Long In Development, Toshiba 'SCiB' Battery Debuts 284
Posted
by
kdawson
from the could-be-the-one dept.
from the could-be-the-one dept.
relliker notes Toshiba's announcement of the SCiB, a battery we have been following for years. (As usual, use NoScript to avoid the incredibly annoying timed begging popup on Gizmag's site.) Here is Toshiba's SCiB site. The battery's specs claim 6,000+ charge/deep-discharge cycles with minor capacity loss, safe rapid charging to 90% in 5 minutes, and enhanced safety regarding overheating or shorting out. It could make its way into electric vehicles before long.
SCIB (Score:5, Informative)
SCIB = Super Charge Ion Battery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-titanate_battery [wikipedia.org]
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Informative)
Toyota? Or Toshiba?
Toshiba, as in TFA. The title is just wishful thinking to get this in the Prius.
Seriously, one of the main issues (other than price) keeping people from buying electric or hybrid vehicles is the time it takes to recharge, which doesn't make them a viable option for long (read: hundreds of kilometres in one go) trips.
Toshiba (Score:5, Informative)
My original post's title did not have the company name in it :)
Time for the maths! (Score:5, Informative)
To match the Chevy Volt's 16Kwh You'd need around 160 of these. That's for a tiny 40mile range. These aren't going to be the main power source of a car any time soon
Use for laptops? (Score:3, Informative)
According to Wikipedia, the disadvantage compared to Lithium Ion batteries is that they store less energy in a given space/weight, which is why this tech may not extend to small devices such as laptops.
Re:Question on power output (Score:5, Informative)
You confused power density and energy density. A cap may be 1000-10000 w/kg but that's energy density. It looks like these things are like caps in the sense that they can charge/discharge FAST compared to everything else. How much energy you get from it is a different matter.
A 9V battery is the same energy as several rounds of 9mm pistol shots, but it should be immediately obvious that 9V batteries aren't able to dump that energy as FAST as a 9mm...
Re:Supposed to work well below freezing... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So... (Score:3, Informative)
Less voltage per cell than ordinary lithium-ion, lower capacity than ordinary lithium-ion, and the fact that supplying enough volt-amps to fast-charge a car-sized battery pack remains decidedly non-trivial.
Re:And.... (Score:5, Informative)
The problem isn't the battery technology, it's the fact that laptop batteries are pretty much put through hell. Complete charge-discharge cycles (Tesla doesn't charge the battery above 85% or allow it to go below 10%), and they have no form of cooling (Tesla uses the vehicle's air conditioning system to keep the batteries at a nice temperature).
Do all that, and the battery will last much longer. But that's generally not practical for a laptop. Allowing room for cooling will result in either a bigger battery pack or less capacity, as will limiting the charge band.
Pretty soon, except those without their own garage (Score:2, Informative)
Pretty soon, except those without their own garage.
When you can charge up enough for ~2-3hours driving in ~15 minutes with an hour or so between possible recharges, this will be fine for long distance driving.
If you drive less than 2-3 hours to work (actual moving, so traffic jams don't count) and have your own garage, it's good NOW.
If you don't have your own garage, then unless you drive off specifically to recharge, they still don't work.
Unless there's a way to get your home electric power to the car on the main street without someone jacking in to your tarrif, or most workplaces have a work recharge station, those without garages are going to be in a pickle.
Re:And.... (Score:3, Informative)
AFAIK most of these still use the "traditional" LiCoO2 cathodes. Good energy density but known for degrading even without being used. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Shelf_life [wikipedia.org].
Personally, I would prefer a more long-lifed battery type, even at the expense of having to lug around a bit more wight for the same capacity. LiFePO4 batteries are said to be pretty durable. There is a list of materials at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Cathodes [wikipedia.org].
*notices Li(LiaNixMnyCoz)O2 and starts searching for more information*
Re:Question on power output (Score:5, Informative)
No the 1000-10000 w/kg is power density. Energy density would be W-h / kg. Power density is W/kg. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supercapacitors_chart.svg [wikipedia.org]
Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)
say a car would need 30kw to maintain motorway speed (say 50, for ease of calculation), and ranges 200 miles, that means you need 120 KW/h of stored energy, pack 90% of that in five minutes, and you end up with roughly 1.3 Gigawatt of drain sustained over 5 minutes...
IT'S OVER 1.21 GIGAWAT!! (yeah i know, i got my meme's mixed)
That would be 30 kW (not kw), 120 kWh (not KW/h), 1.3 MW (not GW) ;-)
So no, it's not over 1.21 gigawatt, just a factor 997 lower...
Re:So... (Score:2, Informative)
The spinel structure of LTO has a three dimensional network for lithium-ion conductivity and allows fast charge and discharge. The problem with lithium titanate anodes (Li4Ti5O12, LTO) compared to carbon anodes is the higher potential (0.2 V for carbon, 1.5 V for LTO) leading to lower voltage for the battery and lower energy density.
The upside of the high potential is that LTO is within the stability window of all the usual organic electrolytes used in lithium-ion batteries. This means the electrolyte doesn't decompose on the surface of the anode during use and leads to a much higher cycle life. Toshiba is advertising 6000 cycles for this SCiB battery, a typical lithium-ion battery with the C/LiCoO2 chemistry only lasts 1000 or so. LTO is also safer as there is no danger of metallic lithium dendrites forming on the surface at such high potentials.
The low energy density and voltage mean that LTO is never going to replace carbon in applications such as laptops or mobile phones where energy density is much more important than power density. I would also imagine C/LiFePO4 batteries will be much more successfull in electrical vehicles. LTO is probably well suited for hybrid cars, however, since those require high power density and high cycle life. The cathode in SCiB is still LiCoO2 as I understand it and that might mean safety, environmental and price issues. LiFePO4 cathode would solve those but then the voltage and energy density would be even lower.
Re:SCIB (Score:3, Informative)
Specs from Toshiba's web site:
Nominal Voltage 12V
Nominal Capacity 4.0Ah
Max. Charging Current 8.4A
Max. Discharging Current 8.0A (continuous)
25A (within0.3s)
Size Approx. 145 x 109 x 48mm
Weight Approx. 1.0kg
Features of SCiBTM TBP-0501
Safety The battery with advanced safety due to anode formed with oxide materials.
No bursting, ignition, or fumes.*
*According to crush test performed by Toshiba (http://www.scib.jp/en/product/safety.htm)
Long Life The SCiBTM cell offers more than 6,000 charge-discharge cycles.
It contributes to reduce disposal of waste batteries and to lower environmental impact.
Rapid Charging The pack charges in approximately 30 minutes with standard home outlets.
Flexible Connection Flexible Configurations allow up to 2 parallels 2 series (12V 4Ah, 12V 8Ah, 24V 4Ah and 24V 8Ah)*.
*Refer to the instruction manual for connection configurations.
SCiBTM is supplied to customers as a battery module/pack with a battery management system (BMS) embedded, which has the control and protection circuit.
Re:So... (Score:2, Informative)
You need 1.3MW - the comment above was three orders of magnitude off, the guy, on a techie website, forgot that there's a "mega" between "kilo" and "giga"!
Anyway, your car can trickle charge overnight (although you'd still need an updated power feed), or you can go into a "gas" station to get faster charges. These places aren't going to go away, and they will update their offerings as required.
Re:So... (Score:3, Informative)
Because you can charge in 5 minutes, doesn't mean you have to charge in 5 minutes. The fuel station can have local battery storage that evens out the load on the grid, and the charge time can be upped for a more reasonable charge rate. You can also have trickle chargers in parking spaces that deliver the energy at a much slower rate. A "charge while you shop" or "charge while you dine" sort of deal.
But the biggest benefit of a fast recharge will be recovering energy from regenerative braking. Currently regenerative braking has limits placed on it, because so much energy is created so quickly and then there is no place to put it. The current battery technology can't absorb the charge quickly enough. This technology will help relieve that particular bottleneck.
Re:game changing, if true (Score:3, Informative)
Refuelling your car does not require an enormous infrastructure
Actually, it does; oil rigs, oil wells, refineries, transportation of the fuel, and gasoline stations. It's just that you don't notice the infrastructure because it's been there all along. If you had electric cars you would only need charging stations while travelling, as you could charge it at home.
We've had electric vehicles for decades
Longer. [wikipedia.org]
But electric cars are the SSD's and 3D movies of today
I agree with the SSD, but I really don't think 3D is going to take off. 3D movies have been a recurring fad at least as long as I've been alive; I was a year old when this film [wikipedia.org] came out 57 years ago. Wikipedia doesn't mention its being a 3D movie, but I had a copy on tape and still have the 3D glasses that were a promotional item when it was shown on TV about twenty years ago.
It seems that about every 25-30 years there's a 3D fad, then it quickly dies.
Re:game changing, if true (Score:3, Informative)
While I certainly agree with the rest of your post, thermal electric plants still aren't very efficient.
Well, they are still more efficient than everyone having their own ICE. And to be clear, when I said, "transmission", I mean electrical transmission and distribution, not a mechanical transmission. While transmissions have become much more efficient in recent years, they still impose something like 8%-13% frictional loss. Electric motors, when done right, do not require a mechanical transmission.
So in the end, even with older thermal plants, electric vehicles provide for a more efficient form of locomotion. Which is, in fact, why most trains have long turned toward diesel/electric; sans a transmission. Many ships and subs have also followed, but have done so for these and yet additional corner benefits.
Re:So... (Score:3, Informative)
1. The Tesla Roadster has to go nearly 85mph to consume 30kW to maintain speed. At 50mph, it takes about 12kW. The Roadster is approximately equally efficient as the Leaf and Volt; it has a small cross section but a much higher drag coefficient.
2. A general number used to represent highway consumption for a typical efficient EV is 250Wh/mi. 200 miles range * 250Wh/mi = 50kWh. 90% of 50kWh in 5 minutes is 540kW. Aerovironment makes an 800kW charger [google.com]. Now to be fair, most rapid charging systems don't exceed the lower hundreds of kilowatts, and some of the lower end ones (like Nissan is installing for the Leaf) are in the tens of kilowatts. The rough cutoff point for what is considered "rapid" charging and what is not is around 40kW.
3. Notice how dramatically different of numbers you got, despite your using 120kWh instead of 50kWh? You had a three orders of magnitude math error.
4. To go ahead and pre-empt it: No, you don't want to have everyone drawing hundreds of kilowatts straight from the grid. That would be a big grid destabilization and require massive hookups. The typical approach for such high power charging involves battery buffers, sized to ensure that you can statistically guarantee a given percent availability (99.99% or whatnot). And to pre-empt *that*: No, they're not prohibitively expensive. Neither are the chargers, although you do need (very roughly) the sort of utilization rates found at gas stations to justify their cost (a station of rapid chargers sharing a common buffer costs about the same as a gas station with a similar number of pumps). The chargers have the advantage of less maintenance, no need to take "fuel deliveries", and a dramatically cheaper "fuel". They have the disadvantage of lower throughput and the possibility of lower consumer price acceptance (since they're used to charging for so cheaply at home). You can also only support fewer stations from the same number of vehicles, since most charging is done slowly at home or at work.
5. To preempt something really stupid that gets mentioned every time: no, you don't rapid charge at home. Why would you need to be able to charge in 5 minutes at home? Can do you that with your gas car? Rapid charging is only needed for long trips.
6. Yes, 10 or 15 minute charges (a more realistic target for rapid charging of EVs, and ones that some EVs like the BYD F3DM and the Subaru Stella support) are slower than filling up a gasoline car. But not as much as you might think. The actual filling of the tank only takes about two minutes or so (depends on the pump, but there are legal limits to the maximum flow rate). But there's a lot of overhead to *every* type of fillup -- finding an offramp, slowing down, driving from the turnoff to the station, turning in, pulling up to a pump, turning the car off, unbuckling, getting out your money, getting out, taking off the gas cap, connecting the vehicle, selecting the fuel type, selecting the payment method, starting filling, stopping filling, reattaching the gas cap, hanging up the pump, paying, taking the receipt, getting back in, putting your seatbelt back on, and all of the driving/decel steps in reverse, plus a lot of little random things. I timed it for a while and found that the whole process sets me back an average of about 9 minutes. So going from a 2 minute fill to a 10 minute fill isn't a 5x increase in time; it's only a 2x increase in time. And fillup time consumes the tiniest fraction of your total trip time. If you combine fillups with your normal breaks (food, bathroom, rest, etc), which you're supposed to take every two hours or so anyway, there's no difference in distance you can travel per day with rapid charging versus gasoline.