AND 
Lithium-ion Battery Storage Capacity Research Breakthrough
Normally we discuss news and facts related to production of the Chevy Volt. But this technological breakthrough seems so important I thought it deserves mention here.
As we know, the Volt will be powered by lithium-ion batteries either from A123 systems or LG Chem.
In these and most li-ion batteries, energy is stored in an anode made of carbon. Carbon has a limited storage capacity. Silicon has a much higher storage capacity, but when silicon is used as an anode, its fibers swell as they fill with electrons, that makes them unstable, and they actually break apart.
The new breakthrough has come from the lab of Yi Cui at Stanford University. He found if he made silicon nanowires and used these as anodes, the batteries have 10 times the charging capacity and the fibers remain stable without breaking.
OK so now imagine a 400 pound battery pack that hold 160 kWH or 400 miles of range, perhaps for no great added cost.
Is GM looking at this? I will try to find out.
What do you think?
Source (Stanford U.)
44 Responses to “Lithium-ion Battery Storage Capacity Research Breakthrough”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- New York Times Report on the Chevy Volt Generator Mode Driving Experience
- CNBC Test Drive of the Chevy Volt in Charge Sustaining Mode
- Chevy Volt Will be Able to Hit 104 MPH
- Chevy Volt and Battery Program Update
- GM to Announce Initial Volt Markets at LA Auto Show
- Coalition of Industry Leaders Releases Roadmap to get 120 Million Electric Cars on US Roads by 2030
- Op-Ed: GM Reports a $1.2 Billion Loss, but Has the Cash To See Volt Well into Production and Beyond
- Three Chevy Volt Paint Color Finalists Announced
- What BMW Has Learned from the MINI E Program So Far: That They May Need to Build EREVs
- GM: EVs are Cool, but EREV’s are Really Cool
Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts
- Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]BigCityCat
- Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]omnimoeish
- First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]admin
- Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]Texas
- New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]srschrier
- New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]srschrier
- New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]srschrier
GM-Volt.com is not affiliated with General Motors Company
All contents copyright 2007-2009 GM-Volt.com, LLC - All Rights Reserved
Home | Contact | Privacy Policy | About | Back to Top
December 19th, 2007 at 6:14 am
If only this was true and ready for use now.
I wonder how many years of testing it will take to find out if this is a viable solution or not. A battery with a 400 mile range. I’m there!
Lyle, I really love this site. You do such an excellent job here. You really do deserve a free Volt.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 6:19 am
[quote comment="20520"]If only this was true and ready for use now.
I wonder how many years of testing it will take to find out if this is a viable solution or not.
A battery with a 400 mile range. I’m there!
Lyle, I really love this site. You do such an excellent job here. You really do deserve a free Volt.[/quote]
Me too, and being an (old) almuni from the Engineering School at Stanford U. I am proud of my second Alma Mater. Thanks again Lyle.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 6:27 am
If I were GM I’d contact the researchers responsible for this breakthrough YESTERDAY, and I’d offer them all the support ($$$) that the company can muster…before Toyota or Honda get there. By the way, Rashid is right, you more than deserve a free Volt. In fact, I think you’re a Godsend to GM; you’re probably being more effective in advertising and promoting this vehicle (and technology) than all of the advertising dollars the’re pouring on this car.
First time poster…I love this site!
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 6:35 am
160 kwh sounds great, but if it takes 6 hours to charge 16 kwh.. well, you do the math. it will have to require a (very) fast charger, not the regular 110v/220v home outlet.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 7:15 am
If you do a search on “breakthroughs” reported in the media, many of them have not panned out. Nano tech offers the possiblity of greatly increasing the usable area for ion pairing, or in other words, a very much improved battery, more energy stored in a smaller, lighter battery. The A123 design has taken an important step in that direction. Perhaps this will be the next step, using nana tech, but only time will tell.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 7:29 am
GM is not making the battery packs. So it is LG and A123 that should be hiring these people!
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Energy density alone is just one parameter of the battery. This new technology might crap out after 50 cycles, might heat up too hot, might not be able to charge/discharge rapidly, might be way too expensive, might not be safe, etc… Don’t give them the battery crown until they test an EV sized pack.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Re #4, Zohar, I think this may not be that big a problem, even if it is 6 hours to charge 16 kwh to get 40 miles, since people are only going to drive 400 miles on a long trip, not a regular commute. Besides, if the road warrior works an 10 hour day with even a 50 mile commute (of 1 1/2 hour each way), if they leave for work at 6, get there at 7:30, leave at 5:30, get home at 7:00, and plug in again til 6:00, they will have 11 hours of charging time at home which would get about 72 or so miles charged up, covering the commute in and part of the way back. If they can charge the car up over the weekend more, by not needing to drive more than 6 of the 48 weekend hours, they could pickup 42 charging hours, which would yield about 280 miles (if the battery could actually hold 400 miles). Spread over the 5 week days, that would add 56 miles each day, which would cover the rest of the commute, even without plugging in at work.
So a 400 mile battery would probably be a good thing, if it didnt’ cost too much more.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Even if you increase the capacity of the negative ten fold, you will still be limited by the positive capacity. 80% of the cost of the battery come from the positive which contains expensive materials (cobalt, nickel…) graphite amounts for nothing in the battery.
The positive weighs also more than the negative (3.6 or more density vs 2.2 for graphite).
So to get an affordable and light battery a breakthough would have to come on the positive side.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Lyle says:
“OK so now imagine a 400 pound battery pack that hold 160 kWH or 400 miles of range, perhaps for no great added cost.”
I’d rather have a 100 pound battery pack that holds 40kWH or 100 miles of range, perhaps for 1/4 the cost.
According to this:
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/12/06/how-did-gm-determine-that-78-of-commuters-drive-less-than-40-miles-per-day/
for 95% of the U.S., anything over 100 miles of battery range is a waste. I know it’s in our nature to always want more, but in this case I would want less. Specifically, 300 lbs less weight, and $3000 less sticker price would be much better. It would also be great to get rid of that hump between the back seats as well.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 9:00 am
A 400 mile charge would be fantastic but I will be just overjoyed to get a Volt with a 40 mile pure electric range. I just hope I can get one before I’m to old to drive.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Okay, don’t beat me up on this because I cannot find my source for my next comment.
I believe I read something recently about this carbon anode technology. The concerns are not if this can work but if a battery can be produced to survive the stresses (vibrations) associated with driving and the normal day temperature variations.
Does anyone else know about this?
Regarding range…
Yes, 400 miles between charges would be great but 40 with a range extender works for me. In time that range will improve anyways.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 9:35 am
This news is out of Stanford University so I find it more credible than other “breakthroughs” in recent history. I am sure not only people from GM are watching this development but also individuals from Toyota, the U.S. military, electronics manufacturers from all areas of the industry, and the oil companies.
There is so much demand now, from so many areas of the world economy, for new and better battery technology that IMO there is little chance that we will _not_ see some pretty exciting breakthroughs in the near future.
I can’t wait to only have to plug my cell phone in once a week and get a 400 mile electric range with my v2.0 Volt.
P.S. If GM doesn’t get an early production model of the Volt to Lyle for review I will be very disappointed. I will not buy my Volt until I read Lyle’s final review of the car.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 9:46 am
[quote comment="20537"]…I know it’s in our nature to always want more, but in this case I would want less. Specifically, 300 lbs less weight, and $3000 less sticker price would be much better…[quote]I agree totally, Dave! …And it’ll be many years before manufacturer’s are confronted with a battery range/ weight/ cost tradeoff as major as this.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 9:59 am
You guys are too kind.
I actually set up a brief interview with the researcher Dr.Cui, so will try to get some more on this.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 10:00 am
EVs will need to be range-extended until the GENERAL public learns to trust electric drive. The fear of being stranded with a dead battery and no way to quickly recharge it is just too strong! E-REVs will help build trust in pure BEVs. It may take decades until the general public trusts electric drive the way they now trust the ICE. Until then, it’s all about E-REVs with that 40 mile all electric range sweet spot for commuting! Therefore, 10x the storage capacity = 40 mile BEV range with 1/10 the battery size and weight! The single biggest question though is economic. What will be the COST per energy/power stored? We’ll see…
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 10:20 am
[quote comment="20537"]Lyle says:
“OK so now imagine a 400 pound battery pack that hold 160 kWH or 400 miles of range, perhaps for no great added cost.”
I’d rather have a 100 pound battery pack that holds 40kWH or 100 miles of range, perhaps for 1/4 the cost.
According to this:
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/12/06/how-did-gm-determine-that-78-of-commuters-drive-less-than-40-miles-per-day/
for 95% of the U.S., anything over 100 miles of battery range is a waste. I know it’s in our nature to always want more, but in this case I would want less. Specifically, 300 lbs less weight, and $3000 less sticker price would be much better. It would also be great to get rid of that hump between the back seats as well.[/quote]
Bingo!
But we shouldn’t get too excited, I would imagine it will probably be at least 10 years before this technology can make it into commercial batteries.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Tim #15
I agree Tim with your last question. One of my master’s student in economics in interested to write his thesis about the answer to it. As you wrote, we’ll see …
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Nanosolar Ships First Panels
http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/2007/12/18/nanosolar-ships-first-panels/
“The world’s first thin-film solar cell with a low-cost back-contact capability;”
“- the world’s lowest-cost solar panel – which we believe will make us the first solar manufacturer capable of profitably selling solar panels at as little as $.99/Watt; (cheaper than coal)”
“- the world’s highest-current thin-film solar panel – delivering five times the current of any other thin-film panel on the market today and thus simplifying system deployment;”
“- an intensely systems-optimized product with the lowest balance-of-system cost of any thin-film panel – due to innovations in design we have included.”
They are shipping product!!!
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Cut the cards, trust only your mother, get it in writing….
I used to be excited about supercapacitors, but on any new battery technology I now wait until I see it proven in the marketplace.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 11:32 am
I just hope they don’t sell the patent to Chevron/Texaco!
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
reading your good comments, I come to the conclusion there will be 2 types of vehicles: 1) for those who can plug-in their cars in a garage, there will be a much cheaper, stronger, and lighter Volt ; 2) for those who don’t have an accessibility to an electrical outlet (parking near sidewalks etc) there will be a 400 mile range pure electric car, without any gas tank, and when the battery will get low on power – they will be able to swap the batteries (like Shai Agassi suggests) so it will be like going to the gas pump for them, once in a while.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
The problem with using silicon as an anode is that it changes shape as you cycle it, so that puts a lot of stress on the material.
The Stanford study has done about 10 cycles to 25% SOC, which is limited, but I guess it’s better than past studies. It’d be interesting to see how it handled deeper charging.
So this is significant, but it’s still very preliminary.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Dave #12 said “I’d rather have a 100 pound battery pack that holds 40kWH or 100 miles of range, perhaps for 1/4 the cost.”
I agree! A smaller battery opens up many possibilities, including a 5-passenger E-REV.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I agree that this is an exciting breakthrough in battery technology, and hopefully it will pan out. But if it doesn’t, I’m sure that it will advance research in the field and a real breakthrough with similar promise will be realized. But I’m in the field of people who don’t believe that BEVs will ever be real cars. I do think they’re perfect for many applications, such as being simple commuter cars, or Tesla Roadsters-like fun cars, but not primary cars. E-REVs and PHEVs and fit for primary applications.
So to sum things up, I’m optimisitic that this is a true breakthrough, if nothing else than just in new knowledge about materials. But I’m not optimistic that this, or anything else really, is a breakthrough that will mean BEVs for everyone. I look forward to reducing the weight of the battery significantly, but think that this will be best for us consumers in terms of better space usage and cost-effectiveness in the hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and range-extending electrics. But no matter what, this is still really awesome.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Just one more thing, though, I think a potential oversight in the promises for this technology are its potential usage in future stationary functions, such as on-site power storage for preventing blackouts and for it being part of a cost-effective solution of mass-usage of intermittent renewable resources: wind, solar, and tide.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I am reading the paper and have to say it is another paper with fabulous promise and useless results. The Silicon coating is only 80 nm ( Forgive me, this is NOT typo) and I estimate its weight to be 0.008 mg/cm2, this is only 1% of a commercial battery, which means in order to make a commercial battery based on this, the nanowire thickness should be 100 more, which will immediately compromise the performance they published. I think people can ignore this publication, it does not mean anything in REAL WORLD!
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
All I can say is…I hope Big Oil doesn’t immediately purchase the rights to this…..
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 1:59 am
gees, i can’t stand all of the negativity.
25. steven b. is one of the few who is making sense on here; “I agree that this is an exciting breakthrough in battery technology, and hopefully it will pan out. But “even” if it doesn’t, I’m sure that it will advance research in the field and a real breakthrough with similar promise will be realized.”
stuff is happening so fast that any jump in tech is good stuff, and will fuel something else….can i say exponential? without a tongue lashing here?
and remember when i use the word exponential, i am not using the mathematical term. i am simply using the common man’s word of “unexpected growth”, i.e. like a snowball, lol…
tim 19. yes, yes, yes, nanosolar…finally up and running! we will all be making our own electric “fuel” for our volts, probably before the volts are out.
ohm, what were those specs you sited yesterday about a nano solar panel for a thousand bucks fueling a volt overnight, or something?
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 4:51 am
To lifepo4 #27 :[quote comment="20629"]I am reading the paper and have to say it is another paper with fabulous promise and useless results. (…) it does not mean anything in REAL WORLD![/quote]
Dear Lifepo4,
University research IS NOT useless, and it DOES MEAN something in real world.
But its time is not the business world time, I agree, we must be patient and confident, as James #29 says and LAKATOS wrote in his Histoty of scientific research more than 30 years ago, there are “exponential” unpredictable scientific developments since we observe the evolution of science.
So to be too negative is not the good attitude, but we must be patient and work (not only hope) avoid what Mark #28 fears.
Regards.
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 5:33 am
nasaman 14. “I agree totally, Dave! …And it’ll be many years before manufacturer’s are confronted with a battery range/ weight/ cost tradeoff as major as this.”
it was only a month ago that i was talking up nano solar on here, and someone got all negative and quoted some stats that he had picked up while investigating nanosolar 18 months ago. well, hell, 18 months ago and now are a world of difference, and nano is making outstanding solar products that are 5x better than other thin film panels, and they are so much better than silicone panels. nano’s cost is 99 cents per watt, i think silicone is like 5 or maybe even 10 bucks. so, nano solar didn’t take the years that everyone thought.
so when someone tells me something is going to take years, i figure they just aren’t looking close enough. i even had a guy i was talking to this summer tell me how solar (i was talking about nano, and he was arguing with me) was just way too expensive. i got a little short with him, cause he was quoting what he had looked up about solar from 5 years ago. my god, 5 years is an eternity in tech stuff. so here we are now, just a month later from my original nano posts, and they are selling electric energy (panels) so cheap, that you will almost fuel your volt for free, and certainly way less than oil/gas.
tim 19. “- the world’s highest-current thin-film solar panel – delivering five times the current of any other thin-film panel on the market today and thus simplifying system deployment;”
so, do i have a point, yep…and it’s this; batteries are going to get smaller and smaller and more powerful and more powerful, and when they can’t figure out how to get them even smaller, then the price is going to drop like a rock.
btw, for those who are interested. all opec had to do was mention that they might open the spigots, and oil fell. not a lot, but then again, opec didn’t actually increase production.
and now there is some big oil find in north dakota (?) and canada. there is so much oil in this world it ain’t funny. but no one goes after it unless the price is right, and i’m guessing 80 to 90 (maybe even 70) bucks is that price…
death to oil! god bless the e-rev electric chevy volt, god bless nanosolar, god bless a123 and l.g., god bless g.e., bell labs innovations, and a little company called google and God Bless the United States of America!
Volt! american made, american fueled, american driven…
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 10:28 am
If a battery with that amount of range is possible then, getting rid of the range extender engine and reducing the size and weight of the battery would improve the drivable distance for a given amount of energy consumed. It could be balanced out to give 100 to 150 miles and good charge times.
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Jean-Charles Jacquemin:
Obviously you are not expert in this. Similar results have been published earlier using sputtering tech (Dahn, etc). The major problem here is that the loading is way too small, regular battery is 5-10 mg/cm2 using graphite, while the research paper has about 0.1% of that, even take the high capacity of silicon into consideration, the anode is only 1% of the real world. There is NO WAY to maintain that performance when you MUST increase that by hundreds of times. Battery material has to be coated onto Al (cathode) and Cu (anode). It is always desired to have thick coatinf to achieve high capacity or reasonable thickness to achieve rate (crucial for HEV, PHEV to operate during regenerative mode). With a loading only 0.1-1%, YOU simply can’t make a battery close to the normal capacity, not to mention it is ridiculous to say a battery last 10 times longer.
I have a battery coating in my hand and I know what I am saying. Si has been know to have huge capacity many years ago and that is NOT new. You have to understand 98% paper will come to nothing. And in this publication, it is not commercially viable, nor it GAVE direction on how people should try to improve it! Get some knowledge before you speak, PLEASE!
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
If you guys do not trust what I said, ask this guy, he will give you good opinion.
http://fizz.phys.dal.ca/~dahn/jeffDahn.html
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
To lifepo4 #34
Dear Lifepo4,
you misunderstood me, and I am also aware of University wars.
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Jean-Charles Jacquemin:
You do not know the process of making commercial cells, which demands putting more and more active materials on the substrate. te tiny amount reported is far from being enough, and if you put more, the chemistry will be too poor to be useful!
Get more knowledge before you discuss!
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
I mean put more material on the same surface area, basically mg/cm2.
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
sh*t, lifepo4 36/37, you’re name says it all…lifepo batts, aren’t they the lithium iron sulfate, or some such?
so you work for lifepo, have investments with them? no doubt new tech like this would scare the h*ll out of you, lol.
btw, lifepo, you don’t need to know math to know that tech works, and what it means in the investment/real world. i mean, everyday peeps drive cars, and probably 80% don’t even know how a combustion engine works. they also buy stock in car companies.
(Quote)
December 21st, 2007 at 12:28 am
james:
what kind of nonsense you put here. I am not even working on LiFePO4, not in the last 4 and half years. stop put sh*t here when you have NO clue, Go and ask any Lithium battery engineer or ask Jeff Dahn (who is a famous expert in this area). You have no clue of this field, so please sh** *p!
(Quote)
December 21st, 2007 at 2:55 am
lifepo 39. apparently you are as big an assh*le as you appear to be in your posts.
even in your denial the truth comes out.
you Did work for lifepo. and no doubt you have some sort of retirement fund with them and probably other connections as well.
sorry if you don’t understand economics, but hey, you obviously are an arrogant, ignorant fella, lol…lmao @ lifepo the idiot.
btw, please speak whole and not broken english…
(Quote)
December 21st, 2007 at 7:05 am
Moderator… i vote posts 38 through 40 off this island. And while you’re at it, this one.
(Quote)
December 21st, 2007 at 1:32 pm
david 41. fortunately your vote doesn’t count…rotf, lmao @ david, lol.
but, since we’re voting, what about 27, 33, 34 and 36…still rotfl, lol…
(Quote)
December 24th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
We’re getting closer to fruition with better technology and more “frugal” and efficient vehicles; why do we need to fight amoungst ourselves- for ego gratification? Scientists or not,…we’re so much better than that. Do you all agree? Take that “energy of attitude” if u will and transpose it into action and manifestation.
We live on this tiny ‘ball’ for less than 100 years and die. Let’s get the job done for the future of this planet and our childrens’ children.
All the Best,
Merry Christmas
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Unfortunately, this is total hype. You might notice that all of the big universities (Stanford, Georgia Tech, MIT, etc.) do a lot of press releases. Most of if is just bull. This is not to say that they aren’t doing good research, but it is just that, research. Most of them don’t actually have knowledge of the technology they are professing to address. Anyone with a real understanding of the technology could quickly ask a few pointed questions that would demonstrate either their ignorance or the shortcomings of the technology.
Here are a few thoughts of mine that explain why this probably won’t work. First is the energy density. You need a lot of usuable volume to produce the energy storage we currently enjoy with existing battery technology. A mat of nanowires has a density equivalent to aerogels, i.e. 99% voids. Consequently, even if this material has excellent properties, the lack of material will seriously limit the energy density. Batteries have poor power density, but excellent energy density. To kill your energy density is akin to death.
Consequently, this isn’t the way to go. The reason I know this is that the company that my colleagues and I started, GoNano Technologies (www.gonano-9.com) produces helical nanowires, known as nanosprings, that have significantly higher densities, but still not sufficient density by themselves to be the sole material for a battery electrode. We are looking at other approaches to see if we can be a value added component of battery electrodes.
Now here is the nail in the coffin in my opinion for these Si nanowires for battery electrodes: cost. A careful cost analysis will quickly show that the cost of production will move them right out of the market unless they prove that so little material is needed to surpass the existing technology. Given the low density of this material I don’t see it happening.
To conclude, interesting result, but technologically it is unlikely to meet the needs of the real world. I think that they received a big chunk of change from the Saudis to develop this. I should be so lucky.
(Quote)