Actually, I think the capacitor strategy would be to simply use the Super Cap energy first - either charging the main battery or powering the motors. In the case that the SuperCap store and battery are fully charged, the car defaults to the no regen mode we sometimes see today. This is a condition that would not last that long except in very unusual scenarios (like a very long down hill run). After a full range charge, I get regen back very quickly.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Gigacapacitor?
- Thread starter Bob Carver
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Technical
I clearly haven't considered this math before. > 1% of 100% range is spent flooring it from 0 to full speed. Wow.
Well, you know, when you hit 130, it sort of stops accelerating, and the people with flashy lights eventually come after you, and so you eventually let off the go pedal, and as the speed bleeds off from 130 down to, say, 80, some of them there kWh go back into the battery...
You don't have to be going downhill to regenerate; kinetic energy is good too.
And the latest from the EESTOR front...
Short version is they are toast:
ZENN Motor Company Inc. (TSX VENTURE:ZNN); ("ZENN" or the "Company"), today provided an update on the progress at EEStor, Inc. regarding the development of EESU layers.
The changes previously announced at EEStor as a result of ZENN's acquisition of control of EEStor continue to be implemented. The Technical Advisory Committee ("TAC") has met three times formally and additional times less formally. The TAC is very involved in assisting EEStor in reviewing its testing procedures, developing improved procedures, evaluating test results and generally providing technology assistance and assessment.
Under the direction of its Chief Science Officer, Richard Weir, EEStor is working to produce new layers with the objective of being able to simultaneously demonstrate both high resistivity and high capacitance in the same layer over a range of voltages. EESU layers previously provided to the TAC by EEStor did not show commercial potential. EEStor continues to work with its new and latest polymer and is trying to address issues that affected the homogeneity of the layers. As the fill factor of composition modified barium titanate ("CMBT") was increased the consistency of the distribution of the CMBT powder in the layers was not optimal, but progress has been made in creating layers with better consistency. EEStor produced layers in early March with a fill factor of 40% of EEStor's CMBT. In order to understand the impact of the CMBT powder on the layers, the TAC requested that layers be produced with higher fill factors. EEStor has not had time to optimize its new layers, but was able to produce preliminary layers with fill factors of 50% and 65%. The layers were all tested on the Company's own Hewlett Packard LCR meter as a way of initially screening to see if the layers produced any technically interesting results.
The tests done are preliminary and further testing is needed, both externally and internally in order to reach any final conclusions. The TAC noted that permittivity did rise in the layers as the amount of CMBT in the layer was increased, over five times when fill was increased from 40% to 65%. However, based on the preliminary results the TAC has not seen indications that the layers have commercial potential for energy storage. To be of commercial value for energy storage purposes both the permittivity and the resistivity of the layers would have to be much higher. These results are well below the target levels set by EEStor several years ago where it targeted permittivity in excess of 10,000. The TAC has questioned whether the mixing of the CMBT with low permittivity polymers can yield the high permittivity necessary to store commercially meaningful amounts of electrical energy. The TAC is composed of five members who possess expertise in a number of areas including capacitor manufacture and design, chemistry, electrical engineering, measurement and energy modeling.
The TAC focused on permittivity at higher frequencies and noted that at frequencies of 10 Hz and below it is difficult to determine the accurateness of the readings. The TAC did note that if the layers can maintain a permittivity as high as that shown in the 50% and 65% fill factor layers, the CMBT itself could have commercial potential in a number of applications other than energy storage, but significant additional work would need to be done to determine if this is practical. In this regard EEStor is reaching out to existing manufacturers to determine the potential for its materials.
The TAC has been assessing the CMBT powders prior to it being mixed with polymer. The TAC concluded that, given the characteristics of the CMBT, it would not be possible to design a 100% reliable testing protocol for the powders alone. The TAC continues to work on testing procedures to better its understanding of both the CMBT powders and the EESU layers.
EEStor's Chief Science Officer believes that by further refining the layers and increasing the fill factor, both the insulation resistance and the permittivity will increase. To date the examples provided to the TAC do not show that permittivity improvement will increase sufficiently for the commercialization of an EESU.
Both EEStor and ZENN are operating with limited financial resources. They will have to raise additional capital in the near term if work at EEStor is to continue. Without meaningful technological progress it may be difficult to access sufficient capital and the companies are therefore reviewing their options including exploring the possibility of partnering with companies with greater financial resources and capabilities. ZENN and EEStor are in discussions at an early stage with a number of potential partners. The goal is to create a partnership which brings additional resources to the effort to develop the EEStor technology. The companies recognize that on their own the development path will continue to be challenging. Unless the companies are successful in their attempts to attract partners or capital, which is uncertain, there can be no assurance about their ability to continue development of the EESU.
Short version is they are toast:
ZENN Motor Company Inc. (TSX VENTURE:ZNN); ("ZENN" or the "Company"), today provided an update on the progress at EEStor, Inc. regarding the development of EESU layers.
The changes previously announced at EEStor as a result of ZENN's acquisition of control of EEStor continue to be implemented. The Technical Advisory Committee ("TAC") has met three times formally and additional times less formally. The TAC is very involved in assisting EEStor in reviewing its testing procedures, developing improved procedures, evaluating test results and generally providing technology assistance and assessment.
Under the direction of its Chief Science Officer, Richard Weir, EEStor is working to produce new layers with the objective of being able to simultaneously demonstrate both high resistivity and high capacitance in the same layer over a range of voltages. EESU layers previously provided to the TAC by EEStor did not show commercial potential. EEStor continues to work with its new and latest polymer and is trying to address issues that affected the homogeneity of the layers. As the fill factor of composition modified barium titanate ("CMBT") was increased the consistency of the distribution of the CMBT powder in the layers was not optimal, but progress has been made in creating layers with better consistency. EEStor produced layers in early March with a fill factor of 40% of EEStor's CMBT. In order to understand the impact of the CMBT powder on the layers, the TAC requested that layers be produced with higher fill factors. EEStor has not had time to optimize its new layers, but was able to produce preliminary layers with fill factors of 50% and 65%. The layers were all tested on the Company's own Hewlett Packard LCR meter as a way of initially screening to see if the layers produced any technically interesting results.
The tests done are preliminary and further testing is needed, both externally and internally in order to reach any final conclusions. The TAC noted that permittivity did rise in the layers as the amount of CMBT in the layer was increased, over five times when fill was increased from 40% to 65%. However, based on the preliminary results the TAC has not seen indications that the layers have commercial potential for energy storage. To be of commercial value for energy storage purposes both the permittivity and the resistivity of the layers would have to be much higher. These results are well below the target levels set by EEStor several years ago where it targeted permittivity in excess of 10,000. The TAC has questioned whether the mixing of the CMBT with low permittivity polymers can yield the high permittivity necessary to store commercially meaningful amounts of electrical energy. The TAC is composed of five members who possess expertise in a number of areas including capacitor manufacture and design, chemistry, electrical engineering, measurement and energy modeling.
The TAC focused on permittivity at higher frequencies and noted that at frequencies of 10 Hz and below it is difficult to determine the accurateness of the readings. The TAC did note that if the layers can maintain a permittivity as high as that shown in the 50% and 65% fill factor layers, the CMBT itself could have commercial potential in a number of applications other than energy storage, but significant additional work would need to be done to determine if this is practical. In this regard EEStor is reaching out to existing manufacturers to determine the potential for its materials.
The TAC has been assessing the CMBT powders prior to it being mixed with polymer. The TAC concluded that, given the characteristics of the CMBT, it would not be possible to design a 100% reliable testing protocol for the powders alone. The TAC continues to work on testing procedures to better its understanding of both the CMBT powders and the EESU layers.
EEStor's Chief Science Officer believes that by further refining the layers and increasing the fill factor, both the insulation resistance and the permittivity will increase. To date the examples provided to the TAC do not show that permittivity improvement will increase sufficiently for the commercialization of an EESU.
Both EEStor and ZENN are operating with limited financial resources. They will have to raise additional capital in the near term if work at EEStor is to continue. Without meaningful technological progress it may be difficult to access sufficient capital and the companies are therefore reviewing their options including exploring the possibility of partnering with companies with greater financial resources and capabilities. ZENN and EEStor are in discussions at an early stage with a number of potential partners. The goal is to create a partnership which brings additional resources to the effort to develop the EEStor technology. The companies recognize that on their own the development path will continue to be challenging. Unless the companies are successful in their attempts to attract partners or capital, which is uncertain, there can be no assurance about their ability to continue development of the EESU.
Just received an e-mail that Elon recently favorited a link on Twitter to this ultracapacitor research paper article:
High-performance, low-cost ultracapacitors built with graphene and carbon nanotubes
I haven't read the research paper, only the article. I would be curious to see what people more knowledgeable have to say concerning this. There is no mention of how long to commercialize or time frames in the article. If nothing else this shows that Elon is keeping tabs on the battery alternatives...
RT
High-performance, low-cost ultracapacitors built with graphene and carbon nanotubes
I haven't read the research paper, only the article. I would be curious to see what people more knowledgeable have to say concerning this. There is no mention of how long to commercialize or time frames in the article. If nothing else this shows that Elon is keeping tabs on the battery alternatives...
RT
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Well, the father of Lithium-Ion batteries agrees with me that better technology will likely supercede li-ion batteries:
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, from start to finish, you're right. But when a technology is in the 7th inning, rather than the 1st, it doesn't take long to reach the finish line.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, from start to finish, you're right. But when a technology is in the 7th inning, rather than the 1st, it doesn't take long to reach the finish line.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
It's an example of a disruptive technology that could turn a $5 billion investment into dust.
LiIon is lightyears ahead of lead but still there is plenty of demand for lead battery.
Turning a lab breakthrough into GWh annual producion takes *dekades*.
Turning a lab breakthrough into GWh annual producion takes *dekades*.
You don't know what battery Tesla is building. Also, everything will eventually be dust. The issue is what time period. Whatever new battery technology comes along will have to be invented, developed to a point that it is worth putting it into a product, field tested, and then large factories will have to be built to produce it. If that technology is not available today, it won't make it in time for mass production by 2017, or probably even 2018. Also, it doesn't matter if that technology is better if the cost is way too high. It might not be competitive until much later. Battery technologies have typically not advanced at a rapid pace in terms of storage density or ability to withstand large charge/discharge currents with high life cycles. Many such promising battery technologies have failed to make it to anything product worthy.
On the other hand, Tesla would gladly see better batteries built. Matter of fact, inventors of such technology would likely opt to go to Tesla because of their proven commitment to electric vehicles and their ability to get to market quickly. Tesla has their own battery experts that know the state of the art and the development timeframes, so it is unlikely they see a different battery technology as a threat. Instead, it is an opportunity.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Well, let's just say it would be strange if LiIon batteries would be superseded by worse technology, wouldn't it? Of course there will be new and better technologies in the future. That is a statement with little interesting information in it.
What you cite dr. Goodenough (what a name!) to have said though, that "by the time the build the factory, there will be a new battery technology" (by which I suppose he means ready for mass production, not just a white paper or in a lab), is more interesting. But there is absolutely nothing to support that statement. Do you really think there is a commercial player on the Global arena that know the current state of battery technology better than Tesla and Panasonic in cooperation?
AC1K
Member
haha thats like saying the factory they are in right now can only make Toyotas and Chevy's
Intel has re-tooled their line numerous times to support different fabrication processes
130nm > 90nm > 65nm > 45nm > 32nm > 22nm >16nm > and soon 11 or 10?
if someone came out with a formula for super capacitors that equal 400Wh/kg with equal size, i bet Tesla can throw enough money to retool the whole factory in 2 months,
UT Austin is trying to partner with Tesla. That's why they're warning about this plunge into obsolescent technology. They would love to see the gigafactory being built in Austin!
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Time will tell I guess. To get Tesla to commit to another technology completely (I'm a little confused as to if we are now talking of a new battery chemistry that does not involve Lithium, or if we are talking about a Gigacapacitor) at this point in time will be very difficult. As you know they will break ground next month on the first site and expect to be producing double the current global production of batteries in Whrs perhaps already end of next year. So whatever technology you have in mind would have to be really mature.
Similar threads
