Stanford's nanowire battery leapfrogs Li-ion

Stanford claims its latest advances in silicon nanowires have it building batteries with 10 times the capacity of existing Li-ion cells. Apparently people have been trying to stuff silicon -- which has a much higher capacity than existing materials -- into a battery for decades, but since it swells when charged with positively charged lithium and shrinks during use, the silicon has a tendency to "pulverize." Who knew batteries could be so dramatic? Oh, right. The advancement at Stanford, led by Yi Cui, builds the battery in the form of silicon nanowires, giving the silicon room to grow and shrink without damage. A patent is being filed, and Yi Cui is already considering forming a company or licensing the tech to a manufacturer.

[Ahmed Alzayani @ Dec 19th 2007 9:09AM]

Is this mean more recharging cycles?

[mr friggles @ Dec 19th 2007 10:59AM]

It means less refilling cycles at the pump when the Asian car companies put this in their all-electric vehicles. We know the American car companies, especially GM (Generally Malevolent), won't be using this tech anytime soon because they are too slow, evil, and oil-slicked.

[lordofthedirectrix @ Dec 19th 2007 1:20PM]

@ mr friggles

More like, they don't have enough money for daring moves like this because of unions and idiots like you are buying foreign cars instead of supporting American families and American-made products :\

[ekwmin @ Dec 19th 2007 1:36PM]

LOL, you don't just buy something just because it's American. That's dumb! We're not some disadvantaged country that needs special treatment to compete. I say now it's the time for GM and Ford to step up, innovate, and compete. Because people won't be buying inferior product just because it's made by their home country. People will buy the best product with the best service at the right price, and they have every right to do so. So don't be telling someone to buy something just because it's American. U.S.A does not need a handicap. Besides foreign auto companies are hiring more and more American workers as GM and Ford are laying them off. It's a world economy and we are more than able to compete with foreign companies.

[lordofthedirectrix @ Dec 19th 2007 5:20PM]

@ ekwmin

"you don't just buy something just because it's American. That's dumb!" You're right, who wants to keep our money in our country.

"...it's the time for GM and Ford to step up, innovate, and compete." Competition and innovation takes money, which Ford and GM can't afford to waste right now, they're already sinking because of labor unions and foreign competition.

"Because people won't be buying inferior product just because it's made by their home country." It's "inferior" BECAUSE people aren't buying our cars.

"People will buy the best product with the best service at the right price, and they have every right to do so." Just because you CAN buy something for yourself that will satistfy you in the short run, doesn't mean you should.

"Besides foreign auto companies are hiring more and more American workers as GM and Ford are laying them off." Think about WHY they're laying off workers. That's not a valid point. If more people were buying American cars, GM/Ford would be hiring more people, as there was more of a demand.

"It's a world economy and we are more than able to compete with foreign companies." Our car industries are going under because of attitudes like that. If you buy a foreign car, YOU are part of the reason GM/Ford is laying off people.

[ekwmin @ Dec 19th 2007 2:40PM]

Next time you're in Japan make sure you tell the Japanese not to buy HP computers, and Apple iPods. Or if you take a vacation to France, tell them to stop buying Boeing airplanes. Tell the world to stop buying Sysco servers and stop using Google. Because they should be support products from their own country. You see America also makes tons of money (which helps support American workers and families) by selling to other countries as well.

[Wwhat @ Dec 19th 2007 2:47PM]

Perhaps when he says 'more recharging cycles' he's referring to the lifetime of rechargeable batteries, they last only X amount of recharge cycles as you know, and one wonders if this improves or maybe even gets worse with this system, how often can those nanotubes expand and retract before breakage and how many will break and become defunct after how many cycles?

[vekster @ Dec 19th 2007 2:58PM]

@ lordofthedirectrix:

the next time you have something, do us all a favor and think first. Ignorant comments like yours make it difficult to have a discussion.

please remember that there are adults who actually have something worthwhile to say.

[lordofthedirectrix @ Dec 19th 2007 5:42PM]

@ ekwmin

"Next time you're in Japan make sure you tell the Japanese not to buy HP computers, and Apple iPods." Not only are PC sales in general declining in Japan (apparently the reason is they're discovering that most of their tech needs can be accomplished on their phones/PDAs), but I would say we be a heck of a lot more cars here than the Japanese buy computers. Not to mention the price difference: example - $1,500 vs $20,000.

"Or if you take a vacation to France, tell them to stop buying Boeing airplanes." They don't make their own brand of airplane, so that's an irrelvant point.

"Tell the world to stop buying Sysco servers and stop using Google." Again, two of the best products that the world doesn't have solid alternatives to. And that is a GOOD thing. We want to be taking in more money than we're sending out. I'm not saying world trade is a bad thing, I'm saying we need to support our companies so people want OUR computers, OUR cars, OUR planes. And what happens if Ford and GM go under? We'll be largely dependent on yet another country. Free trade is great, but we need to have self-reliance too.

"... You see America also makes tons of money (which helps support American workers and families) by selling to other countries as well." Quote:

"...The U.S. company's disadvantage is far worse if its products are exported to Japan. Upon entering Japan, an American automobile is subject to the $600 Japanese excise tax plus about $1,000 in duties and tariffs. Therefore, the total tax cost on an American car sold in Japan is a staggering $3,100--the $1,500 in nonrefundable U.S. taxes plus $1,600 in Japanese taxes and tariffs. This compares with a total tax cost of $1,250 for a Japanese automobile built and solid in Japan." It would seem that the Japanese favor their own companies, and, through heavy taxes, try to help sell their own products, whereas we do the opposite.

Do you see my point?

[Jagannath A @ Dec 19th 2007 10:49PM]

@lordofthedirectrix

>>"Or if you take a vacation to France, tell them to stop buying Boeing airplanes."
"They don't make their own brand of airplane, so that's an irrelvant point."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus


this one point is enough to gauge your ignorance and stupidity.

so please turn off your hot gas valve.

[lordofthedirectrix @ Dec 20th 2007 10:27AM]

@Jagannath A

You're absolutely correct, I make one mistake so my point is completely invalid. Good argument.

[Sporkinum @ Dec 19th 2007 9:21AM]

More cycles as opposed to previous attempts at LiSi batteries. The real benefit is higher energy density. Either the same size battery as current LiPo's with ten times the run time, or a much smaller battery for the same run time.

[ram @ Dec 19th 2007 9:28AM]

This article misinforms the public. In a battery, there are several components, anode, cathode, electrolyte, separator materials and packaging. Anode only takes up a small fraction (15-20%) of the volume. So, we can only expect a marginal increase in battery life for the same volume (10-15%). Nanowires can have empty space inbetween them which can further reduce the improvement in battery life.

[CatchWithoutArms @ Dec 19th 2007 10:34AM]

actually you are misinformed... What I take from the article is that they are able to decrease the size of the silicon from something along the size of one micron all the way down to 100 nm. That is 10x decrease in particle size therefor they can fit 10 times more silicon into that 10-15% volume giving you a 10 fold increase in energy/electricity.

[mr friggles @ Dec 19th 2007 10:43AM]

Hey random internet dork, read the dam article.


"The new version, developed through research led by Yi Cui, assistant professor of materials science and engineering, produces 10 times the amount of electricity of existing lithium-ion, known as Li-ion, batteries. A laptop that now runs on battery for two hours could operate for 20 hours, a boon to ocean-hopping business travelers.

The electrical storage capacity of a Li-ion battery is limited by how much lithium can be held in the battery's anode, which is typically made of carbon. Silicon has a much higher capacity than carbon, but also has a drawback.

Cui's battery gets around this problem with nanotechnology. The lithium is stored in a forest of tiny silicon nanowires, each with a diameter one-thousandth the thickness of a sheet of paper. The nanowires inflate four times their normal size as they soak up lithium. But, unlike other silicon shapes, they do not fracture.
"



....hmm.

Who has more credibility? Some random internet loser who probably jerks off into his hotpockets, or Standford University researchers and professors...hard call.

[mr friggles @ Dec 19th 2007 10:45AM]

Go gettem Catchwithoutarms, grrrrr lol.

[Chris @ Dec 19th 2007 9:35AM]

"The advancement at Standford [sic]... A patent is being filed, and Yi Cui is already considering forming a company or licensing the tech to a manufacturer."

So Yi Cui and Stanford are going to license and profit off of research performed with tax dollars?

I know it happens all the time, and I know there is a lot to this I probably don't understand, but I just think it is kinda dumb. Seems like those technologies should belong to the public, no?

[Reader @ Dec 19th 2007 9:49AM]

I see nothing wrong with paying a man for his ideas, no different than if it was a tangible product. Just because he used some tools from the state to unearth it doesn't mean he shouldn't be rewarded.

[Kyrra @ Dec 19th 2007 9:52AM]

At research universities, only a portion of a professor/researchers pay comes from tax money. Money used for research, to pay grad students and to pay undergrads for the work they do on the research comes from grants. Research Grants can come from a number of different sources. The government (DARPA), private companies, organizations who's sole purpose is to divvy out research grants, and so on...

[Chris @ Dec 19th 2007 10:01AM]

Yes, but where does grant money come from? It's tax money. Just because someone needs to fill out an application to get it doesn't make it something other than tax dollars. Now, if it is a private entity receiving the grant, that is one thing. But if one government entity gets a grant from another... it strikes me as very self-licking-ice-cream-cone-ish.

I dunno. I can't put my finger on it exactly. I think I have the problem with the idea that taxpayers are paying his salary, paying for the research (through grants or otherwise) and now the taxpayers will have to pay for his licensing fees through higher product prices. Seems a little like they are biting the hand that feeds.

[Speddy @ Dec 19th 2007 10:07AM]

I agree with Chris: there have been several university prof's that have licensed their "research findings funded by tax payers" back and the result has been less than stellar.
I recall the LCD-dimming window glass (white to clear on voltage). The professor patented the idea, then charged a ridiculous licensing fee. Where all windows could have had this great benefit, instead, it's about $100/inch. Thanks for making life better for society, Professor G. Reed.

[mr friggles @ Dec 19th 2007 10:53AM]

50% should automatically go back into research. Things like this show how bullshit our capitalist system really is. Think about all the advances in technology that have been restricted by profit motivation, either restricting it to those who are the wealthiest, or not releasing it because the profit margin is too small. We would probably be 50-100 years more advanced in terms of new technologies released on a mass scale. Doesn't help that the military co-opts (corrupts) all new tech for their own use for 10 years+, at our expense of course.

[Justin @ Dec 19th 2007 12:00PM]

Pretty sure if you're a researcher in a lab at a university, the majority of your research is covered by the university so whatever break through you make, a good chunk of your profit is giving back to the University since it is their intellectual property.

[jrtait @ Dec 19th 2007 12:58PM]

I may be wrong, but I thought Stanford was a private University. If so, then this whole discussion is moot

[shawn @ Dec 19th 2007 2:03PM]

Well, if it wasn't for the capitalist notion of getting paid for your ideas and effort, that researcher may have decided to avoid the effort and cost of advanced degrees at a university and never had the idea in the first place. Then you'd never see the advance at all, and we'd be left to building batteries out of coconuts.

Lucky for us, in our horrid, capitalist society, the technology will be licensed by companies that can generate economies of scale and drop the price to the point all of us can pop one these puppies into our cheap cell phones, DVD players, and other capitalist devices. Feel free to rail against the strong ties between capitalism and consumption, but getting upset at capitalism as a supposed hinderance to consumption is loony.

[AlexNC @ Dec 19th 2007 9:43AM]

awesome awesome awesome !!! It's nice to see the scientific and business communities putting so much research and development into clean technologies. It just goes to show you what we can accomplish when we go for it. Hell, if we can put a man on the moon with cold war technology ... I imagine we can come up with a way become energy independent in a clean way.

[Sinbios @ Dec 19th 2007 10:30AM]

What the hell are you babbling about? First of all, this was done by an university researcher, nothing to do with the "business community". As for the "scientific community", it's kinda their job. Also, this tech is no more "clean" than your average lithium ion/NiMH battery. Lastly, "If we could put a man on the moon we should be able to do " is the dumbest fallacy ever.

Stop spouting populist bullshit that make no sense.

[Mii @ Dec 19th 2007 11:53AM]

Well, with 10x the energy density, it seems like it's saying they'll need a whole lot less lithium in each battery for the same target performance. Even if they use 50% less lithium for each battery in the nextgen product for 5x the battery life in your mobile phone/laptop/whatever that seems to be a "greener" tech when it comes to hazardous waste disposal.

[Jason @ Dec 19th 2007 9:47AM]

great news, although the 10x capacity sounds dubious.

I'll get excited when the 26,000mAh AAs go on sale.

[Wwhat @ Dec 19th 2007 2:38PM]

It's lithium ion related, I don't think they sell that in AA form due to safety concerns, it's used in non-replaceable batteries in ipods/iphones/cameras/PMP etcetera.

[breissim @ Dec 19th 2007 10:23AM]

I'll take my Tesla Motors Roadster with 2000 mile range next year please.

[Wwhat @ Dec 19th 2007 2:43PM]

It's not cleaner in energy terms AlexNC because a rechargeable has to be charged, with external power, and all too often that's still from coal burning powerplants..
And I don't think this is a case of 'set our minds to something' but more 'students tinker and think up something new'

[AlexNC @ Dec 19th 2007 10:42AM]

Anonymity is great isn't it? You can simply put all your morals aside and degrade people instead of speaking in a respectful manner.

- Universities get donations from private funds all the time. There is no information about this being tax funded.
- clean technology = cleaner than current oil and coal consumptions.
- man on the moon = if we set our mind to something, we can accomplish it. What's wrong with that analogy?

Get off your high horse and stop being so negative. Just because this is an anonymous forum does not mean we have to be disrespectful to each other.

[Sterling @ Dec 19th 2007 10:31AM]

OMG! Don't you realize what they're doing?!

They're making the Sining Bass and "musical lighters" 10x more annoying!

We have to stop them.

[mr friggles @ Dec 19th 2007 10:48AM]

Really? a new technical advancement sounds dubious because it doesn't compare to current technical accomplishments? Under that logical any advancement that beats existing technical specs is dubious. idiot.

[Jason @ Dec 19th 2007 11:30AM]

Then you are very naive about the physics of battery technology and the realities of mass production.

[mr friggles @ Dec 19th 2007 10:58AM]

It means less refilling cycles at the pump when the Asian car companies put this in their all-electric vehicles. We know the American car companies, especially GM (Generally Malevolent), won't be using this tech anytime soon because they are too slow, evil, and oil-slicked.

[BlueSuperGiant @ Dec 19th 2007 11:34AM]

The convergence of various technologies is coming along: thin sheet nanosolar cells, CA coming along with wave energy production, now this battery tech. Looks like our alternate energy capabilities are beginning to show. Is it possible our collective civilizations' carbon footprint will finally go down to a reasonable level?

Or are we going to be too late?

No thanks to GW Bush, US car manufacturers or any of the oil companies in all this. When was the last time BP (the 'green' oil company) announced such a breakthrough? When was the last time GW Bush didn't veto an alternate energy plan? When was the last time a US car manufacturer actually listened to its buyers?

Well? I'm listening?

[Mark @ Dec 19th 2007 12:07PM]

So, SuperBlueGiant, what kind of vehicle are you driving? Haven't bought the Ford Escape hybrid yet? It's been out for three years. Or are you happy to beat up on the US manufacturers and send your money overseas? Oh, I know, the US manufacturer's quality isn't as good as foreign automakers, right? Get your head out of your ass and go look at the actual quality numbers from JD Powers.

[Reader @ Dec 20th 2007 4:05AM]

The buying imports is unpatriotic argument really needs to stop. As if FoMoCo and GMC don't produce their cars with foreign parts. Toyota has companies here in the U.S. just the same and helps our local economy. Also, just because someone doesn't drive a hybrid doesn't make them eco-unfriendly. With that point in mind everyone should have a Vespa in their garage for when they drive alone to work (which most do everyday).

I'm pretty conservative (I know, oh noes, an evil republican), so don't think I can't sense the liberalism emanating from BlueSuperGiant, but that doesn't mean he's making unreasonable points. If you're going to counter him at least make logical arguments.

[nvarras @ Feb 25th 2008 3:16AM]

Doesn't G. Bush make money from high oil prices?

[tekdroid @ Dec 19th 2007 12:42PM]

I wish i had read this before I threw out all my silicon nanowires last week. Too bad this will never get off the ground. Steorn has the goods:
http://www.steorn.com/news/releases/?id=1001

They need a good 6 months more to scout for a suitable location for their breathrough. Ahem.

[Bryant @ Dec 19th 2007 2:11PM]

They better license this to Tesla Motors. 2400 miles on one charge is insane.

[Wwhat @ Dec 19th 2007 2:52PM]

Perhaps the nanotubes also have a higher self-discharge, or perhaps some oilcompanies buy the rights and kill the project, just don't get too excited too early.

[KikStart @ Dec 19th 2007 5:09PM]

Travelling 2400 miles isn't the priority - or at least shouldn't be. The priorities for a PRACTICAL electric car should be:

1. Being able to travel no less than 300 fully loaded (passengers, cargo, AC, etc.) miles on a single charge. Federal regulations mandate a minimum of 300 miles per tank.

2. Being able to charge a car in less than 10 minutes. I'm making this figure up, but some of the slow-ass pumps I've used out there take about this to fill my 15 Gal. tank.

3. Standardizing an inductive charging system so that all a user has to do is pull up to the charging pad - no wires.

4. Insuring that the battery used can take extreme temperatures, pressures, and is safe in an accident.

5. ?

6. Profit!

In other words... Yeah, it's going to be a LONG time until we get there. But the good news is, it's doable with a practical battery tech. I don't know about the safety of this particular technology, however it's always promising to see a next-gen battery like this.

And stop dissing GM! Yes, American cars companies are responsible for some of the worst vehicles ever produced (particularly in the 70's/80's), but you really can't say that about their cars now. And even if you could, their warranties are backing up that quality. I've not seen anything more ambitious come out of ANY car company (except Tesla), concerning their plans for electric/hybrid vehicles. Look up the GM 'Volt' if you don't believe me. Coming in '09...

[Adam Messinger @ Dec 20th 2007 3:10PM]

There are many ways to skin a cat. While safety, durability, and operating temperatures certainly are issues, I'm pretty sure that if my car could go 2000+ miles on a charge people wouldn't complain too much if charging took all night using a proprietary system. Even the most extreme commuter wouldn't have to charge more than once a week. And distance would be no problem; it's only about 2500 miles to cross the continental US.

[Mark @ Dec 19th 2007 9:40PM]

As we speak, Big Oil is putting some money in reserve to buy the rights to this as soon as they are filed...

[Scrub @ Dec 20th 2007 11:11PM]

There's an easy clause in any rights agreement to solve that problem, a 'Non-Use' clause that prevents the purchaser from shelving or sandbagging the technology. And the rights do not have to be exclusive. If the patent holders are ethical, there shoild not be an issue.. But Money is the root of all evil.. Crap.

[Scrub @ Dec 21st 2007 12:03AM]

If this is true, the ZAP-X E-SUV will do well (>3000MPC?!?!), as will the Tesla. For the inductive fast charge, you would FEEL it in the air. The voltage and amperage to charge such a pack in 10 minutes would be like lightning. Besides, it's not nearly as efficient as diret connect. I'd much rather have my 0.5" diameter gold plated spike connector with positive position safety interlocks. Muy Macho. lol. Will be a Godsend if it's reliable. Hemlock Semiconductor (major manufacturer of high purity silicon in the US) is expanding and upgrading in a major way. The SI technology most definately is mature.

[TheDoctor @ Dec 22nd 2007 2:14PM]

To Mr. LordoftheDirecterix, or whatever -

We live in an interconnected world. Buy Chinese, and the Chinese will turn around and invest in America - such as American treasury bonds which fund our nation, as well as provide the lower interest rates allowing Americans to purchase more consumer goods, including American ones.
Aside from this, what do you have against non-Americans enjoying benefits of good competition?
And, per your loathing of Unions - be sure to thank them for the weekends you enjoy - because you wouldn't have that without labor's efforts.

Oh, this battery is great. American ingenuity at work - that's what we need, good ingenuity - not protectionism and false-patriotism.