One Battery Does Not Fit All

B

Bret Cahill

Guest
Some start ups are making claims that their battery is superior in
every aspect, i. e., cost, energy density, efficiency, etc., to every
other battery. From pacemakers to load leveling power plants their
technology will not only dominate the market but effectively eliminate
all other technology.

We can always be hopeful but these claims might not pan out, and, like
heat engines, a variety of situations will result in a variety of
solutions.

For example, the cost of power from a grid + battery situation like
EVs or "off the grid" or off peak solar/wind homes is 2/3rds battery
using the life time cycling cost of a battery. Trying to cut that
cost by increasing the efficiency by 10% while allowing the cost of
the battery to rise 20% won't be nearly as effective as cutting the
cost of the battery by half and taking a 20% hit in efficiency. Grid
+ battery situations could still be cost effective with an inefficient
battery if it was cheap enough as far as the lifetime number of
cycles.

In contrast, the cost of ICE + battery ( hybrids run entirely on fuel
is much less than 2/5ths battery and the situation is reversed.
Trying to cut that cost by cutting battery cost isn't going to be
nearly as effective as increasing efficiency.

In an ICE + battery situation true economy requires spending a lot of
money for a somewhat more efficient battery.

Another example is EVs require high energy density batteries. For an
off grid or off peak home neither energy nor power density are
significant factors. A battery wouldn't fill an apt. closet.

Therefor it would be cost effective to consider lower energy density
as well as lower efficiency in order to get a cheap battery/cycling
ratio.

The point is to cast as big a net as possible to get as many different
batteries as possible.


Bret Cahill
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bret Cahill wrote:
Some start ups are making claims that their battery is superior in
every aspect, i. e., cost, energy density, efficiency, etc., to every
other battery. From pacemakers to load leveling power plants their
technology will not only dominate the market but effectively eliminate
all other technology.

We can always be hopeful but these claims might not pan out, and, like
heat engines, a variety of situations will result in a variety of
solutions.

For example, the cost of power from a grid + battery situation like
EVs or "off the grid" or off peak solar/wind homes is 2/3rds battery
using the life time cycling cost of a battery. Trying to cut that
cost by increasing the efficiency by 10% while allowing the cost of
the battery to rise 20% won't be nearly as effective as cutting the
cost of the battery by half and taking a 20% hit in efficiency. Grid
+ battery situations could still be cost effective with an inefficient
battery if it was cheap enough as far as the lifetime number of
cycles.

In contrast, the cost of ICE + battery ( hybrids run entirely on fuel
is much less than 2/5ths battery and the situation is reversed.
Trying to cut that cost by cutting battery cost isn't going to be
nearly as effective as increasing efficiency.

In an ICE + battery situation true economy requires spending a lot of
money for a somewhat more efficient battery.

Another example is EVs require high energy density batteries. For an
off grid or off peak home neither energy nor power density are
significant factors. A battery wouldn't fill an apt. closet.

Therefor it would be cost effective to consider lower energy density
as well as lower efficiency in order to get a cheap battery/cycling
ratio.

The point is to cast as big a net as possible to get as many different
batteries as possible.


Bret Cahill
Click to expand...
I'll bite. Congratulations on your deep observation.

- --
Brendan Gillatt | GPG Key: 0xBF6A0D94
brendan {a} brendangillatt (dot) co (dot) uk
http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFIwV2iuv4tpb9qDZQRAkVRAJ4v3Kis0iFixm841/frmaffwpl66gCfQPxV
AySPtol7rVOEMKALgihul/I=
=JY9t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Some start ups are making claims that their battery is superior in
every aspect, i. e., cost, energy density, efficiency, etc., to every
other battery. �From pacemakers to load leveling power plants their
technology will not only dominate the market but effectively eliminate
all other technology.

We can always be hopeful but these claims might not pan out, and, like
heat engines, a variety of situations will result in a variety of
solutions.

For example, the cost of power from a grid + battery situation like
EVs or "off the grid" or off peak solar/wind homes is 2/3rds battery
using the life time cycling cost of a battery. �Trying to cut that
cost by increasing the efficiency by 10% while allowing the cost of
the battery to rise 20% won't be nearly as effective as cutting the
cost of the battery by half and taking a 20% hit in efficiency. �Grid
+ battery situations could still be cost effective with an inefficient
battery if it was cheap enough as far as the lifetime number of
cycles.

In contrast, the cost of ICE + battery ( hybrids run entirely on fuel
is much less than 2/5ths battery and the situation is reversed.
Trying to cut that cost by cutting battery cost isn't going to be
nearly as effective as increasing efficiency.

In an ICE + battery situation true economy requires spending a lot of
money for a somewhat more efficient battery.

Another example is EVs require high energy density batteries. �For an
off grid or off peak home neither energy nor power density are
significant factors. �A battery wouldn't fill an apt. closet.

Therefor it would be cost effective to consider lower energy density
as well as lower efficiency in order to get a cheap battery/cycling
ratio.

The point is to cast as big a net as possible to get as many different
batteries as possible.

Bret Cahill

I'll bite. Congratulations on your deep observation.
Click to expand...
You haven't done much in law or politics, have you?


Bret Cahill
 
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:02:17 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

You haven't done much in law or politics, have you?
Click to expand...
---
You haven't done much, have you?

JF
 
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:26:10 +0100, Brendan Gillatt
<brendanREMOVETHIS@brendanREMOVETHISgillatt.co.uk> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bret Cahill wrote:
Some start ups are making claims that their battery is superior in
every aspect, i. e., cost, energy density, efficiency, etc., to every
other battery. From pacemakers to load leveling power plants their
technology will not only dominate the market but effectively eliminate
all other technology.

We can always be hopeful but these claims might not pan out, and, like
heat engines, a variety of situations will result in a variety of
solutions.

For example, the cost of power from a grid + battery situation like
EVs or "off the grid" or off peak solar/wind homes is 2/3rds battery
using the life time cycling cost of a battery. Trying to cut that
cost by increasing the efficiency by 10% while allowing the cost of
the battery to rise 20% won't be nearly as effective as cutting the
cost of the battery by half and taking a 20% hit in efficiency. Grid
+ battery situations could still be cost effective with an inefficient
battery if it was cheap enough as far as the lifetime number of
cycles.

In contrast, the cost of ICE + battery ( hybrids run entirely on fuel
is much less than 2/5ths battery and the situation is reversed.
Trying to cut that cost by cutting battery cost isn't going to be
nearly as effective as increasing efficiency.

In an ICE + battery situation true economy requires spending a lot of
money for a somewhat more efficient battery.

Another example is EVs require high energy density batteries. For an
off grid or off peak home neither energy nor power density are
significant factors. A battery wouldn't fill an apt. closet.

Therefor it would be cost effective to consider lower energy density
as well as lower efficiency in order to get a cheap battery/cycling
ratio.

The point is to cast as big a net as possible to get as many different
batteries as possible.


Bret Cahill

I'll bite. Congratulations on your deep observation.
Click to expand...
Darn, I wish that a mere mortal like me could have these stunning
insights.

"One Battery Does Not Fit All"

Consulting! Patents! Lecture circuit! Oprah! Lunch with Al Gore!

John
 
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 16:21:12 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

Better to do SOMETHING than to do NOTHING!

You think doing nothing is better than doing something?
Click to expand...
---
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and
remove all doubt.


In your case, both work.

JF
 
You haven't done much in law or politics, have you?

You haven't done much, have you?
Click to expand...
I called the bluff on your "money making patent" number which you are
too ashamed to post.
 
On Sep 5, 1:35�pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:26:10 +0100, Brendan Gillatt





brendanREMOVET...@brendanREMOVETHISgillatt.co.uk> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bret Cahill wrote:
Some start ups are making claims that their battery is superior in
every aspect, i. e., cost, energy density, efficiency, etc., to every
other battery. �From pacemakers to load leveling power plants their
technology will not only dominate the market but effectively eliminate
all other technology.

We can always be hopeful but these claims might not pan out, and, like
heat engines, a variety of situations will result in a variety of
solutions.

For example, the cost of power from a grid + battery situation like
EVs or "off the grid" or off peak solar/wind homes is 2/3rds battery
using the life time cycling cost of a battery. �Trying to cut that
cost by increasing the efficiency by 10% while allowing the cost of
the battery to rise 20% won't be nearly as effective as cutting the
cost of the battery by half and taking a 20% hit in efficiency. �Grid
+ battery situations could still be cost effective with an inefficient
battery if it was cheap enough as far as the lifetime number of
cycles.

In contrast, the cost of ICE + battery ( hybrids run entirely on fuel
is much less than 2/5ths battery and the situation is reversed.
Trying to cut that cost by cutting battery cost isn't going to be
nearly as effective as increasing efficiency.

In an ICE + battery situation true economy requires spending a lot of
money for a somewhat more efficient battery.

Another example is EVs require high energy density batteries. �For an
off grid or off peak home neither energy nor power density are
significant factors. �A battery wouldn't fill an apt. closet.

Therefor it would be cost effective to consider lower energy density
as well as lower efficiency in order to get a cheap battery/cycling
ratio.

The point is to cast as big a net as possible to get as many different
batteries as possible.

Bret Cahill

I'll bite. Congratulations on your deep observation.

Darn, I wish that a mere mortal like me could have these stunning
insights.
Click to expand...
A mere mortal can do all kinds of things..

You just need to work on getting your IQ above single digits.


Bret Cahill
 
Better to do SOMETHING than to do NOTHING!
Click to expand...
You think doing nothing is better than doing something?

You're another "nonfunctional?"


Bret Cahill
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:
You haven't done much in law or politics, have you?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.

- --
Brendan Gillatt | GPG Key: 0xBF6A0D94
brendan {a} brendangillatt (dot) co (dot) uk
http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFIwsTWuv4tpb9qDZQRApJXAJ40KvfhaPHD0eawOOaA7/S7OMVVtQCeIGFZ
wPw5APVkjQFnJmHSzm09sZQ=
=oI4v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 12:26:28 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

You haven't done much in law or politics, have you?

Irrelevant.

You know the purpose of the OP?
Click to expand...
---
Yes.

To force others to accept him as a futurist with views based on vast
technical acumen in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the
contrary.

In other words, he wants others to believe he can offer flying lessons
while he hasn't yet learned to crawl.

JF
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bret Cahill wrote:
You know the purpose of the OP?
Click to expand...
Rephrase grammatically.

- --
Brendan Gillatt | GPG Key: 0xBF6A0D94
brendan {a} brendangillatt (dot) co (dot) uk
http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFIxEn2uv4tpb9qDZQRAt8SAJ4ynn9mxn03yXGxF3Hhma1pf9vVUACglOe3
LMz9ch8bpNhwMpUdYwBKhzo=
=64rl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
On Sep 5, 5:01 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Sep 5, 11:27 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:


6. Li Nice high storage density battery. Wonderful performance that
you'd love to see in ALL your battery-operated devices!  One little
catch. In 2-3 years capacity is half and in 5 years the thing needs
replaced and they are NOT cheap!  (replaced your laptop battery
lately? Probably needs it. Only couple of hundred bucks. Oh yeah, you
can buy a whole new laptop for almost the price of just the battery.)

7. That "new" technology we are all waiting for. #6 but lasts 50
years. Hell, we'd settle for 20 years!  Um, guess what? Nobody's
invented it yet.  Maybe if we all start bouncing basketballs that new
battery will be invented. Better to do SOMETHING than to do NOTHING!
Cast that wide net!
Click to expand...
It is already there - Li-ion battery with LiFePO4 cathode. It runs at
lower
voltage therefore losing about half of energy density (still about
twice
better than NiMH), but for that cycle life is phenomenal.
Btw, potentially cheap - look at the composition. Basically a
fertilizer (right
now pricey because of nano-technology used to manufacture).
Also safe - does not blow up, thermal run-away 300C higher than normal
LiCoO2
based Li-ion

This is the tech everyone in US considers for EVs and plug in hybrids.

Well, Japanese still bet on LiCo0.3Ni0.3Mn0.3O2, because it does not
sacrifice energy density. And they bet that long cycleability is more
a
packaging issue than material issue (use pressurized stacks, use more
electrolyte etc), well, maybe they will have to downgrade the voltage
somewhat to improve cycles.

We shell see who will turn out to be right. The tech is there, it is
the manufacturing
capacity that is a problem right now. If NiMH based hybrids supply is
contained by
batteries manufacturing.

What is needed from government right now is not a 100mln price for
best new invention, but 50bln$ investment or loan for manufacturing
infrastructure... (btw already promiced by congress but never
delivered). That is what China is doing, they allocated entire city of
Tianjin for EV industry development...

Regards,
Yevgen
 
On Sep 5, 11:27 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Some start ups are making claims that their battery is superior in
every aspect, i. e., cost, energy density, efficiency, etc., to every
other battery.  From pacemakers to load leveling power plants their
technology will not only dominate the market but effectively eliminate
all other technology.

We can always be hopeful but these claims might not pan out, and, like
heat engines, a variety of situations will result in a variety of
solutions.
Click to expand...
But, other startups with the actual road, engineering, and buisness
experience of batteries
mostly don't care about the old size school of batteries from
science idiots anymore.
That's mostly why they invented RISC Computers, PV Cells Arrays,
parallel processors, fiber optics, Hologams, CD, DVD+rw, mp3,
HDTV,
all-in-one printers, laser printers, and post neanderthal robotcs,
GPS, Drones, cruise missiles,
laser pointers, auto-ozone, USB, Ebooks, Blogs, On-Line
Publishing, XML, Optical Computers,
and laser-guided bombs rather than more GE GM, and AT&T imbeciles.






For example, the cost of power from a grid + battery situation like
EVs or "off the grid" or off peak solar/wind homes is 2/3rds battery
using the life time cycling cost of a battery.  Trying to cut that
cost by increasing the efficiency by 10% while allowing the cost of
the battery to rise 20% won't be nearly as effective as cutting the
cost of the battery by half and taking a 20% hit in efficiency.  Grid
+ battery situations could still be cost effective with an inefficient
battery if it was cheap enough as far as the lifetime number of
cycles.

In contrast, the cost of ICE + battery ( hybrids run entirely on fuel
is much less than 2/5ths battery and the situation is reversed.
Trying to cut that cost by cutting battery cost isn't going to be
nearly as effective as increasing efficiency.

In an ICE + battery situation true economy requires spending a lot of
money for a somewhat more efficient battery.

Another example is EVs require high energy density batteries.  For an
off grid or off peak home neither energy nor power density are
significant factors.  A battery wouldn't fill an apt. closet.

Therefor it would be cost effective to consider lower energy density
as well as lower efficiency in order to get a cheap battery/cycling
ratio.

The point is to cast as big a net as possible to get as many different
batteries as possible.

Bret Cahill
Click to expand...
 
You haven't done much in law or politics, have you?

Irrelevant.
Click to expand...
What is irrelevant?

Battery innovation?

Gummint funding for fundamental research?

McCain offered a $300,000,000 award to anyone who develops a "super
battery." We don't have any numbers that would define "super."

What we really need is 3 awards for three different categories:

1. Low cost/cycles w/ high energy and power density @ possibly low
efficiency.

2. High efficiency withy high energy and power density @ possibly
high cost.

3. Low cost/cycles w/ possibly low efficiency and low power density.

Here, try reading the OP again:

Some start ups are making claims that their battery is superior in
every aspect, i. e., cost, energy density, efficiency, etc., to every
other battery. From pacemakers to load leveling power plants their
technology will not only dominate the market but effectively
eliminate
all other technology.

We can always be hopeful but these claims might not pan out, and,
like
heat engines, a variety of situations will result in a variety of
solutions.

For example, the cost of power from a grid + battery situation like
EVs or "off the grid" or off peak solar/wind homes is 2/3rds battery
using the life time cycling cost of a battery. Trying to cut that
cost by increasing the efficiency by 10% while allowing the cost of
the battery to rise 20% won't be nearly as effective as cutting the
cost of the battery by half and taking a 20% hit in efficiency. Grid
+ battery situations could still be cost effective with an
inefficient
battery if it was cheap enough as far as the lifetime number of
cycles.

In contrast, the cost of ICE + battery ( hybrids run entirely on fuel
is much less than 2/5ths battery and the situation is reversed.
Trying to cut that cost by cutting battery cost isn't going to be
nearly as effective as increasing efficiency.

In an ICE + battery situation true economy requires spending a lot of
money for a somewhat more efficient battery.

Another example is EVs require high energy density batteries. For an
off grid or off peak home neither energy nor power density are
significant factors. A battery wouldn't fill an apt. closet.

Therefor it would be cost effective to consider lower energy density
as well as lower efficiency in order to get a cheap battery/cycling
ratio.

The point is to cast as big a net as possible to get as many
different
batteries as possible.

Anyway you dodged the question:

You haven't done much in law or politics, have you?


Bret Cahill
 
You know the purpose of the OP?

Rephrase grammatically.
Click to expand...
Reread the OP then tell everyone you think law and politics are
irrelevant to government funding of basic research.


Bret Cahill
 
6. Li Nice high storage density battery. Wonderful performance that
you'd love to see in ALL your battery-operated devices!  One little
catch. In 2-3 years capacity is half and in 5 years the thing needs
replaced and they are NOT cheap!  (replaced your laptop battery
lately? Probably needs it. Only couple of hundred bucks. Oh yeah, you
can buy a whole new laptop for almost the price of just the battery.)

7. That "new" technology we are all waiting for. #6 but lasts 50
years. Hell, we'd settle for 20 years!  Um, guess what? Nobody's
invented it yet.  Maybe if we all start bouncing basketballs that new
battery will be invented. Better to do SOMETHING than to do NOTHING!
Cast that wide net!

It is already there - Li-ion battery with LiFePO4 cathode. It runs at
lower
voltage therefore losing about half of energy density (still about
twice
better than NiMH), but for that cycle life is phenomenal.
Btw, potentially cheap - look at the composition. Basically a
fertilizer (right
now pricey because of nano-technology used to manufacture).
Also safe - does not blow up, thermal run-away 300C higher than normal
LiCoO2
based Li-ion

This is the tech everyone in US considers for EVs and plug in hybrids.

Well, Japanese still bet on LiCo0.3Ni0.3Mn0.3O2, because it does not
sacrifice energy density. And they bet that long cycleability is more
a
packaging issue than material issue (use pressurized stacks, use more
electrolyte etc), well, maybe they will have to downgrade the voltage
somewhat to improve cycles.

We shell see who will turn out to be right. The tech is there, it is
the manufacturing
capacity that is a problem right now. If NiMH based hybrids supply is
contained by
batteries manufacturing.

What is needed from government right now is not a 100mln price for
best new invention, but 50bln$ investment or loan for manufacturing
infrastructure... (btw already promiced by congress but never
delivered). That is what China is doing, they allocated entire city of
Tianjin for EV industry development...
Click to expand...
The $300 million McCain is offering is a joke.

First it doesn't even come close to covering R & D costs. Second, the
patent would be worth several orders of magnitude more.

Only Branson had a dumber offer -- $25,000,000


Bret Cahill
 
On Sep 11, 11:03 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
You haven't done much in law or politics, have you?
Irrelevant.

What is irrelevant?

Battery innovation?

Gummint funding for fundamental research?

McCain offered a $300,000,000 award to anyone who develops a "super
battery."  We don't have any numbers that would define "super."
Click to expand...
But. since McCain is a professional navy crank, that's why he's
been
advised to ask the GUBMENT. Since the only thing navy cranks
even know about batteries is LAMPS HELOS,

So, the people who actually understand ENIGINEERING ae just
conitinueng to develop GPS, FIBER OPTICS, RISC, OPTICAL COMPUTERS,
PV CELLS,
Adaptive A.I., CD, DVD+RW, EBOOKS, POST MCDONALD's HOLOGRAMS, WWW,
DRONES, AUVs, AAVs, Cruise Missiles, Laser-guided Bombs,
and POST NEANDERTHAL ROBOTICS, neo Wind Energy, and biodiesel
rather than worrry about how navy idiots waste our battery money.





What we really need is 3 awards for three different categories:

1.  Low cost/cycles w/ high energy and power density @ possibly low
efficiency.

2.  High efficiency withy high energy and power density @ possibly
high cost.

3.  Low cost/cycles w/ possibly low efficiency and low power density.

Here, try reading the OP again:

Some start ups are making claims that their battery is superior in
every aspect, i. e., cost, energy density, efficiency, etc., to every
other battery.  From pacemakers to load leveling power plants their
technology will not only dominate the market but effectively
eliminate
all other technology.

We can always be hopeful but these claims might not pan out, and,
like
heat engines, a variety of situations will result in a variety of
solutions.

For example, the cost of power from a grid + battery situation like
EVs or "off the grid" or off peak solar/wind homes is 2/3rds battery
using the life time cycling cost of a battery.  Trying to cut that
cost by increasing the efficiency by 10% while allowing the cost of
the battery to rise 20% won't be nearly as effective as cutting the
cost of the battery by half and taking a 20% hit in efficiency.  Grid
+ battery situations could still be cost effective with an
inefficient
battery if it was cheap enough as far as the lifetime number of
cycles.

In contrast, the cost of ICE + battery ( hybrids run entirely on fuel
is much less than 2/5ths battery and the situation is reversed.
Trying to cut that cost by cutting battery cost isn't going to be
nearly as effective as increasing efficiency.

In an ICE + battery situation true economy requires spending a lot of
money for a somewhat more efficient battery.

Another example is EVs require high energy density batteries.  For an
off grid or off peak home neither energy nor power density are
significant factors.  A battery wouldn't fill an apt. closet.

Therefor it would be cost effective to consider lower energy density
as well as lower efficiency in order to get a cheap battery/cycling
ratio.

The point is to cast as big a net as possible to get as many
different
batteries as possible.

Anyway you dodged the question:

You haven't done much in law or politics, have you?

Bret Cahill
Click to expand...
 
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:03:09 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

You haven't done much in law or politics, have you?

Irrelevant.

What is irrelevant?
Click to expand...
---
You are.

JF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top