RSSGreener batteries: Li-ion cells could charge up in mere seconds
By Jacqueline Emigh | Published March 12, 2009, 12:17 PM
Like most people, you're probably tired of waiting hours for your cell phone batteries to recharge. But now, researchers have discovered new technology that reportedly not only charges up batteries in seconds, but enables the batteries to hold their charge well.
In an article published yesterday in the prestigious journal Nature, Byoungwoo Kang and Gerbrand Ceder of MIT report they have figured out a way to get lithium ion batteries -- essentially the same type of battery used in products from mobile phones to hybrid automobiles -- to release and take up lithium ion molecules in under nine seconds.
In studying the chemical properties of lithium ion phosphate, a compound found in the cathode material of some commercial batteries, the two MIT scientists theorized that the compound could be made to do a faster job of moving from the cathode to the electrolyte. That's because the chemical structure of the compound creates the right size tunnels for the lithium to move through, the researchers explained.
Kang and Ceder turned to an approach that had been tried earlier with other battery materials, such as nickel oxide. The MIT scientists first coated the cathode with a thin layer of glass -- in this case, made of lithium phosphate -- and then determined that the coated phosphate could charge and discharge lithium ions practically instantaneously.
Lithium, moreover, is able to store more energy for less weight than nickel oxide, and it also holds its charge longer. Although cell phone owners might have reason to rejoice, too, the new technology is regarded by scientists as particularly important for hybrid vehicles, which need to recharge their batteries in the few seconds' time it takes for the driver to put on the vehicle's brakes.
I just hope this isn't another one of those things we hear about, then never hear about again. I won't hold my breath.
Score: 1
|This would open a world of choices... I want an electrical car with this technlogy!
One more time, the MIT scientists can be billonaries! Make it FAST please! I do not want more oil companies take my money....
Score: 0
|I still hold by my own personal analysis of:
This technology will be wonderful for (relatively) low drain devices such as laptops etc. However, for a car, this is all but useless as it'll still take far longer to charge than a normal petrol car takes to fill up.
The only plausible alternative currently available is Hydrogen in my opinion as it doesn't inconvenience users. New ways of Hydrogen extraction that don't involve massive usage of electricity are slowly being discovered, and I feel this is what will drive consumers away from Petrol, and not towards electric.
The old adage of "a device should be higher quality than its predecessor, or should reduce the time taken to fulfil a task" is important when designing new things. Electric cars do neither.
Score: 0
|Electrical carws sure sound nice don't they.
Too bad all they are is a case of moving the source further away so as not to be so moticeable and of using another more efficient fuel (petro or coal) to generate a less efficient fuel (electricity) along with its incredible losses via transmission inefficiencies.
But hey, as long as its not in my backyard then it qualifies as green? Doesn't it?
Like it or not, the only two fuesl that come close to being more friendly are natural gas (which is not in short supply, unlike oil and suffers only from an underdeveloped transport network) and nuclear - with its waste issues and essentially zero CO2 footprint.
But yup, let's use more electric cars which will require many more power generation plants powered by....oh, but we don't like those dirty fuels!
Yup ,electricity sounds like magic if y9u don't think past the sloganeering...
Oh, and Paul, so much for hydrogen.
"Ulf Bossel, an influential engineer, leader in the development of fuel cells and a founder of the European Fuel Cell Forum in 1994 has been declaring in the summer of 2006 that hydrogen is “dead”. On Ben Kenney’s cool podcast “The Watt”, Dr. Bossel explained his announcement at the latest Fuel Cell Forum in Lucerne early in June that hydrogen has no place in the sustainable energy future. Expecting little controversy from the scientific community, Dr. Bossel explained that hydrogen generated from electricity (called electrolysis where hydrogen is separated from oxygen) and turned again into electricity by the hydrogen fuel cell with an efficiency of 50% would yield a net efficiency of 25% from original electricity generation to usable energy. On the other hand, if that electricity were used to run an electric motor or stored in a battery, the net efficiency would be 90%!!"
Its a shame that such a wonderful source of energy takes more energy to refine it than it provides! But that symbolism sure is attractive.
Score: -5
|Ahh, the now very old and tired "Saved By Technology" theme rears its hedonistic head yet once again. When the sun goes out, who's gonna change the bulb?
Score: 0
|I partially disagree with both of you. Explosion engines are pathetic. A engine which use 20% of the energy it burns is ridiculous, and surprise! That is what we are using (best: 25% efficiency on Diesel).
We need to develop better engines. Hydrogen is better than electrical, but there are several problems still not solved to use it.
Electrical cars can be developed NOW, and greener power solutions are possible, around the world there is NO need to burn oil to get it (it can be extracted from wind/sea/earth/sun). All technologies have pro/cons, but almost any of the available choices are better than keep burning oil. Which (by the way) is needed for many other industrial processes and will scarce soon.
Score: 0
|Yeah, you'd have to change the infastructure of the electric grid for electric cars to take work in this economy. More nuclear power plants, and less coal, but its not going to please the bobble heads in Washington. If you've kept up with the times, the new administration plans to put a tough tax on "unclean" coal.
Its funny how we havent heard really anything lately about alternatives until now. It seems we forget so quickly that gas was 135 a barrell. I think it will double that this year, and we'll be right back where we started.
Score: 0
|"I partially disagree with both of you. Explosion engines are pathetic. A engine which use 20% of the energy it burns is ridiculous, and surprise! That is what we are using (best: 25% efficiency on Diesel).
We need to develop better engines. Hydrogen is better than electrical, but there are several problems still not solved to use it.
Electrical cars can be developed NOW, and greener power solutions are possible, around the world there is NO need to burn oil to get it (it can be extracted from wind/sea/earth/sun). All technologies have pro/cons, but almost any of the available choices are better than keep burning oil. Which (by the way) is needed for many other industrial processes and will scarce soon."
Congrats on the pathos.
All you propose is replacing a gas tank. And you replace it with even MORE inefficient sources of energy that utterly lack an infrastructure.
Your emotional solution simply neglects the fact that a petrol offers a higher density energy source than any of its derivative sources! AND you forget that electricity doesn't just appear at your wall socket my magic.
"it can be extracted from wind/sea/earth/sun". As is oil. But even on a very sunny windy day, your amazing sources cannot reasonably supply the current need, let alone the dramatic increase in demand if all cars went to electric. Not to mention that the sources are too variable and regional.
And hydrogen?! Hell, even the European champion of its SCIENTIFIC development, Ulf Boessel, has declared it effectively "dead".
Such passion, such angst, such simplicity.
There is a very practical reason that oil has remained the fundamental source of energy.
And all of the teeth knashing and passionate vitriole and nonsensical talk of electrical vehicles does not solve the fundamental problem. You simply move the problem around.
Of course, if you want to produce lots of electrical power without an addition carbon footprint, there is one easily implemented method that I know you love, and that's nuclear. And we will ignore the fact that up to 60% of the electrical energy produced is lost as heat during its transmission in transmission lines (as we hav also failed to develop practical and economical means of superconductivity). Thus requiring the building of almost 300% as many plants as are actually needed for the simple production of the actual energy used by your miracle electric cars.
What would be most welcome, would be if more were simply conversant in the basic SCIENTIFIC facts surrounding energy usage and production, and less of the simplistic Utopian 'if we only made bunny friendly cars' that ran on cheap abundant unobtanium starting tomorrow...'
"A few problems surrounding hydrogen..." Yup, just "a few!"!!!
There's just a few steps in your equation left out between "its a good idea" and "its being practical".
So much for the misuse and ignorance surrounding science.
Score: -5
|Foxfyre, I ussualy agree with your points, but not this time.
There is nothing you can change in CURRENT inefficient engines, the technology is flawed. We are using 200 years car technology and we need to change it. Of course development is needed to overcome issues from new technologies (some major).
I really think oil companies are the problem, they have too much money and interests in doing what they do and stopping other advances. And seems nobody (including you) think that we need oil to multiple industrial processes, including all kind of plastics!
Nuclear is a good technology, but (there is always a but) there is no current way to recycle nuclear waste, which last thousands of years (with luck).
I suggest you to see Zeitgeist addendum movie (free online) if you still did not. There is a good explanation about how the world can provide other sources of energy (among other things).
There is work to do before moving to alternative technologies. Explosion engines = really *bad* technology with 200 years development.
It is all about development, and interests... By the way, I am not a hippie ecologist
Score: 0
|Sorry. There is no conspiracy as to why oil is the most widely used major fuel source. Energy content and cost.
Yup, there are so many alternatives. Yup, and conspiracies are keeping them from the market! LOL!
The SIMPLE fact is, they are either immature simply due to the fact that they cost more for the amount of energy produced than the alternatives.
Why do you think the alternatives ONLY start to become viable alternatives economically when the price of gas approaches ~$5 a gallon? Why do you think that Gore and the other greenies supported a tax to artificially boost the price of oil to $5 a gallon for over 10 years (only to have them politically and disingenuously blame the Republicans when it did so!!!! Hell, that's what they have claimed to want for YEARS! Ooops! We aren't supposed to mention facts are we?)
But then, look at the focus of this article!
All the greenies are running around demanding one size fits all exotic sources of energy requiring major changes in infrastructure as they focus on relatively small users of energy!
Meanwhile, how many have simply made their homes more energy efficient through insulation and CFL/and emerging LED light sources? After all, BUILDINGS AND HOMES account for 60% of energy use, while cars less than 20%!
You can solve the home/building issue yesterday!
So while you are busy whining about simply changing a car engine, but doing nothing about the fundamental generation and distribution of such energy (oops!), why not get off your posteriors and retrofit your house and make a REAL difference today? And just what, pray tell, has stopped YOU 'oh so caring' folks from doing it before?????????
The difference? Its simple. One involves you actually having to get off your posterior and assuming responsibility. The other more attractive option involves whining about when the proverbial THEY will do it for you!
The other solution that the greenies miss is that there is not one or two technologies that are the SOLUTION! It is a combination of 'appropriate' technologies that are optimum for different locales that take advantage of the primary local conditions in regards to resources and climate. But gee, that makes it harder to blame just one mean THEY for preventing everything - especially wen you can make changes yourself - or are they forcing you to not better insulate your own house and to use existing lower energy load lightbulbs and to simply use SWITCHES to turn appliances you are not using OFF? But then, as we just saw in another thread, switched and fused plug strips are evil for all sorts of ignorantly imagined reasons! LOL!
Funny, my house has a 2 zoned central heat and air system, but for the last 2 years, the furnace has not turned on once! No magic! Just very efficient insulation and sealing with air to air heat exchangers to allow for the ingress of fresh air without excessive energy loss/gain, and readily available energy efficient devices. And I save money on the investment every day forever. Gee, and i didn't even have to wait for THEM to do it! And when your water heater craps out, as they will, simply replace it with one or two instant on zoned sources that operate only as needed. Pretty complex, huh?
So we get get to listen to the 'oh so caring' greenies sit around whining about when THEY will develop an alternative and how THEY are preventing it and how THEY have stopped you from assuming control over your lifestyle choices and how THEY have prevented you from making YOUR house more energy efficient.
And unfortunately, waiting for THEM to do it is precisely the braindead mentality that DOMINATES the greenie mentality.
Sorry, but the primary problem in this equation is not THEY. You might want to Google Walt Kelly and see what Pogo had to say about this. Its as timely now as when he said it.
Score: -5
|http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/
So whats wrong with this? Yes, you need sources of Electricity to create the Hydrogen, but at least the car its self is very efficient... Baby steps ppl... nothing can be changed overnight
Score: 1
|