A to 200A there will likely be problems.

   By load grid, I mean the wires running down your street.

   If fast charging systems for cars take off utilities will have to either upgrade local street wires or restrict current that any one device is allowed to draw (thus disallowing fast charging).  
   
   (Quote)

6. 
   
   

   Dave G Says:
   September 7th, 2007 at 12:47 pm

   Lyle, Thanks for another excellent post!

   Also, thanks for the link to the CNET Crave article. It’s nice to see that others are doing the math for electric filling stations as well.

   I think the high voltage pumping concept could actually be made to work. You would need very specialized connectors, and self-serve would probably not be allowed.

   But right now, I just don’t see why we need electric filling stations?

   If the masses convert to PHEVs like the Volt, then 80% of our gasoline consumption will change to electricity anyway. For long range travel, gasoline works well, and it’s here now. The infrastructure of gas stations won’t go away anytime soon.

   As battery / ultra-capacitor technologies improve, you’ll probably have PHEVs with 100 mile range for the same cost and weight. This would probably cut gas usage down to 10% of what it is now.

   Looking further, when electric storage devices get a lot cheaper, auto manufacturers will start making cheaper cars without ICE range extenders. As gasoline consumption declines, and true EVs become popular, then gas station owners will have a good reason to start changing.

   So right now, I think it’s much better to focus on building PHEVs, and then just let the future happen! It’s not going to happen all at once.  
   
   (Quote)

7. 
   
   

   Kevin Says:
   September 7th, 2007 at 1:17 pm

   I’ve been following the EEStor story for a while.

   If this device works as advertised, electric cars will be useful.

   The charging issue is a non-issue. Theoretically, the device can be charged rapidly. Practically, it can’t be for the reasons many people point out. The solution is to have a magic box at home with another EEStor device that charges overnight, then you charge your car in the morning.

   The main issue: does EEStor’s Barium Titanate material really have the properties that they claim.  
   
   (Quote)

8. 
   
   

   Matt986 Says:
   September 7th, 2007 at 1:51 pm

   If the technology pans out, I believe it will be a game changer.

   Combine a ultracapacitor driven EV with a home based unit to slowly charge up, and then quickly dump it’s charge into your car, and you have a winning situation. Get them cheap enough, and the electric companies could lease them for cheap to you so they could act as a buffer for the grid. Businesses could use them in place of emergency generators.

   Coupled with solar cells, you might be able to generate and store your own power.

   Charging stations like gas stations everywhere could be doable, but for commuting like the Volt is intended for, these devices could be a paradigm shift.  
   
   (Quote)

9. 
   
   

   Matt986 Says:
   September 7th, 2007 at 2:25 pm

   Oh, BTW, this company is about 20 minutes from where I live. If they ever do press conferences or anything, I could go onsite and report!  
   
   (Quote)

10. 
    
    

    Brian Says:
    September 7th, 2007 at 7:09 pm

    I can’t believe the numbers here. If Lyle’s 225 MJ is correct, that is 62.5 kWh of energy. Transferring that in 5 minutes would require 750 kW of power. If you assume a 95% efficiency, then you need to reject 37.5 kW of heat. I specialize in heat transfer at my job, and believe me that is a LOT of heat. I don’t know what the temperature rating is on these capacitors, but there’s no way that kind of charge would be safe.  
    
    (Quote)

11. 
    
    

    cce Says:
    September 8th, 2007 at 12:13 am

    I think if the claims about these capacitors are at all accurate, the hurdles of charging them is largely irrelevent in the long term. The headline is 500 miles of capacity capable of being charged in 5 minutes. The infrastructure will turn inside out to accomodate electric vehicles that do not require a drop of gasoline, no ICE, and greater range. If you take the amount of money motorists spend on oil and applied it to the electrical grid, we’d go from scotch tape and bubble gum to super deluxe in fairly short order.

    Although, I have to wonder about the safety of these things. That is a lot of juice. What happens if one of these things is punctured?  
    
    (Quote)

12. 
    
    

    Mike G. Says:
    September 8th, 2007 at 4:28 am

    I think it is bogus. They sure aren’t handling thereself like you would expect them too if this was real. Why would they put out a press release that says they have earth shattering technology and then dive underground and not want to talk about it.

    I believe there will be limitation to the technology that renders it useless at room temperature or something along those lines.  
    
    (Quote)

13. 
    
    

    NoFriendOfOpec Says:
    September 10th, 2007 at 9:43 pm

    Smoke & mirrors…  
    
    (Quote)

14. 
    
    

    D. Manwell Says:
    December 17th, 2007 at 9:01 pm

    Why would a purely electric Chevy “Volt” have to be limited to commuting?

    There could be overnight metered recharging cords outside individual motel rooms (with at least one outlet for the meter inside the office, where it would be safe from customer tampering, another in the guest’s room, so he could be sure it was accurate, and perhaps turn it off or unplug before it went too high).

    The car’s power consumption expense could simply be added to the guest’s bill.  
    
    (Quote)

15. 
    
    

    Rick Says:
    April 3rd, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    Few comments –

    For the non-believers, GA Tech announced a big advancement in ultracap technology both in nano-tech and Barium Titenate.

    It is very difficult to get 1st run production going on anything. This is a new product, one would expect delays.

    The guys running this are ex IBM and Xerox. Both companies shun patents due to IP ripoffs. They keep the stuff super secret. So maybe this helps to explain the secrecy.

    Finally, I too am from Missouri..  
    
    (Quote)

16. 
    
    

    Will Says:
    July 4th, 2008 at 8:26 pm

    “They have recently been in the news again. They are reporting a plan to ship a 15 kWh storage system to Zenn within 9 months.”

    It’s been 9 months. Where the f%#k is it?  
    
    (Quote)

17. 
    
    

    D. E. Manwell Says:
    October 16th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    A hydrogen economy’s viability has been challenged around a “chicken or egg” question; where do we start: building consumers’ hydrogen-powered fuel cell cars, or the supply sources (fueling stations/dealers).

    Some say electrically separating hydrogen (H2) from water (H2O) (called electrolysis) requires fossil-fueled electric-grid-reinforcement, and still more fossil-fuel to transport it to fueling stations/dealers, adding CO2 at every stage, just to use a fuel that burns without, itself, making CO2, effectively eliminates hydrogen’s carbon-reduction.

    Does it?

    Must electrolysis require grid-strengthening? Can’t photovoltaics (PV) run it – off-grid?

    PV’s direct current (DC) immediately serves electrolysis without expensive, power-losing electronics to change from gridpower’s alternating current. Storable in pressurized tanks, production needn’t include night.

    The grid could continue supplying the station’s non-electrolytic needs.

    Using kits of: PV panels, electrolyzers, a compressor, instructions, etc., infrastructure can be inexpensively established, station by station: its product marketed, at first as alternative home-heating fuel for gas furnaces and space heaters. Many of these now use bottled propane, delivered to large white tanks near consumers.

    Heating-hydrogen’s only transportation needed would be, like heating-gas now, from local fueling dealer to consumer. Need hydrogen automotive fuel be transported? Producing fuel where sold, with energy produced onsite, needs no transportation.

    For evolving toward cars, heating-gas-trucks, and other applications, kits: with small pressure tanks, ignition timing adaptation (if needed), tubing, fittings, instructions, etc., could eventually permit burning hydrogen in your V-8 engine. Tinkering, adventurous, pioneering car enthusiasts, would, initially, find their fuel at these heating fuel suppliers. This could begin establishing PV-powered hydrogen fueling stations for new fuel cell cars, like General Motors’ new “Sequel” (now ready to approach production).

    The fueling infrastructure could further evolve into the, more convenient, roadside locations, that gasoline and diesel now use.

    The “chicken or egg” situation need not interfere with promptly introducing fuel cell cars.  
    
    (Quote)

18. 
    
    

    Statik Says:
    October 16th, 2008 at 1:24 pm

    #17 D. E. Manwell

    A timely response. Who is back here rading these? Hehe.

    Your answer to make hydrogen viable is to use PV? Why not just use the PV directly? Is this cost effective? How much juice do you need from your PVs to make this viable?

    You mention station to station set-ups for this? The amount of raw panelling required to produce any quantity would be….huge. How big are these stations roof?  
    
    (Quote)

19. 
    
    

    Bob Deverell Says:
    October 30th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

    #17. D.E Manwell . Dreaming can be fun. Unfortunately hydrogen cannot be mined and does not grow on trees. Its manufacture requires an inefficient conversion process.

    So the issue is simply whether hydrogen is a better secondary storage method than other methods. I suspect most rational people now realise it is not. However it is a good substitute for gasoline if you have a vested interest in retaining an legacy distribution system.
    Else forget it.
    Bob Deverell Bangkok.  
    
    (Quote)

20. 
    
    

    Dave M. Says:
    December 7th, 2008 at 11:48 am

    #18 Statik
    #19 Bob Deverell:

    True: there isn’t room on a car roof to use PV directly, but there is room on a station’s roof and its lot for it. Would it be “huge”; probably. It would also provide a boost to the PV industry, valuable to our entire world society as its resulting economies of scale greatly reduce the unit costs of PV manufacturing.

    Mr. Deverell complains that hydrogen can’t be mined (thank goodness[!]; that would leave the environment much cleaner and health care costs lower).

    He calls H2’s “manufacture” inefficient, but compared to what: drilling to extract oil — refining that? Drilling to extract “natural” (fossil) gas? Transporting these products great distances?

    These techniques are not thermally “more efficient”; they just start with more stored energy in the raw material.

    Their energy can’t be used though, without leaving carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Adding a few more years of that (maybe 50 to 100; maybe 10, or maybe only a year or two) brings Niagara-dwarfing torrents as land-based glaciers’ meltwater breaches its weakening ice-dammed impoundments. That raises sealevels at least 20 feet, shifting coastlines wordwide, flooding all coastal seaports. Resulting loss of intercontinental trade would severely curtail manufacturing of everything that could keep us from preindusrtrial poverty.

    Why not just use gridpower to power electric cars? Utilities say their grid needs sdeveral times more power to replace gasoline for our transportation load. Crash programs are underway to increase that with wind energy. Like most people, I accept that very willingly, but some try, very vocally, with considerrable effect, to block it. In any case, 20% has been sited as about the highest portion of our total load that it could add.

    Efforts are being made to persuade the public to accept increased nuclear deployment too. Many facts are being left unstated in this: significant, is plutonium’s (Pu’s) production by the process. Yes, as part of the fuel cycle, the Pu can release additional energy through its own fission, but so can it power city-busting bombs, should malevalent people steal some.

    The bomb application is the easier (cheaper), since power plants’ slower reaction needs special moderating materials mixed in, to keep the reaction slow enough to avoid running away.

    PV-electrolyzed H2 is a better substitute than gridpower, for gasoline, to avoid the added grid load and to let people avoid having to plug in their cars for long periods to use it. Its use can be very similar to gasoline, for the average driver, since it’s just another fuel to stop at the “(H2) gas” station for, and quickly, conveniently, fill their (pressurized) tank.

    As to a “legacy” distribution system, those require(d) a centralized drilling, refining, transportation system, not needed by point-of-sale H2 electrolysis.

    All things considerd, I think most rational thinking people do still realize that plug-in hybrids may be a good bridge to ultimate PV-electrolyzed H2, but not a permant substitute. As economics improve, onsite H2 electrolysis will evolve as the better storage system.  
    
    (Quote)

Leave a Reply