Page added on March 1, 2012
For many months, U.S. Energy Secretary Chu, the guy with the Nobel Prize in physics, has been running around the country telling audiences that big breakthroughs were coming for electric vehicles. Well, this week the other shoe dropped when an announcement was made of an advance in battery technology that has the potential to change the motor vehicle industry as we know it. The announcement was made at the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects-Energy conference by a California startup called Envia that has received funding from DOE, the California Energy Commission, and General Motors among others.
The gist of the announcement was that Envia has developed a technology which will allow batteries to store energy at a density of 400 watt-hours per kilogram as compared to the compared to a density of 100-150 w-h/kg in existing electric vehicles such as the Chevrolet Volt or the Nissan Leaf. The best news, however, is that the new batteries are expected to cost less than half ($125/Kwh) that of the batteries currently being used in electric cars. This development means that within a few years, cars with a 300 mile range could come on the market at a price range comparable to current internal combustion cars.
Another important aspect of the announcement is that in contrast with the skepticism over claims that energy from cold fusion is imminent, the new battery technology comes with impeccable credentials having been vouched for by the Department of Energy and General Motors, and thoroughly tested to verify the company’s claims by a U.S. Navy power systems laboratory. Some of the technology in the new battery was licensed from the Argonne National Laboratory. Envia says that while its technology is complex, the new batteries can be made using simple reactors already found in the biotech industry or furnaces used to make ceramics.
General Motors, which invested in Envia just last year, has already made an agreement with the company allowing GM to use the battery technology in future products. This has already led some observers to note that GM might have a jump on its competitors in bringing the next generation of electric vehicles to market. Envia and outside observers note that given the advanced state of this new battery technology’s development and that fact that nearly every major automobile manufacturer already has an all electric vehicle under development, any number of vehicles using this technology could reach the market in three or four years.
So what does all this mean for our futures? First, this breakthrough seems to overcome the principal consumer objections to electric cars — too expensive and insufficient range. While lengthy recharging times and facilities would still be a problem, the many years required to get these vehicles into widespread use should provide plenty of opportunity to overcome this problem. Consumer reluctance to consider the current crop of electric cars does not take into consideration the high, and likely to get much higher, costs of gasoline that we shall all be confronting in the coming decades.
Switching from internal combustion to electric vehicles will not be easy no matter how attractive they may become in an era of very high gas prices. There are currently about 1 billion cars and light trucks running around the world worth trillions of dollars. At the current rate of automobile production, especially in Asia, there could be another billion or so in the next decade, although the rate of oil depletion and declining oil exports makes these projections less likely. Finding the money and materials to replace all the fossil fuel powered vehicles in a resource restricted world during the next few decades will not be easy and may prove impossible. Perhaps conversion of some existing vehicles to electric power may make economic sense as the cost of conventional fuels become unaffordable.
The question of whether there will be enough electricity to power a billion+ electric vehicles is a good one. For the near-term, studies have shown that there probably is enough power generation capacity in the developed world as most electric vehicles can be recharged during periods of low demand for electricity. Moreover, smart grids, smart recharging strategies, and various forms of renewables can probably be put into place quickly enough in the advanced countries, but for the underdeveloped world, which is already suffering from serious shortages of electric power, the question is problematic for the next decade or so.
Meanwhile, the “cold fusion” saga continues to bubble along. There has not yet been any outside verification that the claims made by the two companies that say they have nickel-powdered heat generating devices about ready for production are for real. However, neither has there been any evidence that they are not real. Last week the Greek cold fusion company, Defkalion, invited in “high level” inspectors from the Greek government to test a prototype of the device. The company says the results were positive. There is no word from the Greek government as yet, but a series of other outside testers are due to test the Defkalion device shortly.
The Italian-American company, Leonardo Corporation, which also has not yet had its claims of energy production from the nickel-hydrogen reaction verified by independent scientists, says it is now working with the German electrical giant Siemens AG to add an electricity-generating capability to the device they claim to have under development. The company’s CEO also says his device currently is being tested by Underwriters Laboratory for a safety certificate. If UL does grant a certificate, we should all be impressed, for it is difficult to imagine UL certifying the safety of a heat-producing device that does not make heat.
If all this “emerging technology” works out as claimed, and we can power our electric cars with a thimbleful or two of powdered nickel, we will have witnessed a great paradigm shift. We just may be living in the proverbial “interesting times!”
6 Comments on "The Peak Oil Crisis: A Breakthrough?"
sunweb on Thu, 1st Mar 2012 4:57 pm
I have deep respect for Tom Whipple’s posts. I don’t understand this reasoning. Where will all the energy come from to build this new fleet of vehicles. The energy for mining, processing, manufacturing, fabricating and transportation. How will this further affect our assault on the environment. Why do we need to move 10 to 20 times faster than we can walk? Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
Albert Einstein
John Kintree on Thu, 1st Mar 2012 6:40 pm
There seems to be greater potential for a breakthrough in transportation through self-driving cars. This would greatly facilitate sharing cars. One self-driving car, delivering itself to your doorstep to pick you up, and as soon as you get out, delivering itself to another user, could take the place of five to ten cars that mostly sit in parking lots or garages.
Jerry McManus on Thu, 1st Mar 2012 7:32 pm
Besides the obvious drawbacks of our electricity being mostly generated from fossil fuels, and the massive amount of embedded energy that goes into building cars and maintaining their infrastructure, it’s funny there’s no mention of what the batteries are made of.
Perhaps it is a trade secret, but in any case one should reserve all happy talk about “changing the motor vehicle industry as we know it” until we find out just what rare and exotic materials would need to be conjured up in abundance to replace even a fraction of those one billion vehicles.
Harquebus on Fri, 2nd Mar 2012 1:17 am
These batteries might be able to power vehicles but, they will not power the industry that manufactures them. Ultimately, the energy will still come from fossil fuels.
BillT on Fri, 2nd Mar 2012 1:26 am
Yes, and it would only take 20 years to replace all of the cars on the US highways…IF… it were possible, which it is not. Dreamers who think that the world would end if they didn’t have a car to drive are in for a shock. The materials/process may be possible, but reality says they cannot be cycled up to 20 million cars per year that would be required to replace the current US fleet in 20 years. Nor do 20 million people have the money to buy a new car every year. Can you buy a $40k electric if you are making $15 per hour? Nope! Not even the battery.
Kenz300 on Fri, 2nd Mar 2012 8:57 pm
There is no magic bullet to solve the worlds energy problems. Continuing down the path we are on relying on oil and coal is not sustainable. Many complain about alternative sources not being able to solve the worlds energy problems. Each alternative may be able to contribute to a transition to a more sustainable future. Wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste all will make a contribution. Fuel Cells like the Bloom Energy Bloom Box will make a contribution. Ethanol which already is 10% of gas sold in the US makes a contribution. Electric vehicles will make a contribution. It is time to end the oil monopoly on transportation fuels. There is no silver bullet. The rise in oil prices will increase demand destruction and make all alternatives more competitive.