Recent Comments:
BREAKING: $200 M electric car company, Project Better Place, launch video 10 AM Est {Autoblog Green}
Oct 29th 2007 6:28PM Fast-charging isn't something that will happen at home. Home power-lines simply can't deliver enough current. The equipment necessary to deliver sufficient energy to completely recharge an EV with reasonable range in 10-15 minutes is going to be expensive. The question is, which approach is more sustainable over the long haul? Will it be better to invest in a network of high-voltage/high-current commercial fast-charge stations, which would always be in limited demand (mostly for long-haul trips) and would be rendered more obsolete with each new advance in battery capacity? Or to empower innumerable storefront operations, which could trickle-charge modules at leisure, and, due to the low capital investment involved, could enter or leave the market as demand changed? The same modules that would work in a car could work in a house, at a job-site, or anywhere else electric power were needed (or needed immediately, in the case of pre-charged modules). Done right, the module interface system could accommodate and manage a mix of cells in one module, or the ganging of several modules, each containing a different single type of cell from the others.
I remember people going on about the AltairNano, the EEstore, and other future technologies, a couple of years ago, when Tesla described its 6831-cell Energy Storage System. "Why plan to ship something that's already obsolete?" the wags scoffed, much as some contributors did in the comments column, above. These days, however, Tesla is close to production, having passed nearly all safety and envrionmental tests to date, and they are giving exciting test drives to those who ignored the naysayers and put deposit money down early. I think it will be much the same with the modular battery project, with one important difference. If and when more advanced, higher capacity batteries become available, a properly designed power management and interface system will be able to use them to extend the range or running time of any equipment that gets its power through the modular interface. The interface provides a stable platform for design, and allows for division of labor: the interface vendor can do the low-level work (or can liasion with battery manufacturers) to ensure that new, advanced batteries are compatible with and accessible through the interface.
We'll see what happens. But in my opinion, this project could both enable and shape several industries, including alternative energy homebuilding and mass-market Electric Vehicles. Time will tell.
AutoblogGreen Q&A with Firefly Energy co-founder Mil Ovan on new lead-acid battery tech: 3D2 {Autoblog Green}
Mar 9th 2007 10:05PM I have also followed the Tesla, and I note that they go into about as much detail as prudent about their ESS battery pack at their website. At very least, they discuss energy and power capacity, expected lifetime in terms of discharge-recharge cycles, weight and size of the pack, and so forth. I don't think I've ever seen them quote the cost of the battery pack, but the best outsider estimtes from the information they do provide play around $20,000. Mr. Ovan says he doesn't want to discuss numbers, but I think it would help to understand what a 50 kWh Firefly Energy 3D or 3D2 battery might cost, how big and heavy it would need to be, and how long it could be expected to last. These would seem to be straightforward and fundamental numbers, especially if one assumes temperate ambient weather conditions and normal driving usage. I'm OK with honestly derived "ballpark" figures, so what do you say, Mr. Ovan? Will you pitch?
LA Auto Show: 5 minutes with Tesla engineer JB Straubel {Autoblog Green}
Dec 6th 2006 9:28PM Don M: Well, suppose that the car with the 6000 tiny gas tanks was guaranteed never to catch fire or explode? You (or maybe not you, but Volvo) could market THAT as an important safety feature!
As far as whether or not Tesla will use better batteries when they become available, they've already said that they are tracking advances in the industry -- and they are in a better position than most to know which battery advances are REAL and which can be adapted to production vehicles in the near term. If a breakthrough battery technology becomes practical, how long do you think it will take for them to have a prototype of a Roadster or follow-on car running with the new power storage?
On the other hand, it is clear that many people want their EV NOW, and are willing to pay the premium to get what pushes the state of the art NOW. That is what Tesla is delivering, not the least reason for which is to finance quick action when technological advances happen over the next several years. At that time, other companies will have to scramble for venture capital. By starting now, Tesla will be able to bankroll its own evolution. Smart move, if you ask me.
Frankly, the only advances I would like to see in battery technology are in the areas of capacity, lifetime, and cost. A range greater than 250 miles on a charge would be nice. Being able to use the battery for ten years or more, or a lower replacement cost for the battery, would help people justify the long term investment in a more expensive automobile. Discharge/recharge rates will be irrelevant for quite a while: The existing battery already discharges quickly enough to get you to over 100mph in seconds, and to sustain that speed for a couple of hours. What more do you want? The recharge speed will be limited by the maximum voltage and amperage available to the Tesla owner. Right now, and for many years to come, I believe, routinely recharging any faster than 3 extra miles of range for every minute spent charging is just unrealistic. It's not just how fast the battery can recharge; it's also how much juice the charger can deliver from the power lines. Batteries available now can recharge as quickly as home wiring and all but serious electrical substation wiring can deliver. You can't get around the laws of physics.
