ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



A 'revolution' in batteries

Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:20 PM by Alan Boyle


Nature Nanotechnology / Stanford
Photomicrographs show silicon nanowires before and
after charging (left and right, respectively).

If you've ever rushed to save your files before your laptop battery gave out, or scrambled to recharge your iPod, or wished out loud for the resurrection of the electric car ... relief is in sight.

Yet another battery breakthrough is on its way to market, taking its place alongside improved hybrid-electric vehicles, the promise of ultracapacitor systems and even better AA power cells. Next-generation batteries could well last several times as long as current power packs, thanks to nanotechnology.

"This idea will have a really high impact on battery technology," said Stanford chemist Yi Cui, who is the lead researcher behind a study appearing in this month's issue of Nature Nanotechnology. "This is really revolutionary."

The key innovation involves using silicon nanowires instead of the usual carbon to store energy in a lithium-ion battery's anode.

Silicon has more than 10 times as much charge capacity as carbon. If commercial batteries could live up to that performance level, you could theoretically be running your laptop for 20 to 40 hours straight rather than the typical two to four hours. An electric car could go 400 miles on a charge rather than 40 miles.

Of course, the reality is more complex than the theory. But more about that later. The first question is whether this technology is actually for real. If silicon is that good at storing electrical energy, why isn't it being used already?

That's where nanotechnology makes the difference: For years, engineers have been trying to harness silicon electrodes for battery applications. But the problem with silicon is that its volume bulks up by a factor of four when you add the lithium - and then shrinks by the same factor when power is extracted. That quickly pulverizes an electrode made of silicon film or particles, rendering the battery useless.

Cui and his colleagues took a different approach: They grew nanowires of silicon directly on a stainless-steel plate. Each wire was about 90 nanometers wide, or a thousandth of the width of the typical human hair. When the filaments were filled with lithium-ion power, they thickened up and lengthened into curls, like tiny spongeworms - but they retained their resiliency through dozens of power cycles.

"This idea really made these silicon materials possible to be used in battery technology," Cui said.

Challenges still lie ahead: First of all, Cui's team focused on retooling the anode, which is just one of the electrodes in a battery. To get the full tenfold improvement, Cui told me, "you would need to improve also the other electrode ... but with one electrode improvement, you can improve a lot already." For example, you could make the anode smaller, leaving more space for a bigger cathode.

Cui's team also found that there was a one-time capacity drain after the first charge. But that's no biggie. The nanowires' storage capacity was still about eight times higher than carbon, Cui said. "This won't prevent this technology from going forward," he said.

On the plus side, silicon-nanowire batteries wouldn't have to look like the battery bricks that are typically used in laptops or cell phones. "It's a fundamentally different structure from the current technology," Cui said. And that could result in batteries that are better-shaped to conform to the available space.

Cui said a patent application has been filed for the technology, and he's considering starting up a company to commercialize the concept. So when might silicon-nanowire batteries hit the market? "I'm thinking in the next three to five years," Cui said.

Some companies are already knocking on the lab door. Cui acknowledged that Tesla Motors, the company working on an all-electric sports car, is just one of the outfits expressing interest. "There are lots," Cui told me, "but it's better not to mention their names now."

To learn more about Cui's work, check out this interview at GM-Volt.com and this story in The Stanford Daily. In addition to Cui, the authors of the Nature Nanotechnology paper include Candace Chan, Halin Peng and Robert Huggins of Stanford University, Gao Liu of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Kevin McIlwrath and Xiao Feng Zhang of Hitachi High Technologies.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Cover the batteries with solar cells, so when they go dead, toss them on the patio for a couple days, and put them back in.

 Better yet, make roof tiles out of self-charging battery material, just look out for the leaks!
the bottom line is that this car if battery was made into, will never be produced. why? because the oil  companies will blast it to oblivion so to speak. Capitalism, Aint' it wonderfull?
If they start now, they could breed a Super-Hamster, to run a larger cage wheel. That would couple to an alternator that would charge the batteries. Hamsters run on peanuts, not Oil. "Fill'er up with Planters and Check the Rat."
to charge that battery, we still need OIL, so i think they should also focus on improving in harnessing of the power of the sun
While I appreciate the higher level of intelligence in the comments here than after other articles online (i.e., some of you can actually spell and put together a sentence or two without making a fool of yourself), you armchair scientists crack me up!

My favorite phrase so far:  "battery powered semis!" LOL

Heck, let's go for broke and try building a matter/antimatter reactor!
Wow, you people really think that wind and solar can supply the entire country with its power?  How naive!  Let's take Seattle, it is sunny about 3 days a year and has no wind to speak of.  There has not been a new nuclear power plant in the US for almost 40 years.  A solar panel that could run 2 100-watt light bulbs costs around $750 plus all of the batteries to store that energy and the switches to control it.  Are you all ready to invest that?  It is estimated that solar photovoltaid energy costs $1.25 per KWh.  You are probably paying $.25 right now.  Are you willing to pay 500% more on your energy bill?

You have all also overlooked the fact that it is 100% assured that another country is going to beat us to this technology because there is so much red tape here.  I will bet any of you $100 that China will have these batteries years before we do.  Patent or no patent, it doesn't matter in China.  I will bet another $100 (although I won't be around to collect it from you) that another nuclear power plant will not go up in the next 100 years in the US.  Americans are too stupid to approve of such a project.  If stupid Americans still think that cell phones cause brain cancer (like one of the comments above) despite all of the research to the contrary, what is the likelihood that they understand nuclear power?  Need more evidence?  How about the comment that room temp superconductors are the answer to our problem?  Deep, deep misunderstanding of basic science.

And please don't blame it on this secret society called "the government."  They are us, we are them.  If we demanded clean energy, they would give it to us.  Unfortunately, 99% of Americans would rather buy batteries at the 99 cent store than fund technology to create better batteries.

And saying that we can lead the world in green energy . . . we are already decades behind.  Look at France and their nuclear program, Copenhagen and their offshore wind turbines, Ireland and their conversion of tidal energy, Iceland and its geothermal program, Germany and its numerous windmills, the solar power tower in Spain, and the 550,000 photovoltaics in Germany.  We will be purchasing technology from these other countries, not vice versa.

These batteries last longer, they are not necessarily more efficient.  If a car takes 5,000 Watts of energy from gasoline, it will take 5,000 Watts of energy from battery power which will come from petroleum burning power plants for at least the next 100 years.  If we built cars that could only go 70 miles per hour instead of 180, that would be a big step in the right diretion.  It's never going to happen in a Cadillac Escalade country.
Gas, oil, electricity, batteries, wind power, water power, are all wonderful, but being a 77 year old, and seeing so much change over the last 50 years, I believe our futures future depends on MAGNETISM, since the whole universe is self controlled by magnetism. 1-26-2008
As Karl and others mentioned, charging the batteries during the night would allow more use of Wind and Water energy that are underutilized right now. All the electric cars could be charged at night for a penny per kilowatt hour resulting in effective fuel rates under a dollar per gallon equivalent gas energy.
Motors to better utilize energy are being built by NASA and others, and just need a market of millions of units to drive the costs down. (See Halbach array motors if you care.)

As CM mentioned (Read his comment carefully, lots of good notes there) increased surface area (aerogels redux) allows decreased current density, resulting in lower heating at greater charging rates.

This is similar to work done two decades ago with Aerogels, in fact I'm not sure if there is any difference. What broke down then was that the plants to fabricate low cost aerogels and build batteries out of them would have cost 10's of millions of dollars to start and 100's of millions to be competitive, so none of the companies ever came to fruition. Just because someone can show a good technique in a lab, will it ever become mass produced. The cost to do this test was probably a few hundred thousand dollars. Just try hiring any of the PhDs. When you get down to the hundreds of thin layers of exotic materials, all the EESTORE and Nanowire / Aerogel / Super whatever technologies start to look the same. We spend TRILLIONS of dollars on the oil industry world wide. Don't expect this to compete until someone is ready to pony up a few billion.
It would be nice to see this type of technology used by incorporating it into the car body itself so that the car body would be the actual battery.
In Japan most of the people drive cars with 600-1000 ccm (that's 0.6 to 1 litre) displacement that will go 40 -45 miles per gallon without any hybrid technology. And they had been producing them for 20 years now. So to change all macho [B.S.] 2 ton trucks and sports cars being driven around for no reason at all (yeah right, you need big SUV to take children to school or buy takeout pizza). That change only would cut USA oil consumption for motoring in half, without technology shift. To decrease consumption of food you eat less, to decrease consumption of oil you consume less oil. Period. There is no free lunch. There are hybrid cars today that will halve the usual gasoline consumption but nobody buys them because they are sissy cars that no "real American" will buy.. Consumption is a result of huge marketing campaign that big is beautiful. IT IS NOT. It is wasteful, stupid and aesthetically ugly. We need to change, change our ways and habits.
Plenty of ideas then; good!  My memory was stirred by a not so good proposal above. There was an article in a respectable journal like SciAm or New Scientist some year or so ago about discrete power supplies to individual components on circuit boards. These individual supplies could be painted (two dissimilar layers) onto the circuit board adjacent each component. Not batteries but original sources that do not depend on light etc.
If this is not a fairy story it is surely a key part of the jigsaw. Amongst the more obvious applications there may also be the possibility of scaling such technology to trickle-charge batteries of various capacities. If the materials required are not overly expensive etc., etc.. cosmicspike@yahoo.co.uk
Batteries have existed in commercial production for ten years that would power a modified Toyota Prius for more than 100 Miles on electricity alone with no new battery developments and only slight Prius modifications. They are already being used in several parts of the world, including the US, in buses and trucks. They weigh a bit more per unit energy stored than the PROPOSED lithium car batteries but are now known to be safe and reliable. They can be improved as to weight and power capacity and have a life that has been proven to be long enough for cars. And they use relatively cheap materials that are not in short supply, and could use even cheaper materials. They are called ZEBRA batteries. Only the US car makers and oil companies and the Califonia and the US government have prevented their widespread use by modifying the CARB rules. They will always be cheaper and easier to use than fuel cells and hydrogen in cars, and even if the high fuel prices drop to half they are cheaper in the long run than gasoline.

BUT it should be required by law that all electric vehicles have a back up small, or even tiny, fuel powered engine-generator. The weight of such a provision, including fuel, can be less than that of a spare tire and will at least eliminate the range consideration worries of people who might buy electric cars. There is no common fuel that weighs than hydrocarbons and they can be made from cheap coal if necessary. Electricity will be used for most miles in such a car but there is no reason for not building a light-weight generator into every electric vehicle for the occasional extended range trip. Cars used regularly on extended range can have more than one such units for long distance fast freeway travel. With an adequately designed battery only ten to twenty horse-power is needed in such a car for the fastes long distance freeway travel. An OPOC engine can provide such power while weighing only twenty pounds or less. Smaller higher speed engines could be used instead in cars that have only occasional long distance use.

Stop printing, believing or reporting that batteries for long distance cars do not exist; They are being mass produced this very moment at prices that make operating a car with them cheaper than with gasoline even in the US. The Cost of the PRIUS is another matter. Cheap electric cars are needed. The new $2500 car in India should be reengineered with the cheapest motors and controls possible. The battery would cost more than the car....hg...
This is fantastic news. One of the men who first went around the world in a balloon, Bertrand Picard is developing a solar powered airplane to popularize solar energy. This type of battery could power the aircraft at night. A Spanish company called BFS is developing a process to make biopetroleum from marine algae. Another company called ls9 is making ge microbes to make gasoline, diesel etc. We don't need oil from foreign countries, let's get to work.
Frank your missing one point:

While we reduced our dependency on oil other countries like China and India are increasing theirs. Therefore, theoretically, the demand will stay the same or increase keeping the cost high. Then we would still use our oil until we didn't need it, and then sell it to other countries.

We need to keep oil high once we got off of it so that we can stay competitive. If the demand dropped too much, the price would drop, and it could be cheaper than our energy. If that happened it could ruin our economy.
So, how will an ecosystem which is used to having sunlight on it continually, react to being shaded by the acres of solar panels being discussed? And has the concern over bird deaths due to wind machines been addressed?
this bodes well. It is time to reinvest in the electric car. with the GM skateboard car frame the flexibility in shape will allow for greater power and applicability.
Frank, I'd like to see your data that supports that domestically produced oil is more expensive than imported.
A breakthrough of this magnitude is definitely a point in the right direction. Energy storage is the problem that these new batteries are directed towards. It would be nice for everything in a persons house to be operated by one of theses batteries. If we can increase the amount of electricity we get from electricity. Wow that would make every ones electric bill a little lower.
This invention will end up like all the other battery technology "breakthroughs"; GM will purchase the patent rights, lock them in a safe in Detroit somewhere and no one will ever hear about this invention again. Just like the guy in Florida who ran his car on water, and powered his cutting torch with water; it made all the newspapers when the story came out, and then nothing....no one ever heard of this guy again.  Detroit makes them instant millionaires, and their 'breakthroughs' are never heard of again.
just develope and market the thing! the mechanical minded human will develope power source to charge it.
maybe even human powered by something such as a childs wind up toy . simple is it not?
This is great new indeed! I just that Toshiba has a battery that can recharge in less then 5 mintues and hold something like 8 times the normal storage.

Either way, it's good news for everybody, now all we need is the source.......I'm still pulling for the fusion reactors, but till then, we'll have to rely on solar, wind, and other traditional sources. Either way, it's a step in the right direction atleast.
whoa, folks, lets not kid ourselves. Improved battery tech won't give us energy. The energy sources we have that are said to be 'green' are also horrifically inefficient nd thus expensive for that inefficiency, when you consider more thn the cost of production. Wind power: cost of the land, labor to install wind generators/conduits, etc.; Nuclear power: waste from reactor, cost of nuclear fuel, safety issues; Solar Power: drastically expensive, inefficient, etc. Col is bad, but it is also cheap. I do not condone it, but the money put into these 'alternate' energy sources should be used to completely redesign the way we think about energy.

Vacuum/Zero point energy, anyone?
You may think it is ridiculous because of the 'free energy' hype, but google it. There are some interesting ideas out there. For instance, did you know that the vacuum energy in a light bulb, if extracted and put to use with 100% efficiency (which is highly doubtful, but for simplicity's sake), you would have enough energy to boil all of the oceans on Earth. The amount of aenergy contained within  sugr cube's volume would supply enough energy to meet our power demands for the next million years.

It may seem far-fetched, but give it consideration. Anything is possible!
That reminds me. Have any of you checked out the late Floyd Sweet's Space Quantum Modulator- renamed to the Vacuum Triode Amplifier?
batteries only store and release energy, they don't create it. we will still use oil, coal, & nat. gas to charge the batteries and power our nation --  unless we use wind, solar, water, wave, nuclear...


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=586070

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google