A Charge to Keep
NEWS: The search for the perfect battery is fraught with obstacles—namely the laws of physics.
|
|
|
|
In a drab, cramped room at the back of Lee Hart's basement, there is a faint and somewhat eerie hum. More than a hundred large, mostly rechargeable batteries from around the world rise along the walls and sprawl across the floor. A few are hooked to machines with quivering meter needles measuring the amount and durability of their charges; the data are being fed into a 1987 Zenith XT computer with dual floppy disks stationed on a table in the corner. There are the traditional lead-acid batteries of the sort used in most cars. There's a stack of the nickel-metal-hydride batteries Hart salvaged from an EV1, the crushed vehicle that starred in the movie Who Killed the Electric Car? And there are the lighter, exponentially more expensive lithium-ion batteries.
Hart points to one of the latter—made in China, it's known as the Thunder Sky—and declares, "That would be a wonderful battery if it met the specs claimed by the manufacturer, and some of them do. But that tested out at about half the specs. You put this in a [gas-powered] truck, it would be hard to notice. But if you have a stack of underperforming batteries in an electric car, it makes a difference."
A connoisseur of batteries and a debunker of the so-called breakthroughs that come around like clockwork every couple of years, Hart makes it his business to parse hype from performance. Whenever he hears about a new battery, the 58-year-old self-employed electrical engineer (he did lab work at Eastman Kodak and Honeywell) writes the company and asks for a prototype to be sent to his home in Sartell, Minnesota. "I'm a cheapskate, and sometimes they'll send me a free one," he jokes. So far, he still prefers lead-acid batteries. Using a life-extending charging system he designed himself, he's converting his third electric car to handle 14 of them; a buoyant pride creeps into his voice as he notes that most of the batteries are 8 to 10 years old. "Just like you don't feed an old dog puppy chow," he says, an old dog himself with the white tufts on the sides of his balding head combed up to resemble Mercury's wings, "you treat old batteries differently."
Hart has heard the dreamers wax on about a time when batteries will run for days on end, revolutionizing plug-in cars, windmills, and solar panels—just about any source of alternative energy would benefit from good batteries, which allow electricity to be stored and transported. He has sympathy for those visions. A motto of his hero, Thomas Edison, is inscribed on a favorite sweatshirt: "To invent you need a good imagination and a pile of junk." Like most electro-geeks who'd rather tinker than strut, he also adheres to Edison's practical DIY ethos, which explains the battery room and the small fleet of electric cars he has either retrofitted or built from scratch. His tests invariably reinforce what he and most everyone else familiar with the battery market have long known. When it comes to practical applications for sustainable energy, batteries are more of an Achilles' heel than a panacea, because we are running 21st-century technology with what is essentially 18th- or 19th-century chemistry.
A rechargeable battery generally consists of metal electrodes and a highly conductive electrolyte—lead and acid being one example—that react to store a charge. Although crude battery designs date to before Christ, the modern battery prototype came about in the 1790s when Alessandro Volta made an electric circuit by stacking wired-together silver and zinc discs in salt water. While different pairings of metals and chemicals have been used to improve the power, durability, storage capacity, and safety of batteries, the way they function has remained the same.
At the turn of the 20th century, battery-powered cars were considered a formidable competitor to oil- and steam-powered vehicles. Hart points out that the first auto to reach a speed of 60 mph was a French electric in 1899, and his own love affair with electric cars began when he rode in a 1917 Detroit—a model with plush upholstery, rosewood trim, and little flower vases—at a trade show in the 1970s. But electric car companies, which geared their products to a high-income clientele, were soon undercut by the more affordable Model T's coming off Ford's assembly lines. Gasoline has been the world's dominant transportation fuel ever since.
Now peak oil and global warming have thrust electric cars back into the spotlight. But there's just one problem. While computer circuit boards double transistor capacity every two years (a principle dubbed Moore's Law), battery technology has lagged far behind. Blame basic physics. "To get Moore's Law out of battery improvements would be like expecting to make steel twice as strong but with half the density," says Yet-Ming Chiang, a professor in the materials science and engineering department at MIT.
That doesn't mean we can't do incrementally better, says Chiang, who is also the cofounder of A123 Systems, a Massachusetts-based company that is on the cutting edge of battery technology, specifically with respect to lithium-ion chemistry and nanostructures (which increase the surface area of the metal and therefore extend its charge and boost its capability). Lithium-ions are lighter and hold longer charges than other types, but they are also more prone to burst into flames, a tiny, undesirable conflagration in a cell phone, but potentially fatal in a vehicle. The use of nanostructures has enabled A123 to safely put its lithium-ion batteries into power tools, a step forward. The company is also one of two developers chosen to test batteries in the Chevy Volt, an electric car General Motors claims will be mass marketed by 2010.
Powering a drill is a long way from running an automobile, however, and the current battery technology for all-electric cars would be hard-pressed to satisfy the public. The average American drives 40 miles or less per day, but market studies have shown that consumers want electric cars to be able to travel 100 to 200 miles between charges. Which brings us to another problem. "Right now, batteries with a 40-mile range are the size of a small suitcase and weigh 150 pounds," Chiang says. "Imagine five times that to get to 200 miles." And even if lighter lithium-ion batteries could be made safer, they're prohibitively expensive.
The cause is far from hopeless. But some assistance—or simply lack of resistance—from the government and vested business interests is key. Hart says that the nickel-metal-hydride battery made in the 1990s by Ovonics that went into the EV1 was "as good as they claim," capable of a 100-mile range. Had GM continued production, mass sales might have driven down the battery's price. But, Hart notes with a shake of his head, Ovonics "sold the technology to Chevron, and they aren't making them."
While some engineers focus on interim steps—such as adding supercapacitors to lead-acid batteries in order to squeeze out more power—others continue to strive for that elusive revolutionary advance. "To get the technology from 40 miles up to 200 miles on a single charge and do it at a GM price point rather than a NASA price point is obviously going to require a degree of invention and innovation that we don't have yet," says Donald Sadoway, an MIT materials chemistry professor. "We need to discover new materials for electrodes and electrolytes that have greater storage capability and higher current capability." A colleague of his is using computational models to figure out what chemicals could yield better results. "I'm confident we'll see some major innovations come from this approach," says Sadoway.
Another potentially revolutionary use for batteries involves the ongoing development of large-capacity models that utility companies can power up during off-peak hours at night and draw from during the day, supplementing the grid when power is needed most. For nearly a decade, utilities have been storing power in sodium-sulfur batteries that are the size of double-decker buses. Now they are looking to improve and expand the use of this technology to harness wind power, so that energy generated on blustery nights can be used the following day, or even the day after.
"We've looked at sodium-sulfur batteries, but we certainly aren't married to one technology," says Frank Novachek, director of corporate planning for Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, which sells more wind power than any utility in the country. "We plan to tie into a small wind farm in southwestern Minnesota, both to use the battery as if it were integral to the wind farm and to see how it does for electricity storage as a shock absorber on the system."
The latest potential advance involves ceramic-battery chemistry being developed by EEStor, out of Cedar Park, Texas. The company's grandiose claims—"10 times the energy density of lead acid batteries at 1/10th the weight and volume," a "fully 'green' technology" at "half the price per stored watt-hour"—will sound familiar to Hart and other battery enthusiasts. Yet EEStor's credibility was given a boost earlier this year when it entered into an exclusive agreement with Lockheed Martin to use its technology for "military and homeland security applications."
Personally, Hart isn't waiting around for the GMs and Lockheed Martins of the world to solve the energy conundrum. He's busy inventing his own solutions, making do with the batteries at hand. Hart is constructing an electric car based on the Selectra Sunrise prototypes of the 1990s, which he hopes to someday market as a kit for plug-in enthusiasts. "You look at the tools you have and make an engineering choice," Hart explains. "Lead-acid batteries are heavy, but they're cheap. I can make them last, and they are recyclable."
But the main innovation in Hart's car has nothing to do with how it's powered—it'll be compatible with any kind of battery—but rather with its strong and lightweight frame, influenced by the ultraefficient "hypercar" philosophy of environmentalist Amory Lovins. "If I make the car lighter, I still get the fuel economy I'm looking for," notes Hart. In other words, for now, the best way to get more out of batteries is to simply demand less of them.
Illustration: John Hersey
about electric cars. Hart's idea of lightweight making a batteries job easier is both dumb and dumber at the same time. It's dumb because we all know that in an electric car, weight is
(within wide bounds) of minor importance in determining mileage, or efficiency. It's dumber because the problem with a battery can hardly be
pinpointed as a problem of capacity
or power output. The main reasons batteries have failed so completely to be up to the task of powering a car is due to 1) cost 2) size or mass 4) inability to quickly recharge.
Hart is falsely trying to steer the argument into irrelevant paths. If he
is really stupid enough to believe that
the EV-1 (which originally had lead acid batteries) was a viable form of
transportation, he deserves to fail. Unfortunately, he will probably convince other goomers to invest and lose all their money. There already exist electric car companies building neighborhood cars using lead acid batteries. They don't sell very many. Neither will he. It's moot anyway - I'm sure that his concept is pure vaporware, designed to invite investors into his tent. Sounds like the ZAP motor company, which has issued press releases over the years for more than a dozen imminently available new EVs. They have yet to deliver their first one. If the EEStors work, the game is over and battery-only EVs rule. If not, the serial hybrid will prevail, easily,
since battery-only electrics like the EV-1 and Tesla are totally impractical and not viable alternative to the gas powered car.
Both technologies can eliminate any need for gasoline, so which one prevails is mostly a matter of costs. It has no other significance.
I do two 20 mile trips a day, freeway speeds, on sunshine.
Not a drop of gasoline or oil change in its 27 year life. Because of my experience I support the Sunrise project financially, and at 80 years of age I expect no return, except the that I am supporting someone who is trying to make a difference.
2.Force=Mass*Acceleration. I assume you accelerate your car from time to time. Therefore to require less force (less energy input), reduce the mass. How is that of minor importance when driving any vehicle electric or fueled?
Why is everyone obsessed with a "quick charge" battery? Most vehicles sit unused for most of the 24 hours in a day. Recharge when you're not driving it.
There are a few people I personally know who could not drive an EV because they need more range or moving power. They work construction type jobs all over the city. Everyone else I know drives the same route everyday. Less than 40 miles. Sounds quite practical.
Do your homework. Look at the facts. Make your own informed decision.
Detroit ignored customers that wanted smaller better cars and lost most of the market. Now, TODAY, China is supplying 11,100,000 (over 11 million) pure electrics per year just for their own people, and ADDITIONALLY more than 3 million pure electrics for export.
Even the poorest countries like the Philippines and India are mass evolving to pure electrics. But, we are contained in the oil well as the world acquires our independence and economy. Why is it that the cities can buy electric fleets and go green while the states and fed allow 20 mpg to be "normal"? Many companies and ALL of the colleges and high school kids have built better performing vehicles.
Lee Hart is a common man, an honest knowledgeable engineer, a teacher, a helper, a visionary, and a garage mechanic. He puts his own money where his heart is and has not asked for investors, nor issued press releases.
Jay Lashlee
The Solectria Sunrise demonstrated that an electric car can have real-world performance and range. It seats 4, did 80 mph, went up to 400 miles on a charge, passed government crash tests, and had all the amenities expected in a modern car. In one public demonstration, a Sunrise was driven from Boston to New York City in normal traffic at freeway speeds on a single charge.
There was no secret or gimmick to the Sunrise's amazing performance. It worked so well because it got so many of the details right. It was designed from scratch to be an EV (not a conversion of some gasoline car). It was very light, highly streamlined, and had a very efficient drive train (to minimize the energy needed). Built with aircraft composites that are stronger and safer than steel, it could carry more than its own weight in batteries (which allowed the excellent range).
Unfortunately, Solectria was unable to take the Sunrise beyond a dozen or so prototypes. No auto company was willing to license the design or commercialize it.
Our Sunrise EV2 is a private project to redesign it as a kit car that anyone can build. It is entirely self-funded; we do not seek investors, nor issue press releases. It is not a business; indeed, it will only become one if and when we are satisfied that we have something worthwhile to sell.
Your comparison with ZAP is uninformed, incorrect, and even insulting. Our philosophies couldn't be more different. ZAP is out to make money, regardless of whether they ever sell any vehicles or not. We're out to make EVs, regardless of whether we make any money or not!
750lbs of batteries to get 200 miles, how is that a big problem? That's less than 4 190lb passengers.
The reality is that electrics are practical. Not practical for everything but practical for most drivers. Do your due diligence, research completely, check your science, experiment, etc. and you will see that what Lee Hart has said is spot on.
my electric serve even more of my needs.
I need them for my solar system, too.
We start with this statement:
"Hart's idea of lightweight making a batteries job easier is ... dumb because we all know that in an electric car, weight is (within wide bounds) of minor importance in determining mileage, or efficiency."
As has been pointed out, F=ma. As the mass of the car goes up, the current required to accelerate it goes up. Increased current draw 1) pulls more power from the batteries, reducing range, 2) reduces the life of the battery pack 3) reduces the energy available in the pack due to something called the Peukert effect. Theory and practice both suggest that lightweight battery packs substantially improve efficiency.
"The main reasons batteries have failed so completely to be up to the task of powering a car is due to 1) cost 2) size or mass 4) inability to quickly recharge."
Well, Mr. Benson's point 2) directly contradicts his first point (that the mass of the batteries is of "minor importance". Point 4) is untrue - a battery can be charged at least as quickly as it can be discharged. All it takes is the correct charger. Point 3) doesn't exist. This leaves point 1), cost. Yes, a battery pack that's powerful and long-lasting enough to power a heavy car is expensive. That's why he's working on reducing the weight of the car. That reduces the power requirements, which reduces the weight of the battery pack, which reduces the cost (since batteries cost by the pound).
The EV-1 has been the subject of much discussion. Perhaps Mr. Benson's definition of "viable form of transportation" differs from mine. It certainly differs from everyone who was fortunate enough to drive one.
The comparison to NEVs is "irrelevant". The Sunrise II will *not* be a NEV - it will be a four-seat, fully enclosed, highway-capable car. Mr. Benson is comparing apples to watermelons.
"They don't sell very many" NEVs. Well, apparently they make enough of them to find it worthwhile to continue to make them. Lee Hart would no doubt be thrilled to have a tiny fraction of the sales volume of today's NEV market.
Lee did a great job of defending himself against the comparison to ZAP.
EEStor has the chance to change the game, but we're certainly not waiting for them to succeed or fail. Today's batteries can be used to build "viable transportation", so why wait?
"the serial hybrid will prevail, easily, since battery-only electrics like the EV-1 and Tesla are totally impractical and not viable alternative to the gas powered car."
I'm sure the people who paid for the Tesla believe it's a viable alternative to a gas car. They could certainly have afforded a gas car if they wanted one.
"Both technologies can eliminate any need for gasoline, so which one prevails is mostly a matter of costs. It has no other significance."
How, exactly, does a serial hybrid eliminate any need for gasoline? By operating solely on batteries. In other words, by being a battery-only car. But I thought those were "impractical...."
This post is a curious document. The average citizen probably doesn't know about companies like EEStor and ZAP or what a "serial hybrid" is, but Mr. Benson displays an apparent ignorance of the role of weight and the existence of high-powered chargers. He seems to have been in a hurry to post his message - he's the first poster, and his post contains at least two obvious self-contradictions. What's going on here? The hypothesis that Mr Benson is deliberately trying to do damage to the idea of the battery-powered car fits the facts.
Regardless of the reason for your hurry, Mr. Benson, I suggest you take a few minutes and examine your notion of what a "practical car" is. Does it need to be able to drive 500 miles without stopping, or carry a sectional sofa, or burn gasoline? I assure you, a car can be "practical" and not be able to do any of those things.
Nanosafe is in Phoenix Motor Cars, Lightning GTS, Fiat Doblo.
Altairnano(Alti) has the best practical(100-250 miles per 10'rapid charge) safe nanobattery technology in my opinion.
I save $85 per week in gas compared to my chey pick up that I was driving prior to getting my ZAP PK.
I hve 3 ICE so if I need to go any distance driving I just use one of them. But I do most of my driving in the Zap Pk.
Go Green Go Electric Go ZAP.
Unfortunately people like Mr Benson are either so ill-informed or deliberately twisting arguments to make your private hard work look like a scam. He may need to take a good hard look at himself.
Oh, and according to him many thousands of people drive to work everyday in an impractical vehicle that is (1) too expensive, (2) too large and heavy and (4) cannot charge fast enough.
Until he hit the 3rd bullet, I thought he was talking about the SUVs and Trucks that I see on the Freeway every day, when I drive to work in my EV. Since I can charge at work and need about 3 hours to "fill up" there is really nothing that I need to go any faster. Plenty of juice to bring my S10 back home again.
BTW, Mr Benson, are you the same Tom Benson who tries to promote Nuclear Power as the best alternative?
Ehhh - no, thank you. I don't like the *waste* to give me a bright, sustained future. I like the solution to be sustainable, so the nuclear reactions in the sun are plenty close enough for me.
Listen to those of us who are "doing" and not Thomas Benson who is only "talking".
There is a lot of information available on the Internet on how to convert a gasoline car to battery power.
You can start with the EV Album, at to see over 1500 examples of electric vehicles. You can use this as a starting point to find out what's already been done. Maybe you will discover that someone's already converted your favorite car, or a car that's available for free in your neighborhood.
The Electric Auto Association has a lot of info and news about EVs.
Parts are available at places like and .
Companies like and sell kits.
Mike Brown of Electro Automotive wrote a book called "Convert It!" that is an excellent guide to converting a gas car to electric. You might find it at your library.
And finally there's the Electric Vehicle Discussion List, where all your questions can be answered.
HTH,
Doug
Hi Angel,
There is a lot of information available on the Internet on how to convert a gasoline car to battery power.
You can start with the EV Album, at http://www.evalbum.com to see over 1500 examples of electric vehicles. You can use this as a starting point to find out what's already been done. Maybe you will discover that someone's already converted your favorite car, or a car that's available for free in your neighborhood.
The Electric Auto Association http://www.eaaev.org/ has a lot of info and news about EVs.
Parts are available at places like http://www.evparts.com and http://www.evsource.com .
Companies like http://www.canev.com and http://www.electroauto.com sell kits.
Mike Brown of Electro Automotive wrote a book called "Convert It!" that is an excellent guide to converting a gas car to electric. You might find it at your library.
And finally there's the Electric Vehicle Discussion List, where all your questions can be answered. http://www.evdl.org/
HTH,
Doug
Here you might be able to just buy an already-converted EV and save yourself all the work. You can also find deals on the parts and tools to do it yourself.
I think it is YOU who is trying to steer the argument down the wrong path. Batteries have NOT failed in this task. See EVAlbum.com for many many examples of people that are using electric cars right now. More specifically here are your arguments and why they don't hold any water:
1) Cost:
Lead-Acid batteries are not expensive. Enough of them to power a car canb be purchased for about $2000-$3000 depending on what type you go with.
2) Size or mass:
Enough of them can be fitted into a car to give it a 40-50mile range. This is less than MOST people drive in a day.
UYou also proceed to contradict yourself by saying:
"Hart's idea of lightweight making a batteries job easier is both dumb and dumber at the same time. It's dumb because we all know that in an electric car, weight is
(within wide bounds) of minor importance in determining mileage, or efficiency. It's dumber because the problem with a battery can hardly be
pinpointed as a problem of capacity
or power output."
Then u proceed to say "size or mass" is a problem... Umm... so if we could have MORE power & capacity in a battery wouldn;t that require FEWER batteries which would then comprise a SMALLER size & take up less space???
3) Inability to quickly recharge:
Who cares? Your cellphone can't recharge quickly either. but it holds enough charge for MOST peoples daily use & can be recherged overnight. If I need to take a trip I can rent a car once a year.
So with those points in mind, the 1 drawback that I see is this: Limited range. Although the 40-50mile range is enough to satisfy MOST peoples daily driving habits, SOME people will need more. I will agree that using current technology, increasing this range may become impractical or cost-prohibitive. THESE people, can continue to use gas, natural gas or hybrids. THESE poeple account for maybe 30%-40% of our population.
But what about the other 60-70% that are perfectly fine with a 40-50mile range?
My argument is this: FORGET newer technologies for a second. CURRENT, ancient, lead-acid batteries CAN do the job just fine as this styand right now, and as current battery technologies mature and evolve, this limited range will increase, and costs will eventually decrease, thus allowing a greater percentage of people to take advantage of electric cars.
put the plates that charge the batteries? There must be lighter materials out there that would cut the
weight. Composits like fiberglass, ceramic etc. Has any one looked into these possibilities?
But yes, 200 miles is the holy grail. For example, were I to commute from Providence to Boston I'd use that 100 mile range in a days time. 200 miles would allow me a cushion of sorts.
The other thing we need to improve is charging time. In order for those 200 mile battery arrays to be worthwhile they have to be able to be charged quickly.
What most of these posts don't point out ...the need for LEV's (light electric vehicles), namely e-bikes, e-velomobiles, e-mopeds, and to a certain extent e-motorcycles. We've put more than 1200 people on such over the past 8 years, now bringing out a 3 wheeler that's to be available in a 35-40mph or 60-65mph version. These make a lot more sense than heavy vehicles...and they can be combined with mass transit or bike racks on your e-cars. We've got to stop paving over orchards and other farm land. Those commuting more than 20 miles may do well to start looking at telecommuting or 4 day weeks...or (gasp) getting a job closer to home! Maybe even considering more dense urban (another gasp) living, saving what's left of wildlife for our kids and grandkids. Large, fast electric cars aren't the ultimate answer. We'll need large delivery vehicles maybe...solar powered lighter than air vehicles tethered to Interstate median cable-ways?...delivering goods at distribution centers where smaller vehicles feed out from there. Check this webpage someone titled "who needs a car?", http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics
Our website will soon have the faster LEV's also: www.electroportal.com
Last note: the new lithium (safer, longer lasting, higher power, quicker charge) batteries are 3C (sustained discharge as well as charge). Dropping 750 lbs. of lead from one of the earlier Geo conversions made this vehicle handle better, providing 60-70 miles of range, with batteries that last well over 1,000 cycles. EV's are practical today, and the LEV's even more so!
Yes, people need 40 - 50 mile range, but they need it with air conditioning for 2 hours of sitting in traffic.
Until people start recognizing that creature comforts are the most important aspect of a car, all these attempts are futile. No real person will sit sweating in an electric car for an hour commute in traffic everyday, cost and the environment be damned.
Build an air conditioned EV or give it up.
Ultralight Construction and BEV's are match made in heaven. Big Auto, Big Oil & Big Steel have all cooperated in avoiding ultralight construction, falsely claiming it's too expensive. You can buy a 16 ft Kevlar canoe for a MSRP for $2100 in volume of one, that weighs 40 lbs and will take a hell of a beating. Argonne Laboratories states that there is about an 8% drop in vehicle energy consumption for every 10% drop in vehicle weight.
A good addition to BEV's would be a small methanol fuel cell, to supply a continuous power for recharging, heat in the winter and cooling in the summer. Only 1-2 kw would be needed. Instead Big Auto / Oil and their lackey's in Government keep pushing the wacky H2 fuel cell in the 50-80kw range for vehicles - totally impractical. The cost of producing methanol from NG is $1.19 per USgal or $2.40 per USgal in energy equivalent. Makes a lot more sense than converting the entire Arctic reserves of NG to heavy crude in the Alberta Tar Sands.