# Lithium SULPHER & Li AIR batteries next gen



## zeroemission (Sep 14, 2010)

i just read this article on technologies in the works using lithium sulpher and lithium air batteries that will have several times the capacity of lithium ion and in the case of lithium sulpher, be even cheaper than LiOn because the materials are cheaper. here's the NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/science/15batt.html

it appears too that lithium sulpher batteries are already on the market for use in military radios. this should be something to keep one's eye on, but it looks like the batteries for that application are current limited. here's a link to the Saft lithium sulpher BA5590/U Battery. 
http://www.batteriesdirect.com/battery_part_number/saft_ba5590u.html
7500 or 15000 mAh
12v & 24v
_(180 watts, right?)_
2.45 x 4.40 x 5.00 inches
2.25 lbs
operating temperature between 40°F to 160°F
$115

if you're a millionaire, you could build a light car with some range using these. 

anyways, i thought i'd share this info for anyone who wants to look into it further and see if there are any better values or higher capacity cells using this technology or the LiAir


----------



## rillip3 (Jun 19, 2009)

all supposed to be available next decade. Translation: eventually. Development lead time on batteries is ridiculous, probably not enough applications yet to give mass production speed. But that makes a kind of chicken and egg scenario. We seem to be rampling up slowly, maybe it will get better soon.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

zeroemission said:


> i just read this article on technologies in the works using lithium sulpher and lithium air batteries that will have several times the capacity of lithium ion and in the case of lithium sulpher, be even cheaper than LiOn because the materials are cheaper. here's the NY Times article:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/science/15batt.html


Thanks. Maybe in 5 or 10 years we'll have even better batteries.



> it appears too that lithium sulpher batteries are already on the market for use in military radios. this should be something to keep one's eye on, but it looks like the batteries for that application are current limited. here's a link to the Saft lithium sulpher BA5590/U Battery.
> http://www.batteriesdirect.com/battery_part_number/saft_ba5590u.html
> 7500 or 15000 mAh
> 12v & 24v
> ...


These appear to be primary batteries (non-rechargeable).


----------



## DIYguy (Sep 18, 2008)

I'm thinking that LiFePo should get cheaper/better pretty soon actually. Finally north america is investing in some decent production capacity with the A123 plant in Livonia (Detroit) Michigan http://www.xconomy.com/detroit/2010...s-to-create-global-hub-for-electric-vehicles/

and Nissan building one also in Tennessee http://content.usatoday.com/communi...g-battery-plant-in-us-as-leaf-orders-sprout/1.


----------



## zeroemission (Sep 14, 2010)

i bet a lot of it is really just about corporate red tape & stalling. even though NO ONE, including THIS forum wants to have any discussion about it, pretty much any modern fuel injected car could have been converted to burn 100% renewable & *toxin free* hydrogen over 10 years ago, or refueling their hydrogen cell battery every 50 miles at any station with a water supply and a wind or solar generator on it's roof & lot.

it's all about the *who killed the electric car* syndrome. everybody's watched that, right?

we have LiNa (sounds like a sexy gal's name) technology right now and all it would take is for any other manufacturer with the will to apply the same technology on a larger scale.

keeping electric expensive and in the case of hydrogen, unattainable (just TRY and research it!) keeps the demand low and oil companies etc. in the green (ironic) doing business as usual.

it's too bad some chemistry minded genius couldn't come up with some "lithium root beer" technology in his garage and bypass the corporate conspiracy altogether and share his $100 DIY tech with the world.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

zeroemission said:


> in the case of hydrogen, unattainable (just TRY and research it!)


Hey zero,

Do you ever read replies to your posts?

major


----------



## rillip3 (Jun 19, 2009)

major said:


> Hey zero,
> 
> Do you ever read replies to your posts?
> 
> major


Obviously not.  Another hydrogen red herring and conspiracy reply. Look Z, you believe in hydrogen, we get it. Go have fun with that. It's off-topic to batteries and doesn't belong in this post. If you want an alternate energy post, go make your own, stop injecting hydrogen everywhere else. 

As for government red tape, where? There is some in the distribution of batteries, due to their hazardous nature, but distribution has nothing to do with development. The fact of the matter is batteries didn't advance for roughly a hundred years because advancement in the field is hard. Nanotubes and exotic (and toxic... too bad there's not an e in toxic, it'd be an interesting anagram) metals are really the only promising ideas on the way. Making a better battery is just plain hard and takes time, especially when the companies footing the bill don't have a market to sell them right now. 

Honestly, I think smart phones are going to be the driving force behind battery development. Their lifetime is so bad right now that longer discharge times and size will be king in development. Once better cell batteries start coming out, maybe we'll see those scale up.


----------



## zeroemission (Sep 14, 2010)

hydrogen IS an electric car technology. again... has no one here ever heard of a hydrogen battery?

go ahead and call me a conspiracy theorist, but i just finished watching *who killed the electric car* only to rediscover that zero emission hydrogen is now impossible at the moment because GM bought the patents for hydrogen fuel cell technology that can ALSO be used to generate hydrogen and then sold it to the oil industry and you know what THEY did with it.

that even electric car fans don't give a crap about the conspiracy that's destroying this planet, then human beings as a species should simply be eliminated from existence entirely for the greater good.

if you're not part of the solution...

get a political spine why don't any of you?!


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Hey zero,

Do you ever read replies to your posts?

major


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

major , have you seen the movie . what do you think of it ?


----------



## rillip3 (Jun 19, 2009)

aeroscott said:


> major , have you seen the movie . what do you think of it ?


I can't speak for Major, but I saw the movie, and remember nothing about hydrogen.  The movie pretty much shows that car makers were following a bad selling strategy because they never believed they had a chance. They didn't want to invest time or money into it because they didn't see a market, and if it failed, then so much the better in their minds. There was no reason for them to innovate new or better batteries with that thinking. Now that every mobile device is using lithium batteries, pretty much, there might be some urge to innovate, but it will be a while before any come to a high Ah rating that we could use.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> major , have you seen the movie . what do you think of it ?


I've seen most of it. My opinion of that is off topic to this thread. I'll discus it elsewhere if you want.

major


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

rillip3 said:


> I can't speak for Major, but I saw the movie, and remember nothing about hydrogen.  The movie pretty much shows that car makers were following a bad selling strategy because they never believed they had a chance. They didn't want to invest time or money into it because they didn't see a market, and if it failed, then so much the better in their minds. There was no reason for them to innovate new or better batteries with that thinking. Now that every mobile device is using lithium batteries, pretty much, there might be some urge to innovate, but it will be a while before any come to a high Ah rating that we could use.


 I think you missed a lot . take notes next time


----------



## Crash (Oct 20, 2009)

LOL



zeroemission said:


> *hydrogen IS an electric car technology*. again... has no one here ever heard of a hydrogen battery?
> 
> *go ahead and call me a conspiracy theorist*, but i just finished watching *who killed the electric car* only to rediscover that zero emission hydrogen is now impossible at the moment because GM bought the patents for hydrogen fuel cell technology that can ALSO be used to generate hydrogen and *then sold it to the oil industry* and you know what THEY did with it.
> 
> ...


OK... LMAO... One thing at a time:

A) Hydrogen is not a source of energy. It's a method of transporting it. In it's current state (with the technology we have today) it's only 50% efficient at max. This thread is about batteries, not how we charge them - mobile or not. 

B) Yes, you are a conspiracy theorist. But you're not alone. There are PLENTY of places you can get all hyped up about this. However, a thread about batteries is not one of those places. The people on this board I'm sure are vigilant about finding new battery technologies as well as alternative forms of fuel.

C) Who killed the Electric Car was a hype documentary. It makes you mad at everyone except the gentleman that developed the nickel batteries that GM eventually bought the majority of stock for and sold it to Texaco/Chevron. That video did NOT talk about hydrogen since that - as well - was not what the video was about. I'd put money on it that anyone serious about building an electric car has seen that documentary. (And like you probably gets mad when they see it.) At this point, it's moot because the technology has changed. That video is now out-dated.

D) GM's been working on hydrogen powered cars for a VERY long time. They had a concept hydrogen powered mini-van and they still dabble with the technology. HOWEVER, with battery technology getting better over the last few years, hydrogen power is starting to look not so good. Batteries are far more efficient means of transporting energy. They're also safer and now cheaper. With H2 fuel cells costing so much these days due to lack of materials and a standardized manufacturing process, their cost is well over $50K per vehicle just for the cells. For $50K you could have a 300+mi range from more efficient battery technology.

E) Conspiracies don't kill the planet.

F) It's not up to you to say that we should be eliminated as a species just because we're not changing fast enough. Unless some higher being comes to earth to let us know it's time to change or die, humans will do as they have in nature since the beginning of time which is to survive in whatever environment we're in. We've created a capitalistic environment so if that means slower progress, then that's what will happen. If we are destroyed as a species, which is highly unlikely even if the predictions of global warming consequences actually happen, then that's what happens. Although, much like a roach, the human species is quite resilient.

G) Please, do us a favor and grab a crayon and some construction paper and go picket. Get really political too. Don't just picket on corners, but do it in front of political buildings like the mayor's office or even the Governor's office. While you do that, we'll vote for the politician more in line to our EV views. Then we'll see which one gets things done faster. We have political spines, but we do things in order the way it's supposed to happen. You can't force these things without a vote or monumental amounts of money to back a cause. End of story.



Now from one environmental extremist to another, you really need to rethink a lot of these issues you're speaking of with current day technology and issues. You'll find that the majority of our environmental issues do not come from today's modern day gasoline powered vehicles. They come from diesel and coal for the most part. My V8 powered Corvette with 430HP will pass a smog sniffer with no catalytic converters if I wanted it to. Gasoline engines built today have very good efficiencies compared to 70's and 80's motors. With catalytic converters getting better with technology too, gasoline powered cars are not so much the issue for the environment as they are for the U.S.'s dependency on foreign oil.

Here's a thought, since you're so hyped about hydrogen: find a way to extract 80-90% of the energy from gasoline without combustion or high emissions. If you could put 100% of the energy in 1 gallon of gas into a battery, that battery could push an electric car 100 miles or more. Energy potential is more important than carbon foot print if the usage out-weighs the alternative... Meaning, if you used twice as much energy to make a liter of hydrogen as you'd get from that hydrogen in a fuel cell, your carbon foot print is higher than putting that energy directly into a battery. If you can extract 100% of the energy from gasoline and put it directly into a battery, your carbon foot print is lower than getting 50% of the energy from hydrogen. Make sense?


----------



## vpoppv (Jul 27, 2009)

zeroemission said:


> if you're not part of the solution...
> 
> get a political spine why don't any of you?!


Good point. Actions speak louder than words. How far does you EV go on a charge? Do you commute to work in it every day? How many people a day do you show your car to, and bring another person into "the fold"? I think the real conspiracy here is that an electric car can replace MOST people's daily driving needs on LEAD/ACID. You don't even need lithium or non-existent technology to go the 30 miles the average American needs. Today. Right now. Current technology, off the shelf parts. I'd like to end your quote: YOU'RE part of the problem.....
for talking about what might be out there in the future instead of using what's out there now and making a real difference.
We'd live in a much better world if people would stop arguing and talking and actually BUILD. I guess the age of the internet brings with it a bunch of talkers and doesn't create enough DOERS.


----------

