Green Options › Forums › Sustainable Living Discussions › Transportation › A Greatly Improved Lithium Battery for EVs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A Greatly Improved Lithium Battery for EVs

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 

Stanford university researchers have developed a new Lithium battery chemistry that has 10 times the capacity of today’s Lithium batteries.

 

http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v3/n1/full/nnano.2007.411.html

 

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html

 

http://popsci.typepad.com/popsci/2008/01/the-two-day-bat.html

 

 

 

The Stanford battery has PROFOUND CONSEQUENCES that can make EV’s plentiful and affordable:

 

1)      For a given Lithium battery pack sized for a particular application, for example an electric car, the Stanford battery will be 10 times smaller and lighter.

 

2)   Assuming the fabrication costs for the Stanford battery are about the same as

existing chemistries for the same PHYSICAL SIZE, then for a given Amp Hour electrical capacity requirement, the Stanford battery will be 10 times less costly because the battery pack will be 10 times smaller with 10 times less material: VERY IMPORTANT FOR EVs

 

3) For the supposed concern that there is not enough Lithium in the world to be able to build battery packs in the quantity to convert most petroleum cars over to electric cars, the Stanford battery will allow 10 times more EVs to be in service with a given supply of Lithium. NOTE: The assertion that there is a Lithium shortage to prevent mass usage of EV’s has not been proven yet, so it may simply be a ploy by the petroleum interests to mis-educate the public, i.e. a typical lie.

 

4) As a side note, it HAS been proven that a suitable Large Format NiMH battery was suppressed 10 years ago that enabled a full sized EV to provide enough driving range of 100 to 150 highway speed miles to function as a commuter car for most of us: The Toyota Rav4. Chevron owns the patents on the Large Format NiMH battery and they sued Panasonic for $30 million and had their battery plant dismantled. Could this be because of the certainty that a fleet of EVs would result in a reduction of gas sales at the pump? Incidentally, the Rav4 EV is proof that no battery research is required to build EVs truly useful for about 90% of us, as at least a commuter vehicle, most of our driving. Battery research, like the Stanford battery, can improve the application to make an EV useful for a lower cost or with a greater resultant driving range.

 

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1198

 

http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/rav4evetic.html

 

FINAL NOTE: Recent ads on Public Television by Exxon have been spouting the tag line that they are investing in Lithium batteries for hybrid electric vehicles. Why no mention of fully electric vehicles? What happens if Exxon acquires the patents and rights on the new Stanford Lithium battery? Will we ever see their use allowed in the full EV car?

 

You Should: MAINTAIN VIGELANCE on the Stanford Lithium battery. FOLLOW its progress. INFORM all your friends. SPAM congress with correspondence if it appears the Stanford battery is being sequestered.

The Internet is a powerful check and balance against fraudulent business practices or government policies as influenced by lobbyists. Never before has the free exchange of information been available to the masses.

post #2 of 6

There is only one way to save these technologies from the Oil Industry: Make them PUBLIC DOMAIN

post #3 of 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puppyjump:

FINAL NOTE: Recent ads on Public Television by Exxon have been spouting the tag line that they are investing in Lithium batteries for hybrid electric vehicles. Why no mention of fully electric vehicles? What happens if Exxon acquires the patents and rights on the new Stanford Lithium battery? Will we ever see their use allowed in the full EV car?

Holy paranoia batman!

 

Maybe the Exxon ads are mentioning hybrids because hybrids are highly fuel efficient vehicles that are known to most ordinary people? Just because they are saying they would be used in hybrid vehicles isn't the same as saying they will only be allowed use in hybrid vehicles and will not be allowed in fully electric vehicles. :p

 

Second, since you believe Exxon to be so evil as to never allow new battery technology to power non-oil burning vehicles, what makes you believe they will bother to make good on the TV commercial's promise to deliver the same battery to hybrids?

 

Third, if the only way to save the technology is to make it public domain, you're implying that the oil companies will make some sort of offer to buy (for a insan-o-matic crazy amount of money) the technology from the inventors. And the inventors will take the deal. The first flaw here is that if they already are willing to take the deal, then they were never willing to make it public domain, and if they were willing to make it public domain then they wouldn't be willing to take the deal. Also, if the oil companies can force someone to sell them the battery technology, making the technology public domain won't change anything, as they can also force any company that starts using the public domain technology to sell out to them as well...

 

The only thing that will stop battery research and innovation and will stop electric vehicles is economics: ie if oil drops drastically in price, it will kill demand for these technologies and that will be the end of them. In fact this might be a much better way for the oil companies (if they truly were evil) to thwart this (and all other) technology that would move us away from oil.

post #4 of 6

If Linux was a proprietary commercial closed source O/S Microsoft would have bought it out of the market. But exactly because it's open source and anyone can use it and improve upon it no major commercial concern can shut it down. Both MS and the big Unix vendors tried. But guess what: More people than Microsoft's workforce contributed to Linux in the mid-90s :)


Also, if the oil companies can force someone to sell them the battery technology, making the technology public domain won't change anything, as they can also force any company that starts using the public domain technology to sell out to them as well...

 

How would they force them? the technology would be *public domain*, which means anyone could use it for whatever purpose they see fit, unlike the *pattented* NiMH technology which Chevron-Texaco came to own. Last time I checked, nobody owns the pattent to the hammer, the ship or the airplane for that matter. This doesn't prevent companies from successfully manufacturing hammers, ships or airlplanes!!!

 

Furthermore, no company or cartel has enough power to buy hundreds of small companies around the world. And even if they did, what would that accomplish? Once the cat is out of the bag it won't go back.

 

On a final note, oil prices are controlled by OPEC, not the oil companies. OPEC has decided that oil should stay at about $100 a barrel and they just cut production again. So the oil companies are investing in sustaining technologies that promise better efficiency (hybrids) but keep us hooked on oil still. They will continue to oppose and try to destroy any attempt at disrupting them.

 

This isn't about business as usual. This is war. Only the paranoid will survive.





Edited by petera650 - Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:56:16 GMT
post #5 of 6
Quote:

On a final note, oil prices are controlled by OPEC, not the oil companies. OPEC has decided that oil should stay above $100 a barrel (they just cut production too).

I heard that on NPR last night!! I remember when we were at $60, $70, $80 a barrel and everyone was freaking out saying those were totally unsustainable prices, but now that OPEC has had a taste of oil at $140+/barrel they don't want to go back.

 

On the broadcast they said, "After a steep decline in oil prices, OPEC has made the decision to cut back oil production to stabilize the economy........" I can't say I was shocked, but it really wasn't long ago at all that $100 oil was unthinkable.

post #6 of 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterA650:

If Linux was a proprietary commercial closed source O/S Microsoft would have bought it out of the market.

The way they bought Macintosh out of the market? Oh wait...

 

Having linux as open source and a battery technology as open source are two completely different things. When was the last time a hobbiest built a battery in their basement? The level of technology and the manufacturing required are on completely different levels. It's installing software on a computer in your home vs building a microprocessor in your home.

 

Additionally, (like I stated previously) if the creators of this technology are willing to sell it to the oil companies, then they are most likely not willing to make it public domain. Conversely, if they are willing to make it public domain then they probably are not willing to sell it to oil companies at any price. If that's the case they won't need to make it public domain, they can still make money for all of their hard work by licensing it cheaply.

 

If OPEC sets the prices of oil then they can kill any oil alternative technology by lowering the price of oil. You think they won't? At least some oil companies are researching into alternative energy so they can continue to exist post-oil. OPEC unfortunately can't pump batteries out of the ground so they have even more reason to quash oil alternative tech.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Transportation
Green Options › Forums › Sustainable Living Discussions › Transportation › A Greatly Improved Lithium Battery for EVs