MIT researchers invent new hybrid car battery

In a development that could help speed up the widespread adoption of hybrid vehicles, researchers at MIT have announced the development of a new car battery technology that allows for 10-minute charging and discharging. Known as a lithium nickel manganese oxide battery, it is being touted as an alternative to the current technology used in hybrids, nickel metal hydride. The MIT scientists were able to achieve the rapid charging by synthesizing a material with a more orderly structure than regular lithium nickel manganese oxide, which usually impedes the necessary flow of lithium ions. Besides cars, other potential uses for the new battery include tools, bikes/scooters, and serving as a backup for green energy sources.

[Via Personal Tech Pipeline]

[vaylen @ Feb 17th 2006 5:22AM]

This would be cool. You could plug your car in when you park at the store and come out to a fully recharged car. Kinda like the current spots for electric cars except actually useful.

[JohnnyCashAK @ Feb 17th 2006 5:52AM]

Great, now make one that works in a fullsize truck so I can actually drive safely in Alaska and not get raped at the gas station.

[dreampc @ Feb 17th 2006 5:59AM]

...and the acronym please!!

LNMO...B

almost got it alphabetically correct...

[Kevin Kurbs @ Feb 17th 2006 6:26AM]

So instead of polluting the air with gas, we pollute it with coal right? just because we dont see the emissions happening at our homes doesnt mean it isnt.

think about things people

[z0idberg @ Feb 17th 2006 8:15AM]

RE: So instead of polluting the air with gas, we pollute it with coal right? just because we dont see the emissions happening at our homes doesnt mean it isnt.
think about things people

You do know you can generate electricity through others means than burning coal right?

[NeoteriX @ Feb 17th 2006 8:24AM]

hey hippy douche bag, follow your own advice.

I'm all for the environment. I make an effort to recycle as much as I can, turn off the lights when I'm not home, and use energy efficient non-incandescent bulbs.

How about you do your part and actually read about what a hybrid car actually is. a) it's not electric b) it has nothing to do with coal c) it's pretty neat because it recaptures energy that would normally be wasted in things like braking (heat and sound energy) and saves it for use like acceleration.

It's sort of like getting energy for free, from nowhere. The end result is less use of the gas engine, less emissions, and hippies everywhere breathe a little bit easier.

PS - Not all electricity is derived from coal sources. There is an amount (albeit small) of electricity being produced from non emission producing sources, like hydro, nuclear, and wind. The shift from gas to electric can only open possibilities, not close it.

[ALan @ Feb 17th 2006 9:23AM]

Hey,

This is off-topic really, but in response to the previous comment.
Coal 50%
Nuclear 20%
Natural Gas 18%
Hydro 07%
Other 05%
Thats a breakdown of electricity production by type. As you can see most electricity is in fact produced by coal. And its gonna stay this way for a while because no one wants more nuclear plants, the cleanest type of energy available, and the EPA is zoning off most natural gas resources as protected land or ocean, or some bs like that. In fact, natural gas prices have been rising much more than gasoline prices.
In addition to your hippie comments, recycling in fact does NOT benefit the environment. Its a manufacturing process.

[NeoteriX @ Feb 17th 2006 9:31AM]

Quote form WikiPedia: Consumer recycling has succeeded mostly in reducing industrial consumption of energy and water. Production of materials such as aluminum or glass requires large amounts of electricity or fossil fuels. The recycling of such materials is profitable and prevents a substantial amount of greenhouse gas emissions.

See ya.

[The Schizo @ Feb 17th 2006 9:32AM]

Don't forget that in Europe, there's a consortium dedicated to Fusion power. Once accomplished, electricity will be virtually limitless with less impact to the environment than a single natural gas power plant.

If you want a real education on the subject, play Maxis' Simcity 3. You'll quickly learn that building a Fusion plant solves all the "tree hugger's" problems.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm

[The Schizo @ Feb 17th 2006 9:39AM]

I ain't no hippie, but I do know that recycling DOES benefit the environment because it keeps plastic (with it's 400 year half life) out of land fills. It keeps paper companies from consuming as many trees to make the same product. In relation to this article, a hybrid that charges more quickly will 'recycle' it's own energy more efficiently. Many times, the battery's own slow internal chemical reaction time does not allow it to store all the energy generated by the braking system.

[shavenyak @ Feb 17th 2006 9:42AM]

The article doesn't say anything about energy-storage/weight ratio for this new tech. That would seem more important than rapid chargability, at least currently while no hybrids come from the factory with power cords.

And regarding the "hippy" comments, it's a point worth considering... although centralized power generation can be cleaner (it's easier to add high-tech pollution control to one power plant than 100 million cars), a lot of energy is wasted over transmission lines. On the other hand, most electric vehicles would be plugged in at night - currently, coal-burning power plants dump huge amounts of unused electricity into huge banks of resistors because they can't shut down the furnace for eight hours and restart it the next day. Using the energy to crack water into hydrogen, piping it to filling stations, and putting it into fuel-cell vehicles may make more sense then wiring it to a house to recharge a battery, though.

Decentralized "green" power generation (wind, solar, hydro) with short and efficient transmission lines would be the ideal situation, but the technology isn't there yet. Still, it would make more sense to be incentivizing the companies working on this tech with our tax dollars, rather than the highly profitable oil companies.

[shavenyak @ Feb 17th 2006 9:49AM]

Schizo, thanks for your info... that's a good point, if faster charging allows recapture of more braking energy it's useful. Still, if the battery's overall capacity is too low, you'll have to lose energy, so I hope that storage density is increasing too.

Also, fusion power sounds great, but 1) you have to deal with lots of neutron emissions, which will eventually make some of the construction materials slightly radioactive. Not as bad as fission, but still a hassle, and 2) we already have a fusion plant that costs nothing to operate, will last for 5 billion years, and produces more energy in a minute than the human race has used in its entire history on Earth. It's just that capturing its energy presents some engineering challenges.

[Erik @ Feb 17th 2006 11:09AM]

It's good to see so many options being touted, and I think that all the hostile commenters should keep in mind that the solutions to our environmental problems are not going to come from an either/or mentality. Coming down hard on one technology because it's not the absolute cleanest or most ideal is not helpful, but rather realizing that like any engineering problem, a spectrum of solutions, each customized for certain conditions, is best. Yes, a world of solar, wind and hydroelectric power fueling electric and fuel cell cars would be best, but to get there we are going to need to employ hybrid, flex fuel, nuclear, natural gas and even for a short time clean coal technology. You can't dismantle world wide infrastructure overnight, but bickering about the absolute ideal solution, instead of being willing to incrementally get there, will guarantee that we never get there.

[I @ Feb 17th 2006 11:35AM]

This is completely divergent from the original topic, but I feel like throwing in my 2 cents about recycling.

Aluminum is (arguably) the only material that is efficient to recycle. This is because the process of refining bauxite (aluminum oxide ore) into pure aluminum takes a huge amount of energy (something like 20% of the energy made in the US goes to this process), but simply cleaning recycled aluminum and remelting it takes considerably less energy.

Recycling processes recquire alot of input as far as money and energy, but the returns on products other than aluminum are less than the input. The government subsidizes recycling programs, however, which makes them profitable. Inputs include fuel to drive trucks out to pick up materials, paying the workers who have to hand seperate almost all the material collected, dealing with the waste created by cleaning recycled material, etc.

Glass is not efficient to recycle at this point in time because the materials to make it (sand and borox) are so easy to acquire and have such vast supplies.

Plastic is also not efficient to recycle for the same reason, at this time. If oil prices get much higher, then yes, it will make sense to reprocess plastics.

Paper is (from what I've read) not efficient to recycle, although just as many people claim the opposite. The point with paper that most people overlook is that paper companies do not cut down forests to make paper: they grow crops of paper trees in cycles of 20 or so years. So saving trees is not a reason to recycle paper, because the trees are grown for the purpose. Now, the debate arrises because it's really a very close finish between which takes more energy/money: growing/harvesting/pulping trees, or collecting/cleaning/pulping used paper. Cleaning used paper (especially newsprint) uses a large amount of water (which translates to using the energy it takes to clean water), and generates waste in the form of ink and such that comes off of the paper, as well as paper fibers that are too short to be usable. Google either side of the paper debate and you'll find evidence pointing both ways.

Then there's the issue of landfill space: if we don't recycle anything but aluminum, that means everything else goes to landfills. Well, landfill space is actually fairly plentiful, and finished landfills can be very useful. For one, the top level of the capped landfill can be made into something attractive (park, golf course, etc). But more importantly the decomposition of the materials in the landfill releases methane gas, which can be recaptured and used to generate electricity.

So, according to this argument, if you recycle anything other than aluminum you're actually using more energy than would be used if you just threw it away and demanded new resources to be harvested. More energy use translates to more burning of fossil fuels, and all that that entails. So wait 30 years untill oil is scarce, then recycle plastic. If sand ever starts to go the way of the dinosaur, recycle glass. Untill then, we're only hastening the use of resources by recycling.

[Chris D @ Feb 17th 2006 12:07PM]

I think ya'll have just TOO much free time. If this beast doesn't go 0-60 in under 6 seconds then it's a waste of time.

[Marc @ Feb 17th 2006 4:51PM]

Y'all missed the most exciting part!

This battery discharges in 10 minutes as well!

Wow. What an advance in technology! It's hard to make a battery go dead that fast.

[granny down east @ Feb 17th 2006 11:35PM]

I am crazy in love with my hybrid Honda. We bought it because 1) it's new tech 2) we're greens and 3) it's hard to argue with 60 mpg.
One must wonder how long until hybrid tech comes to outboard engines, lawn tractors, etc. I for one would welcome having hybrid technology in my boats. Anyone who makes a living on the water knows 50-75% of the time you are in idle, what a waste of diesel. I think hybrid tech could help there.

[jimf28 @ Feb 18th 2006 10:42AM]

5. RE: So instead of polluting the air with gas, we pollute it with coal right? just because we dont see the emissions happening at our homes doesnt mean it isnt.
think about things people

While it's not the best solution long term, the possibility of reducing our dependence on foreign oil sure sounds appealing to me.
Plus, there are technologies available NOW that allow coal burning power plants to significantly reduce their emissions.

It's no surprise that the earth's oil reserves will plummet within the next 2 decades (maybe sooner) we should think of the energy crisis the same way we would think of fighting an enemy in a war.

Start another Manhattan Project, only this time instead of spending billions on building a Hydrogen Bomb, build new infrastructures (fueling stations, battery exchange centers, etc) for proven renewable energy sources.
The problem is not getting the technolgies to work, it's making them as easy to access as regular gas at the local station.

[Sam @ Feb 18th 2006 12:14PM]

We all have been brainwashed to the point that we don't realize there are plenty of choices from already existent technologies, to cover the majority of our needs in energy, exclusively from green sources!
Why it didn't happen so far?
Because:
1. "They" (the powerfull ones) don't want to stop making money from oil sales, and will do anything, even wars, to prevent this from happening (at a large scale), before the end of oil supplies.

2. "They" also don't care about anything else except their own pathetic short lives, so they don't give a damn if our little earth goes "boom" the next day they die!

3. It needs a creative effort to change our infrastructure and many investments that need the approval of "Them".

4. "We" (the majority of us) care a little more than "Them" but we do nothing about it. Except from the few creative ones. We just wish that somehow this story is going to have a "happy end" dispite that more and more scientists that predict the opposite...

Just think of the many forms of energy in our environment that nobody took advantage of, so far.

A few examples:

a. Solar energy power plants on deserts.
"Osborn said the Stirling dishes are 30 percent efficient -- 30 percent of the sun's energy is converted into electricity -- which is two to three times as efficient as conventional photovoltaic cells."
http://www.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782,69528,00.html

b. Ocean wave energy power plants
"Ocean wave energy is highly concentrated compared to other renewable sources, often offering 15-20 times more available energy per square metre than either wind or solar."
http://www.wavemill.com/

c. Wind energy generators/power plants
"Windside produces electricity at least 50 % more in a year than traditional propeller models"
http://www.windside.com/video/windside2.wmv


Personally I am a fan of electric powered engines. They have many advantages and will have many more in the future.
I like the idea of having an electric engine, rated e.g for 200 kw and be able to overdrive it for a few seconds to 1000kw to achieve 0-60 in 3 seconds! No Nos addons, superchargers, pistons, valves, exhausts, all with maintenance and reliability problems. Just smooth pure rotating power, with noise coming only from your tires and the slight benting of your sci-fi car's chassis! This sort of overdrive is only possible with electrical motors and batteries like these...

[hybrid cars @ Aug 5th 2006 10:09PM]

"I just came across your blog and wanted to drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with the information you have posted here. I also have a web site & a hybrid cars blog
about hybrid cars
so I know I'm talking about when I say your site is top-notch! Keep up the great work, you are providing a great resource on the Internet here!"

[hybrid cars @ Aug 5th 2006 10:21PM]

"I just came across your blog and wanted to drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with the information you have posted here. I also have a web site & a hybrid cars blog
about hybrid cars
so I know I'm talking about when I say your site is top-notch! Keep up the great work, you are providing a great resource on the Internet here!"

[JD @ Sep 12th 2006 5:01PM]

I KNOW HOW TO FIX YOUR CAR SO YOU CAN DRIVE IT WITH OUT CHARGING IT

[hybrid car @ Dec 20th 2007 2:55PM]

Toyota is working toward eliminating the world’s dependencies on foreign oil with their new Toyota Hybrid truck. This is a full size pick up and the look of this truck is first class.