Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Q&A With Lithium Battery Charging Breakthrough Inventor Byoungwoo Kang, and What Does This Mean for Electric Cars?

March 13th, 2009 | Posted in: Battery, Research

On March 11th, the world heard about a new breakthrough in lithium-ion battery technology. Researchers Gerbrand Ceder and Byoungwoo Kang created a new technique that gives lithium-ion batteries a 100 fold increase in power density. These new batteries when moved from lab to factory could allow charging at 100 times the speed and release of 100 times the power of batteries in use today.

This technology may apply well to small batteries such as those in a cellphone that one could charge in 10 seconds using typical household current. To recharge an electric car using such a battery at maximum rate, though potentially only taking 5 minutes, would require much more massive currents than whats found in the typical household. But it could enable the possibility of rapid public charging stations.

In general, electric vehicles (EV) need batteries with high energy density so that they are light and compact and can store many miles worth of driving energy. Power density is also needed to a lesser extent to release sufficient bursts of energy for acceleration and hill-climbing.

Hybrid (HEVs) batteries need better power density to assist the gas engine in high power situations, but energy density is less important. Thus, an automotive battery is usually described in terms of power to energy ratios. A high PE is good for HEVs, EV requirements are lowest, and PHEVs are in between.

GE automotive battery expert Herman Weigman told GM-Volt.com of this new breakthrough “a battery of such high power density is only of interest to HEV’s (and military pulse power applications), where you need to install power capability over a 1~30 second time frame.” He was less enthusiastic about its use in EVs noting “an EV is only interested in Energy Density (Wh/kg and Wh/Liter) and the cost of that energy ($/kWh)… they will never use the (new) technology.”

I was able to obtain a very brief Q & A with Byoungwoo Kang, the key MIT scientist who created the breakthrough battery:

What type of energy density do your cells have, and are they superior in that regard to standard LiFePO4 batteries?
Our development is related to increase power density, not energy density. The energy density of our material is similar with standard LiFePO4 batteries.

What is the total number of cell cycles you have achieved with these?
Under Lab conditions, we tested the cell for at least 100 cycles. At that time, there was no capacity fading.

Do you see these cells being better for HEV or EV automotive applications?
Our strategy sharply increased the power density of the LiFePO4. Also, LiFePO4 has great thermal stability (No Explosion). These properties makes our material more likely feasible for HEV or EV. However, if you see these two properties are more important than others like energy density, our materials can (be used) for portable devices.

Posted by: Lyle

164 Responses to “Q&A With Lithium Battery Charging Breakthrough Inventor Byoungwoo Kang, and What Does This Mean for Electric Cars?”

Brian Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 6:05 am

It would be nice to have a battery that did more than 40 miles on a single charge and was lighter and last longer. It remains to be seen how they will use this new inprovement in the technology
Jim I Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 6:16 am

It is just good to know that there is a lot of work going on in battery development.

The next generation of electric cars will be that much better!

We just need to get Gen-1 out the door.

Go GM – Go GM Volt Team!

NPNS
Rob Kingston Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 7:01 am

Haha – basically means we can discharge our batteries faster too…

Still, this is an awesome achievement. Well done – can’t wait for these babies to hit the market…
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 7:04 am

From the article: He (Herman Weigman) was less enthusiastic about its use in EVs noting “an EV is only interested in Energy Density (Wh/kg and Wh/Liter) and the cost of that energy ($/kWh)…
————————————————————————————–
Translation: By the time you build a battery pack big enough to store the energy you need, it already has all the power you could want.

Let’s be clear. We already have a battery technology that works. The main problem is cost. Mass production is the answer. So let’s stop looking to research scientists, and start looking to manufacturing engineers for answers.
BillR Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 7:16 am

Since the energy density is unchanged, it appears that this technology would not provide any more or any less AER.

Its power density, however, is greater. So if you need a burst of power, this technology is better. Also, if you need to recharge faster, this also helps.

If the cost is not much more than conventional Li-Ion, this could be used in many battery packs due to its ability for rapid charging, and as mentioned by Lyle, it could be possible in the future to pull into an electric convenient mart to get a “quickie” (this quick charge process brings whole new meaning to the word “quickie”).

If the cost adder is significant, then this may make its way to premium cars like the Converj. Then you could increase the traction motor from a 120 kW to perhaps a 200 kW, and your battery pack could deliver the necessary amperage for fast acceleration.

Of course, this will also make sense for the hybrids for boost applications and so forth.

There sure are a lot of interesting develoments in the field of batteries lately.
Gsned57 Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 7:19 am

To Rob Kingston #3,

The worlds fastest electric motorcycle (the killacycle) or even the tesla roadster both use a bunch of high power density laptop cells ganged together to do 0 – 60 times that rival the fastest ICE cars. Being able to discharge 100 times faster would theoretically give you enough power to snap an axle at the start (assuming you had enough wheel grip and an electric motor that could handle it). With this technology, EV’s could hands down win any drag race against any ICE dragster.
jeremy Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 7:23 am

discharge faster huh = faster 0 to 60 times! lol do i smell sports ev?
also lighter because u dont need as much of matter .. cool.. lighter weight race cars.. vrooom!!
i can see it now nascarev!
mustang ev!
comaro EV!
lamborgini EV..
Kevin R Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 7:24 am

This new take will only spur further development of batteries able to be used in automobiles. However, all I want at this time is my Volt….and be able to buy one in 2010, in MICHIGAN!
Shawn Marshall Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 7:25 am

No we must stop all scientific development.
You can not charge during the daytime.
You can not use a quick charge feature.
You can not have a BEV.
You can not have a battery installation in your home.

Apparently some folks on this site are reluctant to accept the most expert advice of the Mr Felix Unger Rabbit Poster.

Ding Dong.
Hal Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 7:31 am

Article does NOT address the main question: COST.

This approach is said to allow the use of cheaper and more abundant materials — besides providing quick recharge.

With quick public recharge stations the range is not as much of an issue and with lower costs its a major advantage.

Overall this makes EV much more PRACTICAL.
k-dawg Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 8:02 am

I still only see this as an advantage for cars with very very large battery packs (basically BEV’s with 200+ mile range) so that the charge time can be reduced. No one wants to have to go more than 8hours of charging.

I guess it may help in regenerative braking if there’s a huge current surge.
Right Lane Cruiser Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 8:19 am

Something I haven’t seen anyone address yet — this improvement will substantially improve the capture of energy in regenerative braking. Such braking can result in quite high currents and existing systems typically can’t use it all because it would damage the battery. Some testing has been done with ultra capacitors used to capture this spike, then slowly feed it into the battery. MIT’s structure would be able to do away with the intermediate device and should do it for a lower cost as well.

This means that you actually will see a measurable increase in AER — simply because of improved regen efficiency.
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 8:21 am

#6 Gsned57 Says: The worlds fastest electric motorcycle (the killacycle) or even the tesla roadster both use a bunch of high power density laptop cells ganged together to do 0 – 60 times that rival the fastest ICE cars
————————————————————————————–
I don’t believe Tesla uses high power density cells. They use high energy density cells to increase range. The power per cell is relatively low.

But they use around 7000 cells to get 240 miles of range. With 7000 cells, you have all the power you could want, regardless of the power density. This is what I was trying to say in post #4.
Shoufeng Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 8:30 am

Claiming to be able to charge the battery in 10-60 sec is ridiculous for medium or large batteries, no only you would have lithium dendrite on the anode, which can cause fire/explosion, but also generate huge amount of heat that damages the battery. LiFePO4 is inherently stable/explosion proof, that does not mean the LiFePO4 battery is explosion proof.

For small batteries, energy density is the key, so LiFePO4 is unlikely to be used (did I mention the voltage is also different?), especially the high rate battery. I have actually evaluated metal oxide based 18650 who has a continous power of 2 Kw/Kg and equivalent energy to A123’s 26650M1, even the 18650 is only 50% smaller than 26650.

check here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506E2D81138F930A35753C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Brian Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 8:36 am

From a cost standpoint, the most exciting thing about this technology is the charge time. If you are able to have a battery pack with 200-300 mile range and a recharge time of only 5 minutes, the need for the engine totally goes away. This will significantly reduce cost and complexity and we will have a pure EV.
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 8:42 am

#9 Shawn Marshall Says:
No we must stop all scientific development.
You can not charge during the daytime.
You can not use a quick charge feature.
You can not have a BEV.
You can not have a battery installation in your home.
————————————————————————————–
Let me be clear:

• In the past, battery technology made EREVs and EVs impractical, so scientific development was critical. Today, battery energy density and power density is viable, but the cost is prohibitive. So while research is always helpful, we don’t have to wait for some new scientific development to get rolling, we just need to reduce the cost of the technology we have.

• Plug-in experts agree that most people should only consider charging overnight.

• Fast charging will require a whole new infrastructure, as well as an expanded grid. I believe people grossly underestimate the cost and time required to do this.

• I believe BEVs will have a limited appeal for a long, long time. EREVs will predominate.

• A battery installation in your home makes little sense to me. For solar/wind, the power company already acts as a big battery. Over 95% of home solar systems are grid-tie. Batteries are generally only used for remote off-grid locations, or to guard against power outages. Hmmm… power outages…, if daytime EV/EREV charging goes mainstream, maybe a battery installation in your home makes some sense…
MarkinWI Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 8:43 am

k-dawg @ #11 – There was a reference in one of the linked articles yesterday to increased ability to capture energy from regenerative breaking as a result of this technology.

Anyone: I’d be interested to know if the amount of such “lost energy” is significant enough to warrant pursuing, at least in city driving.
Gordon Green Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 8:48 am

This technology is another nail in the coffin of the internal combustion engine.

For battery powered cars to be a viable replacement for most of today’s gas powered cars, they must cost no more and be just as convenient.

Convenience means they have the same range and can be refueled as quickly.

Quick refueling may be solved by this fast charging technology.
Range is now a battery cost issue alone.
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 8:49 am

#10 Hal Says: Article does NOT address the main question: COST. This approach is said to allow the use of cheaper and more abundant materials — besides providing quick recharge.
————————————————————————————–
Byoungwoo Kang’s approach still uses LiFePO4, so the materials are the same.
statik Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 8:54 am

Nice follow-up get on the interview Lyle…you have been at this a long time now, and you are still really working hard at it…no small feat.

/I appreciate your effort.
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:00 am

#11 k-dawg Says: I guess it may help in regenerative braking if there’s a huge current surge.
————————————————————————————–
As I understand it, the Volt’s battery pack will supply the full 150 horsepower (~110kW) to the Volt’s motor. That’s what gives you full acceleration during the all-electric range.

Since batteries also accept current at around the same rate as the offer it, I think it’s fair to say that the Volt’s battery pack can accept up to 110kW burst power for regenerative braking.

Bottom line: With a battery pack as big as the Volt’s, you don’t have to worry much about power, either in or out of the battery.
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:01 am

#17 MarkinWI Says: Anyone: I’d be interested to know if the amount of such “lost energy” is significant enough to warrant pursuing, at least in city driving.
————————————————————————————–
See post #21
Van Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:04 am

Perhaps the next generation Volt battery will be both more powerful, because of utilization of this breakthrough, and have a higher specific energy (Wh/kg) using carbon nanofibers. As was pointed out before, we are in the dark as far as cost is concerned. How much more or less would a battery cost using either of these breakthroughs?
Rich Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:05 am

theoretically you could maybe eek out a teeny bit more AER (maybe a mile or so depending on driving conditions) because the faster charge rate without harming the batter would allow for greater recouping of energy through regen breaking. The amount recovered in current hybrids is limited to the amount/rate of energy that can be pushed back into the battery without damaging it or greatly reducing it’s effective life. If that battery can recharge faster, then you can get more of that energy back.

Still, this is a nice step forward. Remember, cars aren’t the only ones using (or looking to use) lithium batteries. You could basically instantly recharge a video game controller, a tv remote, an ipod, or a host of other gadgets with this technology without sacrificing energy density.
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:12 am

#23 Van Says: How much more or less would a battery cost using either of these breakthroughs?
————————————————————————————–
The only way you truly know how much something costs is when it is mass produced. It’s the manufacturing engineers that will determine the cost, not the research engineers.

In the end, just about anything can be made cheaply as long as:
a) the raw materials are not expensive
b) the manufacturing process doesn’t require extreme amounts of energy

So demand is the key. If production volume ramps up, it will get cheaper. Count on it.
N Riley Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:15 am

So, is this a little bit of a retraction from what we heard yesterday? It sounds like it would not give EVs much of boost to use these types of batteries. I was hoping for not only a faster recharge, but also a longer miles per charge ratio. Am I wrong in saying this is not as big a news item for the Volt as first thought?
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:16 am

#24 Rich Says: The amount (of regenerative braking) recovered in current hybrids is limited to the amount/rate of energy that can be pushed back into the battery without damaging it or greatly reducing it’s effective life. If that battery can recharge faster, then you can get more of that energy back.
————————————————————————————–
Remember that current hybrids have a battery pack around 1/10 the size of the Volt. With 10 times the battery, you get 10 times the power, in both directions…
Maynard Keenan Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:17 am

I’m very suprised, that for most people in this blog, the time to charge is not important.

In my humble opinion that is, besides energy-density and cost, the most important feature of a battery. The long trip anxiety is only based on the time to charge. A small range doesn’t matter, if a fast charging ist possible.
A 400miles trip with a 40miles-range-battery, that can be charged in 1 minute just takes 10 minutes more, than a non-stop-fossile-fuel-trip…

Time to charge is THE feature of batteries! So this will be a real game-changer for pure EVs.
N Riley Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:22 am

#4 Dave G

“Let’s be clear. We already have a battery technology that works. The main problem is cost. Mass production is the answer. So let’s stop looking to research scientists, and start looking to manufacturing engineers for answers.”
————————————–

I agree. We will not be able to see the Volt take advantage of new battery technology for the first and maybe not the second generation vehicle. Now is the time to get the current battery technology down pat and get the production facilities built that will turn out batteries with an economy of scale.

Let the researchers continue their research and we hope they are successful in finding more improvements.
N Riley Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:33 am

I suspect when we start seeing public fast recharge stations we will also see prices for that recharge that rival current tank fill-up at the local service station. I would expect to see an average charge of at least $25 to use these public fast recharge stations. I certainly don’t see them letting us recharge for a couple or three dollars. These stations will be expensive and you will not see very many of them for that reason. That will serve to drive the recharge price up higher than normal. That is OK with me because I don’t plan on using them unless they are economical in cost and time.
ThomC Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:35 am

To paraphrase Mark Twain: “Reports of [the ICE's] demise are greatly exaggerated”

Last summer in the aftermath of hurricane Ike, the power infrastructure was down and out for three weeks in most of the Houston area. I posted here that the omnipresent sound of small gas generators reminded me that GM has the best architecture with the E-Flexplatform. By allowing an electric motor to be driven from more than one prime power source (battery or petrolium), the platform has the best flexibility available.

With present ICE technology, if you run out of gas in the middle of nowhere, you hike to the nearest gas station, bring a gallon can of gas back to your car and drive to the gas station where you fill up. How would you accomplish that with a BEV? Answer: Tow truck, which is about two orders of magnitude more expensive that the gasoline solution.

Range anxiety is real and it will not go away. Electric-only platforms will not gain mass acceptance until a system is developed where a large deposit of electric power can be given to a stranded vehicle in a desolate location.
kent beuchert Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:36 am

It’s hard to fathom Herman Weigman’s claim that fast recharging and increased power and lifespan “wouldn’t be of interest to electric car builders.” Possibly he is knocking the competition. Nothing else I
can think of explains a statement like that. Fast recharging is the holy grail for building battery-only electrics, and even in EREVs, would be very welcome – imagine a 40 mile Volt that can burn up the streets and be recharged at a high output charging station in 2 minutes. This won’t make the Volt a long trip all-electric, but for the rest of the 95% of driving situations, its quite a plus. In essence, it has practically doubled the capacity of the battery pack for non-long
distance excursions. Now, that’s a big deal. And upping the power factor to this extent is a really big deal to automakers. Weigman is out to lunch in his comments. Under no circumstances do they make any sense.
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:38 am

#28 Maynard Keenan Says: A 400miles trip with a 40miles-range-battery, that can be charged in 1 minute just takes 10 minutes more, than a non-stop-fossile-fuel-trip…
————————————————————————————–
How about a 400-mile bio-fuel trip?

With a typical driving pattern, assuming you only charge overnight:
Vehicle ……………… Gallons per year
Volt ………………….. 37
Prius ………………… 228
30 MPG car ………… 380
20 MPG car ………… 570

And that includes three 450-mile trips. See here for details:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/GallonsPerYear.xls

New startups finding ways to make cheap ethanol from non-food sources that can replace up to 35% of our current gasoline consumption.
http://www.coskata.com/EthanolFeedstockPotential.asp

EREVs can replace up to 80% or more of our gasoline consumption. Together, EREVs and ethanol can replace 115% of our current gas consumption – more then enough to eliminate gasoline – all with our existing infrastructure of home power outlets and liquid filling stations.

So that’s why I’m not excited about fast charging.
Tony Gray Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:39 am

#28 says: A 400miles trip with a 40miles-range-battery, that can be charged in 1 minute just takes 10 minutes more, than a non-stop-fossile-fuel-trip…

The problem will be the long lines waiting to get to the recharge pole with thousands of cars trying to hook up every 40 miles or so.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:45 am

1. This is good news, as is every improvement that’s economical. Whether it is economical, we don’t know yet. Fast recharging may be a value added characteristic for some consumers, for others not so much, depending on any premium required. “an EV is only interested in Energy Density (Wh/kg and Wh/Liter) and the cost of that energy ($/kWh)… they will never use the (new) technology.” So the new tech is good for HEVs (for fast on the fly charge sustaining recharging – i.e.climbing long hills, where caps or supercaps are too pricey for long outputs, though still ideal for short bursts (like passing in F1) ) and unnecessary for EVs. Someone else chime in if I got this wrong.

2. This is also a distraction from the reality that existing power packs, as they are, are good enough to start cranking out PHEVs, EREVs and BEVs in large scales, as power packs and management systems can be made easily and instantly swappable for upgrades with improved or cheaper technology as it becomes commercially produced and algorithms can be changed and improved wirelessly and continuously as the car learns your driving behaviors and frequent routes (one algorithm if you live in Alma and work in Breckenridge most of the time and another if you live and work in Amarillo most of the time) .

3. So start pooping out those Volts already, GM. If you keep waiting for the perfect, cheapest technology, you’ll never even start. Don’t forget to make David K’s BLUE.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:48 am

Oops, I merely echoed Dave G 4:

“Let’s be clear. We already have a battery technology that works. The main problem is cost. Mass production is the answer. So let’s stop looking to research scientists, and start looking to manufacturing engineers for answers.”
Shoufeng Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:54 am

kent beuchert:

You need to dissect a battery before you make such silly comments about Dr. Herman Weigman. LiFePO4 is able to charge/discharge super fast, but you still need anode, which can’t handle that. Also charge an EV battery in 2 minutes? Maybe Lyle should ask someone from GM to see if that is possible in terms of heat control? Most people here just rant/troll nonsense with little background in battery technology. Sorry I offend anyone.
kent beuchert Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:55 am

One has to question Herman Weigman’s competence. FAst recharging is the holy grail and even in an EREV situation, would practically doubly the electric range for non long-distance driivng.
In effect, the real capacity of the battery pack has been doubled, if I can stop for a few minutes and get another 40 miles of driving (perhaps even at my destination location). That is HUGE.
Also the increase in power output is huge – that allows for a smaller,
cheaper pack with no reduction in power and full high speed capability, thus solving all the problems inherent in downsizing
a battery pack to save money. Thus, regardless of whether the actual production cost of this battery is the same as current li ions, in most situations, the capabilities of these batteries represent at least a doubling. Thus the Volt battery pack could be halved, with even greater power available, and the range (in actual practice, for many drivers) not only often equalling the 40 mile range of the larger pack, but even exceeding it, if one wished to recharge more than once while away from home. That of courrse requires high output recharging stations, but guess what – they are going to be needed in the not too distant future in any event.
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:02 am

#30 N Riley Says: I suspect when we start seeing public fast recharge stations we will also see prices for that recharge that rival current tank fill-up at the local service station… These stations will be expensive and you will not see very many of them for that reason.
————————————————————————————–
Right.

Let’s look at that in detail. A fast-charging station would probably have to include a significant amount of batteries. That’s the only way to even out the power spikes at the charging station. In other words, fast charging stations will probably transfer the energy from their battery to your battery.

We all know batteries don’t like extreme temperatures. So the batteries in fast-charging stations would have to be housed away from the elements, with an active heating/cooling system. Since the fast charging station will have to service many cars in a row, it follows that the batteries at the fast charging station will be many times the size of the battery pack in your car. So there will be a significantly sized structure required to house these batteries.

In addition, the high current required for fast charging will introduce very high losses in a long charging cable, so the cable between the charging station batteries and the car charging port will have to be a short as possible. This means the the structure that holds the massive batteries at the fast charging station will have to be right next to the cars. One way to do this would be to have the batteries underground. Another way would be to have the batteries in a structure above the cars. In any case, it will not be small, and it will not be cheap.
HyperMiler Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:02 am

This technology is useless for plug-ins and even pure hybrids due to low energy density of LiFePO4.

The only real beneficiaries of this tech are laptops and iPods.
N Riley Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:04 am

#37 Shoufeng

“Most people here just rant/troll nonsense with little background in battery technology. Sorry I offend anyone. ”
———————

No, you are right. Some of us do rant and troll. You did not offend me. I do rant sometimes. Or could I get away with calling it venting. And I certainly don’t have any battery experience beyond buying and installing in my vehicles. That is why I ask such dumb questions sometimes. I often wonder if my dumb questions offends anyone. But, then I say, who really cares and I ask them anyway.
Edwin Mang Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:08 am

I keep seeing that a new period of free inovation and silly sounding ideas flowing to diffring minds creates new things that do more and more . But if you think the flow of idea through this site has impact , just you look at the PHOTOs of the planets at nasa .
Plus some real inovation in proplusion . Things are just starting to move .

God Bless
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:09 am

#32 kent beuchert Says: imagine a 40 mile Volt that can burn up the streets and be recharged at a high output charging station in 2 minutes.
————————————————————————————–
Imagine a 40 mile Volt that can fill up on E85 and drive another 250 miles. Now imagine that Volt coming out in November 2010…
Edwin Mang Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:12 am

I do not mean our planets but exoplanets around other stars .
N Riley Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:12 am

#39 Dave G

As I started reading your comments about battery housing, my first thought was to put them underground. Then you said the same thing. My, great minds do work alike, don’t they. Really, though, underground storage would help reduce the cost of maintaining temperatures for the battery housing environment. The initial cost of building the facility would be greater but would require less ground area and could be much less expensive to maintain the facility.

I don’t think we are anywhere close to being able to do these types of installations at present and not at a cost most developers would want to pay for. I would love to have a long range BEV, but I would want an ICE vehicle or a Volt type vehicle for any real long distant trips. Maybe in 25 or 30 years we will get there with BEVs but not now, for sure.
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:17 am

#37 Shoufeng Says: Most people here just rant/troll nonsense with little background in battery technology.
————————————————————————————–
Rant? What are you talking about? Who are you anyway? Are you crazy?
N Riley Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:20 am

#43 Dave G

“Imagine a 40 mile Volt that can fill up on E85 and drive another 250 miles. Now imagine that Volt coming out in November 2010…”
————————-

Dave, you are nothing if not consistent. You are on the bio-fuel band wagon. I am not disagreeing with you on that. My company has been selling bio-fuels for several years. It is a tough sell most of the times and even tougher to get it from suppliers. More suppliers are coming online and the future does look brighter for E85 and other bio-fuels.

I really do enjoy reading your comments. Yours and DonC’s tells me a lot that I don’t know. Several other people here are very interesting reads also. Statik is one of my favorite reads and I like it when people “poke” fun at his comments and he responds.

Anyway……………
N Riley Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:24 am

I am taking off work early today. I won’t be able to keep up with what is going on until Monday, probably. Unless I can steal some time away during the weekend. I just want to say that I have enjoyed today’s comments. Especially since no politics have been mentioned. And Statik has only had a very short comment that was even positive. Are you off your feed today, Statik? See you guys later.
noel park Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:25 am

#2 Jim I:

My sentiments exactly.

One of the disadvantages to living on the left coast is that, by the time I think up my brilliant comment, one of you guys has usually beaten me to it. So about 60% of my comments are reduced to “Amen”, “I agree”, or “Me too”. Oh well, things could be worse, and it keeps the comment count up, LOL.

#20 statik:

Second the motion.

#29 N Riley:

Same comment as to #2 Jim I.

#35 Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good:

You name says it all. Amen.
Darius Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:29 am

Dave G,

Solution for that is hygh charging Voltage may be 3000 V or 11 KV kV. 11 kV power lines can handle 3-5 MW power flows. 180 kW or 0,18 MW capacity is nothing special in the industrial aplications. Conventional transformer substation capacity is arround 30 MW. Fluctuation 0,2 MW per substation is nothing so the batteries in the charging stations woud be only for night/day time savings. Conections fluctuations can be handled by coils.
noel park Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:32 am

#46 Dave G:

Yeah, rant? What the !@##$%^ do you mean rant? My !@#$%^ stuff is all well reasoned !@#$%^ science.

It’s a !@#$%^ beautiful day here under the !@#$% bridge.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:34 am

@ Dave G 43

“Imagine a 40 mile Volt that can fill up on E85 and drive another 250 miles. Now imagine that Volt coming out in November 2010…”

and @ N Riley 47

I imagine an x mile Volt that can fill up on B20 (which I can already get all over the US) using the same tank and drive another 340 miles. When do I get to imagine that Volt coming out?
noel park Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:37 am

We haver a 480 volt service in our shop which is left over from a previous use. We have never used it in 18 years, but we have kept it alive just in case. I bet I can charge my !@#$$% Volt faster than any of you !@#$%^ guys. Right in the middle of the day too, hahahahah!!

Maybe there’s business opportunity there. Put a sawhorse sign out on the curb – “EV Recharging Station”, LOL.

Man, I’m really getting into this troll role.
Dwayne Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:39 am

Any kind of fast charging station is going to require an onsite battery – whether it is at home or in public. The need for about 180KW per station (a public locdation would have several) mandates this.

A battery at home make great sense to me. It enables fast day time charging of your car useing night time power. Basicly unlimited AER for local driving. As a bonus it provides a storage unit for home solar and wind power not to mention emergency power.
Keerthi Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:42 am

one key advantage of higher power density is the ability to charge batteries faster. i.e, you may have a 11 KV charging stations (similar to petrol pumps) and high speed chargers to charge the batteries in minutes/seconds rather than home-charging. this also allows having bigger batteries for applications such as heavy trucks as charging time could be reasonable.
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:42 am

#52 Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. Says: I imagine an x mile Volt that can fill up on B20
————————————————————————————–
Right! Bio-diesel from algae looks very promising.
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:44 am

#53 noel park Says: We haver a 480 volt service in our shop… I bet I can charge my !@#$$% Volt faster than any of you !@#$%^ guys.
————————————————————————————–
No, mine’s bigger!
DonC Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:54 am

Great piece Lyle! Makes the point about the difference between power and energy density very well. Yes, this advance helps greatly with power density but not with energy density. Then again, you did that interview earlier when interviewing Dr. Cui of Stanford about using silicon nanowires for the anode to give an 10X better energy density for the anode (4X-5X overall).

http://gm-volt.com/2007/12/21/gm-voltcom-interview-with-dr-cui-inventor-of-silicon-nanowire-lithium-ion-battery-breakthrough/

Maybe you should go back and see how that is coming along? That would be most interesting.
Steve K Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:56 am

I wrote in an earlier post on the first story that I would be concerned about the heat generated if the battery were charged in ’seconds’. However, I still see the value of fully charging in say 15 or even 30 minutes, if that were possible. For example: my son was using the Volt last night and forgot to hook up the charger. I can afford to be 15 minutes late for work, but not 8 hours. If the energy density is the same, and the cost is the same (sounded like these were process changes and I don’t know how expensive these may or may not be) then I think this could be a big plus, even for an EREV.
DonC Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:57 am

#53 noel park says “We haver a 480 volt service in our shop”

15 amp? LOL Seriously, do you know what it is? Maybe that sign idea isn’t so far fetched!
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:57 am

#54 Dwayne Says: A battery at home make great sense to me. It enables fast day time charging of your car using night time power. Basically unlimited AER for local driving. As a bonus it provides a storage unit for home solar and wind power not to mention emergency power.
————————————————————————————–
Two questions:

1) Why would you want to store home solar and wind power? These systems have a power meter that spins both ways, so the grid is already acting like a big “battery”. If your solar system generates more power than you use during the day, your meter spins backward. Then when you use power at night, your meter spins forward. If you generate as much as you consume, your meter just shows that you have used no electricity. The power company loves this because their peak load is during the day, when you solar panels are at their max output.

2) What is your driving pattern?

With a typical driving pattern, assuming you only charge overnight:
Vehicle ……………… Gallons per year
Volt ………………….. 37
Prius ………………… 228
30 MPG car ………… 380
20 MPG car ………… 570

And 25 of those 37 gallons are for vacation driving. See here for details:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/GallonsPerYear.xls

So using a home battery to fast charge during the day will only same a typical driver around 12 gallons of gas a year. That doesn’t seem like a very good investment.
carcus1 Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:59 am

A breakthrough in quick-charge capability means a corresponding breakthrough in “range anxiety”. This could be a big deal for BEV’s, (not so much for EREV’s).

For those who say quick charging will “wreck the grid”, Dave G’s “gallons per year” xls data makes a strong argument to the contrary.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/GallonsPerYear.xls

Consider a BEV with just 120 mi. electric range.
According to Dave G’s data, an overnight “slow charge” on 110v will suffice for all but 3 days out of the year. For those other 3 days, the BEV owner can “quick charge” his way up the interstate. (Imagine that quick charge stations are available for a premium at large truck stops scattered out on major thoroughfares)

I would think quick charging could be a rarely used but “range anxiety defeating” feature for BEV’s that would have a negligible effect on the grid.
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 11:06 am

#62 carcus1,

Two questions:

1) Why don’t you like bio-fuels? Have you seen what the new startups are doing with algae and cellulosic gasification?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9928810-54.html

2) How would you address the other 66% of our oil consumption that EVs don’t cover?

The United States imports around 2/3 of the oil we consume.
Oil consumption breaks down roughly as follows:
• 44% gasoline (mostly for passenger vehicles)
• 17% diesel (mostly for heavy duty long distance travel)
• 5% jet fuel
• 15% fuel oil (home heating and industrial)
• 19% other (petro-chemical, plastics, fertilizer, etc.)

Looking at the entire problem, the only solution I can see is a combination of plug-ins and bio-fuels.
Brian Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 11:17 am

There is no question in my mind that in 10-15 years EV cars can have a 400 mile range and charge in less that 5 minutes like a standard gas fill up. Now that so many people are researching batteries, you can’t stop the progress.
Jeffhre Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 11:19 am

kent beuchert 32 & 38. “It’s hard to fathom Herman Weigman’s claim that fast recharging and increased power and lifespan “wouldn’t be of interest to electric car builders.” Possibly he is knocking the competition. Nothing else I
can think of explains a statement like that.”
________________________________
He made his comments because the Holy Grail of building pure EV’s has always been energy density not power density. This is a great advance that does not address energy density at all.

Faster charging doesn’t change that. Charging at night when I get home means I always have a full tank when I leave the next day. Charging at night means I don’t adversely affect the grid. I plan on sleeping eight hours and faster charging won’t have an effect on that either. Stopping to make a “fast charge” during the day to effectively increase my range would become an inconvenience.

With over 140 cells of the Volt charging in parallel, the potential for fast charging is already so fast that changing to an A123* LiFePO chemistry with it’s lower energy density would allow me to gain nothing but shorter range.

*A123 has already licensed the technology as they’re own work is already advancing and improving the LiFePO cells at this time. They are working hard to improve energy density an lifespan. The fast charging Power density breakthrough is icing on the cake for their difficult work.
-1 The Grump Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 11:34 am

Lyle says “These new batteries when moved from lab to factory could allow charging at 100 times the speed and release of 100 times the power of batteries in use today.”

When moved from lab to factory, eh? Mr Byoungwoo Kang now joins the long list of inventors waiting for their invention to move to the factory. I’m still waiting for my flying car, my personal intelligent robot (Turing test approved), EEStor to produce something useful, cold fusion, Guy Negre’s compressed air powered car, the 300 MPG carburator that works, the affordable fuel cell, a gene therapy that reverses diabetes (only works on rats so far), my vacation trip to Mars, and of course, the Volt. Promises, promises, and not a Volt to buy.

Everyone here is so quick to stand slack-jawed and say Wow-wee! at every crackpot inventor trying to make a quick buck. Amazing. Sorry, but my ability to believe the unbelievable has been strained by Rick Wagoner for the past two years. I’ll wait and see if this guy produces anything more than a vague idea and hot air.
Bruce Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 11:37 am

I am not a battery wiz but it seems to me that this is a great breakthru. If you get a quick, rapid release of high powered energy from a battery think about the potential. Fuel saved for aircraft on takeoff or any system that needs a rapid release of high powered energy. The holy grail is rapid charge, lightweight, cheap and extensive range (not extended) for cars. Keep going-you guys are doing great.
noel park Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 11:46 am

#57 Dave G:

I guess that’s what they mean when they say PDNFTT, hehehe. Actually, it’s probably better for the environment than “My big block makes more horsepower than yours”, or “What’s your 1/4 mile time?” Although with these batteries maybe the 1/4 mile time will be an issue all over again.

#60 DonC:

Good question. Who knows? As I said, we’ve never really paid any attention to it. Maybe I’d better check it out.

Since what I know about electricity could be engraved on the head of a pin, I wonder how it complicates things if it’s 3 phase? Which I’m pretty sure it is. Aren’t all 480 volt services 3 phase?
Will Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 11:52 am

“Imagine a 40 mile Volt that can fill up on E85 and drive another 250 miles. Now imagine that Volt coming out in November 2010…”

Imagine paying $9 for a loaf of bread.
Jeffhre Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 11:53 am

This is a great breakthrough. For EV’s yawn. Can’t wait to get it in my cell phone though, I envisioned flipping two metal prongs into an outlet and having my phone charged in 10 seconds, but Kang said the charger would be huge.

Oh well, so much for that dream. As far as Hybrids, the Prius uses two big supercaps to do this work already. Seems like until production engineers hook up with entrepreneurial types, this breakthrough will be a solution looking for a problem.
k-dawg Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 11:58 am

Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:44 am
#53 noel park Says: We haver a 480 volt service in our shop… I bet I can charge my !@#$$% Volt faster than any of you !@#$%^ guys.
————————————————————————————–
No, mine’s bigger!

—————–

We have 600V,575V,480V, and 240V 3phase 200A service at my plant. Maybe this IS a good idea
carcus1 Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 11:59 am

#63 Dave G.

It’s not that I dislike biofuels. I used to follow the biofuel news quite a bit. But the more I looked, the more disappointed I became.
In the energy ball game, electric cars (especially when charged from solar or wind) seems like a triple, maybe even a home run. Biofuels . . . . more like a sacrifice bunt.
k-dawg Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 12:03 pm

I think there’s some debates here going off course. Electricity displacing gas is a different topic than talking about the ability to quick charge. Both ideas are good, and not really at odds with each other. I think quick-charging isnt NECESSARY, but also is not bad to have as an option, if just for the convenience factor.

ok i’m ready for a new topic
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 12:06 pm

#70 Will,

Dollar-a-gallon ethanol plant in U.S. operation next year
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9928810-54.html
Jake Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 12:12 pm

carcus1 #72 – I partly agree with you regarding biofuels, but at the same time I feel there are certain applications that do not lend themselves to battery power in the foreseeable future. Let me know when someone comes up with a battery that can power, say, a container ship across the Atlantic Ocean. So there may be a place for biofuels after all. It just might not be in our cars. Then again, for the pleasure of driving stick shift I would love to drive a biofuel vehicle.
Jackson Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 12:14 pm

Someone used to post here under the name “Plug Free Volt.” He actually advocated an idea I’d had for years: use just enough battery to provide for accellaration (and store decellaration), which by itself would amount to a couple of miles. The engine would run all the time, but at a constant efficient rate; leaving real power demands for the battery and electric motor.

This wasn’t possible because a battery that small doesn’t have enough power to supply that kind of jolt. If your battery is big enough to supply that kind of power pulse, it makes no sense not to plug it in.

BUT NOW, this new battery may make this a playable (and payable) proposition for some.

====

Months before LG Chem was announced as the supplier for the Volt’s cells, several of us speculated that the Volt pack might combine two types of cell to provide for adequate power and regeneration combined with energy density. If the quick-charge power battery discussed here were combined with LG’s (or with some future cell based on Silicon nanowires), it could lead to a much more cost-effective solution.

====
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good (#52):

“I imagine an x mile Volt that can fill up on B20 (which I can already get all over the US) using the same tank and drive another 340 miles. When do I get to imagine that Volt coming out?”

When there’s a range-extender based on continuous combustion, such as a turbine, a stirling, or a nutating engine.

====

We shouldn’t believe that research will lead to instant results. How long have Li-ion batteries been used in cellphones / laptops, and we’re only now getting to cars? Still, speculating about where the technology can go is at least as much fun as talking about where it is.
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 12:15 pm

#72 carcus1 Says: In the energy ball game, electric cars (especially when charged from solar or wind) seems like a triple, maybe even a home run. Biofuels . . . . more like a sacrifice bunt.
————————————————————————————–
Great analogy.

A sacrifice bunt together with a triple may win the game.

In other words, ethanol won’t replace the majority of our gasoline consumption – not even close. But it can easily cover the part of our gasoline consumption that EREVs don’t.

So while everyone loves to see a home run, it’s usualy a combination of smaller plays that win the game.
Jackson Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 12:19 pm

GE automotive battery expert Herman Weigman told GM-Volt.com of this new breakthrough “a battery of such high power density is only of interest to HEV’s (and military pulse power applications), where you need to install power capability over a 1~30 second time frame.”

It sounds to me more like the military out looking for raygun batteries again (or if you prefer, railgun / laser weapons and an electromagnetic replacement for the steam catapult on an aircraft carrier).

It this gets absorbed into the military, it could be quite a while before we see it in the consumer world. On the positive side, it will be quite well developed when it eventually is.

What does he mean by “HEV”? Something like a plug-in Silverado?
Jackson Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 12:25 pm

#77 (Dave G):

What a good comment.
Adrian Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 12:26 pm

I would say energy density seems to be more important for consumer goods. What good is a quick recharge if we still have the short usage span? I would rather see these guys work towards energy density, but you do what the government funded money tells you to do. Our cell phones and lap tops would rather have energy density than power density. Oh well, at least some sort of battery breakthrough occured.
CorvetteGuy Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 12:31 pm

Both of them should get the Nobel Prize for Physics.
CaptJackSparrow Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

I’m all for better battery tech. This is a step foreward. Quit bitchln about fast charge. It can be done only if you have the $$$ to setup a 700A circuit in your house or wherever you want to put it. It just cost $$$ to do it and your power company has to do it. Then spend more $$$ on the charger itself.

Although this is good news, we won’t see it for at least 2 more years. The ability to discharge fast is always good. Americans like fast acceleration hence the muscle cars.

Just build my Volt Dangit!!!

No Power Windows
No Power Adjust Seats
No Power Side view mirrors
No Power Sunroof (Actually No Sunroof at all)
No Power Door Locks
No Power Trunk lock
No Radio (Remember that fiasco? – Get an iPod)
No Heated Seats
No OnStar!!!

Make the garbage I listed as an “Upgrade” for those who want these creature comforts.

Standard Features:
AC
Heater
Defogger Front/Rear

Back to Basics Boys!

I’ll take my Volt with No Generator, No ICE, ShAkEn not StirreD…
CaptJackSparrow Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

For statik:

Enter the Rumormill: cheaper Prius on the way?

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/03/13/enter-the-rumormill-cheaper-prius-on-the-way/

If they want to sell the car cheaper, strip off all that other shlt they put in the car. Yes, I’m lobying for a bare bones model again. Hey, that’s what my first car was, didn’t even have AC and that’s why I was able to afford one.

My wife is driving a Prius as a rental and man does this thing have a lot of shit in it. It’s got most of what I mentioned above but also has Navigation, Rear camera and others.
David K (CT) Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 1:16 pm

CaptJack:

Just out of my own curiosity and ineptness…what is the radio fiasco?

No Power Windows (want…aren’t these actually cheaper?)
No Power Adjust Seats (just driver side…wife doesn’t need it )
No Power Side view mirrors (want along, with the ability to fold with the push of a button)
No Power Sunroof (Actually No Sunroof at all) (WANT!!!)
No Power Door Locks (want along with controls to lock & unlock under certain parameters)
No Power Trunk lock (don’t want…just need an interior release bar)
No Radio (Remember that fiasco? – Get an iPod) (undecided?)
No Heated Seats (want)
No OnStar!!! (don’t want)

And of course, in Blue!!!
DonC Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 1:23 pm

#68 noel park

Actually you probably know more about this than I do. AFAIK 480 service is three phase because this is a power supply for industrial motors which are all three phase (more efficient). So I guess the question is whether whatever is on the other end of the plug can handle this. But I’m not sure this is a big deal since any single phase transformer should be able to take three phase power and convert it to single phase. (It’s the other way around that’s the problem). And sometimes the 480 line has another current.
Johnny Appleseed Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 1:33 pm

Steve wants this in future iPods, iPhones, iMacs and maybe even iCars.

Note: With $30 billion in cash and no debt, what Steve wants Steve gets !
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 1:33 pm

#83 CaptJackSparrow Says: Enter the Rumormill: cheaper Prius on the way?
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/03/13/enter-the-rumormill-cheaper-prius-on-the-way/
————————————————————————————–
Thanks for the link!

Here’s a quote: “To properly combat the Insight, rumors are swirling that Toyota is hard at work developing a new low-cost hybrid vehicle that would be priced well under that of the standard Prius. The new model would use similar hybrid technology but would cost 20-30 percent less than its big brother.”

This is how competition is supposed to work. Let’s hope the Volt gets some too!
CaptJackSparrow Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 1:35 pm

@David K (CT) 84
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/chevrolet_gm_volt_price_goes_up_wipers_stereo.php

In a nutshell, they had a difficult time with battery drain because of the 10 speaker stereo system that used an undisclosed 200 watt stereo. With 10 speakers, WTF were they trying to accompilish? Dolby surround sound? Yeah, that was a joke. They apparently decided that 10 was too many and 200W was too much and they downgraded but didn’t release any more info.
noel park Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 1:41 pm

#82 CaptJackSparrow:

I was raised on 3 great engineering maxims:

1) Keep It Simple, Stupid

2) Simplicate And Add Lightness

3) What Ain’t There Don’t Give You No Trouble

Maybe we’re distant relatives!
CaptJackSparrow Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

@noel park 89

We could be, I’m the last of 9 kids in the family.
noel park Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

#71 k-dawg:

I was just joking around but, now that you put it that way, maybe there’s something in it. There are thousands of commercial and light industrial buildings out there with so-called “heavy power” installed. Maybe they could be a resource for establishing some sort of “faster charging” infrastructure. And maybe it could be a little bit of an extra cash flow generator for struggling small businesses.

It’s a good thought. Thanks.
ccombs Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Ditto #49 … us West Coasters are at a posting disadvantage! I think I need some government compensation to alleviate my emotional distress at finding that I am always the 100th or so blogger!.

#89 I love those rules. If only my last project group had cared a whit about them…

Anyhew, I think this technology is indeed amazing, but it will probably be used first in consumer devices and exotic high-performance cars. I am surprised that GM was so quick to dismiss quick-discharge batteries though. I think it is because they don’t want people to think the Volt batteries are obsolete now, but they can’t possibly be blind to the multitude of future automotive uses for this technology? I am certain that, if this tech is really legit, people will find a number of good ways to use it in cars (perhaps as an auxiliary to the main batteries?)

Besides, I don’t think the general public is as unconcerned with recharge times as most of the posters here. It will strain the grid, sure, but most people would love to reduce Volt charging time if engineers ever find a way to get this tech in gen 3 or so.
Zach Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 2:11 pm

Interesting stuff!
noel park Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 2:24 pm

If you want to see some really stunning battery news, check out Dr. Dennis’ alternative blog at allcarselectric.com. There’s some other cool stuff there today as well.
noel park Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

#92 ccombs:

Thanks. Once we get rolling we hold our own pretty well though, IMHO.
CDAVIS Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 2:30 pm

______________________________________________________
From Lyle’s above blog article:

“GE automotive battery expert Herman Weigman told GM-Volt.com of this new breakthrough …He was less enthusiastic about its use in EVs noting “an EV is only interested in Energy Density (Wh/kg and Wh/Liter) and the cost of that energy ($/kWh)… they will never use the (new) technology.”

——
I’m not sure I agree with Mr. Weigman.

There may be a golden nugget in the new glass raceway technology. The programmed SOC (state of charge) band is as important as the available battery density when calculating “usable” battery density. On this count, the raceway battery chemistry may be able to compete with higher density lithium battery chemistries.

Here is my reasoning:

The VOLT is designed to maintain a programmed SOC band of 30% – 80% (therefore using only 50% of the total available capacity of the battery) in order to prolong the life of the battery by minimizing battery wear. So what causes battery wear? Lithium batteries heat up during the charge/discharge cycles mostly as a result of current flow resistance encountered during the charge/discharge cycle. The faster you charge a battery the higher the resistance becomes. Also the higher up the SOC curve you go, the higher the resistance becomes. Resistance encountered becomes very significant if you try to charge a lithium battery both fast and to a high SOC. Resistance = Heat. Heat = Battery Wear. Therefore Resistance = Batter Wear. If you reduce the resistance (that’s what the glass raceway technology does) you reduce battery wear. The glass raceway technology, because of the lower resistance, will allow a lithium battery to endure a wider programmed SOC band (i.e. 20%-95%); a 25% “usable” SOC band gain compared to the VOLTS current 30%-80%. This means that the delta in “usable” energy density between the glass raceway lithium chemistry and higher density lithium chemistries may prove to be to not be so significant. I encourage someone more knowledge than I about the topic of electrical resistance and battery chemistry to critique my reasoning.
______________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Energy = American Energy Independence!
______________________________________________________
CaptJackSparrow Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

This is a perfect battery chem for the “White Zombie”
http://www.plasmaboyracing.com/whitezombie.php

I like the range it gets…. =op
statik Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 3:07 pm

#43 Dave G siad:

Imagine a 40 mile Volt that can fill up on E85 and drive another 250 miles. Now imagine that Volt coming out in November 2010…
================

…now imagine your a unicorn.
(Sorry, I had to do it Dave, hehe)
statik Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 3:09 pm

#83 CaptJAckSparrow said:

For statik:

Enter the Rumormill: cheaper Prius on the way?

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/03/13/enter-the-rumormill-cheaper-prius-on-the-way/

If they want to sell the car cheaper, strip off all that other shlt they put in the car. Yes, I’m lobying for a bare bones model again. Hey, that’s what my first car was, didn’t even have AC and that’s why I was able to afford one.

My wife is driving a Prius as a rental and man does this thing have a lot of shit in it. It’s got most of what I mentioned above but also has Navigation, Rear camera and others.
===================================

I seen that article…but thanks for the link. I have a feeling Toyota is just considering selling the current gen alongside the next gen for 3-4K cheaper.

/makes sense to me…the old Prius is putting up better numbers than the new Insight, and after a million or so copies out the door, you know the margins are pretty good at this stage
Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

@ carcus 1 62
“Consider a BEV with just 120 mi. electric range…

For those other 3 days, the BEV owner can “quick charge” his way up the interstate.”

For those other 3 days, the 120 mi. range BEV owner is far more likely to use a rental hybrid (EREV or whatever) to go his way up the interstate. This makes the transition to electric drive easier and shows that all vehicle types and ownership/lease/rental schemes have valid roles to play.

Quick charging is a luxury, not a necessity, and certainly not a reason to delay getting electric drive vehicles on the road.
Curious Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

A question: Doesn’t the much lower internal resistance make a cooling system much less important? Less complexity, cost and weight? Add this to what was said by CDAVIS in #96 about wider usable charge band and then now how significant is this new technology?
Frank B Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 4:00 pm

All this news is nice, But Where The Hell Is My Volt?!!
RB Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 4:19 pm

Nice job Lyle in getting this interview.
It’s very helpful in clearing the fog of speculation.
RB Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 4:22 pm

#16 Dave G says
Plug-in experts agree that most people should only consider charging overnight.
———————————————

With greatest respect, who are these “experts”?

Not to be disrespectful, but I disagree with the statement, and (again with greatest respect for the expertise of others) I’m as much of an expert on this subject as anyone else is.
mikeinatl. Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 4:35 pm

All this talk about additional power raises a question I have not seen addressed. Its off the thread a bit.

Is the current Volt design front wheel drive or back wheel drive?

This would be important to you snow-country types.
CaptJackSparrow Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 4:37 pm

@RB 104
“With greatest respect, who are these “experts”?”

Probably those Schmoe’s over at UC Davis or Wes Sac Alt Fuel park.

They only say that because of cost. Personally I think there’s enough power to charge any time. Besides, Since SMUD is claiming they are not getting enough revenue from consumers and businesses, because of closed businesses and foreclosure, they’re raising their rates. This should mean there’s even MORE power available on the Grid. They can’t “Store” the power.

LOL….. phukin SMUD, raise rates now on these lame claims but when things go up rates stay the same.
noel park Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 4:38 pm

#104 RB:

My commute is over 40 miles round trip, 6 days a week. I also run work related errands during the day. I am going to charge over night, drive to work, plug in at work as much as possible, run a few errands, and drive home.

I think that I will be pretty typical of Volt owners who will be determined to run on the battery as much as possible. “The Grid” had better get ready for it. The electric car guys even have a term for it, “opportunity charging”. Plug in every chance you get to keep the battery topped up. The whole idea is to use less gas.

In SoCal, the “peak” is on hot summer days from about 1 to 6 PM. The system is not that stressed in the AM. If I charged from 8 AM to 1 PM, I would have enough power to get home most days. What’s the problem with that?

Maybe some day the “smart grid” will be able to charge more at the peak times and thus discourage charging then. Until then, human nature is what it is.

If there is a warning of rolling blackouts, like we had a few years ago, I’m sure most people would unplug their Volts. I know I would. Other than that, “opportunity charging” will be a fact of life.
The Grump Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 4:42 pm

#104 RB says “#16 Dave G says
Plug-in experts agree that most people should only consider charging overnight.
With greatest respect, who are these “experts”?”
—————————————————————–

In response to your question, I ask you this – Can you type NPNS ? You CAN? Congradulations, you are now a plug-in expert. The graduation ceremony is held at Hooters (.)(.) =
———————————————————-
I’ll be the one hoisting a Blue Moon ale, garnished with the mandatory orange slice. Cheers!
CDAVIS Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 4:52 pm

______________________________________________________
# 101 Curious Says
A question: Doesn’t the much lower internal resistance make a cooling system much less important? Less complexity, cost and weight? Add this to what was said by CDAVIS in #96 about wider usable charge band and then now how significant is this new technology?

—
Answer: Very significant; A game changer.
______________________________________________________
CaptJackSparrow Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 4:52 pm

@The Grump 108

I’M TEHRE!!! I’ll Drink to that!……or whatever……

@noel park 107

When you plug in at work, they won’t charge you. It’s all good man!
Herm Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 4:54 pm

Hypermiler, LiFe cells have twice or more the energy density of nimh cells as used in all existing hybrids.. and the E RAV4 was powered by a large nimh pack very well.

One advantage of these cells, when used gently as in a Volt, they should have a very long life. GM may even increase the discharge % and thus get more range.

…………………………

(40) HyperMiler Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:02 am
This technology is useless for plug-ins and even pure hybrids due to low energy density of LiFePO4.
The only real beneficiaries of this tech are laptops and iPods.
bruce g Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 4:58 pm

It is interesting, at least to me, that despite the limited energy density of lithum iron phosphate, Ford is using that chemistry in their electric transit van.
So this advance should give ford either faster transit vans(not a bad thing) or larger vans capable of hauling bigger payloads?
Ok, maybe be the range is limited but maybe that doesnt matter for city deliveries, particularly if they return to base for a quick recharge.
Maybe
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 5:03 pm

#104 RB Says: With greatest respect, who are these “experts”?
————————————————————————————–
Nova “Car of the Future” program:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/tm/3507.html?site=22&pl=wmp&rate=hi&ch=5
DAVID GREENE: Our existing electric utility system could handle tens of millions of plug-in hybrid vehicles if they would be recharged during off-peak times, such as at night.

http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html
Both reports (Electric Power Research Institute, and the Natural Resources Defense Council) match up well with previous studies. They reinforce the Pacific National Lab’s January 2007 findings that we won’t have to build new power plants for cars that charge at night.

How many links can a post before I go into moderation?
bruce g Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 5:05 pm

On the question of these experts , I think they are often more aptly described as oracles, they seem to open their mouths and let their tongue wag for journalists.
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 5:06 pm

American Scientist
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2007/2/plug-in-hybrid-vehicles-for-a-sustainable-future/4
…plug-in hybrids can be charged from the grid late at night,… Electric-power companies are sure to expand the availability of discounted nighttime rates in the future, to ease the burden on their systems during peak daytime hours. Right now, the demand for electricity during the day exceeds that at night by almost 50 percent. Hence about a third of electric-power plants have to be cut back or shut down at night, which leads to idled generating capacity…
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 5:09 pm

#107 noel park Says: “The Grid” had better get ready for it.
————————————————————————————–
Translation: Get ready for super high electric bills and/or rolling blackouts…
chevonly Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 5:12 pm

HERE WE GO AGAIN, more smoke and mirrors, technology marches on and how fast, maybe 10 to 20 years, and look at the cost of the infrastructure to go from a 60 amp circuit to who knows what to charge a battery in 5 minutes, maybe this will come in handy for the idiots who can’t remember to charge up the cell phone or the digital camera, but for a car, no workey Booo Hooo and besides Exxon Mobil is on the phone they want to talk to you about your patent if you even have one and your retirement at the ripe old age of 29.
Mitch Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 5:18 pm

#96 CDAVIS is exactly right; the paper says that the capacity retention is superior. There’s a plot in the paper of capacity vs. # of full charge-discharge cycles that shows almost no capacity loss after 50 cycles (which is apparently as far as they got, testing-wise).

Of course, in actual use there would be a much larger number of cycles, so I guess we still don’t know how many cycles this material can actually handle. Still, I thought it was cool that they were testing full charge-discharge cycles rather than some conservative 30%-80% range.
Mark Z Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 5:26 pm

Just imagine how fast the Ceder/Kang car will charge when wires come straight off the high voltage overhead power lines behind the house. No transformer = a very fast charge!
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 5:44 pm

Good news:
Wall Street now on its best run since November
Wall Street rallied at the end of a choppy session Friday as investors pushed the stock market’s gains to four days in a row – its best stretch since late November.
carcus1 Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 5:51 pm

On grid capacity:

For the last 40 years or so, the U.S. has been adding about 1.5 million households per year.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/why-the-decline-in-housing-starts-is-good-news/

Average household use is 888 kwh/month.

888 kwh/month is 111 volt fillups (30% to 80%DOD or 50% of 16kwh battery = 8 kwh, 888/8 = 111.)

Over 28 days (a few days not charging per month) , that’s 111/28 = 3.964 volt months or just about 4 volts.

So, our historic 1 year of housing starts would be worth 6 million volts. Gm will be lucky to sell 60,000 volts by 2015. (that’s 1% of 6 million).

The daytime grid worries are a non issue for now.

or

If you think the grid is that fragile, you better hope this housing bust lasts for a long, long time.
carcus1 Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 5:59 pm

#121 grid capacity non-issue add,

Or, as a bonus move, each household that gets a volt could put their home on an energy diet (better insulation, windows, roofing material, higher SEER A/c, programmable thermostat, etc…) and shave 25% off of their regular usage. This would make up for their volt.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 6:06 pm

@ Jackson 76

“I imagine an x mile Volt that can fill up on B20 (which I can already get all over the US) using the same tank and drive another 340 miles. When do I get to imagine that Volt coming out?”

When there’s a range-extender based on continuous combustion, such as a turbine, a stirling, or a nutating engine.”

Er, there’s this new fangled thing called a diesel engine that’s been used since 1897 that works just fine, as is. Make mine a turbo.
carcus1 Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 6:25 pm

Speaking of diesel, what has two wheels, gets 112 mpg and sounds better than a Harley?

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/track-t800-cdi-2009-moto-diesel/611948134/?icid=VIDURVENT06
Gary Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 6:42 pm

I was thinking… this sounds a lot like EEStor, doesn’t it?
noel park Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 6:47 pm

#112 bruce g:

Well I certainly that hope they’re not going to recharge during the day.

#116 Dave G:

Well get ready for it then. Or maybe the electricity police can go around and check for people charging EVs during the day, like the water police do here in LA. VEEERRRY effective. Or maybe they can program the computer so that you can only charge between 8 PM and 6 AM, or whatever. If they do, they’re gonna lose me. Or create a new growth area for the jokers who reprogram the computers in high performance cars. Just what we need.

#121 carcus1:

Thank you.

#124 carcus1:

Just when you think you’ve seen it all!
dwwbkw Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 7:02 pm

Seems to me that one group of people who would be interested in rapid recharge, if the price was reasonable, would be the many folks living in apartments without garages (on-sreet parking) or with apartment garages that don’t provide power outlets. If you could get a quick charge at a station before or after work, without paying an arm-and-a leg, that would be beneficial. If you have a fast-charge Volt, you now have opened up the market to a huge number of potential buyers. Just my two cents worth.
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 7:11 pm

#126 noel park Says: Or maybe the electricity police can go around and check for people charging EVs during the day, like the water police do here in LA. VEEERRRY effective.
————————————————————————————–
If people understand this issue, then hopefully enforcement won’t be necessary. Besides, for a small minority of people with 50+ mile commutes, slow charging at work may make sense and not cause problems.

What worries me is the apparent desire to charge as fast and often as possible, and what would happen if the majority of people adopt this mindset, as the Google and Carnegie Mellon studies seem to advocate.
carcus1 Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 7:18 pm

#126 Noel Park, (on the t800-cdi)

“Just when you think you’ve seen it all!”
____________________________________________________

That’s what I thought. I don’t know that I’ve ever even fathomed a diesel motorcycle. But it looks (and sounds) cool. This could become the mother of all back country motorcycles. (at 600 miles per tank, I’ll bet the Australians would love this thing)
New Lithium-Ion Battery Technology « Prometheus Gone Wild - See the Future Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 7:20 pm

[...] http://gm-volt.com/2009/03/13/qa-with-lithium-battery-charging-breakthrough-inventor-byoungwoo-kang-... [...]
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 7:22 pm

#127 dwwbkw Says: Seems to me that one group of people who would be interested in rapid recharge, if the price was reasonable, would be the many folks living in apartments without garages (on-street parking) or with apartment garages that don’t provide power outlets.
————————————————————————————–
I have no real data, but my gut feeling is that the vast majority of apartments and condos have parking lots or parking garages. As plug-ins go mainstream, adding power outlets for these parking spaces will become common. Security could be a simple as a mechanical key cover or as complicated as a card swipe system thats bills individual users.

In any case, a lot of people live in houses, so there is no shortage of potential EREV customers to get the ball rolling.
Dave G Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 7:54 pm

This may be a bit off topic, but thinking about people who don’t park their car in a garage, and after watching this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXD30uA1th0
it appears the the Volt’s charge port is not designed to work in snow or freezing rain.

Lyle, could you ask GM to confirm or deny this issue?
Overload Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 8:02 pm

RE: Dave G

Dude, you have about 30 posts in this thread today. Why don’t you step away from the computer and take a breather. Jeesh.
JEC Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 8:10 pm

#53 noel park
“I bet I can charge my !@#$$% Volt faster than any of you !@#$%^ guys. Right in the middle of the day too, hahahahah!! ”
=====================================================
Uhmmmm…I might give you a run for your money, if they will let me plug in at work. 34,000 Horsies will get your Volt running

We build medium voltage drives that run off line voltage of 6600 volts!

Here’s a small snipet describing our drives:

The PowerFlex 7000 Family represents the third generation of medium voltage drives at Rockwell Automation.

Designed for end users, solution providers and OEMs, PowerFlex 7000 air-cooled and liquid-cooled drives meet applications ranging up to 34,000 horsepower (22.5MW). PowerFlex 7000 drives are general purpose, stand-alone medium voltage drives that control speed, torque, direction, starting and stopping of standard asynchronous or synchronous AC motors. They are global products that adhere to the most common standards from NEC, IEC, NEMA, UL, and CSA. They are available with the world’s most common supply voltages at medium voltage from 2400-6600 volts. The PowerFlex 7000 is available in 3 different frame sizes:
Dan Petit Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 8:12 pm

The faster charge characteristics might not only be helpful if there develops a higher regen rate, if not for Voltec I, but for Voltec 2 and 3 if the regen rate is seen as economically-desirable for costs.
But the other characteristics which the new advancement could greatly help is when the Range Extender needs to run, a concern might be that it may need to run at either an inefficient (thermal-low-load and low runtime) load for the anticipated distance home or to destination, as concerns a complete thermal ramp up to light up the catalytic converter (a very very mild combustion chamber to eliminate traces of leftover hydrocarbons/unburned fuel) as well as to purge any buildup of moisture in the oil.
The bottom line might be that the advantage to faster acceptance of charge rate might be that the Generator could more quickly ramp up to maximum output, run 20 minutes only to light up the Catalytic converter faster (clearing hydrocarbons more thoroughly), then shut down after an anticipated calibrated charge.
The difference to run the Generator at 80 percent compared to only 30 or 60 percent, is that the old inefficiencies of ICE (throwing away 80 percent of the energy as waste heat) might be more efficiently reduced by the higher power acceptance characteristic.
Anyway, the testing of the battery advancement to, say 10,000 cycles might only take another 4 months or so, if the mathematical model can somehow factor in time in addition to number of cycles.
If longevity may be proven, then it is my hope that somehow this advancement can be retro-applied financially to an option where Voltec Gen 1 and Voltec Gen 2 vehicles might enjoy an option to upgrade at some sort of cost equalization to Voltec Gen 3 battery technologies.
Dan Petit Austin TX.
JEC Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 8:12 pm

Dave G

I have to agree with Overload on this. Your post count is running darn high today.

Maybe time for a beer!

I do find your posts very informative, and as a follower of this site, I will say you are very consistent in your posts and keep true to your expertise.
Rashiid Amul Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 8:19 pm

Dave G #132

Thanks for that link. I didn’t realize the plug door was automated.
carcus1 Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:01 pm

Here’s a nice little article on the “quick charge” lithiums.

Quicker battery charge holds promise for plug-in cars
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/03/11/tech-090311-battery-recharge.html?ref=rss
CaptJackSparrow Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:54 pm

I’m tellin yawll….
When you charge at work you will most likely not be charged. Trust me on this =op

Besides, if your building cant handle a 120V 15A draw, somethings wrong.
bruce g Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:59 pm

Noel Park #126,
I guess they will, but currently we do not deny electrical energy to users during the day, we just charge them full price, still cheap compared to gasoline.
But I come from a land down under..brownouts are still relatively unknown.
touch wood….
CaptJackSparrow Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:19 pm

Interesting comparison of Hybrids….

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/st_VehicleComp0903_20090312.html
koz Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 11:39 pm

CaptJackSparrow #141

Looks like it may be a reasonable chart but I don’t understand why most assumptions aren’t included with these types of comparisons. People take them at face value but they meaningless without all of the underlying assumptions. There should also be a $6/gallon collumn.
koz Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 11:47 pm

Dave G #132, Rashiid Amul #137

Yikes! I didn’t realize it has an automated plug cover opener. I want a Volt LE, somewhere between CaptJack’s Volt ultralite and Volt too complicated, too expensive, break’s a-lot model.
koz Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 11:55 pm

Dan Petit #135

It would need very, very low internal resistance (<4%) at those charge rates to make sense to operate the ICE this way. Given the characteristics of the tech that are mentioned, it seems very plausible that this would be the case. The other benefit that isn’t being commented on very much is the possibility of Voltec 10AER or Voltec 15AER. If these can be made with significant cost savings then this tech could have a big impact on EREV adoption.
koz Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 12:10 am

Dave G #128

Demand charges can take care of that if becomes an unmanagable problem. We’re talking 10 years from now before it could even potentially become a minor concern. Fortunately for this issue, it will take time for the plug-in vehicles and daytime outlets to come online. It will be a relatively slow moving process that will allow years to address the issues. Once there are significant numbers of plug-ins on the road, adequate studies can be done to predict future usage as adoption increases. It could also be somewhat self-solving in that still very capable batteries from early plug-ins will come onto the market as EV’s and outlets adoption ramps up.
koz Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 12:22 am

Carcus1 #121

“Gm will be lucky to sell 60,000 volts by 2015. (that’s 1% of 6 million).”

I agree with you 100% that the grid concerns are something to think about and consider in long term planning, but are a non-issue in the near and mid term. Even so, I hope you’re way off on the 60,000 statement. If there aren’t more than 1M plug-ins and more than 300K Voltecs on the road by 2015, it will be very disappointing.
Jeffhre Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 1:38 am

CaptJackSparrow “I’m tellin yawll….
When you charge at work you will most likely not be charged. Trust me on this =op”

You are thinking from the point of view of Southern California where employers get paid to implement congestion management ideas and where parking spaces in (the downtown at least) cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to create any way. With parking spots that expensive adding an outlet to make an employee happy is nothing.
( http://www.walkablestreets.com/cashout.htm )
( http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/474.html )

You seem like a pretty smart guy, soooo, what’s the plural of yawll?
Tom Harwick Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 4:56 am

Right! Bio-diesel from algae looks very promising.

It has looked promising from many years, and will still look promising 100 years from now. Its the new solar.
Tom Harwick Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 5:00 am

You seem like a pretty smart guy, soooo, what’s the plural of yawll

youse
Dave G Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 6:22 am

#143 koz Says: Yikes! I didn’t realize it has an automated plug cover opener.
————————————————————————————–
The more I look the Volt’s charge port cover design, the more it scares me. See here for video of current charge port design:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXD30uA1th0

Where I live, people have garages, but many of them are filled with stuff, and most cars are parked in driveways. We get a lot of wet snow and freezing rain in the winter. How is that going to work?

And what’s with that big plastic part at the end of the charging wire? Do I have to take that with me in order to charge away from home? What if I forget to bring it? What if I lose it? Does it come with a spare? How much does it cost to replace?

The cover for the plug port should be similar to the cover for the gas cap – a relatively loosely fitting 5″ door with an inside hinge. Under that, there should be another flap or twist cap that covers standard 110v male plug contacts which are angled up at 45°. This will work with any standard extension cable. The outer door should have a small notch along the bottom so that it can be closed over the extension cable to protect from the elements when charging. This type of design seems really obvious to me.

With the current Volt charge port design, I think there will be many problems plugging in outside during the winter. It may even be a problem in the rain over time. It looks as though the Volt charge port was designed only for charging in garages.

I really hope GM comes to their senses and re-designs this charge port.
RB Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 7:43 am

#107 noel park said My commute is over 40 miles round trip, 6 days a week. I also run work related errands during the day. I am going to charge over night, drive to work, plug in at work as much as possible, run a few errands, and drive home.
I think that I will be pretty typical of Volt owners who will be determined to run on the battery as much as possible. “The Grid” had better get ready for it. The electric car guys even have a term for it, “opportunity charging”. Plug in every chance you get to keep the battery topped up. The whole idea is to use less gas.
——————————————-

My plan is the same as yours for all the same reasons. I agree that the electric grid “better get ready” and I think it will be ready. Realistically, the meters on the grid will not even flicker until there are far more electric cars on the road than there will be in the first years.
RB Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 7:52 am

#108 The Grump said
Plug-in experts agree that most people should only consider charging overnight.
With greatest respect, who are these “experts”?”
—————————————————————–
In response to your question, I ask you this – Can you type NPNS ? You CAN? Congradulations, you are now a plug-in expert. The graduation ceremony is held at Hooters (.)(.) =
———————————————————-
I’ll be the one hoisting a Blue Moon ale, garnished with the mandatory orange slice. Cheers!
==================================

Ready to hoist! Thanks. (smile)
RB Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 8:02 am

#150 Dave G says
With the current Volt charge port design, I think there will be many problems plugging in outside during the winter. It may even be a problem in the rain over time. It looks as though the Volt charge port was designed only for charging in garages.
I really hope GM comes to their senses and re-designs this charge port.
—————————————————–

Thanks for the video link. After watching it, I share your concern and hope it gets redesigned between now and then.
Inhaling in L.A. Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 8:49 am

Enjoyed watching the Volt video. I like the hatch back design. An open hatch door resembles a solar collector. Hum?
D. Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 9:05 am

thread tells me, evs are coming down the pike sooner rather than later. GM had better get busy working on a pure EV. An Aptera-like vehicle for a coupla passengers, with a quick-charging 100 mile, plus or minus,range/charge battery will suit a big chunk of the population, will get many of us where we need to go most of the time. more than the volt, likely. .. One problem yet to be worked out with pure EV?- How to keep the battery at optimal working temperature in hot or cold climates?
nataraj Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 10:34 am

“an EV is only interested in Energy Density (Wh/kg and Wh/Liter) and the cost of that energy ($/kWh)… they will never use the (new) technology.”

The stupidity of this statement is astounding. Equivalent to IBM thinking a few decades back that the world needs no more than a handful of computers.

Quick charge the MAIN reason why we are even talking about a EV with range extension. If you can get quick recharges in all gas stations, why would we need range extension at all ? All we would need is a 200 mile or so range of EV and a quick stop for recharging on our long trips.

Quick charge is as important as high energy density to make EV practical.
noel park Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 11:44 am

#134 JEC:

Well I guess you’ve got me there. Instead of “There’s no substitute for cubic inches”, I guess now it’s gonna be “There’s no substitue for volts”.

#140 bruce g:

Brownouts are very rare here too. In SoCal we actually had a few “rolling blackouts” several years ago. Just enough to make me run out and buy a generator to keep the shop phones going. There has never been another one since, and the generator has never been used. We start it up once in awhile just for drill.

So, as many have wisely said above, this is a problem we need to stay ahead of somehow, but it’s not likely that PHEVs are going to create a catastrophe in the next few years. God send that we should have such a problem, eh?

#147 Jeffhre:

Well I hate to get into the English wars, but I think that the plural of “yawll” is “yawll”. As in “you all”. I have always seen it spelled as sort of “y’all”, but who am I to argue with Capt Jack?

#154 Inhaling in L.A.:

I have lived in L.A. most of my life. My advice is not to.

(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

#155 D.

I’m right with you there.
noel park Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 11:51 am

#133 Overload:

Well I guess you could say the same about me, LOL. I think that every comment is valuable. It’s a numbers game in a way, IMHO. If the Washington Post ever finds “The Mystery Site”, I think that they know enough to get the message of all of these thousands of comments.

I may not always agree with him !00%, but I would be the first to say that Dave G is doing great work here. BLOG ON DAVE G.!
Santa Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 1:15 pm

156 nataraj Says:

You got it right there. Anyone who says different is a muppet………

High Energy/Weight + Quick charge.. Game over. Oh and High Volume = Low Cost It really is that simple
Volt Contenders | The CarGurus Blog Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 8:13 am

[...] development announced this week may give a future boost to the hybrid concept. MIT scientists have created a new [...]
Michael Robinson Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 11:34 pm

This development doesn’t help in the areas where help is needed.
Applying greater current densities to charge a battery faster does
not strike me as being safe at all. Worse, the argument that you
can plug in anywhere goes out the window if a standard outlet
won’t do.

The answer for quick recharge is a different kind of battery called
a fuel cell. If your fuel cell cell doesn’t use platinum, it may be cheap
enough to be practical. Unfortunately, no automaker that I know of
is releasing platinum free fuel cell prototypes. Carbon is a wonderful material when it is nanostructured for replacing platinum.

If a quick charge Lithium ION battery costs more than a conventional one or it doesn’t last as long, this technology is
useless on the Volt. Already, it has been shown that the Volt
isn’t economical. I’d rather spend too much on a fuel cell than
a Lithium ION battery.

Quick charge is 3 minutes, the time it takes to refuel the typical
fuel cell prototype car. With the adoption of Hydrnol and the replacement of the high pressure or cryogenic tank with a dual
chamber Hydrnol tank, hydrogen becomes very attractive.
Hydrnol will be available along the I-5 corridor from California up
into British Columbia in 18-24 months.

http://www.asemblon.com/hydrnol/faq
waltinseattle Says:
March 16th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

I see, As Usual, a bunch of testosterone drooling going on here- “nascarev” indeed. What I see that I do appreciate? a battery that can recharge while I sip the morning latte, or while I buy the weekly groceries. I don’t really need a shorter pitstop on transcontinental road trips (but range would be a plus there) I am personally against “cars” be sure. Too fast, too expensive, too regulated. Give me a bike for 2 or 3 plus luggage, no onerous regs, no permits, no operator licences, no insurance, etcetcetc. All it takes is re-imagining what we passed up (refer back to “testosterone comment). Cost? anybody note the recent spreads (WSJ) about Lithium mining, whos the “saudi Arabia (not Red China), whats there political situation etc?? Li is currently cheap, but wait till the market takes off. Can anybody say “ground floor oportunity knocks?” , well, consider the (mine location!)
waltinseattle Says:
March 16th, 2009 at 2:29 pm

P.S.

We have venture capital working on the infrastructure, and a cheap alternative to owning the batteries- its a system like milk in glass bottles- you buy the electricity and you “rent” the bottle/battery . So this seems to be taking care of itself without all us “engineer types worring about financial issues too overly much. Back to your slide rules and nascar training video games bro!
Bob G Says:
March 16th, 2009 at 4:42 pm

156 nataraj Says, “Quick charge the MAIN reason why we are even talking about a EV with range extension. If you can get quick recharges in all gas stations, why would we need range extension at all? All we would need is a 200 mile or so range of EV and a quick stop for recharging on our long trips.”

I agree that quick charge capability would make it practical to have charging stations for long trips, and that would ease range anxiety for BEV owners. But quick charge could also be used as the EV equivalent of “siphoning” a few gallons. So if I’m stranded along the side of the road with a dead battery in my BEV, a good Samaritan in another BEV (or EREV) could stop and give me a “jump” (i.e., just enough energy from his/her battery to get me to the next charging station).

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Volt Test Drive by Vancouver EV Association February 8, 2010
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA -- General Motors issued a very special invitation to the Vancouver Electric Vehicle Association last week to drive the... […]
WopOnTour
gasoline cars are like smoking . . . . February 8, 2010
interesting article, better presenting what I've had a hard time putting into words (which is why HE's a writer and I'M... […]
prowler
A common European strategy for electric vehicles February 8, 2010
I coudn't resist to cut and paste the next excerpt : Link :... […]
Jean-Charles Jacquemin
Run flat option or standard? February 8, 2010
I suspect that run flats might be standard because they get rid of the space and weight taken by a spare tire and may result in less fatal accidents... […]
1nk
Engine Thermal Management in a Series Hybrid February 8, 2010
I've just recently discovered how different the environments under which a conventional (even parallel hybrid) ICE and series hybrid ICE are... […]
XGC75
electric car with wind generator February 7, 2010
My design of ELECTRIC CAR WITH WIND GENERATOR: http://velkovelkov.blogspot.com/ I think this conception is original and realistic. The low position... […]
Velko Velkov
Please provide complete home solar systems. February 6, 2010
Please provide both a volt charging solar system and a complete whole house solar system that takes the user completely off the grid and stays on... […]
1nk

Q&A With Lithium Battery Charging Breakthrough Inventor Byoungwoo Kang, and What Does This Mean for Electric Cars?

164 Responses to “Q&A With Lithium Battery Charging Breakthrough Inventor Byoungwoo Kang, and What Does This Mean for Electric Cars?”

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts