# ReVolt Zinc Air Battery



## TheAtomicAss (Feb 19, 2009)

I'd like to believe it's real, cheap and plentiful.

However I have no information concerning any of those.


----------



## Jimdear2 (Oct 12, 2008)

TheAtomicAss said:


> I'd like to believe it's real, cheap and plentiful.
> 
> However I have no information concerning any of those.


I did some reading about this technology and it does seem very interesting. Of all of the battery chemistries out there this is one of the best I've read about with the swap out renewable materials you are very close to the infrastructire we have today (I'm no expert but the principles sound logical and promising). 

Take the existing refuling stations and add a swap out station to recharge the power cell. Not much different then adding a pump for diesel. If one of the majors was to start a realistic developement program to standardize a transfer technology, something like this could easily be phased into the existing infrsructure. 

I think the major problem with the ReVolt battery (like many other battery technologies) right now is that you have a very top heavy company with around 20% + big name management and a big R&D department with lots of funding (24 million euros) that can can be sucked up into salaries and bonuses. With every thing locked into patents they are just sitting on it waiting for the "BIG DEAL" to fall in their laps.

I'm sure a major portion of the existing managements business day is having meetings about how to get more funding to cover next years salaries and bonuses.

Until you get the professional "MANAGERS" out of these companies and get people who are interested in producing a product other than their salaries you will continue to have stalled and overpriced products.

It started with professional Lawyers then went to professional Politicians and now we are see professional Managers. Perpetuation not production

Ah well, that's progress.


----------



## MJ Monterey (Aug 20, 2009)

Jimdear2 said:


> Until you get the professional "MANAGERS" out of these companies and get people who are interested in producing a product other than their saleries you will continue to have stalled and overpriced products.
> 
> It started with professional Lawyers then went to professional Politicians and now we are see professional Managers. Perpetuation not production


Wow my perceptions exactly. Well said Mr Jim, Well said!


----------



## gor (Nov 25, 2009)

more info: http://www.electric-fuel.com/evtech/index.shtml

The Zinc-Air Module
*No. of cells**47* 
*Open Circuit Voltage **67V *
*Operating Voltage **57-40 V* 
*Capacity **325 Ah* 
*Energy Capacity **17.4 kWh* 
*Peak Power **(@80% DOD) 8 kW* 
*Weight **88 kg* 
*Volume **79 liter* 
*Energy Density **200 Wh/kg* 
*Dimensions **726x350x310 mm*


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

Zinc-air is being used in hearing aides and is being promoted by major battery makers as the battery of the future in consumer electronics.

Here is a link of Energizer's information. 
http://data.energizer.com/zincairprismatic/Default.html
In the Learn more section it talks about how their PP355 will retail for an estimated $6.99-$8.99 for a 2 pack but then further down, OEM's estimate is $0.50, heavy profit margins.

Zinc-air is has been a primary battery, which means that it isn't designed to be rechargeable, for consumer electronics this means that if this gets adopted, then buying NiMHs and using the same sets for years has now been flushed.

It look like, based on the link above that there could be some way to recharge the spent cells but it is out of the hands of the person who has the battery in their car. So basically you get the convenience of having more energy storage in a smaller space but instead of plugging in the car you need to stop somewhere to fill up.

This is just my opinion, I'd rather stick with something I can charge in my own home. If that charger infrastructure can be purchased and live in my garage, I'd be all for that if everything else works out(cycle life, amperage draw capabilities, voltage sag, safety, charge/discharge efficiency, etc).

It is an idea though and the density makes it promising.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

A battery that requires "refueling" at a station is a non starter for me. Half of the benefit of an EV is that I'm not locked into going somewhere and paying for something. An EV gives you many different recharging possibilities. Some work is being done to make a zinc air rechargeable, which might have some merit.


----------



## Jimdear2 (Oct 12, 2008)

I say again, the technology is there, the power density is there, the enviromental positives are there but it needs to be developed. 

The cycle of use of the technology is familiar to the end user. An infrastructure is in place that could be easily phased over to this technology. 

It works like this; Power level is low so you go to the station, have the powder chambers drained and refilled/the cartredge replaced or whatever.

Sounds a lot like going to the gas station doesn't it. One major difference is the material is recyclable. 

I read about this quite a while ago and thought highly of it until I found out that the patents are held by a corperation with mostly "managers" as staff. Welcome to the new business model being taught in our schools of business. 

The problem is that we now have a group of "high end business managers" sitting on the patents while sucking down the goverment grant developement money in salaries and bonuses. This being done while they wait for "SOMEONE" to come along and stuff money into their pockets to be allowed to use the information legally so they won't get dragged through years of litagation.

Sounds a bit like the NiMH battery fiasco doesn't it.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I disagree for the above mentioned reasons, and more. The fact is the only reason the current "refueling" infrastructure works is that it was built on cheap oil. The "refueling" infrastructure you describe, while familiar, is not based on the same premise and will not be practical. The inefficiencies of manufacturing the powders or whatever, transporting them around the country, building the machinery to transfer them, exchanging them, should be obvious. Compared to electrical transmission it's a nightmare. It's not practical, and it won't happen.


----------



## vpoppv (Jul 27, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> I disagree for the above mentioned reasons, and more. The fact is the only reason the current "refueling" infrastructure works is that it was built on cheap oil. The "refueling" infrastructure you describe, while familiar, is not based on the same premise and will not be practical. The inefficiencies of manufacturing the powders or whatever, transporting them around the country, building the machinery to transfer them, exchanging them, should be obvious. Compared to electrical transmission it's a nightmare. It's not practical, and it won't happen.


I was having this very same argument somewhere else. It seems to me that this technology, or one like it (such as a battery lease program where you swap batteries at the gas station) is the only real chance electric vehicles have. Gas stations make more money from the soda and chips you get when you fill up than they do from the actual gas. Why else would totally automated pumps be closed after hours? A system where you need to "refuel" somehwere on a regular basis will keep oil companies happy knowing you'll stop in and buy their candy when you fill up your zinc-air or exchange batteries.....
"Build your Own Electric Vehicle" mentions zinc-air batteries; I wonder how old the technology is....


----------



## Jimdear2 (Oct 12, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> I disagree for the above mentioned reasons, and more. The fact is the only reason the current "refueling" infrastructure works is that it was built on cheap oil. The "refueling" infrastructure you describe, while familiar, is not based on the same premise and will not be practical. The inefficiencies of manufacturing the powders or whatever, transporting them around the country, building the machinery to transfer them, exchanging them, should be obvious. Compared to electrical transmission it's a nightmare. It's not practical, and it won't happen.


JRP3,

This will be my last post on this subject. I know I'm just beating a dead horse here. I just hate seeing us not having access to something because a few business people want to get rich without any sweat or effort.

The refuling infrastructure I describe may, as you believe, never happen. Be that as it may, my concern is that the technology is locked up by a few people waiting for someone else to make them rich.

But remember that unlike you and I, 99.80 % of the people who drive don't know or care what goes in their tank. "They Pays Their Money And The Vehicle Moves" thats what they want.

This is one of the most power dense "Batteries" (I prefer "Power Source") available for an EV and nothing is really being done with it. It should be right up there with the lithium technologies. We should be able to get it if we want to pay for it. Someone should be doing something with it. It's clean, recycleable and is made from common materials.

I don't care if the recharged power material are produced in your basement chem lab, or you have to buy the recycled material at the corner store or go to a recharge station once a month. The major point is that the technology is untouchable by the common DIYer. Never mind the rest of the world.

As an aside and just for fun.

Remember the precursor to the corner gas station was the corner drugstore. You bought you gasoline for your horseless carrage in one gallon bottles from the druggest. 

By the way I'm still looking for a 6 wheeler, but not too activly because I'm involved with building another puller. This one has a 13 inch GE and should weigh in at 1350 lbs. It will have 144 volt and 600 amps to start out (that all the controller I can afford now) later we plan to go to 330 + volts and 1000 + amps (maybe as a controller bypass). I have the batteries (28 Hawker 16ah), motor, narrowed axle, wheels/tires and other ancillary stuff, we are building the frame now. Should be lots of fun.

You have a great New Year.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Bottom line is EV's have to be more efficient and cost effective than ICE's or any other technology or they won't work. Adding cost and complexity to the recharge process will not make EV's more efficient or cost effective. Zinc air or any other battery that can't be cheaply recharged at home are no better than fuel cells.


----------



## _GonZo_ (Mar 23, 2009)

I agree as well with Jim, this technology is there and if well managed will work perfectly for EVs.
It has been already tested years ago (early 90s) on Germany and US but do not know why it is not been used vastly... it is cheap, simple and works.

And I do not understad why we are all spending so much money and time on Hidrogen fuel cells that still have to demotrate they work on a car...
With half of the effort on Metal-air cells they will be in the market now.

May be you are right and "profesional managers" are playing around but may be there is another reasons I do not understand...

And they can be chared at home, with electricity or mechanically with pellets.


----------



## pgrovetom (Oct 6, 2009)

With only the battery technology truly the limiting factor as motor technology with improve but is already there or soon to be there. Motor technology of course is quite mature and the EV interest is driving ever finely tuned versions from new and existing suppliers. It's not really a big issue even now. 

The slowdown in battery investment in the late 90's through till fairly recently has delayed the better technologies to reaching that "comfort level" in EV demands. I've come across numerous promising approaches, mostly Lithium based but some based on other approaches such as Zinc. The investment and university funding is now amazing but there will be a delay in the early "winners" picking up OEM deals and building volumes which in turn will eventually drive EV enthusiast pricing down. It seems that the lower cost Chinese LiPO4 batteries such as thundersky will be the best for some time. 

I came to the conclusion that if I wanted Tesla like performance or close, I would need to sacrifice either range or acceleration. It seems that since motor technology is pretty good, just biting the bullet and designing the chinese batteries in at say 1/2 the desired range but full performance followed by waiting until 1/2 the weight per KWhr and lower prices allowed simply changing them out in 4-5 years might be ok. In theory. 

A key would be selecting a fairly high voltage and AC motor and controller that was the best. Keep the LiPO4 specifics like charging and management isolated and interface at a voltage/current level would best allow the later upgrade. 

Any thoughts on optimizing around the assumption that 1/2 weight per KWHr at 1/2 prices would eventually arrive as a design centerpiece? Then with an equal weight and straightforward interface, upgrade would be reasonable. Otherwise I wait.

See any killer issues?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

_GonZo_ said:


> I agree as well with Jim, this technology is there and if well managed will work perfectly for EVs.
> It has been already tested years ago (early 90s) on Germany and US but do not know why it is not been used vastly... it is cheap, simple and works.


I'd like to see anything that shows the cycle life of a conventionally rechargeable Zinc Air cell. The idea of physically refilling a battery bank that often has cells buried deep in a vehicle isn't practical on a basic level, let alone the inefficiencies of moving the physical product around.


----------



## gor (Nov 25, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> I'd like to see anything that shows the cycle life of a conventionally rechargeable Zinc Air cell. The idea of physically refilling a battery bank that often has cells buried deep in a vehicle isn't practical on a basic level, let alone the inefficiencies of moving the physical product around.


that might be a good idea- refueling unit on easy accessible place (hose goes down, you don't even have to look on batt. itself )

even if it been some national program/experiment - would regular lady want to come to participating gasstations, or Napa, Pepboys, Autozone, Wallmart, Sears etc. - to get few a bit heavy batteries and replace it real quick : ) - every few days - or she would rather filled tank which would refill batteries?


----------

