Military leads electric-vehicle charge

AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF ^ | Tuesday, January 25, 2005 | By Dan Zehr

[Arrowhead1952]

New batteries from Austin's Valence Technology give Air Force's maintenance trucks more staying power

By Dan Zehr

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

The U.S. military has helped spark renewed interest in electric vehicles, its curiosity piqued by new technologies that might help extend the vehicles' range.

The Air Force is experimenting with a half-ton Chevrolet Silverado pickup, using new batteries from Austin-based Valence Technology Inc.

"Up until now, there was no technology that worked for this application in a real effective way," said Valence Chairman and CEO Stephan Godevais.

Battery life has been the biggest hurdle to electric vehicles. It limits range and increases the time it takes to "refuel." For most purposes, driving 50 miles, then stopping for a few hours to recharge isn't very practical.

The Valence-powered trucks are being built by UQM Technologies Inc., a Colorado company that produces motors and controllers for electric vehicles. It recently received a $630,000 contract from the Air Force to experiment with the latest electric vehicle technologies. The company previously helped develop battery-powered Humvees and unmanned combat vehicles, said Bill Rankin, president and CEO of UQM Technologies.

The Air Force will use the new pickups as maintenance vehicles.

None of the electric vehicles has enough capacity for mainstream driving, and a real breakthrough technology isn't on the horizon, said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich.

For long-distance trips, the auto industry's answer is so-called hybrid vehicles, which use a gas engine as either a companion to or recharger for a battery. Although hybrids don't eliminate emissions, the backup power makes them much more practical.

"If a battery (dies) on the road, you can't bring out a can of electrons," Rankin said.

Even the latest battery technology falls far short of the capability needed to make electric vehicles practical for most uses. Nickel-metal hydride, the battery chemistry in broad use now, is an improvement over old, lead-acid batteries.

Newer lithium-ion technologies, such as Valence's batteries, provide even more power. But they haven't been in use very long and are still being tested. Valance's batteries are being tested by North American and European developers in such things as taxis, wheelchairs and delivery vans, he said.

Valence's battery reduces the risk of extremely hot fires associated with other lithium-ion chemistries, so it can be used to make larger, more powerful battery systems. That has attracted a number of electric vehicle developers, although Godevais declined to identify most of them.

A recently announced program with Alternativ Canada put Valence's U-Charge batteries in a delivery truck, more than tripling its range to 65 miles, Godevais said. Using Valence batteries, a California company lengthened the range of its vehicle to 150 miles from 120, he said.

"When people look at the electric vehicle market, everybody focuses on the consumer market," Godevais said. "They say, 'They're not going to want a car that only goes 160 miles.' "

Absent a quickly rechargeable, longer-lasting battery such as the fuel cell, which won't be ready for years, electric vehicles aren't going to break into the mainstream, Cole said.

To get production rolling in the meantime, developers are targeting uses such as delivery vehicles and military trucks, said Lindsay Brooke, a senior analyst at CSM Worldwide, an automotive forecasting and analysis company. A popular market, he said, has been "neighborhood electric vehicles" within gated commun- ities.

"I think there are enough niches" in which electric vehicles are practical, Brooke said -- enough, perhaps, to give them some staying power.

[ledfoot]

Yes, there is always the problem of range with battery power. Isn't it possible though that by infusing hybrids into a broad spectrum of new vehicles, we could become more efficient with what we have and not really need to eliminate petroleum fuels?

I have a feeling that a large portion of the consumer market my be a little leary about strapping a small hydrogen bomb (fuel cell) to their cars when the time comes when that technology is avaliable, too.

[Arrowhead1952]

Sort of like the electric forklifts we have used for years. They cannot be used for more than 8 hours without the batteries running low and needing recharging.

[fireforeffect]

Fuel cells are not "hydrogen bombs". Their fuel tanks may be hydrogen bombs, but only if they use hydrogen for fuel. Actually, the hydrogen fuel tanks themselves are very safe, it is leaks from the hydrogen fuel lines that are the problem.

Most fuel cells in use today are fossil fuel powered. Only NASA and eu use hydrogen. most common application is as a quiet, standby power supply fueled by natural gas (home generator).

The problem with high efficiency fuel cells is that the media in the cell is highly corrosive/toxic. In a vehicle accident the cracked cell could kill/poison people and pets. It is also very hot (boiling oil anyone?).

[embedded_rebel]

"driving 50 miles, then stopping for a few hours"

Hurry up and wait.

[Rakkasan1]

evil military-industrial bump

[Chemist_Geek]

Yes, there is always the problem of range with battery power. Isn't it possible though that by infusing hybrids into a broad spectrum of new vehicles, we could become more efficient with what we have and not really need to eliminate petroleum fuels?

Unfortunately, no. The Luddites will spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt against hybrids amongst the buying public. For example, I'm sure you've heard the rumor that the battery pack costs $10,000 to replace and will only last 100,000 miles. Neither is true; and yet, that's enough for a lot of people to eschew a hybrid powerplant vehicle.

The other thing is contempt and derision against the "skateboard deathtraps." Many threads here on FR discussing hybrid powerplant vehicles include such invective.

I have a feeling that a large portion of the consumer market my be a little leary about strapping a small hydrogen bomb (fuel cell) to their cars when the time comes when that technology is avaliable, too.

Again, the FUD comes out with H₂ fuel and fuel cells. When you write "hydrogen bomb", which do you mean:

This, or

This?

The fact of the matter is that H₂ is as safe as, if not safer than, gasoline, as a fuel; it is merely unfamiliarity which allows FUD to take root.

[Chemist_Geek]

The problem with high efficiency fuel cells is that the media in the cell is highly corrosive/toxic. In a vehicle accident the cracked cell could kill/poison people and pets. It is also very hot (boiling oil anyone?).

It depends on the fuel cell chemistry.

Sure, you wouldn't want to crack open a SOFC, but then again, a SOFC wouldn't be on a vehicle. (Maybe a ship, but not a car or truck.)

[fireforeffect]

Mae Culpa, Mae Maxima Culpa.

Actually, I prefer the pebble bed nuke power plant the Army invented for the M1. Three year fuel supply. You can shoot it with depleted uranium penetrator and it still does not leak. But it wont fit in my K1500.

[Chemist_Geek]

I used to work on alkaline FC catalysts.

Now, this pebble bed reactor - that sounds cool!It if won't fit in a K1500, maybe it'll fit in a Unimog or H1? ;-)

[ledfoot]

Thinking more of no. 2, there. Of course, while I don't know too much about the hydrogen, I know a little about the 5,000 psi tanks. The explosion risk doesn't scare me, as the tanks are completely unneffected by a .38 special at point blank.

I was merely pointing out that when the technology becomes readily available, there will be those who worry about blowing up in their cars.

[Chemist_Geek]

I was merely pointing out that when the technology becomes readily available, there will be those who worry about blowing up in their cars.

Yeah, it's an issue. Getting the technology to work is one thing; getting people to buy in is an entirely different container of gumballs.

[fireforeffect]

Nope. Weighs a lot. Built as a unitized package, includes drive motors.

A scaled down version would work, but can you imagine the TCO?

Fuel/oil cost for three years versus NRC license and training, insurance, and disposal cost.

Besides, some Darwin wannabe would figure out a way.

Batteries would not be much better. The higher the energy density, the bigger the bang. DO NOT try to break a fully charged Lion cell battery!

As always the problem with electric cars is where do you get the electricity? Oil? Coal? Wind? Hydro? Nuke?

Besides, Oil (or at least natural gas) is a renewable resource. It comes from methane percolating up from the earths core that is trapped in voids in the crust and compressed into oil.