 |
There are currently, 152 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
The Silicone battery; Fuell Cell vs. Battery electric vehicles
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 @ 22:41:41 UTC by vlad
|
|
koen writes: The Silicone Battery. The Chinese company Guineng, see: http://www.guineng.com/index0.htm, has developed a very interesting non-polluting battery of good quality, based on an electrolyte of liquid low sodium silicate
compound.
Fuel Cell Vehicles: Solution or shell game? Conclusion from the report 'Fuel Cell Vehicles: Solution or shell game?' available at: http://www.evuk.co.uk/EAVES_BEV_VS_FCV%20040703.pdf
GUINENG batteries
are high power secondary batteries developed and manufactured
by Guangdong Jiangmen Yuyang Special Batteries CO.,LTD.The
development process took several years of time. Based
on the brand new electrolyte of liquid low sodium silicate
compound, renovations have been made for cell electrode
structure, material composition and battery manufacture
processes. GUINENG silicone batteries have successfully
broken away from the shortcomings of lead-acid batteries,such
as acid corrosion, acid mist pollution, low energy density
& power density, and short life span.
GUINENG has a universally recognized edge over commonly
used lead-acid batteries nowadays in the world, due
to its high capacity,high current output, rapid recharge
time, low temperature performance, long life span, and
environment-friendliness.
On top of that, the brand new neutral electrolyte does
not corrode the electrodes, which makes it possible
to recycle the electrodes after the battery is properly
disposed of. The disposed electrolyte, in the state
of semi-solid grains, is a high quality fertilizer rather
than soil pollutant. The factory is rated as Factory
of Environment Friendliness by the relevant environment
protection authority for its contribution to the commitment
of green environment protection.
From http://www.e-max-scooter.com/en/umwelt-batterien.php
is the following battery comparison table:
Battery Type
Energy Density (Wh/kg)
Cycle Life
Charging 100% time hrs
Effi-
ciency (%)
Self-
discharge Rate
Cost (€/Wh)
Comments
Lead-Acid
30-40
100-300
6-8
65
Low(5-10%month)
0.10-0.30
Low cost, low energy density, disposal problems
Nickel- Cadmium
50-60
>1000
14-16
65
Very high(30%month)
0.50-1.50
High cost, low energy density, long cycle life, major disposal problems
Nickel- MetalHydride
80
>500
14-16
65
Very high(30%month)
1.00-3.00
Very high cost, poor charge retention, difficult to seal large cells, memory effect, dangerous H2 gas in large cells
Nickel Zinc
60
>500
5
65
High (±20% month)
0.50-0.60
Medium to high cost, moderate energy density, contains ±2%lead/kg
Lithiumion
120
>500-1000
5
>98.8
**very low(1-2%month)
0.90
Higher cost, high energy density,long cycle life, high charge efficiency, economic, Eco friendly
Silicone powerbattery
45-52
*>500
2-3
85
Very low(1-2%month)
0.30- 0.35
Low to medium cost, medium energy density, no memory effect, very short charging timeEco friendly
* 500 cycles are normally achieved before the capacity falls below 80% of the Rated Capacity.
The Silicone battery has much less memory effect and operates uneffected at very cold or hot conditions, so this battery is definitely a big improvement compared with the lead-acid battery. Unless the lithium-ion battery becomes much cheaper, the silicone battery is a very good option for electric vehicles.
----------------
From the report 'Fuel Cell Vehicles: Solution or shell game?'
(BEV=Battery Electric Vehicle, FCV=Fuel-Cell Vehicle)
A BEV has a much higher efficiency and is much more economic when compared with a FCV.
A
comparison between BEV and FCV is important since our nation has made
a recent change in policy for widespread adoption of fuel-cell
vehicles, while all but abandoning its efforts on battery electric
vehicles.
Since the BEV and FCV are the only two zeroemission
candidates, elementary risk analysis would require overwhelming
evidence indicating that FCV’s are vastly superior to BEVs in order to
justify investing in only one of the technologies. We were unable to
find such overwhelming evidence in government studies, and our
conclusions are confirmed by published data on introductory vehicles.
The results show that in a future economy based on renewable energy,
the FCV requires production of between 2.4 and 2.6 times more energy
than the BEV. The FCV propulsion system weighs 43% more, consumes three
times more space onboard the vehicle for the same power output, and
costs approximately 46% more than the BEV system.
Further, the
refueling cost of a FCV is nearly three times greater, even if we do
not consider the substantial cost of building and maintaining the
hydrogen infrastructure on which the FCV would depend.
Finally, when we
relax the renewable energy assumption, the BEV is still more efficient,
cleaner, and vastly less expensive in terms of refueling and
infrastructure investment. As indicated above, at the very least, this
indicates that the development effort on battery electric vehicles
should continue, particularly if the objective is to maximize the use
of renewable energy resources.
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 4.69
Votes: 13
| |
|
| "The Silicone battery; Fuell Cell vs. Battery electric vehicles" | Login/Create an Account | 6 comments | Search Discussion |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: The Silicone battery; Fuell Cell vs. Battery electric vehicles (Score: 1)
by nrg_revolution on Thursday, January 05, 2006 @ 18:41:02 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Nice story, thanks.
The only problem I can see, though it wouldn't be for me, is the recharge time.
FCV's, once an infrastructure is in place, can be fueled in under 10 minutes. For some that simply can't take to recharging at home, refueling on the road is a must.China doesn't have a whole lotta bad refueling habits to break, so that may work there.
Here is combination of both, a FC/Battery Hybrid.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/05/zestful_prototy.html
It takes the cost adv. of batteries, and the refueling option of Hydrogen and gives the best of both worlds. Could probably be used as a plug-in hybrid, IOW's just plug it in and never pull from the Hydrogen tanks or go on a long trip and don't sweat the 3 hour charging stops, just tank up with H2.
Steve
|
|
|
Re: The Silicone battery; Fuell Cell vs. Battery electric vehicles (Score: 1)
by consenergy on Monday, February 27, 2006 @ 13:35:12 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://WWW.CONSENERGY.NET | I BELIEVE THAT SILICONE BATTERIES SEEMS TO BE A NEARER SOLUTION THAN THE EXPENSIVE FUELCELLS. THERE IS A LOT TO WORK ON, IN ORDER TO CONFORM BIDS THAT MAY INCLUDE SUCH TECHNOLOGIES.
OUR NEEDS HAVE TO BE HAND-BY-HAND WITH MOTHER NATURE´S NEEDS, AND IS A JOB THAT WE -THE ENGINEERS- HAVE ON OUR BACK....
IF SOMEONE HAS MORE INFORMATION REGARDING THIS PRODUCT, I WILL APPRECIATE IT. |
|
|
|
|
