The Promise of Metal Fuel Cells

[RAN]

I found this after seeing this story in Autobloggreen: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/04/04/how-much-would-i-you-i-pay-for-an-all-electric-bmw-840ci/"]http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/04/04/how-much-would-i-you-i-pay-for-an-all-electric-bmw-840ci/

That lead me to the Eco-Conversions website: http://www.eco-conversions.com/Home_Page.php where I discovered they use NiZn batteries.

A search for "eVionyx nickel-zinc battery" led me to the Xellerion home page relating to the NiZn batteries http://www.xellerion.com/Index.htm
which appears to offer an affordable alternative to NiMH and LIon, and to the Revolutionary Power Cell and the promise it offers: http://www.evionyx.com/vision.htm#products_and_applications

and to a test of the RPC and NiZn batts conducted 4 1/2 years ago: http://www.earthtoys.com/emagazine.php?issue_number=04.02.01&article=evionyx

What do you think about NiZn batteries? What do you think about metal fuel cells? And why, after setting a world distance record almost 5 years ago, has *this* technology not come to the forefront?

[MVRacing]

RAN,
Thanks. Interesting reading. Only downsides I could see was the physical size of their battery "packs" and the number of charge cycles ... of course, if they are cheap enough and recyclable I wouldn't mind a more frequent battery change.
I'm with you ... wondering why?

[Mark Tomlinson]

Good question RAN. I wish I knew enough about these things to give an intelligent response. But I don't, so you get this instead.

As I see it, there are three main factors determining battery adoption in BEVs.

There are the technical characteristics. This includes it's energy density - how much energy it stores/produces for it's weight. The higher the energy density, the more appropriate for transportation. Power output is also a consideration; lots of energy is useless if it can not be accessed quickly enough. The number of charge/discharge cycles it is capable of is a concern. And so on. The brief stats in the article looked good, but don't paint the whole picture.

Then there's economics. This will be a short paragraph because, simply, if the thing is too expensive or can't be mass produced, it's useless.

Then there's the whole marketing / political aspect. Reasons completely unrelated to the development of the battery / capacitor / fuel cell can kill it. Conspiracy theories aside, bad marketing, incompetent management, over stated claims, political climates, a bad economy, death of a visionary, regulatory issues and a hundred other factors may bury a perfectly good idea.

We may never know.

[RAN]

Thanks for the replies guys, and Mark, you always have an intelligent response :-).

Apparently, the batteries are good to go, as eco-conversions is using them to power a BMW 840, not the smallest or lightest of cars they could convert. Yes, it's true that they don't have the same number of charge cycles as Li-ion, but they also cost only a fraction of the price, and so they still compare favorably.

I wrote an e-mail to eVionyx, asking them when they expect to have their RFC ready for market. I'll post whatever response I get here.

I've been toying with the idea of converting a small (Miata-class) sports car to EV. The NiZn batts may be a viable cost-effective solution. Eco-Conversions is the only company I've seen that uses them, but more research may uncover others. Being able to incorporate a RFC would be way cool, and would solve 2 nagging problems: the limited range of BEVs and having to burn gas to power RE-EVs.

Might be the answer for Ian too. ;-)

[RAN]

I found this through a link on the eVionyx home page: The Zinc Air Battery and the Zinc Economy.pdf (http://www.reveo.com/us/reveofiles/The%20Zinc%20Air%20Battery%20and%20the%20Zinc%20Ec onomy.pdf)

It points out the major problem with Li-ion... availability of lithium. I had read somewhere before that lithium was only available in any quantity in a couple of locations in the world, and the US isn't one of them. How would you like to live there when the "lithium hounds" come a-calling?? From a political standpoint, we would be replacing several primitive oil-rich countries with primitive lithium-rich ones. Fodder for future wars? Not only that, but there simply isn't enough lithium to make batteries for the 60-70 million new cars/year being produced now. This means that, in the long run, the price of Li-ion batteries will never come down to an affordable level, no matter how many are produced, and that Li-ion batteries cannot be the solution to the EV cars of the future.

See also: The Trouble with Lithium.pdf (http://www.reveo.com/us/reveofiles/The%20Trouble%20with%20Lithium.pdf)

[CelticFlyer]

Yeah...what Mark said. =D

I bookmarked a couple of the threads you posted. I read a few pages and then my head exploded. I felt like a kindergartner who was just given the SATs.

Brother, I've got so much homework to do!

That said, one thing I know for sure is we've got to ween ourselves off oil. At least as a sole means of energy. All of the websites you steered us to proposed that as a common thread. Thanks for becoming the go-to battery guy for us, dude!

[PHEVadvocate]

Hello Ran,

Sorry all, I'm having a bad day positing.

I read up on the Trouble with Lithium awhile ago, when it was posted at EVworld and I dismissed it as a problem after reading a lot of other information. I wished I saved the link to the paper that shot this guy down.

Battery makers or "want to be" battery technologies are always shooting at each other. There is an old saying about battery manufacturers; “There are liars, damn liars, and battery manufacturers!” Right now "batteries" are a hot technology, so their are a lot of questionable people getting involved that never really intend to put anything into production.

Currently I only trust battery technology that is in real volume production.

One of the reasons I'm against the hydrogen lobby is the way they try to trash battery technology and battery research in general, because they see it as competition they need to squash.

[RAN]

Hi PHEV,

Jeez, is nothing sacred anymore??? ;)

One thing is sure, and that is the cost of lithium is higher than the cost of nickel or zinc, and there's not as much of it.

Whether or not the NiZn batteries are a cost effective alternative remains to be seen, but since at least one conversion company is now using them, information should be forthcoming. And I sure want to hear more about the Zinc-Air power cells. Since they apparently exist, I will keep looking.

[rogwild]

I'll have to read more on these. Wonder if they would also work as a PHEV since I found this discription of RECHARGE:

"Developed initially for use in electric vehicles, the cell would be "mechanically" recharged. That is, spent electrolyte and remaining particles would be suctioned from the cells and replaced with a slurry of fresh particles and electrolyte. This mechanical recharging is expected to take minutes at the equivalent of a gas station--no time is wasted on conventional electrical recharging. The spent particles could then be regenerated locally or in some regional facility (the equivalent of a refinery or tank farm) by demonstrated electrochemical techniques."
http://www.zyn.com/flcfw/fwtproj/ZincAirB.htm

Sounds a bit more 'complicated' than just "plugging in" at home or work.

[RAN]

Nice find rog!

In "The Zinc Air Battery and the Zinc Economy" (link in previous post above), another company was able to use a solid zinc anode which can simply be replaced when it's used up. This would limit the placement of the cell in the vehicle, since that anode would have to be readily accessible, but it really wouldn't take much of an infrastructure to set up either way, especially compared to the nightmare of creating a hydrogen infrastructure!

They mention as well that the Zinc-Air cell could be used in a hybrid situation with batteries, thus allowing a battery-only driving range and plug-in capability :-). Think of the Zinc-Air cell as the ICE in a series hybrid like the V-1.

They also mention that ultracapacitors could be used to handle heavy current demands such as hard acceleration, which would extend the number of recharge cycles. They would also allow more regenerative braking energy to be captured and re-used.

As if that weren't enough, the air "cathode" would need a CO2 scrubber on it to provide more oxygen for the reaction. This means that, not only would vehicles so-equipped not produce any CO2, they would actually remove CO2 from the air as they are driven!

Sheesh, what are they waiting for?????

I can see why this idea isn't getting much Prime-Time airplay. And I can finally see why GM and others are embracing Li-ion batteries w/ICE's for range extension; from their point of view, it's the last bastion of control over prices and spare parts they'll have in the EV economy.

[RAN]

I'm watching the auction on the $160k electric BMW 840"Ci" on eBay.... just under 4 days to go, and no bids so far...

[Miracleman89]

I think it is ridiculous to pay $100,000 or more on any vehicle!!!

There you go warpedone does this help? ;)

[MVRacing]

I had no idea zinc-air has been around so long - from Oct 1995 -

"...The test of a Santa Barbara Municipal Transit bus with a hybrid of zinc/air and lead/acid batteries capped a short development period for the zinc/air battery. The test run indicated the zinc/air battery's potential savings in battery weight from 2.0 to 0.3 metric tons, in battery volume from 0.79 to 0.25 m3, and in electricity cost from 5.6 cents per mile to 4.7 cents per mile. The power, however, remains the same. ..."

Full article here https://www.llnl.gov/str/10.95.html


And from a current bus manufacturer
http://www.electric-fuel.com/evtech/index.shtml#battery
Interesting papers on their testing from 2000 thru 2005. Final result is a hybid NiCad, zinc air, ultra capacitor system.
Also, looking into the company, they specialize in batteries for military, and fleet applications. Interesting to note, they came up with a zinc cassette replacement system and the required recycling infrastructure packaged in a cargo container unit.

Also, didn't realize most hearing aid batteries these days are zinc-air.

I'm with RAN - "Sheesh, what are they waiting for????? "

[RAN]

Nice find MVR!

I clicked in the Electric vehicle link at the bottom of the evtech page only to find this:
"The EV program is presently inactive."

WTF????????

[MVRacing]

Yes, I saw that too!! Seems they are done with testing, have proven the concept, so it's done. :eek::(:confused:

The second link is to a manufacturer that offers the technology for commercial fleets of buses, garbage trucks, delivery vehicles etc

Hopefully it will filter down to private transport ... eventually. :cool:

[RAN]

I still don't get it... it's gotta be an order of magnitude harder to create a system like that for a BUS. A CAR oughta be a piece of cake after that.

These people don't wanna get rich? And help the environment at the same time? Am I missing summin'????

[PHEVadvocate]

Hello RAN,

Here is a link you might find interesting, they have improved the energy desnisty and the power density too of Zinc-air:

http://www.qsinano.com/apps_batteries.php

[MVRacing]

Yes, the nano technology is the source of most (if not all) of the battery improvements we are seeing today. Was reading an article that detailed carbon nano tube construction for use in the battery cathode ... hundred's of percents better performance than "activated" carbon. I'll see if I can find it again.
Seems to me the problem is, that a lot of the Nano technology comes at a high expense. But, not all ... as in the gasous layering of materials for electronic components. That technology has become quite cheap ... after 30 years :-(

[RAN]

Thanks PHEV!

My original question still stands: why isn't Zinc-Air technology at the forefront of Hybrid-EV development?? The only reason I can come up with is that it makes too much sense. :confused:

Addendum: (embarassed) This is what I get for not reading to the bottom of PHEV's link... :o


Recently published data demonstrates that using QSI-Nano® material as the catalyst in the zinc air battery results in a 320% increase in power density. Because of this dramatic success, an industry leader in the primary battery sector has partnered with QSI to develop a next generation product which QSI will support in mass production.

Bring it onnnnn! =y:

[RAN]

eBay Auction Update: the auction ended, and apparently there was one bidder/winner; bigwsix picked it up for $160,000. That's a Whole Lotta Money considering used gas models can be had for $20-30k. The Ronaele Mustang 300EV "only" costs $80k above the price of the car, and it comes with a lot: Ronaele Vehicles (http://www.ronaele.net/Vehicles/vehicles.html)

[PHEVadvocate]

He is an article that say's we don't have to worry about the Lithium supply for batteries!

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1434

The white paper from the article:

http://www.worldlithium.com/Home_files/An%20Abundance%20of%20Lithium.pdf

:)

[MVRacing]

PHEV,
Excellent!!
Thank you.

[Mark Tomlinson]

That is good news. And if I may throw in my uneducated two cents, the current breakthroughs we are hearing about in lithium battery development probably mean that the amount of lithium for stored kw will decrease. Hence, doing a straight extrapolation of current demand for lithium into future demand would yield unrealistically high numbers. Put another way, assume current demand is X and future demand is x*1000. So if battery technology improves 25% then actual future demand will be x*750 (or some such - I don't 'do' math).

Anyway, my point is the estimate for "more than enough" was based on current technology. So we should have plenty of lithium to go around.

Another comforting point was that we can supplement imported lithium with large amounts of domestic lithium (some produced from waste products), which might take the wind out of the sails of a lithium cartel.

[RAN]

The truth will out eventually... til then I guess it just depends on whom you believe. Meanwhile, zinc-air batteries could make lithium discussions moot. I have yet to hear back from either of the companies I e-mailed; it's driving me nuts to see this kind of potential solution just languishing in obscurity.

[RAN]

I've been impressed with the whole idea of Metal Fuel Cells, how much sense they make and the kind of thinking that brought them to reality. Now, the two largest metal fuel companies, eVionyx and Power Air, are joining forces to bring their products to market:

http://www.integratir.com/newsrelease.asp?news=2131021308&ticker=PWAC〈=EN (http://www.integratir.com/newsrelease.asp?news=2131021308&ticker=PWAC&lang=EN)


6/23/2008 12:30:25 PM ETNews Release Index (http://www.integratir.com/newsrelease.asp?ticker=PWAC&lang=EN)

POWER AIR AND EVIONYX TO COOPERATE ON COMMERCIALIZATION OF ZINC AIR PRODUCTS LIVERMORE, Calif. – (MARKET WIRE) – June 23, 2008 – Power Air Corporation (OTCBB:PWAC), the clean energy zinc power company, today announced it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with eVionyx, Inc., a Reveo subsidiary and the leader in innovative metal fuel technology and products.

In accordance with the terms of the MOU, the companies will cooperate to shorten the time to market, introduction and shipment of Power Air's Zinc Air Fuel Cell (ZAFC) powered products for portable electronic devices, including the Z Series Powerpacks. eVionyx will provide its ultra-high performance air diffusion electrode, O-CAT™, and use its ISO certified manufacturing facility to produce Power Air’s high performance Powerpacks according to Power Air’s design and specifications. Following successful completion of the MOU activities, the parties plan to enter into a Definitive Agreement.

“Both Power Air and eVionyx possess Intellectual Property that, when combined, present a lucrative win-win opportunity,” stated Donald Ceci, President and CEO of Power Air. “Moreover, this cooperative effort with eVionyx will reduce the time to commercialize our Powerpacks and other products, and avoid costly duplication of product development and manufacturing capabilities that eVionyx already has in place.”

Sadeg M. Faris, Ph.D, founder, Chairman and CEO of eVionyx, added, “I have known Don Ceci for quite some time and have great confidence in working with him to successfully advance both of our missions. I believe in his vision and where he wants to take Power Air Corporation.”

Power Air plans to position its ZAFC Powerpacks as the solution to bridge the ‘power gap’ and provide consumers with extended runtimes for their mobile devices. The demand for uninterrupted mobile power is only expected to increase as handheld devices continue to become more power hungry and offer users more converged applications, such as advanced color screens, wireless capabilities, GPS functions, TV broadband functions and other innovations.

“With each added innovation and capability in the mobile device market, more power output is required, and traditional batteries are struggling to maintain acceptable runtimes. Essentially, cell phones and laptops are increasingly becoming higher power carnivores, while the battery that runs them is challenged to keep pace with required extended runtimes,” said Ceci. “Our opportunity is to fill the power gap with our Powerpacks.”

Dr. Faris further noted, “Energy sovereignty for the United States and for the world is within reach by recognizing that zinc is the best alternative fuel. Both Power Air and eVionyx have been founded on this belief. We look forward to working closely with Power Air to help drive global market awareness and appreciation of this fact through our cooperative product development and commercialization efforts.”

In January 2008, Power Air demonstrated its Powerpack prototypes at the 2008 International CES in Las Vegas and again in February at the 2008 Fuel Cell Expo in Tokyo, Japan. In addition, it has conducted several end user focus groups where users provide feedback on all aspects of the Powerpack. Power Air is applying the feedback from these events to improve the design and features of its Powerpacks before official commercial launch.

About eVionyx, Inc.
eVionyx, headquartered in Hawthorne, New York, has been engaged in pioneering nonflammable metal fuel technology that it believes will achieve energy sovereignty for this country and for humanity, in general. It has made breakthrough inventions and innovations that have been shown to fuel electric vehicles with ranges in excess of 500 kilometers. eVionyx has bucked the trend with betting on non-flammable metal technology now that it has been revealed that after billions of dollars of global investment, the hydrogen, biofuel and lithium battery industries are facing serious challenges that include limited reserves, safety issues and other growing mass production concerns. eVionyx, in addition to its Energy Innovation Center, has ISO certified manufacturing facilities in Taiwan and in New York that produce key fuel cell and battery components as well as nickel zinc batteries and zinc air fuel cells. eVionyx has been awarded over 100 patents issued and more are pending. For more information, please visit www.evionyx.com (http://www.evionyx.com).

About Power Air Corporation
Headquartered in Livermore, California with offices and research facilities in Vancouver, B.C., Power Air is a forward-thinking clean energy company engaged in commercializing proprietary, high performance Zinc Air Fuel Cell (ZAFC)-based products for the mobile electronics, portable and stationary power generation, light mobility and transportation markets. Power Air holds the exclusive worldwide license for the development and commercialization of products utilizing ZAFC technology pioneered through an extensive joint collaboration effort with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the United States Department of Energy. For more information, please visit www.poweraircorp.com (http://www.poweraircorp.com).

This press release includes statements that may constitute "forward-looking" statements, usually containing the words "believe," "estimate," "project," "expect" or similar expressions. These statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements inherently involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements. Factors that would cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, acceptance of the Company's current and future products and services in the marketplace, the ability of the Company to develop effective new products and receive regulatory approvals of such products, competitive factors, dependence upon third-party vendors, and other risks detailed in the Company's periodic report filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. By making these forward-looking statements, the Company undertakes no obligation to update these statements for revisions or changes after the date of this release.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:
ELITE FINANCIAL COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, LLC
Dodi Handy, President & CEO
407-585-1080 or via email at PWAC@efcg.net

More power to them (no pun intended)!!! This is the kind of thinking the world needs. I feel that the day of having a Zinc-Air powered EV in my driveway just got moved up. =y:

[cpaddock]

I see McPain is proposing a taxpayer funded X prize for battery development and a huge
rebate for buyers of zero-emmisions vehicles. Will this put an EV in my driveway soon,
or a Bush clone in the White house? Let the People decide.
Curves Ahead!

[rogwild]

Maybe BOTH!=D

[nvrblu]

I just happened to catch McCain's talk on CNN this morning. Regardless of the election outcome, a $300M incentive like the one he proposes is a good sign... but I don't agree with a few other things he said.

[RAN]

Uh... what does McCain's battery proposal have to do with the thread topic?

[rogwild]

Uh... what does McCain's battery proposal have to do with the thread topic?

Are you kidding?:rolleyes: Don't see any relationship between a proposal to offer an incentive to explore and develop better battery technology, and the TOPIC ='Batteries & Hybrid Technology'?:eek:

[RAN]

The TOPIC is Metal Fuel Cells. It's in the Batteries and Technology FORUM.

[rogwild]

Oops, saw the, "Batteries & Hybrid Technology The place for gearheads, ampheads, and all things technical." right above the [post reply] above your last post, guess I should have looked up higher (on the other side of all the 'headings' ,,ie. Portal..user CP..FAQ..etc.). A bit confusing, at least for me.

[cpaddock]

No no, my fault. Didn't mean to derail anybody's thread. Will try to be more consciensious
in the future. Just had a knee jerk response and threw it out there, not expecting any
follow ups. Guess I should have started a different thread. Sorry about that. Go metal
fuel cells!
Curves Ahead!

[xellerion]

Nice find rog!

In "The Zinc Air Battery and the Zinc Economy" (link in previous post above), another company was able to use a solid zinc anode which can simply be replaced when it's used up. This would limit the placement of the cell in the vehicle, since that anode would have to be readily accessible, but it really wouldn't take much of an infrastructure to set up either way, especially compared to the nightmare of creating a hydrogen infrastructure!

They mention as well that the Zinc-Air cell could be used in a hybrid situation with batteries, thus allowing a battery-only driving range and plug-in capability :-). Think of the Zinc-Air cell as the ICE in a series hybrid like the V-1.

They also mention that ultracapacitors could be used to handle heavy current demands such as hard acceleration, which would extend the number of recharge cycles. They would also allow more regenerative braking energy to be captured and re-used.

As if that weren't enough, the air "cathode" would need a CO2 scrubber on it to provide more oxygen for the reaction. This means that, not only would vehicles so-equipped not produce any CO2, they would actually remove CO2 from the air as they are driven!

Sheesh, what are they waiting for?????

I can see why this idea isn't getting much Prime-Time airplay. And I can finally see why GM and others are embracing Li-ion batteries w/ICE's for range extension; from their point of view, it's the last bastion of control over prices and spare parts they'll have in the EV economy.

Hi Ran,

I work for Xellerion (the company that makes the Nickel Zinc battery, subsidiary of eVionyx). I have noticed that many of your posters have done some great research on our technology, but many of the assumptions miss the mark.

First, GM was one of the first companies that invested millions of dollars in NiZn batteries. However, because they could not solve the dendrite formation problem associated with the batteries they gave up on the idea. eVionyx solved the problem, first in the Zinc Air fuel cell and then in the NiZn battery.

Second, ultra capacitors would not be needed in this system. The battery and fuel cell in a vehicle working in concert is all that is needed. The fuel cell gives the system all the energy it needs, and the battery gives it the power. An ultra capacitor is overkill for a system like this.

Third, there is so much confusion out there, meaning that people get caught up on the number of cycles and the like. What is overlooked is the cost to the consumer for those cycles. Lithium-based technologies are over-engineered to produce so many cycles that it's not practical. In an attempt to make them safe they also have driven up the costs. The first generation of our batteries have the same energy density as Lithium based batteries (70 w/kg). However, our NiZn batteries have more power density (1750 w/liter vs. 1500 for Lithium Ion). That begs the question, namely, why is that important? Power density is the thing that gives your vehicle that boost off the line. There is no battery out there that can compare.

Forth, Nickel and Zinc are plentiful. Currently there is well over a million years of zinc out of the ground. With our technology (the fact that we recover all original materials) it is impossible to deplete those resources.

What does all this mean, you ask? This technology is disruptive. There will only be winners (hopefully us) and losers (ICE engines and their manufacturers and players) once this technology hits the main stream.

When you said "I can see why this idea isn't getting much Prime-Time airplay. And I can finally see why GM and others are embracing Li-ion batteries w/ICE's for range extension; from their point of view, it's the last bastion of control over prices and spare parts they'll have in the EV economy..." it assumes that they have control. I can assure you that they do not. It is fine for us that GM embraces Li-ion. The smart money is on NiZn and Zinc-Air fuel cells for the EV markets. They placed their bets with lithium because they do not beleive that someone else could solve the dendrite problem. Li-ion is a great technology. However, we are not convinced that it is the right technology for transportation. We have already proven (with our Guinness Book of World record for distance) the viability of Zinc as fuel.

Finally, since I became a member of your online club I invite all questions concerning our technology and how it compares with other technologies out there. Further, let me say that this technology is not attractive for the traditional investor because it is a fifth of the cost of Li-ion. This is why the consumer has yet to see this in the EV market. There has already been millions of dollars invested. I can assure you that soon this technology will have an impact very soon so stay tuned.


Xellerion

[xellerion]

The truth will out eventually... til then I guess it just depends on whom you believe. Meanwhile, zinc-air batteries could make lithium discussions moot. I have yet to hear back from either of the companies I e-mailed; it's driving me nuts to see this kind of potential solution just languishing in obscurity.

Hello again Ran,

I would like to add that there are distinct differences between fuel cells and batteries ( I am assuming that you know the differences so this is for your readers mainly). Batteries are closed systems and fuel cells are open and air breathing systems. I agree with you that Zinc-Air fuel cells and NiZn batteries will make Lithium a moot discussion. I won't talk about the availability of Lithium because of my obvious bias, but I will say that it is a great technology. I just don't believe that it is well suited for transportation.

Also, I want your readers to know that recharging vs. refueling needs further discussion. I would like to know from your readers what they would prefer: refueling in under 10 seconds or recharging in just under an hour. This is really important for me because I live in NYC. I don't have a garage for my car so recharging is not an option for me. Refueling is because that is what I am used to with my current ICE car.

There is no other technology out there that can compare in terms of power and energy density (batteries not capacitors). The hydrogen fuel cell does not have the energy density that the Zinc-Air fuel cell has. The Hydrogen fuel cell is also a great technology, but putting that in the transportation infrastructure is extremely problematic. The Zinc-Air fuel cell can be sold at Walmart or 7eleven because it is environmentally benign and does not explode under pressure or burn.

Xellerion

[Derwin]

Finally, since I became a member of your online club I invite all questions concerning our technology and how it compares with other technologies out there.

Welcome to the club! wel;co;m;e101)) I'm glad you decided to drop by and join.

You will find that many members will take you up on your invitation to talk about your technology. We have a group of very well educated people here that are well versed and very interested in these things.

I'm hoping to see you posting often and sharing your experiences and insight.

Derwin

[Miracleman89]

Xellerion- one thing I think you are over looking is that this is all really new technology that is still being developed! Infrastructures are not in place because it is still developing at a rapid pace! Who knows what things will be like 5 years from now! I mean they may come up with a nano antenna that is capable of keeping your car charged in almost any situation. So a recharging infrastructure could be obsolete in 5 years. Electric/hybrid technology is developing new stuff everyday! It is so fast that is is extremely hard to keep up with it some months. But I do see your point under current conditions and currently known technology then yes refueling is easier then recharging, but wait until tomorrow!!!!

[tugboatwilly]

And all of this can be kept out of Big Oil how?

[MikeB]

I work for Xellerion (the company that makes the Nickel Zinc battery, subsidiary of eVionyx).

Hello xellerion,

It's great to have you at our little club here, but let me offer a suggestion: Go visit the nice people at V is for Voltage (http://visforvoltage.org/). It's a medium sized group of people interested in electric vehicles.

The group is strongly focused on motor-scooters and bicycles, since that's where the most electric vehicles on the road fit in. And everybody is trying to get good LiFePo batteries in their vehicle. If your Nickel-Zinc batteries are going to be better than the Lithium ones, then you might find some good customers over there. If you can demonstrate that your technology is better on a few models of scooter, for example, that may help you grab attention among the car makers. You can find people who already own electric vehicles, like me, who want to do a direct upgrade, or there are a few people representing actual manufactures, who might be interested in selling your batteries in a new vehicle.

[MikeB]

Finally, since I became a member of your online club I invite all questions concerning our technology and how it compares with other technologies out there.

Ok, I'm a numbers guy, so here are some questions:

First, I'm looking at the Wikipedia comparison chart here: Rechargeable battery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery#Table_of_rechargeable_battery _technologies), with an eye on the LiFePO4 (LFP) chemistry vs the NiZn chemistry. Are these numbers accurate for your latest battery technology? (Btw, the article on NiZn batteries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-zinc_battery) needs "attention from an expert," you might also look into that. )

Second, power density is good, but there are a whole slew of factors that make a good vehicle battery. Range is a critical factor for most users, which boils down to energy density. From the Wikipedia article, NiZn has about half the energy density as LFP.

I've got a 4.4kWh LFP battery pack in my electric scooter, and that gives me slightly more than a 40 mile range. I have very little empty space for additional battery cells, and I don't want to increase my weight. Would I cut my range by changing to your cells? It looks like NiZn fails here, unless I've missed something.

Even worse, my scooter could use a much larger electric motor. It's got a 3kW motor, but I'd like to see 6kW. That's great from the point of view of power density, which NiZn claims an advantage in, but it's gonna hurt range even more.

You mention that charge cycles are overrated, which might be true. But that boils down to cost per mile. If I get 2000 charge cycles on my LFP battery pack, I'll end up driving 80k miles. (Yea, I'll never go that far with my bike, but the battery is capable of it) That pack now costs about $2.1k, so my driving cost is $0.03 per mile, which is really pretty good. How will your NiZn compare?

How does NiZn compare in cold weather? I'm riding my scooter in temps down to the mid-20s, but a real EV needs to handle much colder weather. If an electric vehicle loses half it's range every winter, you'll never be able to sell them up North.

I'll probably have more for you later, but this is a good start.

[jdh2550]

Finally, since I became a member of your online club I invite all questions concerning our technology and how it compares with other technologies out there. Further, let me say that this technology is not attractive for the traditional investor because it is a fifth of the cost of Li-ion. This is why the consumer has yet to see this in the EV market. There has already been millions of dollars invested. I can assure you that soon this technology will have an impact very soon so stay tuned.
Xellerion

Hi Xellerion,

I'm a new member of this forum - I'm a regular poster over on the V is for Voltage forum MikeB mentions. He sent me a PM on that forum and suggested I check out your batteries. So I did. I found myself a little disappointed by what I think I found - perhaps you can check my numbers and see if you agree or disagree with my conclusion. My conclusion is that LiFePO4 is the most economical battery for EVs at present when taking into account life cycle and costs. It is possible that NiZn may offer a "better battery" in terms of energy density - but as far as I can tell it will cost more.

So, here's my math:

elitepower.com sells Thundersky Lithium Iron Phosphate cells at a cost of $1.70 per Ah. To convert that to a per kWh cost the math is (1000/nominal cell voltage) * Ah cost; (1000/3.2)*1.7 = $531.25 per kWh. This page: http://www.xellerion.com/APPLICATIONS.htm on your site lists NiZn cost as $150 to $500 per kWh (I'm curious what factors go into determining the range of the cost?). Now, here's the kicker - LiFePO4 cells will last between 2000 and 3000 cycles for 80%DOD; NiZn lasts between 500 and 800 cycles. So, correcting the LFP price for life cycle gives 531.25 * (650/2500) = $138.125

So, there's an off the shelf solution today that costs $138 vs. NiZn's $150 to $500.

Now, LiFePO4 power density is worse than Li-Ion which in turn appears to be worse than NiZn. So, there might be a case for NiZn as a better solution - but not a cheaper one.

Can you tell me (and the board) a couple of things:
1) what's the practical largest primary cell size for a NiZn? LFP's go up to about 200Ah I believe. The largest product listed on your site is 40Ah.
2) what is the nominal voltage and discharge characteristics of a NiZn cell? (is the discharge curve "flat" like LFP?, how much do they "sag" under high discharge?)
3) what continuous and pulsed C rate will NiZn support? The above TS cells are rated 3C continuous and 10C pulsed. "Good" LiFe cells (e.g. A123 etc.) are rated 10C continuous.
4) how well do NiZn handle over charge and over discharge
5) how do they react when they fail? (do they go up in flames like LiPo?)

I wish you luck. This is NOT an attempt to bash your product or company in any way. I'm just curious as to battery options (FYI, I am co-founder of a company called Electric Vehicle Manufacturing and we're currently in the final stages of bringing our first product to market)

All the best!
John H.

[AZEqualizer]

Lots of companies investigating NiZn batteries as a possible solution to batteries in Hybrid-electric vehicles ... here is one small sampling from by Cosmo Catalano at MatteRNetwork (http://featured.matternetwork.com/2008/5/coming-soon-hybrid-near-nizn.cfm) back in May 2008 for example:

PowerGenix (http://www.powergenix.com/), a battery company based in San Diego, has developed an impressive, relatively environmentally friendly solution to the unique problems presented by hybrid-electric vehicles: nickel-zinc batteries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-zinc_battery). NiZn, with its 30% increases in capacity and power over existing batteries of similar size, is ideally suited for high-power, low-drain applications, such as HEVs. The use of a zinc, which is quite cost effective at less than a dollar per pound, offers excellent price savings compared to lithium-ion and metal hydride batteries. Reduced toxicity increases the ease of disposal, and the more stable battery chemistry eliminates the chances of an unexpected explosion.

NiZn power is not a new technology. Thomas Edison worked with NiZn during his career, and the technology has been used in transportation before, powering a few streetcars in Ireland during the 1930s and '40s. Until recently, however, the Achilles’ heel of NiZn batteries had been their cycle life limitations.

But recent developments in the use of electrolyte additives have created NiZn batteries good through hundreds of cycles, making them a viable alternative to existing technology. Additionally, PowerGenix’ NiZn cells operate at 1.5v, the same voltage of existing disposable batteries, making them an ideal and longer-lasting replacement for the billions of alkaline batteries in use worldwide.

Realizing the potential of the technology, PowerGenix planned ahead, designing its NiZn batteries to be readily produced using existing infrastructure. “Technology design from the get go was for production on existing nickel metal-hydride and nickel-cadmium lines”, says PowerGenix CEO Dan Squiller. And the move has paid off—through an overseas supplier, PowerGenix will be able to produce some 1.2 million cells each day.

Like any other technology, NiZn batteries are not a magic fix. Existing zinc mining operations do have significant environmental downsides, and nickel, though used in most existing rechargeable batteries, remains a expensive. Still, these issues not withstanding, nickel-zinc batteries represent an exciting new frontier for hybrid vehicle development.

[MikeB]

The first generation of our batteries have the same energy density as Lithium based batteries (70 w/kg). However, our NiZn batteries have more power density (1750 w/liter vs. 1500 for Lithium Ion). That begs the question, namely, why is that important? Power density is the thing that gives your vehicle that boost off the line. There is no battery out there that can compare.

Hiya again xellerion,

John has some good questions, but I think I've spotted another place where your technology doesn't compare as well to LFP, and that's energy density. I'm using Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargable_battery#Table_of_rechargeable_battery_ technologies) for my numbers, which could very well be out of date. If so, please correct me. When I compare the NiZn line in that table to the LiFePO4 (LFP) line, I notice that energy density per volume is comparable (170 Wh/L), but energy density per weight is not (60 Wh/kg vs 80-120Wh/kg).

On the scooter I own, going from lead batteries to LFP saves over 100lbs on the bike weight, which has a significant impact on acceleration, range, and handling. On the scooter John is building, the battery pack should be a little bigger than mine, so the weight impact would be larger still. The Persu Hybrid is going to be quite a bit larger than our little scooters, but keeping weight down is just as important to them as it is to us.

Do you see improvements coming in energy density, or do you have something better brewing in your labs?

[xellerion]

Hi Xellerion,

I'm a new member of this forum - I'm a regular poster over on the V is for Voltage forum MikeB mentions. He sent me a PM on that forum and suggested I check out your batteries. So I did. I found myself a little disappointed by what I think I found - perhaps you can check my numbers and see if you agree or disagree with my conclusion. My conclusion is that LiFePO4 is the most economical battery for EVs at present when taking into account life cycle and costs. It is possible that NiZn may offer a "better battery" in terms of energy density - but as far as I can tell it will cost more.

So, here's my math:

elitepower.com sells Thundersky Lithium Iron Phosphate cells at a cost of $1.70 per Ah. To convert that to a per kWh cost the math is (1000/nominal cell voltage) * Ah cost; (1000/3.2)*1.7 = $531.25 per kWh. This page: http://www.xellerion.com/APPLICATIONS.htm on your site lists NiZn cost as $150 to $500 per kWh (I'm curious what factors go into determining the range of the cost?). Now, here's the kicker - LiFePO4 cells will last between 2000 and 3000 cycles for 80%DOD; NiZn lasts between 500 and 800 cycles. So, correcting the LFP price for life cycle gives 531.25 * (650/2500) = $138.125

So, there's an off the shelf solution today that costs $138 vs. NiZn's $150 to $500.

Now, LiFePO4 power density is worse than Li-Ion which in turn appears to be worse than NiZn. So, there might be a case for NiZn as a better solution - but not a cheaper one.

Can you tell me (and the board) a couple of things:
1) what's the practical largest primary cell size for a NiZn? LFP's go up to about 200Ah I believe. The largest product listed on your site is 40Ah.
2) what is the nominal voltage and discharge characteristics of a NiZn cell? (is the discharge curve "flat" like LFP?, how much do they "sag" under high discharge?)
3) what continuous and pulsed C rate will NiZn support? The above TS cells are rated 3C continuous and 10C pulsed. "Good" LiFe cells (e.g. A123 etc.) are rated 10C continuous.
4) how well do NiZn handle over charge and over discharge
5) how do they react when they fail? (do they go up in flames like LiPo?)

I wish you luck. This is NOT an attempt to bash your product or company in any way. I'm just curious as to battery options (FYI, I am co-founder of a company called Electric Vehicle Manufacturing and we're currently in the final stages of bringing our first product to market)

All the best!
John H.


John,

Thanks for the questions. Firstly, I want to say that our website gives very general information. We are currently working on a 100 Ah and 150 Ah battery. As to your first question:

1) what's the practical largest primary cell size for a NiZn?

We will be producing 100 and 150 Ah batteries. At a cost that is a factor of 5 less expensive than Lithium based batteries.

2) what is the nominal voltage and discharge characteristics of a NiZn cell?

The characteristics are comparable to that of Lithium. I am assuming that you are referring to the "C" rating. If that is the case, then the NiZn battery will maintain 80% of its charge at 10C and it maintains 100% of it charge at 1C. If that is not what you were referring to, then I will let you ask a more specific question.

3) what continuous and pulsed C rate will NiZn support?

NiZn will support a continuous C rate at 10C and above.

4) how well do NiZn handle over charge and over discharge?

We have a battery management system (bms) that will make it very difficult to overcharge the battery. With that said, our technology has built in controls to prevent such an event. What I can tell you, is that the technology does not have the characteristics of other battery chemistries, in that there is no catastrophic event associated with over charging. NiZn is a "deep discharge" capable technology that will function like we say it will at 100% dept of discharge. We say that it will perform for 500 cycles at 100% dept of discharge because that is what we tested them for. Will they last longer or outperform? Sure, because that can be programed into the bms itself. Hopefully that answers your question, but feel free to respond again if that was not clear.

5) how do they react when they fail?

Like the answer to the previous question, there is not catastrophic event associated with over charging. They will not blow up or catch fire. Also, Nickel and Zinc are environmentally benign. The batteries do not need air or water cooling, or heating in order to operate.

I appreciate your concerns about other battery chemistries. We are agnostic when it comes to battery technologies. If we felt that Lithium, for example, was the best technology we would have pursued it. For the cost, performance, and availability nothing out there beats NiZn. In terms of W/kg in specific power, our first generation of batteries have a specific power of 1000 W/kg. The next generation will have 10000 W/kg. Lithium chemistries are able to obtain high power numbers because of the thinning of the electrodes. Our first generation obtained those characteristics without the thinning of electrodes. Lithium has run its course, we have only just begun. So stay tuned.

In terms of cost, because will recover all the original material, our cost will be lower than other incumbant technologies. It depends on the application. For example, you don't need 2000 cycles for a battery when 500 cycles will do the job. Lithium is very expensive because it has all of those engineering and safety costs built in. Let's not mention the availability of Lithium because that would require another forum.

Last, to your comment that "LiFePO4 power density is worse than Li-Ion which in turn appears to be worse than NiZn. So, there might be a case for NiZn as a better solution - but not a cheaper one." I would have to disagree. There is no way possible that any Lithium base chemistry is cheaper than NiZn. All you would have to do is compare the "bill of material" cost and you would know that NiZn is less expensive by a factor of 3 to 5 (also depending on the application). Besides, it is not cost effective to recycle lithium. I don't even think it's possible (maybe someone on this board can point me to a source). Whereas, we can recover, recycle, and reuse every bit of the material that we use our cost will continue to decline. Because the demand and supply influences converge on lithium, the cost is high now and will continue to grow.

Xellerion

[xellerion]

Hiya again xellerion,

John has some good questions, but I think I've spotted another place where your technology doesn't compare as well to LFP, and that's energy density. I'm using Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargable_battery#Table_of_rechargeable_battery_ technologies) for my numbers, which could very well be out of date. If so, please correct me. When I compare the NiZn line in that table to the LiFePO4 (LFP) line, I notice that energy density per volume is comparable (170 Wh/L), but energy density per weight is not (60 Wh/kg vs 80-120Wh/kg).

On the scooter I own, going from lead batteries to LFP saves over 100lbs on the bike weight, which has a significant impact on acceleration, range, and handling. On the scooter John is building, the battery pack should be a little bigger than mine, so the weight impact would be larger still. The Persu Hybrid is going to be quite a bit larger than our little scooters, but keeping weight down is just as important to them as it is to us.

Do you see improvements coming in energy density, or do you have something better brewing in your labs?

Hi MikeB,

We will have improvements to power and energy densities. We are currently working on a number of improvements that I discussed in a previous post. The size, cost, and power improvements will be substantial because of the thinning of the electrodes. We will get more power from less material with the added benefit of reducing the footprint.

Also, we sell bikes now that have our batteries. We placed the motor in the hub so as to reduce the power electronics on the bike itself. I don't know if it is allowed to let people know that these bikes and scooters are available, but I thought I would just put it out there.

I hope that answers the question.

Xellerion

[xellerion]

Xellerion- one thing I think you are over looking is that this is all really new technology that is still being developed! Infrastructures are not in place because it is still developing at a rapid pace! Who knows what things will be like 5 years from now! I mean they may come up with a nano antenna that is capable of keeping your car charged in almost any situation. So a recharging infrastructure could be obsolete in 5 years. Electric/hybrid technology is developing new stuff everyday! It is so fast that is is extremely hard to keep up with it some months. But I do see your point under current conditions and currently known technology then yes refueling is easier then recharging, but wait until tomorrow!!!!

Miracleman89,

Your point is well taken. I am not sure if you are quoting me correctly, however. I can reiterate it here. I think that recharging now is a mistake. Fuel cell technology (meaning ours) makes that impractical. Also, when you said that " this is all really new technology " and " that is still being developed," I have to remind you that our technology has been around for over 10 years! Fuel cells have been around for over 100 years. We have not done anything new, but we have come up with innovations that make it a viable alternative now.

As far as infrastructure goes, we can sell our fuel cells in 7eleven. Why? Because they are environmentally benign. You can sell them next to the tin foil on the shelf. The transportation infrastructure for our product is already in place.

Xellerion

[xellerion]

Hello xellerion,

It's great to have you at our little club here, but let me offer a suggestion: Go visit the nice people at V is for Voltage (http://visforvoltage.org/). It's a medium sized group of people interested in electric vehicles.

The group is strongly focused on motor-scooters and bicycles, since that's where the most electric vehicles on the road fit in. And everybody is trying to get good LiFePo batteries in their vehicle. If your Nickel-Zinc batteries are going to be better than the Lithium ones, then you might find some good customers over there. If you can demonstrate that your technology is better on a few models of scooter, for example, that may help you grab attention among the car makers. You can find people who already own electric vehicles, like me, who want to do a direct upgrade, or there are a few people representing actual manufactures, who might be interested in selling your batteries in a new vehicle.


MikeB,

Your point is well taken. I am not here to sell batteries or fuel cells (because they are not yet available for the consumer). My goal is to contribute however I can to the understanding of the technology our company has developed over the years.

Even if I wanted to sell batteries here it would be impossible to make them available for the consumer for a one or two unit sell. I just wanted to point out that we have demonstrated the technology in scooters and electric-assisted bikes that we currently sell.

Further, I am selling the "idea" that our technology is one of the bests.

Lastly, my personal opinion is that batteries will not be the most important in the electric vehicle, the fuel cell will. The battery may be more practical in a motor bike or scooter, but not the car.

[xellerion]

JDH2520,

I wanted to respond to your math:

elitepower.com sells Thundersky Lithium Iron Phosphate cells at a cost of $1.70 per Ah. To convert that to a per kWh cost the math is (1000/nominal cell voltage) * Ah cost; (1000/3.2)*1.7 = $531.25 per kWh. This page: http://www.xellerion.com/APPLICATIONS.htm on your site lists NiZn cost as $150 to $500 per kWh (I'm curious what factors go into determining the range of the cost?). Now, here's the kicker - LiFePO4 cells will last between 2000 and 3000 cycles for 80%DOD; NiZn lasts between 500 and 800 cycles. So, correcting the LFP price for life cycle gives 531.25 * (650/2500) = $138.125

I don't think the math is correct. I do not believe that adjusting the price for life cycle is the current thinking in the field. If I do an apples to apples comparison on an Ah cost, that is: (1000/Nominal Cell Voltage) the number I get is: (1000/13.0) * 1.9 (Ah cost) = $150 Kwh. We have a higher Nominal Cell Voltage at 13.0. So this is why our math works better and to our advantage. Also, we say that the cycle life is at least 500 cycles because we can give the consumer what they need at 500 cycles. That does not mean that the battery can't go to 2000 cycles. Also, that is 500 cycles at 100% DOD. If we go 80% DOD then we would get more life from the battery.

As to the factors that determine that range, there are several. One being that we recycle all of the original materials. Second, depending on the application and economies of scale we can acheive prices even lower than $150 kwh. I simply do not believe that any Lithium-based product can acheive that price that you quoted earlier simply based on cycle life. You have to take the supply factors into account. My guess is that Lithium will cost more because its demand is greater and its supply is severely limited.

[MVRacing]

Your point is well taken. I am not here to sell batteries or fuel cells (because they are not yet available for the consumer). My goal is to contribute however I can to the understanding of the technology our company has developed over the years.

Further, I am selling the "idea" that our technology is one of the bests.

Lastly, my personal opinion is that batteries will not be the most important in the electric vehicle, the fuel cell will. The battery may be more practical in a motor bike or scooter, but not the car.

Xellerion,
I want to thank you for participating in the discussions here ... it has been very educational. Looking forward to more "news" from your company.

[MikeB]

Welcome back, xellerion!



Last, to your comment that "LiFePO4 power density is worse than Li-Ion which in turn appears to be worse than NiZn. So, there might be a case for NiZn as a better solution - but not a cheaper one." I would have to disagree. There is no way possible that any Lithium base chemistry is cheaper than NiZn. All you would have to do is compare the "bill of material" cost and you would know that NiZn is less expensive by a factor of 3 to 5 (also depending on the application).

I think you missed John's point about cost. He's trying to figure the 'cost per mile' of a particular battery technology. Assuming you have to replace the battery pack every X miles, and a battery pack costs $Y, it's easy to figure out a net cost per mile. The life of a battery pack in miles is a function of pack capacity and it's lifespan in recharges. Given the numbers we currently have, LFP provides a lower cost per mile than Lead-Acid, even though the up-front cost is higher. Comparing to NiZn, it appears that LFP is still the winner (at least with current numbers).

Of course, you make a good argument about recycling, which means that NiZn could eventually drop in cost faster than LFP will. On the other hand, replacing the whole battery pack every year, even if it's a very cheap operation, is probably more trouble than an average user wants to go through, so there is a convenience cost to consider as well.

[Miracleman89]

Miracleman89,

Your point is well taken. I am not sure if you are quoting me correctly, however. I can reiterate it here. I think that recharging now is a mistake. Fuel cell technology (meaning ours) makes that impractical. Also, when you said that " this is all really new technology " and " that is still being developed," I have to remind you that our technology has been around for over 10 years! Fuel cells have been around for over 100 years. We have not done anything new, but we have come up with innovations that make it a viable alternative now.

As far as infrastructure goes, we can sell our fuel cells in 7eleven. Why? Because they are environmentally benign. You can sell them next to the tin foil on the shelf. The transportation infrastructure for our product is already in place.

Xellerion

Xellerion- I understand we have had fuel cells for a 100 years, it was the "innovations that make it viable" that I am refering to! battery tech has been advancing so rapidly that we don't know what will be announced tomorrow. Necessity is the mother of creation and innovation. When gas prices soared we saw new developements almost daily! Now with gasoline prices back around $2.00 who knows if these rapid developments will continue? All I can say is that I think with all these latest advancements we shouldn't settle for less then the best! My fear is that if we start to really settle into fuel cell tech, advancment in other areas will slow down, and when it comes to fuel cells I fear that it is just one more way for some big company to control the cost of our fuel! At least with electrical grids, I can buy solar cells or a windmill or some other method of supplying electricity to my vehicle through my own means and not have the price controlled by some big company!

[xellerion]

Welcome back, xellerion!



I think you missed John's point about cost. He's trying to figure the 'cost per mile' of a particular battery technology. Assuming you have to replace the battery pack every X miles, and a battery pack costs $Y, it's easy to figure out a net cost per mile. The life of a battery pack in miles is a function of pack capacity and it's lifespan in recharges. Given the numbers we currently have, LFP provides a lower cost per mile than Lead-Acid, even though the up-front cost is higher. Comparing to NiZn, it appears that LFP is still the winner (at least with current numbers).

Of course, you make a good argument about recycling, which means that NiZn could eventually drop in cost faster than LFP will. On the other hand, replacing the whole battery pack every year, even if it's a very cheap operation, is probably more trouble than an average user wants to go through, so there is a convenience cost to consider as well.


MikeB,

Maybe I did miss his point...let me know how it turns out if you can get your hands on those batteries. Like I said in a previous post, in the very near future it will not be batteries that we'll be replacing. It will be refueling that wins the consumer. Recharging batteries assumes that consumers want to plug their cars in at night when they are parked in the garage (assuming they have one). We are gearing up for that reality. The battery is just part of the picture, the fuel cell will rule the day in the short to mid term.

I am sorry that I couldn't convince you of the fact that our technology is cheaper on khw basis. If you noticed from the previsous post, our cost is higher on a Ah basis, but so is our nominal voltage. One last thing that I want to say about Li batteries, we think it is a great technology well suited for cell phones, computers, and small devices. We have them in all of our computers and cell phones, so we are consumers of this technology as well. You will come to learn as we have that this technology is too costly for transportation. They have spent 100s of millions to make it safe for transportation not to mention water and air cooling. Lithium gets hot. There is no way around it. All those cost get funneled down to the consumer. As their cost go up, ours will come down over time, I guarantee you. That is the last I can say about it.

[xellerion]

Xellerion- I understand we have had fuel cells for a 100 years, it was the "innovations that make it viable" that I am refering to! battery tech has been advancing so rapidly that we don't know what will be announced tomorrow. Necessity is the mother of creation and innovation. When gas prices soared we saw new developements almost daily! Now with gasoline prices back around $2.00 who knows if these rapid developments will continue? All I can say is that I think with all these latest advancements we shouldn't settle for less then the best! My fear is that if we start to really settle into fuel cell tech, advancment in other areas will slow down, and when it comes to fuel cells I fear that it is just one more way for some big company to control the cost of our fuel! At least with electrical grids, I can buy solar cells or a windmill or some other method of supplying electricity to my vehicle through my own means and not have the price controlled by some big company!

Miracleman-your point is so well taken. Which is why we designed our fuel cell to be completely refuelable. What does that mean? It means that the consumer will have a choice, he can purchase the fuel once and recycle it indefinitely. We designed the fuel cell so that the consumer can either refuel in under 10 seconds by purchasing the fuel at a local retailer, or recharge his own fuel on the grid itself. What that would mean for you, is that you can keep a few cartridges charged and use them when you need them for short trips around town and recharge when they are spent, or for long hauls you can pull into a retailer and purchase a fuel cartrige.

Becasue the consumer has this choice there is very little control by some big company to control price. That business model is out of date. The newest model for this is demonstrated by a company called "A Better Place." They will have an exchange program and you will pay a fee that supposedly won't change over time. We shall see what develops. I believe that battery exchanges are dangerous. It wont be done by the consumer, but by a trained professional because of the power electronics. However, they way in which we designed our fuel cell lends itself well to this approach. The consumer will be able to refuel in a safe and efficient manner.

We are in agreement...I believe the consumer (comercial or otherwise) should have more choices when it comes to this type of technology. Built in to our model, we see prices coming way down with economies of scale and recycling. We want all of our original material back so that the consumer, the environment, an we benefit. Everyone wins....

[RAN]

xellerion,welcome to the club! I've been away for awhile, but it's good to see you found your way here!

My biggest question is, when will your zinc-air fuel cell be available, either to OEMs or for individuals who want to do EV conversions, and what kind of price can we expect for both the fuel cells themselves and the zinc cartridges?

[xellerion]

Welcome back, xellerion!



I think you missed John's point about cost. He's trying to figure the 'cost per mile' of a particular battery technology. Assuming you have to replace the battery pack every X miles, and a battery pack costs $Y, it's easy to figure out a net cost per mile. The life of a battery pack in miles is a function of pack capacity and it's lifespan in recharges. Given the numbers we currently have, LFP provides a lower cost per mile than Lead-Acid, even though the up-front cost is higher. Comparing to NiZn, it appears that LFP is still the winner (at least with current numbers).

Of course, you make a good argument about recycling, which means that NiZn could eventually drop in cost faster than LFP will. On the other hand, replacing the whole battery pack every year, even if it's a very cheap operation, is probably more trouble than an average user wants to go through, so there is a convenience cost to consider as well.

MikeB,

Your point is well taken. I don't know of any car manufacturer that wants its customers to replace batteries every year. As to your point on cost per mile, we have proven and concluded that NiZn can accomplish .01/mile. A cost that the consumer is used to paying. With economies of scale, that cost comes down over time.

Add in the fuel cell (which I believe is the most practical solution for EV applications) and your cost come down by a factor of 10. Given that fact, the current school of thought for the cost to the consumer will be changed forever.

Because you can recycle and reuse our fuel cell and battery, fleet operators using our fuel cell will only have to purchase fuel 1.2 times. Don't make me do the math here. Considering that most fleet operators will have some form of renewable energy onsite, as long as our components hold up to abuse, the fuel should last forever.

I would hope that I have changed your current thought about batteries and fuel cells for the EV market. The battery, whether it be NiZn or Li Ion, will not be the "main ingredient" to make the vehicle function. The fuel cell is the future of EV transportation. Getting "fixated" on one particular chemistry will be the demise of US and Japanese auto makers. Exchanging high-powered batteries in vehicles is simply not practical.

Our refueling operation for the average consumer has been demonstrated. If I told you that I can refuel your EV in under 10 seconds at a cost of way less than $.01/mile you would say that I am out of my mind. But it is a proven fact. Li-based chemistries may provide that as well, but even at 10000 cycles, the consumer will have purchased another vehicle by then. Further proof that LI based chemistry has been over engineered.

However, if you want to continue to believe the Lithium hype, then so be it. If I haven't changed your mind now, then it's not possible.

Cheers,

Xellerion

[xellerion]

xellerion,welcome to the club! I've been away for awhile, but it's good to see you found your way here!

My biggest question is, when will your zinc-air fuel cell be available, either to OEMs or for individuals who want to do EV conversions, and what kind of price can we expect for both the fuel cells themselves and the zinc cartridges?


Ran,

Thanks for your question.

It is hard to say at this point when the zinc-air fuel cell will be available. It all depends on whether a major car manufacturer is willing to invest in the technology. We have proven with our "Guinness" world record that they are possible.

Like I said in a previous post, if the technology were in use today the consumer could expect to pay .01 cents per mile. With the fuel cell, the cost comes down significantly. Mainly because of recycling and the oxidation/reduction process. There is no way of prediction what that final cost will be, but we expect that it will come down by a factor of at least 10.

Determining what the availability and cost for the cartridges would be for the consumer is fuzzy at best. Rest assured, that once they become available I will let you know.

Best,

Xellerion

[RAN]

It means that the consumer will have a choice, he can purchase the fuel once and recycle it indefinitely. We designed the fuel cell so that the consumer can either refuel in under 10 seconds by purchasing the fuel at a local retailer, or recharge his own fuel on the grid itself.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZING!

This is a new development that I hadn't heard before! Dr Faris originally envisioned recharging centers in major metropolitan centers where spent cartridges would be sent to be recharged, then resold. This involves middlemen, transportation charges and retail markup for each cycle.

If we will have the option of recharging the cartridges ourselves, that's the missing link!!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but would that not make batteries obsolete? Instead of having to wait to plug in your EV at night, you can have spare cartridges charging all the time.

What kind of range are you anticipating for an automotive fuel cell, and how long would you estimate it would take to recharge a zinc cartridge?

And how do you expect me to sleep tonight with this on my mind??????????

[MikeB]

MikeB,

However, if you want to continue to believe the Lithium hype, then so be it. If I haven't changed your mind now, then it's not possible.

I'm sorry, you've again misunderstood. I'm not buying Lithium hype, I'm buying lithium batteries, ones that are available on the market today. (Actually, my purchase was last October.) If there is any hype around, it appears to be in NiZn batteries that are not yet for sale.

If you want to sell a better battery, then just sell the darn thing. If it's really better, I'll be happy to buy it, or I'll ask John to put it into the next scooter I buy from him.

If you have a fuel cell product, great! Again, put it on the market, show me how it can be refueled quickly wherever I go, and I'll ask John to install it in a scooter.

But please don't come in here and accuse me of buying hype when that's all you have to offer.

[RAN]

It is hard to say at this point when the zinc-air fuel cell will be available. It all depends on whether a major car manufacturer is willing to invest in the technology. We have proven with our "Guinness" world record that they are possible.

Xellerion, I think if you're waiting for a big OEM to come along and fund mass production of the zinc-air fuel cell, we're all going to be ashes before that happens. They've all invested millions upon millions in the design and manufacture of internal combustion engines. Doesn't it strike you as funny that, all of a sudden, they can come up with engines that put out less CO2, have more torque, and can get a few extra MPG, but they can't figure out how to make a relatively simple series hybrid drivetrain? If they invested a fifth of the money into series hybrids that they invest in ICEs, we'd all have one in our garages already.

You need to get with some of the new start-ups, who aren't afraid to challenge the Status Quo. How much money did Tesla spend to work out the bugs in the Roadster's 6000+ lithium ion battery pack? How much more are they going to spend to come up with a newly designed battery pack for the S Sedan and future models? Where the hell were you guys? The same with Aptera, T-Rex, Shelby Super Cars and all the new, little kids on the block. Maybe individually they couldn't afford to fund mass zinc-air production, but how about collectively? How much money has Better Place urinated down the sewer grate to try to come up with their doomed battery-swap program?

There would be no better wake-up call for the big 3 (or 4, or 6) automakers than to let them come up with their Volt or (insert gas-fueled hybrid of the week here) whatever, while all the little guys managed to come up with the Trump Card, without any government bailout dollars. How stupid would GM look then??

You're right... the Guinness record proves that they're viable, but IIRC, that record was set back in 2003. It's now 2009. Tick-tock.... How many more years and millions of dollars are we going to have to waste breathing car exhaust and funding a dozen other "battery solutions"???

PML Flightlink was waiting for "a major car manufacturer to invest in the technology" and you see where it got them. I would truly hate to see the same thing happen to you.

[Miracleman89]

Miracleman-your point is so well taken. Which is why we designed our fuel cell to be completely refuelable. What does that mean? It means that the consumer will have a choice, he can purchase the fuel once and recycle it indefinitely. We designed the fuel cell so that the consumer can either refuel in under 10 seconds by purchasing the fuel at a local retailer, or recharge his own fuel on the grid itself. What that would mean for you, is that you can keep a few cartridges charged and use them when you need them for short trips around town and recharge when they are spent, or for long hauls you can pull into a retailer and purchase a fuel cartrige.

Becasue the consumer has this choice there is very little control by some big company to control price. That business model is out of date. The newest model for this is demonstrated by a company called "A Better Place." They will have an exchange program and you will pay a fee that supposedly won't change over time. We shall see what develops. I believe that battery exchanges are dangerous. It wont be done by the consumer, but by a trained professional because of the power electronics. However, they way in which we designed our fuel cell lends itself well to this approach. The consumer will be able to refuel in a safe and efficient manner.

We are in agreement...I believe the consumer (comercial or otherwise) should have more choices when it comes to this type of technology. Built in to our model, we see prices coming way down with economies of scale and recycling. We want all of our original material back so that the consumer, the environment, an we benefit. Everyone wins....

Well to say the least I am still skeptical! I like the idea and thank you for explaining that for me but I leary of distance capability on a recharged cartridge, as you mentioned short trips. Now if these cartridges are traded in at the price to recharge, then that is something I get and understand! Is there a portable way to recharge the cartridges while say on a long road trip, say like over night while sleeping at the hotel? I am still a little lost in the conversation, as some of this stuff I still have yet to understand! Unfortunatly, I am no engineer so I am basically playing "catch up" when it comes to all this new technology. In many ways I have been trying to study and learn from all the different articles on these different techs and I must say it can get a bit overwhelming! So, I just want to say thanks you for taking your time to explain this stuff to me! I will add at this point I do see the potential for what you are working on but I would need to see this application in real world situations to get a real grasp at it's true potential!

[RAN]

You'll be able to go virtually the same distance on a recharged cartridge as you did on it the 1st time. To use a "round figure," I'd say if I had to guess at the average distance you could go on a zinc cartridge, it would probably be in the neighborhood of 100-200 miles. Then, instead of needing hours at a recharging station (or even *needing* a recharging station), it would take maybe 10 minutes to go under the hood and change to a fresh cartridge, wherever you happened to be.

You could certainly carry several of them with you on a road trip, although it depends on how big a vehicle you have whether or not you could (or would want to) carry enough for the whole round trip on board.

I don't know much about what is involved with recharging them at home, as this is a new development to me, but I doubt you could carry the recharging unit with you on the road, and I doubt you could recharge enough cartridges overnight to replenish all you would use driving all day (think battery charging times vs driving time on a charge - takes longer to charge them). The idea would be, on a road trip, to carry as many with you as you wanted, and trade them in for fresh ones en route. Of course, if this technology ever catches on, new cartridges would be available at every gas station or convenience store, so it wouldn't be a big deal.

This technology has been proven over years of testing. It's economically and environmentally viable. I don't think you're going to see any major automakers falling over themselves to develop it, because again, there aren't any moving parts inside to break like there are in all those ICEs they want to use as range extenders. The only real way to make money off this system was in the recharging and reselling of the cartridges, and if you can charge them at home yourself, well, that's just too much "consumer empowerment" for any corporate bigwig (especially in the auto business) OR politician to swallow.

My biggest skepticism, therefore, is in wondering what future-minded soul(s) with deep pockets is going to step up to the plate and get these into production? Knowledge of these fuel-cells isn't exactly mainstream, even in the green car movement. Why aren't Tom Hanks, Ed Begley Jr and Daryl Hannah singing the praises of Zinc-Air????

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm????????????

[rogwild]

My biggest question is; if this technology is so advanced and better than batteries and other environmentally friendly transportation solutions, why can't I find at least ONE 'Registered' or 'Letter of Intent' team in the Progressive Automotive X-Prize using it! Perhaps I missed them, but didn't see any listed on the X-Prize website.

[RAN]

Rog, that's what upsets me about these people. They may be some real electro-chemical geniuses, but they don't seem to know squat about marketing and getting the word out. They really need to save some acorns up and hire someone good at PR.