Take one part supercapacitor, one part lead acid battery -- the old school kind -- and you've got an energy cell technology development that at least one power research geek is calling "a leap forward for low emission transport and uptake of [hybrid cars]." Speciously dubbed the UltraBattery by its developers at Australia's CSIRO, this new cell type features a life cycle increase of 4x and power increase of 2x over current batteries, yet is supposedly 70% less expensive than the ancient Ni-MH cells often used in hybrids today. It's even passed "the 100,000 mile mark," implying the UltraBattery is robust enough to roll out to consumer vehicles without fear of drain on capacity. Screw the hybrids though, bring on the plug-in all-electrics, UltraBattery or otherwise.
[Thanks, Dickey]
posted Jan 18th 2008 2:10AM
Now this is battery technology is great news. That could drop the price on hybrid cars. In which would help with global warming and america's dependency on foreign oil(why help fund the terrorist nations)
http://www.activehybrid.com
now for apple to buy it and put it in all their devices.
yeah too bad it wasnt announced a couple of months earlier...
12hr battery life on a macbook air anyone?
Between Steve Jobs being a royal ass-clown during interviews and a generally elitist ass monger, I don't think that even 12 hours of battery life could convince me to buy an Apple product.
http://www.news.com/8301-13772_3-9852738-52.html?tag=nefd.only
Oh and also, that post earlier where he insulted Bach for lauding the Zune, his own company's product.
DAMNNNNNN she has a big forehead
sadly for our readers, lab technicians rarely pose next to their inventions in spandex shorts and a halter top. but i bet she cleans up nice.
hahhahahha lol best comment
The scientists forehead looks large because a wide angle lens was used, with this type of lens everything appears stretched at the edges and corners.
I guess most people laughing at it are amused because they have small foreheads...
shes got a five-head...
I was going to point that out. bad camera angle/lens. she also looks high.
Epic 16 Head ftw.
This will never get off the ground. I'm seen too many of these "our energy problems are over" headlines and yet non of this stuff ever hits the market. This is for the sci-fi books ladies and gents...
Why does every uber-nerd at Engadget's House of Comments expect R&D on this stuff to just be complete as soon as preliminary tests have shown any measure of success?
This stuff takes years to get right, even if it shows some promise in the lab. Then you have to secure manufacturers, who need to raise capital and construct facilities to build said tech, then they need to find buyers to sell it to, who need applications to use it in that appeals to consumers.
It doesn't just all happen because you want it now now now.
"ZOMG wtf is this, a horse-less carriage?! LOL! It'll never happen, HORSE&BUgGy FTW!!! WtFBBQ! LOL"
Two words: Oil Industry
Take a look at the massive amount of battery and alternative fuel patents that the oil industry owns, but do not develop or produce.
Adam, where is a link to this list of patents that big oil holds and is not producing? Are they hiding that too? Did you hear it from your father's cousin's nephew's former room mate?
Seriously, if you can link me to a legitimate source containing a list of these copyright holdings, I will write you a one (1) paragraph apology for being such an ass in this comment.
I apologize in advance for improperly quoting Space Balls.
yeah maybe do a little research into who CSIRO are...
802.11? yeah, they are responsible for that.
and much more, its a phenomenal organization and they are probably the most successful science-tech companies in the world. ( non govt )
The problem with the Oil industry isn't that they hold a lot of patents for new-battery tech (even though they do) it is that every time a technology comes close to being ready to go out the door--OPEC lowers the price of oil JUST long enough for oil to be cheaper than the new batteries to be more expensive, or just about as cheap as Oil. And investors look at the bottom line first, and everything else last.
And OPEC know when these guys are going to be showing their stuff off, because they investigate every single new idea for replacing oil, so they only do it for the couple of days that they are showing off their product. Then they seed the audience with OPEC plants who ask questions to undermine the audience and their views on this new product.
I seen it happen myself. I was at a car show here in Cleveland and when they were showing off the Chevy Volt, the guy on stage was talking about how the engine was only charging the batteries which powered electric motors... And a asshat in the crowd said, "Well, if we still have to buy gas, what is the point?" and then all the idiots around him started to leave. He stood there and just smiled as they walked away.
@Alexander
sadly that guy on stage couldnt have said this right away. Well the reason is that a generator runs at a specific rpm that it is talored to so it runs at maximum efficency. so the engine in the car does the same which only charges the battery. so therefore uses less gas then a normal car which is not that efficent because it runs at different levels of rpm's.
and bam just sovled that problem with that messed up guy
I agree, get the full electric plug ins to come back. That's right GM, Toyota and Honda all deserve to die for their attrocities against the elctric car. I wish zap would roll out the Obvio 012e, but i doubt they will considering their vaporware business plan!!!
bulbous forehead is bulbous
all the better to keep all dem' smarts in
The article says "produces 50 per cent more power" so it's not increase of 2 times over current but 0.5.
I can't find your quote in the article on this page. Were you referring to another article, or has it changed since? What it says is "a life cycle increase of 4x and power increase of 2x over current batteries, yet is supposedly 70% less expensive than ... Ni-MH cells", so the power is twice as much (100% more).
I was referring to the original article at http://www.csiro.au/news/UltraBattery.html. It says:
“Previous tests show the UltraBattery has a life cycle that is at least four times longer and produces 50 per cent more power than conventional battery systems. It’s also about 70 per cent cheaper than the batteries currently used in HEVs,” he said.
I say all this press has gone to her head.
Zing!
I think it's her hair, when people pull their hair back like that, it makes their heads look huge.
"It's a man baby"
Forget the silliness for a second.. I'll be in the market for an electric/hybrid car in the next 3 years. Hopefully this type of technology will advance the current crap that is out there. Batteries really haven't advanced a whole lot in the last 30 years.
Damn lead... My days of battery licking may be numbered again.
Developed by her UltraBrain.
aussie aussie aussie!!......
Oi oi oi!
100 percent electric car batteries are a dumb idea. If we were to replace fossil fuel cars with electric fueled vehicles, we would still be producing emissions. Where do you think a majority of our electricity comes from? Coal plants. If we started increasing our electricity consumption, we also increase the use of our coal plants which ultimately lead to even more emissions. The only feasible solution to this problem would be to build more hydrodams and nuclear power plants but that probably won't happen in the near future. Hybirds are still the future imo.
You had to come, didn't you? There is ALWAYS somebody that comes with this exact same comment every time there is a story about electric/hybrid cars.
You can read answers to your comment in previous threads, for example:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/14/saturn-aims-for-2010-with-plug-in-hybrid-vue-green-line-take/
or
http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/07/volvo-shows-off-recharge-plug-in-hybrid-concept-vehicle/
Disco: Right, cause we can't harness that bright yellow glowy thing for energy, or the movement of the atmosphere, or even the motion of the ocean. You're right, whatever were we thinking?
...
Wait a minute, you're the devil aren't you?
You must work for the oil companies (just kidding). Seriously though, why is it that if a solution doesn't solve all of the world's pollutions problems it is derided as being the next great evil? The fact is simple that IC engines are incredibly inefficient and hard to control emissions. Yes, as we move to more electricity we will need to generate electricity at power plants, but power plants are more efficient then IC engines and have much more stringent emission standards. So in the wash there will be less poluttion which is a good thing. It isn't perfect but it is a step in the right direction.
Yay, I new one of these people would be coming! Look, everyone...HHD is part of the problem!
You are right Disco.
Plus I don't want an electric car until you can charge in to full in 5 minutes, charge it from a portable storage (when you run out on the side of the road), and don't have to replace the batteries during the life of a normal car.
Moniker and Duo, Discco actually has a very good and valid point. It's called life cycle analysis. You can't simply look at the final conversion step of the energy. You have to look at the entire supply chain of the energy and all the conversion steps involved. His point is not that it is impossible to use renewables to power electric cars; it's just that currently, that is far from what is being done. And all indications are that this will not change for a long time, especially since the US has enough coal to last for more than another 100 years from known resources alone. Add to that the public perception that renewables are just too expensive, and that noone wants to install "in their backyard" (look at how many wind farms never get off the ground because people living near the proposed site call it an eyesore) and there's a lot of hurdles that need to be overcome before we achieve the renewable-powered utopia vision. Now, advanced coal plants with carbon sequestration can help make the option a lot more environmentally preferable, and these plants are currently "in the works" for deployment, but there's still some time yet before we start to see these. So currently, plug-ins are not as environmentally benign as people seem to want to think. Plug-ins will only ever be as clean as the electrical infrastructure supporting them; there's no getting around that point. And unfortunately, right now, the electrical infrastructure is far from clean by any standard.
Actually most (40%) of our energy comes from *GASP* petroluem, with another 23% from coal and natral gas EACH.
Oh, and just because your one of those stupid assholes who won't buy an electric car thats not zero-energy doesn't mean the rest of us won't. You keep riding in the bus till 2030, the rest of us will plug in our cars, and if we feel guilty we can always google "carbon offsets" and purchase our way to a clear conscience. jerkoff.
Woah, Nikola, that's quite an angry, and unprovoked, response there with some misguided assumptions. First of all, your numbers are right for overall energy use, including all sectors. But for stationary power generation, at the big centralized plants, coal is #1 by far, which is what matters for plug-in only vehicles. The numbers you cited are when you include the petroleum currently used for transportation as well, but that's not in the power mix when considering vehicles charged by the current electricity infrastructure.
And for the record, a) I'm not an asshole, b) I never said I wouldn't buy an electric car, I was merely pointing out that it's a more complicated consideration than most (like yourself, apparently) want to think about, and c) I actually walk to work since I live close enough.
So please, save the unnecessary "jerkoff" comment for yourself.
@ Duo
You would be a fool to think that Solar energy can help supply us with enough energy to power a ton of electric cars.....
And thanks to Andrew M, who actually has some common sense and agrees with me.
Anyways, I still believe that electric cars are a pipe dream that will fail again and again. Even if they somehow manage to take off and replace oil as the fuel of choice, what will happen then? Electricty demand will get exponentially higher and prices will go up. That just ends up making your electric bill even more of a bitch to pay now. Thats why I like hybrids so much; they offer slighty more flexibility while preventing a monopoly of fuel supplies.
Can't believe you can just ignore any of the positive aspects of the EV and continue to spout that EVs are horrible.
Read this article on Slate for a simple comparison between a slow fuel efficient corolla vs. an all electric Tesla roadster.
Link: http://www.slate.com/id/2179609/fr/rss/
The Tesla pollutes less even assuming that ALL electric production only comes from coal (which is not true as 50% of US electricity comes from coal and even in the area which uses most coal (ie. West Virginia) only about 73% is from coal). Keep in mind the tesla weighs MORE (2700lbs vs 2615lbs) and that it has a ferrari-like 0-60 of 4 seconds. It also generates close to twice the horsepower (248 vs. 126). The roadster isn't even the most efficent EV (charging efficency is only 70%, sacrificed for better battery management; this was factored into the comparison!). The article doesn't even factor in the "energy expended to pump the oil out of the ground, ship it across the oceans, refine it, and get it to your local filling station" for the gasoline Corolla.
You are deliberately wording your arguement so that it seems that EVs are worse than gasoline cars. It's true that emissions from powerplants will rise once all gasoline cars are converted to EVs, but that's not counting the pollution gone from the cars they replaced. Here's a study that factors in the FULL lifecycle (INCLUDING battery production): http://www.ilea.org/lcas/taharaetal2001.html
Switching to EVs will overall lower emissions even if ALL powerplants used coal.
Not to mention a recent study by the DOE (http://www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combined.pdf) that pointed out there is plenty of surplus energy going UNUSED at night which can be used by EVs. Also in states such as california, where most of the energy is renewable, you would see an even more drastic decrease in pollution.
Of course assuming all electricity comes from coal production the decrease in pollution is marginal (but it is STILL there, unlike how you are insinuating that it isn't), so you are better off with a hybrid (see the chart). HOWEVER, that isn't true in reality (remember 73% at the worst), and is quite far from the truth in many areas of the US (CA for example 15%). There is also the offpeak energy avaliable, not to mention new technologies such as carbon sequestration to lower pollution from coal.
Perhaps the US is more ready for PHEVs (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles), but really, stop spouting the BS that EVs are worst than gasoline cars in terms of pollution. Sure, EVs and PHEVs can't completely remove ALL pollution as there is not silver bullet solution to all our energy problems, but they do decrease pollution and they do allow us the use of renewable energy resources independent of the drivetrain (you don't have to change your car as we develop new ways to make electricity and new ways to reduce pollution in making electricity).
The scientist's head looks funny because of the wide angle lens - the wider the angle the more stretched the far edges.
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Congress:Top_100_Technologies_--_RD as at least 2 other technologies near the top of the list: EEstor and Nanotube Super Capacitor from MIT. (Warning: this list includes the full range from wacky theories to real world items in production today.) At the Dartmouth Energy Symposium this past fall, one of the venture capitalists that is backing EEstor claimed that it was the "holy grail" of electric energy storage, but that's just VC talking. If able to be mass produced, it should easily replace a car engine in size, weight, and capacity. The NSC seems to be targeted at smaller applications.
This looks like a marking scam. Funded by the "American-based Advanced Lead-Acid Battery Consortium" They are trying to keep lead acid batteries on the market. Forget that they are horrible for the environment when not disposed of properly. Read the claims "50 per cent more power " is that peak on demand power or just instantaneous current output. 70 percent cheaper then what? A123 Lithium Ion which have only recently started being mass produced. The truth is the more I searched the less information I found. If this is such a break through a little technical data would be nice. I suspect all they did was take a lead acid battery and add a capacitor to the out put. (which would cause all of the claims they made to become true) It would not help EV vehicles only Hybrids (which I really hope are just a stop gap till we get full EV's)
Until someone can make an all electric car that will let me make the drive I had to do last weekend (St. Louis, MO to Kansas, KS to St. Louis, MO = 536 miles in less then 8 hours) then there is a need for hybrids.
The current plugin cars have about a 200 mile range, and then they need to charge for 3 or more hours. Where does one charge their car for three hours?
And while a plugin might work in the burbs where you have your own garage, can you see a plugin car parked on the streets of any major city? Extension cords coming out of the windows of 10th floor apartments. Neighbors 'borrowing' your extension cord while it is still pluged in to your outlet to charge thier car up. Thieves cutting the cords to sell the copper (Have you seen the price of copper lately?).
We gotta start somewhere and at some time. This looks promising to me.