In search of the perfect battery.......A Case history

Case history

In search of the perfect battery
Mar 6th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Energy technology: Researchers are desperate to find a modern-day philosopher's stone: the battery technology that will make electric cars practical. Here is a brief history of their quest


Yet today about a dozen firms are once again developing all-electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles capable of running on batteries for short trips (and, in the case of plug-in hybrids, firing up an internal-combustion engine for longer trips). Toyota's popular Prius hybrid, by contrast, can travel less than a mile on battery power alone. Tesla Motors of San Carlos, California, recently delivered its first Roadster, an all-electric two-seater with a 450kg battery pack and a range of 350km (220 miles) between charges. And both Toyota and GM hope to start selling plug-in hybrids as soon as 2010.

So what has changed? Aside from growing concern about climate change and a surge in the oil price, the big difference is that battery technology is getting a lot better. Rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, which helped to make the mobile-phone revolution possible in the past decade, are now expected to power the increasing electrification of the car. “They are clearly the next step,” says Mary Ann Wright, the boss of Johnson Controls-Saft Advanced Power Solutions, a joint venture that recently opened a factory in France to produce lithium-ion batteries for hybrid vehicles.

According to Menahem Anderman, a consultant based in California who specialises in the automotive-battery market, more money is being spent on research into lithium-ion batteries than all other battery chemistries combined. A big market awaits the firms that manage to adapt lithium-ion batteries for cars. Between now and 2015, Dr Anderman estimates, the worldwide market for hybrid-vehicle batteries will more than triple, to $2.3 billion. Lithium-ion batteries, the first of which should appear in hybrid cars in 2009, could make up as much as half of that, he predicts.

..........much more

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789409

about why gm abandoned it is pure BS.

... that the movie is "pure BS?"

http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/239

I wish they had shown a graph charting power against weight in the transition from lead acid-NiCad-LIon.

Numerous inaccuracies and they missed Nickel Iron, ultracaps, and as someone noted in the comments, the lead acid solution actually hasn't been improved much in years, so the graphite foam electrode work really deserved a mention. Also they implied NiMH have memory effect problems; they don't, only really nicad. The main problem with NiMH and Nickel Iron is self-discharge, what for NiMH is not bad enough to be bad for vehicular use, if the vehicle is used at least once a week.

But it's nice that they tried, rather than just recyling old articles that all say the same old thing.

This is an article in The Economist and I think they've captured the salient points related to the deployment of battery electric transportation. IMO the most significant failing of any nickel based battery is the atomic weight of nickel (28) vs the atomic weight of lithium (3) and the ultimate respective power to weight ratios.


Lithium
Energy/weight 160 Wh/kg
Energy/size 270 Wh/l
Power/weight 1800 W/kg
Charge/discharge efficiency 99.9%<1>
Energy/consumer-price 2.8-5 Wh/US$<2>
Self-discharge rate 5%-10%/month
Time durability (24-36) months
Cycle durability ~1200 cycles
Nominal Cell Voltage 3.6 / 3.7 V


Nickel
Energy/weight 30–80 Wh/kg
Energy/size 140–300 Wh/L
Power/weight 250–1000 W/kg
Charge/discharge efficiency 66% <1>
Energy/consumer-price 2.75 Wh/US$<1>
Self-discharge rate 30%/month (temperature dependant)<2>
Time durability Citation Needed
Cycle durability 500–1000
Nominal Cell Voltage 1.2 V

The atomic weights are beside the point, considering that the Ni or Li is not the dominant component of the total cell weight. The numbers in your stats are a much better indicator, and show that they are within a factor of two currently.

Other chemistries have not yet had the same extensive nanotech development that has happened with Li-ion mainly because when the nanotech entered the scene Li-ion was already the dominant battery for portables, and nothing gets developed faster than in the portable tech market, given consumer's unending fetish for it. As such Li-ion has been fanatically optimized for both power and energy, the LiFePO4 being the latest in that trend.

...claims like this are probably overblown: http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/03/nanotech-research-stumbles-on-homemade-hydrogen/

However, they do serve to point out that NiMH has not recieved advanced development because of patent trolling from decades ago (see Covasys, which is still swatting down large form factor prismatic cells while barely producing any themselves.) The Li-ion patent war left the playing field more open, just because of the way the chips fell.

NiMH has been improving, but more slowly (nowadays you can get 2600mAh+ AA cells, five years ago you were lucky to get 1400mAh)

A123 and such will do just fine, but using "Lithium" as a keeping-up-with-the-joneses codeword in the battery tech area is probably not a productive development. Likely inevitable, though, given the way consumerism/marketing works these days. Worse though is telling a bunch of investors to regard NiMH as obsolete, when companies working on them deserve financing, too.

If you know offhand, I'd be interested.

I agree strongly with your overall point as summarized in your final sentence.

...some list percent by weight.