Slashdot Mirror


Google Challenge Results In Astoundingly Efficient Inverters

AmiMoJo writes: A few summers ago, Google and IEEE announced a one million dollar prize to build the most efficient and compact DC to AC inverter. It was called the Little Box Challenge, with the goal of a 2kW inverter with a power density greater than 50 Watts per cubic inch. Typical solar inverters have a density of about 5 W/cubic inch. Now the results are in, with the winners hitting 143 W/cubic inch using GaN transistors, and two other teams meeting Google's goal.

28 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. Efficiency by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Astoundingly Efficient Inverters

    This doesn't seem to be about efficiency at all, but rather about power density (how much power can be converted in a particular cubic volume.)

    Not that small isn't a worthy goal, but efficiency is important in any application where available power isn't both free and copiously oversupplied.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Efficiency by guruevi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't they go hand-in-hand though? You can only dissipate so much (waste) energy in a particular cubic volume. Decreasing the amount of waste energy increases the amount you can pack together. It wouldn't be a challenge if you're just looking for miniaturization.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Efficiency by PIBM · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you had read the challenge when it was proposed (or went to read the rules), the efficiency was required to be > 95%

      . Produce a DCAC conversion efficiency of > 95%

      From https://www.littleboxchallenge...

    3. Re:Efficiency by slashkitty · · Score: 4, Informative

      95.4% efficient in the conversion per the Datasheet http://littleboxchallengecetpo...

      --
      -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    4. Re:Efficiency by DeathToBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe, though Hack-a-Day say it involves an "incredible thermal management solution," which doesn't sound like they've actually bumped the energy efficiency up that much.

      Why were Google so keen to have an inverter that maximises power density? Why not maximise energy efficiency?

      Ideally you'd like to minimise cost of energy. But I guess it's fairly difficult to construct a competition around this: It depends too much on production scale and the prevailing cost of electricity. But why power density as a substitute?

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    5. Re:Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the website https://www.littleboxchallenge.com/:

      In brief, the other specifications are :

      * Must be able to handle up to 2 kVA loads
      * Must achieve a power density of equal to or greater than 50 W/in3
      * Must be able to handle loads with power factors from 0.7–1, leading and lagging in an islanded mode
      * Must be in a rectangular metal enclosure of no more than 40 in3
      * Will be taking in 450 V DC power in series with a 10 O resistor
      * Must output 240 V, 60 Hz AC single phase power
      * Must have a total harmonic distortion + noise on both voltage and current of 5%
      * Must have an input ripple current of 20%
      * Must have an input ripple voltage of 3%
      * Must have a DC-AC efficiency of greater than 95%
      * Must maintain a temperature of no more than 60C during operation everywhere on the outside of the device that can be touched.
      * Must conform to Electromagnetic Compliance standards as set out in FCC Part 15 B
      * Can not use any external source of cooling (e.g. water) other than air
      * Does not require galvanic isolation

    6. Re:Efficiency by Stewie241 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, I didn't look that closely to see that. On the other hand, I still wouldn't consider them 'astoundingly efficient' as the headline claims. This article discusses a design for a 97.09% efficient inverter. (I admit at this point I'm beginning to be argumentative, but I still think the headline should have been astoundingly dense inverters, though my theory is that slashdot injects in intentional errors to drive comments and traffics from those who like to nitpick submissions).

    7. Re:Efficiency by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They can go hand in hand; they don't have to go hand in hand. Generally speaking, efficiency of power conversion is fairly high, 95% isn't all that uncommon for a design that tries hard. Some of the problems are that when you're doing conversion at the KW level, 5% is 50 watts, which tends to be RFI (both direct and indirect) and heat - that's efficient in one sense, and a serious problem in another. Going from 95% to 97.5% cuts that to 25 watts; and that's not space saved once per installation, that's money saved and more energy for other things and less crap in the air every moment the conversion is ongoing.

      In the case of houses and cars, where KW is the order of the day, space is a minor problem; efficiency is the major problem. I'd take a 97.5% efficient box at 10x the volume over at 95% converter any time. But it isn't even 10x the volume, generally speaking.

      That's why the first thing I looked for was competition for conversion efficiency, and why I was a little put off by it not even being there.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    8. Re:Efficiency by bytesex · · Score: 3, Funny

      They want to put it in your mobile phone! Have a solar panel on the one side, your house fuse box on the other, and your phone in the middle! That's why they wanted the highest energy density per volume!

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    9. Re:Efficiency by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ah, I didn't look that closely to see that. On the other hand, I still wouldn't consider them 'astoundingly efficient' as the headline claims. This article discusses a design for a 97.09% efficient inverter. (I admit at this point I'm beginning to be argumentative, but I still think the headline should have been astoundingly dense inverters, though my theory is that slashdot injects in intentional errors to drive comments and traffics from those who like to nitpick submissions).

      I disagree that you're being argumentive. While efficiency can mean a lot of things, it's a dead lock given that in a story about electric inverters, that efficiency would mean conversion efficiency.

      Because the "efficiency" they were actually referring to was efficiency in th enature of efficiency apartments.

      I certainly don't want to disparage what they did, because it was very impressive. This was more an issue with the person who wrote the original article.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re:Efficiency by DeathToBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to [1], the winner achieves 95.4% efficiency - not actually that impressive as inverter efficiencies go.

      [1] http://littleboxchallengecetpo...

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    11. Re:Efficiency by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Batteries. Current inverters are rather large compared the batteries that can provide their maximum output power.

      Electric vehicle charging would benefit from this. You want to be pushing 120kW+ DC into the battery. You can also go back the other way and run your house from the car battery to save money when your solar panels are not producing anything.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Efficiency by torkus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Electrical Efficiency is loosely coupled to volumetric efficiency. We're talking about an inverter roughly the size of a fist that's outputting 2kW. Without very high efficiency your cooling solution would be larger than your inverter. A moderate size CPU cooler (sinking ~65w) is the size of this whole inverter.

      The rules require efficiency >95% which is typical for high efficiency inverter systems. At that, the primary benefit to higher efficiency is lowered cooling requirements (i.e. size) which is the primary goal of the competition.

      So the rules basically *do* set teams out to maximize efficiency. Having small, highly efficient inverters is useful is many applications (solar, vehicular, UPS, etc.)

      As for Google's exact benefit? I could see them running these in datacenters: deliver 450VDC rails to all your racks and power them off a hockey puck inverter or two. Simple to scale - add more battery, more racks with inverters as needed. Everything becomes modular.

      Beyond that, solar and larger UPS systems typically run at 450VDC - so this means you can also scale your UPS and solar installation in conjunction with your datacenter. Basically combine all the technologies together without requiring large monolithic components. Ok, TLDR my own post.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  2. Re:AC is by its very nature inefficient by dlleigh · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is that you Thomas Edison?

    Stop electrocuting elephants!

  3. Watts per cubic inch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are guys fucking serious?!?

    If you really want to use your old units, why not horse power per cubic inch?

  4. GaN Transistors are the future by stevel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Gallium Nitride transistors have a lot of nice characteristics, but low yields and high costs have slowed their introduction. Two tiny laptop chargers, the FinSix Dart and Avogy Zolt, were said to use GaN transistors. The Dart still hasn't shipped, a year past its claimed release date. The Zolt has but is apparently using older Silicon Carbide-substrate transistors instead (Also see here.) (I received my Zolt recently and it is working well.)

    It won't be a surprise to anyone following this technology that it can make inverters more efficient - that's what FinSix and Avogy have been claiming/demonstrating for two years at least.

    1. Re:GaN Transistors are the future by MattskEE · · Score: 3, Informative

      RF GaN parts are certainly expensive - the GaN is grown on silicon carbide substrates which is incredibly expensive by itself, and high-speed RF stuff has much more demanding fabrication needs like very small T-shaped gates, better contact resistances, and so on.

      GaN for power electronics is much cheaper, grown on 6 inch silicon substrates, and produced in much higher volumes. You can buy GaN parts from EPC on Digikey for a couple of dollars each, the other GaN power device manufacturers aren't selling publicly that I know of (just to partners, or nobody) but the cost per unit is not tremendous - a bit more than the same voltage and current rating silicon device but the GaN part can switch faster.

  5. Re:AC is by its very nature inefficient by DeathToBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you don't understand why this isn't going to happen, you need to be kept away from grid design.

    Replacing the AC network with a DC network would mean either replacing or substantially modifying the entire fleet of existing generation plant, all distribution and conversion equipment, all industrial equipment powered by electricity and most appliances. You might well be right that you can achieve better efficiency in a new network with DC than with AC; when you have to replace the entire electricity system, from spinning turbine to phone charger, it just ain't gunna happen.

    --
    Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
  6. Re:Who participated? by cc1984_ · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think he forgot the /sarc at the end of his post.

    You are assuming GP male. This kind of sexist assumption is exactly the type of thing that needs to be stamped out in the industry.

    Now if you need me, I'll be in my safe space. /sarc

  7. Astoundlingly dense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's probably a joke to be made at your expense, here.

  8. Trifecta by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

    We may have just hit peak Google. Three stories in a row.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  9. Split phase by shawn2772 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Another nice improvement the winners made above the requirements was that Google asked for 230 or 240 VAC output, but the winning device provides 240 VAC split phase, which means it can also be used to provide two legs of 120 VAC. Not that it's terribly hard to add a 240 VAC -> 120 VAC transformer, but with this design there's no need.

  10. Cubic inches? by HammerToe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cubic inches?! So this isn't a project intended to be looking beyond the borders of one country?

    -Matt

    1. Re:Cubic inches? by fibonacci8 · · Score: 4, Funny

      And in English no less, the third most commonly spoken first language in the world. Could we please get these summaries in Mandarin and Spanish? If we're going to base things in the US on what more people are doing elsewhere, why stop at measurements?

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    2. Re:Cubic inches? by stooo · · Score: 3, Funny

      >> Yea. Inches are kind of THE STANDARD for doing PCB layout worldwide.
      Not any more.
      Today, 80-90% of components are SMD, and SMD is metric.
      The odd 2,54 component is just destroying the harmony of the grid, but that's OK, the modern CAD packages handle this well.
      Yeah, sometimes I use 2,00mm headers instead of 2,54mm -> more compact, but a bit more exotic.

      Farewell, imperial.....

      --
      aaaaaaa
  11. How $1 million cost, for an inverter company? by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you started with nothing and had to buy all of the tooling and equipment, recruit people, etc., I could see this easily costing $1 million, but the winner is an inverter company. They already have all of the tooling, equipment, expertise, etc.

    They "just" needed to optimize one of their existing designs for size. Also, they only needed a working prototype, not a full production model. How do you figure that costs a million dollars?

  12. Google suckered everyone by ArchieBunker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds like Google had very specific design requirements and didn't want to spend the money in house doing development. So they dream up a contest and offer a cash prize. Meanwhile Google saves way more than the $1 million they paid out.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  13. Re:AC is by its very nature inefficient by IcyHando'Death · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You know the same thing could have been (and was) said about the switch from an analog phone system to digital. Every phone, every piece of switching equipment, every repairman's kit had to change -- all at enormous expense. It paid for itself though, by increasing profits (companies could charge for the new services that were made possible). All it would take is for some upstart startup to begin hooking up DC power in some new neighborhoods to get the game going. I don't even know if that would be legal now in most places though. The entrenched power monopolies would be a big obstacle to overcome.