alibi online

Free Will AstrologyAlibi's Personals
 
 V.17 No.35 | August 28 - September 3, 2008 
 
 

Feature

Charge

How to build a battery for the 21st Century

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, Minn. "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 eight 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.

Road Warriors

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 ’70s. But electric car companies, which geared their products to a high-income clientele, were soon undercut by the more affordable Model Ts 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, for instance, 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 the nickel-metal-hydride battery made in the ’90s 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."

A Shock to the System

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 ’90s, 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.

Britt Robson is a contributor to Mother Jones , where this article was first published.

Public Comments (7)
  • Aptera  [ Thu Aug 28 2008 5:32 PM ]

    So Hart is developing a chasis like this?

  • Battery powered electric cars are the only solution for the future.  [ Thu Aug 28 2008 5:34 PM ]

    About this, Hart is absolutely correct, however, the article gives short shrift to many promising breakthroughs in battery technology. A123Systems has an excellent technology in their nanophosphate anode design, but it's proving somewhat difficult to scale up successfully while avoiding thermal run away issues. I think these will be solved shortly, which will put them most definitely in the running. Altairnano, another nanotech battery company is somewhat ahead in scalability, but hasn't yet achieved the specific energy density that A123Systems has achieved. Also on the horizon is Dr. Cui's work on silicon nanowire batteries at Stanford. These have the potential to push power densities from the current best of around 200 Wh/kg for lithium batteries up to perhaps as high as 3000-4000 Wh/kg. As with all nanotech batteries, the enormous increase in anode area also allows for rapid recharge and discharge. This is accomplished through increasing the effective anode surface, typically by a factor of 100 or more when compared to graphite electrodes, by using materials which are very, very finely divided, down to the near-molecular scale.

    So, why batteries? What about hydrogen? Simple answer: hydrogen is generated by electrolysis of water, and this process throws away half of your initially generated energy right off the bat. And, when run through a fuel cell to produce electricity, another half is lost. By comparison, batteries typically have a cycle efficiency (power in/power out) of 90% of better. So, even though hydrogen has a much higher energy density (about 40000 Wh/kg) the total efficiency is terrible. Add to this the fact that a fuel cell capable of powering a small economy car costs about $250K, and there is no reason to expect this cost to drop to a reasonable amount, and it's clear that advanced batteries are the only way to go.

    One important way to get around the limited energy density of batteries is to completely rethink how a car should be built. This is why the EV1 failed, ultimately. It was a fairly conventional car chassis with a battery powered electric drive train. Cars need to be lighter and more aerodynamic for battery power to be most effective. For a good example of where this can be taken, check out the Aptera. It goes into production this fall, with a sticker price of $27K, and a range of 120 miles on one charge. The chassis design, by virtue of its low drag, low rolling resistance, and light weight, gets around 300 miles per gallon when powered by a small diesel engine. With this kind of inherent efficiency, much smaller battery packs can be used, and shorter recharge times are achieved, even without new technology. This is much, much close to the right answer than the ill-fated EV1, or even the awaited Chevy Volt.

    Hydrogen has been a complete waste of time, and one that was driven mainly by redistributions of Federal R&D money. Why did we even screw around with that, then? The only feasible way to produce enough hydrogen, given the inefficiencies of electrolysis and the demand this would put on the US power grid, would be to produce it through steam reforming of natural gas. So, I'm sure you can figure out why battery research was dropped in favor of fuel cell technology as soon as the Bush administration took office.

  • I feel like we've had a conversation about this, Dr. Venture.  [ Thu Aug 28 2008 6:02 PM ]

    Hydrogen has been a complete waste of time

    To elaborate:

    With hydrogen fuel cells you're just moving the waste product [carbon emmissions] from the automobile back to the power plant, since we are still so largely dependant on coal for our energy.

    So how about we combust the hydrogen? Sounds pretty sweet to me but it looks like a nightmare from a materials standpoint. Check this out:

  • You probably caught one of my speeches at the  [ Fri Aug 29 2008 8:05 AM ]

    Anodyne Institute for Advanced Studies and Beer.

    I'm a frequent lecturer there.

    To be fair, any electric vehicle scheme just pushes the carbon emissions back to power generation. This is actually a pretty good idea, since, even with continued use of fossil fuels, the greater inherent efficiency of power generation in this fashion produces less carbon emission per useful kWh than burning fuels in an internal combustion engine. Power plants can hit as high as 48% total efficiency, whereas a gasoline internal combustion engine, in real world use, maxes out around 15-20%. Specially designed gasoline engines running at a constant optimized RPM can hit around 30%. The CO2 emission per amount of chemical potential energy is similar across all fossil fuels, so burning X megajoules worth of natural gas in a gas turbine power plant emits as much as burning X megajoules worth of gasoline in a car engine, but the gas turbine plant will put 48% of that energy into electric current, and the engine will put only 18% or so of that energy into turning the wheels.

    So, if you burn natural gas, make hydrogen, compress or liquify it (.8 efficiency), ship it (.75 efficiency) and then burn the hydrogen, you get (.48)*(.5)*(.8)*(.75)*(.18)= 2.5% of that energy to the ground. If you make hydrogen, compress it, ship it, make electricity with a fuel cell, and run an electric motor, you get (.48)*(.5)*(.80)*(.75)*(.5)*(.85)=6.12%.​ So, both of these will emit more CO2 per unit power to the road than burning gasoline, if the power is coming from fossil fuels. They just do it somewhere else.

    If you make electricity, send it through the grid, charge a battery, and run an electric motor, you get (.48)*(.96)*(.90)*(.85)= 35.2% of that original energy to the road. That's better than a gasoline engine under real world conditions by nearly a factor of two. So, even if we're still using fossil fuels to generate electricity, a battery powered electric car (assuming the same power) goes twice as far per unit of carbon emissions. And, since electric cars need to be lighter and more aerodynamic, a properly designed one will have to use something like 1/5th, or less, as much power per mile traveled, which then means you're looking at a reduction in carbon emissions per person-mile of over 10X.

  • And to continue that line of thought...  [ Fri Aug 29 2008 8:06 AM ]

    Of course, this original energy can also be nuclear, solar, wind, or whatever. All of these are more expensive than coal or natural gas, which costs around $1200 per installed peak kilowatt capacity, with a 85% or so utilization factor (the percent of time the plant is capable of operating at peak output).

    Nuclear checks in at about $3500 per installed peak kilowatt, not counting waste disposal costs, with a similar utility factor. Concentrated Solar thermal (trough plants, power towers, and so on) is cost competitive with nuclear, but with a lower utilization factor of about 40%, meaning more plants, or larger plants, would have to be built. Wind is somewhat lower in cost, but with an even lower utilization factor, and photovoltaic solar is significantly more expensive, at between $5K and $7K per installed peak kilowatt, with, again, the relatively low utilization factor typical of solar. The primary value of photovoltaic is in producing power at peak hours for air conditioning or office lighting, and producing it near the point of consumption. However, costs of PV have fallen by a factor of 10 since the early 80s, and are expected to continue to fall until PV approaches parity with coal or natural gas within the next decade.

    So, all carbon neutral energy production schemes are more expensive than fossil fuel based electricity production (but cheaper than gasoline, especially at current prices), and in order to offset our transportation fuel energy, we'd need to nearly double our electric generating capacity, at a watt per watt replacement. If we go with ultralight, highly aerodynamic "hypercars" using battery storage for personal trasportation, this number drops to only a 10-20% increase in generating capacity. If we talk about making hydrogen and so on, this number is more like 40-50% increase in capacity, even with lightweight vehicles, and nearly a tripling of the capacity if current types of designs for hydrogen vehicles are used. Unless, of course, hydrogen is produced via steam reforming of natural gas, but if you're going to do that, why not just run the car on natural gas in the first damn place?

    So, battery technology not only immediately reduces the carbon emissions of transportation even if the electricty is ultimately coming from fossil fuels, and even if vehicles remain as heavy and inefficient as they are today, but it also lowers the infrastructure investment needed to swap out that carbon based power for something sustainable, especially if there's a simultaneous shift towards lightweight "hypercars" like the Aptera.

    Doubling our capacity will take 40-50 years at the maximum rate at which new capacity can be built (assuing no "Apollo Program" type major government intervention and investment), but adding 10-20% can be done within a decade.

  • So let's stop throwing money at killing each other and solve some real problems.  [ Fri Aug 29 2008 10:45 AM ]

    Dr. Venture in 2008?

  • Electric car range/charging​  [ Fri Aug 29 2008 10:56 AM ]

    So we understand the virtue of the electric car, but the two major complaints seem to be 1) Range, which was breifly addressed by the article, but 2) Recharging the battery is the big obsticle. Say you got a battery that pushes your electric car 200 miles, but it's gonna take hours to recharge it. That's the reason I wouldn't want an electric automobile. If I could get only a range half of that but charge that in minutes (not tens of minutes) that would be acceptable if not desirable. What's the solution Jonas? May I call you Jonas? ;)

 
Join our mailing list for exclusive info, the week's events and free stuff!
 

  • Select sidebar boxes to add below. You can also click and drag to rearrange the boxes; minimize, maximize and close using the little icons on each box. To re-add a box you closed, return to this menu.
  • Because you are not logged in, any changes you make to these boxes will vanish as soon as you click to another page. If you log in, the boxes will stick.
  • alibi.com
  • Latest Posts
  • Most Active Stories
  • Latest User Posts
  • Highest-Rated Posts
  • Most Active Users
  • Web Exclusives
  • Latest User Blogs
  • Latest Chowtown Reviews
  • Recent Rocksquawk Discussions
  • Recent Classifieds
  • This Week's Alibi Picks
  • Albuquerque
  • Duke City Fix
  • Albuquerque Beer Scene
  • What's Wrong With This Picture?
  • Reddit Albuquerque
  • ABQ Journal Metro
  • ABQrising
  • ABQ Journal Latest News
  • Del.icio.us Albuquerque
  • NM and the West
  • New Mexico FBIHOP
  • Democracy for New Mexico
  • Only in New Mexico
  • Mario Burgos
  • Democracy for New Mexico
  • High Country News
  • El Grito
  • NM Politics with Joe Monahan
  • Stephen W. Terrell's Web Log
  • The Net Is Vast and Infinite
  • Slashdot
  • Freedom to Tinker
  • Is there a feed that should be on this list? Tell us about it.
    Kombat Kitty @ Uptown
    Kombat Kitty @ Uptown5.31.2013