Articles like this are thrown out constantly. There are so many promising technologies for this but until they are delivered a reasonable prices they are just pipe dreams. I read a couple years ago about nano technology increasing capacity by 10X. It means nothing until it's here.
True, but the ARPA program required actual constructed batteries, not merely demonstration of lab technology. So this is a different critter from your typical lab announcement about an improvement in one particular component of a battery, it's an announcement about an improvement in the battery as an assembly. Interestingly enough, one major part of this technological breakthrough is in nano-scale construction of the anode and cathode to provide conductivity, longevity and fire resistance in a scalable-to-production package.
If only we took the DoD's money and put it into this, we could've severed all ties with the ME long ago.
This was done in part with an ARPA grant, which is of course the sister to DARPA, as well as with some Government Motors investment. The military is very interested in hybrid vehicles. In my opinion, funding this kind of application research (in conjunction with basic research of course) is a much better use of tax dollars than is subsidizing existing products which are not yet commercially viable, such as Solyndra. It's axiomatic that as a society we can't adopt technology that requires subsidization to be viable; it should also be axiomatic that this kind of technological break-through, more performance for less money and resources, is what drives societal progress. I don't know I'd place it even with, say, the spray jet carburetor in internal combustion engines, but assuming it holds up it's going to be close. By that I mean that before the spray jet carburetor IC engines had significant problems and limitations; whereas after the spray jet carburetor IC engines became practical for a wide variety of applications. A $30,000 EV with an 80 mile range (to use Envia's example) has significant limitations and is practical for only a few applications, whereas a $20,000 EV with an 300 mile range is practical for many applications. Commercial vehicles are another major market; currently the size and cost of batteries prevents heavy vehicles, which are often used only in local markets or on fixed routes, from utilizing all-electric drive. This might well allow those vehicles to be all-electric, reducing local pollution, increasing overall efficiency, and insulating the operators from petroleum price fluctuations. One can easily imagine buses and delivery vans where quick-swap batteries are exchanged at each depot stop and provide all the energy.
This has big implications for hybrids too. Electric vehicles by their nature are best suited for lower speed city driving where regenerative braking recovers some of your expensive energy, but most vehicles encounter a mix of driving conditions. On open roads the batteries are just dead weight, so cutting that weight in half (not to mention cutting cost) reduces the efficiency penalty. Alternately, a manufacturer might choose to double energy storage, to use electric energy for most if not virtually all city driving.
I read what you quoted, and unless I skimmed over it, I noticed that this is one factor that they didn't mention. Is there a possibility that these batteries don't have the necessary longevity yet?
Charge-discharge cycle life was part of the ARPA requirements. The technology looks promising, it's just that we don't yet know the real world cycle life. There are numerous things that can still go wrong. For instance, failure of the nano-layering techniques in production scale might significantly cut life, or there might be idiosyncratic problems with a particular usage aspect necessary to automobile usage. It might work great with full recharge at high voltage, but not so great with incremental charges at lower voltage from on-board regenerative braking. But again, this is an actual battery being tested, not merely a component. While it might possibly end up being useless for EV or hybrid vehicles, a technological jump like this is virtually certain to have significant commercial and/or military applications. It's a good thing.
EDIT: We crossed posts, but I definitely agree with your last post. This technology
seems to deliver on all three, but it's too soon to know for sure. As for smaller batteries, the technology can definitely work for smaller batteries, but perhaps not for small AND low cost batteries. The nano-layering technology seems to me to be quite expensive for use on small, low cost batteries, but we'll have to see how well it works. Some incredibly involved technology can be automated and produce extremely detailed parts at very low cost (e.g. CPUs and GPUs) so it might well prove to be expandable into even the lowest cost Li-Ion batteries given the reduction in materials.
).
Facebook
Twitter