QUICK CHARGE: A new technology could allow more rapid charging of the lithium ion batteries in everything from cellphones to new electric cars.
Image: J. Ash Bowie, via Wikimedia Commons
A research group at the University of Illinois has developed technology that may have lasting implications for electric vehicles (EVs) and other electronics.
The group, led by Paul Braun, a professor of material sciences and engineering, has come up with technology that creates a much more rapid charging time for lithium-ion batteries, which power electronics like cellphones, laptops and defibrillators. Lithium-ion batteries also power EVs, which can take all night to charge at home and up to an hour to charge at EV stations.
Braun's findings, published last week in an online version of the journal Nature Nanotechnology, could lead to an EV charging time comparable to that for filling a tank of gas. Smaller objects like cell phones could charge in well under a minute, Braun said.
"We have batteries in the lab that can charge in tens of seconds," he said.
When a battery charges, energy moves between its cathode and anode. When a battery powers a product, or discharges, energy travels the opposite way, between its anode and cathode. Braun's group came up with a three-dimensional nanostructure for the battery cathode that allows its batteries to charge at a much faster rate than conventional batteries.
Conventional lithium-ion or nickel metal hydride rechargeable batteries contain active material that is placed into a thin film. The thin film allows batteries to charge and recharge quickly, but at the cost of significant degrading over time. Because it's thin, the film doesn't allow for much energy storage. This lack of density causes the rapid degrading.
Braun's invention wraps the thin film around a 3-D structure that allows greater energy storage capacity while still rapidly charging and recharging. The 3-D structure is assembled by coating the surface with tiny spheres. The space between the spheres gets filled with metal. Both are then melted together, leaving a porous, sponge-like surface. Next, the pores get enlarged and the structure is coated with the thin film.
The nanostructure isn't immune to degrading, but this process is prolonged because its efficiency is 10 times greater than conventional batteries, Braun said. He also expects this greater efficiency will allow EV batteries to work better in cold temperatures, although his group hasn't conducted studies to verify this yet.
Getting EV batteries to charge as fast as it takes to fill a tank of gas requires a different infrastructure than what exists today, he said. Charging stations will need to offer sufficient power, but Braun said developing technology should eventually create an incentive for it.
Although the nanostructure makes the batteries 20 to 30 percent denser, Braun said the biggest improvement is the rapidity of the charging.
Braun's group worked for about two years on the nanostructure. Since the nanostructure is applied to a battery's cathode, he said, the next step is to study improving the anode, along with further increasing battery density.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
48 Comments
Add CommentI knew our scientists are smart enough to do it. Now all we have to worry about is someone outsourcing it to China before we can get it a foot hold here in America.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2nd time today: In you rush to post a (as always, negative) comment, your statement doesn't even make any sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis has been in the media for about three years ... no one is saying when it will arrive on the market.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't see your problem with Mr Davis' reply. He clearly hopes that it will be manufactured in the USA and not China. Which makes perfect sense for USA jobs, if you are American, which I am not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisManufacturing and technology development decisions are completely separate things. It is irrelevant where something is first manufactured; It will just migrate to the lowest cost producer in short order.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat reminds me of a bumper sticker I keep seeing, mostly on pickup trucks, "Out of a job yet? Keep buying foreign!" I want to make my own sticker, "Out of a job yet? Keep demanding high wages to produce low quality product!" I don't expect my Japanese made vehicle would last a week with that on. Personally I want the lowest price, not to provide working welfare to american under-employed labour cartels. But perhaps Mr. Davis, you don't believe in market economies in which case all of this is irrelevant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGuys you are all arguing about the wrong thing! What we should be talking about is how to make sure the oil companies don't get control of it and kill it. I do so want to plug my car in and let it charge overnight on low tariff electricity produced by my local Thorium powered (and consequently SAFE) nuclear powerplant. It's all possible, the science is out there, it exists. Just the 7 sisters stand between us and the future we want.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen why is there still so much manufacturing in the USA ? It's not always the cost factor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor that varied reasons which make those certain products more efficient to manufacture locally. It's simple free market economics. Is there some kind of mystery or conspiracy you are eluding to?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just find it quite bizarre that you and Robert get so upset at an American hoping that jobs will stay in America.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing a quick swap battery with a trickle charge from a solar canopy would work just as well. In fact the batteries used in Japan for certain taxi's were changed in under a minute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe technology is here. Bringing it to production is experiencing a temporary bottleneck possibly caused by those figuring out the best way to monopolize it.
HowardB: Not at all. It's not upsetting in any way. We live in a free market. It's pointless to think/wish for a magical solution. Unless protectionist tariffs are imposed, many goods are not going to be manufactured in the U.S. One has to keep on top of growth and educational opportunities to 'swim' (or sink)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's really very simple - when the manufacturing jobs leave, the rest of the jobs soon follow (including high end R&D). As the jobs go income stagnates or drops (so we all live on debt to support the consumption levels needed to keep the economy going.) And we all know where the debt driven economy has left us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we don't keep good manufacturing jobs in this country we will keep going down the track we are on - with the most skewed income distribution in the democratic western countries, a small percentage of super-rich and an every growing percentage of impoverished.
If that's your idea of a "free" market, were's the freedom for the majority of population at the bottom end of the income distribution.
Even if your opening statement was true (which it is not), are you proposing protectionist tariffs? (which are known to not work?) I'm interested in how to manufacture goods at a higher cost with competitive prices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI normally do not comment on comments but it is funny how a SA article on rechargeable batteries can spur a debate between democrats, republicans, and conspiracists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Now all we have to worry about is someone outsourcing it to China"
"Out of a job yet? Keep demanding high wages to produce low quality product!"
"Guys you are all arguing about the wrong thing! What we should be talking about is how to make sure the oil companies don't get control of it and kill it."
Well ... one things seems for sure. We are exquisitely close to a major change in mobile power units.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether it is super fast charging batteries or a new generation of capacitors.
I juts hope they arrive before my time is up ;)
@sjn, "It's really very simple" well it would be to someone who has no understanding of economics. Please look up Dunning-Kruger. It will explain your exceedingly simplistic view of global economics."If that's your idea of a "free" market, were's the freedom for the majority of population at the bottom end of the income distribution." it is really difficult to have a rational conversation with someone who has no clue what he is talking about. It is generally better to have knowledge before you share your opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIamorpa,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think we live in a free market, you are being deluded by the corporate elite of our plutocracy.
robert schmidt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, a little knowledge can get you in serious trouble. If from the short comment posted by sjn, you are able to determine that sjn has no understanding of economics, then you are definitely suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
@Cramer, "when the manufacturing jobs leave, the rest of the jobs soon follow", "If that's your idea of a "free" market, were's the freedom for the majority of population at the bottom end of the income distribution." you're right cramer, sjn is clearly just as clever as you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd where are those jobs going? To China where they manipulate their currency and practice "slave" labor? How much manipulation take it take not to be a free market?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am ecstatic about this progress in battery technology. It can't come soon enough for our society and the preservation of the world's ecosystem. Why you may ask? Because all our nuclear power reactors, all our coal-burning facilities, all our hydroelectric dams have the sole purpose of creating steam and/or a fast stream of water to propel electric generating motors. This is 19th century technology (creating steam) to drive 21st century technology and society... How absurd and tragic is that? More wind, more batteries please.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswisdomamongus???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not following your logic. This article is about lithium ion batteries. They are not solar cells or fuel cells. They require electricity to charge them, which comes from steam power or hydro electricity generation.
Do you have some against water? You even lumped hydro in with steam power. Together they account for 100% of world electricity generation. The Rankine cycle accounts for 80% and hydro accounts for 20%. How is wind any more modern than hydro or steam?
Oy vey!
Correction: And where are those jobs going? To China where they manipulate their currency and practice "slave" labor? How much manipulation does it take not to be a free market?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobert Schmidt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe I'm getting you mixed up with someone else. You seem to troll around here playing an expert in every field, but your opinions are never consistent.
I have notice you complaining a lot about right wing fanatics (which is okay with me). Just a few weeks ago when discussing the "Diabetes Belt" you were advocating for a sugar tax and nutrition subsidies for the poor. Now you're a free market advocate. This lack of consistency suggests that you are simply a devil's advocate.
How extensive is your expertise in macroeconomics? You're a software developer, correct? You always seem to drop one or two ad hominem attacks and then disappear without showing any real expertise of your own. You then pop-up again on another topic attacking others. Some posters probably deserve the attacks, but at least they are commenting on the articles. You never comment on the articles, you only attack the other posters. Are you missing something from your offline life? Pent up frustrations on your personal aspirations, maybe?
You are good at it when your target lacks expertise; and you also know when to cut and run when you're outmatched. You seem to spend a lot of time at it, so you must enjoy it. Keep up the good work. It definitely adds to my enjoyment of SA.
Cramer
Back on the subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf a battery can be charged that fast then think about the amount of power we could get from draining the battery in the same time...
The proof is in the pudding, but recharge time is a primary inhibitor in my considering an EV. There are other factors in considering a vehicle, of course, but fast recharge would allow an occasional trip beyond the extremely limited distances allowed by current battery charge capacities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps more importantly is the potential for applications such as long haul trucking, etc. Let's make sure the pudding is also affordable, reliable and durable...
rlb2, you have piqued my curiosity. Where are you going with that comment? What do you plan/expect to be done with fast discharge?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said. I am not going to apologize for being a pro-American. I have to live in this country, since I can't afford to or want to move to another country, and I want what's best for America. I want to be able to drink fresh clean non-toxic water, breathe non-toxic air, live on non-toxic land and not have to constantly worry about a nuclear power plant meltdown or a coal burning or natural gas burning power plant blowing up and radiating me or filling my lungs and stomach full of toxic waste. These, already out of date batteries, are inching us closer to being free from all burning fossil fuels. So yes, I want them to be made here in America and I am not going to apologize for that want.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are better batteries that can charge faster and hold mega energy than the ion battery, but the ion battery is want we have now and we have to make the best of it and I am very pleased that it is an American scientist who is trying to do that. Yes, Japan has better batteries - hell, Japan has better everything in technology than America - but America will not allow the new Japanese technology to come into the country because it will set our auto makers and energy producers back even further than they are now and we have to do things very very slow so our auto makers and energy producers can keep up. Because of the way the economy seems to be going, I may never be able to afford to buy or drive an electric car, but I will at least die knowing that the affordable ones are on the way.
Another issue is the size of existing batteries. We have larger batteries so that they last a long time. The reason is because it takes so long to charge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs in the case of my mobile phone for example .. it lasts 3 days, then I have to charge for an hour.
If it charged in, say, 30 seconds, I would be happy to have a battery a third of the size because it would be so easy and convenient to top up.
Thus rechargeable appliances and devices could shrink in size by quite a long way or at least get a lot lighter.
I'm curious as to the lossage levels of the slow charge and fast charge batteries. If the fast charge uses the same kWh as the slow charge then I'm all for the fast charge battery. On the other hand if the fast charge uses twice as much power to charge then I'm not interested. I'd rather a fast swap slow charge battery pair where one charges while the other is in use but half the power is used to charge. I see no benefit to spending double on my electric bill and having more coal plants built.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey disagree because free enterprise should be global. The biggest profits should go to those who produce the best product for the least cost (which hopefully still has some relationship to energy costs) no matter where they live. If we can't do that, we shouldn't have the jobs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course it's too late for that now, because free enterprise has evolved to capitalism (where the rich get richer), now to fascism and soon to collapse.
Good point. I can only guess that required battery size is determined by both voltage requirements and charge duration - I can't guess how much by each. If the size/weight of batteries can be significantly diminished by reducing charge life requirements (and these batteries are producible), I expect they will be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also wonder if the enhanced charge rate might enable continuous on-board passive solar charge capabilities?
robert schmidt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor someone trying to show a little humility, you sure seem quick to judge someone's intelligence and/or knowledge. I haven't seen anything that sjn or JamesDavis has written that is nothing more than a general commonly held opinion. SA is a lay scientific publication with an open public forum. If you expect everyone to be experts on each topic, you are in the wrong place. I first thought your ad hominem attacks on AGW naysayers were funny, but attacks on anyone you do not agree with are getting annoying and definitely violate the terms of use for this website.
You clearly do not seem to understand that "free markets" is a ideologically loaded phrase.
Free markets is an idealist concept that is no more realistic than the fantasy of socialism. Without even getting into the the distorted playing field between large corporations and small entrepreneurs, most assumptions required by free markets fail. Markets are not efficient, competition is not perfect, and the parties are not incorruptible. Fraud and negative externalities are practically ubiquitous in our economy.
If you only define "free" as free from government, which most freshwater ideologues do, then there was a period of time when "free" markets did exist. It was the 19th century. And if one is willing to define monarchies as corporations, you can say free markets existed throughout the entire history of civilization. Isn't that what monarchies were, land owning corporations that competed with other land owning corporations (i.e. nations)? Citizens were merely employees who had no enforced legal protections unless the profits or power of the monarch were at stake.
This week is the centennial of the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire. It is a good time to ask the question: are we in a race to the bottom in a global slave labor economy? From my understanding (maybe it is only from propaganda), many of the products we buy are manufactured in factories with worse conditions and pay than the Triangle shirtwaist factory. I am not saying we should establish trade barriers, but should we be buying goods produced by sweatshop labor? And America claims to be a humanitarian nation (e.g. the "reason" for dropping bombs in Libya)...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany people here claim to have expertise in economics, but they fail to realize that under free market theories; exchange rates, wages, worker productivity, etc should relatively quickly adjust to equalize markets (years not decades). Free markets are just an illusion perpetuated by the beneficiaries of the sweatshops. It is interesting how Alan Greenspan briefly shifted away from his Ayn Rand mantra in October 2008. Now he's back to believing in free markets. I guess he again believes Wall Street self-regulation and it bail out constitutes a "free" market.
Paul Braun said, "Although the nanostructure makes the batteries 20 to 30 percent denser, the biggest improvement is the rapidity of the charging."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes the issue of battery density concern anyone or am I misunderstanding this technology? Because of the wording by Paul Braun, I am assuming he does not mean energy density. If the battery is 20 to 30% more dense, energy efficiency should be lower for electric vehicles. So this battery will actually create more CO2 and require more energy for those of us who are concerned about carbon emissions and/or energy efficiency. Sounds like another typical choice of convenience over cost, efficiency, and pollution.
@Cramer, "I first thought your ad hominem attacks" what ad hominem attacks? When did I say that someone was wrong because of some character trait? I have said that people are ignorant because of their lack of knowledge. That isn't an ad hominem attack, it is a statement of fact. Look it up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"but attacks on anyone you do not agree with" How often do you "attack" people you do agree with? As I stated, I'll comment when I think people are spreading BS. No one has the right to not be challenged.
"free markets is a ideologically loaded phrase." what?! First off, no it isn't. People not understanding what a term means does not make it a "loaded phrase". But it does go towards my claim that the speaker had no idea what they were talking about.
"If you only define "free"...bla bla bla. I don't give a toss about free markets. My comments were based on one thing only, the speakers not understanding what they were talking about. People who talk about "keeping jobs in America" have no clue about economics and are hardly in a position to stand on a soapbox and tell us all how the world should be run. Sure lets close our doors to foreign made goods then we will have the US all to ourselves. But wait there are 300m people in the US but there are 6b people in the world. So when we close our doors to them what will they do to us? Why do you think there is a trend AWAY from tariffs and protectionism? Furthermore, once a country becomes dependent on you for their livelihood they are less tempted to act against you. Again, the root of protectionism is ignorance and fear. Put whatever pretty bow you like on that. In regards to sjn's comment "when the manufacturing jobs leave, the rest of the jobs soon follow" if he could please indicate where he got that little known gem I would be keen to hear it. Otherwise, once again we have someone trying to peddle personal prejudice as fact.
"If you expect everyone to be experts on each topic" no but I also don't expect people to try and pass BS off as established fact. This isn't the fox website. If they do I will call them on it. That is part of the process, or do you think that science is about unquestioning acceptance of everyone's opinion and nodding in polite agreement to every load of BS dumped on their doorstep? As you said, this is a scientific publication, so they should have no problem with justifying their position with facts, logic and the scientific method.
We've hijacked this thread enough. Unless you have something truly meaningful to say, let's drop it.
Look at your comment #32. That is an ad hominem attack. Statements of fact can be ad hominem attacks. You are attacking the person rather than the premise. If someone with Down syndrome and a tested low IQ says the sky is blue. And you say no it's not because you have Down Syndrome and a low IQ. That's an ad hominem attack. The fact that the person has a low IQ has nothing to do with the fact the sky might not be blue because it is cloudy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFree markets is an ideology. Freshwater and saltwater economists view "free markets" in completely different ways. Many think there is no such thing or impossible to obtain. Start with googling "free market ideology." With quotes is still gets over one million hits. What if, right now, we "lower taxes" or "increase spending" to create jobs. Are those ideologies? "Free markets" is just code for getting rid of regulations. The Ayn Rand Institute even advocates to get rid of the FDA (and probably the NRC too, but I don't know about their position on the NRC). They call it free markets.
I HAVE SEEN NO STATEMENT ADVOCATING PROTECTIONISM. Do you always assume what people believe or think?
Do you believe we would have a robust economy if we had no manufacturing (America had a 100% service economy)? I guess the original statement was about mfg jobs and not mfg production (so maybe if our mfg was 100% automated, that might not be as bad). Just to begin, what would happen in that case is larger boom and bust cycles due to the lack of diversity in our economy. Our economy would be highly sensitive to global fixed investment that can drastically shrink when capacity utilization falls. The rest of our economy would be trickle down service sectors (gardeners and nannies for Wall St bankers).
If I had to guess who had the least knowledge of macroeconomics, it wouldn't be JamesDavis or sjn. I actually believe sjn has a PhD in physics (see comment #5, link below). Not that a PhD makes him smart (especially in econ), but compare to what has spewed from your keyboard...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=contingent-education-how-colleges-are-wasting&offset=5#comment-05
@Cramer, No it is not an ad hominem attack. First off, it is not an argument. It is a simple statement. Furthermore, it is not indicating he is wrong because he is ignorant and fearful. It is saying that his comment indicates that he is ignorant and fearful. That isn't ad hominem. He is being judged by his words. His words aren't being judged by his character traits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, I don't care about free markets. I don't know why you insist on making this an ideological discussion. I've stated clearly the point I was making. I'm not interested in discussing economic policy with you.
Oh, it's the chicken or the egg defense. It is this simple. Attack the premise not the person (even though ad hominem does mean "to the man," name-calling is not always ad hominem). You did not provide a counter-point "judging his words." Look at your comment #17. You simply said his premise was not true because he is stupid because his premise was not true. How's that for circular logic. With that logic ad hominem attacks would be practically impossible in forums.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOthers must also believe that your comment #32 was an ad hominem attack, otherwise the moderator would not have deleted it. It is funny how you make up your own rules. Your statements appear to be coming from a delusional mind: You invent your own definitions. You create straw man arguments (e.g. protectionism, ideological discussions) and believe they are real. You believe everyone is ignorant because they do not have the same opinion as you (deluded that you believe their premises are not factual when they have nothing to do with facts-- e.g. lose of mfg jobs leads to lose of more jobs--can you prove it false?).
It is not an ideological discussion to explain that the idea "free markets" is an ideology . An ideological discussion would be taking a position in an ideology. In my last comment I was simply explaining how Keynesian and neo-classical economists view free markets.
You are definitely suffering from a Dunning-Kruger bias. You are a computer scientist, a programmer, application developer, or what ever you want to call yourself. What a joke. That is equivalent to being a secretary or typist in the 1950s. Writing applications is a tool. It's a means to an end. I write C++ code everyday but I do not consider myself a programmer because it is a tool. It is a tool what real scientists, engineers, analysts, etc use to do their jobs. You perform an adjunct function that is more and more being outsource to India because programmers are a dime a dozen.
Since you have such a lowly function relative to real scientists, none of your comments on SA should ever be taken with more than a grain of salt. Is that an ad hominem attack if I am referring to premises that you haven't yet made? Doesn't there need to be a premise?
Keep commenting. I enjoy the laughs.
JDahiya's Because that is the best way to extract the power out of a battery for a sudden acceleration if you can tap into that power in an instant rather than over several minutes, especially if the battery's are scalable to large sizes. This bateery mimics the good things about a super-capacitor if it can be dischargfed as fast as it can be charged, it will have much more density than a super-capacitor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example the bigger the batteries the less amount of volts per W•h/kg that can instantly accelerate the auto. The Tesla electric sports car requires thousands of small batteries to extract out the power to accelerate the automobile. They do it because they can download more volts per W•h/kg from thousands of batteries than they can for an equivalent W•h/kg larger battery pact like the twelve volt one in your car. Tesla also use super-capacitor. In a dream world they would rather use super-capacitor but super-capacitors can't store as much energy per unit density that a battery can and super-capacitors have other problems as listed below..
Super-capacitor
Some disadvantages
The amount of energy stored per unit weight is generally lower than that of an electrochemical battery
High self-discharge - the rate is considerably higher than that of an electrochemical battery.
Some other disadvantages exist...
Some advantages to Super-capacitor
Long life, with little degradation over hundreds of thousands of charge cycles. Due to the capacitor's high number of charge-discharge cycles (millions or more compared to 200 to 1000 for most commercially available rechargeable batteries) it will last for the entire lifetime of most devices, which makes the device environmentally friendly. Rechargeable batteries wear out typically over a few years, and their highly reactive chemical electrolytes present a disposal and safety hazard.
Low cost per cycle
Very high rates of charge and discharge
Extremely low internal resistance (ESR) and consequent high cycle efficiency (95% or more) and extremely low heating levels
Improved safety, no corrosive electrolyte and low toxicity of materials.
Simple charge methods—no full-charge detection is needed; no danger of overcharging.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitors
In short as it applies to the future, lots of things will be effected by this if a battery is made that mimics a super-capacitor in the way that you can discharge immense amount of power out in an instant.
JDahiya's Because that is the best way to extract the power out of a battery for a sudden acceleration if you can tap into that power in an instant rather than over several minutes, especially if the battery's are scalable to large sizes. This bateery mimics the good things about a super-capacitor if it can be dischargfed as fast as it can be charged, it will have much more density than a super-capacitor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example the bigger the batteries the less amount of volts per W"h/kg that can instantly accelerate the auto. The Tesla electric sports car requires thousands of small batteries to extract out the power to accelerate the automobile. They do it because they can download more volts per W"h/kg from thousands of batteries than they can for an equivalent W"h/kg larger battery pact like the twelve volt one in your car. Tesla also use super-capacitor. In a dream world they would rather use super-capacitor but super-capacitors can't store as much energy per unit density that a battery can and super-capacitors have other problems as listed below..
Super-capacitor
Some disadvantages
The amount of energy stored per unit weight is generally lower than that of an electrochemical battery
High self-discharge - the rate is considerably higher than that of an electrochemical battery.
Some other disadvantages exist...
Some advantages to Super-capacitor
Long life, with little degradation over hundreds of thousands of charge cycles. Due to the capacitor's high number of charge-discharge cycles (millions or more compared to 200 to 1000 for most commercially available rechargeable batteries) it will last for the entire lifetime of most devices, which makes the device environmentally friendly. Rechargeable batteries wear out typically over a few years, and their highly reactive chemical electrolytes present a disposal and safety hazard.
Low cost per cycle
Very high rates of charge and discharge
Extremely low internal resistance (ESR) and consequent high cycle efficiency (95% or more) and extremely low heating levels
Improved safety, no corrosive electrolyte and low toxicity of materials.
Simple charge methodsno full-charge detection is needed; no danger of overcharging.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitors
In short as it applies to the future, lots of things will be effected by this if a battery is made that mimics a super-capacitor in the way that you can discharge immense amount of power out in an instant.
Ah, thanks, now I understand. These are good points to keep in mind. It's very useful to me to learn that super-capacitors can also be used practically for storing electric charge (something I'd forgotten over the years), and not just batteries. Now that you mention it, I recall that the earliest PCs used to run 5 seconds off capacitive power in the case of a power failure, so that blips in the power supply would not affect their functioning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you, rlb2! Most grateful.
The tenor of the discussion has ben mostly that it is not the non availability of the technology that blocks development veering away from the ubiquitous oil,but that it is the powerful lobbies of al hues and kinds that prevent any new technology from taking off and maturing that is not depending on oil or its downstream products.The free market economy is so only in name since it is the powerful and rich that decides who comes to power or what the politics decide.India has opened up its econmy to be free and away from the socialist platform,though it retains the jargon for catching votes.Its democracy is very large and diverse and apparently functional so that it ensures a free and frank democratic process.But is that true,still?I would say ,on the contrary,it is constrained in terms of its choice of candidates and election outcomes despite the free and open label.We are at the policy level pledged to getting 20 percent from renewables by 2020,and there is more of grid supply,connectivity ,and supply and production from wind and solar.But the fact that oil still rules large is undeniable. China and India are fast emerging as the manufacturing and service industry hubs across the board,ranging from auto to bio and electronics. Soon the GDP from the South will outstrip that of the North,and the developed nations in the West,which does not prove that free markets are good or bad.It simply establishes a law of nature that there are socio-economic and cultural cycles that geographies follow.China has done well despite being a communist nation,and India is doing very well in spite of its socialst legacy ,and the west had done well being market oriented,and so also Korea and Japan.So it is not about economy or society ,it is about who controls the politics and the innovation infrastructure as well the implementation framework.This is now in the hands of those who control the oil lobby,and energy is crucially linked to oil and coal still,and will be for a long time to come,despite all the hue and cry about climate change,and low carbon economy,and the renewables or the electrics or the hybrids or the fuel cells and hydrogen econmy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA long time back there was an initiative on a SUNSHINE program.It was peremptorily wound up due to pressures from the oil lobby.We have all the technical infrastructure in place long back for the hydrogen econmy,but it is still a mirage when it comes to practicalities.
The lobby power constrains irrespective of east or west or free market or socialist-communist.
SURESHKUMAR,SCIENTIST AND ADVISER,NIIST,INDIA
lol- I thoroughly enjoyed reading your comments, perhaps more so than the article! While I probably agree with many of your political views, you have taught me that I need to be more fair, and more considerate with others who may hold opposite views (but we will see! lol). And I liked sjn's early comment, too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you SigmaEyes. I probably give my own fair share of attacks in forums, but I typically don't attack based on particular point of view, especially if the person is being respectful and honest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSigmaeyes and Cramer,you have read me right and thank you for that,and if my piece has read well I should than you both for that.It was really magnanimous of you to say that I have taught you to be fair,which is something great given that few of us learn anything from others,irrespective of whether it is right or wrong.Even big nations and their leaders are behaving like children on forums while discussing climate change or alternate energy-and the lobbies arise from that ,in part-that is part ego and part politics and finance.The facts are really not reckoned with much,a point which both of you have raised despite the acrimonious debate.I am glad that I have incidentally mediated.Great
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisREGARDING:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Although the nanostructure makes the batteries 20 to 30 percent denser, Braun said the biggest improvement is the rapidity of the charging.”
This sentence is written as if the denser characteristic is a good thing. Simply being heavier wouldn’t be a good thing. Having a higher energy density for a given volume would be a good thing so I shall assume that is what was meant.
Rapid charge, rapid discharge both sound nice. We are talking about a method of storing energy. Those who are talking about international competition and economic theories seem off topic but maybe not.
An economic system which benefit’s the most people the quickest could affect the application of this battery technology. Simply thinking the big bad oil companies or big bad car companies or the big bad whoever will put a stop to it because it will affect their money making….well it seems a tad paranoid.
In general big companies tend to not notice what small ones are up to because they have bigger, more immediate competitors to face. Big oil isn’t a single entity and the separate ones compete with each other. They are not going to unite to squash something which they could each use, possibly to advantage over the other. Most likely they will ignore it, if not, they will likely contemplate using it. Paranoia is fun but seldom profitable other than to those selling to the paranoiacs.