Valence Technology Helps Drive Move to Hybrid Vehicles by Tripling Fuel E

[Coastie for Truth]

The U.S. hybrid and EV battery market is expected to reach $4.5 billion in 2008 -- an increase of almost 65% from 2003(a). Valence Technology Inc. , provider of Saphion(R) technology, the industry's first commercially available, safe, large-format lithium-ion rechargeable battery technology, is at the forefront powering a variety of hybrid and electric vehicles.

When auto manufacturers first developed hybrid vehicles, the only viable battery technology was nickel-metal-hydride. While some hybrids using these types of batteries can offer 50 miles per gallon, new battery technology is now available to enable even greater fuel efficiency and fewer emissions. Today, hybrid auto manufacturers have access to advanced batteries that use a phosphate-based lithium-ion chemistry to provide much more energy with less weight while meeting automobile safety standards.

A concept PHEV powered by Valence Technology batteries was recently demonstrated in Europe and the U.S. Based on a 2004 Toyota Prius, the PHEV has a fuel efficiency that can average up to 150 miles per gallon for a daily commute of 50-60 miles per day. The car reduces fuel consumption and emissions, replacing gasoline with clean, regenerable energy. This is possible because the nickel-metal-hydride battery was replaced with Valence Technology's Saphion lithium-ion batteries, which provide more than 18 times the energy. As a result, the PHEV can be driven longer in zero-emission electric mode and offers dramatically improved gas mileage, which means fewer trips to the gas station.

In addition, the concept PHEV can be plugged into a standard 110V AC electrical outlet in order to charge the battery, which currently costs as little as $.33-$1.00 in the U.S. However, if a user chooses not to charge the battery through renewable power-grid energy, the car operates as a normal hybrid.
-- more in article

"Plug In" Hybrid (based on Prius) with Lithium Ion Batteries.

They do have

[NNadir]

1. This is interesting. Thanks. n/t.

[Coastie for Truth]

2. The next two "jumps" in hybrid technology

1. Li-ion batteries (much more coulombs/unit mass, coulombs/unit volume)

2. Plug in to the grid.

A lot of the concept and prototype hybrids have one or both of these features.

[phantom power]

7. But what about that 15 million ton limit on Li?

That seems like a problem.

[NickB79]

11. Is that the total amount of Li on the planet?

15 million tons?

Aggressive recycling of all lithium-based technology?

[NNadir]

14. Yes. But this is not the whole story.

I posted this link in another recent thread.

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/usgspubsgeoreforg/minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2003/mcs2003.pdf

But on a little reflection, this is not the whole story.

The atomic weight of Lithium is 6.941.

The atomic weight of lead is 207.2.

Thus 15 million metric tons of lithium is roughly 2.2 trillion moles.

Thus 15 million metric tons of lithium is the equivalent atom for atom to 450 million metric tons of lead. However, I think the cell commonly used in lead batteries is a 4 electron process. So the lithium is equal to roughly to about 100 metric tons of lead. The lower weight of lithium when compared to lead also has some bearing on the matter of efficiency.

Still, no matter how agressively one recycles, there is still not enough lithium to account for an appreciable fraction of existing automobiles through use of this element. And inevitably Lithium will be lost to the environment in recycling processes, never mind the inevitable accidental loss.

Further, lithium has many, many, many uses that have nothing to do with batteries. Many organic chemists would have nightmares if deprived of the element.

http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Li/uses.html

Lithium is not a particularly common element either in earth's crust or in the universe as a whole. (It is consumed rather than formed in stars: All of the lithium that exists was either created in the big bang or by spallation reactions in interstellar clouds through interaction with cosmic rays.)

A nuclear fusion technology, should such a thing ever come to exist, would probably consume lithium as a fuel further limiting access to the element.

[Coastie for Truth]

19. As fast as things are moving

I have no doubt that we will see new electrode pairs before Li becomes uneconomical.

In Boy Scouts and again in the old Westinghouse High School Talent Search - I made a C-Zn battery and a Cu-Zn battery (in lemon juice and in photographic stop bath grade acetic acid as electrolytes). Plus various levels of sophistication of unsophisticated fuel cells through Phys Chem labs.

If I knew what the new pairs were - and how to tame them - I'd be in business with Vittorio de Nora ;). But they will be coming. Electrochemists and electrochemical engineers are a creative bunch of dudes.

[NNadir]

20. I respect your confidence but...

...I am more focused on the situation as it is and not as it might be.

As you know from our many pleasant conversations, I have the deepest respect for chemists (being one myself) and engineers electro- and otherwise. Still I am not so sanguine that battery technology will advance quickly enough to make electric cars a sure thing.

I have a problem with the prediction of what technology might be developed in the future and proceeding along paths based on those assumptions. When I was a boy in the 1950's and 1960's, people were predicting routine human trips to Mars, anthropomorphic robots, and flying automobiles among many other things that were to come to pass. They were not predicting global climate change.

Our situation is rather like those fellows on the Apollo 13 spacecraft: We are hurdling through space on a badly damaged spaceship with it's critical gases in limited supply and one gas - carbon dioxide - in a critical over abundance. We need to work with the tools we have on board right now, not those we wish we had.

(An irony: Lithium was involved in the Apollo 13 adventure as well.)

[RC]

3. How long do the batteries last? How much does it cost to replace them?

How much does a new car like this cost? Is there air conditioning? How well does the heater work when it is -35°F. Does it work at -35°F?

What is the range of this vehicle? It needs to be at least 300 to 350 miles.

[Coastie for Truth]

5. That's the "magic" of hybrid

You charge the battery off of the internal combustion engine, off of the regenerative braking -- and in a plug in hybrid off of the grid.

[dcfirefighter]

4. Li-ion

$1.00 for a full charge? How many miles electric-only? ~30?

When did the Saphion(R) battery debut?

[suziedemocrat]

6. This is GREAT News!!!

Thanks for the link. So many developments are being made - I really think we might be about to turn the corner on energy within the next 3-10 years!!! And it is private citizens with big dreams that are doing it. The "Fuel Cell" is nothing more than false hope IMO - and maybe 20 years away from reality. Plus the "Hydrogen Economy" will still prop up the energy companies and coal companies, and that is why the Republicans are pushing hydrogen so much - again IMO.

The "real" future might be mich more disruptive. I dream of a Plug-In Hybrid with a better battery and also PV cells incorporated into the car body which will also charge the battery. There are a lot of companies making very real progress in solar technology. So my dream may not be so far fetched.

[NNadir]

8. I don't think fuel cells are nonsensical.

I agree that hydrogen fuel cells are nonsensical, but fuel cells working off reformers are a promising technology I think. Reformers convert carbon based fuels into hydrogen in situ. The main problem with hydrogen is simply that it can't be stored or shipped safely. Many hydrogen equivalents avoid these problems.

There are ways of making fuels without the use of coal. The mechanism for creating a desire to do this is simply to charge the external cost of energy as a tax (including an adminstrative surcharge). This would be fair and would further the goal of government protection of our common space.

With that in mind, regarding the "problem" with "propping up" energy companies, we should not confuse technical issues with, say, some people's desire for socialism. It happens that most of the "real progress" made by solar companies is made by evil "energy companies."

PV solar power doesn't really work all that well. It's cute, maybe even sexy, but it is still enormously expensive.

[Coastie for Truth]

10. One of the electric utilities in the Pacific Northwest is

offering reformer-fuel cell modules now as a form of co-gen.

[suziedemocrat]

12. link: Cost-Competitive Solar Called "Imminent"

You seem very knowledgeable. But I've been following Solar, and I think it's becoming more than just "cute" or "sexy".

From: http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story;jsessionid=aVTMttV560k6?id=34626

Golden Colorado Solar concentrators using highly efficient photovoltaic solar cells will reduce the cost of electricity from sunlight to competitive levels soon, attendees were told at a recent international conference on the subject.

...

"Concentrating solar electric power is on the cusp of delivering on its promise of low-cost, reliable, solar-generated electricity at a cost that is competitive with mainstream electric generation systems," said Vahan Garboushian, president of Amonix, Inc. of Torrance, Calif. "With the advent of multijunction solar cells, PV concentrator power generation at $3 per watt is imminent in the coming few years."

Photovoltaic (PV) concentrator units are much different than the flat photovoltaic modules sold around the world; almost 1,200 MW of flat PV modules were sold last year. PV concentrators come in larger module sizes, typically 20 kilowatts to 35 kilowatts each, they track the sun during the day and they are more suitable for large utility installations.

Ordinary, flat-plate solar modules have their entire sun-receiving surface covered with costly silicon solar cells and are positioned at a fixed tilt to the sun. In contrast, Amonix's systems offer significant cost savings by using inexpensive flat, plastic Fresnel lenses as an intermediary between the sun and the cell. These magnifying lenses focus and concentrate sunlight approximately 250 times onto a relatively small cell area. Through concentration, the required silicon cell area needed for a given amount of electricity is reduced by an amount approximating its concentration ratio (250 times). In effect, a low-cost plastic concentrator lens is being substituted for relatively expensive silicon.

These systems have been under development with Arizona Public Service's solar research facility.

"We have seen steady progress in photovoltaic concentrator technology," said Hayden, Solar Program Coordinator at APS. "We are working with advanced multijunction PV cells that are approaching 38% efficiency, and even higher is possible over time. Our goal is to install PV concentrator systems at $3 per watt, which can happen soon at production rates of 10 megawatts per year. Once that happens, higher volumes are readily achieved."

.... more in linked article....

[kestrel91316]

13. Nanosolar has some sort of solar paint/thin film ............

[NNadir]

15. I've covered this extensively elsewhere. In solar 1200 MW is NOT 1200 MW.

$3.00/"watt" is not $3.00/"watt" either. At best, solar loading capacity is about 15% of the rated "capacity." This is because of the existence of night, late afternoon, clouds, rain, etc.

As a marketing ploy, solar cells are always rated at their maximum capacity, i.e. high noon on a cloudless sunny day. The real capacity accounting for all conditions is very much lower.

I went into more detail about how to demonstrate this recently in post #51 in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=26163&mesg_id=26903

As shown therein, the true cost of solar panels is more like $30 - $40/watt (I calculated $37.00/watt using the "solar buzz" numbers) since the loading capacity is necessarily so low.

One horsepower (roughly half a lawn mower engine) is 746 watts. At $30.00/watt it would take $22,000 in solar cells alone to power a 50 horsepower car (ie one with a very small engine) assuming that one had four hours of charging in bright sunlight for every one hour one actually drove. Moreover, if we assume 10% efficiency for solar cells for conversion of light into electricity and a solar flux of 1000 W/m^2 the solar cells surface area on the car would need to be 400 square meters, all perfectly aligned with the sun in order to accomplish the goal of recharge. This means the surface area on the 50 hp car (which would necessarily be a small car) would be required to be a square 20 meters on a side. Note that the engine describes is smaller than the one that powers the Honda Insight.

It ain't gonna happen. That is, it ain't gonna happen in time to address the collapse of our atmosphere, which is rather graphically being demonstrated this summer.

[suziedemocrat]

16. Try to keep an open mind about Solar, great things are happening. 2nd link

I can see from that other DU thread that you REALLY don't like Solar. But - there does seem to be a lot of progress being made.

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003168.html#more

....snip...

Moreover, the National Renewable Energy Lab has measured and confirmed that the Pyron prototype, measuring 23 feet in diameter, generates 6.6 kilowatts. The reason that it can be so efficient (standard PV panels would take up much more space, up to 10x as much, to put out that much power) is that the Boeing-Spectralab solar cells are over 37% efficient -- more than double typical PV cells -- and reach that maximum efficiency when hit with "400 sunpower" worth of concentrated light. The real innovation, however, is the water-based cooling system for the superheated solar array.

The Laings -- who, between the two of them, hold over 1,000 patents -- have only built the one 23' prototype, but are already thinking big. They claim that a two-kilometer square Pyron system could generate a gigawatt of power, and that it would be nearly 15x more efficient per square meter than the world's largest solar power plant in Dagget, California. This strikes me as somewhat outdated thinking, though; we'd be far better off with multiple smaller concentrator setups distributed around a given region than a single mega-system. Hello, rooftops!

But the most appealing aspect of this is the projected cost. The June article from Earthtoys that started this for me (which was written by a Pyron employee) references $13,000-$15,000 for the 23' unit, putting the cost at $2-$2.25 per watt; a brief item from earlier this month lists the cost at $18,000, including a $2,000 rebate in California. Even at $20,000 (without the rebate) the system is still only $3 per watt. The Pyron site itself -- which doesn't list anywhere to buy the unit, so the prices remain estimates only -- claims that large-scale plants could achieve cost-per-watt of $1.87.

..... more at link ....

[NNadir]

17. First of all, I linked to the wrong post in the previous thread.

The actual post for the calculation of the load efficiency for solar plants is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x26750#26763

It's post #8, the last post in the "million solar roofs" subsidy for rich people bill. I'm sorry about my confusion; but it's just that I often end up repeating myself and I lose track of where I've cut another "solar only" hydra's neck.

It's not that I dislike solar power, it's just that I think it is a solution that is only available to the wealthy. It is not a practical solution to the real problems of the real world which contains more than 6 billion people who are not wealthy.

Because I have some good things going on, I anticipate becoming wealthy myself - maybe then I'll play around with solar stuff but this will be idle play. Still, in spite of official US "government" policy, it simply is not true that we can address the world's problems by only addressing the needs and concerns of wealthy people. Global climate change involves every person on the planet, not just CEO's, rock stars and supermodels.

I will take solar power seriously when they stop rating themselves in "watts" "kilowatts" or "megawatts." This is a complete deception. A watt is a unit of power not of energy. The cost of energy is not determined by a generating system's production for a few minutes under optimum conditions. It is determined by how the system operates over average conditions, that is by integration of its power ratings over a period of a year.

E = P dt.

To know what a system actually produces for its cost one should use energy units such as kilowatt-hours or megawatt-hours or better yet, joules, petajoules, exajoules. This accounts for night and for clouds, rain, dust and smoke and smog.

When you do this you quickly recognize that solar PV electricity is enormously expensive, prohibitive for anyone of ordinary means. I note that if the load capacity of a solar cell is 15% (and it appears that none do better than that - even in sunny states) $3.00/"watt" is really more like $20/watt when averaged over the full day. This means that it requires $2,000 of installed power to light a 100 watt lot bulb, and that is wholly ignoring the cost and inefficiency of energy storage.

I will take solar power seriously when it doesn't need to misrepresent itself. We don't need magical thinking. We need to face reality squarely face to face.

I have been hearing about the promise of solar power for some thirty years. When I first heard it, as a young man, I believed it. For all the hoopla I've heard, little has ever actually been delivered. Meanwhile, I am terrified of what is happening outside windows all over the world: Our climate is breaking down. I have two young children. I am very concerned about the conditions they will face in their lifetimes.

If we're going to do something, we need to start building nuclear plants as fast as they can be built. Once, by this means, we have stabilized greenhouse gas output - ie re-established equilibrium - we can play with the cute stuff.

[Coastie for Truth]

18. There are niches where nothing beats solar

Note - I said NICHES.

Note - historically, PV was integrated with some kind of a battery system.

One niche is for "off grid" where it is just too expensive for the utility to run a gas line or copper wire (in some states, by PUC mandate, every resident must be "offered" electricity by the utility). This is non-trivial.

Specialty chargers - ever since the 2000 "Enron manufactured power crisis" out here in CA - I have used an array of PV cells on my patio (I live in a high rise) to charge that mass collection of 4.5V and 6V and 9V power packs and my laptop and cell phones. Similarly, in Michigan (with its cold, snowy, cloudy winters and seasonal affective disorder) I used a PV reflector on the dash board to "trickle charge" my battery.

When I calculate the KWHR output of PV cell, I multiply peak power output by (8 hours/24 hours) for daylight and (200 days/365 days) for clouds and overcast. Realize - we are talking UV. Then, unless I know that Staebler-Wronski degradation has been calculated - I multiply by 0.8 for Staebler-Wronski degradation.

I think once "peak oil" really bites - until fusion arrives -- 30 cents-40 cents per kwhr will look cheap (I am now paying 11 cents/kwhr for a mix of wind, nuclear, and gas).

[suziedemocrat]

21. I agree with a lot of what you say.

1) I also wish they would rate solar in Kilowatt hours - so I can simply look at a few monthly electric bills and instantly know how many solar panels/etc. I need to buy. They could make this a lot less confusing.

2) Solar was touted as a very big deal decades ago and never lived up to its promise. Innovation seemed stagnate for years. But I think Solar is getting a second wind of innovation and a lot of things on the horizon look very promising.

3) Solar TODAY may be out of reach for people who don't have an extra $10 - $20 thousand dollars to spend to make them feel like good environmentalists. But most new things start out as toys for the rich, and as they come down in price, they become part and parcel of everyone's life.

I don't know if you were trying to imply that I am a Socialist in an earlier post, but I assure I am not. But I do think technology has the ability to change the world in very real, and possibly wonderful ways. I dream of the average American being able to live a comfortable life with very little effect on the environment. And I dream that that life will become less and less expensive, enabling the rest of the world to also live a comfortable life as we do. Right now most Americans live very well compared to most in the world. I don't think that is a very good thing at all. But the resources needed to sustain that lifestyle make it impossible for the rest of the world to live as we do. I would like the comfortable American way of life to become much more sustainable, and therefore available to the world.

I see personal vehicles that require little fuel and create little pollution as a big step in this.

[NNadir]

22. And I agree with much of what you say.

I don't know you very well, as I haven't seen you around this forum much.

Maybe you don't know me: I am often snappish, many times inappropriately so.

I can see that you are thinking clearly.

I often make the point here that I believe that the key to environmental sustainability is population reduction, which I hope will happen by ethical means (reduced birth rates and attrition) as opposed to unethical means (war, other violence and induced catastrophe). Further I often state that the only means to ethical population control is the elimination of poverty. It is very clear that the only societies that have managed to control their populations through means that are not draconian are those where living standards are high.

Personally, I would like nothing better than to see your vision of solar energy realized. But I am not relying on hope; I am arguing for immediate action, for without immediate action, I do not believe we have much time.

I have been an advocate of the expansion of nuclear energy for well over a decade - ironically because of my personal analysis of Chernobyl - an experimental case where risks became more clearly defined. Understanding the risks has allowed us to evaluate the benefits. I've taken my fair share of abuse for this position because I am a liberal and I travel in liberal circles. I believe that liberals especially need to re-evaluate the important nuclear option because, well, it is the best one available NOW. Note that I am not so alone any longer in my position.

My position as a pronuke liberal often makes me cranky and quick on the draw. People often attack my position with rote recitations about the solar promise that are, frankly, absurd. That said, because I am prickly I often find myself apologizing to clear thinkers - and I again, you are among them - not because of their flaws because of my own personality flaws. Again, I respect what you and my good friend Coastie are saying about solar energy. I don't want to see solar fail, but I also don't want its immediate potential overestimated either to the exclusion of existing options. The emergency is now.

If I have offended you, please accept my apology. You seem to deserve it.

[suziedemocrat]

23. No worries - this is an important issue - full of passion.

Maybe I'm drinking too much Kool-Aid - but I have hope for Solar and Wind. But sometimes I am overly optimistic and it gets me into trouble.

[skids]

9. Another battery technology in the pipeline.

Vanadium redox batteries store all their charge in the electrolyte.
This would allow cars (hybrids or 100% electrics) using these batteries to "gas up" by changing dead electrolyte for charged electrolyte. So you could charge some tanks of electrolyte in your garage all day/night through renewable power sources, and then swap the electrolyte in the morning before your commute. They also have a very high power density, high efficiency, and don't get damaged when deep cycled.

Right now the smallest unit available is a fridge-sized home power unit that really isn't cost effective, but as we all know, technology evolves.

http://www.ceic.unsw.edu.au/centers/vrb/