Lockheed Martin Signs Agreement with EEStor
Mostly, we talk about the Volt here, but relevant and related topics are often worth discussing.
We have previously discussed a secretive Texas company called EEStor, who are reported to be working on a new type of ultracapacitor that can hold 10x the energy in 1/10th the weight of typical batteries, at a fraction of the cost.
They have an agreement to produce caps for Zenn electric cars but to date have not shown any prototypes. This has led some to suspect EEStor as not having the technology they report.
Today, however, Lockheed Martin, the major U.S. military equipment manufacturer has announced a partnership agreement with EEStor to develop energy applications.
If these ultracaps can really deliver what they are projected to, they could offer a dramatic advantage for electric vehicles.
To that end, I interviewed Lionel Liebman, manager of Program Development – Applied Research at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control.
The entire interview can be seen by clicking below.
Can you tell me what your announcement was today?
Lockheed Martin and EEStor are working together to find areas for integrating their technology to a variety of power management platforms we’re working on.
Is it a financial contract?
We’re not taking any sort of ownership of EEStor. It is an exclusive rights agreement to allow us to market these technologies to a very limited number of potential customers including homeland security and the defense markets.
Lockheed Martin builds fighter jets and military equipment?
And missiles, rockets, ground equipment, vehicles, and systems sensors. Obviously everything that requires power to operate. Power is becoming a sticking point or burden to the warfighter and that’s one of the things were focused on is coming up with solutions that make the warfighter’s job easier and more efficient.
Are you looking to develop portable energy storage for the battlefield?
Yes there are opportunities not only to help in the area of relieving some of the dependence on fuel as energy. Also to increase the value of some of the renewable energy initiatives that are going on right now. Energy storage increase the value of these types of power generation technologies. EEStor’s technology can help in that area.
What have you seen from EEStor in terms of their technology?
We’ve visited their facility. We were very impressed. They are taking an approach that lends itself to a very quick ramp-up in production. We’ve seen a lot of their testing and efforts to measure the purity of the powders that they use, and the chemistry. Well be working with them very closely this year to develop prototypes in certain pursuits.
Have you been able to evaluate any of their current prototypes?
That’s an effort that’s ongoing. We’re really just getting started to integrate their technology into some of the efforts that we have going on here. That’s going to be something that we’re doing this year.
So its a collaborative effort to build the prototypes then?
That’s right.
Do they have something that they’ve tested that you’ve seen which makes you want to work with them?
We haven’t personally tested their prototypes yet. Its something that we’ll work on together this year.
How does Lockheed Martin feel about ultracaps and storage versus li-ion or NiMh batteries?
Lockheed Martin doesn’t have a bias. One way or another its really just a function of what does the customer want. For certain applications being able to provide pulse power is really really important, in another its not so much really pulse power but continuous power. If you talk to the Army they are really interested in hybridized solutions. Suffice it to say that EEStor’s technology is a piece of some of these systems solutions that we come up with. We are a system integrator so we look at the EEStor technology as a building block or a tool in a toolbox to provide the best solutions for the soldier.
Do you see the ultracap as a power solution or an energy solution?
The EEStor chemistry and architecture lends itself to both types of applications. Its a scalable technology. In the situation where you are trying to store energy, transport it without discharge obviously thats very attractive in the utility grid load leveling (situation). If your talking about powering for example a high energy weapon that requires a short burst of energy a capacitor is a great approach to do that. Capacitors are in hybridized systems today for that reason. The chemistry is great purely form the view of battery technology but its also very attractive for some of these extremely high pulse power applications.
Are you looking to use this technology in any vehicular type of application?
We have a number of platforms that were working on. Our applied research group is primarily focused on land forces power management which involves several area including vehicular power.
The needs of a consumer for a hybrid fuel-efficient car versus the need for a soldier in the battlefield are a bit different. The common theme there is ‘what can we do to make them more efficient’, and battery technology is important for that.
Are you confident that their technology will offer a greater amount of energy and power density than batteries?
Yes, and at a fraction of the cost.
Do their caps hold 10x the energy at 1/10th the weight of a lead acid battery?
Yes.
How does the the price of EEStor’s capacitors compare with Li-ion or NiMh batteries?
It really depends on the chemistry, the volume, the packaging, the application. It is really application-specific. It’s going to be lower price. Were not just concerned about hardware cost. Really what were focused on is logistics. Especially the logistics footprint in theater. That’s probably more important than material cost. And that one of the things that we think this technology can bring. Because it can be used for a variety of applications with a common architecture and chemistry. Its compact, its scalable and can be applied to a variety of applications. That obviously very attractive to a logistics community, to have more common components and that type of thing.
Is there a production plan for 2008?
Yes for EEStor. Their approach is when they start manufacturing these batteries, not just the cells, but also the package assembly, they will be in production. If you can get a visit to EEStor they’ll show you their process and everything they’ve got in place to support that. Assuming that everything comes together in terms of tests and qualifications and that sort of thing, they will be ready to ramp up very quickly, because of the nature if the architecture and scalability of what they are doing.
Can you say anything about the use of EEStor’s technology in commercial vehicles?
We are basically working with them exclusively and in the homeland security and defense department’s markets. The commercial vehicle market, that’s what EEStor will pursue. If their is a military application then we’re going to help them integrate their technology into those applications, but when it comes to commercial vehicles that’s EEStor’s responsibility.
Popularity: 9%
(46 votes, average: 4.78 out of 5) 
Loading ...
January 10th, 2008 at 2:45 am
Thanks Lyle, very interesting. The world is an interesting place to live in especially when we have the chance to have http://www.gm-volt.com
January 10th, 2008 at 7:07 am
I guess that “capacitance gel” is almost here!!!!
It is an amazing time to be alive!
January 10th, 2008 at 7:40 am
I had pretty much written EEStor off as vaporware at this point. This is a fairly encouraging development. If they can deliver, it should vastly accelerate the electrification of transportation, not to mention speeding the adoption of home based solar (cheap storage).
January 10th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Will this agreement mean the end for this ultracaps in commercial vehicles?
Maybe they can stop this technology or hold it off the market due to exclusive rights.
January 10th, 2008 at 8:34 am
I think most people had written EEStor off, as you can see from some of the comments at MIT’s Tech Review site:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/
You can’t underestimate how big this is if EEStor pulls it off. It would replace batteries in any application that can justify the cost of extra power electronics. Hell, at that energy density, who will be the first to make an EEStor powered airplane?
January 10th, 2008 at 9:05 am
[quote comment="25878"]If they can deliver, it should vastly accelerate the electrification of transportation, not to mention speeding the adoption of home based solar (cheap storage).[/quote]
Why do people seem to associate batteries with home solar systems? You only need batteries if you live off the grid. See here for details:
http://www.affordable-solar.com/gt-intro.htm
January 10th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Dave G,
You only NEED batteries if you live off the grid, however if you are on the grid and if there is a CHEAP energy storage device available it will increase the Return on Investment of your solar panels because you’ll be storing what you don’t currently use for later use and therefore be getting more out of the same panels and be LESS on the grid. This also makes it easier for you to get totally off the grid if you want to; which before only made sense for isolated locations.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Lockheed interest is huge. The fact that they have investigated the technology and formalized an agreement means EESTORE is for real, not vaporware.
We do not have an energy problem in the U.S., we have an energy storage problem. EESTORE may go a long way in solving that problem.
Now, if they are able to pull this off, who wins, and who loses?
January 10th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Absolutely amazing! Thanks Lyle!
Like Todd #3 and others, I too had pretty much written off EEStor for the near term. Guess some of us were to quick on that score.
The most interesting part of the interview is the statements “Their (EEStor) approach is when they start manufacturing these batteries, not just the cells, but also the package assembly, they will be in production.” Sounds very encouraging!
I just wish EEStor can bring their product to market soon enough for the Volt v1. Well, I can at least dream!
January 10th, 2008 at 9:49 am
There is one thing that goes unnoticed often in ultracap discussions: a capacitor is not a battery. Let me explain.
Capacitors discharge graph does not look anything like any battery discharge graph, meaning that power electronics drawing from there have to be completely different. In essence, to get constant voltage and constant power into a constant load from an ultracap, you need a DC-DC converter, which deals with a very wide range of voltages on the draw side.
Not necessarily more complex or more expensive than battery management circuits for lithium batteries ( pretty much a fundamental requirement for any serious application ) but necessarily different. So the research and solutions so far put into predominantly battery-electric drivetrains will not directly transfer over to ultracap-powered ones.
Efficient inverters for AC motor that draws from battery and one that draws from ultracap without intermediate converter stage are quite different.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:51 am
[quote comment="25904"]Lockheed interest is huge. The fact that they have investigated the technology and formalized an agreement means EESTORE is for real, not vaporware.
We do not have an energy problem in the U.S., we have an energy storage problem. EESTORE may go a long way in solving that problem.
Now, if they are able to pull this off, who wins, and who loses?[/quote]
Agreed. Gives them credibility.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Someone suggested in this forum sometime ago that if EEStor can pull this off we might see people with an ultracapacitor in their garage to recharge their Volt (or other EREV).
We could also see a network of recharge stations with a bank of ultracapacitors for recharging EREV’s!
The possibilities are unlimited!
January 10th, 2008 at 9:58 am
As a follow up to #12, this could quickly lead to EV’s rather than EREV’s.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Does anyone have a link where I can get more information on Figure 3 and Figure 4 at the top of this post?
January 10th, 2008 at 10:23 am
[quote comment="25922"]Does anyone have a link where I can get more information on Figure 3 and Figure 4 at the top of this post?[/quote]
Estero, I found figure 4 at
http://www.rexresearch.com/weir/weir.htm
Scroll down the page until you see the graphic. Above the graphic is a PDF link.
There you will find figure 3. There is a lot to read and all of it is over my head.
Perhaps this is what you are looking for? Good luck.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:28 am
This is very exciting news. Great interview Lyle.
FTA:
[quote]Are you confident that their technology will offer a greater amount of energy and power density than batteries?
Yes, and at a fraction of the cost.
Do their caps hold 10x the energy at 1/10th the weight of a lead acid battery?
Yes.
[/quote]
All I can say is “wow”.
With military funding behind it, there’s little chance that battery/ultracap/etc technology will lag. Just think of all of the applications:
1) “Quiet tanks” - currently an M1 Abrams can be heard from literally miles away. Diesel Hummers aren’t much better. These vehicles could go into EV mode for the last few miles when on the assault.
2) More personal electronics for the foot solider. More power density = lighter batteries. Imagine nigh vision goggles that only had to be charged once a month.
3) Logistical improvements. For operation Iraqi Freedom, the army constructed an expensive gasoline pipeline from Kuwait all the way into the middle of Iraq because it turned out that would be cheaper than trucking in all of the thousands of gallons of gas the war effort was using daily. Imagine trucking in a couple of refrigerator-sized reactors instead and just charging up the vehicles.
4) Energy weapons. Missile defense systems utilizing high-intensity lasers have proven successful. Making these systems mobile has been a major road block in fielding this tech.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:57 am
[quote comment="25902"]Dave G,
You only NEED batteries if you live off the grid, however if you are on the grid and if there is a CHEAP energy storage device available it will increase the Return on Investment of your solar panels because you’ll be storing what you don’t currently use for later use and therefore be getting more out of the same panels and be LESS on the grid.[/quote]
Using batteries in a home solar system actually gives you less Return on Investment. Specifically, your investment is more (cost of batteries) and your return is less (efficiency losses). Using a grid-tie solar system, electricity that you don’t use is sent direclty to the power company. Your electric meter spins backwards. With an off-grid battery system, there are more conversions between AC and DC and for different voltages, so the efficiency is less.
Also note that grid-tie is good for the everyone else because it produces the most electricity when power scarce, like on hot sunny days. So grid-tie solar systems help prevent brown-outs and rolling black-outs.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:06 am
I kept reading “naval rail gun” when he referred to interest in “pulse power”.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:13 am
10X the energy at 1/10th the weight at a fraction of the cost of batteries and it’s scalable?
Energy is the ability to do work. (The depth of the water)
Power is the rate at which work is done. (The speed of the river)
Therefore fast charging/discharging ultracapacitors are normally best for power requirements such as storing electricity generated during hard braking and releasing it quickly during rapid acceleration.
However a 40-lb EEStor ultracapacitor would be able to hold enough energy to go 400 miles between charges (400-lb Li-ion pack / 10 = 40-lb ultracapacitor).
Power in this application is almost irrelevant because these ultracapacitors would be capable of producing far more power than the car would ever require. They would in fact be a drag racer’s dream and a controller’s nightmare!
Why are they wasting so much time and money on Li-Ion when we should be concentrating on these?
January 10th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Re. Post #19.
Be careful - the energy density is 10x Lead-Acid, and 2x Li-Ion. Still amazing.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:17 am
[quote comment="25944"]
Power in this application is almost irrelevant because these ultracapacitors would be capable of producing far more power than the car would ever require. quote]
I don’t mean to be pessimistic, but don’t put it past the American consumer to use (read: waste) any extra energy capacity. I mean why buy a 4-door Excursion when you could have a 6-door one? lol.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Question: “Why are they wasting so much time and money on Li-Ion when we should be concentrating on these?”
Answer: The military industrial complex ALWAYS gets the best tech first!
“Grandma, you have such big teeth.” “All the better to eat you with my dear!”
Damn, I’m answering my own questions now…
January 10th, 2008 at 11:36 am
After Lockheed Martin announced that partnership, everyone seemed to be looking for EEStor stock which is not traded publicly as of yet. Closest thing they could find is Canadian partner ZENN cars who has been one of the several investors in EEStor. (ZNN) is traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange - see
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/292614
Stock went up 24% in one day - unbelievable.
Obviously the public interest in this product is huge, and from what I can see the biggest news from Lyle’s interview is that the unicorn is real according to this Mr. Liebman from LM -
Lyle asks: “Do their caps hold 10x the energy at 1/10th the weight of a lead acid battery?”
Liebman answers: “Yes.”
Holy crap.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Drake (#21)
“…don’t put it past the American consumer to use (read: waste) any extra energy capacity.”
If they collect the electrons free from the PV collectors on the roof of their home, they can “waste” all the free, non polluting energy they want. Of course, it they were SMART, they would buy only the vehicle they NEED (not want) and sell the excess to the grid at peak rates for an extra income source and to reduce grid polluting generating requirements.
Unfortunately, egos are fragile and not everyone is that intelligent, thoughtful or considerate.
How many mansions do each the current crop of Presidential candidates own?
January 10th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Actually, EEStor’s devices have been mostly deescribed in the pas as hybrid capacitors, not pure capacitors, so none of the capicitor characteristics necessarily apply here. I’ve been backand forth on EEStor for the past 1 1/2 years and lately was rather pessimistic, since they had apparently missed their goal of supplying their main client (ZENN Motors, of Canada) with their promised 15KWhr EESU for testing before the end of 2007. But the last comments I heard (several months ago) from the CEO of ZENN was his statement that the devices work and will be “game changing,” which would be quite an understatement. I know everyone here is rooting for success for this Autin-based company to pull off what many, many knowledgeable folks had been skeptical about, mostly because the numbers that EEStor was claiming were so far in advance of anything anyone else had ever achieved in this technology. The head of EEStor has simply said publically that his devices work “as advertised.” Period. Let’s
hope so.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Tim #24 - I agree about the solar. Concering your original comment, I guess a more positive way to look at it would be that maybe we would only have to charge our EVs once a month (as opposed to filling up with gas once a week).
Porting this tech over to cell phone might mean only having to charge it quarterly. How cool would that be?
January 10th, 2008 at 11:51 am
I have been following EESTOR for over a year, and I, like many others, initially thought it was vaporware, but those answers from Lockheed Martin sound like they are pretty confident. I hope they really are as good as they say.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I apologize in advance if I’m wrong about this, but I believe EEStor signed an exclusive agreement with Feel Good Cars (Zenn Motor Company) in Canada, and that their car is not classed as the same type of vehicle as the Volt.
The advantage of an ultracap IMO is not so much the amount of energy it can store, but the recharge speed. Your garage’s outlet physically does not have the current required to recharge a large storage device in a short amount of time. With ultracaps, banks of them could be installed at service stations. The electric grid keeps them topped off, and drivers can periodically come and recharge in a few minutes.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
OhmExcited #28 - why not just upgrade the outlet and/or line voltage in your garage? It sure beats paying $3.00+/gallon (btw, gasoline is predicted to increase 30% in 2008) for gas or $10,000 for a hydrogen producing machine.
I wouldn’t mind making some improvements to my home to accomodate E-REVs/EVs. Heck, it’s bound to increase the property value as gasoline become more expensive.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
[quote comment="25965"]The electric grid keeps them topped off, and drivers can periodically come and recharge in a few minutes.[/quote]
If the battery in the car can handle that high of a charge rate, of course. But yes, you bring up a very valid point. Even charging in an hour or something might be much faster than a normal household electrical circuit could provide, depending on the battery capacity.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Kent: Time to start researching recipes for baked crow. Here are some of your own words over the last year:
“This is all crazy…has anyone checked the technology…I have been in Barium Titanate capacitors for 30 years..THIS WILL NOT WORK!!!”
“EEStor will, in my opinion, never come to market. ”
“There is no good evidence (or even reason) for believing the capacitor will succeed. I will be flabbergasted if it actually works. And so will plenty of capacitor engineers. EEStor has been making claims that no one believes.”
“EEStor has earned a reputation as a company that claims to be secretive about its product but somehow manages to get all kinds of details out there spread
all over themedia. I have seen nothing but empty promises and missed deadlines. I’m quite sure they have no working product and from the looks of the silly patent they were granted, they never will have. Sorry, but you’ll have to look elsewhere for an electric
battery. “
January 10th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but Lockheed (a defense contractor) doesn’t care about cost nearly as much as GM. This may be good though, as EEStor may have a chance to reduce costs with some volume.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
[quote comment="25961"]Tim #24 - I agree about the solar. Concering your original comment, I guess a more positive way to look at it would be that maybe we would only have to charge our EVs once a month (as opposed to filling up with gas once a week).
Porting this tech over to cell phone might mean only having to charge it quarterly. How cool would that be?[/quote]
I may be wrong, but I think capacitors leak energy much faster than batteries. They are not meant for long-term storage.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
[quote comment="25947"]Be careful - the energy density is 10x Lead-Acid, and 2x Li-Ion. Still amazing.[/quote]
Thanks for the clarification. That one fooled me as well.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Once again, its a lot of excitement over something that can be characterized as an incremental upgrade by now.
2x li-ion energy density ? Which lithium ion ? There are at least five dominant lithium chemistries on the market, ranging from 80wh/k to over 200wh/kg. Which ones are we talking about ?
Power density ? For EV applications even NiMH has more power density than you will ever need for car sized battery pack.
Add to that the power electronics complications ( ultracap with decent storage likely means thousands of volts at peak charge and linear voltage drop when discharging ) and possibly not being able to fully use the entire energy at all, and on system level we may be looking at fairly modest advance over modern batteries.
And thats not even touching the ever important cost. If A123 batteries or any other decent LiFePO4 was like $100/Kwh everybody and their dogs would be in EVs already.
In other words, before we see a product, i will retain “lets wait and see” position on this.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Brian (#33)- In the case of an E-REV-40, “long term” storage may be a moot point. Anyway, ALL systems that store electrons leak. The important questions: “Is the leakage rate of this storage system acceptable for the assigned task?” and “Does its advantages (cost, weight, power & energy outweigh its shortcomings leakage, safety, thermo etc.?” Imagine this ultracapacitor shorting out and discharging ALL of its energy in one flash! OUCH!!!
At the very least, these could be used in series with Li-Ion batteries so that more regen braking energy could be recycled and pack thermo could be better managed by controlling battery energy flow during acceleration & deceleration. At best, they could replace the Li-ion packs altogether.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
::At the very least, these could be used in series with Li-Ion batteries so that more regen braking energy could be recycled
Depends on your lithium and on your pack. With really small packs like Prius, obviously the pack is too small to absorb full braking energy. With 40-PHEV like VOLT or full EV some lithium battery chemistries could absorb maximum deceleration energy right now ( maximum G given ABS brakes ) without breaking a sweat.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
2x li-ion energy density ? Which lithium ion ? There are at least five dominant lithium chemistries on the market, ranging from 80wh/k to over 200wh/kg. Which ones are we talking about ?
Lead Acid batterys are about 25-35 wH/Kg. So, They are talking 250 to 350 wh/KG.
I would sure like to see a public demo of a cell. Also the leak rate will be critical.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
2x li-ion energy density ? Which lithium ion ? There are at least five dominant lithium chemistries on the market, ranging from 80wh/k to over 200wh/kg. Which ones are we talking about ?
Good point. The number I’ve seen thrown around is 1MJ/kg (280Wh/kg).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEstor
From reading EEStor patent applications, they’ve tried to reduce leakage by coating the BaTi(?) particles with glass, and so are claiming quite good self-discharge characteristics.
The big question in my mind is temperature performance. I’m guessing that the cap doesn’t do well at temperature extremes.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
250wh/KG wouldnt be that much of an improvement over best lithium polymer cells at all, 200wh/kg is easily on the market and as high as 500wh/kg in the laboratories.
Whether they are the “holy grail” or not depends on so many variables, cost being the most important of them, and they definitely wont be holy grail for all battery applications.
I could see why military is interested, they need the insane power densities for stuff like energy weapons and so on, but for EV/PHEV application they may not be any grail at all.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
So have you looked at the Zenn car? There’s a video on their web site where a Toronto TV host raves about the car then they take it for a drive. What’s not to like right?
Then you read the specs and this thing tops out at a blistering speed of 25 mph! What? That’s not a car its golf cart!
Can someone tell me why this is? I don’t understand why an electric car would be built to perform this badly.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Eestor’s U.S. patent 7,033,406 B2 dated 2006-APR-25 states in Table 1 that their EESU has the following properties:
ENERGY: 52.2 kW*hr
WEIGHT: 336 pounds
VOLUME: 2,005 cubic inches
DISCHARGE RATE: 0.1% every 30 days
Compare to a lead acid (gel) battery shown in the same table:
ENERGY: 52.2 kW*hr
WEIGHT: 3,646 pounds
VOLUME: 43,045 cubic inches
DISCHARGE RATE: 1% every 30 days
The discharge rate (leakage) of the EESU is about 1/10th that of a lead acid battery. The EESU should hold its charge for 10 times as long as a lead acid battery.
Table 1 in the patent doesn’t show lithium ion batteries.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Sometimes it’s just too difficult to not count unhatched chickens. So….
Scoop of the year. Tech of the decade.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Kert (#37), You are correct in that the new Li-Ion chemistries and designs have less resistance than older ones. Less resistance = less heat. Less heat = longer life, more efficiency and less complex thermal management systems.
The big deal here is cost, weight, simplicity and lifespan. Electrons stored on the surface of a material as in a capacitor is always more efficiently transferred than electrons that must be stripped from within one material to be deposited into another as in a battery.
This electron sequestration allows batteries to have less “leakage” whereas it’s the “surface” storage of capacitors which allow them to move energy more efficiently.
Apparently, EEStor’s ultracapacitor is a hybrid. I’m no expert, but this appears to be a capacitor with battery chemistry that allows for shallow electron capture and sequestration within a thin coating of chemistry between the plates. I’m thinking of a “wide shallow pool” which captures and releases electrons with little resistance rather than the traditional “deep lake” battery which requires more work (and heat) to pull the electrons up from the depths. Nano materials are currently being used in Li-Ion batteries to reduce resistance, but this is the next logical step. Another approach to a “shallower pool” is silicon nonotubes and there was an article on this site relating to this subject.
Ceramic capacitors are cheap. Coating them with the right nano-powder, separating with the right material and assembling them in to a stack should also be relatively simple process. Of course the devil is in the details and that is where Lockheed Martin comes in. Interesting stuff. we’ll probably see it in directed energy weapons before we get access to it.
January 10th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Estero:
Those figures are from EEStor’s International Publication no WO 2006/026136 A2
January 10th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
The C-rates for LiFePO4 or LiMn2O4 are such that the minimum energy capacity that provides enough power for an EV is around 16KWh. That’s why the Volt was designed around this number.
If EEStore’s hybrid ultracap/battery technology can achieve higher energy density at a lower cost, then it can penetrate the full-power EV market. But its superior power density is not really a part of the equation at these pack sizes.
Where this technology could come into play is in a fuel-electric vehicle, a non-plug-in configuration of E-Flex. Such a vehicle would require a small ~2KWh energy buffer between the fuel generator/cell and the electric drive, and batteries simply can’t provide enough power at such small capacities.
In short, EEStor’s technology is most useful in providing enormous power bursts (e.g. naval rail gun) or getting relatively high power (e.g. EV) out of a small energy buffer. But if they can be made cheap and light enough, they could supplant batteries in EVs.
They would also be useful as large energy buffers for rapid charge stations even if the EVs themselves use batteries. But if many drivers line up to buy half-megawatt charges, the station would still need a massive grid tie to keep their ultracap array replenished.
So a very interesting potential consumer of ultracap technology is the electric utility industry, who could strategically position them throughout the grid to absorb peaks and valleys in demand. If rapid charge stations are to spring up across the country, then the grid is going to have to support a lot of bursty, high-capacity tie-ins.
January 10th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
The physics works on paper, but in practice the EEStor capacitor as described in their patent would be a remarkable accomplishment. They need to contain 3500 volts across a very thin coating of barium titanate. To do this the material needs to be a single crystal. Their patent suggests rather low permeability glass filler — thus no single crystal. The capacitor will breakdown — rather violently — internally. They claim operation voltage of 3500 volts down to about 250. This is not a simple control or DC-DC conversion problem. Some people have used the term “vaporware” to describe this ledged technology. They’re being kind.
January 10th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
[quote comment="26035"]They claim operation voltage of 3500 volts down to about 250. This is not a simple control or DC-DC conversion problem.[/quote]
Bringing the cap from 3500V down to 1100V gets 90% of the energy out. This ~3:1 input range is not all that challenging for a DC/DC converter.
January 10th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
“Using batteries in a home solar system actually gives you less Return on Investment. Specifically, your investment is more (cost of batteries) and your return is less (efficiency losses).”
You only use what’s in the battery at night, which is energy your panels produced over your demand and you were otherwise going to sell to the grid for a fraction of the cost you pay for electricity.
“Using a grid-tie solar system, electricity that you don’t use is sent direclty to the power company.”
It’s sent to the power company, but at a much lower price than you pay for it. When you get it back from your battery, it is worth multiple times more to you because otherwise you would have to pay multiple times more for the same electricity from the grid.
“With an off-grid battery system, there are more conversions between AC and DC and for different voltages, so the efficiency is less.”
Storage in the battery and then conversion to AC only occurs to that excess energy you were otherwise going to sell back to the grid at a fraction of a cost you pay for it. The losses due to conversion are less significant than the price difference between buying and selling on the grid.
“Also note that grid-tie is good for the everyone else because it produces the most electricity when power scarce, like on hot sunny days. So grid-tie solar systems help prevent brown-outs and rolling black-outs.”
Won’t argue with that, but also note that grid-tie with solar WITH energy storage is even better for this very same point.
January 10th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
“The C-rates for LiFePO4 or LiMn2O4 are such that the minimum energy capacity that provides enough power for an EV is around 16KWh”
This number depends on your rated peak power of the drivetrain, and given cell C rating. They are different you know. For some LiFEPo4 its only ~2C or ~4C, while A123 is claimed to do 10C discharge.
With smaller motor drawn, the balance number is smaller.
I am getting far smaller pack for my own EV conversion which will still provide sufficient peak power draw.
January 10th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I’m still going to call this ‘vaporware’…This will NEVER go towards use in electric vehicles. The government has too much money to lose if people don’t need oil to drive.
January 10th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
For the record i thought EEstor was a bunch of crap, but this changes everything.
Lyle asks: “Do their caps hold 10x the energy at 1/10th the weight of a lead acid battery?”
Liebman answers: “Yes.”
He didn’t say well that’s what were shooting for, or our scientist think it’s possible, or any other wiggle statement.
Yes is yes, cut and dry. Lockhead Martin, damn i couldn’t feel any better than if GM had just signed with them. Lockhead Martin dosen’t due smoke and mirrors, they due grossly overpriced Govt. contracts but not vaPOrizer.
Holy Cow if they really make this work our lives are gonna change alot in the next 10 years. Forget cars how about phones you charge once a month, laptops that are twice as light and last 10 times as long.
What an awesome time to be alive! & I’m only 28!!!!
January 10th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Ok let’s not get crazy here! EEstor is only talking about doubling the capacity of existing Li ion batteries. Your laptop goes from 2 hours to 4 hours - not a month! Nobody uses lead acid batteries in a laptop - or an EV for that matter. An increase from 40 to 80 miles in the Volt would be great news but it doesn’t mean we only charge the car once a week!
January 10th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
If you had a capacitor in the car and capacitors at the “fueling” station would you be able to re-energize almost instantly ?
January 10th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
#41 (Chris)… a top speed of 25mph… that sounds like the vehicle is an NEV (neighborhood electric vehicle)
A couple other applications for super/ultra capacitors that I’ve read about…
…in diesel-electric trains for regen, where as has been mentioned, too much power for batteries
…in power company sub-stations for load balancing. Could be considered a little like what folks see V2G doing.
Other super/ultra cap stories…
Axion Power gets the lead out
http://media.cleantech.com/node/1426
Enova Systems to Debut Ultracapacitor Technology
http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=16786
Nano Battery is Paper-Thin
http://tinyurl.com/2ax6ee
January 10th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
RE #49 - wow
Wow, I wonder if you have solar?
I think that you misunderstand net metering. The period usually applies to a year, not overnight.
I have about 13KW of solar power, which is more than twice the size of most residential solar systems. That’s enough to power a fleet of 6 Volts for 10,000 miles per year, or power my house, my heat pump, and one Volt. Or enough peak power to power the whole street (a small street)!
It is VERY VERY rare for batteries to be worth while with residential solar.
Uses for batteries:
1) Off grid.
2) Backup — a generator is usually more cost effective, unless you NEED millisecond switch over, or more than a couple of days run time.
3) Net meter scheme where you are forced to use two separate meters (or a digital meter with directional charging), AND where time of use does NOT apply. I know of no such net meter scheme.
Most net metering schemes wind the meter back at the SAME rate as forward in KWh. Yes you are paid a different rate for what you sell to what you buy. However, that only applies at the end of the year. So if I use 14,000KWh in a year, but generate 15,000KWh in a year, then I will be paid a below retail avoided cost rate for the 1,000KWh that I generated at excess at the end of the year. If I generate 13,999KWh then I pay for 1KWh in the year at normal retail rates, regardless of whether I generated at day or night.
In those cases where digital meters record bi-directionally, they also usually include time of use, which means that they pay you more for day time generation than you pay for night time use.
You’ve just got it wrong.
There is one other case that I can think of. Imagine in 20 years if 50% of residences have solar power, and total peak power of solar is more than 100% of what the grid can consume. Then I can see a need to store the excess for over night use. We are so so so far from that position.
In summary BATTERIES are NOT SUITABLE for grid tie. Take it from someone with 13KW of grid tie.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
It is still a vaporware. No prototypes, independent tests and very doubtful physics behind. No other team in the field of dielectric physics is even close to their stated values of energy density. There are strong arguments that it won’t function: Barium Titanate isn’t a linear dielectric therefore a textbook formula C=0.5 C V^2 is not applicable for BaTi. They base their claim on this formula, but for BaTi C itself is a function of voltage (field). It depends on how you apply the voltage (hysteresis). Based on study of their patent applications, my opinion is that this is very refined form of scum. Even Lockheed Martin is prone to such sophisticated form of disinformation.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Lockheed Martin probably doesn’t pay out a cent until they have a working prototype.
Exciton: I don’t suppose you’d like to post these allegations of fraud with your full name and address? It’s a bit early to be using the “scum” label without any proof.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:00 am
[quote comment="26120"]… Based on study of their patent applications, my opinion is that this is very refined form of scum. Even Lockheed Martin is prone to such sophisticated form of disinformation.[/quote]
So you think no one at Lockheed is quite as smart as you then?
January 11th, 2008 at 12:44 am
It is not only my opinion, read carefully here http://tyler.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/11/1/3328442.html
The whole issue sounds very convincing for any electrical engineer. I’m sure those guys have such level.
The devil lies in detail might be unknown for Lockheed people. You have to know physics of perovskite compounds. This is a narrow research field, 40-60 people active in the world.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Nanowire battery can hold 10 times the charge of existing lithium-ion battery.
News Article:
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html
January 11th, 2008 at 2:15 am
Arh, so Exciton, we are honored that one of the 40-60 people in the world with the appropriate knowledge is reading our forum.
You are one of those few people in the world qualified in this area aren’t you?
Of course we are all entitled to opinions. But let’s not be dismissive on either side.
My job is mostly software debugging, and the number of times that I see supposedly qualified people screw up badly is stunning. Indeed identifying and fixing the mistakes of the “qualified” is my bread and butter work, and I have no shortage of work.
I usually find that the mark of an expert is someone who is willing to own up to how little they actually know. Which is usually more than those claiming to be expert know.
Look at Nano Solar, they have been secretive, but they’ve done just what they said they would do so far. There are good reasons for private companies to be secretive. They don’t want to reveal everything via patents either.
January 11th, 2008 at 3:13 am
I think it is still to early to say we are saved but this news is very good. This ultra cap will go great with nano solar thin film solar panels. We are still looking at many years before we get our hands on either one but still the future is looking very bright. As for the gov not letting us use the tech is laughable, what will the gov do when gas is $5 to $6 dollar a gallon and a barrel of oil is $150 to $200 dollars a barrel. We still do have a lot of oil left but the cheap good stuff is declining fast this is why we have a supply problem right now, demand is higher the production right now. these techs will happen but in a slow and at times painful pace. We do live in exciting times but also very very scary times to, be perpared for the worse even if it never comes.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:51 am
[quote comment="26181"]Arh, so Exciton, we are honored that one of the 40-60 people in the world with the appropriate knowledge is reading our forum.
You are one of those few people in the world qualified in this area aren’t you? [/quote]
No, simply as any physicist in the world, I am able to understand the topic after some brief study, even if the physics of perovskites is not my field. I’had very rough knowledge of ferroelectrics before I stumbled upon the recent news.
Look what other people say:
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/242927.pdf
-read carefully the last page, the are only 3 of them excluding the title.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10595&page=50
Note the current (12-15 J/cc) and maximum achievable (80-100 J/cc) energy density. EEstor claims that they have x10 energy density then lead acid battery. This is 10x(0.17 MJ/L)= 1700 J/cc - 17 times more then the most favorable theoretical limit !
[quote comment="26181"]
Look at Nano Solar, they have been secretive, but they’ve done just what they said they would do so far. There are good reasons for private companies to be secretive. They don’t want to reveal everything via patents either [/quote]
The only secret they have is their production technology. CIGS itself is known, proven material. It can deliver promised performance. They aren’t only player in this field. Major selling point of Nanosolar is the low price due to their production technology. I have no problem with it so far.
January 11th, 2008 at 5:12 am
10X the energy at 1/10th the weight of a lead acid battery is 100x the energy as the same weight of it. 0,03 kWh/kg * 100 = 3 kWh/kg.
January 11th, 2008 at 5:46 am
I agree with Exiton. I have worked in these devices for 40 years, and EEStor’s claims are beyond belief. Extraordinary claims will need more proof. To suddenly come out with a dielectric which is 400 times the dielectric constant of the industry is incredible, maybe not impossible, but…
It does not add to the credibility, that they have claimed that increase for two radically different systems: Sintered BT capacitors with glass flux, and BT in plastic film. No attention paid to mixture rules, nor is the common formula acknowledged.
The absolute key question is whether the capacitance stays constant, or nearly so with voltage, noone has said that yet. Still a lot of ambiguity in the interview:
“Do they have something that they’ve tested that you’ve seen which makes you want to work with them?”
“We haven’t personally tested their prototypes yet. Its something that we’ll work on together this year”
Was that question answered?
January 11th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Neil:
Don’t be too hard on the anonymous amongst us…some companies have rules against making public statements.
In this litigious world, it appears the more expert one is considered to be, the less they should say
January 11th, 2008 at 8:30 am
The technology in question is described in a US patent assigned to EEStor, #7,033,406. There are at least three associated published patent applications. They claims to use a ceramic dielectric in a multilayered design to create a high-quality electrostatic capacitor. They also state that this capacitor will be operated at near its breakdown voltage and that many small capacitors will be parallel connected to create what is essentially a large plate area. The information provided in the patent discusses the material system in considerable detail, but for our purposes here I focus directly on the design which is, again, a multi-layer electrostatic capacitor being operated at several kilovolts and comprised physically of thousands of smaller multilayer units connected in parallel to achieve the energy needed.
There are two major flaws one can identify immediately in the patent description. The first is that electrostatic capacitors cannot reliably operate near the breakdown voltage as claimed. In the interests of reliability such capacitors are typically operated at 1/10th or a lower percentage of the breakdown voltage. Since stored energy in a capacitor is proportional to the voltage squared, reducing the voltage to a more typical value drops the energy by a factor of 100. The 340 Wh/kg quoted, therefore, would amount to ~3.4 Wh/kg in real terms, a figure just slightly lower than typical for electrochemical capacitors (the so called ultra or super capacitors) already available.
The second major flaw in the patent description is the fact that the technology is not scalable. In order to scale electrostatic capacitors, to be able to successfully parallel connect many of them, requires that they be self-clearing. Any single capacitor cell that breaks down must become an open circuit rather than a short circuit. Unfortunately, the technology described in the patent is not self-clearing and would create shorts. The sort of scaling required to connect a very large number of these small capacitors in parallel could not hope to be successful. On the other hand, metalized film capacitors are self-clearing, by design vaporizing the metal where dielectric breakdown sparks have ocurred in the film and thus failing as an open.
In regard, finally, to reliability, it is generally the case that the more piece parts there are in a system, the lower its reliability. If thousands and thousands of small electrostatic capacitors are parallel connected as the patent describes, this cannot help but present a reliability problem. NASA always counts the number of piece parts in a system as a rule of thumb for reliability. This patent describes literally hundreds of thousands of ceramic capacitors parallel connected into a single energy storage device. Any one of those failing would likely cause the entire system to fail. Reliability is obviously an issue here.
Some knowledgeable experts consider the EEStor technology simply a paper patent with major technical flaws and dismiss it out of hand. Others believe that the reliability issue by itself makes the technology suspect for use in large systems as described, in hybrid vehicles for instance. Comments by application engineers note in particular the high operating voltage (several kV)and the implementation problems this would create in a vehicle. The final chapter of this story has yet to be written.
January 11th, 2008 at 8:57 am
[quote comment="26237"]There are two major flaws one can identify immediately in the patent description. The first is that electrostatic capacitors cannot reliably operate near the breakdown voltage as claimed. In the interests of reliability such capacitors are typically operated at 1/10th or a lower percentage of the breakdown voltage. Since stored energy in a capacitor is proportional to the voltage squared, reducing the voltage to a more typical value drops the energy by a factor of 100. The 340 Wh/kg quoted, therefore, would amount to ~3.4 Wh/kg in real terms, a figure just slightly lower than typical for electrochemical capacitors (the so called ultra or super capacitors) already available.[/quote]
You’re right that this derating applies to ceramic caps. The actual breakdown is much higher than the rated voltage. But maybe it doesn’t apply to particles that are glass coated. After all, for there to be a change in the dielectric, doesn’t there have to be migration? And if each particle is glass encapsulated, doesn’t that prevent migration?
[quote comment="26237"]The second major flaw in the patent description is the fact that the technology is not scalable. In order to scale electrostatic capacitors, to be able to successfully parallel connect many of them, requires that they be self-clearing. Any single capacitor cell that breaks down must become an open circuit rather than a short circuit. Unfortunately, the technology described in the patent is not self-clearing and would create shorts. The sort of scaling required to connect a very large number of these small capacitors in parallel could not hope to be successful. On the other hand, metalized film capacitors are self-clearing, by design vaporizing the metal where dielectric breakdown sparks have ocurred in the film and thus failing as an open.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure that when I read their patent applications a couple months ago, that a self-clearing mechanism was described. This is absolutely necessary, and I think it is obvious as to why.
[quote comment="26237"]In regard, finally, to reliability, it is generally the case that the more piece parts there are in a system, the lower its reliability. If thousands and thousands of small electrostatic capacitors are parallel connected as the patent describes, this cannot help but present a reliability problem. NASA always counts the number of piece parts in a system as a rule of thumb for reliability. This patent describes literally hundreds of thousands of ceramic capacitors parallel connected into a single energy storage device. Any one of those failing would likely cause the entire system to fail. Reliability is obviously an issue here.[/quote]
Our company uses hundreds of millions of ceramic caps every year (worldwide usage is about 1 trillion per year). Being in a high-rel business, we track failures religiously. Ceramic caps have mechanical weaknesses, but when those issues are addressed, reliability is excellent.
[quote comment="26237"]The final chapter of this story has yet to be written.[/quote]
January 11th, 2008 at 9:36 am
[...] A new deal with Lockheed Martin, one of the nation’s biggest defense contractors, should see EEStor capacitors hitting the market in late 2008. In an interview on the GM-Volt blog, a Lockheed exec says he’s evaluated the company’s production line, and thinks once it gets started making capacitors it will be able to “ramp up very quickly.” [...]
January 11th, 2008 at 9:50 am
JohnG: I agree that the anonymity of the web is great for whistle blowers. But, if you’re going to use labels like “scum” you’d better have some proof. Otherwise it’s just a cowardly anonymous attack that you’d never see if the person was right there in the room with them.
Is it possible that they’ve left key technology and/or information out of their patent applications in order to delay competition?
January 11th, 2008 at 10:34 am
I know this web site is filled with those hoping so much for the Holy Grail in Power Storage & this leaves people to grasp for, hope for & believe at times in figments. Just because a Defence contractor signs an agreement to co- develope a proto type that currently does not exist does not mean it ever will. For every break through there are how many failures? Do you really believe there has never been a defence contractor spending boondoggle? I see this as a great investment opportunity….To sell some stock short. While everyone is on a feeding frenzy driving up the stock price, in the end those who jump head first toward this promised Ultra Capacitor Holy Grail and put all their eggs into one basket will likely fund my new Chevy Volt! Thank you! PS I spent 10 years of life in the Defense Industry & saw prototype’s first hand in the reserves. Most of which are unique and not cost effective for the mass market. Military applications by their nature are not designed to be cost effective, what price do you put on a soldier/sailor’s life. Can you afford it or convince someone to fund it & will it accomplish the mission better than current methods. Hope I am wrong but not getting my hopes to high on this news.
January 11th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Neil:
“Is it possible that they’ve left key technology and/or information out of their patent applications in order to delay competition?”
It’s possible, I suppose, but then why file a useless patent? The USPTO rules say that one must have sufficient information in the patent that “a person of ordinary skill in the art” can duplicate it….the so-called “best-mode”
If one has invented a breakthrough product, they normally say, for example, “prior art dielectric with this high field capabi