Breakthrough in EV motor technology

[teddyg]

Surprised nobody has yet posted an article on this:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1082918_how-plasma-tvs-led-to-smaller-electric-car-motor

INSANE amounts of torque, 80 pounds lighter than a standard similiarly powered electric motor, 30% more efficient...sounds good to me!
2000+ lbs of torque! Sounds like it would rip the rubber right off the tire so not sure how practical it is but certainly would be good for racing or towing! Maybe for 18 wheeler trucking EV's? Or heavy machinery EV's?

I wonder if it can be cooled easier (as I believe that is an issue with current EV motors in that they overheat if run hard for too long)? That would make it good for racing applications, lighter weight would be a bonus there as well.

I have heard Tesla makes their own motors. I wonder if they will be looking at motors like this in the future?

What do you guys think? I guess we can add the Axiflux motor to the debate of standard vs hub motors now.

 

[Johan]

I don't get the 30% more efficient, since the currently used electric motors are 90% or more efficient already.

 

[DrJohnM]

"I wonder if it can be cooled easier" - well if its 30% more efficient, then there should be 30% less heat generated.

The motor is 80lbs lighter that a standard similarly powered electric motor. However, the Performance S has a motor that is twice the kWh, so the saving should be more like 160lbs (73kg). That is significant.

 

[Zzzz...]

Permanent magnets == rare earth elements.

And they use more of them!

But looks really promising for wind turbines and big trucks(electric ones) - unsprung weight is not that much an issue there. But I'm somewhat skeptical that they reduced weight enough to actually make cars with inwheel motors practical.

 

[efusco]

Permanent magnets == rare earth elements.

And they use more of them!

Rare earth elements are not as "rare" as their name implies. Thulium and lutetium are the two least abundant rare earth elements - but they each have an average crustal abundance that is nearly 200 times greater than the crustal abundance of gold (1). However, these metals are very difficult to mine because it is unusual to find them in concentrations high enough for economical extraction.

The most abundant rare earth elements are cerium, yttrium, lanthanum and neodymium (2). They have average crustal abundances that are similar to commonly used industrial metals such as chromium, nickel, zinc, molybdenum, tin, tungsten and lead (1). Again, they are rarely found in extractable concentrations.

http://geology.com/articles/rare-earth-elements/

 

[Zzzz...]

http://geology.com/articles/rare-earth-elements/

Yeah, QUOTE:Again, they are rarely found in extractable concentrations.
Anyway they all still relatively expansive. When Ford rolled out new generation of hybrid technology, one of the key points was that it become much cheaper because Ford decided against using rare earth elements. Sorta what Tesla is already doing.

- - - Updated - - -
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2012/09/12/ford-sees-cost-breakthrough-with-new-family-of-hybrids/
Ford replaced the nickel-metal-hydride batteries it had been using in earlier systems with new lighter, more efficient lithium-ion batteries and made other changes in the electrical system to sharply reduce the use of expensive rare earth metals that are a major culprit in the high cost of hybrid vehicles.

The result, says Ford, is that its new hybrid system is 30 percent cheaper than the previous generation.

To put into perspective, zinc cost less then $2 per kg, neodymium is around $95 atm.

 

[efusco]

Yeah, QUOTE:Again, they are rarely found in extractable concentrations.
Anyway they all still relatively expansive. When Ford rolled out new generation of hybrid technology, one of the key points was that it become much cheaper because Ford decided against using rare earth elements. Sorta what Tesla is already doing.

- - - Updated - - -
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2012/09/12/ford-sees-cost-breakthrough-with-new-family-of-hybrids/
Ford replaced the nickel-metal-hydride batteries it had been using in earlier systems with new lighter, more efficient lithium-ion batteries and made other changes in the electrical system to sharply reduce the use of expensive rare earth metals that are a major culprit in the high cost of hybrid vehicles.

The result, says Ford, is that its new hybrid system is 30 percent cheaper than the previous generation.

To put into perspective, zinc cost less then $2 per kg, neodymium is around $95 atm.

Fair enough...I guess I just hate the "rare" part of rare earth suggesting that they're like diamonds or something. But you're right that extraction in adequate quantities, even if not truely rare is an issue as is cost.

 

[Zzzz...]

Fair enough...I guess I just hate the "rare" part of rare earth suggesting that they're like diamonds or something. But you're right that extraction in adequate quantities, even if not truely rare is an issue as is cost.

Partially that is probably my fault.

You see, for wind turbine, lets talk about 2MW one, 500 kg of neodymium is essentially nothing. Just an extra $50,000 in very capital intensive industry on raw material.

But my reaction to "rare earth" - you know, even if 5kg is used for cheap electric car, thats mean $500 taken from a bottom line just on basic car. Add cost of machining (have no clue how good in that regard is neodymium). But think globally. Hundreds of millions of families in China and India and Africa would buy their first car ever in next few decades. I hope that would be an electric ones. I hope "golden billion" would replace their gas cars with electric ones. Even mere $200 per car will go a long way.

So while I'm not very exited about this particular motor, I'm in no way want to belittle the achievement. As long as it make an economical sense to use rare earth elements - we should use them. If for an extra $50k wind turbine can get 2% improvement in output power - that is a HUGE deal that will help renewable power generation. Cuz +2% generated costs more then 200 grands in that particular case, assuming TCO.

But speaking of electric cars, yeah +$1000, or just 10 kg of neodymium is nothing if we talk about Tesla S. Even then I would not call it nothing. Sure it is good for supercars! But think of GenIII. Every $100 would count to the bottom line of Tesla. Or Nissan. Or GM. And while I'm a huge fan of inwheel motors, you know they so cool on paper, looking at the industry I see that Mitsubishi failed. Miserably! After many years of promises and research. And there are the reason for that fail. And that British (or whatever, European company that tried to commercialize inwheel motors, haven't heard of them for a while, just another example).

Disclaimer: I'm not sure how much of neodymium is used by conventional 2MW wind turbine generator. Nor that I'm sure of how much of neodymium would be used by 300kW or 150kW motor of EV. Not to mention this new tech no one know anything about but some promises on company website (sorry for a grain of salt). Anyhow abovementioned numbers are pure guesstimate on my side and I would love to be corrected

 

[ggr]

I don't get the 30% more efficient, since the currently used electric motors are 90% or more efficient already.

In other contexts, I've seen the following logic applied:

If it's 90% efficient, it's 10% inefficient. If we reduce the inefficiency to 6.6%, that's 30% less inefficient. Therefore it's 30% more efficient!

I have no idea if that's the logic they are using in this case, though.

The article also mentions that they're modifying a Holden Commodore. That's a GM vehicle that is big and heavy. The reason they were modifying these cars is because Better Place wanted to roll out in Australia, and no-one in Australia wanted to buy Renaults. So maybe the motors will work, but the Commodore is a pretty silly car to modify.

 

[Norbert]

I don't get the 30% more efficient, since the currently used electric motors are 90% or more efficient already.

Perhaps that's in terms of "torque per weight", instead of "output Wh per input Wh".

 

[Lloyd]

Perhaps that's in terms of "torque per weight", instead of "output Wh per input Wh".

That's not the generally accepted definition of effeciency. Usually related as energy input to work output. Especially true in relation to an engine or motor.

 

[vfx]

When they say lighter, better, stronger, they are usually not comparing to the best in the field. Usually just the mid or bottom model in use.

Rare became "not rare" when huge deposits were found. Unfortunately the name stuck.

Those TV parts can handle use in a harsh vehicle environment?