Posted on 01/04/2011 6:35:36 AM PST by decimon
New Nanoengineered Batteries Developed at Rensselaer Exhibit Remarkable Power Density, Charging More Than 40 Times Faster Than Todays Lithium-ion Batteries
An entirely new type of nanomaterial developed at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute could enable the next generation of high-power rechargeable lithium (Li)-ion batteries for electric automobiles, as well as batteries for laptop computers, mobile phones, and other portable devices.
The new material, dubbed a nanoscoop because its shape resembles a cone with a scoop of ice cream on top, can withstand extremely high rates of charge and discharge that would cause conventional electrodes used in todays Li-ion batteries to rapidly deteriorate and fail. The nanoscoops success lies in its unique material composition, structure, and size.
The Rensselaer research team, led by Professor Nikhil Koratkar, demonstrated how a nanoscoop electrode could be charged and discharged at a rate 40 to 60 times faster than conventional battery anodes, while maintaining a comparable energy density. This stellar performance, which was achieved over 100 continuous charge/discharge cycles, has the team confident that their new technology holds significant potential for the design and realization of high-power, high-capacity Li-ion rechargeable batteries.
Charging my laptop or cell phone in a few minutes, rather than an hour, sounds pretty good to me, said Koratkar, a professor in the Department of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Nuclear Engineering at Rensselaer. By using our nanoscoops as the anode architecture for Li-ion rechargeable batteries, this is a very real prospect. Moreover, this technology could potentially be ramped up to suit the demanding needs of batteries for electric automobiles.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.rpi.edu ...
Quick draw ping.
You can’t get a tow truck for an electric car since they have electrocuted too many drivers.
The sooner we can tell the Middle East to use their oil for camel lube, the better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardenclyffe_Tower
Tesla had an idea to transmit energy, its interesting that nobody has tried it even as proof of concept.
We have cell towers, why not Tesla Towers? Within range you get wireless energy, can re-charge or complete poer say an auto, or an aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardenclyffe_Tower
Tesla had an idea to transmit energy, its interesting that nobody has tried it even as proof of concept.
We have cell towers, why not Tesla Towers? Within range you get wireless energy, can re-charge or complete power say an auto, or an aircraft.
DITTO!
And the sooner we can release and utilize our own natural resources, the better!
Welcome aboard!
Are those electrocutions documented or hearsay? If the former then that's a problem to be addressed.
when we get this
When the price of regular gas gets too high consider a CNG conversion, you have your own at home natural gas compressor, you convert your vehicle to run on natural gas, similar to propane but quite different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_natural_gas
This appears to be a major drawback:
“CNG’s volumetric energy density is estimated to be 42% of LNG’s (because it is not liquefied), and 25% of diesel’s.”
Probably not very different with gasoline.
Contradiction?
“Compressed natural gas has the same fuel economy (.pdf) as gasoline. 1mb/d gasoline contains the same energy as 2tcf (trillion cubic feet) per year, which indicates that in 2008 all gasoline would have required 18tcf.
According to this study (.pdf) liquefied natural gas for trucks has 60% of the fuel economy of diesel. 1mb/d diesel is equivalent to 2.1tcf/yr. Since the majority of diesel is used in trucks, this indicates that in 2008 natural gas for diesel would have required 10.5tcf (3*2.1/0.6).”
I don’t vouch for what this author says, but he has some links to data in his articles. I would like to play with a natural gas conversion sometime.
First off I would not personally use a car, if my Silverado dually with its 8.1 liter engine could be a candidate for conversion I would have the tanks behind the cab in the bed.
I live in Alaska and our regular is already at $3.45 a gallon, diesel much higher. But our natural gas is relatively affordable.
sadly certain politicians axed a major natural gas pipeline that would have greatly benefited many with even more affordable natural gas.
Highway taxation is what will stop the country.
Contradiction?
I don't see a contradiction. Charge rate is one thing and charge capacity another.
Energy density = energy per unit weight, effectively how many miles you can drive, or how long your laptop will run, for a given battery weight.
Power density = how fast you can charge it or discharge it. For cars, this will determine peak acceleration.
Yes, natural gas has a lower energy density, much lower than diesel.
It also has a much lower cost.
I wouldn’t mind a fuel tank twice as large. I am more interested in dollars per mile. Comparing mpg is meaningless without considering differences in price.
CNG is a far more realistic fuel for the average driver than LNG.
Would designing a vehicle with a gas tank 4 times larger really be a major setback?
The fuel is much cheaper; dollars per mile is what really counts.
Seems like the only way the electric car will ever be practical is if you can figure out a way to recharge it in a relatively short period of time and have a battery that is not nearly expensive as the ones we have now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.