4876980332_3268b4c631_b

What Do We Need From the Battery of the Future? By David Biello

Imagine a car that could go 300 miles – that’s Chicago to St. Louis – on battery power. That’s not possible today without either an assist from a gasoline-fueled engine functioning as a charger (the Chevy Volt solution) or an alternate drive provider  (the Toyota Prius solution). The fact that such cars need, in effect, two engines, means that battery-powered options remain much more expensive than their purely gasoline-fueled peers, which require only a single powertrain.

“We need batteries that last longer, charge quickly and are inexpensive,” says ecologist Joe Fargione of The Nature Conservancy, an expert on the environmental impacts of biofuels, another transportation fuel alternative. “With that [electrification of cars] would be relatively simple. The rest of the technology is there.”

So the battery the future requires is cheap, more energy dense and less fragile. No car on the market can meet all of these requirements: the $35,200 all-electric Nissan Leaf has only 100 miles of advertised range, while Tesla’s new souped-up model S, with an advertised 300 miles of range, will be priced at $77,400 and have an actual range that is closer to 240 miles. Meanwhile, batteries all too often burst into flame — recall the Sony laptop lithium-ion batteries of several years ago or the recent controversy over the Chevy Volt’s batteries — or stop functioning because of degraded components. The question is: can such a battery be made?

What is a battery?

Alessandro Volta built the first modern battery around 1800, by piling discs of zinc and silver separated by cloth soaked in salt water. The salt water oxidized the zinc, freeing up electrons, which then migrated to the silver. By keeping those electrons flowing, Volta induced an electrical current from the battery and was the first to demonstrate the properties of properly configured electrolytes, anodes and cathodes.

A Voltaic pile at the Musee des arts et Metiers, Paris. Courtesy Flickr user SSShupe

This first battery had all kinds of limitations, including almost instant corrosion that would shut down the chemical reactions needed to generate electric current. Plus, Volta’s battery could never be too big because the weight of the discs began to squeeze the salt water out of the intervening cloth.

Batteries have improved immensely in the more than 200 years since, as carbon and various lithium-based compounds have supplanted the zinc and silver of Volta’s proto-batteries. But the same fundamental challenges remain: a battery that stores twice as much energy and can take you twice as far is going to be twice as large, which is to say, too big for a car. And that’s just one of the challenges.

“As a storage device for energy, a battery is notoriously inefficient,” notes Johan de Nysschen, the president of Audi of America, though the automaker is investing in battery-powered vehicles. Today’s lithium ion batteries hold roughly 0.72 megajoules per kilogram. The equivalent amount of gasoline holds 35 times more energy.

Better energy storage

The search is on for new materials to boost energy storage. One candidate is the same silicon that makes computer chips and photovoltaics possible. This semiconductor can also serve as a powerful anode, as much as 30 percent more powerful than the carbon anodes used today.

The problem is that silicon doesn’t hold its shape, swelling when charging before shrinking back as it discharges. As a result, much like Volta’s original long ago, batteries employing silicon don’t last very long. Other alternatives to improve on carbon include water and even air — the problem being that volatile lithium can spontaneously combust in both.

Argonne's microcapsules, just 10 microns across, burst to repair batteries. Image by Amanda Jones and Ben Blaiszik/Argonne National Laboratory

To combat this battery life problem, researchers at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and elsewhere are working on devices that could self-heal. The idea is to include microcapsules of liquid metal smaller than a cell of along the surface of the anode or cathode. When that surface becomes damaged the capsules burst and the liquid metal fills in the blemishes cutting off current.

Finally, batteries that could be refilled on the go, such as the “flow batteries” being developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, might provide a solution to long-distance transport, though refueling stops would become more frequent. Think of it as a battery masquerading as a liquid fuel. Essentially, these batteries break up their anode and cathode materials into particles floating in the liquid electrolyte. Such electricity generating solutions could then be used until fully discharged, pumped out, and the battery refilled with fresh solution, though this poses the usual chemistry and infrastructure challenges facing all battery-powered vehicles. The company Better Place has a similar idea for swapping out more traditional batteries entirely and will begin rolling that system out in Denmark, where installing the infrastructure can be more manageable.

A better use?

In the end, however, even these futuristic batteries and schemes pale in comparison to the energy density and convenience of fossil fuels — a lithium air battery, the most energy dense battery on offer in the laboratory, might hold roughly one-fifth the energy of a similar amount of gasoline. Further, such batteries will be expensive. “We have solutions to all of our energy problems, but our solutions cost too much,” says physicist William Brinkman, director of the Office of Science at the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE).

The Tesla S: a maximum of 300 miles range with a big asterisk. Courtesy Tesla

But that doesn’t mean that such batteries won’t find a use, for example, in the military, which has partnered with the DoE to test large-scale batteries for microgrids. And renewable sources of electricity, such as the wind and sun, may also rely on large-scale battery storage to smooth out interruptions in the supply of power from such sources.

But it’s cars that really rev the motor of battery enthusiasts. As a result, the DoE will launch this year a new research center devoted to “dramatically improv[ing] battery and energy storage technologies for vehicle and grid applications,” announced Secretary of Energy Steven Chu at an event in Detroit on January 11. “Imagine a low-cost battery that allows you to drive a few hundred miles, recharge while you stop for lunch, and then drive on for another few hundred miles.  Achieving this goal could be transformative.”

Nevertheless, it is those working on batteries within the DoE who recognize the scale of the challenge — and the hurdles presented by basic physics. ANL developed lighter, safer and cheaper to manufacture lithium-ion batteries that also mix in manganese, which will soon be used in the Chevy Volt. But that doesn’t mean the battery will soon triumph. “Is the battery going to supplant or replace the internal combustion engine?” asked Jeffrey Chamberlain, leader of Argonne’s energy storage initiative, including advanced batteries, at a New America Foundation event this past October on energy in 2030. “That’s never going to happen: not in my lifetime, my children’s lifetime or my children’s children’s lifetime.”

Top image: Lithium-ion battery cells at Argonne’s Electrochemical Analysis and Diagnostics Laboratory. Courtesy Argonne National Laboratory

Subscribe to Txchnologist’s daily email.

David Biello is an associate editor at Scientific American. In December, he won a Silver Baton 2012 Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award for hosting and co-writing the Detroit Public Television special Beyond the Light Switch. He has written for publications ranging from Good to Yale e360 and speaks on radio shows such as WNYC’s The Takeaway.

Related Txchnologist Articles

Comments

  1. TJ Anderson

    There are a lot of competing technological ‘breakthroughs’ currently in the advanced and early research stages that all hope to be the solution to the problem. In actuality I think it will take a combination of most of those technologies, along with some that we haven’t even thought of, to truly solve the problem of being able to store over 300 miles worth of energy in an affordable robust battery.

  2. Bob Wallace

    The Honda FiT will use the Toshiba SCiB lithium-ion battery. It will take a 95% recharge in less than 20 minutes. (It also is rated at 4,000 cycles which makes it a 400,000 mile battery.)

    The ‘threshold”, I think, is a 175 mile range battery. That would allow a 500 mile driving day with only two 20 minute stops. We don’t actually need a 300 mile range.

    This – “batteries all too often burst into flame”. Why do you make such a silly claim?

    When’s the last time you heard of a laptop, digital camera, hearing aid, cell phone bursting into flame?

    And the Volt battery fire, a severely crash-damaged battery that was not properly discharged burst into flames three weeks after the coolant evaporated and created a short. It’s common practice to drain gas tanks and disconnect starter batteries when wrecked gasmobiles are hauled to the wrecking/storage yard. All that’s needed is to put the wrecked EV battery electricity back into the grid.

  3. abrahim sabir

    eventually the concept must boil down to ‘storage’ and ‘production’ . storage shudnt necessarily means battery chemistry. Honda’s FCV (fuel cell vehicle) is one of the ways ahead. the permutations in case of battery chemicals are unlikely to get anywhere near the calorific density of gasoline or compressed hydrogen. Its important to have the objective in focus and avoid getting lost in the intermediates and the objective is to get rid of the IC engine as we know it. solution to little issues like ‘fast charging’ do exist in form of super-capacitor based charging units which can accept large amount of charge in a flash which can then be pushed into the battery by an efficient DC-DC converter. at the end of the day 300mile/top-up will not happen purely on the basis of battery capacity but on a combination of many different ideas.

  4. Bill Dale

    Tsk, tsk! Such overwhelming lack of vision, and excessive pessimism! These are the kinds of doubters that the Wright brothers, and Robert Fulton, and Tesla (both the genius a hundred years ago, and the car company today that bears his name in homage), and countless others had to ignore to bring new technologies to market. There’s a perfectly good reason ships can’t be built of iron, of course– it’s heavier than water, and it will sink. Despite what seemed like perfect logic, ships have been built of metal, to the embarrassment of their critics.

    The problem with air batteries is that lithium is highly volatile– it burns fiercely when in contact with water, or even the moisture in the air. To make an air battery work, the anode must have a membrane that separates it from the air, but that still allows ions in the atmosphere to pass through and interact with the charged plates. That’s a thorny problem, but I do not see it as any more substantial than, say, finding a way to make organic LEDs (OLEDs) that started out as very promising laboratory curiosities, but had useful lives measured in hours. Many people, thought they’d never make it to market, or be affordable. I’m typing this comment on an OLED smart phone right now, and its contrast, efficiency and other qualities make it far better than LED screens of the past. I am not willing to pay much attention to those that give reasons a thing cannot be done.

    Air batteries, if they succeed, may be more expensive per pound than today’s batteries, but that is no excuse for not pursuing them– they may yield storage so dense that they only need to be a tenth the size to provide 300 miles range. If such a battery can he made, everything else in the car can be lighter as well, particularly the suspension system, electric motor and electronic controller.

    Another technology that coats the charge plates with carbon nanotubes may similarly increase the battery’s energy density by ten times– then again, maybe neither approach succeeds beyond, say, 20%– but combined, the two technologies may give us greater range than we can achieve with gasoline. We wull never know unless we ignore the pessimists. And even if we don’t achieve anything more than modest gains with new batteries, they will still inevitably succeed in some proportion– petroleum will not last forever, what we do pump from below will continue to be more and more difficult and expensive to access. China and India are only now beginnng to use significant numbers of ICE cars, and if all the billions of Chinese want to drive automobiles, which is likely, gasoline will soon become unaffordable. EV use will inevitably become our best alternative even if battery technology does not advance as rapidly as we’d like– which I think is unlikely. I look forward to clean, quiet, smog-free highways, and running on electrons rather than fuel supplied by countries that would like nothing more than to use our petro dollars to finance weapons of mass destruction to annihilate us.

  5. Klaus Beccu, Ph.D.

    Air batteries are certainly the storage systems to pursue furthermore. As Bill Dale pointed out, the problems with Li-air are severe, not only the humidity problem but also the low performance of an air electrode in organic electrolytes is a restriction for high power applications. The comparison with electronic developments (OLED), that any problem can be solved follows however always the same error often announced: to compare electronics with electrochemistry. Both developments are based on completely different scientific principles.

    A promising Air battery that avoids the problems of Li-air: is the Proton-Ion battery (metal hydride – air), now under development at Ovonic Battery Company [OBC] . The Proton-Ion system allows to reach energy densities up to 300 Wh/kg, works in aqueous electrolyte ast high performance and avoids the dendrite problem of Zinc-air. OBC is the leader in metal hydride batteries [NiMH] installed in over 3 million hybrid vehicles from Toyota, Honda, Ford, VW, BMW, Porsche, PSA etc. In the 2nd generation NiMH

  6. Klaus Beccu, Ph.D.

    Last comment shut down before finished!

    In the 2nd generation NiMH shows comparable energy densities as LiFePO4 batteries, however at 1/3 of the cost of Li-ion and without any safety problem. The outstanding merits of this storage systems were recently recognized by the takeover of OBC by BASF-USA . While OBC has performed major improvements in the choice of the metal alloy and structure and especially has succeeded to license the NiMH-technology to 35 companies worldwide, the pioneer invention of electrochemically reversible hydrogen storage in metal hydrides came originally (1967) from the Battelle Geneva Research Center, where this technology was patented and developed for Daimler-Benz and VW over 20 years.

  7. Eyal (Fuel Freedom)

    What a silly article. Its entire premise is wrong.
    1. Need to compare the final weight of the electric car vs ICE car. With 60% less systems (engine, fuel injection system, transmission, etc.) the electric car has a lot less to carry around. Just comparing the battery weight to energy density of gasoline is unfair.
    2. The article assumes that there is such as think as a family car. In the US at least there is no such thing anymore. We have a car per driver. In most households there are at least 2 cars. If one of your cars is electric and the other gasoline and you need to take a longer trip just switch cars with your spouse.
    3. Even if both household cars are electric, you can always rent a car for those handful of trips to Vegas or to grandma.

    With less than 20,000 electric cars sold in 2011 out of almost 50,000,000 cars that were made last year, the road is pretty long for electric mobility to rule the globe. But one thing is for sure, there will be plenty of innovation along the way, most of it might not even be imagined today.

  8. Auntiegrav

    Predictions really depend on what people will be doing, not what they say they want. To predict what people will be doing in the future, we would have to know all of the answers to all of the questions about cultural and economic changes that are currently chaotic.
    People will be driving personal vehicles less in the future, simply because the infrastructure will not survive the shake-out of evolution from cheap energy to expensive energy. Sunlight to charge batteries is cheap, but it requires a different mindset. If people can get more and more of their energy locally, then they have less need to travel to a job to buy gas to drive to a job to buy gas. The vulnerabilities of our System of systems lie in logistics, not prices. Eventually, some failure of the food distribution/processing system will cause a massive fatalities and cause us to re-evaluate how we live. New perspectives on the value of people to themselves and to their contrived ideas of “nations” and “value” will also be causing disruptions in the feudalistic indentured servant paradigm. We will be asking “What are people FOR?”, and with that, “What are cars for?” will probably not be answered the same as we have in the last 70 years. The current state of automobile technology dominates our lives in ways that we simply cannot afford to continue to live with. The automobile has become the dominant species, and we need a revolution of usefulness for people instead of for systems.

What do you think?

Your comment needs to be approved by the site owner before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, please read GE's Blogging Policy.