1
   

High oil prices fuel development of new hybrid batteries

 
 
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2008 11:52 am
Posted on Wednesday, June 4, 2008
High oil prices fuel development of new hybrid batteries
By Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

NISKAYUNA, N.Y. ?- Rising oil and gasoline prices have put spring into the steps of the engineers at General Electric's global research headquarters, who're developing new battery technologies to power everything from hybrid cars to tugboats, city buses and diesel locomotives.

"The price of gasoline is going up dramatically, so we're looking more seriously at this," said Robert King, a senior hybrid engineer who's researched hybrid technologies for more than three decades. "The cost is still one challenge, but I think as we see the price of gasoline going up, more effort is going into the development of technology."

The silver lining in high oil prices is that they may hasten the arrival of energy alternatives that should bring a number of benefits.

Oil historian Daniel Yergin calls today's high prices a "tipping point" that will lead to alternatives to oil. New battery technologies could leave the United States less reliant on foreign oil while reducing harmful carbon dioxide emissions.

Sound like a pipe dream? General Motors' chairman and chief executive officer, Rick Wagoner, announced Tuesday that his board has given the green light to begin manufacturing the Chevy Volt, an extended-range electric vehicle.

"The Chevy Volt is a go. We believe this is the biggest step yet in our industry's move away from our historic, virtually complete reliance on petroleum to power vehicles," Wagoner said in a statement, pledging to get the Volt into dealerships by late 2010.

That would be earlier than the timetable announced by Nissan Motor Co.'s CEO, Carlos Ghosn, who in mid-May said that Nissan would sell large numbers of electric vehicles to U.S. consumers by 2012 and would offer electric cars for corporate fleets in 2010.

"We're going to bring a vehicle that we think will be ready for prime time and a mass market," Mark Perry, the director of product planning for Nissan North America, said in an interview. "It is new. It is something that people will have to get their mindset shifted on a little bit, but not a lot. A little bit."

Whether it's Nissan, GE, U.S. carmakers or Toyota ?- the maker of the popular hybrid Prius ?- a race is under way across industries and borders to wean motorists from gasoline. With roughly 70 million cars produced globally every year, the stakes are high.

For GE, the race to build an electric car is deja vu. During the nation's last energy crisis ?- in the late 1970s and early 1980s ?- General Electric developed a hybrid automobile that worked very much like today's popular Toyota Prius. It contained an internal combustion engine and an electric drive system.

"We proved the concept, but it wasn't quite ready for commercialization. Lead-acid batteries were quite heavy," King said. "In comparison, today's batteries are a factor of three to four (better) in energy density," making them more powerful and capable of holding their charges longer.

The problem for electric and hybrid vehicles has always been a chicken and egg thing. Because these cars have been limited in production, they're expensive and buyers have been few. If there were more buyers, prices could come down.

With oil hovering around $130 a barrel and few analysts expecting it go back under $100 in coming years, the time for a serious change in powering automobiles seems to have arrived.

"It's a paradigm shift, and you are seeing that the technology is coming to bear," said King, who expected this shift in the 1980s only to see oil prices collapse to record lows, leaving innovation to wilt on the vine. "I'm optimistic that we're moving ahead."

Across GE's production line, work is under way to use new battery technologies to help propel tugboats, power delivery trucks and heavy machinery and even support diesel locomotives.

Next year, GE will begin field-testing hybrid locomotives, which get their electric power from batteries, not from overhead electrical wires. They use large sodium batteries that allow energy to drain slowly, reducing fuel consumption and allowing locomotives to operate on quieter battery power when they're crossing through towns.

"A lot of nonbelievers will tell you, 'You've been working on these batteries for 100 years and we still don't have a solution,' " said Vlatko Vlatkovic, a team leader on GE's hybrid research efforts. "Steadily the performance is improving, the cost is coming down. When you look . . . you can clearly have line of sight to where this is going to make sense economically very shortly. With us, we are practically there with locomotives."

Manufacturing breakthroughs that are improving the storage of energy in batteries and the quantity of power stored are bringing success within reach.

Lithium ion batteries, which revolutionized consumer electronics, are being developed to power cars. Not only do they store more energy in smaller spaces, but they also lose their charges slowly. Several carmakers and GE are racing to develop new kinds of lithium ion batteries for autos.

Think of lithium ion batteries as a bottle with a wide lip that allows energy in or out rapidly, allowing for quick dispersion of energy to accelerate and quick recharging. That's the opposite of what's needed to power a locomotive, which gathers speed over long distance because of the heavy load it's hauling.

The sodium batteries being perfected for locomotives are like a taller bottle with a narrow lip, allowing energy to drain out more slowly in order to maintain steady performance. Hybrid locomotives convert energy from the working diesel engines into electricity, which is then converted back into engine power and energy storage. This allows for 10 to 15 percent fuel savings, which add up to a lot of money given the kinds of miles locomotives log on an annual basis.

"In principal, our locomotive is just a 6,000-horsepower Prius on rails," Vlatkovic joked during a tour of battery research operations.

Although breakthroughs are common now, challenges remain.

"There's a ways to go yet. Most of the guys who are talking about launching products are starting in 2010, so we've still got a couple of years to go to really get the technology ready," said Ed Kjaer, the director of electric transportation for Southern California Edison, a utility that provides electricity for 11 California counties and counts more than 300 electric cars in its fleet.

To date, there's no national manufacturing and supplier base in the United States for advanced batteries to run automotive applications, he said, and the technology hasn't yet jumped from the lab to the manufacturing chain.

"We're talking not about a guy in a lab coat with a wrench ... but production processes where every single cell in every single battery is at the same quality level," Kjaer said.

Kjaer has driven an electric car 120 miles a day for 12 years, and believes in their potential. For widespread use, he said, a greater government-led effort is needed.

"When I portray a cautious note, it's to say let's not make the same mistake we made with hydrogen and fuel cells. The impression was they were just around the corner, and the realities are they are still 20 years away," he said. "I don't think we're (like) that with electric (cars). I do think you are not going to go from zero products to hundreds of thousands of products overnight. This is not like a light switch where it's just on or off."

Still, new prototypes suggest promise. The vehicles that GE successfully tested in the 1980s were plug-in hybrids whose batteries were charged by electricity. These cars were about twice as heavy as today's Toyota Prius, weighing 4,600 to 5,000 pounds. Yet they still got the equivalent of 101 miles per gallon.

Today's prototypes are lighter, go even farther and hold their charges longer.

High oil prices are driving change beyond just autos.

Mary Andriga, the CEO of Vermeer Manufacturing Corp., which makes farm and construction equipment in Pella, Iowa, said her customers were asking for new models that could be recharged electrically to reduce their diesel fuel costs.

"It's important for us to be looking at all these things," she said, noting that a new five-year plan envisions incorporating new battery technologies.

HOW CARS THAT RUN ON ALTERNATIVE ENERGY DIFFER

HYBRIDS: These cars, such as Toyota's Prius, combine small internal-combustion engines with electric motors. Electric motors kick in to help in accelerating and during low-speed situations in which gasoline engines are less efficient. These vehicles are designed to recharge nickel-metal hydride batteries internally while in use. They can get almost 50 mpg.

PLUG-IN HYBRIDS: They work like hybrids but their batteries can be charged externally with an extension cord and a 120-volt outlet. For urban motorists, with more stopping and starting, these can virtually eliminate the need to use the gasoline motor, which is still there in case battery power is depleted.

ELECTRIC CARS: The internal combustion engine is replaced with an electric motor that's fed by a controller, which gets its power from rechargeable lithium ion batteries. Nissan promises to sell these to consumers by 2012. For widespread use, these will require 220-volt outlets in homes and workplaces for long charges and commercial quick-charge stations.

ELECTRIC CARS WITH RANGE EXTENDERS: They work like electric cars but with shorter range. They operate on full battery power for 40 miles, within the range of most commuters, then a small gasoline engine kicks in to power a generator that recharges the lithium ion batteries and extends the range to 640 miles. General Motors plans to sell these cars to consumers by late 2010.

FLEX FUEL VEHICLES: They have internal combustion engines that can run on either gasoline or E85. That's a blend of 85 percent bio-fuel, generally ethanol, and 15 percent gasoline. Many new cars and trucks have this capability but few filling stations offer E85.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,423 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2008 12:33 pm
BBB, check this out:
http://www.teslamotors.com/
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 09:35 am
occom bill
OCCOM BILL wrote:
BBB, check this out:
http://www.teslamotors.com/


Does that mean you are going to buy one of them for me?

BBB
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 09:43 am
Nanowire battery can hold 10 times the charge of existing lithium-ion battery
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 09:57 am
DrewDad


Has anyone told the auto industry? They must own the company that makes the less efficient batteries.

Thanks, DrewDad. I think battery operated cars are the most hopeful for the future. The oil companies have tried and been successful in killing them in the past but I don't think they can do it any longer.

Ethanal won't work nor will hydrogen. Both result in unexpected consequences. Batteries are best. Can they be recycled via regeneration?

BBB
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 11:31 am
That's fascinating, DrewDad. This could be the solution to storing power from small scale solar electric installations, if price and durability make them practical. In automotive use, there remain problems beyond science and engineering
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 12:11 pm
Try this: Solar power breakthroughs SUNRGI 7 cents per kwh 2009 and Israel Solar Power 100 times lower cost

SUNRGI's "concentrated photovoltaic" system relies on lenses to magnify sunlight 2,000 times, letting it produce as much electricity as standard panels with a far smaller system. They say they'll start producing solar panels by mid-2009 that will generate electricity for about 7 cents a kilowatt hour, including installation.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 12:20 pm
roger wrote:
That's fascinating, DrewDad. This could be the solution to storing power from small scale solar electric installations, if price and durability make them practical. In automotive use, there remain problems beyond science and engineering
Nonsense. Check out the Tesla link I posted. It performs and is priced like a Ferrari, but all new Tech is expensive. They're already planning a more mainstream ride... and they can't build the sports car fast enough to meet demand. Electricity is here.

I'm looking forward to an onslaught of battery improvements. It's been predicted to be the next big thing since I was in high school.

Now if we can just get the paranoid to stop fearing Nuclear Power; we could actually accomplish what Kyoto never would have.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 12:22 pm
Without going to the link, that's phenomenal. In fact, it may make electric cars practical. D.C. from solar panels to D.C. batteries to D.C. electric motors makes sense.

A.C. from fossil fuels to D.C. batteries is something of a loser, except for special applications.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 12:23 pm
O'bill wrote:
Now if we can just get the paranoid to stop fearing Nuclear Power; we could actually accomplish what Kyoto never would have.
I can certainly agree with that.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 12:45 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
roger wrote:
That's fascinating, DrewDad. This could be the solution to storing power from small scale solar electric installations, if price and durability make them practical. In automotive use, there remain problems beyond science and engineering
Nonsense. Check out the Tesla link I posted. It performs and is priced like a Ferrari, but all new Tech is expensive. They're already planning a more mainstream ride... and they can't build the sports car fast enough to meet demand. Electricity is here.

I'm looking forward to an onslaught of battery improvements. It's been predicted to be the next big thing since I was in high school.

Now if we can just get the paranoid to stop fearing Nuclear Power; we could actually accomplish what Kyoto never would have.


I think you missed a point there. The Tesla has a range of 220 miles and needs 3.5 hours for recharging - better than any past electric car but still not optimum. The nano-wire batteries would give it a range of 2,200 miles on that same 3.5 hour charge. (Of course, that's assuming they've fixed the transmission problems they've been having with the Tesla's too! Razz )
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 12:46 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
roger wrote:
That's fascinating, DrewDad. This could be the solution to storing power from small scale solar electric installations, if price and durability make them practical. In automotive use, there remain problems beyond science and engineering
Nonsense. Check out the Tesla link I posted. It performs and is priced like a Ferrari, but all new Tech is expensive. They're already planning a more mainstream ride... and they can't build the sports car fast enough to meet demand. Electricity is here.

I'm looking forward to an onslaught of battery improvements. It's been predicted to be the next big thing since I was in high school.

Now if we can just get the paranoid to stop fearing Nuclear Power; we could actually accomplish what Kyoto never would have.


Nonsense? Well, I did check the link, and whaddya know? It runs on electricity. Traditionally, electricity comes from power plants. Power plants require enormous quantities of water for cooling, not to mention makeup water for the boilers. You've heard of peak oil? Wait till you hear about peak water. Nukes are fine; they don't use less water. Costs of construction are high, but fuel is relatively cheap. Whether it will remain cheap when and if we have enough nuclear plants to supply the increased needs of a national fleet of electric cars is open to question.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 01:08 pm
Cheap energy means cheap water purification. The cost of most everything depends on the cost of energy.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 01:20 pm
True. Cooling water isn't anything special, anyway. Boiler make up water is. Still, power plant cooling has large evaporative loses. That's what makes the Israelie so interesting.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 01:37 pm
anybody have $45 trillion sitting around in a savings account ???
...brother can you spare a dime ?...

at last check , oil had reached $137 Shocked


Quote:
IEA urges $45-trillion "energy revolution"

CHIKAFUMI HODO

Reuters

June 6, 2008 at 7:00 AM EDT

TOKYO ?- World governments must quickly start a $45-trillion "energy technology revolution" that could drive up the cost of producing carbon ten-fold, or risk emissions surging by 2050, the West's energy watchdog warned on Friday.

The world would need to build dozens of nuclear power plants a year and bury carbon emitted from dozens more gas and coal plants, plus cutting the carbon intensity of cars, trucks, buses and planes eightfold, to halve emissions by mid-century, the International Energy Agency said in a new report.

Without taking action on government policy, emissions would surge by 130 per cent and oil demand would rise by 70 per cent by 2050, the IEA said, far beyond the level that many experts believe the world is capable of sustainably producing.

The report, commissioned by the Group of Eight three years ago, lays down the gauntlet for G8 leaders gathering in northern Japan next month, where Tokyo is expected to urge them to agree on a target of chopping greenhouse gases in half by 2050.

"There should be no doubt - meeting the target of a 50 per cent cut in emissions represents a formidable target. We would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of the IEA, said in a statement.

"It will essentially require a new global energy revolution which would completely transform the way we produce and use energy... We need to act now."

The IEA said halving emissions by 2050 would require "all options up to a cost of $200 per tonne of CO2" - and in the worst case $500 a tonne - giving a rare long-term forecast that suggests a sharp rise from the 27 euro ($42) a tonne price for carbon emissions rights trading in Europe.

"You would have to see one of the biggest rises in a commodity price in history to get $500 a tonne," said Tom Luckock, a lawyer with international law firm Norton Rose.

Scientists say that the world must brake and reverse annual increases in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change including rising seas and more extreme weather.

But governments are at odds over how to split the costs of funding cleaner energy technology, particularly in the developing world. The IEA said the $45 trillion is equal to 1.1 per cent of average annual global gross domestic product over the period.

"Carbon emissions must be cut. Costs of about 1 per cent of GDP are not outrageous, so this target is realistic," said Go Hibino, a senior manager at Mizuho Information & Research Institute.

About 190 nations are racing to craft a framework by the end of 2009 to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which binds 37 advanced nations to cut emissions by an average of 5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

The report, which comes just ahead of a G8 energy ministers meeting this weekend in Japan, highlighted the security benefits of cracking down on carbon.

"Oil demand by 2050 would be 27 per cent below the level of 2005. Yet massive investments in remaining reserves will be needed to make up for the shortfall as low-reserve provinces are exhausted," Mr. Tanaka said.

A massive research and development effort will be needed in the next 15 years costing about $10-billion to $100-billion per year to develop technology to cut CO2 emissions, the IEA said in the Energy Technology Perspectives report.

It said the power sector would need to be "decarbonized" by installing CO2 capture and storage at 35 coal- and 20 gas-fired power plants a year from 2010 to 2050 at a cost of $1.5-billion each. The sector would also need to build 32 new nuclear plants and install 17,500 wind turbines a year.

Germany's RWE Supply and Trading said on Wednesday that CCS, often regarded as commercially impossible, could be viable with carbon prices of less than 100 euros.

The report comes ahead of a weekend meeting of G8 energy ministers and their China, India and South Korea peers in Aomori in northern Japan, where they will try to agree on the role of consumer nations in stemming oil's five-year price rally.

Mr. Tanaka said non-IEA members such as China, India and other developing countries must conserve energy to achieve the target as they are already big emitters and are likely to emit more.

"Some kind of financial facility or some scheme is needed to help developing countries participate more easily," Mizuho's Hibino said. "It would be hard for the IEA to achieve the goal without the participation of developing countries."


i think this is $45 trillion in numbers - U.S. style : $ 45,000,000,000,000 (YIKES !)


source :
ENERGY
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 02:01 pm
too late for $137 trade ...

Quote:
June 6, 2008 at 3:52 PM EDT

NEW YORK ?- Oil prices shot up more than $11 (U.S.) to a new record above $139 Friday after Morgan Stanley predicted prices would hit $150 by the Fourth of July.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 03:57 pm
fishin wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
roger wrote:
That's fascinating, DrewDad. This could be the solution to storing power from small scale solar electric installations, if price and durability make them practical. In automotive use, there remain problems beyond science and engineering
Nonsense. Check out the Tesla link I posted. It performs and is priced like a Ferrari, but all new Tech is expensive. They're already planning a more mainstream ride... and they can't build the sports car fast enough to meet demand. Electricity is here.

I'm looking forward to an onslaught of battery improvements. It's been predicted to be the next big thing since I was in high school.

Now if we can just get the paranoid to stop fearing Nuclear Power; we could actually accomplish what Kyoto never would have.


I think you missed a point there. The Tesla has a range of 220 miles and needs 3.5 hours for recharging - better than any past electric car but still not optimum. The nano-wire batteries would give it a range of 2,200 miles on that same 3.5 hour charge. (Of course, that's assuming they've fixed the transmission problems they've been having with the Tesla's too! Razz )
I sure didn't mean to discount the vast improvement increased battery storage will bring. My point is that the electric car doesn't have to serve everyone's needs from the get go. 220 miles is more than sufficient for most people's daily commute, which is already sufficient for the average family's second car. It isn't too terribly often I travel further in the course of a day. (I don't think a transmission problem is relevant in a conversation about electric feasibility.)

At over 100K; I don't expect Tesla's sports car to be the answer to too many people's daily driver requirements anyway. I do look forward to seeing them (or someone) introduce a more mainstream product.

roger wrote:
Nonsense? Well, I did check the link, and whaddya know? It runs on electricity. Traditionally, electricity comes from power plants. Power plants require enormous quantities of water for cooling, not to mention makeup water for the boilers. You've heard of peak oil? Wait till you hear about peak water. Nukes are fine; they don't use less water. Costs of construction are high, but fuel is relatively cheap. Whether it will remain cheap when and if we have enough nuclear plants to supply the increased needs of a national fleet of electric cars is open to question.
Depending on the path chosen; nuclear power is virtually inexhaustible (with breeder technology). Suffice to say; a replacement fuel is expected long before we'd ever run out anyway, as science doesn't stand still. As pointed out above; cheap power is cheap water (via desalination, which needs to increase in many parts of the world anyway) and the world is covered in it. Some nuke generators are completely self contained, walk-away-for-a-decade safe, and require no water whatsoever.

I'm reminded of the folks who laughed at cell phones (the damn things cost $2,000 and are the size of a suitcase and cost crazy amounts of money per minute... if you can get a signal at all. Who but the rich and/or eccentric would ever want such a thing?)


The DC angle is terribly interesting; especially when you consider half the problems with homemade energy is in matching it to grid power. Will we one day see a bargain on package deals including relatively cheap Windmill/Automobile combinations that only use the grid to finish charging what the windmill doesn't do? A decent spring fed stream running through your yard could virtually eliminate fuel costs for a commuter. Very interesting indeed.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » High oil prices fuel development of new hybrid batteries
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/19/2026 at 06:02:10