« Union Pacific Testing Railroad Industry’s First Exhaust Catalyst in Los Angeles | Main | Marks & Spencer launches £200 Million “eco-plan”; B50 Biodiesel a Component »
EEStor Announces Two Key Production Milestones; 15 kWh EESU on Track for 2007
17 January 2007
EEStor, the developer of a new high-power-density ceramic ultracapacitor (the Energy Storage Unit—EESU), has broken a long public silence and announced reaching two key production milestones. First, its automated production line has been proven to meet the requirements for precise chemical delivery, purity control, parameter control and stability.
Second, EEStor has completed the initial milestone of certifying purification, concentration, and stability of all of its key production chemicals—notably the attainment of 99.9994% purity of its barium nitrate powder.
The independent 3rd party chemical analysis was completed by Southwest Research Institute, Inc. located in San Antonio, Texas under contract with EEStor, Inc.
With these milestones completed, EEStor is now in the process of producing composition-modified barium titanate powders on its automated production line, and is moving toward completing its next major milestone of powder certification.
The company anticipates that the relative permittivity of the current powder will either meet and/or exceed 18,500, the previous level achieved when EEStor produced prototype components using it engineering level processing equipment.
The EEStor ESU is projected to offer up to 10x the energy density (volumetric and gravimetric) of lead-acid batteries at the same cost. In addition, the ESU is projected to store up to 1.5 to 2.5 times the energy of Li-Ion batteries at 12 to 25% of the cost.
According to the company’s initial patent, the EESU is based on a high-permittivity composition-modified barium titanate ceramic powder. This powder is double coated with the first coating being aluminum oxide and the second coating calcium magnesium aluminosilicate glass.
The EESU alternates multilayers of nickel electrodes and the high-permittivity powder. The resulting parallel configuration of components has the capability to store electrical energy in the range of 52 kWh, according to the document, with weight for a unit of that capacity in the range of 336 pounds (152 kg).
According to EEStor, the EESU will not degrade due to being fully discharged or recharged, and also can be rapidly charged without damaging the material or reducing its life. The cycle time to fully charge a 52 kWh EESU would be in the range of 4 to 6 minutes with sufficient cooling of the power cables and connections.
The first commercial application of the EESU is intended to be used in electric vehicles under a technology agreement with ZENN Motors Company. (Earlier post.) EEStor says that it remains on track to begin shipping production 15 kWh Electrical Energy Storage Units (EESU) to ZENN Motor Company in 2007 for use in their electric vehicles.
The production EESU for ZENN Motor Company is designed to function to specification in operating environments as severe as -20° to +65° degrees Celsius, will weigh less than 100 pounds, and will have ability to be recharged in a matter of minutes.
Resources:
US Patent # 7,033,406: Electrical-energy-storage unit (EESU) utilizing ceramic and integrated-circuit technologies for replacement of electrochemical batteries
January 17, 2007 in Batteries, Electric (Battery) | Permalink | Comments (86) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/7534357
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference EEStor Announces Two Key Production Milestones; 15 kWh EESU on Track for 2007:
Comments
This is a game-changing announcement. Bravo. These ultracapacitors will also have major application in smoothing out intermittent sources of power such as wind and solar. I'd hate to see one explode, though.
Posted by: BlackSun | Jan 17, 2007 2:45:54 PM
I have seen electrolytic capacitors blow. I can't think of any time I've seen a blown ceramic cap.
100lbs for 15kWhrs? The tesla could be re-made and come out lighter than an Elise.
Posted by: Patrick | Jan 17, 2007 3:34:45 PM
Once you put this in the Volt GM can go into full prodution.
Posted by: tjwen | Jan 17, 2007 3:37:18 PM
I have seen electrolytics blow myself - we used to amuse ourselves in college by putting small electrolytics into wall sockets and then throwing the switch :-).
Posted by: eric | Jan 17, 2007 3:41:19 PM
Electrolytics caps blow up because overheated electrolyt turns into a gas and ruptures the sealed aluminum casing.
I can't imagine a ceramic would do that.
Posted by: DS | Jan 17, 2007 4:18:29 PM
Once charged, how long do capacitors like these stay that way? I imagine you can just plug them in at night anyway, but I'm just wondering how battery-like their behavior is.
Posted by: Cervus | Jan 17, 2007 4:33:55 PM
This is a very exiting announcement. I hope they start shipping them in volume this year. If so, I predict that we'll soon see a large number of production electric and plug-in hybrids being sold with this or other competing battery technologies. It would be nice to see the US cease its oil imports within 10 years or so.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 17, 2007 4:59:13 PM
Oops. Meant to write "exciting announcement".
Also, I'd like to point out that a cheap, low maintenance, high density energy storage medium could be useful for far more than just cars. For instance, it could make it far more practical to implement an off-grid electrical system for a solar/wind powered home.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 17, 2007 5:16:39 PM
_A key advantage of barium (as well as Ti, Mg, Al, Ca, SI, O, and N) is that its more abundant than lithium. The downside may be the brittleness of the ceramic, and thus the possible need for additional dampening/protection from shock.
Commenters refering to exploding capacitors,
Further down the road, we may get carbon aerogel ultracapacitors. One possible destructive use for such a material would be as an explosive. All the gaps could be filled with O2 (if it could be stabilised), or powerful oxidants. An electrical surge could be used to set it off, leaving little or no residue or explosive material unconsumed. Configured properly, it might have powerful EMP properties.
Posted by: allen_xl_Z | Jan 17, 2007 5:23:25 PM
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Beyers are the major investors, at the moment, in EEStor. For those who don't know, they are among the largest and most successful venture capital firms in the world. Their portfolio includes Amazon, Sun, Genetech, Verisgin, and GOOGLE, among others.
Why do I mention this? Because for once, important EV technology IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF BIG OIL.
Cue music:
"Celebrate good times, come on..."
Posted by: John | Jan 17, 2007 5:39:40 PM
The future of the world is based on better batteries -- the future is looking bright!!
Posted by: John McConnell | Jan 17, 2007 5:41:32 PM
Just had a run-in with a died in the woolly ICE buff. He'll probably gasp upon hearing this story, then make up a song&dance how gas is great & putt putt engines don't cause global warming. As for me, I shall quit worrying about such liars, & prepare myself for the day putt putts become superfluous to my life.
Posted by: bill borsheim | Jan 17, 2007 6:00:19 PM
How do you make something like this safe to drive? In a collision all that 52kwh of energy could be released in a instant. If gasoline catches fire it's burn rate is limited to the oxygen available.
Car wrecks could become extremely dangerous. Does anyone know what the equivalent weight of TNT to make 52kwh of energy? I would bet it is allot.
Posted by: cj | Jan 17, 2007 6:38:49 PM
Depending on the size of the pack, I wonder if these could be put in "bomb proof" casing, kinda like the black boxes on aircraft...
Posted by: yesplease | Jan 17, 2007 7:03:17 PM
CJ, Yesplease,
Perhaps a virtually indestructible casing could be used. Probably it will made of carbon fiber, and further encased in a metal alloy box. There are other possibilities, but most are in the concept stage, or not feasible in the foreseeable future.
Posted by: allen_xl_Z | Jan 17, 2007 7:13:23 PM
I didn't look up TNT, but 52 kWh is about a gallon and a half of gasoline. You mention that gasoline burn rate is limited by oxygen, which is certainly true, but last time I checked oxygen was plentiful at most automobile crash sites.
Unlike 1.5 gallons of gas, 52 kWh in an ultracap is almost all usable energy so it provides 200-250 miles of range for a mid-size car.
EEStor is an odd duck. Their initial patent is quite bizarre. Now they break a long silence with this meaningless press release (who cares about barium nitrate purity?). The investment by legendary VC Kleiner Perkins gives them credibility, but it's a very small investment by KP standards and KP principals basically call EEStor a moon shot. I hope they can deliver, but for now EEStor remains in my "I'm from Missouri" file.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Jan 17, 2007 7:19:44 PM
CJ,
It is not just the total energy involved, it is also the time it takes to release the energy.
The energy equivalent in TNT is ~63.88kg or ~140.85lbs. High quaility TNT detonates at ~6,900 m/s, so it takes ~0.0000049 seconds for a sphere that mass (and size) to be consumed, once it gets going. Depending on how fast (and how much of) the electrical energy is discharged, it can be quite powerful, or it may be no more than audible zap.
_One more thing, perhaps they can partition, and compartmentize the energy storage device. Add fault/damage detection, circuit rerouting, a virtually indestructible housing, and you might be able to minimize the risks/hazards involved.
Posted by: allen_xl_Z | Jan 17, 2007 7:38:12 PM
I can see this still has some serious challenges. Firstly, capacitors don't generally hold their charge for long. Secondly, if you fully charge a capacitor at a lower temp and then heat it up sufficiently you can get an explosion. Thirdly, you are going to need some serious power electronics to reduce the 3000 or so volts down to something more useable. All sounds too good to be true. However, I am waiting to be proved wrong.
Posted by: Paul | Jan 17, 2007 8:05:25 PM
The safety issues will be manageable. Nothing is perfect and there will surely be some accidents related to the release of the electrical energy; especially for the first few years after EVs and PHEVs appear on the road in large numbers. It will surely take some time to find the right technology and procedures to minimize that sort of accident. However, the dangers are far less than what we accept every day for gasoline powered cars.
Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and we'd been driving EVs for the last 100 years. If someone proposed converting our electric automobile infrastructure to gasoline, there would be a much greater outcry about safety. Maybe something like:
What about fuel leaks?
What happens if a combustion source comes near the fuel tank?
What if the fuel tank ruptures in an accident?
Why would I want to stop every week at this thing you call a "gas station" and pay someone 5 times what I pay now for electricity?
What do you mean we have to pay our enemies billions of dollars a year for oil?
How can you propose this in light of the fact that they could shut off the supply any time they like?
My point is that we accept risks when the rewards justify them. The risks of electric vehicles will seem very small compared to the rewards and will therefore not be a hindrance to the implementation of the EV infrastructure.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 17, 2007 8:07:39 PM
Don't belive this bullshit company. They are just scamming their investors. They have never shown any working product to anyone. The patents they have doesn't in any way support the fantastic claims they make. You have absolutely no reason to believe that these people are honest. Please don't put your hopes to this kind of bullshit, and for God's sake don't buy their stocks.
Posted by: Magnus | Jan 17, 2007 8:21:12 PM
Have they got a prototype yet? Until they have the real thing to show us, I would take this with a grain of salt. It would be very nice if this is true.
Posted by: jim | Jan 17, 2007 8:21:29 PM
Have they got a prototype yet? Until they have the real thing to show us, I would take this with a grain of salt. It would be very nice if this is true.
Posted by: jim | Jan 17, 2007 8:38:50 PM
Have they got a prototype yet? Until they have the real thing to show us, I would take this with a grain of salt. It would be very nice if this is true.
Posted by: jim | Jan 17, 2007 8:39:33 PM
So what happens to someone in a car if they end up in a body of water: river, lake, or flooded street? Ooops!!! Other than that issue, this sounds like a good development in the energy storage area.
Posted by: JD | Jan 17, 2007 8:40:34 PM
One of the models for electric drive is to couple an ultra cap with a high energy density Lithium Ion Battery, the kind this does have a thermal runaway issue. The ultra cap handles the short term high energy demand and recharge issues, while the battery maintains the ultra cap charged at a rate the battery can handle. The ultra caps and note so safe batteries are supposed to be much cheaper than the A123 or Nano Safe batteries. But as others have observed, until the production line product is put into a vehicle and independently evaluated, let's not get carried away.
Posted by: Van | Jan 17, 2007 10:09:00 PM
Does anyone really think there are any new safety issues with this UltraCap? There aren't. Or wouldn't be, if it existed.
It'll be put low and in a rarely compromised portion of the car, just like the Prius Batts.
It'll have an engineered case with an internal cut-off switch that will be both shock activated and dependent on a positive external input, also just like the Prius Batts.
The only new danger will be if something conductive pierces it and manages to create two conductive paths: one from the negative to a good ground and the other from a significantly higher positive to a person who is in contact with the same ground. Basically, this will never happen. At least, it will only happen significantly less often than gasoline explosions do.
More importantly, this tech probably doesn't exist, so discussing imaginary safety issues is a waste of time.
Every other EV tech company trips over itself to try demonstrate their product, makes 50% improvement claims, and keeps their stock to themselves because they want to get rich when the tech succeeds.
This one makes 500% improvement claims, demonstrates nothing, and is trying to sell as much stock as possible. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck, it is probably a duck.
Posted by: shaun mann | Jan 17, 2007 10:38:22 PM
Magnus, Shaun: You actually think that Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Beyers are suckers? You can bet these guys have done some due dilligence. You can also believe that ZENN has actually seen some of the ESUs or they wouldn't have placed their order. If I were a scam artist I wouldn't be ramping up production for 2007, I'd be making vague promisses for 5 years in the future.
Posted by: Neil | Jan 17, 2007 11:00:40 PM
Ceramic capacitors are not known for their high energy storage capacity. Barium titanate has been used to make ceramic capacitors for quite sometimes, and has nowhere near the energy capacity as claimed by EEStor company.
The claimed 52kwh capacity of the the EEstor device having 31 farads is due to the 3,500 V maximum voltage rating. However, automotive power inverters and power transformers are typically designed to handle battery voltages from 250-500 volts. Since Energy Stored = 1/2 Capacitance x VoltageSquared, reducing the 3,500V down to a more reasonable 500V will reduce the storage capacity of the EEstor from 52kwh down to 1kwh.
Otherwise, working with 3,500V in a personal vehicle is very lethal, especially in the event of an accident. High-voltage capacitors can explode violently upon aging of the dielectric material or other stresses that can lower the dielectric property of the material. In a chain reaction, the entire energy of this supercapacitor can be released as fast as a bomb explosion. If you wanna build a thick, thick bomb-proof casing to contain this 52kwh worth (~140lbs of TNT-equivalent) of energy that can be released in a flash, you will need a lot of carbon fiber layers that will be very heavy and costly. You might have better luck making a Compressed Hydrogen tank out of carbon-fiber reenforcement. H2 by itself without O2 cannot combust. Structural weakness in the carbon fiber tank may allow the H2 to leak out at a fast rate, but it will not explode.
Good luck, EEStor. Y'all will need every bit of it!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 17, 2007 11:27:13 PM
Doggydogworld:
I ran through EESTOR patents some time ago and they ARE unimpressive.
Allen:
There was some interesting info on phase-change explosives, which theoretically could be 10 times more destructive than conventional. Internal short of EESTOR capacitor, according to amount of energy stored, could be the one.
Kevin:
Our lawyer-infested society is pretty tolerant to old-fashioned dangers such as gasoline fire or diesel soot exposure. Not the case with any new-born danger, like MTBE, new drugs, or in our case supercap explosion. EESTOR supercap could be 10 times safer than gasoline tank, but one explosive event could bankrupt the company due to litigation case and scare of everybody else of possible cases. Sad, but true. Same could happen with CNG vehicles.
Magnus:
Your opinion is shared by all knowledgeable people (encoding experts) I managed to read in the last year. But the company is private, so no direct pump-and-dump scum is involved.
Possible IPO on the horizon?
Posted by: Andrey | Jan 18, 2007 12:32:59 AM
I'd be worried about vibration damage and calender longevity but other than that, let's wait to see what ZAP says! If it's as positive as what Phoenix are saying about their Altair cells, then it's good news!
Posted by: clett | Jan 18, 2007 4:29:14 AM
Even if there are some problems still to be worked out with this product it have will useful applications in alot of products. It does not have to be applied to the hybrid car market for its first try.
Posted by: Bob H | Jan 18, 2007 5:31:21 AM
I would stay far away from ZAP! Not the most trustworthy company.
Posted by: The Anonymous Poster | Jan 18, 2007 6:30:05 AM
The comparison to TNT is kind of misleading. The explosive power of TNT comes from the fact that the combustion products are hot gases. In this case the the reaction results will be hot or maybe liquid ceramics, so there is no large change in volume involved.
I think it will be quite possible to build an enclosure for one of these units that stays intact even in the case of a complete instantaneous discharge.
The main issue with this company so far is that nobody has yet been allowed to independently verify a prototype cell. But since it is not my money they are spending, I wish them good luck.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 18, 2007 6:46:53 AM
Blah all a load of rubbish blah blah........
This sort of reminds me of the tesla public birth. Very quite until they had a real product, then came out and woke everyone up. they naysayers then chimed in. looking at the people involved and the history of the technologies bought together, its clear that Tesla is very real.
I draw the same conclusions here.
Why an obscure press release? Maybe because that is the critical part of the technology and maybe these guys are surious and release info about what they know. Apart from a very plain (if somewhat impressive) description of the storage device, there is no fanfare!!!!! Very very significant.
It's going to be a great ride!
Posted by: Mikey | Jan 18, 2007 7:41:10 AM
At 342 Wh/Kg the EEStor unit energy density is very similar to the 330+ Wh/Kg from the new Electrovaya Super Polymer Lithium battery. Both are equivalent to about 10 times the common lead-acid battery.
However, the ESStor super-cap unit could possibly be (fully) charged/discharged much faster and be (fully) cycled many more times than most batteries making it a potential candidate for EVs and similar applications.
PHEV & EV batteries are NOT normally FULLY charged/discharged (Ex: 40% - 80%) to maintain acceptable/higher live duration. This translates in much larger capacity + heavier on-board units.
Handling super-caps higher operating voltage (3500 Volts) is not much of a challenge with todays electronics.
Installed cost + duration + quick charge capability + energy density will pick the winning technology. More than one storage technology may co-exist. The customer should be given the final choice.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Jan 18, 2007 8:24:04 AM
Mikey,
Exactly. Don't hype, then deliver something that will knock their socks off. If you run into trouble along the way, there is less disappointment. You set yourself up to shine if and when the product/technology comes through, and cover your position if you have a setback. This take tends to also attracts more serious investors, with lots of resources.
Harvey D,
Faster and more efficient absorption of electrical energy will also bode well for regenerative braking. As less energy recaptured is wasted, the mileage per gallon/kWh goes up in stop and go (city) driving. With an efficient setup and a conservative driver, you can triple your city gas mileage vs a conventional OTTO ICE.
Posted by: allen_xl_Z | Jan 18, 2007 8:57:11 AM
With all of the electrical storage device announcements its hard not to get a little excited. AFAIC the main issue now is bringing down the prices (we'll see if these guys can deliver at the same price as lead acid)
Posted by: Neil | Jan 18, 2007 10:11:22 AM
Unfortunately EEstor has never made and will never make the supercapacitor described in the patent, because they ignore a well known physical effect, called "dielectric saturation".
Barium titanate has been used in capacitors for decades, due to its high dielectric constant:
http://www.avxcorp.com/docs/techinfo/mlcmat.pdf
However, the dielectric constant drops as the electric field strength increases:
Phys. Rev. 1947
At a hypothetical field of 3500 Volts over a thickness of 12.76 micrometers, as proposed in the patent, the dielectric constant of barium titanate would be orders of magnitude lower than the claimed 18500, reducing capacity and energy density by the same factor...
This has been discussed in more detail by Anatoly Moskalev on December 24th, 2006 at
teslamotors blog
Posted by: Emosson | Jan 18, 2007 10:46:41 AM
-20+65C is an unacceptable operating temperature range in an automotive under hood or passenger compartment application. The international SAE requirement is
-40C/+85C passenger compartment and -40C/125C underhood. I am seeing some 105C underhood ratings for electric drive trains.
This sounds fishy.
Posted by: Lou | Jan 18, 2007 11:49:06 AM
I would think that 125C under hood is overkill for an electric drive that doesn't produce anywhere near the waste heat of an ICE engine.
By -40 you need a battery blanket and a block heater for an ICE car or it's dead in a hurry (I used to live north or 60)
I haven't seen numbers for Li-on batteries.
Posted by: Neil | Jan 18, 2007 2:20:43 PM
It is mis-leading to say that 52kwh of energy is equivalent to 140lbs of TNT because a quick calculation shows that gallon of gasoline contains as much energy as sixty pounds of TNT. And, there is no evidence that the 52kwh capacitor can release all of its energy in a flash.
Posted by: Rick | Jan 18, 2007 2:54:33 PM
If they can get this into production it has the potential to totally revolutionize the automotive and wind energy generation field. The company is wisely keeping details secret until they can get into production. I called the company and offered to invest but they don't need money now. You can be sure that Kleiner Perkins did plenty of due diligence. The patent app describes a lot of detail including very low leakage numbers. Since the unit consists of a lot of parallel small capacitors, the safety should be excellent. Because of the greater efficiency of electrics, the energy storage for a given range is about 1/3 of what is required with a gas tank. Safety should thus be a clear advantage.
I just bought a bunch of stock in the car company ZNN.V using the US dollar version FGDCF.PK which seems to trade like a regular stock. The company web site is www.zenncars.com and they do have a nationwide network of dealers for their award -winning urban transport 2-seater car.
Posted by: Tom Blakeslee | Jan 18, 2007 3:04:21 PM
The Tesla is real, unfortunately it's not a viable electric car. It's a toy that allows Hollywood millionaire thespians to publically demonstrate their environmental purity while still letting the women know they have plenty of testosterone and plan on using it. The Tesla is a sad joke. Its effects on the environment will be totally
insignificant.
Posted by: kent beuchert | Jan 18, 2007 4:13:39 PM
Kent: my, aren't we negative today. Nobody is claiming that the Tesla roadster is anything more than a concept car in production, a testbed for technology (that will pay for itself) and a marketing tool on the road to bigger things (White Star and beyond). Nobody has claimed that it will solve any environmental problems. It is in fact every bit as much of a viable electric car as any other two seat sports car is a viable ICE car.
Posted by: Neil | Jan 18, 2007 5:18:40 PM
No EV is viable when the battery costs thousands of dollars. The price needs to come down by a factor of ten.
Posted by: Rick | Jan 18, 2007 8:26:20 PM
Neil: I absolutely think that the VC firm is the sucker in this case. This firm seem to invest in many very high risk startup companys and they probably just do a shallow investigation of their technology.
Personally I'm amazed that so many people are willing to believe in this device. Do you also belive in gnomes and unicorns? Those haven't been seen in real life either.
Posted by: Magnus | Jan 19, 2007 12:59:53 AM
Emosson:
So it is tunnel effect which ruins all estimations…
Thanks for the information.
Rick:
Mix one gallon of gasoline with 15 lb of oxygen and you will get extremely powerful explosive. It is actually used in military applications.
Posted by: Andrey | Jan 19, 2007 1:05:51 AM
I'll believe this device when it's running in a vehicle. I'll also believe this is a scam when it dissapears from the scene. Not only did people claim that Tesla was a hoax, I seam to recall a number of people that claimed that Altair was a scam and nothing more than press releases (was that you Magnus?) and now they are running in the Phoenix.
I agree with Rick, price is now the issue. There are appropriate technologies (Altair,A123,Firefly, maybe Eestor). I'm fairly confident that they will slowly work out ways to bring costs down now that they have proven that the technology is possible. That's why I'm excited.
Posted by: Neil | Jan 19, 2007 6:42:48 AM
Has it occured to anyone that a crash severe enough to comprimise a well placed/protected battery would probably kill the occupants anyways? Surely capacitators can be placed, protected, and engineered to this degree.
Emossonn,
Interesting the you mentioned dielectric saturation. I'll look for the article, but I remember reading that EEstor was highly aware of this effect and that a large part of their technology (or innovation if you will) was a material that they placed between the plates, or maybe even on them, to mitigate this effect. I don't really see how it is possible, but if they can pull it off, props.
Posted by: John | Jan 19, 2007 6:43:49 AM
Rick: You said: No Ev is viable when batteries cost thousands $$. The price needs to come down by a factor of 10.
Generally speaking your statement is correct. However, PHEVs and EVs high performance batteries price will come down by a factor of 10 when mass produced in China-India etc etc.
A spare (Japanese built) Lithium battery for my digital camera cost me $59.99 four years ago. I bought 2 (Chinese built) replacement batteries with +40% more energy storage at $5.95 each last week. (They work very well, even much better than the originals). That is your 10:1 reduction in price plus a 40% gain in energy storage as a free bonus in 4 years only.
I'm very confident that the same (and more) will happen to EVs and PHEVs energy storage units in the next 4 years or so, unless somebody (place your bets) purposely manage to block production in countries with very low cost labour.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Jan 19, 2007 7:40:48 AM
High voltage electrolytic capacitors have been in common household products for nearly 60 years and I've yet to here a news report of anyone injured due to malfunction of one of these devices. The cathode ray tubes of TVs and computers need about 1,000 volts per inch of screen size. A 25 inch TV needs 25,000 volts and a 13 inch computer monitor needs 13,000 volts. The insulation needed on the pertinent wires is only a few mm of mylar. Devices to prevent excess current have been in common use for over a century. They are called fuses. Making a 3500 volt ultracap safer than a gasoline tank is a no-brainer.
Posted by: tom deplume | Jan 19, 2007 7:59:26 AM
EESTOR hasn't ever courted the press. They're not for sale to the general public. They've filed patents and built facilities.
I see no reason to think their product will come to market, but I do see a lot to support their belief that their product is genuine and no reason to believe that their product is some kind of scam.
I have great hope that they come to market with something that's even half the performance they claim, costs twice as much and weighs twice as much.
Posted by: greg woulf | Jan 19, 2007 8:41:50 AM
Yup, flyback transformers on TVs easily hit 10,000 to 40,000 volts.
Posted by: Patrick | Jan 19, 2007 9:16:24 AM
tom deplume: Electric and diesel-electric rail passenger units/cars commonly use 3000 VDC and/or 3600 VAC 3-phase with up to 4000 HP for almost a century and nobody gets electricuted during accidents.
Handling 3600 VDC from a supercap and feeding motors with (=/-) 600 volts (DC or multi-phase) is NOT a major challenge and NOT dangerous.
Lets not fall for oil barons propaganda against electric energy storage units and electric vehicles. They will be safer and a lot less dangerous for human life than the current ICE machines. They will run, safer, cleaner, quieter, cheaper and last much longer than the current crop.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Jan 19, 2007 10:43:02 AM
For a comparison of EEStor to batteries see http://www.plasticlabels.ca/index_files/compareEVbatteries.htm Lithium batteries are already less than lead acid and EEStor is much cheaper. 50kWHr of lead acid batteries would cost a fortune. There are challenges with 3500 volt systems including re-generative braking that has to produce over 3500 volts to guarantee charging up the cap, not nearly as easy to do as with batteries. I think EEStor has a winner!
Posted by: Roy | Jan 19, 2007 12:23:02 PM
John,
In his patent #7033406, Richard Weir, EEstore president, cited data published in 1985 from a Japanese periodical, as basis for the high dielectric property of Barium Titanate (BaTiO3), when coated with aluminum oxide and calcium magnesium aluminosilicated glass. If BaTiO3 capacitor was so good way back in the 1985, the likes of the EV1 would be around evey street corners since 1996.
What held back coated BaTiO3 from becoming superduper Cap was the fact that BaTiO3 has dielectric property that varies by nearly ten folds with just typical seasonal swing in ambient temperature, and the fact that its dielectric property drops by nearly as much with high electrical field strength, as Emosson has brought up!
Apparently Richard Weir didn't know that, since nowhere in his patent did he mention this property of BaTiO3, nor any way to deal with this greatly varying dielectric property of BaTiO3. EEstor's claim of 100x increase in electrical energy storage of ceremic capacitor reflects his unwareness of this knowledge that has barred others from even considering using BaTiO3 as SuperCap.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 20, 2007 7:49:43 PM
continued from above: The following is a verbatim quote from Richard Dean Weir's patent 7033406 to illustrate my previous posting:
Sorry, the entire quote has to be deleted in an attempt to overcome Spam guard in typepad.com. Look up the patent yourself!!
The storage capacity of his EESU is just a projection from data by J. Kuwata et al in Jpn Journal of Applied Physics published in 1985. There was no mention of any actual construction nor testing of any of the coated BaTiO3 superCap that was described in the patent! Little did he know...that he may be able to pull a fast one on the venture capitalists, but he has not fooled all the scientists or engineers here in GCC!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 20, 2007 8:06:36 PM
Thanks Roger for your explanation on EEStor supercapacitors. Here is another comment by Prof. Anatoly Moskalev (January 20th, 2007):
Posted by: Emosson | Jan 20, 2007 10:50:11 PM
Little did he know...that he may be able to pull a fast one on the venture capitalists, but he has not fooled all the scientists or engineers here in GCC!
So Kleiner Perkins is incapable of hiring a physicist as brilliant as some of the posters on GCC? No wonder they've lost so much money over the years! They keep forgetting to do due dilligence.
Posted by: George | Jan 20, 2007 11:40:52 PM
A bold statement Roger. This promisses to be an interesting year, sometime soon you'll be able to prean your feathers with "I told you so's" or pick the crow feathers out of your teeth. :)
Personally, I'm just going to wait and see which it is.
Posted by: Neil | Jan 21, 2007 12:01:42 AM
Here are the EEStor patents and patent application details:
1.
Electrical-energy-storage unit (EESU) utilizing ceramic and integrated-circuit technologies for replacement of electrochemical batteries
United States Patent#: 7,033,406
Weir, et al.
Filed: April 12, 2001
Granted: April 25, 2006
http://www.uspto.gov
2.
UTILIZATION OF POLY(ETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE) PLASTIC AND COMPOSITION-MODIFIED BARIUM TITANATE POWDERS IN A MATRIX THAT ALLOWS POLARIZATION AND THE USE OF INTEGRATED-CIRCUIT TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF LIGHTWEIGHT ULTRAHIGH ELECTRICAL ENERGY STORAGE UNITS (EESU)
International Patent#: WO/2006/026136
Weir, et al.
Filed: August 8, 2005
Published: September 3, 2006
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/
3.
Electrical-energy-storage unit (EESU) utilizing ceramic and integrated-circuit technologies for replacement of electrochemical batteries
United States Patent Application#: 20,060,210,779
Weir, et al.
Filed: April 10, 2006
Published: April 25, 2006
http://www.uspto.gov
It appears as if 3. is replacing 1. as the claims 1-16 in 1. are replaced with a set of new claims 17-40 in 3. This is probably due to the change from using aluminosilicate glass to poly(ethylene terephthalate) plastic as the second coating applied to the barium titanade ceramic powder.
The international patent 2. is essentially the US patent application 3.
Posted by: Dinesh | Jan 21, 2007 10:29:32 AM
See
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180075388578&ih=008&category=1502&rd=1
for a 1mfd 4KV DC capacitor.
The question is: did Eestor succeed in enlarging the capacitor surface with a factor 22.000.000, compared with a standard 1mfd 4KV DC capacitor ??
This is a lot, but why not?
You can only wonder why capacitor manufacturers did not try this before; Eestor's patent does not look very extraordinary indeed. But that is not Eestor's mistake, isn't it? Sometimes a good idea is simple.
Secondly, if the capacitor is sensitive for temperature changes, then it is always possible to integrate a temperature stabilizing system with the Eestor unit. Just look at a "modern" ICE (age) car: it has several extra features like cooling, lubrication, electric ignition, etc.... Much more complicated than a simple electric motor car with cooled Eestor capacitor unit.
And no, in principle you don't loose much energy by down-transforming the voltage (only ohmic losses). Some people always confuse voltage with energy. Not Eestor's mistake either.
Many many question about Eestor's unit are still unanswered though. Lets wait and see, "the best sea captains are in the pub".
Posted by: Koen | Jan 21, 2007 1:52:29 PM
George, if quantum tunneling effects have been indeed ignored by EEStor, then you bet any rational operator will try to maximize their assets (coated Barium titanate powder IP for example), while remaining silent on this issue.
You would think that by now they would have produced in the laboratory a 0.01 farad supercap with a 3500 volt breakdown field, and put an end to this controversy?
The literature is rife with classical physicists ignoring the superposition principle of quantum physics, only to discover later that their rationalistic assumptions did not match the empiricism of quantum mechanics.
Posted by: Beek | Jan 21, 2007 1:54:27 PM
Harvey D, where can I buy Chinese made Li-ion replacement batteries for $5.95? I have a few pieces of electronics with aged Li-ion batteries. It appears that subjecting such packs to very cold temperatures (e.g. 0 C) immediately and significantly reduces their capacity/life. Never take Li-ion packs to the skiing slopes.
Posted by: Beek | Jan 21, 2007 1:59:07 PM
Neil,
It does not matter who will be right or who will be wrong. The important thing is intellectual discussion of the facts or evidences regarding which technologies will be most viable and most feasible in the near future to end our oil dependency and to reduce global warming.
George,
You've brought up a good point! If EEstor would only demonstrate to the world one small capacitor cell of their superduper Cap that support their claim, instead of making us wait for them to complete a whole 15-52kwh car battery...Just as A123 demonstrated their nanotech Li-phosphate cells in power tools and afterward winning 15 millions from USABC consortium and other contracts and other big investments...then EEstor would have gotten all the millions of dollars research grants and contracts that have gone to A123 instead!!!...How long would it take to build just one capacitor cell to demonstrate the high 330wh/kg energy density that they are claiming?
Perhaps the USABC consortium and other energy storage research facilities have hire all the high-caliber physicists to work for them already, leaving venture capital firm Perkins et al with less qualified experts?
Dinesh,
US patent application # 20,060,210,779 filed on Sept 2006 mentions nothing regarding replacing aluminosilicate glass with polyethylene as coating. Polyethylene was not even mentioned in this latest patent application. Not much new info in this latest patent application...except some new claims were added on...Same old stuffs that was mentioned in Weir's first patent released on April 2006 that referenced J. Kuwata et al data regarding the high permittivity of their coated poweder as basis for their outrageous claim. There was no mentioning of the tremendous variation in dielectric property of BaTiO3 with temperature change nor with increasing in field strength, nor how to cope with this, either!
Koen,
Of course, you can enlarge the capacitance of a 1mFd 4kV capacitor by 22,000,000 folds and get the 31 Farad capacitance in order to store 52kwh of energy as claimed by EEstor, yeah, you'll end up with a car-size or larger capacitor bank that weighs many tonnes, BUT, you won't be able to get the ultra-high energy density of 330wh/kg, due to the physical limitation as outlined by Professor Anatoly Moskalev's posting on Jan 20 2007
in:
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog1/index.php?p=46
But, the major flaw in EEstor's high energy density claim lies in their apparent ignorance of the fact that the dielectric property of BaTiO3 would decrease drastically with the high field strenght required to support their 100x above the norm capacity claim, hence reducing the capacity by ~20-50 folds.
If they have a secret solution to this problem but do not want to disclose it, then legally, by not mentioning this problem in the patent application(s) and hence without a proposed solution to deal with it, this would render their patent(s) worthless due to failure to disclose sufficient information to make the invention operable as claimed. Just as any patent attorney on this issue!
Caveat Emptor!!!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 21, 2007 10:52:14 PM
Harvey D, where can I buy Chinese made Li-ion replacement batteries for $5.95?
Froogle hits 9.99 but not less:
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=li-ion&scoring=p
Posted by: kert | Jan 22, 2007 4:50:32 AM
I get 9.99$ per 3.7Volt 1000mAh battery.
This makes $270/kWh, or, around 10 grand for 35kWh reportedly in Tesla.
Keep in mind, thats extremely small-format batteries. If they were made in large automotive format, we'd have significantly smaller prices. Like Chinese ThunderSky already claims to have:
http://www.everspring.net/product-battery.htm
$160/kWh, or $5600 for 35kWh.
I say, we have hope.
Posted by: kert | Jan 22, 2007 4:57:36 AM
Er, actually, the same 1000mAh batteries on froogle can be had for $6.50 on Amazon, so $5.95 is realistic.
Which brings us verified $175/kWh, or ~6200 for theorethical 35kWh pack.
Condider bulk pricing, and lithium-powered conversion looks more and more atttactive.
Posted by: kert | Jan 22, 2007 5:08:13 AM
kert,
Great! But how many charging cycles will the battery lasts? Typical Li-Manganese or Li-Cobalt will last but 300-500 cycles, depending on depth of discharge and ambient and operating temperatures that the battery is exposed to. High temp will greatly shorten the battery life below rated durability. The exception is nano-tech lithium phosphate (A123) or lithium titanate (Altairnano)that may last thousands of cycles. The cheaper battery may end up being more expensive due to frequent replacement in the long run, plus higher risk of fire hazard, whereas nanotech lithium would be safer.
Caveat Emptor!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 22, 2007 11:00:32 AM
The original article (above) claims that the charging time for a 52 kWh EESU is "4-6 minutes." That's a pretty high rate, it seems to me. You can get, let's say, 2 kW out of an outlet at my home, so it would take 26 hours to charge. Since 26 hours is around 300 times longer than 4-6 minutes, you'd need around 600 kW to charge this thing in 4-6 minutes. I suppose that I could put a "personal power plant" in my back yard....
Posted by: Steve | Jan 22, 2007 12:23:24 PM
Or, you could have another set of EEStor devices in your back yard, which are slowly charged throughout the course of the day ( using solar panels if you wish ) and then dumped into your car in five minutes.
Five minutes recharge for EVs has been discussed before, its doable, there are several methods available for doing it, using high-voltage power from grid, flywheels, or another bank of fast-charge-discharge storage devices.
Note that needing both FAST recharge and FULL recharge simultaneously is a rare occassion, except for really long trips where you could use a *gasp* recharge station. IOW, it would be usually enough to dump just 5kWh's or so into the batteries, to go to grocery store, get back from work or smthing like that.
Posted by: kert | Jan 22, 2007 12:51:58 PM
There are a few more tid bits here:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/
Posted by: marcus | Jan 22, 2007 1:47:57 PM
Roger, if they made the discovery first, the U.S. will grant them the patent for their invention. The U.S. is "first to invent" not "first to file" like the rest of the world. Also, they do not have to disclose all of their secrets in patents. If they believe they can hide them indefinitely they can retain their intellectual property beyond the 20 year patent life. Alternatively, they may want to delay filing their patents to extend protection for the full 20 years from the start of production? There are a number of potential explanations. There are very good reasons to be skeptical.
Posted by: APosterFormerlyKnownAsAndy | Jan 22, 2007 7:50:58 PM
With regard to safety - sensing technology that would fuse/shunt V to ground seems one route. To that end:
Weir says the voltage will be stepped down with a bi-directional converter, and the whole system will be secured in a grounded metal box. It won't have a problem getting an Underwriters Laboratories safety certification, he adds. "If you drive a stake through it, we have ways of fusing this thing where all the energy is sitting there but it won't arc … It will be the safest battery the world has ever seen."
Technology Review interview
Patent filings often avoid full disclosure of "secrets" not only for competitive reasons, but to build the mythology like Coca Cola's incredible "formula." There was lots of speculation on batteries until A123 came along and now Phoenix is on road powered by "real" AltairNano batteries. Could it be that the little innovators like garage born Apple, Dell, Google - actually make stuff that works?
Posted by: gr | Feb 15, 2007 8:29:06 PM
>In his patent #7033406, Richard Weir, EEstore >president, cited data published in 1985 from a >Japanese periodical, as basis for the high dielectric >property of Barium Titanate (BaTiO3), when coated with >aluminum oxide and calcium magnesium aluminosilicated >glass. If BaTiO3 capacitor was so good way back in the >1985, the likes of the EV1 would be around evey street >corners since 1996.
>What held back coated BaTiO3 from becoming superduper >Cap was the fact that BaTiO3 has dielectric property >that varies by nearly ten folds with just typical >seasonal swing in ambient temperature, and the fact >that its dielectric property drops by nearly as much >with high electrical field strength, as Emosson has >brought up!
>Apparently Richard Weir didn't know that, since >nowhere in his patent did he mention this property of >BaTiO3, nor any way to deal with this greatly varying >dielectric property of BaTiO3. EEstor's claim of 100x >increase in electrical energy storage of ceremic >capacitor reflects his unwareness of this knowledge >that has barred others from even considering using >BaTiO3 as SuperCap.
According to their patent, their ultracaps consist of large stacks of small ultrucaps. When you connect a stack of voltage cells in series, the total current output of the stack is the same as each cell but the total voltage output of the stack equals the voltage output of each cell times the number of cells in the stack. For example, you can connect a stack of 512 9volt batteries (8 x 8 x 8) in series and get 4,608 volts at the stack output while each battery is only outputting 9volts.
Thus, they are probably connecting a bunch of these wafer sized caps in parallel to create high farad stacks and then connect a bunch of these high farad cells together in series to create the high voltage ultracaps. If that's the case, which I believe it is, the electric field stength on the dialectric barriers of each wafer would only be a fraction of the total output voltage.
Posted by: TheNightFly | Apr 24, 2007 3:19:32 PM
Thanks for the news!
Posted by: Michael | Sep 12, 2007 9:22:38 AM
EEStor has promised working models in 2007. Not long to go. Proof will be in the pudding.
Posted by: Mike | Nov 14, 2007 7:21:02 PM
I am willing to wait and see if they can do it. It they do what they have claimed, then everything will change in world of power storage. The possibilities are endless if they succeed. I think what they are really doing is not covered in their patents and like many previous inventions they might actually have invented something that did not previously exist. Without all the information we are all just just guessing at what is behind the curtain. I will give Richard Weir and his company the latitude to deliver their product sometime next year.
Sean McDonald
Posted by: Sean McDonald | Nov 14, 2007 7:56:06 PM
Below is a detailed discussion clearly demonstrating the invalidity of EEstor’s claims and targets.
EEstor does not report either a new material, or any data that indicates the ability to store more energy than known titanate dielectrics. EEstor calculates the amount of energy they expect their capacitor to store. A fundamental oversight results in an invalid calculation that is inaccurate by more than a factor of 100! The error is uncomplicated. Simply, energy does not equal ½ CV2 for a capacitor made from a nonlinear dielectric. For all high permittivity ceramics, the dielectric permittivity (K’) decreases markedly with increasing electric field E (dielectric saturation). Energy increases roughly linearly with voltage for these materials, as opposed to with the square of the voltage (ref 2).
Importantly, this is not a case wherein EEstor claims to have made some specific breakthrough regarding this issue. No such breakthrough is reported. There are no energy storage measurements, no permittivity versus field data, and no mention of eliminating or reducing dielectric saturation. Their patent and presentations indicate a complete lack of awareness (or lack of acknowledgment) of this issue. EEstor simply purports to make (or aspires to make) high K barium titanate based material, with a K of 18,000, and ultimately with an incredibly high breakdown strength of up to 300V/um. They then calculate the energy stored as ½ CV2 without comment on the use of this equation.
How large of an error does this cause? Calculated energy density is ½K’E2 when calculated total energy is ½CV2. For K = 18,000, and a field 100 V/um, this invalid calculation gives 800 J/cc. (½K’E2 = (0.5)(8.85x10-12 F/m)(18,000)(1x108 V/m) = 8x108 J/m3 = 800 J/cc). Eight references describing actual studies of energy storage in high permittivity ceramic dielectrics (including barium titanate and BST) are noted below. All of these studies indicate a maximum energy density ranging from about 2 to 12 J/cc, depending on the exact material and the maximum breakdown voltage (which is on the order of 100V/um in most cases). Notably, for the studies involving very high K materials, if the authors had simply calculated energy storage using ½ CV2, as EEstor does, it would have similarly resulted in reported values on the order of 100 times greater than the actual measured values!
Hence there is no basis for concluding EEstor has made any advance in the field, and clear evidence that the sole basis for their claim of unbelievably high energy storage is the simple, invalid calculation. Their aspiration (with no reported results) to triple the breakdown field to 300 V/um in combination with the invalid calculation adds an additional factor of 9, giving an absurd 7200 J/cc (along with all of the corresponding hype and speculation about a new miracle material).
Below are notes regarding the references noted above that clearly substantiate the analysis above (one report of personal measurements, the other seven directly from a Google search on energy storge in ceramic dielectrics). .
1. (My work, unpublished), 1987 – Report to Maxwell Corporation on energy storage potential in high permittivity ceramics. Measurements were made on thin films up to 100V / um on barium titanate and PLZT based dielectrics. K varied as ~ 1/E over much of the voltage range, resulting in an approximately linear increase in energy density with field. Maximum energy storage was 4 – 8 J/cc.
2. Love, Journal of the American Ceramic Society 1990 – Also observed a linear increase in energy with voltage for several classes of high permittivity (up to 12,000) thick film ceramics (barium titanate, PLZT, PMN). Reported up to 5 J/cc at 80 V/um.
3. Triani, et.al, (ANSTO and CSIRO – Australia, 2001 – J. Materials Science and Engineering. They reported 8 – 10 J/cc for PbSr titanate, and noted that the energy densities were similar to those of the best BaSr titanate materials for a given field, but the maximum fields of up to 100V/um (100KV/mm) were superior for the PST.
4. Kaufmann, et.,al, Penn State and Argonne, 1999. DOE Contract Report. They report sputtered BaSr titanate thin films with a K of 500 and a breakdown field of 100 V / um. K decreases to 120, and the energy storage is 11 J/cc. Also reported are data for hot pressed AFE/FE lead zirconate. These had a maximum K of 12,000, and a breakdown strength of 12 V/um, resulting in an energy storage of 3.2 J/cc.
5. Fletcher, et.al, 1996 Journal of Applied Physics D. They report a theoretical analysis based on Devonshire theory of ferroelectrics. Optimal energy density is predicted for materials with Curie Temperatures well below the operating temperatures. Applied to BaSr titanate, the model predicts an energy density of 8 J/cc at 100 V/um. The model was verified in actual materials.
6. Randolf, et. al, (Austria, 1996) – IEEE Annual Report - Studied dielectric energy storage for powders embedded in polymer matrices. They reported using a PbTitanate-PbZnNiobate material with K = 5000, and reported energy densities of 1 – 10 J/cc.
7. Lawless, et. al., Ceramphysics Inc. 1992 report a high permittivity ceramic (K = 8000) for which a maxium energy density of 6 J/cc was observed for samples with optimum breakdown strength.
8. Freim, Nanomaterials Research Corp NASA SBIR Proposal 1998, reports reduced dielectric saturation for nanocrystalline microstructures, and states that “Commercial coarse grain dielectric based ceramic capacitors are ineffective for use in high energy storage and delivery applications since the dielectric's permittivity decreases sharply when the applied voltage is increased.” They target 5 – 10 J/cc for the proposed new improved materials.
Posted by: | Nov 28, 2007 6:06:52 PM
Just a few additional points. Doesn't it seem a little obvious and transparent that the whole incredible story is about energy storage, but they never provide a measurement of energy stored. All of the announced milestones relate to higher purity powders, and permittivity targets, and manufacturing scale up (which no doubt requires funding). It would take two days to make a small thick film sample or a polished down pellet, measure permittivity versus field, and calculate energy density. Why do you suppose they never do that? Could it be because when you just measure permittivity and declare that the energy in your capacitor will be 1/2CV2, you get > 1000J/cc, but if you make a small pellet and measure it you get 5 J/cc (and no more funding). You figure it out
Posted by: | Nov 28, 2007 8:49:18 PM
Top 5 reasons to not show your cards this early:
5.) Avoid the Segway pre-release hype fiasco.
4.) Same reason the guys who invented artificial diamonds were very secretive and received many death threats: Massive incentive to do them harm by worlds largest industry.
3.) Revealing anything won't help your business. Money is not in short supply to create their own mega-business when things happen so why tell anyone anything.
2.) Details provide competitors shortcuts to replicate.
1.) Public proof isn't a prerequisite of selling tens of millions of cars to Joe Sixpacks or Li Wongs, only the manufacturers and their cash suppliers "need to know".
Posted by: Brad | Dec 11, 2007 8:30:30 PM
One year on and we're still waiting. Oh well.
Posted by: richard schumacher | Jan 19, 2008 8:42:50 AM
naca Nasa announcement
Posted by: Nasa announcements announcement | May 17, 2008 3:07:11 AM
global civil Fight warming
Posted by: global warming Fight california | May 18, 2008 1:39:59 AM
global civil Fight warming
Posted by: global warming Fight california | May 18, 2008 1:40:09 AM
history promised war oral history palgrave shanghai in dust orals bialystok oral wear study from land
Posted by: oral pics in dust study history oral war history from promised wear shanghai palgrave land bialystok | Jun 6, 2008 8:36:51 AM
