"To popularize electric cars, IBM says, an energy density ten times greater than that of conventional lithium-ion batteries is needed"

This is complete bunkum.

As I have argued many times before, charging infrastructure can do much more to popularize the electric car than high energy density, because it will very much reduce the need for large batteries.

In their simplistic thinking, they applied ICE thinking to BEV's: "If a petrol car can travel 500 miles on a tank, then the BEV should be able to do that too, otherwise people won't buy it" And they also assumed that a BEV has to be superior in every respect. As if people do not weigh the pros and cons and then decide. The distinct advantages of a BEV are: low running costs, oil independence, no CO2 (with the right source of electricity), silent, fun, reliable, no more visiting petrol stations. Range is important, but you can make it too important.

Most people do not drive more than 100 miles per day on a regular basis. If you plug in your car daily (or twice per day: at home and at work), then you hardly ever need more than 100 miles of range. Perhaps a few days per year. If you have to stop for one or two fast charges on those days, most people will not see that as a showstopper. As long as there are ample fast chargers available.

Their thinking has probably been something like "A tank + petrol weighs 100 kg, so the battery may not weigh more". Completely disregarding the weight savings in other parts of the vehicle and the fact that for an EV, due to regenerative braking, weight does not impact fuel consumption as much as it does for an ICE car.

You should look at the complete picture and then ask yourself whether it's going to work or not. They just focused on a single detail, take it out of context and then these kind of silly conclusions follow.

Not saying that the range needs to be 500 miles
but somebody is suppose to supply you with a connection at work. There are 100 people at my office is the company suppose to pay for that without charging
So the company is suppose to put a few for the early adopters, and who is paying for that, obama money.

Or putting them in parking lots or having the city put them in like parking meters. Somebody has to pay for that.

A battery that can be swapped out if needed like you
propane grills if you need longer range otherwise charge at night at home

I'm not sure what this obama money is meant to be, but I don't see value in turning everything into a political talking point. It is tedious and serves no purpose. There are other forums where you can discuss politics.

I see solid state batteries as more likely to get better energy density and cost in the relatvely short term.

The reason that I have been receptive to fuel cell technology is that I don't have great faith in the big battery paradigm, with batteries in the 80-100kwh range.

Recently electric roads with induction charging has looked surprisingly hopeful.

The whole technology is too much in flux to predict, but conservatively a pretty good solution for almost everyone might be a 40-50kwh battery pack, giving good range even in cold weather at highway speed and only an hour or so's charging time on a fast charger if you needed to go further.

One advantage of a rather bigger pack than is used today would be that, calender life issues aside, it is easier to get very good mileage out of the pack, as cycling is reduced.

The problem with using a range extender is all the extra cost and complication that entails.

I'd see then, barring breakthroughs, steady pressure to increase range, but not half so severe as the pressure to reduce costs.

I think vanadium in the cathode and then sulfur in the cathode will make improvements in the shorter term. Lithium air is a LONG term proposition. It may pay off and it may not.

This is the kind of development that used to be done by national labs, because the private sector wanted a sure thing. They usually leveraged off the the public investment after it worked.

Davemart,

"I don't have great faith in the big battery paradigm, with batteries in the 80-100kwh range."

I agree, but 80What's the problem with batteries of that size?

"might be a 40-50kwh battery pack, giving good range even in cold weather at highway speed and only an hour or so's charging time on a fast charger"

Indeed, if the 24 kWh battery of a LEAF of today charges in half an hour, then a 50 kWh battery on the same charger will take an hour to charge. But this is not set in stone, there is nothing fundamental that prevents the fast chargers of tomorrow from delivering 100, 200 or perhaps even 500 kW.

When looking at long road trips, I think the general public would accept pausing every 250 km for a 20 min fast charge. If a 250 km drive costs 50 kWh, then the charger would have to be 150 kW, which is nothing extraordinary.

I'd see then ... steady pressure to increase range, but not half so severe as the pressure to reduce costs"

+1

(Hmm, that got posted too soon. Again, what's happening with this computer of mine)

Ok, what i was typing in my first sentence was the following:

I agree, but 80-100 kWh looks to me to be about right for the 'car of the future'. What's the problem with batteries of that size?

Hi Anne:
It's really mainly the economics that I can't see dropping enough soon for 80-100 kwh to be typial for most folk.

For the moment $150 kwh is still a pretty tough target, and at that kind of level you are starting to have difficulty reducing cost further because the material cost proportion is rising.

The $7,500 a 50 kwh battery pack would cost would be a lot more affordable for most, and as you argue in this thread shouldn't present serious range problems for most with fast chargers.

Also they should be able to fit 40-50 kwh into the existing battery pack space on things like the Zoe and Leaf within a few years.

I also have some secondary reservations on large battery packs, although it is mainly price, such as cahrge times, or if charge times can be reduced the heck of a load on the local transformer.

In energetic terms it ain't great either, lugging that much extra weight around.

At 150Wh/kg at the cell level you would be lugging around another 300kg or so for a 100kwh pack compared to a 50kwh one.

Serious lightweighting as in the Toyota FT-Bh should enable the range of the smaller pack to be extended pretty well in many driving conditions too.

Anyway, enough maunderings! We will have to suck it and see.

I really fancy and electric road though! ;-)

EV range needs may simply follow human habits.

After a couple hours max, people will: leave their desk, use the john, exit a car, stretch their legs, watch the movie credits, recharge the car, refill their coffee mug, grab a snack, whatever... 200 mile range or less may do fine.

Agree with Anne's assessment.
I think that a more realistic approach for increasing the popularity of electric vehicles should be trying to make PHEV's (and BEV's as well) as cost-competitive as possible with current non-hybrid gasoline vehicles. Make 10-kWh battery pack as small, light, powerful and as cheap as possible to enable 20-30 mile electric range is all that would be needed for a PHEV. In the latest Prius, make the fuel tank 1/2 the size it has currently, from 11 gallons down to 5.5 gallons, and put 1/2 of the battery capacity next to a downsized fuel tank, with appropriate fire insulation, of course. Put the other 1/2 of the battery capacity in the space of the spare tire, and one would have a PHEV with 300-mi range with about 20-30-mile electric range WITHOUT any loss of internal space.

At the same times, work place should provide charging sockets for certain slots reserved for PHEV's. With the cost of gasoline right now, people would not think twice about charging their vehicles twice daily to drastically cut down on their fuel bills, provided that PHEV's are available at a more cost-effective prices AND without loss of internal space like the GM Volt that also carries a very hefty price premium.

The key to mass adoption of electric vehicles is not necessarily long-range BEV's, but the key is to make electric vehicles more cost-competitive.

The problem is small city cars are mostly gravitating to the ultra cheap side of things. That plus young people abandoning the car entirely puts quite the squeeze on this segment.

The real money and real fuel savings come from replacing larger longer range cars people use as primary car.

I'm not sure how many of these issues are real issues.

assuming that we could get the cost down to $200 kwh, which is pretty tough, then you add $2,000 to the car straight away.

You still need to add the charging facilities, electric motor, drive bypassing the transmission, suitable air conditioning and so on.

Once you've gotten rid of the engine accessory drives and all their pulleys and brackets, downsized the A/C compressor to a sealed unit with no flexible hoses, and chopped the usual V6 engine down to an I-twin, you might be looking at cost savings overall.  Even towing with a heavy load, I've never needed more than 100 HP continuous; if Fiat's turbo TwinAir can do it, I don't see why a PHEV based on a 2-cylinder should lack anything.

Li-air's inability to take fast charges is a serious disadvantage in automotive use; good regenerative braking would require a very large battery pack.  Maybe it would work well if paired with ultracaps, but that's quite a handicap unless the cost comes WAY down.

Most people who buy a car are aware of the fuel costs on a yearly basis. The extra cost of a large battery in a BEV should always be compared to the savings in fuel over an ICE.

The average person drives 12,000 miles per year, so for a Volt in all-electric mode, which uses 2.8 kWh/mile and $.10 per kWh the cost to the consumer is $428. The Volt in gas mode only gets 37 miles per gallon. So at $4 per gallon would cost $1297. That's $870 savings each year. I think if you replace the ICE, transmission, fuel tank, and exhaust system with a bigger battery, the savings would be greater.