Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Long In Development, Toshiba 'SCiB' Battery Debuts

Posted by kdawson on from the could-be-the-one dept.

relliker notes Toshiba's announcement of the SCiB, a battery we have been following for years. (As usual, use NoScript to avoid the incredibly annoying timed begging popup on Gizmag's site.) Here is Toshiba's SCiB site. The battery's specs claim 6,000+ charge/deep-discharge cycles with minor capacity loss, safe rapid charging to 90% in 5 minutes, and enhanced safety regarding overheating or shorting out. It could make its way into electric vehicles before long.

30 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. SCIB by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Informative

    SCIB = Super Charge Ion Battery

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-titanate_battery

  2. Re:So... by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Funny

    If I had to bet, I'd say it's "22".

  3. Erm... by DeathToBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Toyota? Or Toshiba?

    --
    Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    1. Re:Erm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Toyota? Or Toshiba?

      As it is another fine "editing" job by Slashdot Hack KDawson, WHO KNOWS?

    2. Re:Erm... by kiwijapan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Toyota? Or Toshiba?

      Toshiba, as in TFA. The title is just wishful thinking to get this in the Prius.
      Seriously, one of the main issues (other than price) keeping people from buying electric or hybrid vehicles is the time it takes to recharge, which doesn't make them a viable option for long (read: hundreds of kilometres in one go) trips.

  4. "Toyota" really? by Neoporcupine · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is Toyota really involved or do all Japanese companies look the same to you?

    1. Re:"Toyota" really? by indre1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Does this mean that Prius will now go 2 miles instead of 1.5 on batteries.

  5. Toshiba by relliker · · Score: 5, Informative

    My original post's title did not have the company name in it :)

  6. Time for the maths! by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Informative

    A 2kg battery pack is 24V for 4.2Ah. That's ~100wh

    To match the Chevy Volt's 16Kwh You'd need around 160 of these. That's for a tiny 40mile range. These aren't going to be the main power source of a car any time soon

    1. Re:Time for the maths! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt#Battery), the driver can only use 8.8kWh of the full capacity, to maximise the lifetime of the battery. Given that the lifetime of these batteries is the main draw, you might be able to get away with 90 SCiB-model batteries for a comparable capacity. Incidentally, that works out to about 180kg, comparable to the Volt's 170kg Li-ion pack, which is still an improvement given that Li-ion are one of the best battery types for energy/weight ratio. So it'

    2. Re:Time for the maths! by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You could maybe come up with a design that uses batteries like this for hard accelleration, climbing, and startup, when drain is high - and use the base-load batteries for other times, meanwhile shifting charge from the base-load back to the high-drain ones while driving normally. Such a design would get better use out of both battery types.

    3. Re:Time for the maths! by raddan · · Score: 3, Funny

      Did your battery run out?

  7. Re:So... by William+Robinson · · Score: 3, Funny

    Catch is 6000 charge/deep-discharge and rapid charge in 5 minutes.

    Though my girlfriend is not impressed with those figures.

    --
    hilarious
  8. Question on power output by Twinbee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    According to this page they state "SCiBTM is a well-balanced battery that combines high power output and large capacity with power density almost equal to that of capacitors":
    http://www.scib.jp/en/product/detail.htm

    Also on this page, they state 96 watts per kilogram (12 volt x 8 amp):
    http://www.scib.jp/en/product/spec.htm

    Only 96 watts per kg? That's not close to a capacitor which is about 1000-10000 watts per kg. Maybe I'm missing something but what gives?

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    1. Re:Question on power output by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You confused power density and energy density. A cap may be 1000-10000 w/kg but that's energy density. It looks like these things are like caps in the sense that they can charge/discharge FAST compared to everything else. How much energy you get from it is a different matter.

      A 9V battery is the same energy as several rounds of 9mm pistol shots, but it should be immediately obvious that 9V batteries aren't able to dump that energy as FAST as a 9mm...

    2. Re:Question on power output by kanweg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Doesn't that depend on the speed of the battery?

      Bert
      In case of short replies, Slashdot hates people who can speed-type.

    3. Re:Question on power output by Twinbee · · Score: 4, Informative

      No the 1000-10000 w/kg is power density. Energy density would be W-h / kg. Power density is W/kg. See:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supercapacitors_chart.svg

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  9. game changing, if true by bzipitidoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The electric motor beats the combustion engine in every way: Simpler, more reliable, much more efficient, more powerful, smoother and leveler output of power over a wider range of RPMs, quieter, smaller, lighter weight, and much less expensive. The big reason we don't use them everywhere is lack of a way to store sufficient energy that is 1) cheap, 2) lightweight, 3) quickly refillable, 4) durable, 5) not bulky. The humble gas tank is far better than the batteries, fuel cells, ultra capacitors, and other things (like flywheels?) that we have now. Solve these problems and bring the battery to the point where it is at least competitive with the gas tank even if still a little inferior, and powering cars with gasoline will be history so fast that the oil companies won't know what hit them.

    Overhyped breakthroughs that really aren't are legion. But often it really does happen. 2009 was the year of the LCD. I'm still astonished at how quickly the CRT vanished last year. Over the last decade, the incandescent light bulb was pushed into niche applications as compact fluorescents took over But seems they won't reign long with LEDs steadily improving. The 1980s was huge, with the shift from vinyl records to CDs, the microwave oven, and the PC. The 1990s was even bigger with the Internet and the gigantic leaps in hard drive capacity. Doesn't seem there will be a year of the Linux desktop, more like a decade.

    But this change seems very likely to be real. We've had electric motors on the sidelines for more than a century, and we know they work great. We've also had batteries a long time, so maybe we should be more cautious and skeptical about breakthroughs. But what we haven't had all that long are all these new battery materials such as lithium-ion. So I think that even if Toshiba's advance is less than it sounds, many others are working hard on the same problems, and we'll see huge improvements soon. Like LCDs were 5 years ago, batteries are on the cusp, and it really won't take much more to make the battery + electric motor combination better, much better, than combustion engine + gas tank. I'd be hesitant to buy a new car with a combustion engine. Might be obsolete very quickly, the way CRTs went last year. Combustion engine powered cars still have a few years, perhaps, the only question is how many?

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    1. Re:game changing, if true by Lifyre · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Great points. However I think that with continued development you're going to find that hydrogen is what eventually replaces gas as our power source of choice for cars. Eventually it will pull up, hook up, refuel, drive away. The biggest hurdle there is an efficient delivery system and excess power to create hydrogen with (need more nuclear). Batteries are great in that they're portable power but honestly they're nasty little things, especially when they burn or get damaged. I worked with some super-capacitors for a small company making hybrid electric buses for NYC, they were amazing in that they could hold 1000 Farrads at 2V, however they made a nice cyanide cloud if they burned...

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    2. Re:game changing, if true by ledow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You don't need to renew your gas tank every 6000 charges (admittedly, that's probably a lot of years in an absolutely ideal charging scenario, but the chances that it works like that with ordinary car-use are near-zero). When you do, it doesn't cost you as much as a *new* car (not even a replacement of the car you're driving, a BRAND NEW car). Refuelling your car does not require an enormous infrastructure and 100's or 1000's of amps flowing down a cable (sorry, but I'd rather have a petroleum fire on the end of my fuelling nozzle than have the equivalent happen with an electric charging cable - slight fire that you can extinguish versus KABOOM - plus the price of copper is so high at the moment that people are ripping up telephone lines and melting them down). Fuel stops don't need to have the equivalent of a small power station to run them. You can walk to the station if you run out of fuel and come back with enough to get you to the next fuelling stop. You don't need something like 75% of the weight of the car being fuel (and that weight never lessens no matter how "empty" you're running).

      When everyone parks their car at home at 6pm, it doesn't cause a massive power surge larger than our entire towns take at the moment. If you want to go long-distance, you pack some extra fuel, or note the locations of various fuel stops across Europe - because even the tiniest town up in the hills where they barely have electric will have petroleum - I got from the UK through France, Belgium, Germany, the Czech Republic, Austria and back on about £300-400 of fuel - that's the same as a quarter's worth of electricity for my house without an electric car, God knows what it would have cost in an electric car. You don't have to manage and dispose of nearly a ton of Lithium battery every time a car is scrapped (or, similarly, find nearly a ton of it when you build one) - there's more than enough nasty stuff in brake linings and exhausts but it doesn't make anywhere near as much waste.

      Seriously, I'm a realist and have been saying for years that oil needs to STOP being used. But at the moment, the tech for electric is nowhere near good enough, hence the rise of "hybrid" (read: two cars wastage for the price of one) and slow-moving, short-range electric vehicles. We've had electric vehicles for decades - my milkman still delivers on a lead-acid-based vehicle that was introduced before I was even born (the 70's) - they charge overnight, do 30mph, and are slowly being replaced by the lithium battery variety. They are on the edge of plausibility but there are still a million, much more difficult, problems to overcome than just inventing a slightly more suitable battery. And in the end, grid-surge means higher peak-demand which means we have to use the only *practical* methods of generating that sort of electricity en-masse: Nuclear, coal, gas and other oil-based burning. All we've done is move the oil-burning into a power station and lost at least 10% of the electricity in storage/transmission.

      Electric cars will stay the SSD's of the vehicle market for a while yet - expensive, with their own downsides, but provide clear benefits, and therefore used mainly by enthusiasts. I'm driving a 1997 car that's in perfect working order with no major mechanical changes made to it. It's the third or fourth car like that that I've owned. That sort of second-hand market will not exist for DECADES in the electric car market, because of the price of spares and batteries - that means most people who are driving second-hand cars (i.e. most drivers everywhere) will not be able to afford to change. Electric cars will cost a lot more for a long while and that means they risk being shunned entirely, or seen as a "luxury". It will take electric cars at least another 10 years after they are "solved" to take over our roads and for everyone "normal" to be driving them. Home maintenance of them is probably also out of the window - good for big dealerships, bad for local garages.

      It will happen, eventually, with some te

    3. Re:game changing, if true by mindbooger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The electric motor beats the combustion engine in every way

      Not quite _every_ way. What it's missing is "soul" (all you folks driving stock Hondas won't notice any change, har har): the howl of a GT-1-spec V8 that makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up, the growl of a boxer-6, the scream of a racebike at 16k RPMs, even the burble of a tuned street-V8 idling. I guess you can play pretty motor sounds from a speaker, but still, it's not the same. :)

      And there really is a lot of cool engineering in modern ICEs. Some of us will miss that.

      Don't get me wrong, I think something like an AWD rally car with independent electric wheel motors is going to be _fantastic_, performance-wise. But it won't have quite the same emotional pull as the old stuff.

    4. Re:game changing, if true by GooberToo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What a well thought out and rational response. The fact you've been moderated, "troll", seems to validate that statement. Seems many low IQ moderators love to censor when either they don't understand the material at all, or simply don't agree. I encourage others to moderate your post up as it wonderfully highlights many of the very real problems (perceived or actualized) with electric cars. Just the same, I do have some nits to mention.

      Refuelling your car does not require an enormous infrastructure

      Actually it does. Infrastructure and transport, not to mention localized mixing for local emission laws, is actually a very large percentage of petrol costs. You're just so accustomed to seeing it everywhere, you don't notice. Well that, plus the fact that much of it is on the highways and under ground.

      slight fire that you can extinguish versus KABOOM

      Actually, many battery technologies are less likely to vent vapors which might burn. Of course, you are correct in a fashion that various battery technologies, such as lion, are very likely to bloat/vent/burn/explode after overcharging, rapid discharge exceeding rating, and blunt force trauma. So it is an issue but in different situations.

      When everyone parks their car at home at 6pm, it doesn't cause a massive power surge larger than our entire towns take at the moment.

      This is clearly hysteria. Largely, the required infrastructure to support such a scenario doesn't even exist. Besides, both cars and chargers are already looking to address this by "smart" chargers and even simple timers. The reality is, just because you plug in at 6pm doesn't mean it starts charging at 6pm. And even if it does start charging, a simple trickle is frequently all that is actually needed. Designers already understand peak vs off-peak loads and costs and are already actively seeking solutions. Some solutions are already available and/or integrated.

      If you want to go long-distance,

      Actually, this is exactly why hybrid solutions have appeal. Beyond that, other car designers have small, optional trailers or "back packs" for the vehicle which dramatically extends range. Typically they are generators which allow you to keep your batteries charged using existing infrastructure for long distance trips. Solutions exists. They are not really ideal and of course, add additional cost. Just the same, the long-distance "woes" are certainly addressable.

      Others are also exploring alternate solutions such as exchangeable electrolytic solution. Meaning, just as now, stations would maintain large vats of "fuel". Only in this case, the fuel is an electrolytic solution rather than petrol. To refuel, you attach two hoses. One to empty your discharged solution and the other to fill up with a fully charged solution. Again, not really ideal but people are clearly exploring possibilities.

      And in the end, grid-surge means higher peak-demand

      Actually, most research seems to indicate lower peak demand and much, much higher off-peak demand whereby base load power is frequently wasted.

      All we've done is move the oil-burning into a power station and lost at least 10% of the electricity in storage/transmission.

      "All"? That's actually a very big deal. Electric motors, even after the 10%-20% transmission loss is still dramatically more efficient that are internal combustion engines. Not to mention, power plants also gain efficiency from scale. Not to mention this allows for cleaner air and centralized pollution mitigation. We all have roughly $1000 added to each vehicle in an effort to simply make the exhaust less toxic; which completely ignores making it "clean." For JUST US car manufacturers, that's roughly $3.6 billion dollars wasted annually.

      That sort of second-hand market will not exist for DECADES in the electric car market

      This is an exce

    5. Re:game changing, if true by tibman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You shouldn't have been marked troll but i think you underestimate the ammount of use you get for 6000 cycles. At 100miles per cycle that's 600,000 miles of life! Even 50miles per cycle is still 300,000 miles. During that time you skipped like 200 engine oil changes. Didn't consume 20,000 gallons of gas (assuming 30mpg). Air filter changes too. If you drove an average of 100miles per day, that's 16 years of non-stop use.

      I get what you're saying about no electric charging points around. But where there is elecricity, there could be a charging point, right? There aren't many places without electricity. I would think gas-stations would want to usher in electric cars because if it takes 30min to quick charge.. that's 30 minutes those people have to buy stuff at the station. They don't make much on fuel sales anyways, what do they care.

      Disclosure: I drive a year 2000 Jeep Cherokee and also use an SSD. The TV is still 2D.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  10. Re:Supposed to work well below freezing... by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sorry, only works till -30 Celsius. So it may be a problem in countries that experience a real winter.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  11. Re:And.... by compro01 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The problem isn't the battery technology, it's the fact that laptop batteries are pretty much put through hell. Complete charge-discharge cycles (Tesla doesn't charge the battery above 85% or allow it to go below 10%), and they have no form of cooling (Tesla uses the vehicle's air conditioning system to keep the batteries at a nice temperature).

    Do all that, and the battery will last much longer. But that's generally not practical for a laptop. Allowing room for cooling will result in either a bigger battery pack or less capacity, as will limiting the charge band.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  12. Re:So... by Hinhule · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If this takes off your at home charge station will probably be a larger battery bank which gets topped off overnight rather than direct power from the grid.
    Everyone plugging their charger into their vehicle and then starting to do cooking, laundry etc. after work is going to create some horrid spot prices for power in the late afternoon.

  13. Re:So... by Vectormatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    having 5 minute recharge was needed to get away from the battery-swapping trick, as that has the nasty side-effect of giving you a battery which may or may not be as good as your old one, with scrapping of old ones being the responsability of the power-stations (which wont ever scrap one, if they can rent it out for a few bucks)

    --
    People, what a bunch of bastards
  14. Re:So... by Hank+the+Lion · · Score: 3, Informative

    say a car would need 30kw to maintain motorway speed (say 50, for ease of calculation), and ranges 200 miles, that means you need 120 KW/h of stored energy, pack 90% of that in five minutes, and you end up with roughly 1.3 Gigawatt of drain sustained over 5 minutes...

    IT'S OVER 1.21 GIGAWAT!! (yeah i know, i got my meme's mixed)

    That would be 30 kW (not kw), 120 kWh (not KW/h), 1.3 MW (not GW)
    So no, it's not over 1.21 gigawatt, just a factor 997 lower... ;-)

  15. Re:Supposed to work well below freezing... by antek9 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, you'd better not lick your iPhone 4 that day. May be hard for some people.

    --
    A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
    Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
  16. Re:Supposed to work well below freezing... by jbengt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Like (US) Kansas? -22f is a common temperature in late dec early jan.

    Common? In the coldest place in Kansas for which I have weather data handy, it gets to -1.4F or lower fewer than 36 hours per year, on average.