Toshiba's Fast-Charging Battery Could Triple the Range of Electric Vehicles (newatlas.com) 119
Big Hairy Ian quotes New Atlas: A key focus of electric vehicle (EV) makers is maximizing the range users can get from each charge, and for that reason new battery technologies are poised to play a huge part in driving their adoption. Toshiba has developed a new fast-charging battery it claims could allow EVs to travel three times as far as they do now, and then be fully recharged again in a matter of minutes.
Toshiba's SCiB (Super Charge ion Battery) has been around in various forms since 2007, with its chief claim to fame an ability to charge to 90 percent of capacity in just five minutes. It also boasts a life-span of 10 years and high levels of safety, and has found its way into a number of notable EVs, including Mitsubishi's i MiEV and Honda's Fit EV. The current SCiB uses lithium titanium oxide as its anode, but Toshiba says it has now come up with a better way of doing things. The next-generation SCiB uses a new material for the anode called titanium niobium oxide, which Toshiba was able to arrange into a crystal structure that can store lithium ions more efficiently. So much so, that the energy density has been doubled.
Toshiba calls the battery "a game changing advance that will make a significant difference to the range and performance of EV," and hopes to put it "into practical application" in 2019.
Toshiba's SCiB (Super Charge ion Battery) has been around in various forms since 2007, with its chief claim to fame an ability to charge to 90 percent of capacity in just five minutes. It also boasts a life-span of 10 years and high levels of safety, and has found its way into a number of notable EVs, including Mitsubishi's i MiEV and Honda's Fit EV. The current SCiB uses lithium titanium oxide as its anode, but Toshiba says it has now come up with a better way of doing things. The next-generation SCiB uses a new material for the anode called titanium niobium oxide, which Toshiba was able to arrange into a crystal structure that can store lithium ions more efficiently. So much so, that the energy density has been doubled.
Toshiba calls the battery "a game changing advance that will make a significant difference to the range and performance of EV," and hopes to put it "into practical application" in 2019.
Will be nice when the patents run out (Score:4, Insightful)
We need either a patent unencumbered replacement for Lion which is far better, or multiple technologies which are far better. One technology which is far better will help fuck all for the next 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basic research is something the government used to do. Then multiple companies would compete to monetize the discoveries.
Re: (Score:1)
Note: Spying on people in not considered basic research!
In the USA, Colleges and other places were and likely still are often funded by the government to do research.
Basic research is something the government used to do. Then multiple companies would compete to monetize the discoveries.
Re: (Score:1)
The amount of basic research the government does is way down and companies as well as universities have figured out ways to get a lock on the results of the research even tho the government funded it and it should be public domain.
Re: (Score:3)
Way to swap units there.
Nothing says political motivated manipulation like swapped units.
Re: (Score:3)
If you only care about range, then my 6-cylinder 2007 RAV4 has an estimated 300 miles average range, and the beefiest Tesla Model X has a 289 mile average range, so we're already roughly at parity as far as I'm concerned.
BTW, the efficiency numbers for gasoline engines get even worse when you factor in the supply chain. For every gallon of gasoline refined, it takes about 6 kWh [gatewayev.org] of power to refine, plus a lot of fossil fuel pow [greentransportation.info]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get the fanatics on either side, plugin hybrids make the most sense. Two engines, two fuels...switch between them as you need. Some current plugin hybrids have 600-700 mile ranges today. 99% of daily commutes can be handled on the electric engine, and gas engine only needs to be filled up 2-3 times/year for long trips on the freeway or when high speed is required. What is the benefit of a pure gas or pure ev vehicle over a plugin hybrid with smart autoswitching as needed between the engines? I
Re: (Score:2)
Hybrids just never really made sense to me, plug-in hybrids included. They seem like they're the worst of both worlds. They don't have the battery range for your average driver to not use fuel, so you still have the inconvenience of having to periodically stop for fuel, just less often. And you have all the complexity of an ICE, complete with all the emissions control hardware that greatly increases the failure rate, plus all the complexity of an EV on top of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on your definition of sufficient battery range for an average driver. I've gone the last 6 weeks with my plugin hybrid and only used around 1-2 gallons of gas -- the rest of my energy consumption has been pure electric. I'm probably only going to have to fill up gas 3-4 times/year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you lose in convenience on long trips, you more than make up for in convenience during the week. You can plug in a Tesla when you get home and never have to stop to fill up at all except when driving long distances.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you care about subsidy? There are subsidy in nearly all the food that you eat, power for your home, and nearly every industry has some way to get extra funding.
Re: (Score:1)
they cost me money. why should I pay for some californian's solar roof?
.
Re: (Score:2)
absolutely false assertion, what California is doing makes no difference to level of pollution in the world. for that matter solar is less than 2% of U.S. electricity production. My state's nuclear plants have bigger impact on reducing carbon emissions
Re: (Score:2)
would be a foolish thing to do *now*, as electric grid couldn't support it. in 5-7 years, nation as a whole should beef up the grid and do it. solar collection high sunlight areas, with ultra high voltage D.C. lines to distribute and the new battery tech to store
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you care about subsidy?
Because existing subsidies for EVs are limited and could never be sustainable, and it helps to be specific so there is no confusion. Ignoring subsidies when discussing future price points would be, well, ignorant.
Re: (Score:3)
Once again, false choices here.....we don't need pure ev versus pure gas fanatics. Plugin hybrid gives the advantages of both with little, if any, drawbacks. Purchased mine a few months ago for $32K, it handles 99% of my commutes on pure electric, and yet has 600-700 mile range for travel. Goes whatever speed I want it to. When I'm in a rush, I can fill it up w/ 5 minutes of gas -- when I'm at home, it charges overnight in around 2.5hrs. Using both engines, my MPG average to date is around 75. When on
Range and Price Barriers (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need that, it'd just be killer. Something on the order of 200-300 miles would be adequate at a 30K or so price point for a small sedan. 10 year battery life makes it pretty close to adequate for lifespan. Adequate is of course, not ideal. Ideal would be closer to what you stated.
Re: (Score:2)
If we could achieve say a 65% efficiency and build a car body out of PV cells, there would be a rather significant number of owner/users who would never nee
Cross Country Drive (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, go ahead and buy it today. What you are looking for is a plugin hybrid. Many of this years models have a range of 600-700 miles, have sufficient seating and cargo room to act as family vehicles and have two engines/two fuel sources with a computer that automatically switches between the two. The electric engine/battery is big enough to handle 99% of daily commutes. You can easily find combined horsepower of 200+. Full safety and convenience features. Unless you take long trips, you only need to
Re: (Score:1)
I also like the idea of plug-in hybrids, but what worries me is battery durability. Many drivers will be completely draining the battery each day, those that charge at work even twice a day. If a Tesla battery survives 1000 full cycles, that is some hundreds of thousands of miles, so essentially the lifespan of the vehicle. Draining a plug-in hybrid battery each day, 1000 cycles is less than 3 years.
Charging is a serious issue. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An electric car is 3-4 times as efficient as an ICE car. 1MW for 5 minutes is almost 85kWh, the total battery capacity of a Tesla S85D with a 270 mile range.
Charging at 1MW seems improbable in the near term. 350kW is planned. That would charge a 100kWh battery to 80% in about 15 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Home charging is typically done overnight. Fast charge at home isn't really a requirement.
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting point...
Overall you would need to charge about 333 (say 360 to make the math easy) cars per day or an average of 15 cars per hour worth of power.
(http://www.strategycaseinterviews.com/blog/gas-in-the-us-oliver-wyman)
It costs about $2.64 to charge one electric car from empty to full or about 22 kilowatt hours.
That's a daily electric bill of about $950 (so say $960 or $40 per hour) for the station.
That's about 6 houses during the summer in my area (or 20 houses during the winter).
The lowest possib
Re: (Score:2)
"That's a daily electric bill of about $950 (so say $960 or $40 per hour) for the station.
That's about 6 houses during the summer in my area (or 20 houses during the winter)."
Houses in your neighborhood have electricity bills of $160 per day? Live near Al Gore do you?
Re: (Score:1)
Ah.. you have a point. And I tried to be so careful in my math. So it's about 180 houses worth of electricity per month.
Misleading article yet again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still skeptical (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Years of new battery announcements and still no new batteries. Still skeptical.
Batteries have been improving year on year.
Niobium - another rare earth (Score:3)
I googled niobium rarity and...
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
Due to its relevance in aerospace and defense, Niobium is considered a “strategic metal” by the U.S. government, meaning there are few or no substitutes for the metal’s essential use. Furthermore, of all strategic metals, Niobium is regarded as one of the most highly critical. But its supplies are considered potentially at risk. This is because only a few sources throughout the world produce the metal. Almost 90% of the world supply comes from Brazil. Nearly all of that comes from only one mine. Most of the rest comes from the Canadian Niobec Mine, owned by IAMGOLD (NYSE: IAG).
Niobium - not another rare earth (Score:2)
All true, but no matter how rare it is niobium is not classified as a rare earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for catching that! I misread the article on that point.
Doubled or tripled? (Score:2)
I may not be an electric rocket surgeon but last time I checked, "three times" d
Re: (Score:2)
Power Source? (Score:2)
I like being able to charge that rapidly. However it does not seem to be practical for widespread installations. The numbers just don't add up.
A cheap (Leaf, eGolf) EV has about 20-30KW battery (giving 80-130 miles range).
The current widespread commercial chargers are generally 6KW (the kind you find at parking lots, offices, etc). They will charge the car in about 4 hours from a depleted state. (The home chargers are 3KW or even 1KW but let's ignore them for the moment). To get 6KW, the charger supplies 20
Re: (Score:1)
I've seen a fast charger which had a water cooled plug is production ready.
Question? Why don't they charge in parallel?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, I might be slightly off with voltage numbers.
However the scale is 10 times of what's possible with the current power delivery systems. In order to charge a 85KWh battery (Tesla) under 5 minutes we need a 1,020 KW charger. Until we find something better than copper for cables (maybe superconductors?) that's some huge ass cables (hgh amp), or huge ass components (high voltage) in the car.
Also there is the issue of heat dissipation. All "cooling" systems essentially take heat from one place and dump it
Re: (Score:2)
Btw to be be concrete, this is the size of the transformer you need to put "inside" the car, if you want to use current cable thickness:
http://www.transformerscn.com/... [transformerscn.com]
(400KVA, 11kV, 100A)
Or you can use the current car electrics, and have a 1,000A cable, which would have 20in (50cm) thickness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm.. I think you're right, I might be looking at the wrong table. Still with 3 wire connector, and insulation, it will still be very thick.
Re: (Score:2)
Most dedicated home chargers are 6-7kW. They are on a dedicated 30A/220V circuit. Or you can use a dryer outlet, which, as you point out, is also 30A/220V.
Re: (Score:2)
Your math is wrong. Those 19.2kW chargers take 80A and require a 100A breaker. You haven't allowed for installation costs, which could be quite su
Re: (Score:2)
Please correct me if I am wrong, but, in the USA, a 220v circuit requires a double-pole breaker, each of which is connected between one half of the 220V and neutral.
In other words, two breakers, each one between one half of the split phase 220v and neutral. Since each of the split-phases is the same as a 110V circuit, you effectively have 2 x 110V x 100A.
Correct?
As for your comments about existing breaker box installations, that probably depends largely on the age of the house.
Re: (Score:2)
To get 5 minutes charging we would need to jump to 1,200A @ 408V, or 100A @ 4080V. The first choice is not practical. (At 1m this requires a cable width of 50cm! / 20in).
You're way off with thise numbers.
Copper has a resistivity of 1.68e-8. Assuming a 5 meter cable and a 0.02x0.02 section (for one conductor), i.e. 2cm by 2cm, and 1000A current, the dissipated power in the cable is:
5 / (0.02*0.02) * 1.68e-8 * 1000^2
which is 210W. Drop that to 1cm by 1cm and you have 810W, which is high in an absolute
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they are storing lithium ions in titanium niobium oxide, then that implies to me that they need the whole anode to have niobium, not just the surface. The surface might work for charge rate but not for energy storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Both weight and volume are important, but if I had to chose one I'd say volume is more important for cars.
A123 (Score:2)
Admittedly I know practically zero about batteries. But I've used A123 batteries in my RC aircraft and they performed really well while having fairly short recharge times while doing that task safely (as opposed to LiPo batteries where you need a fire resistant bag for charging).
How would this Toshiba tech compare to an A123 battery?
Wanna bet? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
But this one really is original: they figured out how to triple range by only doubling the energy density! Think of the possibilities!
Re:This script is still running? (Score:5, Informative)
This is almost head-smackingly bad.
LTO (like Toshiba's SCiB) has only recharge speed and durability going for it. Everything else about it is terrible, including energy density (vastly inferior to other li-ion chemistries - their best ones are something like 100Wh/kg), and the most important aspect, price. LTO is extremely expensive ($1000/kWh at present; most EVs use batteries in the ballpark of ~$150/kWh).
So now Toshiba has announced that their next generation is going to include.... niobium? A metal that costs about $200 per kilogram?
I guess that they better get this one out on the market before the come out with their next battery based on cesium, holmium and platinum ;)
Re: (Score:1)
"A metal that costs about $200 per kilogram?"
Well that's far better than a fucking platinum anode for lithium deposition. Guess how much platinum costs for a mere 28 grams?
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Platinum anodes for Lithium battery chemistries have been a thing for quite a while, and the price of platinum is pretty high up there (though gold has overtaken it) at a spot price of almost ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER *OUNCE* instead of per Kilogram.
So using niobium and titanium is a far better, cheaper, and apparently equally-performing alternative.
Are you even paying attention to the conversation?
Re: (Score:2)
No commercial li-ions use platinum electrodes that I am aware of. My reference to cesium, holmium and platinum batteries was a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Loads of commercial Li-ions use platinum anodes. That's one of the big recycling recovery points next to hard drive platter surfaces (which have a thin layer of platinum vapor-deposited on the surface.) We use it for.... stopping the whiskering that happens and kills batteries, since platinum is quite noble and doesn't whisker like nickel-zinc or other various chemistries.
If you thought that little 1S li-ion battery in your quadcopter is capable of 20C power draw without that highly-conductive anode, you're
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you getting this? Li-ions use carbon (graphite, amorphous) and sometimes silicon anodes.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about the current collector maybe? They use copper for that. Better conductivity than platinum, no need for platinum's abnormally good corrosion resistance (sealed cells), and far cheaper.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess that they better get this one out on the market before the come out with their next battery based on cesium, holmium and platinum ;)
No,. the next battery is going to use unobtainium.
Re: (Score:2)
This is almost head-smackingly bad.
LTO (like Toshiba's SCiB) has only recharge speed and durability going for it. Everything else about it is terrible, including energy density (vastly inferior to other li-ion chemistries - their best ones are something like 100Wh/kg), and the most important aspect, price. LTO is extremely expensive ($1000/kWh at present; most EVs use batteries in the ballpark of ~$150/kWh).
So now Toshiba has announced that their next generation is going to include.... niobium? A metal that costs about $200 per kilogram?
I guess that they better get this one out on the market before the come out with their next battery based on cesium, holmium and platinum ;)
R&D experiments lead to technology breakthroughs. Its surprisingly disappointing that this research is not being done in the wealthest country in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
It is most distinctly not. According to their graphs it's not even that. They've "tripled" how far it can go on a 6 minute charge, but only because 6 minutes brings it to a much higher percentage of its max charge state than before; the max charge state, according to their graphs, only looks to be about 40-50% more than current titanates. Which means that they're catching up to the energy density of li-ions in the early 1990s.
And yes, was used in the MiEV and Fit. Which have had tiny battery packs. The r
Re: (Score:3)
Well now there is interest in the area. There hadn't been much research in this area for generations, where we have been having minor incremental improvements. However knowing that products are being pushed to be using more batteries means there is more Research in the area.
The problem with these breakthrough that are getting released, is that it will take a few more years to get it out on the market, and the previous breakthroughs will get to the market earlier, so all we see is a smooth improvement over
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure what the whole rush is to get rid of gas engine cars is about.....sure, most people drive commutes that can be more efficiently handled in plugin hybrid. Why do we need to go full EV? I'm perfectly happy with having both an electric and gas engine in my car, and the electric battery is big enough already to meet 99% of the daily drives I make. On the off chance, I go on a long trip or need power to go fast, I'm happy to have the gas engine kick in. As is, I only need to fill up the gas eng
Re:This script is still running? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Pollution: CO2 and other nasty stuff that automobiles emit. A factor in global warming, general air quality, Spilled fuel gets into our drinking water supply. While there is pollution trade off with EV for the most part they can be better contained and managed vs the wide spread damage gasoline uses.
2. Political Stability: Gasoline isn't a resource we can get anywhere. Some countries have more of it and others do not. We go to war over rights to purchase it, countries setup unstable alliances not based on common values but on the need for this resource.
3. Limited supply: Oil is useful for more than just fuel that we burn, and it is a limited supply by cutting gasoline usage we can assure that other hydrocarbon usages are still available.
4. Energy Independence: We can use mutable sources to generate Electricity, Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric, Nuclear... Some of these sources we could generate on our own property, vs having to be reliant on a large companies to provide this fuel we need at prices they determine as fare.
Are Cars the sole part of our energy problems... No, however it is one of those areas where we a an individual can make a choice to switch. Other areas will need to try to change big businesses, and government. But we can go I will get myself a Chevy Bolt, or a Tesla for my next car.
Re: (Score:2)
5. Less maintenance: Electric drivetrains have about 10% of the moving parts of a gasoline drive train. A hybrid destroys this advantage by having both drive trains plus additional tech to get them to work nicely together making them worse for maintenance than simple internal combustion engine vehicles.
6. More space: Electric drivetrains take up much less room, leaving that extra space for storage if the manufacturer is smart about it. Hybrids use up that extra space with the inter
Re: (Score:2)
Too much of a good thing becomes a polutant.
Dumb ass.
Re: (Score:2)
And, I like the reliability of having two engines and two fuel supplies.
But you're also getting the complexity and maintenance issues of having two engines and two fuel supplies. Imagine never having to replace another muffler, or have another oil change, or buy new spark plugs, or have a squealing timing belt.
Re:This script is still running? (Score:5, Informative)
Battery research has been ongoing at a phenomenal rate of advancement for 16+ years at this point. You appear to have no concept of how rapidly batteries are advancing. When the lead-acid battery was invented more than 100 years ago it became the one and only battery technology up until the 90's. The advancements during that time period were slow and nearly insignificant in comparison to the current breakthroughs with a major advancement about every 20-50 years.
Lithium Ion batteries in turn have advanced so quickly that capacity is growing 20% a year. The same size and weight battery in 2008 now holds more than triple the charge and costs 90% less. Every year there are new advancements that roll into the supply chain a few years later sustaining this continuing innovation. In 2008 Lithium Ion batteries were near on $1000kwh, now prices are $125 and expected to reach $50 by 2020. This is revolutionizing the world, already numerous countries, including China the largest automotive market in the world, have announced that by 2030 they won't allow petrol based vehicles to be sold.
If you told someone in 1990 that the Gas and Diesel automobile would be dead in 40 years and it would be killed by a battery electric car they would have laughed their ass off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't read or comment on new battery posts if you don't like them.
This is a "news for nerds" site.
There is a lot of research going on with new batteries. Some of it may pan out. A better battery will help with better EVs and with power storage.
(Seems a lot more relevant that Google's "outrageous $20 price" for a USB adapter.)