Lithium-air is the holy grail technology of lithium-ion batteries.
In current lithium ion batteries, lithium ions move between anode and cathode within the cell. As they move in one direction the cell becomes charged, in the other direction it discharges or provides electron flow to do work external to the battery, such as powering an electric motor.
Critical factors about these lithium cells besides their cost is their energy and power density. Energy density refers to how much energy the cell can carry per unit weight. The LG Chem cells being used for the Volt, for example, are 150 watt-hours per kilogram. That means a fully charged 2.2 pound block of these cells could run a 150 watt light bulb for an hour. The 240 pounds of it in the 440 pound pack can propel the Chevy Volt for up to 40 miles.
Lithium air batteries skip incorporating metal as a cathode and use atmospheric oxygen molecules to bind directly to lithium. This allows them to be extraordinarily energy dense. Functioning cells have been produced in the laboratory and have a theoretical energy density of over 5000 watt-hours per kilogram. Most experts believe 10 fold energy density improvement is obtainable. Thus if the technology can be commercialized, the Volt could get by on less than 30 pounds of batteries!
A few hundred pounds of these cells would be adequate to electrify large trucks and give sedans many hundreds of miles if not a thousand miles of electric range.
“Lithium-air is where we’re going,” said Donald Hillebrand director of the Center for Transportation Research at Argonne National Laboratory . “You can’t foresee the future, but right now, that’s the place where I think we see the endpoint, the end solution for … the battery. The battery everybody’s looking for.”
GM has made a conscious decision not to joint venture with a battery maker or to produce their own cells in house. They opted to contract suppliers instead, such as LG Chem. This offers them the option of putting any vendor’s cells in their cars whenever they become available.
Supporting that strategy has been the development of their own recently expanding advanced battery testing lab. The facility, which I’ve visited, receives specimens from all over the world for testing.
GM has already tested cells from over a hundred vendors and knows about literally hundreds of technologies from companies, universities, and laboratories worldwide. Samples are tested regularly and specifically to determine if they are sufficient for automotive use.
Among the technologies GM is working on according to the New York Times, is lithium air:
GM said it’s working on lithium-air, next-generation lithium-ion, and other chemistries.
GM battery lab director Ronn Jamieson says the first step in evaluating a cell is confirming its science. ”Is it physically possible? Does it defy the laws of physics or thermodynamics or anything else?” says Jamieson. Next the lab subjects cells to a rigorous and grueling battery of function and abuse testing for more than a year. ”Theoretically, if it can happen, you’ve got to at least assess and understand what will happen,” he said.
Experts vary in predicting how long it will take to commercialize this technology, but most estimates range between 10 and 20 years.
But when they do arrive, thanks to a nimble open door policy and an early foot in the door, GM could be the first to benefit.
Source (NY Times)
+3
May 9th, 2010 (7:42 am)Lightning Bolt in a box?
+2
May 9th, 2010 (7:44 am)Well, “Nimble” is good. Glad to see that GM is “open” to the next opportunity when it arrives. Some mention of the number of charge cycles a chemistry can sustain is important too.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
May 9th, 2010 (7:45 am)A very *light* box.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
PS When did were lose the VOLT “want list”?
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
May 9th, 2010 (7:52 am)Here’s a photo of Exxon Mobile’s COO inside GM’s global battery test lab:
http://motivac.sopca.com/files/2007/08/dilithium.jpg
+2
May 9th, 2010 (7:53 am)One of the best phrases that GM had mentioned last year was that new battery techs would be built
******************************
* “backwards-compatible” to Gen1. *
******************************
So, if Lithium-Air breaks through all the development and advancement demands required of it down through the years, then, your upgrade of a better battery for your Volt around 2022 would be doable.
Any other advanced battery tech could also be “backwards-compatible”, so, what this means is that no matter what “better battery deal comes along”, Gen1 Volt owners would not be “left out in the cold due to vehicular obsolescence”. Also, “backwards-compatibility” is the “carrot on the stick” for all these independent battery developers to compete like at no other time in history, because there is a vast set of fortunes to be made here in battery technical development. This is one of the very good things about the patent and trade laws. They help to assure a better chance of distribution of these opportunities and tend to restrict technical monopolization.
Really nice technical flow in the article, Lyle, thanks!
+8
May 9th, 2010 (7:55 am)Another superb weekend topic, Lyle! Some of world’s best “brains” (both in the form of humans at IBM, Argonne National Labs & Oak Ridge National Labs AND as gigantic supercomputers) are hard at work on this very serious advance in Lithium batteries. Here’s a concise article giving an overview of the research:
http://gas2.org/2010/01/28/ibm-using-two-of-worlds-fastest-supercomputers-to-develop-lithium-air-batteries/
May 9th, 2010 (7:55 am)I think Lightning Bolts by their nature are light, do they not go from the ground up?
May 9th, 2010 (8:00 am)Happy Mother’s Day everyone. Don’t forget the ones this day honors.
May 9th, 2010 (8:01 am)Well, *I* go from the ground up, and *I’m* not light.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
May 9th, 2010 (8:06 am)90% of lightning goes from the ground up from one documentary I saw.
So you must be in the “mainstream”, Tag.
+1
May 9th, 2010 (8:19 am)My point exactly.
Here is some science fiction I thought of. The day will come when mankind can collect charged clouds just before they release that charge. They will then gradually compress the cloud making it denser and allowing the enormous charge to feed the world wide grid. Free cheap electricity made possible by clouds in your atmosphere. Long live the tether experiments of the 22nd Century.
Happy Mother’s Day! Next year buy your Mothers a Volt!
NPNS!
+4
May 9th, 2010 (8:25 am)The headline says: “GM Admits to Working on Lithium Air Batteries”
GM PR Rep: “Okay, you caught us.”
The word “admits” usually imples wrongdoing. This definiately isn’t. If anything, it’s “rightdoing”.
+1
May 9th, 2010 (8:34 am)I’m just well grounded (g).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+5
May 9th, 2010 (8:34 am)Almost all stories about lithium-air batteries fail to mention a few important facts:
1) Using lithium metal anodes is one of the biggest benefits of lithium-air batteries and a lithium metal anode would drastically improve energy density for batteries with normal cathodes. A practical, cheap, efficient lithium metal anode technology would be a game changer even without air cathodes.
2) Volumetric energy density. Space is an issue too and an air cathode does not necessarily help. Even if it does, it doesn’t help that much over a metal anode with an standard cathode. Space is a bigger problem than weight.
3) Complexity. Sealed battery systems are nice. If you need to deliver clean air and remove oxygen, this requires another system.
4) Reversible, durable, low-resistance air cathodes are a huge unsolved challenge. This is not a done deal by any stretch of the imagination.
May 9th, 2010 (8:36 am)OK, I’ll bite. How can they devote 24 MILLION hours of computer time to this???
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+1
May 9th, 2010 (8:40 am)It is good these batteries are working on atmospheric oxygen.
Oxygen is one of the most dangerous (even more dangerous than hydrogen) gases used in industry.
+2
May 9th, 2010 (8:43 am)“GM has already tested cells from over a hundred vendors and knows about literally hundreds of technologies from companies, universities, and laboratories worldwide. Samples are tested regularly and specifically to determine if they are sufficient for automotive use.”
Nice to have this assurance. GM is so much better at being able to make the best decisions than us who are WAG and even to most auto manufacturers who cannot or are not putting this huge investment into battery research. How many manufacturers just take the specifications provided by the battery manufacturer at their word and make a choice based on that? This is how most purchases of parts are made. Also it is all about making the best $ deal. I am sure many of these tie-ups between battery manufacturers and auto manufacturers are not about best technology but best deal.
May 9th, 2010 (9:03 am)Easy, 2 hours a day paid out over the next 32,876 years. Wonder if it will still be backward compatible with Gen 1 Volt when they finish the research
+1
May 9th, 2010 (9:07 am)The Obama administration awarded $106M for advanced battery R&D:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/04/arpae-20100430.html
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/05/obama-administration-ramps-up-electric-car-battery-grants-/1
(Metallic) Lithium-Air (as compared to Li-ion-Air) looks very promising. A new ceramic material called LISICON (Lithium SuperIonic Conductor) allows metallic lithium in a cell with aqueous air cathodes.
-8
May 9th, 2010 (9:07 am)Related:
GM Admits to Working on Advanced Composite Battery Electric Vehicle
http://www.nowyourreallydreamingwhatareyounutsthatwouldmake2muchsense/
+2
May 9th, 2010 (9:17 am)Here is perhaps a more realistic look at lithium-air
http://gas2.org/2010/04/06/mit-researchers-make-significant-advance-in-lithium-air-batteries/
May 9th, 2010 (9:23 am)I’m waiting for the day when these new power cells are small enough to develop a BEV conversion kit for my ’79. Current kits stuff batteries front and back. It would be cool if the whole thing fit under the hood. I can picture a whole new aftermarket industry coming just around the corner!
May 9th, 2010 (9:24 am)Yeah, that one is something like 160,000 years. Got to be some catch.
“Through the Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment (INCITE) program, DOE’s leadership computing facilities at Oak Ridge and Argonne national laboratories will employ a competitive peer review process to allocate researchers 1.6 billion processor hours in 2010. In 2009 the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility allocated 470 million processor hours on Jaguar through the INCITE program.”
“Jaguar at a glance: • Cray XT computer system • Top500 rank: 1st for XT5 component and 16th for XT4 component • 2.595 petaflop/s peak theoretical performance for the combined system (2.332 petaflop/s from XT5 and 0.263 petaflops from XT4) • Superlative speed: 1.759 petaflop/s actual performance for the XT5 and 0.205 petaflop/s for the XT4 on HPL benchmark program • 255,584 processing cores • XT5: 37,376 AMD six-core Istanbul OpteronTM 2.6 gigahertz processors (224,256 compute cores) • XT4: 7,832 AMD four-core Budapest OpteronTM 2.1 gigahertz processors (31,328 compute cores) • InfiniBand network connects XT5 and XT4 components • Cray SeaStar network interface and router • System memory: 362 terabytes (almost three times that of the second largest system) • Unmatched input/output bandwidth to read and write files: 284 gigabytes per second • Sizable storage: Spider, a 10-petabyte Lustre-based shared file system • Speedy Internet connections enable users to access Jaguar from around the world. • High-end visualization helps users make sense of the data flood Jaguar generates.”
So first the 24million hours is 24million PROCESSOR hours and these computers have up to 224,256 processors per computer.
The more easily digested number is that these laboratories have several of these super computers and 1.5% of available time is set aside for battery research.
May 9th, 2010 (9:29 am)Links to Lithium-Air battery R&D promising > TEN TIMES capacity of Li-ion:
http://www.polyplus.com/home.html
http://gas2.org/2009/07/28/new-lithium-air-battery-has-huge-storage-capacity/
http://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/latest_research/2009/20090727/20090727.html
+4
May 9th, 2010 (9:32 am)While a 1200Whr/kg represents the goal of the research into Lithium Air batteries, we should not skimp on intermediate steps that are closer to fruition. Current lithion ion batteries range between 80 and 120 Wh/kg and cost too much. They are too heavy but testing so far indicates they will last ten years. An intermediate goal is to get to 250 Wh/kg without significantly increasing material costs and cutting production cost in half. This would allow a 60 mile AER Volt and a 150 mile range Leaf. When I was a young man, more than 50 years ago, electricity from fusion reactors was just around the corner, but as you know, they are still “around the corner.”
What I am saying is “stay on target.”
May 9th, 2010 (9:32 am)Yeah. But can it check my email and facebook?
-2
May 9th, 2010 (9:39 am)Who needs Lithium Air when you’re already getting 230 mpg with old school battery tech?
+1
May 9th, 2010 (9:48 am)range plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicles.
Batteries for Electrical Energy Storage in Transportation
(These projects have been selected for negotiation of awards; final award amounts may vary.)
Lead organization
(Partners) Description Funding
ReVolt Technology LLC Zn-Air Battery: Zinc Flow Air Battery (ZFAB), the Next Generation Energy Storage for Transportation
ReVolt Technology will develop a novel large format high-energy zinc-air flow battery for long all-electric range Plug-In and All Electric vehicles. This novel high energy battery concept is based upon a closed loop system in which the zinc (anode), suspended as slurry in a storage tank, is transported through reaction tubes (cathode) to facilitate the discharge and recharge of the battery. ReVolt’s fundamental breakthroughs in air electrodes enable a new class of high-energy rechargeable battery systems that combines key innovations from the fields of fuel cells and batteries. $5,000,335
Sion Power Corporation
(BASF, LBNL, PNNL) Li-S Battery: Development of High Energy Li-S Cells for Electric Vehicles
Sion Power Corporation, a Brookhaven National Laboratory spin-out company, will develop an ultra-high energy Lithium-Sulfur battery able to power electric vehicles more than 300 miles between charges, with and energy density of 500Wh/kg that is 3x that of current Li-ion batteries. While the high energy potential of Lithium-Sulfur is well known, Sion Power’s proprietary strategy, focusing on a manufacturable approach to lithium anode protection and employing six different physical barrier layers, highly differentiates Sion’s approach from all other Lithium-Sulfur efforts. These strategies directly address cycle life and safety while also allowing higher energies. $5,000,000
PolyPlus Battery Company
(Corning) Li-Air Battery: Development Of Ultra-high Specific Energy Rechargeable Lithium/Air Batteries Based On Protected Lithium Metal Electrodes
PolyPlus Battery Company and Corning Incorporated will work together to achieve transformational improvements in rechargeable Li-Air battery technology. PolyPlus’s lithium-air batteries based on proprietary protected lithium electrodes and Corning’s specialization in glass, ceramics, and record of moving technology from laboratory to manufacturing have great promise for advancing Li-Air technology, which holds promise to rival the energy density of gasoline. With a clear path to commercialization this technology hopes to revolutionize Li-Air batteries for electric vehicle applications. $4,996,311
MIT
(A123 Systems, Rutgers University) Novel Battery: Semi-Solid Rechargeable Power Sources: Flexible, High Performance Storage for Vehicles at Ultra-Low Cost (<$0.10/Wh)
Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in collaboration with A123 Systems and Rutgers University, will seek to develop a revolutionary new electrical energy storage concept for transportation that combines the best attributes of rechargeable batteries and fuel cells. This technology incorporates semi-solid high energy density rechargeable, renewable and recyclable electrochemical fuel in a flow system that decouples power from stored energy. Early stage results suggest that high energy density and system costs less than $100/kWh can be obtained, which would enable rapid widespread adoption of electric vehicles. $4,973,724
Applied Materials
(A123 Systems, LBNL) Advanced Li-Ion Battery Manufacturing: Novel High Energy Density Lithium-Ion Cell Designs via Innovative Manufacturing Process Modules for Cathode and Integrated Separator
Applied Materials Inc. will lead an effort to develop ultra-high energy low cost lithium-ion batteries enabled by disruptive new manufacturing processes. This novel approach will focus on developing a high energy density porosity-graded cathode on 3D current collectors, an integrated separator, and a suite of modular manufacturing processes that have the potential to transform lithium-ion battery manufacturing technology. These high energy cathodes will be incorporated with new high capacity anodes to demonstrate prototype manufacturing of high energy lithium-ion cells with energy density greater than 400 Wh/kg and extremely low cost. $4,373,990
Planar Energy Devices
(NREL, UCSD, Univ. of Central FLorida, Univ. of Colorado-Boulder, Univ. of Florida, Univ. of South Florida) Solid State Lithium Battery: Solid State All Inorganic Rechargeable Lithium Batteries
Planar Energy Devices, Inc, an Orlando, FL based early stage battery technology company, will seek to develop an ultra high energy, long cycle life all solid-state lithium battery that can manufactured using low cost non-vacuum fabrication techniques, targeting energy densities of 400Wh/kg and 1,080Wh/liter; system costs of $200/kWh, and cycle life of 5,000, Planar Energy Devices will demonstrate pilot manufacturing of these disruptive new batteries using a low cost roll-to-roll process in ambient environment, all inorganic materials, and solid state electrolytes whose ionic conductivity is similar to existing liquid electrolytes. $4,025,373
Pellion Technologies
(MIT, Bar-Ilan University) Mg-Ion Battery: Low-Cost Rechargeable Magnesium Ion Batteries with High Energy Density
Pellion Technologies Inc., an MIT spin-out company, will develop inexpensive high-energy-density rechargeable magnesium-ion batteries with the potential to disrupt current energy storage technologies for electric and hybrid-electric vehicles. To develop a game-changing magnesium-ion battery, Pellion will leverage high throughput computational materials design coupled with accelerated materials synthesis and electrolyte optimization to identify new high-energy-density magnesium cathode materials and compatible electrolyte chemistries. $3,204,080
Recapping Inc.
(Penn State Univ.) Capacitive Storage: High Energy Density Capacitor
Recapping Inc. and researchers at Pennsylvania State University will seek to develop a novel energy storage device based on a 3D nanocomposite structure with functional oxides that provide a very high effective capacitance. The basic fabrication of the dielectric materials and devices will utilize traditional multilayer ceramic fabrication methods that will provide a cost effective alternative to battery solutions, with added benefits of exploiting mechanisms that could maintain higher cycling and possibly deliver charge with high power density. This technology hopes to create a cyclable and economically competitive energy storage device that will catalyze new, related cleantech industries and contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases and oil imports. $1,000,000
Stanford University
(Honda, Applied Materials) Novel Battery: The All-Electron Battery: a quantum leap forward in energy storage
In this project, researchers Stanford University will seek to develop an “All-Electron Battery”, a completely new class of electrical energy storage devices for electric vehicles that has the potential to provide ultra-high energy and power densities, while enabling extremely high cycle life. The All-Electron Battery stores energy by moving electrons, rather than ions, and uses electron/hole redox instead of capacitive polarization of a double-layer. This technology uses a novel architecture that has potential for very high energy density because it decouples the two functions of capacitors: charge separation and breakdown strength. $1,000,000
Missouri University of Science & Technology
((Brookhaven National Laboratory, MaxPower Inc., NanoLab Inc.) Li-Air Battery: High Performance Cathodes for Li-Air Battery Researchers at the Missouri University of Science and Technology will lead a multi-disciplinary team to develop a disruptive new high energy air cathode to enable the successful development of ultra-high energy Lithium-Air batteries. Lithium-Air batteries have extremely high theoretical energy densities (5,000-12,000 Wh/kg) approaching those of gasoline due to the use of a high capacity lithium anode and oxygen from the air. However, existing Lithium-Air technologies have exhibited very low power, round trip efficiency, and cycle life due to severe performance limitations at the air cathode. In this project, researchers will seek to dramatically improve Lithium-Air air cathode performance through the development of a new hierarchical electrode structure to enhance oxygen diffusion from the air and novel high performance bifunctional oxygen reduction and evolution catalysts. $999,997
+4
May 9th, 2010 (9:54 am)If 230 mpg is good, 460 mpg is better!
This seems a good thread for me to trot out my LJGTVWOTR!! slogan. (g). THEN we can be concerned with 460 mpg.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
-1
May 9th, 2010 (9:58 am)carcus2:
The beauty of the Voltec (all electric) drivetrain is that the ICE range extender can be replaced with advanced technology as it becomes available.
The Lithium-Air battery (fuel cell) would replace the ICE range extender, NOT the Li-ion battery. At the service station, instead of filling with gasoline, the Lithium and LiOH cartridges would be swapped. In a few minutes you’re driving away and the service station is regeneratiing (recharging) the Lithium-LiOH cartridges for the next motorist.
The concept of 230 MPG goes to the museum, where it belongs !!!
Meanwhile, I agree with Tagamet – Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+4
May 9th, 2010 (10:14 am)Take That ! EEStor …… Mwa-hey !
+1
May 9th, 2010 (10:14 am)bye EEStor ????? HELLO Lithium AIR!
Looks there are a number of real battery energy storage options finally on the near horizon. Energy density is the true goal of a great battery.
With this speed of development cycle it appears to an older gentleman, like me, that the better approach for buying any EV is a LEASE/BUY option….. Or at the least a lease/trade in plan for batteries in a VOLT as new higher energy density batteries come on line.
By the time you have a VOLT for a year it may be extremely out of date. I love the idea of a high tech electric car ( with a lot of range not 100 miles) I could drive and drive.
The lease or battery trade option allows one to keep up and be still to young enough to benefit. (and not broke)
I assume I have about 15 + years of useful driving left. I have been waiting for a REAL electric car to drive for only 40 years :+}.
May 9th, 2010 (10:21 am)What I’m saying is, wouldn’t it be nice if GM could stick with the more near-term/realistic future at hand? Perhaps introduce a concept like this?
Ford Start Concept busts out of Beijing
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/22/ford-start-concept-busts-out-of-beijing/
Highlights:
- 1.0-litre EcoBoost three-cylinder petrol engine which reinforces Ford’s ‘fun to drive’ DNA. This engine will provide the power and drivability comparable to a larger I4 engine while delivering a CO2 rating under 100 g/km. This smallest-yet EcoBoost engine will go into production in the near future.
- The innovative hybrid aluminum/high strength steel body construction features a lightweight aluminum safety cell, which provides a rigid structure for the glass and roof to attach and houses side curtain airbags for additional occupant safety.
/something stylish, probably fun to drive, probably in the prius beating mpg range, probably affordable
+1
May 9th, 2010 (10:23 am)Hi RoyH,
Those are some really interesting approaches. It seems that the different grant amounts might somehow indicate practicabilities/feasibilities as assigned in decreasing dollar amounts, which is also interesting.
If these really great posts continue, I might not get my lawn cut this morning! LOL!
May 9th, 2010 (10:54 am)Speed of development is not that fast. Most of these are at least 5 years out and some say 20 years.
Nice to see GM working on Lithium-Air, but they also need to work on some nearer term solutions, like lithium-sulfur.
+1
May 9th, 2010 (11:21 am)Good to see GM developing next generation batteries for the Voltec platform. Maybe we’ll see an enhanced battery technology in Generation 2 and 3 of the Volt.
+2
May 9th, 2010 (11:52 am)carcus2 said:
Ford Start Concept busts out of Beijing.
Wow, is that one of those cars that runs on gasoline?
-1
May 9th, 2010 (11:58 am)I KNOW, right????
It’s CRAZY for bankrupt GM to be researching lightweight high efficiency gasoline cars when there’s soooo much money to be made with lithium air right now!
May 9th, 2010 (12:01 pm)I would love to see a breakthrough in battery technology, but we would need a similar breakthrough in energy transfer.
You would need to have a network of Level 3 quick charging stations or better to take advantage of that battery or it would take a week to recharge given the amount of current needed.
Even with a 300 mile electric range it would be useless if it took three days to recharge. Until that part of the equation is resolved the gasoline powered range extender is the only practical solution to range anxiety.
+4
May 9th, 2010 (12:08 pm)The point is that GM has been there, done that. GM had “EcoBoost” before Ford did, just didn’t advertise the hell out of it. This is a failure of GM marketing, not engineering.
+3
May 9th, 2010 (12:10 pm)85% of the cost of the battery is in the commodities that are needed for the battery. Lithium air batteries use air for the cathode not metals. Bottom line is the battery costs a whole lot less to produce. It also weighs a lot less and, of course, stores more energy and produces more power. But obviously as big a deal as greater power density might be, the fact that the cost would drop substantially and you wouldn’t have to either mine or import the commodities is an even bigger deal.
Lithium air also offers some interesting possibilities. If you search a bit you’ll find that the Japanese are looking at aqueous solutions in cassettes for the anode. These can be replaced when the battery is depleted. In a sense this process would be a doable Project Better Place system where you’d just swap out your cassette, and the old cassette would be recycled into a new one. http://mid-autumn2008.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-lithiumair-battery-having-unique.html
+7
May 9th, 2010 (12:15 pm)GM isn’t bankrupt. In fact it’s balance sheet is going to look a whole lot better than Ford’s. That’s one of the not so great results you get from Chapter 11′s. The weak turn into the strong which turns the formerly strong into the weak, which forces the now weak into bankruptcy. Rinse. Repeat cycle.
I think criticizing GM for failing to introduce new ICE cars and trucks is unwarranted. GM is introducing great new product. It needs to be more reliable but the quality is fantastic. My criticism is that GM management appears to lack vision outside the ICE area. IOW management is too focused on ICEs.
+2
May 9th, 2010 (12:17 pm)As I was corrected just a few days ago, energy density is energy storage per unit volume.
If you’re talking energy storage per unit weight, that’s specific energy.
May 9th, 2010 (12:23 pm)I respectfully disagree. Quick charge will be very important for commercial applications like trucking. For most people starting off each morning with 300 mile range will be no problem. 300 mile range requires about 60kWhr. At 220V that is 6 hours charging at 50A, not a big deal as your stove uses 40A and dryer 30A. Tesla owners have a 75A circuit installed to charge their Roadster.
High power fast chargers will require some sort of giant plug on a robotic arm with prongs about 1 inch thick. Too big to handle by hand. But this is doable, and will be required only on highway truck stops and fleet truck headquarters.
-1
May 9th, 2010 (12:28 pm)“Yet, when Ford is using VVT, twin turbos and direct injection, why would the news releases by GM often fail to mention a key aspect to engine efficiency – direct injection? And when asked, GM seems to shrug its shoulders.
For example, when I questioned engineers at SAE as to why a new car would not have the latest (which Ford has, for example, with its EcoBoost), I was bounced around between multiples of engineers. Finally one GM engineer of some authority assured me that all GM engines would “eventually” have direct injection. Eventually?”
Where is the direct fuel injection for the Chevy Cruze engine?
http://www.examiner.com/sitemaps/x-3721-Detroit-Automotive-Technology-Examiner~y2010m5d1-Where-is-the-direct-fuel-injection-for-the-Chevy-Cruze-engine
/also to the point :
- where is anything light weight from GM (the Ford Fiesta is approaching featherlight 2,200 lb),
- where is a 3 cylinder direct injection turbo charged engine from GM (Ford and BMW and others are producing)?
- where is any mention of looking at aluminum and composites (also, like ford and BMW)?
+1
May 9th, 2010 (12:50 pm)Good article. It is hard to draw definite conclusions from it. Being bounced around to different engineers and finally talking to one with “sufficient authority” and then getting an obtuse answer is clearly an indication that this information was secret and not to be released at this time. The article left me with the feeling that if it does not have direct injection, then it is because GM has something better.
-1
May 9th, 2010 (12:52 pm)
May 9th, 2010 (12:56 pm)I thought Jaguar was a car? Are they all part of a centralized computer now? Oh My!
More battery news than I can digest. I actually think that is a good thing! So when are we going to see some of the developments in a portable drill?? I would expect to see new developments in cellphones and drills years before a car.
Hoon the battery! Hooray!
-2
May 9th, 2010 (1:00 pm)Sorry, but that’s always a stock defensive answer . . . cards close to the vest/ something better’s just around the corner/ etc….. It doesn’t fly.
/How long have we been hearing about HCCI? Where the he11 is it? It’s probably still in the lab cause it doesn’t work (yet?). Incomplete lab projects don’t don’t reduce fuel consumption and they don’t make money.
+4
May 9th, 2010 (1:23 pm)Oh please.
You are sooooo behind the times. (Maybe change search engines?)
GM has numerous HCCI projects on the front burner. They have merely “phased” in the technology in the form of SIDI (Spark Ignited Direct Ignition). SIDI first appeared in 2008 in the form of a 2.0L Turbo (260hp/260tq) as well as the more recent 3.6L DI versions. These engines represent the building blocks towards HCCI and anyone that understands ICE engineering would tell you as such.
IFAIK NOBODY has a gasoline HCCI engine actually in production or being offered in a production car as of yet so whether GM will be “first to market” with HCCI remains to be seen so WTF are you spoutin’ off about??
WopOnTour
+4
May 9th, 2010 (1:23 pm)So GM would be far better off, if they eliminated any of this nasty transparency – and be like all the other car makers? This would have been a really lousy site for the last three years.
Note to GM: Please don’t even hint at progress until it’s polished and released.
Better?
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+1
May 9th, 2010 (1:42 pm)The point of Lyle’s article is about GM’s heads-up battery lab. And no doubt some of our interests are ionized (pun) by the prospect of a 10x battery improvement. So I checked into finding a credible updated report on Li-O2 http://www.batteriesdigest.com/lithium_air.htm
Scroll down to the Donald Georgi report “Lithium-Air…The Ultimate Battery?”
The challenges are super-duper formidable. (And much too involved for this soundbite. So you’ll need to read the Report.) Aside from these not so minor difficulties, germane here is the practical expectation versus the theoretical. Which is explained in a sidebar (same page) by Dr. Arthur Dobley. He opines “We selected a conservative 33%”. Whereas the author concludes “BD [Battery Digest] will err on the conservative side and use the 5,200 Wh/kg theoretical value which includes the weight of oxygen and the 1,700 Wh/kg practical value, realizing that production cells may be something less. DKG.”
You know right now all this is overshadowed by the Gulf oil mess. I know this if off topic, but in hindsight we must make all licensees jointly and severally liable. One standard for all water rigs – one effort by all oil-licensees partners. ASAP.
-7
May 9th, 2010 (2:03 pm)Uh, yeah…. that’s MY point. What was yours again?
Nice to know that they’re using the cutting edge “spark ignition” to light the way ahead for “compression ignition” research. Makes sense … not.
+1
May 9th, 2010 (2:24 pm)Any mention of the Gulf oil disaster is not “off topic” at all….since it further underscores the need for the U.S. to reduce it’s dependence on oil with the help of widespread adoption of EREV’s, which in turn, further underscores the need for advanced battery research.
George, Canada…go Volt!
+4
May 9th, 2010 (2:35 pm)Hmmm are you just a troll?
Normally I’d conform to PDNFTT to such idiocy (and squelch the likes of you away with negs)
So I’ll entertain your silliness for a bit but…
HCCI is a combustion process not an engine process. The Compression Ignition aspect is the easy part. It’s the homogenous charge component that creates the challenges. HCCI is a chemically controlled “flameless” combustion process that is extremely difficult to control due to it’s extreme sensitivity to temperature, engine speed, and fuel variations.
The SIDI engines I mentioned are of the “stratified charge” type utilizing a piston, combustion chamber, and fuel delivery model and design that represents the core elements of an HCCI system. Your posts seem to indicate that you feel General Motors is not moving fast enough FOR YOU with respect to this technology, but I assure you (and your post-bailout sense of entitlement) that the R&D is on-going at GM Powertrain in cooperation with DOE and Stanford University.
Given the current status GM will very likely be one of the first (if not THE first) companies to bring a gasoline HCCI powerplant to market. But I guess if that doesn’t suit the schedule of idiotic forum trolls such as yourself we should all just fall on our swords now.
WopOnTour
May 9th, 2010 (2:52 pm)LOL! Speak of the bugger….Here’s part of my post #90 from yesterday:
“No time like the present my friends. And while you are at it, give IBM a call whose looking into Lithium Air batteries. GM has to stay out front of all of this or they will get rolled over right quick. I understand wanting to be cautious, but this is getting hot! Time to go All-In.”
Nice to have a vaildation sometimes. I hope they can get these technologies to work.
+3
May 9th, 2010 (3:06 pm)I think the issue is more with the approach in general. The gas problem is much like our weight problem. We all know we need to lose weight, and we all know we need to cut the use of gas. There are a couple of different approaches you can use. One is that you can cut down here and there — IOW you don’t have the second cup of coffee with the cream and sugar — and that over time these small amounts will add up. Engine technologies are like this — the idea is that you save an MPG here and there and it all adds up. The alternative approach is that you do something drastic.
Empirically we know that the small cut approach doesn’t work. To make a significant dent you have to go make major changes. This may be putting words in the mouth of Carcus, but my read is that he’s saying: (1) GM is too committed to the small improvement approach; and (2) even those small improvements seem slow in coming. Neither criticism seems off-the-wall.
As far as a “post bailout sense of entitlement”, it’s there. But I’m not sure that’s either unexpected or unjustified. AIG is on a short leash — not short enough for many tastes — and GM likewise has some similar restrictions on management compensation (not sure if they still have a separate dining room but I sure hope not). And this is the view of someone who thought the bailout was necessary. The views will no doubt be more extreme for those like Carcus who didn’t share my enthusiasm.
+5
May 9th, 2010 (3:17 pm)So you DON’T put the gasoline in the battery, right?
+6
May 9th, 2010 (3:20 pm)Good illustration of why GM has chosen the right path to build a state of the art battery cell evaluation facility and not cell production. They are also wisely bringing motor and battery pack production in house. Hopefully they will end up designing and producing the power electronics module if they aren’t already.
Better to evaluate the rapidly changing technologies of others and let them take the production risks while bringing in-house the stable technology items that can benefit from 1st party mass production. The chances that the expertise, production capacity, and production methods will hold their value is much higher than say expertise in LiMn cell design/production.
Of course, once battery cell technology advances to the point where the battery cost is much less of a factor (<$3000/40AER pack) then it will be time to consider bringing it in house. This will most likely happen long before Li-Air batteries are viable. We aren't too far from this point now. A little bit of power improvement, a little bit of specific energy improvement (only specific needed IMO), a little bit of life improvement, a little more confidence in the mfg rated life, and a decent price reduction. This along with some additional vehicle weight reduction will allow an 11KWh pack to suffice, which allows a smaller pack, which allows 5-seat Volts. This is possible in 2 iterative design cycles beyond the Volt's current pack. I thought I heard LG was already testing the next generation of their cell as well as A123 doing the same.
May 9th, 2010 (3:22 pm)What if they tried building this on an airplane. You think that would help?
-1
May 9th, 2010 (3:27 pm)Assuming you are a GM employee, you need to be very careful with statements like this. I would think GM management would advise you the same. ANY American, regardless of wether you work for a bailed out business or not, should expect these businesses to stand on their own and get off the taxpayer’s subsidy ASAP.
+2
May 9th, 2010 (3:41 pm)GM is very advanced on HCCI, I think it would work very well supplemented by an electric motor at low speeds. I think the issue so far is noise and vibration..
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/05/gm-hcci-20090528.html
May 9th, 2010 (3:44 pm)he had too much last nite
-1
May 9th, 2010 (3:53 pm)The real question is wether GM is moving fast enough for the car buying public, fast enough for the new CAFE standards, and fast enough to sell in a world where long term higher fuel prices are almost certain.
There’s lots of technology available today for GM to build a more fuel efficient fleet (i.e. weight reduction and turbo charged direct injection just to start). Instead of waiting for possible future developments (i.e. HCCI or affordable Voltec or hydrogen or cellulose ethanol or lithium air batteries) I think GM should be acting a lot more like Ford and start making some noticeable changes in the volume product lineup now — Ford is basically re-engining the whole fleet (not to mention cutting weight, developing new hybrids, BEV’s, plug in hybrids, etc )
P.S. just keep standing on that “troll buzzer”. I guess if that’s all you’ve got then that’s all you’ve got.
May 9th, 2010 (4:08 pm)Like the comedian said “I lost 180 pounds last week, I divorced her/him” For years I believed in incremental-ism. Every car/truck that I bought would get better mileage than the last. Truck is currently a Colorado with 22mpg. What can do better with 4wd? Car is a Prius with 50+ mpg. Second car is HHR with 30mpg. Just trying to put as much Petrol use behind me as possible.
The Beauty of a Volt…
Watts Up
+1
May 9th, 2010 (4:21 pm)Have to agree to a certain extent. Like the commercial says, GM is a little better than the competition. But where is the S10 and the Tracker? Where is my 30+ mpg affordable 4wd? Where is a 50+ mpg sedan? Where is that tempting high mileage convertible?
The Beauty of a Volt…
A car that I could buy
May 9th, 2010 (4:39 pm)You need to recheck post 28 by RoyH:
Several of those research projects were “flow” battery projects. Basically, one of the battery “electrodes” is an energy containing liquid. The other “electrode” is oxygen from ambient air.
To recharge, you just empty a tank of “used” liquid. Refill it with “recharged” liquid. And drive on. The liquid gets recharged at your fueling station and reused.
This was approximately done in early 2000′s by two companies working with Zinc-air batteries.
One of the companies used a slurry of zinc pellets and the other used zinc metal plates that were replaceable. The pellet system actually provided you with a refrigerator sized device that you could put in your garage and have it regenerate new pellets out of used material and electricity. One of the companies test cars actually traveled over 400 miles on a single “charge” in a test run.
The current company ReVolt is the remaining incarnation of one of those two original companies. They were noted in RoyH’s post about research grants. You can see their press release here:
http://www.revolttechnology.com/communication/revolt-pressreleases.php?code=148
I am pretty agnostic as to whether I would prefer a Li-air battery or a Zn-air battery. Theoretical energy densities are higher for lithium because it is a lighter metal. But whichever works well is good enough for me. Now let’s ask, would we rather have a Li-air battery that had to be recharged over a period of one or more half-hours, or a Zn-air flow system that would require just a liquid swap of a couple minutes. It might come to that choice someday.
Let’s bring back the term eFlex!!!! It was sooo much more descriptive and accurate than Voltec.
Flexible electric drive technology. It is the future.
+2
May 9th, 2010 (4:47 pm)The corner is only about two years away, IMHO. Dense Plasma Fusion has made significant progress and projects net energy from their reactor within that time frame. Also, IEC is very close to achieving the same and it has DOD financing. Interesting is when you compare the size of the reactors; ITER, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, is huge, while the Polywell is smaller; the DPF is very small in comparison. See them at: http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/size_matters_tokamak_polywell_and_dpf/
Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (LPP) believes that aneutronic fuel pB11 will be the safest fuel for these types of reactors and plans to build a 5MW prototype when they have succeeded in attaining net energy within two years. These units can be deployed in neighborhoods nearer to residences and factories/businesses, thereby eliminating long transmission lines, power-stations to lower the voltage for residential/business usage.
They would be very small compared to the power plants of today or the ITER. It makes me wonder if and when technology could develop a unit small enough to be used by ships, large transport trucks and passenger cars.
These developments are no EEStor cases. They are well documented and you can do Google searches for reports that come out monthly on their progress. ITER will take a long time: somewhere around 2050 or longer to have a working prototype if at all, while the DPF and IEC are looking at actual reactors by 2020. These new fusion reactors will NOT produce waste produces that can be used by terrorists. They will be entirely safe, and very affordable, and not plagued by engineering problems such as with the ITER.
Technological advances will provide us with the means to end our addiction to foreign oil and fossil fuels. These are exciting times, with nothing but good news for the future.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+4
May 9th, 2010 (5:33 pm)This deserves a response.
You mention 5 completely different technologies:
1) HCCI
2) Affordable Voltec
3) Hydrogen
4) Cellulosic ethanol
5) Lithium air batteries
and lump them all together as “possible future developments”.
First and foremost, Voltec is already affordable. According to Lyle, the Volt will be priced in the low 30s, which makes it mid 20s after the tax credit:
http://gm-volt.com/2010/01/27/gm-ceo-ed-whitacre-is-a-strong-fan-of-the-volt/
“Though various bloggers quoting GM spokespeople have attempted to refute Mr. Whitacre’s comment to me about the Volt selling in the low 30s, I still stand by his statement. None of the naysayers were present for the call nor spent time in GM’s boardroom. The $7500 tax credit was not mentioned or inferred. Of course, we’ll have to wait until summer to see for sure.”
Also, many people seem to be confused on the status of cellulosic ethanol. While cellulosic fermentation is still in the research stage, cellulosic gasification is ready to go, and starting limited production:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9928810-54.html
As for Hydrogen, this will never make economic sense:
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
“In the market place, hydrogen would have to compete with its own source of energy, i.e. with (“green”) electricity from the grid,” he says. “For this reason, creating a new energy carrier is a no-win solution. We have to solve an energy problem not an energy carrier problem.”
HCCI and Lithium Air are both promising, but not yet ready for prime time.
So I feel lumping all of these together is deceptive.
And when you do the math, it becomes clear that efficiency alone will never get us to energy independence. We need a new fuel source.
May 9th, 2010 (5:37 pm)I’d put the Prius in the “major change” category. Obviously the Volt is as well. As you mention, trucks are hard, which is why CNG is the best alternative at the moment. How many of those does GM make?
May 9th, 2010 (6:09 pm)Maybe we will have fusion after all, but this is still unknown as proof of concept is still at least 2 years away:
The most promising, (I think), and proven energy supply is the LFTR run for 5 years at ORNL, runs on cheap abundant thorium, has almost no radio-active waste. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk
Although I am no fuel cell fan, I do not agree with your statement that it is not practical based on efficiency. If it can be shown to be much better as an energy carrier than batteries then there is a market for it. This is based on an assumption that energy will become cheap and abundant via LFTRs, solar cells, wind mills etc. If energy is cheap enough then efficiency is not so important. FCVs will have to be competive cost and significantly longer range than BEVs to compete. If range is only the same then the efficiency factor will become important.
+2
May 9th, 2010 (7:09 pm)You have to be well grounded in order to “plug in.”
…. and then, we press “on.”
+1
May 9th, 2010 (7:13 pm)Whether it’s Lithium Air or something else; if there is a 10-fold (or even a 5-fold) improvement in electricity storage, GM MUST reconsider the 40-mile AER limit for Voltec.
MUST.
RECONSIDER.
Such an improvement will mean 250+ mile BEVs, undercutting the Volt in price. If a 24kwh battery weighs less than 100 pounds (and costs much less than the current going rate per kwh, whatever it is), it will still have an advantage in an EREV (quick refueling on road trips). Very much less than this, under these circumstances, starts to look just plain silly.
It also means larger EREVs.
+3
May 9th, 2010 (7:22 pm)Dave, I’m “lifting” this comment from your excellent post above because I think all of us could use a little “lift” in the wake of GM’s seeming indifference towards Voltec very recently. And when I posted a comment yesterday (post #24) presenting my WAG of the MSRP for the Volt, and how I determined the number, I independently came to a very similar conclusion: that the Volt MSRP should be about $33,500 before incentives or rebates (or $26,000 after the $7,500 Federal rebate).
Thanks for reminding us of this key comment from Lyle’s January interview of GM’s top guy!
+1
May 9th, 2010 (7:36 pm)Assuming this is correct — and I think the estimate is low by quite a bit — GM would be crazy to sell the Volt at your price point. Why? Well Nissan has some 8000 preorders for the Leaf now and expects 25,000 preorders by the end of 2010. (The target was 20,000).
In the informal poll on Autobloggreen.com, about 80% of readers reported that they were passing on the Leaf and wanted a Volt.
GM plans to manufacture 8000 Volts in 2010-2011.
So why would they want to match or beat the Leaf price? If they did they’d just create a nightmare problem.
+1
May 9th, 2010 (7:39 pm)Let’s do some math on that.
Today, the Volt’s battery pack costs GM around $8000, and the ICE range extender costs them around $2000 (including the radiator, exhaust, etc.). For a BEV-250 the size of the Volt, the battery pack would cost around $35,000 today.
Now let’s hypothetically shrink that by a factor of 10. An EREV-40 battery pack would cost $800 and the ICE would still be $2000, for a total of $2800, while the BEV-250 battery pack would cost $3500.
Now figure out how much gas an EREV-80 would save over an EREV-40. For a typical driver, this would be around 15 gallons a year.
+3
May 9th, 2010 (7:44 pm)And then something *really* neat happens. Ab-so-lute-ly nothing. Quiet. Ahhhh.
Marvelous.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+1
May 9th, 2010 (8:10 pm)You may win the battle of the mind, but perhaps not the battle to win hearts.
Let’s look at it this way: are there drivers out there who would love to do all of their local driving electric, but still be able to take off on a long trip (and be freed from “range anxiety” as an added bonus)? I think that there might well be a lot of them. Keeping in mind that the Prius sells quite well for a car which has trouble justifying it’s purchase price on strict costing alone, I think there might be a ready market for an EREV100 (I tried to insert that into my comment, don’t know why the edit failed).
A 100 mile AER Volt would certainly be superior to BEV100, and would look a bit less pitiful than EREV40 alongside the 250+ mile BEVs which would surely result from a 5-fold improvement in battery technology. You must surely see that hyper-long-range EVs will appear just as soon as battery technology permits, despite the fact that such a car would be next to impossible to fully recharge without a quick-recharging infrastructure. 250 is better than 100, just like a V6 is better than a 4-banger (this is just the nature of selling cars in America).
I would have thought that you, Dave G, would have been solidly on my side in this; Mr. “Fast Charge Will Never Work” and “Bio Fuels Are The Answer For Long Distances.”
To be fair, you may have a point about electric range; but consider how well higher horsepower options sell, and how few of it’s buyers actually need it.
And of course, a battery technology allowing an EREV100 Volt-sized car may also enable EREV40 Silverado-sized truck.
+2
May 9th, 2010 (8:20 pm)So at that point the tech would allow a much cheaper, mid-sized EREV40 car.
Works for me.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
-1
May 9th, 2010 (8:21 pm)Additionally, by the time that battery prices have come down say 10-fold, it’s safe to assume that the ICE range extender will also be smaller, simpler, more efficient, and with R & D, mass production, etc., cheaper than today’s $2,000 price (let’s say around $1,200-$1,500?). A more efficient ICE will also further save on gas prices.
George, Sudbury, Canada…go Volt!!
+1
May 9th, 2010 (8:30 pm)Of course.
I’m not suggesting that EREV100 replace EREV40.
But if you want to promote the technology beyond equally advanced BEVs, you also need to offer (in my opinion):
*An EREV100
*An EREV Sports Car.
In the case of the Sports Car, this is really no different from the philosophy of offering a Corvette for sale, even though it will never be a volume leader. In some respect, the panache of an affordable super electric (to exemplify electric performance), will ‘rub off’ on the cheaper models.
The EREV100 might be similar, but in the newer area of electric/efficiency (a category currently exemplified by the Prius, perhaps), but I strongly believe that drivers in geographically larger metro areas (like Atlanta) would flock to it in significant numbers; with enough range for the longer commutes possible in such an environment.
Much farther than 100 miles, and you surpass the limit of what you can realistically recharge overnight in your garage.
+3
May 9th, 2010 (8:34 pm)If Lithium-air battery prove to be easy to mass produce and in a reasonable cost. I would predict the game is over for ICE only automobile.
+1
May 9th, 2010 (8:38 pm)The current Popular Mechanics has an interesting “what if” story set several years in the future; which is marred only by the lumping together of EREV into “Plug-in Hybrids.”
While the story mostly follows a BEV owner through a heat-wave-strained electricity supply in California, EREV is mentioned as being superior under such uncertain grid circumstances (they can still burn fuel).
We might disagree with the story in places, but it’s still an interesting read.
May 9th, 2010 (8:51 pm)Surprise! The low production numbers are just a Red Herring…
Really now, who do you think could ramp up production faster? I will not look at a Volt if it is more than 30k out of pocket. How many on the 50k Volt want list would buy a Volt for more than 30K after rebate? I just wish I was that hypothetical Google woman that could buy a Volt with a 5k check.
I think GM could easily make a profit with a 33k sticker. Now if they wanted to bump it up to 38k, they would have give me a 5k discount before I would bring my wife to look at it.
The vast majority of people do not want to be the first with something new. They just do not believe…
The Beauty of a Volt…
I Believe, Hallelujah
May 9th, 2010 (9:12 pm)Dave, you’re glossing over a few points. First, no one is talking about a 10 fold decrease in cost. They’re talking about a ten fold increase in energy density. As shown by the fact that lead acid batteries are less expensive than Lithium ion, increasing energy density can be more not less expensive.
Second, no one is also talking about a 10X increase in energy density per unit volume. From the slide below it doesn’t look like a lithium-air battery would be any smaller for a given amount of energy than than the current lithium ion batteries. If this is the case, where exactly are you going to put all those cells? To carry all that volume you’d end up with a one seat car the size of a Hummer. http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/02/ibm-kicks-off-battery-500-project-to-boost-ev-range-500-miles-or/
I’m also not totally clear on the power density. Do you have any info on this?
But that’s not to say the a 10X increase in energy isn’t a big deal. Cut the weight of the Volt pack by a factor of 10 and get a few more miles on the EV range. FWIW my guess is that the Gen II Volt will not have a 16 kWh battery if for no reason other than that using only 50% of the battery will probably prove to have been excessively cautious.
May 9th, 2010 (9:30 pm)Statik has pointed out that until the battery plant comes on line early in 2012, Volt production will be constrained by limited battery production. If this is the case, then it won’t be able to ramp up production until then. Given this, wouldn’t you agree that GM would be smarter to price the Volt at $40k before subsidies?
May 9th, 2010 (10:01 pm)Nope. They should keep the after rebate number below 30K so they can get their “word of mouth” info machine running. JMO.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
May 9th, 2010 (10:40 pm)From all the info that I could dredge up about li air batteries, aside from the many, many technical and economic obstacles that currently make these types of batteries impractical, I failed to find a single article which claimed fast recharge times. Some have claimed that the greater density makes hese batteries potentially the holy grail, but, barring some sort of swappable capability, that claim is, at best, sorely missing the point. Those other issues, like cost and short lifespan
make this technology a long shot, in my opinion. MIT’s slippery surface batteries (now being developed under license by A123 Systems) are infinitely more practical and are reportedly not far from commercialization. I would place my bet on those, assuming EEStor doesn’t work. If EEStor does work, air lithium batteries (and slippery surface as well) will quickly become dead technologies. So, gentlemen, make your bets. I’m rooting for EEStor, and think slippery surface
will likely triumph if they flop.
May 10th, 2010 (12:14 am)Nice Looking battery hope we do get five or seven hundred miles at that range one day in the future maybe? But still five or seven hundred miles sounds like beyond leaps for now. But yeah if this technology ever became reality we would be saying hallelujah no more petroleum and oil for us!
May 10th, 2010 (4:47 am)off topic:
Computer guru and L.A. radio personality Leo Laporte demos the Volt.
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/03/15/video-chief-twit-leo-laporte-drives-digs-the-chevy-volt/
=D-Volt
+1
May 10th, 2010 (7:35 am)I see the “backwards compatibility” affecting the release of updated models more than the retrofit of old ones. A breakthrough battery could be immediately incorporated into Volts rolling off the assembly line with no alteration to the rest of the Volt’s physical/software architecture.
-1
May 10th, 2010 (7:45 am)Yes but Kent, if a huge energy density makes the batteries small, light, and inexpensive, then don’t you think that swappable batteries would almost automatically become a reality? After all, these are the three factors that currently prevent swappable batteries from being a practicality. It would be great to use one in your car for a week while the other charges in your garage during that time. Or alternately, this makes public battery exchange stores feasible, becoming no more difficult than swapping a propane tank at Home Depot. In other words, the advent of small, light, inexpensive high density batteries would make charging on the fly unnecessary.
May 10th, 2010 (7:48 am)…except for the large quantities of oil that we use for industrial feedstocks for plastics and fertilizer, unfortunately. Not only do we need to fully displace oil as a transportation fuel, but we need to continue developing SUBSTITUTES for these feedstock applications. I’m keeping my fingers crossed for products like biologically-derived oils.
May 10th, 2010 (9:28 am)It definitely looks like a good while before this technology could get ready for prime-time (can’t wait till it does), make no mistake – at anywhere close to these power densities (and if production could scale & durability is there etc.) this would represent a truly direct threat to the Oil industry/OPEC (which is licking its chops at the prices its going to get in the coming years – even with our little efforts at EV’s / EREV’s).
Our current efforts with EV/EREV’s might get you and I off the oil binge for our cars, but won’t make much of a difference in world oil prices for a long time. This technology, though, could take pretty much everything on road transportation off oil – amazing to think its a possibility.
I would expect the Oil industry/interests (including well funded foreign ones) to do anything/everything it can to prevent this technology from getting to production – since its radically different from the Li batt technology we have now, I would guess there will be lots of patents to whomever gets this done first (and to those that get it partway done) – it would be in the Oil industry direct interest (and they are not shy about using any/all means to get what they want) to pay nearly any amount to control and kill this technology if they can.
May 10th, 2010 (10:34 am)#33
I love it. +1
May 10th, 2010 (10:47 am)The era of Petroleum is ending. What will that mean? Change!
There are a lot of minds working on new solutions.. Right now we have fuel cells vs biofuels vs batteries vs ultra-capacitors vs hydrogen vs (your favorite here)vs …
I wouldn’t be investing in a new LION battery factory if I was a car maker. Everything above can be used to drive electric generators/motors. I would put my money in motors and controls
As to Fusion energy, we could have a wonderful fusion power plant running on the dark side of the moon today using technology from 1952. This would also fix its orbit — its spiraling away from the Earth presently.
Its all about how bad you want it — and we have had the security blanket of cheap oil… So don’t do any linear extrapolation yet. Hockey stick! Hockey Stick! Hockey Stick!
I think “Air” batteries are closer than you think. Fuel cells use Air cathodes.
Old school battery tech?! Lol. Don’t you mean lead/acid? How soon the new becomes old and boring.
More/Faster/Bigger/Better/Cheaper/More! Competition…
May 10th, 2010 (11:11 am)It’s good to see someone who has a sense of the technical challenges. I disagree with your skepticism about metal-air battery technologies (the space saving is significant and for automotive uses weight is a MAJOR issue). Also, I don’t think air delivery is a problem because you can have a passive or active air system. A passive system doesn’t require any additional complexity. An active system has the benefit of cooling the battery. When you blow air across the cathode, you will remove heat (air is mostly nitrogen, so there is a lot of extra gas to act as a heat sink).
However, I completely agree that a REVERSIBLE air cathode is a HUGE hurdle. Look at it this way. You need a catalyst at the cathode to promote the Oxygen Reduction Reaction. Now, when you reduce the lithium oxide to recharge the battery, you are applying a current to the cathode. So during recharge, whatever you use to support the catalyst will be experiencing high potentials, will be exposed to oxygen AND will be in contact with a catalyst. These three conditions destroy all known supports. It is a major problem that nobody has even demonstrated a possible candidate to overcome. And until this problem is solved, you will never see a rechargeable lithium-air or any other metal-air battery…
May 10th, 2010 (1:10 pm)You may be right as we are reaching a peak disclosure point right about now. Many new (non-disclosed) energy systems will be making a debut over the next 24-36 months. This is why the fusion people need to produce something that works now – because the zero point people are on the march. We will likely be struck with a dozen new methods of generating energy in the next two to three years. Some of these will demonstrate the here-to-fore ridiculed precept called “over unity.” This will cause traditional coal, nuke and even wind/solar people great alarm.
We are surrounded by infinite energy. Learning how to make use of it is a stones throw away.
May 10th, 2010 (4:16 pm)Kent Beuchert (or anyone else)
Have links to more info on “Slippery Surface” li-ion batteries?
I’ve never heard of it and Google doesn’t say much.
Thanks,
Ken
May 10th, 2010 (7:51 pm)It’s not the starting out with 300 miles that is the problem. The problem is that better batteries alone cannot make and electric car perform like a gasoline powered car. I can get in my gasoline powered car today and drive across country and refueling is the least of my concerns. The biggest battery in the world in an electric car is going to take days if not weeks to recharge before I can continue my trip….unless I can add fuel to it and recharge it instantly…(sounds like a fuel cell to me?)
Until that part of the equation is worked out battery electric cars will be niche vehicles and nothing more.
Quick charge doesn’t use single phase 220V by the way it uses three phase 480V…so the energy transfer is 6 times greater. Or put another way the current is 1/6 of what you would have with single phase 220V. No reason the voltage could not go even higher.
May 10th, 2010 (7:56 pm)Although he is hugely intelligent, I’ve known Statik to be wrong before. There are the unknown unknowns… Another secret battery plant? Of course I have been wrong before also.
Cheers
May 10th, 2010 (8:30 pm)I really hope the Volt, Leaf and any other electric motor driven car catches on. The real beauty of the electric car is that electricity can be produced by various methods. A couple of years ago we experience what happens when gas goes up in price, price of almost everything else follows. With an electric car, you may get your car recharged via solar, wind, coal, hydro, nuke or any other method. I espeically like the Volt over the LeaF because the Volt has a self contained way of generating electricy. One draw back of the Leaf besides range is, what do you do when you have to recharge and all of a sudden you need to go somewhere. Range is only part of the equation, quick recharge is also needed. Now that I think about it, I think the Volt was a great idea… Remember, change takes time and the majority of people will still buy a ICE car for at least the next 10 years regardless the price and range of electric car.
May 11th, 2010 (6:37 pm)Lighter batteries! Imagine how much less weight your laptops and phones would be with these?
This is awesome news for all wireless electronics!
I am willing to bet we see these batteries on the road before fuel cell cars. Who agrees?
May 14th, 2010 (11:39 pm)GM battery lab director Ronn Jamieson says the first step in evaluating a cell is confirming its science. ”Is it physically possible? Does it defy the laws of physics or thermodynamics or anything else?” says Jamieson. Next the lab subjects cells to a rigorous and grueling battery of function and abuse testing for more than a year.
screw the first step, lets jump straight to number 2!!!
am i right, or am i right?
stuey