Yes - I´m tired and ment environmentally; but to be of real interest it must be economically sound too.
Electric cars are a pipe dream
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
Interesting, but they need to be powerful too for passing a car (that not same and high energy density) How much does one weigh that can put out 100 HP for 10 seconds?
I´m worried that sucking in that much air thru some membrain etc. is hard to do (if battery is not huge), compared to liquid reactants already in the battery. If that is a probelm, perhaps a "super capacitor" could solve the probelm but add that to cost and weight.
KitemanSA
Registered Senior Member
The opening paragraph of this subtopic was:
The lithium battery provides the power, the AlAir provides the energy.
That is a clever idea. In part because the LI-ion battery is more expensive per wh storied. I would think the Li-ion battery could be 10 times smaller than the Volt´s battery. Perhaps the entire "motor and drive system" cheaper than the ones used in IC cars!
I hope the SO2 etc in the air does not cause too short a life or to high a replacement cost for the AlAir battery. For use in car, where weight is important, the choice of aluminum as the metal seems best. *Also as Al is made with electric energy from Al2O3, I think, perhaps the spent battery is never recharged - just treat it as more Al2O3 "ore." Norway & Brazil,** with cheap hydro-electic power and large Al production already, may some day power the world´s cars.
*Probably cheapest too. Ironically once Al was much more expensive than gold. - Why the top of the Washington Monument in DC has tiny 10cm alumium pyramid as the very top and now al cans of coke or beer are thrown in the trash!
** Just a strange note: My first wife was Norwegian, second, current, and final one is Brazilian.
Lithium ion battery can do up to 340 W/kg so a 295 kg battery could put out max 100 KW (131 hp), and would be able to put out that much power near instantaneously (no revving up) for up to 46.8 minutes (265 wh/kg). The best Metal-air I can find today, the "Electric Fuel Battery Corp. UUV 120Ah Zinc–air fuel cell" can do up to 500 W/kg. So a 200 kg battery should be able to do 100 kW, and an Aluminium-Air should be able to be engineered to do even more what with 3 electrons per Al atom instead of 2 per Zinc and a higher voltage. Consider though for a moment Tesla Model S has only a 85 Kw motor yet can go from zero to 60 in 4.4 seconds, a Honda Civic goes from 0-60 in 8.8 seconds using a 140 Hp (106 Kw) engine and you can see the torque advantages of an electric motor verse and internal combustion engine of the same power output, and thus the power output of the battery does not need to be as high as an ICE.
Hydrogen fuel cells have gotten beyond 1000 W/kg, I would think a metal air flow cell should be able to do roughly the same.
Thanks electric for the infro. Here is some more on the only promissing Al-Air battery:
Note that the aluminium ends up as Al(OH)3 not Al2O3 - huge importance! That means the spent battery can just be thrown into the Hall process vats producing aluminum from baxite (Ore made mainly of Al2O3. Having pure Al2O3 from spent batteries would be better, I think).
One needs to completely re-think what aluminum is: It is now a means to store and transport electric energy. If the Phinergy process were known back when or before Edison was making DC power stations every few blocks in cities and later after Tesla made long distance transmission AC lines. there might not now be tall towers with wires between them to distribute electrical energy. This capital invested has no othe use. Train loads of aluminin plates might cross the country instead and their tracks would have many other uses, as they do today. These same trains returning to the Al production plant would of course haul the Al2O3 (spent battery plates or dust) back to closed loop Al-electirc system
Again: Now aluminum is form of practical (I think) of badly needed energy storage and also of energy transport. Also if all cars and othe users of electic energy were part of this new Al-electric system base load nuclear power would be higher percentage of the power generation system, making your electic bill slightly lower. We might even return to the old Edison system - many small DC power plants insted of huge ones but modern efficient solid state devices make the energy in 60Hz (or 50Hz if that what your area uses) for final distribution. I.e. no need (or expense) for huge very high voltage transformer now used at distant power plants to feed high voltage into expensive transmission lines.
Any information on the over all charge /discharge percent of energy loss per cycle in this Al-electric system? Cost-wise, with recharge at hydoelectic site or nuclear power plant and cheap rail energy transmission, my first impression is it is an economic winner.
Here is the standard chemistry of Al-Air batteries:
The anode oxidation half-reaction is Al + 3OH− → Al(OH)3 + 3e− −2.31 V.[citation needed]
The cathode reduction half-reaction is O2 + 2H2O + 4e− → 4OH− +0.40 V.
The total reaction is 4Al + 3O2 + 6H2O → 4Al(OH)3 + 2.71 V.
Note the Al(OH)3 forms a gel on one of the elecrtodes and quickly reduces the possible current density (power level) possilble -
that is another reason, not mentioned above why standard Al-Air batteries are not practical.
they have solved the two main problems of standard Al-Air batteries (but for obvious reasons not telling to much about how)http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/151801-aluminium-air-battery-can-power-electric-vehicles-for-1000-miles-will-come-to-production-cars-in-2017 said:Phinergy’s Al-air battery is novel for two reasons: First, the company seems to have found a way of preventing carbon dioxide causing corrosion damage to the aluminium. Second, the battery actually consumes the aluminium as a fuel, slowly turning the aluminium into aluminium oxide. Phinergy’s prototype Al-air battery has 50 aluminium plates, with each plate providing enough fuel for 20 miles. After 1,000 miles, the plates must be mechanically recharged — a euphemistic way of saying that the plates must be physically switched out. The Al-air battery must also be refilled with water every 200 miles, to replenish the electrolyte.
Depending on your point of view, mechanical recharging is both awesome and awful. On the one hand, you can give your car another 1,000 miles of range just by slotting in a new battery; on the other hand, buying a new battery every 1,000 miles sounds like very poor overall economy. Ultimately, it will probably come down to the price of the battery. At today’s market rate, a kilo of aluminium costs $2, and one pack of 50 plates weighs 25kg — so, ignoring labor costs, it would cost $50 to refill your Al-air battery. $50 to travel 1,000 miles is really rather good — at $4 per gallon of gas, that’s an equivalent of around 90 mpg. The aluminium oxide can be recycled back into aluminium, too, though it isn’t a particularly cheap or easy process.
For now, though, it seems like Phinergy is using its Al-air battery as a range extender, with a standard lithium battery as the primary energy source. In the video below, a Citroen C1 has been outfitted with a small lithium-ion battery that can power the car for a few dozen milesAn Al-air battery in the trunk that acts a range extender, feeding power to the Li-ion battery. Phinergy tells Green Car Reports that it has signed a contract with a global automaker to bring its Al-air battery to production cars in 2017, though it isn’t clear if the batteries will be used as a range extender, or as the primary power source. Presumably, though, the automaker will bundle the car with a monthly supply of aluminium plates, shipped to your doorstep.
Note that the aluminium ends up as Al(OH)3 not Al2O3 - huge importance! That means the spent battery can just be thrown into the Hall process vats producing aluminum from baxite (Ore made mainly of Al2O3. Having pure Al2O3 from spent batteries would be better, I think).
One needs to completely re-think what aluminum is: It is now a means to store and transport electric energy. If the Phinergy process were known back when or before Edison was making DC power stations every few blocks in cities and later after Tesla made long distance transmission AC lines. there might not now be tall towers with wires between them to distribute electrical energy. This capital invested has no othe use. Train loads of aluminin plates might cross the country instead and their tracks would have many other uses, as they do today. These same trains returning to the Al production plant would of course haul the Al2O3 (spent battery plates or dust) back to closed loop Al-electirc system
Again: Now aluminum is form of practical (I think) of badly needed energy storage and also of energy transport. Also if all cars and othe users of electic energy were part of this new Al-electric system base load nuclear power would be higher percentage of the power generation system, making your electic bill slightly lower. We might even return to the old Edison system - many small DC power plants insted of huge ones but modern efficient solid state devices make the energy in 60Hz (or 50Hz if that what your area uses) for final distribution. I.e. no need (or expense) for huge very high voltage transformer now used at distant power plants to feed high voltage into expensive transmission lines.
Any information on the over all charge /discharge percent of energy loss per cycle in this Al-electric system? Cost-wise, with recharge at hydoelectic site or nuclear power plant and cheap rail energy transmission, my first impression is it is an economic winner.
Here is the standard chemistry of Al-Air batteries:
The anode oxidation half-reaction is Al + 3OH− → Al(OH)3 + 3e− −2.31 V.[citation needed]
The cathode reduction half-reaction is O2 + 2H2O + 4e− → 4OH− +0.40 V.
The total reaction is 4Al + 3O2 + 6H2O → 4Al(OH)3 + 2.71 V.
Note the Al(OH)3 forms a gel on one of the elecrtodes and quickly reduces the possible current density (power level) possilble -
that is another reason, not mentioned above why standard Al-Air batteries are not practical.
Last edited by a moderator:
The only problem with aluminum-air batteries is its very poor efficiency, they are talking about charge-discharge cycle efficiency of 10-25% tops! Even Hydrogen fuel cells manage better then that! And lithium ion batteries have cycling efficiencies exceeding 90%. Even Zinc has a cycling efficiency of 50% tops.
I don´t know, but bet that data applies to the old standard type Al-Air battery, with reaction product Al(OH)3 gel quickly coating one of the electrodes. We need to know the charge/dischage cycle efficiency of the new ones with Al2O3 as the product and also consider the spent battery plates (if that is their form still) or dust being tossed into Hall electrolytic vat along with the bauxcite. I.e. these new batteries do, as you noted, deliver a lot of energy per Kg of weight.
High efficiency is nice but it is economics that determines what is practical. - For example, most cost effective solar cells have no more than 12% efficiency even though with two different dielectric layers you can double that. Brazil & Norway, world´s main producers of alumiinum, I think, have zero marginal cost for the fuel (water power) making the electricity for the Hall process.
long thread about Tesla having the first profitable month:
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1bigta/six_months_after_mitt_romney_called_electric_auto/
One response I agree with:
"Let's be very clear about something: A sweet product does not a good company make.
Yeah, they showed GAAP profit for one quarter. So what.
A profit on the income statement is virtually meaningless in determining the sustainability of a company. Their gross margins are weak, they are burning cash, their product still only addresses people who can spend more than $60k on a car (since they've discontinued their smallest battery), they had a NET LOSS of $400 MILLION DOLLARS last year (they only sold $300M worth of actual cars). Oh and it's one of those delightful companies that only exist because the government gives them sweetheart loan deals.
Hating Mitt Romney doesn't mean that he's wrong about Tesla. It's a really high risk investment."
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1bigta/six_months_after_mitt_romney_called_electric_auto/
One response I agree with:
"Let's be very clear about something: A sweet product does not a good company make.
Yeah, they showed GAAP profit for one quarter. So what.
A profit on the income statement is virtually meaningless in determining the sustainability of a company. Their gross margins are weak, they are burning cash, their product still only addresses people who can spend more than $60k on a car (since they've discontinued their smallest battery), they had a NET LOSS of $400 MILLION DOLLARS last year (they only sold $300M worth of actual cars). Oh and it's one of those delightful companies that only exist because the government gives them sweetheart loan deals.
Hating Mitt Romney doesn't mean that he's wrong about Tesla. It's a really high risk investment."
Most investments do have associated risk. Do you have the numbers on all of Obama's clean energy investments? I think Jon Stewart mentioned that the failure rate was far lower than average.
A game changer perhaps?
Microbatteries
Microbatteries
Right. A company like that can subsist on being a fad for a while, but only for a while. The Prius was sold above sticker price when it was new, but after a while it was just another car and had to become profitable on its own. And it was never $60k so Tesla has a long way to go to get a sustainable sales model.
Lower than what average? Average for a tech start-up? If we take that at face value, it is still a failure: these aren't start-ups when the government invests in them, they are supposed to be real, proven companies that just need a boost to get over a hump. The failure rate should be much lower than average for a start-up. Solyndra was 4 years old when it got its loan guarantee and by then was well in the hole and had a business model that couldn't possibly be successful. The "hump" was supposed to be building a new production facility, but once finished, the company still had no shot of turning a profit. The government should have (and may have) known that.
“DOE loan success rate: 98 percent; Bain Capital success rate: 80 percent”
http://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...omneys-debate-numbers-on-renewables-and-loans
It appears that the government is a better capitalist and better at making loans than former Republican nominee for POTUS Romney. Additionally, your notion that the government invests start-ups only to help them over a “hump” is wrong. Government invests in start-ups for several reasons; to create jobs; to build infrastructure; to develop new technologies and new industries. In the case of Solyndra, the loan guarantees were for the construction of a new manufacturing facility. Solyndra may be gone, but that manufacturing facility is still there. And it is being used. So while Solyndra may not be employing people at that facility, someone else is and they and their employees are paying taxes to the state and federal government and will be for many decades to come. In the case of Solynda the federal government has recovered about 20% of its loan guarantees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra
Your notion that Solyndra’s demise was predictable only makes sense if you think the government and Solyndra had a crystal ball that allowed them to accurately predict the dramatic decline in silicon prices which began in 2009 along with the collapse in all commodity prices (e.g., gasoline, aluminum, steel, etc.) and the prolonged nature of that collapse in pricing. Solyndra's many private venture capitalists couldn't make that prediction.
Note chart is giving the capital cost, not the fuel cost. Capital cost is most of your electric bill.
Natural gas turbines have the lowest capital cost - why they are used to met peak demands and are used only with low duty cycles as are less fuel efficient.
US has, now, more NG than it can get to customers, but when more pipelines are completed NG´s price will rise.
Also coal may still be an economic winner as US has a lot of it and Chinese have developed "super-critical steam" coal fired power plants that get nearly 50% more electrical energy from each ton of coal as they operate at much higher presure and temperature, but I assume that is higher capital cost also.
Not shown on this US based chart is the lowest capital cost (and zero fuel cost) generation - i.e. hydro-electric power. (US has little of it, but more than 80% of Brazil´s power comes from water spinning turbines.* Assuming that the new Al-Air battery technology is widely adopted, then places like Brazil and Norway with hydro-electric sources and potential for more, may "recharge" (mechanically) your all electric car a decade or more hence. (Al plates of that Al-air battery can ship energy all over the world with less energy loss than a high voltage power line and ship it much farther too.)
* The concept is much like hot NG exhaust spinning turbines, but the energy density is much (100 times?) greater so turbines cost much less per KW capacity. The cost of dam is amortized over at least 50 years and ususally more than pays for itself in reduced flood damage and stored water supply.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmm. In general those companies get "boosts" from banks. The government generally invests in companies that CANNOT get loans because they are high risk ventures - but potentially have a big payoff for society at large.
Well, again if the company was nearly guaranteed to be successful (i.e. "much lower than average failure rate") they wouldn't need the government. They'd go to a bank who would say "well, you have a good business model, a strong customer base, good technology etc and thus this loan will be a good risk for us." High risk companies do not get loans from banks - thus the need to turn to the government.
For an application like this a li-ion battery would not be ideal. You'd want a higher power, longer life, lower energy solution like LiFePO4 (or even ultracaps.) A 120kg ultracap could provide 100kW for 10 seconds, for example, and then be recharged by an al-air battery.
The Lithium Ion micro batteries are better - a cellphone battery would have the juice to jump start a dead car battery, and then recharge in seconds.
What support can you cite for those two claims? I find it very hard to beleive either.
Common lead acid car batteries will supply, with little terminal voltage drop more than 100 "cranking amps" for several seconds.* I think that is impossible for cell phone battery for even 0.1 seconds (mainly due to polarization effects at the much smaller electrode plate areas). If your car battery is dead and you even disconnect it (so all energy from cell phone battery is used for the "jump start") then I don´t think it will jump start you car and if it does, it will self destruct - not be rechargable.
What is the short circuit current after 0.5 seconds of a cell phone battery, assuming it has not yet exploded.
* I think the one in wife´s 1.4 liter engine car is rated for 240 cranking amps.
Last edited by a moderator: