Posted on 02/11/2015 5:10:39 AM PST by thackney
Ectric cars are quick and quiet, with a range more than long enough for most commutes. If you want a car with extremely fast acceleration, the Tesla Model S is hard to beat. And, of course, electric vehicles avoid the pollution associated with conventional cars, including emissions of carbon dioxide from burning gasoline. Yet they account for a tiny fraction of automotive sales, mainly because the batteries that propel them are expensive and need to be recharged frequently.
A better battery could change everything. But while countless breakthroughs have been announced over the last decade, time and again these advances have failed to translate into commercial batteries with anything like the promised improvements in cost and energy storage. Some well-funded startups, most notably A123 Systems, began with bold claims but failed to deliver (see “What Happened to A123?”).
The Powerhouse, a new book by journalist Steve LeVine, chronicles the story behind one of the most dramatic battery announcements of recent years and explains how it came to nothing (see “The Sad Story of the Battery Breakthrough that Proved Too Good to Be True”). The announcement was made in February 2012, at a conference in Washington, D.C., where a crowd of researchers, entrepreneurs, and investors had come to hear the likes of Bill Gates and Bill Clinton expound on the importance of new energy technology—and also to tap into one of the newest funding sources in Washington, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E. Founded in 2009, ARPA-E had been tasked with identifying potentially transformational research. The head of that agency, Arun Majumdar, was ready to unveil one of its first major successes: a battery cell, developed by the startup Envia, that could store twice as much energy as a conventional one. The cost of a battery that could take a car from Washington to New York without recharging, Majumdar said, would fall from $30,000 to $15,000. Electric cars would become far more affordable and practical (see “A Big Jump in Battery Capacity”).
Within months, GM licensed the technology and signed an agreement to support its development, gaining the right to use any resulting batteries. The deal was potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Envia, LeVine writes. But soon Envia was getting frustrated messages from GM engineers who couldn’t reproduce the startup’s results. The year after the announcement, the deal was scuttled. Envia’s impressive battery had been a fluke.
LeVine’s account of Envia’s work shows why major progress in batteries is so hard to achieve and why startups that promise world-changing breakthroughs have struggled. Over the last decade we’ve seen remarkable improvements in this industry, but they’ve come largely from established companies steadily making small advances.
Envia’s cell was a new type of lithium-ion battery. Invented in the late 1970s and early 1980s and commercialized in the 1990s, these batteries generate electrical current when lithium ions shuttle between two electrodes. Light but powerful, they have transformed portable electronics. Their use in electric cars, however, is recent. In the 1990s, GM used cheaper lead-acid batteries for its electric EV-1; each battery weighed a bulky 600 kilograms and delivered only 55 to 95 miles before it needed to be recharged. When Tesla Motors introduced one of the first lithium-ion-powered electric cars in 2008, it could go 250 miles on a charge, roughly three times farther than the EV-1. But the vehicle cost over $100,000, in large part because the batteries were so expensive. To cut costs, the lithium-ion-powered electric cars made today by companies such as Nissan and GM use small battery packs with a range of less than 100 miles.LeVine’s account of Envia’s work shows why major progress in batteries is so hard to achieve and why startups that promise world-changing breakthroughs have struggled. Over the last decade we’ve seen remarkable improvements in this industry, but they’ve come largely from established companies steadily making small advances.
Envia’s cell was a new type of lithium-ion battery. Invented in the late 1970s and early 1980s and commercialized in the 1990s, these batteries generate electrical current when lithium ions shuttle between two electrodes. Light but powerful, they have transformed portable electronics. Their use in electric cars, however, is recent. In the 1990s, GM used cheaper lead-acid batteries for its electric EV-1; each battery weighed a bulky 600 kilograms and delivered only 55 to 95 miles before it needed to be recharged. When Tesla Motors introduced one of the first lithium-ion-powered electric cars in 2008, it could go 250 miles on a charge, roughly three times farther than the EV-1. But the vehicle cost over $100,000, in large part because the batteries were so expensive. To cut costs, the lithium-ion-powered electric cars made today by companies such as Nissan and GM use small battery packs with a range of less than 100 miles.
One difficult thing about developing better batteries is that the technology is still poorly understood. Changing one part of a battery—say, by introducing a new electrode—can produce unforeseen problems, some of which can’t be detected without years of testing. To achieve the kinds of advances venture capitalists and ARPA-E look for, Envia incorporated not just one but two experimental electrode materials.
LeVine describes what went wrong. In 2006 Envia had licensed a promising material developed by researchers at Argonne National Laboratory. Subsequently, a major problem was discovered. The problem—which one battery company executive called a “doom factor”—was that over time, the voltage at which the battery operated changed in ways that made it unusable. Argonne researchers investigated the problem and found no ready answer. They didn’t understand the basic chemistry and physics of the material well enough to grasp precisely what was going wrong, let alone fix it, LeVine writes.
With its experimental material for the opposite electrode, this one based on silicon, Envia faced another challenge. Researchers had seemingly solved the major problem with silicon electrodes—their tendency to fall apart. But the solution required impractical manufacturing techniques.
When Envia made its announcement in 2012, it seemed to have figured out how to make both these experimental materials work. It developed a version of the silicon electrode that could be manufactured more cheaply. And through trial and error it had stumbled upon a combination of coatings that stabilized the voltage of the Argonne material. Envia cofounder Sujeet Kumar “understood that the answer was a composite of coatings,” LeVine writes. “But he still didn’t know what the composite was arresting or why it succeeded in doing so.” Since Envia was a startup with limited funds, he “didn’t have the instruments that could figure it out.” But once it became obvious that the results Envia had reported for its battery couldn’t be reproduced, understanding the problem became crucial. Even tiny changes to the composition of a material can have a significant impact on performance, so for all Envia knew, its record-setting battery worked because of a contaminant in a batch of material from one of its suppliers.
The story of Envia stands in sharp contrast to what’s turned out to be the most successful recent effort to cut the price of batteries and improve their performance. This success hasn’t come from a breakthrough but from the close partnership between Tesla Motors and the major battery cell supplier Panasonic. Since 2008, the cost of Tesla’s battery packs has been cut approximately in half, while the storage capacity has increased by about 60 percent. Tesla didn’t attempt to radically change the chemistry or materials in lithium-ion batteries; rather, it made incremental engineering and manufacturing improvements. It also worked closely with Panasonic to tweak the chemistry of existing battery materials according to the precise needs of its cars.
Tesla claims that it is on track to produce a $35,000 electric car with a roughly 200-mile range by 2017—a feat that’s equivalent to what GM hoped to achieve with Envia’s new battery. The company anticipates selling hundreds of thousands of these electric cars a year, which would be a big leap from the tens of thousands it sells now. Yet for electric cars to account for a significant portion of the roughly 60 million cars sold each year around the world, batteries will probably need to get considerably better. After all, 200 miles is far short of the 350-plus miles people are used to driving on a tank of gasoline, and $35,000 is still quite a bit more than the $15,000 price of many small gas-powered cars.
How will we close the gap? There is probably still plenty of room to improve lithium-ion batteries, though it’s hard to imagine that Tesla’s success with minor changes to battery chemistry will continue indefinitely. At some point, radical changes such as the ones Envia envisioned may be needed. But the lesson from the Envia fiasco is that such changes must be closely integrated with manufacturing and engineering expertise.
That approach is already yielding promising results with the Argonne material that Envia licensed. Envia’s battery operated at high voltages to achieve high levels of energy storage. Now battery manufacturers are finding that using more modest voltage levels can significantly increase energy storage without the problems that troubled Envia. Meanwhile, battery researchers are publishing papers that show how trace amounts of additives change the behavior of the materials, making it possible to edge up the voltage and energy storage. The key is to combine research that illuminates details about the chemistry and physics of batteries with the expertise that battery manufacturers have gained in making practical products.
It’s an industry in which it’s very difficult for a startup, however enticing its technology, to go it alone. Andy Chu, a former executive at A123 Systems, which went bankrupt in 2012, recently told me why large companies dominate the battery industry. “Energy storage is a game played by big players because there are so many things that can go wrong in a battery,” he said. “I hope startups are successful. But you can look at the history over the past few years, and it’s not been good.”
"Hey, Mac! I need a fluke and a pair of dykes ..."
Sure, right after I get this nipple screwed into the peckerhead....
Clearly, the most plausible scenario ...
I believe that the Chinese still require their kids to learn math WITHOUT calculators - so yea, I would worry about them.
It could have been just starting up or capacity to handle 2 MRIs(1.5 Teslas and 3.0 Tesla MRI’s where Popular almost 10 years ago, in Europe some places had a 9 Tesla from what one director told me (that is a huge magnetic field)) at once but since one future room that was there was empty, it could have just been engineered for two since the cost of upgrading would no doubt have been expensive plus electrical shut downs during up grading. They did leave the magnets on in a stand by mood. The chillers that where used where always running (using helium so that probably helped keep the electrical usage down except for the start up spikes) and some had city water as a bypass in case it failed which sometimes it did if something went wrong with the chillers and say good by to the cryogen (helium) as it would be vented which cost in the 10s of thousand of dollars to replace. The facility wasn’t happy about that.
Now you know why MRI’s are not that cheap and they try to schedule them one after the other to maximize use.
“I do miss the old Simpsons though.”
Sigh, dropped mine off a ladder onto a cement floor. Remember it like it was yesterday. What a champ.
I don’t think anybody is discounting source pollution from charging electric cars, but electric motors are so much more efficient than had burners they just use much less energy per mile inherently reducing pollution and if they are getting the electricity from a nuke plant or a hydro plant, so much the better
Untrue. Electric motors can be more than 90 percent efficient compared to the 25 percent efficiency of a gasoline engine. (that’s why the Tesla can travel almost 300 miles on the same amount of energy that would go into three and a half gallons of gasoline). if you’re getting that energy from a natural gas power plant which can run at its ideal efficiency 24 hours a day then you’re still much more efficient per mile at the end of the day and if you put gasoline into your tank.
Get out your check book, the Tesla Model X will do just that, except it seats 7. Although in all fairness, most of the gas cars I’ve owned wouldn’t tow a 23’ boat. Just never had a need to pay for that capability
of course the problem with gasoline engines is that you put 1 into it and you get only .25 out. About 75 percent of the energy generated in an internal combustion engine is lost in the form of waste heat and vibration whereas electric motors can achieve 90 percent efficiency.
Or, you could pull into one of the growing number of DC quick chargers, which are free in Tesla’s case, and top of in less than 30 minutes. This essentially let’s you drive 500 miles with one 30 minute break. And remember, with an EV, you pull out of your garage with a full tank every morning. And while charging may still take longer than filling up your tank with gasoline you have to also remember that it’s free in many cases and even when you have to pay its only a fraction of the cost of putting the equivalent amount of gasoline in your car.
DC quick Chargers will allow you to recharge in less than 30 minutes now and remember with electric vehicles you pull out of the garage every morning with a full tank so you only need to rely on public charging stations on long trips also remember with Tesla the super chargers are always free and even the DC quick chargers that are not free are very cheap compared to gasoline on a per model basis right now I Drive a large gasoline burning SUV and if somebody told me I can wait for 20 minutes and fill up for free or a couple of dollars instead of by waiting 5 minutes for a $50 fill up at a regular gasoline pump I would take the 20 minutes everyday.
Tell that to the Tesla Model S P85D that does 0 to 60 in 3.2 seconds and will travel almost 300 miles on a charge. right now capacitors simply aren’t energy dense enough. companies like EESTOR have been promising capacitor breakthroughs as long as I can remember. if they ever do solve the problem then capacitors would enable super quick recharging. however even with battery technology you can recharge at 300 mile range Tesla and less than 30 and it looks like much faster DC quick chargers are just around the corner. but having a large 25 percent efficient gas engine as an onboard generator is not the solution
Current DC quick chargers allow you to add over 200 miles of range in about 20 minutes and in the case of Tesla’s you don’t pay anything for that. Yes that’s still slower than filling up with gas. But with Tesla its free. 5 minute fill up for 50 bucks, vs 20 minutes for free. And don’t forget with an EV you wake up with a full tank each day.
Until you get a call and your kid is having a medical emergency at school...
IIRC, based on a late 70s Lincoln chassis...
Off to the commute...
It shouldn't take any longer than changing a tire.
1950s show car called the Lincoln Futura. It actually was part of the plot to a movie called It Started With a Kiss (1959) starring Glen Ford and Debbie Reynolds. Lots of scenes with it in it. It could be retitled the Batmobile goes to Spain. :)
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.