Toshiba dramatically increases energy density of Li-ion battery
By Darren Murph 
posted Apr 15th 2009 10:12AM
posted Apr 15th 2009 10:12AM
The last time we heard of lithium titanate battery technology was when learning about the £120,000 Lightning GT, and while we've no way to confirm, we're definitely hoping that the latest development from Toshiba ensures that we're talking about it far more frequently than once per year. According to a report over at Nikkei's Tech-On, said outfit has crafted a cell of a Li-ion secondary battery (aimed at electric vehicles, mainly) that sports an energy density as high as 100Wh/kg. Needless to say, the invention relies on lithium titanate for its negative electrode, and considering that Tosh is currently producing a 4.2Ah cell with an energy density of around 67Wh/kg for electric bicycles, it's easy to see what kind of improvement we're staring at. Now, if only this stuff could be applied to AA cells, our power-gulping camera flash would be forever grateful...
as high as 100Wh/kg
compared to what? I'm too lazy for research. Also, commercial viability? Is this near production for EVs or just a proof of concept?
Here boy http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/04/15/scib-update-toshiba-develops-worlds-most-powerful-li-ion-battery-for-cars/
This looks like the Holy Grail of batteries
Gasoline has an energy density of about 45 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg).
good start ... lets improve !!!
... Maybe if you converted that so it can be compared with the given statistic i would +1 you.
I would still take a Tesla Model S over a Camaro right now. No need for me to wait until the energy density improves.
67 watt-hours is 0.2412 megajoules
I assume dividing both sides by kg doesn't matter.
Titanate?
Considering that titanium is very very expensive to produce, I doubt that's an ecologically friendly solution all are seeking.
Ummm, titanate means that there's oxygen bonded to it...as in Titanium Oxide (or something similar) - a very abundant compound on earth. Where do you get that they are first converting it to pure Titanium (just to later combine it with lithium and oxygen)? You might want to revisit your highschool chemistry text before becoming irrationally outraged.
You have a point. Wikipedia mentions that titanates can be made using plain titanium dioxide.
P.S. Unfortunately My high school chemistry course wasn't concentrating much on transition metals - we only scratched few of them.
this technology seems much more promising:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227035.400-batteries-grown-from-armourplated-viruses.html
I read NS thinking "The future will be awesome" and getting disappointed.
Diesel has an energy density of around 11600Wh/Kg
(http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/TatyanaNektalova.shtml)
Quite a way to go guys!
Can you recharge Diesel?
gasoline;
12700 Wh/Kg
Can you recharge Gasoline?
Can you recharge coal used to produce the electricity used to charge the batteries?
"can you recharge diesel"
Yup. And gasoline.
It's called a "Filling Station"!
Or don't you have those out your way?
Re-filling a tank is just the same as re-charging a battery of cells. You still require an energy source to have something to transfer to your storage media (cells/fuel tank).
How you obtain that *energy* and how efficiently you use it is a whole different argument.
As you can see from the figures, even if you can achieve 100WH/kg from a cell, that's still 116/127 times LESS than the equivalent diesel/gasoline.
When cells get to around 5-10KWh/Kg, then you might be in business.
Going to have to keep working on it though.
> "can you recharge diesel"
> Yup. And gasoline.
I guess you already switched to bio-fuel. Because last time I heard, fossil fuels were ... fossil, not a renewable resource.
But something tells me that you are simply trolling.
It would help if you READ my point.
This is about storage.
Or are you literally too much of a Dummy to comprehend the difference.
It's hard to compare gasoline's power density to a battery's. First, in an EV, you lose a lot of weight due to not having an ICE, but gain weight in the batteries. You carry hundreds of pounds of batteries versus maybe 50-80 lbs of gas for a similarly sized car. Also, the efficiency of an ICE to actually extract that power from the gasoline is not very high.
@ Oli D and Dummy
TINSTAAFL: There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Electricity does not magically come out of outlets. It is generated using FOSSIL FUELS and is then transported to the location of choice after losing 30% of it's energy on the way due to the grid system being old technology.
Electricity actually produces more emissions than combustion (especially diesel).
Furthermore, in the late 90s when Diesel was still awesome, cars were putting out more emissions off the tires than out of the exhaust pipe. Research more before jumping on the "green" wagon. This is why politics suck and bureaucrats are going to destroy the country.
Gasoline is about 12,000 to 13,000 depending on the quality and blend, but only about 10% to 15%, is actually usable energy in an ICE.
The effective density of gasoline is about 1,200 to 1,800 per kg, because 85% to 90% is waste heat.
Lithium batteries can be charged with 99%+ efficiency ( http://batteryuniversity.com/partone-12.htm) , and electric motor systems are over 90% efficient, so if the battery is 100Wh/kg you will effective have 90WH/kg of usable energy, with the other 10% or so as waste heat.
The point is that the effective energy density of gasoline is 12 to 18 times that of this battery, not 116+ times. Still, as you say, a ways to go, but not as far as your post indicates.
Brian, lots of bad info in your post
"Electricity does not magically come out of outlets. It is generated using FOSSIL FUELS"
Not all electricity is generated this way. A significant portion is from nuclear (20%+/-). We do need more of that though
"and is then transported to the location of choice after losing 30% of it's energy on the way due to the grid system being old technology."
No. more like 7%. http://climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-3-2.pdf
"Electricity actually produces more emissions than combustion (especially diesel)."
Not possible. The only rational way it to calculate the efficiencies involved. Electricity from fossil fuels is about 39% efficient. Motive energy from an ICE is approx 10% to 15%. Therefore, per usable energy unit produced, bulk electricity produces 3 to 4 time less pollution that burning fuel in an ICE. And again, the 20% that comes from nuclear creates no air pollution.
Craig, your my hero.
Okay we'll check the math. I am not certain that 20% of nuclear is being used in the US, although I really wish that most of it would be (assuming we figure out a way to safely get rid of the nuclear rods after we are done). I'll just consider that all electricity is from fossil fuels (which is not the case). I acknowledge that per unit of power, electricity is cleaner. The problem is to get that unit of power, there are fossil fuels consumed.
39% Efficiency of conversion to electricity. So for that one unit of power, you have consumed 2.6 units of fossil fuels. That's at conversion. After your figure of 7% loss (93% efficiency) in transport, you are left with one unit of outlet power taking 2.76 units of fossil fuels. That's 2.21 units of fossil fuels using your 20% nuclear power figure.
As per your transmission claim of 7%, here is the study by Federal Regulation and Oversight of Energy
http://www.ferc.gov/eventcalendar/files/20070216090203-2-14-07mediab.pdf
According to their figures which are even bleaker than mine, 100units of fossil fuel only gives 20 units of power at the outlet. 20% efficiency......
Grid loss has been on the rise since 1970s and is IMHO the biggest source of emission in existence, but is not ignored because it's not what spurs the media.
I miss the days of the 1986 VW Rabbit Diesel getting 48MPG right off the shelf.....
I was trying to figure out why the 7% was so low. The 7% figure was from 1995.... The loss is significantly affected by the load on the system. One of the other gov't studies showed about 10%+/- in 2001. However once everyone gets an electric car, the grid will fail due to being overtaxed and the electric companies will have to renovate the system, which would cause that loss to drop significantly.
The PDF you supplies shows 10% loss. My source shows 7% so we'll go with 10%. That still means that 30 units end up at the terminal (car battery), where as with gasoline only 10 to 15 units ends up on the pavement moving the car.
I have no idea where they get that 10% loss due to bad grounding in a house. If that were the case my meter would be spinning pretty fast when the power is off in my house, and it doesn't, and anyway, "bad grounding" if it exists would be easy to detect, and easy to fix. Until I see something that backs that up I'm not buying it - a quick Google search wasn't helpful.
So...
In an electric car, 10% of the 30 units is lost as waste heat, so, in an electric car 27 of the original 100 units ends up on the pavement whereas in a traditional ICE 10 to 15 units of the original 100 end up on the pavement.
even if we assume that all electricity comes from fossil fuels, you have to burn about half the amount to move an electric car as you do an ICE car.
The reality is, that unless someone figures out how to generate electricity without going through the whole "create a lot of heat to expand a gas to generate pressure to drive a turbine" cycle, the maximum efficiencies will be about 50% at the point of generation, regardless of the fuel used. And there will always be loss in delivery, but even if the grid is rebuild, and is perfect, unless it uses super conductors I can't see how the loss will ever be less than 4% or 5%.
The pdf did quote 10% loss in transfer, but a total of 80% loss overall from start to finish. More fine-tuned data studies will have to come out without the politics (as if that's possible) to show if the 20% of the original fossil fuel in transfer actually matches the efficiency of the ICE which I suspect over the last two or three years is much greater than 10-15%. What I don't understand is why small diesel cars were able to get 48mpg in the 80s and early 90s yet were termed inefficient. That means regardless of what is being burned off, they were producing more yield. I miss that car..... stupid driver falling asleep.....
I appreciate you actually debating and not trolling like other folks around here *looks over shoulder*
I always thought it was TANSTAAFL. At least thats what I remember from all my old Heinlein books.
I don't have many options when it comes to filling my gas car - I generally use gasoline.
My electric bike, however, is content getting its Volts from any source, be it dinofuel or a solar panel (my city is >90% solar).
Point is, electric vehicles allow greater options for 'fueling' and allow one to choose to keep money within the country. Generate locally, use locally if possible - it's much more efficient.
Last rant: an EV allows the grid to pull energy from its battery with the right technology. This is a huge advantage as it can make the mostly-parked EVs of the future into little power stations, which actually helps the grid - meaning less big power stations need to be built.
Wikipedia says that normal Lithium-ion batteries have energy densities between 100-160 Wh/kg so Toshiba's 100 Wh/kg doesn't actually have increased energy density over Lithium-ion.
I think the point is that this is a dramatic increase in energy density for lithium titanate batteries. Altair Nanotechnologies is the company most known for these batteries. Their properties are orders of magnitude superior to standard Li-Ion batteries (basically they are ultracapicitors in terms of their ability to charge and discharge--in other words, they can be charged about as fast as you can pump in the energy). However, they have two significant downsides. First is cost, which I'm not sure this is going to address. The second is energy density, which is about half that of standard Li-Ion. Low energy density makes them impractical for automobiles because the weight required to produce comparable range/performance. However, this is a significant stride forward. If cost can be brought down to an acceptable level, then all that is left is to improve the charging infrastructure so that 5-10 minute charges can actually become a reality. Then EV's might actually become a viable alternative even for extra-urban travel.
Perhaps these things will power the next generation of amazing electric vehicles...?
From wikipedia:
"It is claimed the prototype battery has three times the power output of existing batteries and can be fully charged in six minutes. However the energy capacity is about half that of normal li-ion cells. The company also says the battery cells have now achieved a life of over 9,000 charge cycles and they still retain up to 85% charge capacity, so durability and battery life are much longer, estimated to be around 20 years or four times longer than regular lithium-ion batteries. The batteries can operate from -50 °C to over 75 °C and will not explode or result in thermal runaway even under severe conditions because they do not contain graphite-coated-metal anode electrode material"
So it seems the improvement isn't energy density at all like the write up implies.
Wikipedia cites don't count. Just to prove a point, I think I'll go and edit that entry to say that these batteries were used by the dinosaurs to power their interstellar exploration vehicles.
There. Done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery
Deuche,
they .... were
Deuche, you clearly have no idea that references are recommended for all statements on Wikipedia, and if they're not provided the statememnt will (usually) be deleted
Deuche's edit is 3 edits old by now and shows the power of wikipedia to self-correct.
Sure its not perfect, but its pretty darn good.
New Scientist cites don't count, unless you want to start a flame-fest about global warming. They are the National Enquirer of science, and I so love them for the damage they do to our collective knowledge.
well here's the original, from science, a slightly more reputable source
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1171541v1.pdf?ijkey=mbNriYxbyhI06&keytype=ref&siteid=sci
Stupid comment system with its stupid not working when I want it to.
Thank goodness, someone has already undone my edit. I think I actually felt the fabric of the universe unravelling due to the fact that something on Wikipedia was purposely wrong.
Now if we can just get that damned evolution page to stop changing every 6 seconds, we'll be in good shape.
"it's easy to see what kind of improvement we're staring at" ... or easy to be mislead into thinking you're seeing something impressive. While these batteries are better than the ones they're putting in bikes, I can currently place my hands on batteries that we bought two years ago that have an energy density of about 93Wh/kg, including the high impact resistant casing (their figures are probably for bare cells). We're using them in... you guessed it, our electric car!
But can you charge your battery in 6 min?
Nope, but neither can the batteries in this article. They simply seem to be moving on from lithium cobalt tech, which is rather old now.
The point I am making is that the property that they are getting excited about is actually rather unremarkable.
On a side note, to charge even a moderate sized pack for a vehicle in six minutes requires incredible power capacity. For example, a moderate size pack may be 13kWh. At 110V, that would require about 1200A to be supplied.
Am I the only one who think that comparing gasoline energy density with batery density is stupid? Even if it would be 100 times more dense with gasolite, using combustion it mean that i convert it to toxic in the car and emite it in the place of car - cities etc. If it would be 100 times more, then after 100 litres of gasoline (just about 1500 km - two weeks medium usage), you would burn more weight, then the batery weight.
Yes, there is some propulsion on the power plant, but
a) they got far better cleaning mechanism
b) they are far from dense areas
c) it is another problem that some stupid people are against nuclear power with zero propulsion
and you are completely forgoting the recuperation - if you could have effective recuperation (getting energy back when breaking), you can use that 1kg of weight many times, depending on this efectivity. So e.g. if you could get 50 % of the energy back (not a big problem in cities with lot of breaking/accelerating), the efective density of battery doubles.
No, if you could get 50% of the energy back, the effective density of the batteries could be increased by as much as ... 50%.
I really didn't bother paying attention to much of that he said because I couldn't read it.....
Actually, Darren, he is correct there. You are too. But you are talking about different things. If you can reclaim 50% of the energy that was spent by the battery (in any application), you, in fact effectively double your energy density. Here is why:
When calculating this it turns into a sum of a power series (hope the formatting turns out correctly)
infinity
E (efficiency)^n
n=0
in layman's terms... think of someone traveling a football field one day, and every successive day they travel 50% of the distance of the current day.... so in this example... Day 1, 100 yards. Day 2, 50 yards. Day 3, 25 yards.......12.5,6.25,3.125.....When you add up all those distanced traveled, at the the end of eternity, he would would have traveled exactly 200 yards.
You are correct that it would gain a 50% increase in energy density after one cycle. That isn't practical though in real life due to we don't "toss away" electricity after we have recycled it once.
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!
Why is an EnerDel battery pictured?