Posted on 06/22/2007 5:51:04 PM PDT by Rick_Michael
BUDAPEST (Reuters) - Lithium-ion batteries are the most promising electricity source for environmentally friendly hybrid vehicles, with the potential to eclipse now dominant nickel technology, French battery maker Saft said......
"This seems to be happening a little bit quicker than we thought," she said on the sidelines of a conference on battery recycling late on Wednesday.
Saft had won a contract to supply lithium-ion batteries for a vehicle which will go to market at the end of 2008, the first such commercial vehicle in the world, she said....
"There is plenty of lithium in the world," she said. "It's just that there is a huge supply in South America and everyone is getting it from South America."
New sources could include North America and Russia, she said...
"That is the market where all the studies show there is absolutely colossal potential, it could absolutely explode."
“That is the market where all the studies show there is absolutely colossal potential, it could absolutely explode.”
Can’t argue with that...
Lithium and water go boom...
Wouldn’t want to be fire fighter spraying water on a crash site...
No, those would be NiCad or NiMH.
The Lithium-Ion batteries are the ones responsible for the laptop fires. If not of the “protected variety” they can explode into a fierce fire with no warning if there is a failure. Lithium metal itself, is flammable and potentially explosive when exposed to air and especially water.
Another problem here is Lithium is relatively rare, and relatively hard to produce, Lithium is not found free in nature and makes up about 0.0007% of the earth’s crust. Everybody wants to use Lithium-Ion batteries in cell phones, laptops, cameras, flashlights and now cars ... there likely isn’t enough to go around.
http://www.altairnano.com/markets_amps.html
I think that there are all sorts of interesting technologies, all looking for inventors.
I hate using heavy metals of any sort for batteries. I go to places like Palmer, PA and see the damage that heavy metal mining did in the USA, and know that it’s gotta be even worse in the new Chinese mines.
If any car uses utility power to recharge these great batteries, then the correct headline would be: Coal powered hybrids, because 52% of electricity in the US comes from burning coal.
“If any car uses utility power to recharge these great batteries, then the correct headline would be: Coal powered hybrids, because 52% of electricity in the US comes from burning coal.”
Why does everyone seem to want to remind me of this?
The issue is not the source of power, but the means in which we supply our vehicles. If feasible, I would love to drop as much petro for electric cars. Nuclueur, coal, wind, solar...I don’t care. Would well be worth the cost.
I didn’t put in the keyword ‘global warming’. Our national security is a bigger issue, imho. I tend to think they’ll use this excess carbon on growing algae biomass, anyways.
“What is your point here? Lithium is the lightest of all metals.”
The metals in current lithium ion batteries include cobalt, copper, nickel and iron. Palmerton PA became a moonscape with nickel mining (mostly the smoke in the smelting process).
Somewhere between 8,000 and 9,000 tons of cobalt are used in the manufacture of lithium ion batteries each year. Each battery contains 10 to 13% cobalt by weight. Cobalt mining yields tons of tailings, and arsenic has historically been used to separate it from tailings.
“What is your point here? Lithium is the lightest of all metals.”
The metals in current lithium ion batteries include cobalt, copper, nickel and iron. Palmerton PA became a moonscape with nickel mining (mostly the smoke in the smelting process).
Somewhere between 8,000 and 9,000 tons of cobalt are used in the manufacture of lithium ion batteries each year. Each battery contains 10 to 13% cobalt by weight. Cobalt mining yields tons of tailings, and arsenic has historically been used to separate it from tailings.
Db: I’m sure they’d mandate some form of confirmation to tell if a vehicle was of that sort....or the fire fighters would train their personell for that.
Both: One can say the same thing about gasoline. Although I would think gasoline would have been a better means of spreading and harming more people. But what do I know!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gA155pJKUQ
Overheading and overcharging....or just the process of starting a reaction are a concern (for lithium batteries). That’s why companies involved with GM are investing money into a safer process.
http://www.a123systems.com/html/tech/safety.html
“At A123Systems we have developed breakthrough, patent pending Nanophosphate™ lithium ion battery technology that provides engineers and application developers significantly higher power, an inherently safer chemistry, and an order of magnitude longer life.”
I don’t know if this will all pan-out to be something big, but I’m not hoping it will fail. ha...
If you cruise down the road at 70 mph, the power comes from somewhere. A battery cannot “power” a vehicle, simply because a battery on stores power that came from some other source. But headline writers seem universally ignorant of this fact of physics.
Of course, better batteries are good news. Of course I look forward to better ways of generating and storing energy.
To the extent this search for improvement is being driven by finding ways to reduce costs and the total environmental impact of vehicles this is good.
To the extent this search is being driven by so-called “Global Warming”, this is just a giant waste of money, and maybe even of lives because lighter vehicles will have higher rates of injury and death in accidents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.