Hybrid Smart Battery Almost As Cost Effective & A Lot More L

[Bret Cahill]

The pursuit of a "super" battery that could cheaply and efficiently
store energy all at a high density might not be the best use of time
and resources.

A more plausible solution would be a system of several different
batteries with an electronic controller which would charge and
discharge the various batteries depending on the source of power.

Instead of wasting expensive fuel charging inefficient batteries or
expensive batteries repeatedly being cycled with cheap grid
electricity, a controller would have inputs for fuel cost, grid cost
and battery costs and then automatically shift between the various
batteries to cut costs.

For example, if a plug in hybrid was being used mostly as an EV, then
the controller would run the energy through the low cost (< 15 cents/
kW-hr) cells where the efficiency only needs to be above 60%. When it
was time for a long road trip the controller would shift to the 95%
efficient cells that might be cost effective even above $2/kW-hr.


Bret Cahill


". . . glitter with the virtues of a world that does not yet exist."

-- Nietzsche

 

[Mike Jr.]

On Sep 15, 3:49 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

The pursuit of a "super" battery that could cheaply and efficiently
store energy all at a high density might not be the best use of time
and resources.

A more plausible solution would be a system of several different
batteries with an electronic controller which would charge and
discharge the various batteries depending on the source of power.

Instead of wasting expensive fuel charging inefficient batteries or
expensive batteries repeatedly being cycled with cheap grid
electricity, a controller would have inputs for fuel cost, grid cost
and battery costs and then automatically shift between the various
batteries to cut costs.

For example, if a plug in hybrid was being used mostly as an EV, then
the controller would run the energy through the low cost (< 15 cents/
kW-hr) cells where the efficiency only needs to be above 60%.  When it
was time for a long road trip the controller would shift to the 95%
efficient cells that might be cost effective even above $2/kW-hr.

Bret,
Why carry around the weight of batteries that you are not using? How
are you computing cost per kW-hr? Cost of the source power? Charging
a battery off the grid or charging a battery off of a gasoline
internal combustion engine is still charging a battery. Initially
charge the battery off the grid and if it runs low during a trip, kick-
in the gasoline engine. Or am I missing your point?

--Mike Jr

Bret Cahill

". . . glitter with the virtues of a world that does not yet exist."

-- Nietzsche

 

[Uncle Al]

Bret Cahill wrote:

The pursuit of a "super" battery that could cheaply and efficiently
store energy all at a high density might not be the best use of time
and resources.

When thermodynamics says "no" it is the daddy. A battery cannot
contain more energy than its binding energy less its inert
constituents. A fuel tank has no such restrictions. Storage cannot
beat consumption plus exogenous inputs. It cannot come close.

Do more studies. Motor downhill both coming and going. Do something
clever (government subsidized) with algae.

A more plausible solution would be a system of several different
batteries with an electronic controller which would charge and
discharge the various batteries depending on the source of power.

When you've reached the outhouse ground floor there will always be a
basement patiently waiting.

Instead of wasting expensive fuel charging inefficient batteries or
expensive batteries repeatedly being cycled with cheap grid
electricity, a controller would have inputs for fuel cost, grid cost
and battery costs and then automatically shift between the various
batteries to cut costs.

Management! Hey git - Monday 15 September 2008, Wall Street.
Stacking debt only profits the middlemen.

For example, if a plug in hybrid was being used mostly as an EV, then
the controller would run the energy through the low cost (< 15 cents/
kW-hr) cells where the efficiency only needs to be above 60%. When it
was time for a long road trip the controller would shift to the 95%
efficient cells that might be cost effective even above $2/kW-hr.

We know to the gallon how much gasoline is burned in Southern
California - it's taxed. We know the efficiency of an IC engine. We
know the efficiency of an electric motor. We know battery charging,
storage, and use effciencies. We know how many kW-hr replace that
gasoline. We know what demand brings the grid down on hot summer
days.

Run the numbers, then apologize.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

 

[John Bailey]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:49:22 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

The pursuit of a "super" battery that could cheaply and efficiently
store energy all at a high density might not be the best use of time
and resources.

A more plausible solution would be a system of several different
batteries with an electronic controller which would charge and
discharge the various batteries depending on the source of power.

Include capacitive storage in your selection and you may have a
winner. Especially with regenerative braking as a power source. The
charging rate needed to transform kinetic energy into a stored form is
higher than most batteries can efficiently accept.
Recovery efficiency estimates range from 20% to 40%. The extra weight,
cost and complexity of redundant storage may be justified.

Simply charging a capacitor without large resistive losses is a
problem. Possibly this can be solved with clever switching of an
inductor but this is not obvious.

 

[Eeyore]

John Bailey wrote:

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

The pursuit of a "super" battery that could cheaply and efficiently
store energy all at a high density might not be the best use of time
and resources.

A more plausible solution would be a system of several different
batteries with an electronic controller which would charge and
discharge the various batteries depending on the source of power.

Include capacitive storage in your selection and you may have a
winner. Especially with regenerative braking as a power source.

Have you ANY idea how hopeless the energy density is of even the best
super-capacitors ?

Graham

 

[DB]

Eeyore wrote:

John Bailey wrote:

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

The pursuit of a "super" battery that could cheaply and efficiently
store energy all at a high density might not be the best use of time
and resources.

A more plausible solution would be a system of several different
batteries with an electronic controller which would charge and
discharge the various batteries depending on the source of power.
Include capacitive storage in your selection and you may have a
winner. Especially with regenerative braking as a power source.

Have you ANY idea how hopeless the energy density is of even the best
super-capacitors ?

Maxwell is 6wh/kg. A few tens of kg of caps can greatly extend the life
of the batteries for use during regenerative breaking.

Note that the op said 'include', not 'in lieu of'.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:09:48 -0700, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:

The pursuit of a "super" battery that could cheaply and efficiently
store energy all at a high density might not be the best use of time
and resources.

When thermodynamics says "no" it is the daddy. A battery cannot
contain more energy than its binding energy less its inert
constituents. A fuel tank has no such restrictions. Storage cannot
beat consumption plus exogenous inputs. It cannot come close.

Do more studies. Motor downhill both coming and going. Do something
clever (government subsidized) with algae.

A more plausible solution would be a system of several different
batteries with an electronic controller which would charge and
discharge the various batteries depending on the source of power.

When you've reached the outhouse ground floor there will always be a
basement patiently waiting.

Instead of wasting expensive fuel charging inefficient batteries or
expensive batteries repeatedly being cycled with cheap grid
electricity, a controller would have inputs for fuel cost, grid cost
and battery costs and then automatically shift between the various
batteries to cut costs.

Management! Hey git - Monday 15 September 2008, Wall Street.
Stacking debt only profits the middlemen.

For example, if a plug in hybrid was being used mostly as an EV, then
the controller would run the energy through the low cost (< 15 cents/
kW-hr) cells where the efficiency only needs to be above 60%. When it
was time for a long road trip the controller would shift to the 95%
efficient cells that might be cost effective even above $2/kW-hr.

We know to the gallon how much gasoline is burned in Southern
California - it's taxed. We know the efficiency of an IC engine. We
know the efficiency of an electric motor. We know battery charging,
storage, and use effciencies. We know how many kW-hr replace that
gasoline. We know what demand brings the grid down on hot summer
days.

Run the numbers, then apologize.

Don't discourage him. His brilliance is an inspiration to us all. We
are witnesses to history. Or something.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:28:16 -0400, John Bailey
<john_bailey@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:49:22 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

The pursuit of a "super" battery that could cheaply and efficiently
store energy all at a high density might not be the best use of time
and resources.

A more plausible solution would be a system of several different
batteries with an electronic controller which would charge and
discharge the various batteries depending on the source of power.

Include capacitive storage in your selection and you may have a
winner. Especially with regenerative braking as a power source. The
charging rate needed to transform kinetic energy into a stored form is
higher than most batteries can efficiently accept.
Recovery efficiency estimates range from 20% to 40%. The extra weight,
cost and complexity of redundant storage may be justified.

Simply charging a capacitor without large resistive losses is a
problem. Possibly this can be solved with clever switching of an
inductor but this is not obvious.

In sci.electronics.basics it's not obvious.

John

 

[Blattus Slafaly]

Plutonium batteries are better.



--
Blattus Slafaly ? 3 7/8

 

[Eeyore]

DB wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Bailey wrote:
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

The pursuit of a "super" battery that could cheaply and efficiently
store energy all at a high density might not be the best use of time
and resources.

A more plausible solution would be a system of several different
batteries with an electronic controller which would charge and
discharge the various batteries depending on the source of power.
Include capacitive storage in your selection and you may have a
winner. Especially with regenerative braking as a power source.

Have you ANY idea how hopeless the energy density is of even the best
super-capacitors ?

Maxwell is 6wh/kg. A few tens of kg of caps can greatly extend the life
of the batteries for use during regenerative breaking.

Note that the op said 'include', not 'in lieu of'.

He seems to want to use everything. Before long it'll resemble a Hummer.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"John Bailey" <john_bailey@rochester.rr.com> wrote

Simply charging a capacitor without large resistive losses is a
problem.

Complete nonsense. Modern high frequency switching circuits can do this easily.

Possibly this can be solved with clever switching of an
inductor but this is not obvious.

It's been obvious for about 30 years.

True, and the opposite problem occurs when you want to pull the supercapacitor empty when you are accellerating.
Yes, there is a inductor involved. In home-built electric vehicles this is often an aluminum coil.
But the switching part is easy : high-power electronics are marvels these days in solving the differences between power requirements
and capacitor charge level at very high efficiency rates.

Modern 'inverter' style designs solve this problem at the drop of a hat. It's well established technology.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Blattus Slafaly wrote:

Plutonium batteries are better.

Oh yes, sure ! :-(

 

[Richard The Dreaded Liber]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:09:48 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:

We know to the gallon how much gasoline is burned in Southern California -
it's taxed. We know the efficiency of an IC engine. We know the
efficiency of an electric motor. We know battery charging, storage, and
use effciencies. We know how many kW-hr replace that gasoline. We know
what demand brings the grid down on hot summer days.

Run the numbers, then apologize.

Hey, I've got an idea! Why don't you run your _own_ numbers, and show us?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Bret Cahill]

Burden of proof is on those who want to change things.

Things are _already_ changing, i. e., increasing population and
decreasing liquid fuel.

According to the APA (Administrative Procedure Act) "agency action" is
defined as either action or inaction.

In other words, either move it or lose it.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

The pursuit of a "super" battery that could cheaply and efficiently
store energy all at a high density might not be the best use of time
and resources.

When thermodynamics says "no" it is the daddy.

Well don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs! Post the
numbers on what you think are the thermodynamic limits! You could do
for battery science what Betz did for disc wind mills or Carnot for
heat engines!

You'll be the very first to get a Nobel in materials science!

Anyway you dodged the issue.

Axial flow gas turbines are not cost effective in motor vehicles and
Stirling engines are not cost effective in aircraft. One heat engine
does _not_ fit all.

Why does everyone including battery as well as algae advocates,
believe there is no battery alternative to a chimerical "super"
battery.

Battery design could be much more inventor friendly by dumping the
Perfect 10 cell which this battery advocate openly admits may be
impossible and letting certain attributes of _different_ batteries
"float" [read: be poor for _some_ applications] in order to increase
the odds of new battery technologies.

And then managing the energy storage system with a controller.

Here, I'll repost the OP to get the thread back on track.

A more plausible solution would be a system of several different
batteries with an electronic controller which would charge and
discharge the various batteries depending on the source of power.

Instead of wasting expensive fuel charging inefficient batteries or
expensive batteries repeatedly being cycled with cheap grid
electricity, a controller would have inputs for fuel cost, grid cost
and battery costs and then automatically shift between the various
batteries to cut costs.

For example, if a plug in hybrid was being used mostly as an EV, then
the controller would run the energy through the low cost (< 15 cents/
kW-hr) cells where the efficiency only needs to be above 60%. When
it
was time for a long road trip the controller would shift to the 95%
efficient cells that might be cost effective even above $2/kW-hr.

 A battery cannot
contain more energy than its binding energy less its inert
constituents.  

Here, I'll repost the OP again:

Instead of wasting expensive fuel charging inefficient batteries or
expensive batteries repeatedly being cycled with cheap grid
electricity, a controller would have inputs for fuel cost, grid cost
and battery costs and then automatically shift between the various
batteries to cut costs.

For example, if a plug in hybrid was being used mostly as an EV, then
the controller would run the energy through the low cost (< 15 cents/
kW-hr) cells where the efficiency only needs to be above 60%. When
it
was time for a long road trip the controller would shift to the 95%
efficient cells that might be cost effective even above $2/kW-hr.

.. . .

Run the numbers,

That's what prompted the hybrid battery idea.

Grid: 10 cents/kW-hr.

Li Ion: 20 cents/kW-hr.

Diesel: 30 cents/kW-hr and increasing.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

When thermodynamics says "no" it is the daddy.  

.. . .

 Do something
clever (government subsidized) with algae.

Some claim thermodynamics already places a Betz or Carnot style limit
on algae: < 5,000 gallons/acre-yr.

Only one claim cited by the DoE is for 15,000. All the rest are below
5,000.

Something do do with most of the solar energy being green and useless
to plants.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

 The real problem with modern cells used or targeted to
EV / plug-in car is not power density but $$$ / Wh ratio.
They are just too damned expensive.

This is exactly why we need to let different different characteristics
of different batteries "float."

In other words, we need to start looking at cells that seem[ed] poor
in many ways, low efficiency, low energy density, etc.

The point is to cast a much larger net in onder to find a cheaper
battery.

Using supercaps will not only not improve this ratio but will make it
much worse
because supercaps bring very little Wh but suck up lot of $$$.

Nevertheless, a small expensive storage device working in tandem with
a large cheap battery could become cost effective in some situations
if it improved performance enough.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

The usage of "hybrid" here isn't the same as in the EEStor literature.

EEStor is a hybrid between a capacitor and a battery.

Here several different batteries are selectively used to reduce costs.


Bret Cahill

The pursuit of a "super" battery that could cheaply and efficiently
store energy all at a high density might not be the best use of time
and resources.

A more plausible solution would be a system of several different
batteries with an electronic controller which would charge and
discharge the various batteries depending on the source of power.

Instead of wasting expensive fuel charging inefficient batteries or
expensive batteries repeatedly being cycled with cheap grid
electricity, a controller would have inputs for fuel cost, grid cost
and battery costs and then automatically shift between the various
batteries to cut costs.

For example, if a plug in hybrid was being used mostly as an EV, then
the controller would run the energy through the low cost (< 15 cents/
kW-hr) cells where the efficiency only needs to be above 60%.  When it
was time for a long road trip the controller would shift to the 95%
efficient cells that might be cost effective even above $2/kW-hr.

Bret Cahill

". . . glitter with the virtues of a world that does not yet exist."

-- Nietzsche

 

[Eeyore]

Bill Penrose wrote:

On Sep 15, 12:49 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
The pursuit of a "super" battery that could cheaply and efficiently
store energy all at a high density might not be the best use of time
and resources.

I suspect in an all-electric transportation system, you'd stop at a
'battery station' and change out your discharged battery for a charged
one.

I had that idea several decades ago. I reckon it won't happen now.
Frame/chassis incompatibility etc.

I suggest you pursue the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow as a more
satisfying hobby.

Graham

 

[Bill Penrose]

On Sep 15, 12:49 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

The pursuit of a "super" battery that could cheaply and efficiently
store energy all at a high density might not be the best use of time
and resources.

I suspect in an all-electric transportation system, you'd stop at a
'battery station' and change out your discharged battery for a charged
one.

DB