BETTER CELLS: A new battery from A123 Systems delivers more power, remains easy to manufacture and can operate from -30 degrees Celsius to 60 degrees C--a far broader range than any other lithium ion cell.
Image: Courtesy of A123 Systems
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
A new lithium ion battery technology may finally make the devices cheap enough and durable enough to turn electric cars from a niche product into a mass-market mode of transport. Waltham, Mass.–manufacturer A123 Systems has produced a cell that delivers 20 percent more power, works at temperatures as low as –30 degrees Celsius and as high as 60 degrees C, and should be just as easy as current batteries to manufacture.
"There's no 'unobtainium' in this battery," says company co-founder, Massachusetts Institute of Technology materials scientist Yet-Ming Chiang. "It's not based on a very expensive new chemistry."
Independent scientists have been scrutinizing the company's claims and say they are impressed. From the few details the company will reveal, the new battery, known as the Nanophosphate EXT, appears to be based on the exact same lithium–iron phosphate chemistry found in other A123 batteries that appear everywhere from electronics to hybrid electric buses, but with improved properties.
The improved power and expanded temperature range suggest that A123 scientists have improved the way that electrons and ions shuffle through the battery system. "The ions and electrons have to move faster," explains chemist Jeffrey Chamberlain, who leads the Energy Storage Initiative at Argonne National Laboratory and was not involved in this research. That, in turn, suggests an improvement in one of three places: the electrolyte (the ion-carrying guts of the battery); the interface between the electrolyte and the electrodes (the charge-collecting plates); the electrodes themselves; or all of the above. Manufacturing innovations may also contribute. Although the specifics of the Nanophosphate EXT improvements remain unclear, A123 does hold patents relating to work on novel electrode and electrolyte materials as well as battery structures. "If this is real, it's a major breakthrough," Chamberlain adds.
A123's internal results have been independently verified by the Center for Automotive Research at The Ohio State University. "We perceive only positive characteristics for this remarkable technology," says O.S.U. mechanical engineer Yann Guezennec, who led testing of the new cell. Those characteristics include charge/discharge cycle-lives at least twice as long as a competitor "currently in use in a vehicle that is on the road today," says A123 spokesman Dan Borgasano, and 10 times longer than existing lead–acid batteries.
One downside is that A123's iron phosphate technology only offers roughly 160 watt-hours per kilogram, an energy density less than some other lithium ion technologies (not to mention liquid fuels like gasoline). On the plus side, it is not prone to bursting into flame, as some lithium cells are. "One big benefit of iron phosphate is its stability and safety," Chamberlain says. "Things you find in nature when you dig up dirt tend to be pretty stable."
And the battery's long life may outweigh any lack in the energy-density department; it retains 90 percent of its capacity even after 2,000 chargings and dischargings. The batteries in current electric cars, on the other hand, fade over time, requiring car manufacturers to include batteries that are bigger than necessary. Plus, A123's new battery can be air-cooled rather than liquid-cooled, thanks to its wide temperature range, offering savings in both cost and weight.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
27 Comments
Add CommentThat battery should bring A123 back to life quickly, so they should get it on the market as soon as possible. At $250.00 per battery, that should bring the price of electric vehicles (EVs) prices down like a lead balloon. They, EV automakers, say that they pay as much as $16,000.00 for their batteries; that is why, General Motors says the Chevy Volt hybrid costs over $40,000.00. Now I wonder what excuse the automakers are going to come up with for those grossly over priced EVs and hybrids.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"roughly $250 more per battery" JamesDavis, I am afraid that you misread that phrase. The price will be slightly higher than the $16,000 that the batteries currently cost. I have driven a Nissan LEAF for over a year, and I assure you that the price is worth it when you consider fuel cost, less noise, particulate, and chemical pollution, and fewer carbon emissions. Consider buying a USED 2011 Nissan LEAF if price is an issue, you can get them now for around $25,000.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy Toyota Corolla cost me $14,000.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElectric cars at this time are a fool's choice. Maybe their time will come but anyone who buys one for financial savings is an idiot.
As always geojellyroll, you're an expert on the subject of idiots.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood one lamorpa, I'm tired of people who's motive when it comes to environmental issues is purely financial based and not how it affects the environment. Selfish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTechnically, I'm a little more in agreement with geojellyroll. I don't believe individual consumer uses of PV panels (people make believe are going to be on their roofs, in working order, for the 20 to 30 years it takes for them to pay back their environmental load), or all-electric vehicles (not well adapted to most family's needs, so a second, internal combustion vehicle must be purchased, maintained, intimately disposed, etc.) They're basically very expensive, and environmentally loading (in terms of manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance (if they're kept in working order), disposal, etc.) feel-good toys, in most cases. Targeted commercial and public utility uses are the way these technologies should be used (and developed for) until their payback, both financially and environmentally, is better than the current loss or neutral.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right, I did overlook that word "more". I reckon I just got too excited when I saw that $250.00. Even with the batteries costing $250.00 MORE, EVs are still worth it by the money they save you on gas and the benefits they give to the environment. Maybe someday the batteries will only cost $250.00.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgooner...i repeat. anyone who buys an electric car for financial reasons is a fool. If one's motive is environmental or whatever that is another issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn 2012 no practical vehicle is going to be a better financial purchase than a modest one with an internal combustion engine. Maybe one day, but not now.
This still does not make batteries the best choice for cars. They are heavy and full of not so nice chemicals and wear out quickly. We have better storage devices. We use vacuum encased spinning carbon fiber rotors to store energy in our satellites. It is light and return more energy than the batteries do today. They have been perfected for use in the Auto since 1996. The 1996 version was tested to last more than 500K miles of use. Volvo is coming out in 2013 with a hybrid that uses one. The US auto industry is too controlled by Corporate Oil to even think of making an effective all electric car that could actually go 300 miles between “recharges”, like the auto at the Detroit auto show in 1998. The American auto makers turned their noses up because the drive train would increase in price by $5K. That may sound like a lot but in comparison it is nothing. Take the VW Jetta gas vs diesel. The diesel gets 15 more mpg than the gas powered but costs $9K more. And compare the all electric price to the standard compact. The $5K difference was cheap. Batteries are not the solution in autos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJames, I read that to mean $250 more than a lead acid battery currently used in that particular application (hybrid vehicles), and 30% smaller than the same, but with much longer life to offset the initial cost.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did not see where the article compares the cost with current EV batteries which a commenter cites at $16,000, presumably, because it is undetermined how many of the new cells would be required to be equivalent, or how many of the old cells are in that $16,000 battery.
LOL $250 a battery, that won't happen in any of our lifetimes. The rising precious metals cost alone... And the energy densities upon such a small amount of anode and cathode metals - and you think current batteries have explosion issues. :) Haha just Poking fun @ ya James --
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to have a word with Scientific American about this comment section. It must go with a different article. The one I read discussed a major improvement in energy storage efficiency, safety, durability, and manufacturing cost in a battery to be used in an automotive application.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuzzah! I say that's good news and would be eager to convey my congratulations to all those who made this achievement possible.
But the comments must be talking about another battery that's more expensive and could lead to the already predicted demise of humanity. It's possible that the other commentators read a different article and the above comments belong with that one.
No Martin, the comments are on this article. It's probably more a result of your lack of reading comprehension skills.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, it's a positive ...'breakthrough of the month' (again) but still does not make an electric vehicle a good economic choice over the internal combustion engine.
geojellyroll - you are entitled to your opinion that "anyone who buys an electric car for financial reasons is a fool". That is your opinion, and in my opinion, you are a simpleton. With gasoline costing you nearly * $15 * per gallon, the price difference between an ICE and an EV is eliminated very quickly. Or are you one of those people who think the price of gasoline is the amount you pay at the pump? Let me guess... Yes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe you don't have health insurance, pay for medical care, or pay federal taxes. Perhaps you cannot even fathom what I am talking about. But I know that gasoline cost me around $15 per gallon when I used to fill up. Now I "fill up" late at night in my garage, for about $3 from a standard 110-volt outlet. In addition, the LEAF is smoother, quieter, and represents an enormous technological leap from my Toyota. A better quality of life, especially when driving. As a cardiac valve transplant patient and asthma sufferer, my life would be greatly improved if all commuters drove electric. Finally, our faltering country would enjoy better security and prosperity with electric transportation. The wars in the Middle East are ending, and it's not a coincidence. Did I mention carbon emissions? Oh, I finally did.
If you can manage to look beyond the WalMart "low" price tag and figure out how many slaves work for you, hopefully you will realize that there is more to being a responsible global citizen than checking your bank account balance. Best wishes to you.
Great that this battery is less explosive than lithium.... but why even mention that, when gasoline is the alternative. Tens of thousands more deaths, explosions and fires are caused by the good old gasoline engine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, batteries that can be trickle charged for quick changing should be where the research focuses. Solar PV charging one, while the other is in use allows for massive amounts of (free after roi) solar charging to be used.
electric38:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"trickle charged for quick changing"? What? Do you know what trickle charging is? It is neither fast, nor restorative charging. What did you mean in place of this oxymoron?
"free after roi"? Free after Return on Investment? What could that mean? Even if you meant 'free after capital investment', are you suggesting that environmental load is not relevant (only cost) when considering a 'green' solution. It's fundamentally contradictory.
"charging one, while the other is in use" Are you joking? Even ignoring the doubling in environmental impact of manufacturing and delivering batteries, the cost would be doubled (for this very significant cost item).
Here is some info that is relevant. In 1996 a race was held in NY area with EV cars. The GM EV-1 got 125 miles per charge, the Ford Echostar got 225 miles per chare, the Solectira Sunrise got 375 miles per charge. Now when you think that was nearly twenty years ago and the best GM can do now is 40. Hey there is real corruption going on. Regarding this "new" battery by A123, the Nanosafe battery by Altairnano Technologies has been around for nearly ten years. It operates off of nano coating of titanium dioxide. It gives 250 miles per charge, (more if you stack the batteries) it has been tested to over 20,000 recharges with little degradation, it can charge in 10 minutes, it can operate in wild temperature extremes. Something very crooked happened to the company, the CEO Alan Goetcher was ousted then the new clowns putzed around and around and then some Arabs from Dubai bought a chunk and still nothing was ever done then the Chinese took over, meanwhile it was bled and bled from within by internal "costs" and the stock valuation fell and fell. And the status quo of the oil and auto companies is unchanged. Sounds like the ossification of the old Roman Empire.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm going to add one more comment. These are facts (and there are paid trolls out there, probably paid by the oil and auto companies filling up the internet with fake stories that this did not occur. It did there are patents on file and there are newspaper reports from that era also on file) In the early 1930's Charles Pogue invented the Pogue Carbeuraetor. It operated off of heated gasoline fumes, not the spray as they did then and still do (but heated gasoline). It got over 200 miles per gallon. He did a cross country demonstration across Canada, it was reported in all the newspapers. Oil stocks plummeted. I recall also something about Henry Ford being involved then he passed away. There have been reports of this concept being demonstrated in high school demonstrations including running lawnmower engines for over 12 hours. I ask you what would happen to oil stock prices if such an announcement were made today? Also the Solectria Sunrise while getting 375 miles per charge could do even better if it had the following accoutrements. (I've proposed this for all EVs). Imagine thin film PV coating with Aleo Solar (which operates off of infrared and thus works well in shady areas or on cloudy days, which has a 15 year life span, and which over 85% of the PV elements are recapturable, the car also has ultracapacitors which increases the life of the charge by up to 15 times because they take care of the max draw times of acceleration, Maxwell Technologies is one company, also regenerative braking for recapturing energy, generators in the wheel hubs (perhaps extra wheels) so that anytime the car is moving the generators are feeding electricity back into the battery and ultracapacitors, also the PV is always on when light is present also feeding electricity back into the storage system. Now wouldn't that make a Solectria Sunrise seem to go forever with the need to seldom charge the car outside of what is already built in? You can do extras if you want Dyson motors, UQM motors, Solectria rectifiers, etc. Economically this would create a huge, huge industry for worldwide sales. Those companies' stocks would skyrocket. But entrenched economic interests and their paid hoods, lobbyists and their politicians will try to stop it. Like I said early on they even hire Trolls to spread falsehoods in 'comment' sections and set up webpages trying to deflect anyone from finding out about the Pogue Carbeuraetor. (You have to go to the back pages of a Google search to find real pages about the Pogue Carbeuraetor.Including actual Patents issued.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConspiracy theorists see the world in a singularly unique way. Their 'sources' have multiplied at the same rate as the growth of the internet. 5, 10 or even 1000 paranoid delusions count no more as real evidence than just 1. Free market competition does not allow for long term suppression of superior technological solutions. It's hopeful to think that 10X greater mileage can be attained, but it just doesn't exist. It is humorous when the claim of energy extraction is greater than what is available from the chemistry itself. Chemical bonds don't lie, and they don't give off extra energy because someone has a 'special' way of inducing reactions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Lamorpa read what I wrote he/she would have realized I was stating there wasn't real "free market competition". Regarding the rest of his 'reply'; He is obviously not talking to me because he is not addressing what I wrote. He is running off on tangents. He is either very, very confused or a Troll. He engages in innuendo, more innuendo and YaP, yAP, yAp, He infers I said things I did not say and attacks me for it. Again, he is very confused or a troll.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI stand by every fact I stated therin.
I just read your comment after having experienced some weird stuff from one person as a "reply" to something I wrote. Check my postings out and what he/she said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMusiclives:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI, of course, realized you were saying there wasn't real free market competition. I agree you said it; It just isn't true. There is. Maybe not the most optimal, markets converges to it.
As to your points I didn't address:
- Pogue Carburetor is a known hoax. No more needs to be said about that. I agree you reported information from sources you believe in, but that does not make this hoax true. It's not as though Mr. Pogue as some magical way of extracting 10X the energy from gasoline. The idea is silly from the start, before tests were performed disproving it.
- The Solectria Sunrise was a purpose built prototype about as useful and safe as a kite. It never even came close to being a passenger vehicle, let alone a manufacturable, affordable vehicle. This is why it was a complete failure. It was a great learning platform for future technologies, but not realizable in the present. Why do you think they went so far and wide to find (sucker) investors?
- Thin film PV coating is an infant-stage lab concept, with an order of magnitude less efficiency than current PV panels. It is irrelevant for powering, or even charging something on the scale of a vehicle drivetrain.
- Using ultracapacitors to enhance the charge/dischage life of a battery is a theoretical concept, but is only one factor in battery life. The 15X claims are theoretical and off by an order of magnitude in real use. There's also the question of space and power handling. Don't you think that if it was such a good concept it would have been added to the 3rd generation Prius (or do you think they are secretly conspiring to make less efficient vehicles than they could)
- "generators in the wheel hubs (perhaps extra wheels) so that anytime the car is moving the generators are feeding electricity back" You can't be serious. Do you think power generation is free? Do you think the force needed to generate power does not resist the rotation of an axle? You've got a perpetual motion machine if you get this to work. Hint: impossible
- Your definition of a troll is someone who brings up facts you do not like. I'm sorry, but the sum of bad science and big corporate conspiracy theories is not a technological revolution, it's nonsense.
You asked, you got answers.
Lampora the Sunrise was a decent EV built from CF far more strong than steel. You might be thinking about the racing prototype which was flimsy. The later ones, about 10 body/chassis were made and 5-6 were finished.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe one driven from Boston to NYC on I-95 with 3 people, one a Car and Driver reporter, was a well founded car with airbags, other safety equipment needed to produce it. Sadly no one wanted to.
The bare body/chassis I bought is being finished as the Sunrise2
Let's not forget the GM Ultralite as a good example. These done in medium tech composites would be great vehicles.
I cheer on every new advancement of lithium battery technology. The same people who talk electric vehicles down because of price, probably will think nothing of spending huge money on some stupid "luxury" car. There is no reason besides research cost and patent holdings, for the current high price of lithium batteries. Hopefully, in not too much time, lithium car battery mobile energy storage will be the central part of our whole energy lifestyle, combined with renewable sources such as solar or wind. It will be like buying a house. Toyota is already doing vehicle to house power system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA123's had a recall? How could we trust to go hybrid then???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour article seems partial in a couple of ways. For more extensive analysis, I would recommend evinsights.com, a blog from a venture capitalist who's well-connected in this industry. There are 275 articles on the blog. A recent example is http://seekingalpha.com/article/708131-demystifying-energy-storage-system-costs. I think SciAm readers would be well-served by a complete analysis!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just read “World changing ideas” a special report from scientific American. It says: “Better batteries are the key to electric cars that can drive for hundreds of miles between recharging’s, but progress on existing technology is annoyingly incremental, and breakthroughs are a distant prospect.” Yet, I’ve been the driving the Tesla S, performance version for a few months now. I can drive about 250 miles without recharging. I can fully recharge overnight with a standard 220 outlet or I can use a Tesla supercharger and recharge from complete empty to full in less than an hour. What future world are we talking about? The future is already here my friends. Wake up and smell the coffee!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this