The problem isn't that capacitors don't hold a charge for long; it's that they have traditionally been unable to hold as much charge as a battery to begin with (per unit mass). Maxwell's best ultracap stores less than 6 Wh/kg, far less than the 180-190 Wh/kg seen in a standard lithium ion battery.
EEstor is claiming to have a capacitor that blows away everything on the market today. And they have been claiming that for at least a year, I think, with no visible updates. I regard them as vaporware right now; I think the more recent strides in lithium ion batteries are more promising. A123 Systems and Altair Nanotechnologies both already have products out that can take a lot of current for recharging. A123 Systems has shown the large safety advantages of their chemistry in some demonstrations as well (see their website http://www.a123systems.com/ for one of the tests).
I think Toshiba and Sanyo were supposed to be coming out with their safer and faster-charging stuff soon too. They all try to use the "nano" buzzword; they're basically just finding chemistries that have smaller particle sizes and faster reaction rates. We'll see if this turns into something more practical for the consumer in vehicles.
The newest lithium ion batteries don't explode either. A123 Systems has demonstrated that their batteries don't explode under various stress tests. You can see a video of one of them here.
Their batteries aren't as energy dense or have as high the specific energy as the current stuff used in laptops and such. But they have some pretty extreme power densities. If there were a power source for it, the standard fast charge is 15 minutes.
So... wtf is our government? Okay, it's technically supposed to be a republic, but I'm not feeling that whole representation thing out of our current government.
Well, I just made a few comparisons, and it's a bit surprising: Apple's most competitive area is not the high end!
On the high end of notebooks, Apple competes with Dell so-so. I just spec'ed an E1705 to be comparable to the standard 17" MBP in the way a Mac fanatic would (i.e. put in XP Pro, the GeForce Go 7900 GS, the 1920x1200 display -- all this because the lesser offerings don't quite compare to the MBP; never mind that the latter two are better -- and in the case of the GPU, significantly so). The price w/o the instant rebate is $2631, and the standard MBP is $2799. Ok, I didn't quite do it like a Mac fanatic. The more unreasonable ones would price it against an XPS, which is just ridiculous.
The "mid range" notebooks (which really have a CPU too expensive to be considered mid range) are similar, though the E1505 can't quite compare to the $1999 15" MBP. I don't think the Turbo Cache and Hyper Memory cards will work as well as the x1600. The RAM is also peculiarly 533 MHz... So, I think the 15" MBP would at the very least be comparable to the $1837 E1505 w/o rebates.
On the "low end" (again, CPU choice is the issue), the 13" MB looks like a steal compared to the E1405. I had to bump up the RAM and HD size on the MB this time (surprising, because Dell usually offers lower options), but the MB was $1249 compared to the E1405's $1543 w/o rebates. (Even with the instant rebate, the E1405 was $1234).
So it looks to me like Apple competes much more favorably in mid range thin and light notebooks than on the high or low ends (well, it doesn't have a low end product; if there were options to use a Core Solo or even a lower clock Core Duo, it might compete).
Perhaps Apple just needs to grow more before it can offer more competitive rates and more options. I feel like at every level the CPU is one step high and the GPU is one step low, but maybe that's because I'm a gamer, so I tend to value GPU performance over CPU. I bought the E1705 with standard display, GeForce Go 7800, 1.66 GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM @ 667 MHz (alas! 2 DIMMs), and XP MCE w/ CD, and it cost me $1550. Those specs aren't fit for the enthusiast, but I think Dell still has the competitive edge for the gamer.
The desktop line is another beast, and no matter how hard someone tries, you won't be able to compare the two lines. Until I can find good benchmarks comparing Woodcrest to Conroe somehow, you won't be able to make them similar. However, one thing's for sure: there's a big gaping hole in Apple's current desktop lineup for middle range. I hope they decide to fill that gap sometime soon.
OK, you're entirely misunderstanding the problem here. CDs and downloaded music are two very different methods of distribution, and they should be regarded as entirely different markets. With CDs, you are forced to purchase an entire album even if there is only a song or two that you like, and you either have to go to a store or wait for shipping to receive it. Additionally, the volume of the medium is so much larger that CDs just cannot be placed in the same realm as downloaded music. CDs are just much more of a hassle.
Downloaded music, OTOH, is nearly instantly delivered to you, and you have much more freedom over what you buy. You have instant access to far more music than is in any one store, and it is at a much better price. This is the market in which Apple is rising to a monopoly, and Apple severely limits consumer choice by only allowing one to play iTMS songs on an iPod. This isn't necessarily a crime, but it's just bad for the consumer in general.
As far as the other online stores go, AFAIK only MSN Music offers a music download service that could really be considered similar to iTMS ($.99 per track, a la carte downloading). Since MS actually licenses its DRM out, you do have more choice on the hardware end. But my point was, if Apple gains any greater hold on the digital music market, consumers would have NO choice but to use their hardware and iTMS if they wanted to have those conveniences.
Their questionable practices, eh?
I'm not sure I see anything wrong with this. It seems like just another way to gain share. I wish there was a link to the complaints.
Invisible? To everyone with an iPod, but what if you'd like to play music on another player? Or what if you use Linux exclusively?
Apple does a lot of great things and it has certainly done an awesome job of bringing the music industry to online distribution. However, my major beef with Apple is that it is rising to a monopoly and dictating who can play what and where. I wouldn't care so much about the DRM if I actually had access to the music in my OS and if Apple licensed the format to other hardware suppliers (which of course, isn't really a good decision when you're in Apple's position, but still...).
Simply put, Apple is a trust by mating their software and hardware together in one package. In reference to OS X, it probably helps them to support less hardware. However, I do not want Apple closing me off to choosing the hardware I want to use, not for my media player and not in my computer. Am I making any sense?
That's far too simplistic. If you want to hurt the largest consumer of oil in the world, you don't just stop selling to them; you cut production so prices rise. Conversely, if you want to lower your oil prices, you become buddies with the producer and influence their production levels.
Well, I actually base my statement on anecdotes and the media (very bad combination, but what else can I do? Unfortunately, it doesn't matter though because it only takes a few bad incidents to make the general populace of any country angry.). I've heard this from some people that were stationed in Korea for awhile when I was younger, then reports from a friend of mine who is currently in Japan (says he's disgusted with them, etc.). But yeah, I'm not terribly happy with the general population either, haha. But it doesn't excuse the people in the military who really need to be the most well-behaved to prevent so much of the stigma of the military.
I'd love a war on cancer! Too bad that enemy is harder than the Vietnamese or the terrorists... Those damn cancer cells aren't afraid of dying, have virtually infinite numbers, and aren't affected by standard weapons!
Bleh, enough about American "empires" already. I don't doubt that the Bush administration decided to go to war to secure resources (i.e. oil), as has been the case for a lot of the fighting in the past. However, it doesn't mean that another reason for going to war was to liberate the Iraqis. On top of that, there was the perceived threat of terrorist organizations in the 9/11 aftermath. You have to make a case for every war, and usually, if economic interests don't play into the game, the US doesn't go. Instead, she employs sanctions and attempts to freeze assets. The US generally tries to control things through economics, not the military; the military is just used to keep the economics weapon sharp.
So tell me... what countries have become a part of this "American empire"? What nation is really not a nation because the US has taken sovereign control over it (besides Iraq, which needs to develop more widespread support so it doesn't collapse)? There is a big thick line between allies and business partners, and empires.
I don't think Bush is following daddy, but he does seem to be trying to make a Reagan out of himself. I think he wants to be regarded as a hero among his conservative base like Reagan was for "ending" the Cold War (barf... the USSR was collapsing on its own). Too bad he's just a bully; seriously, who came up with the oxymoron "hardline diplomacy"? He should be sacked!
I disagree on this separation. It's true that the Army has a lot of good people, but a significant portion of the rank and file is made of people that joined after making a mess of their lives before. The American military has a very poor reputation in many countries because of the awful things some do both in times of peace and war.
OK, that wasn't detailed enough. I'm not completely certain about the frictional losses in a vehicle, but electric systems have a potential for far less loss than ICEs because their characteristics often permit direct drive. Hub motor efficiencies are in the range of 93-98% efficient at their peak and are connected directly to the wheels. Line losses are going to be minimal, provided one makes good choices with wires. Batteries are in the high 90% efficiency as well (if you use a fuel cell, things won't be so hot, of course). So for a battery electric vehicle, it would be reasonable to get an 85% efficiency. As an example, AC Propulsion's tzero had an AC motor that was 91% efficient at peak (fair for an AC; I've seen better--Unique Mobility's PowerPhase system, for example), and they ended up with peaking at 86% for road load. With fuel cells, cut that in half... (I'm not really a proponent of fuel cells, but they do have some energy storage advantages over batteries).
Ethanol is pretty awesome as a renewable source of energy. However, ethanol just cannot meet the energy demand of consumers (see this site for some interesting links to studies).
So why not just lower energy demand? Personally, I hope we convert our cars to an electric drivetrain (fuel cell or otherwise) because internal combustion engines are far too limited in their efficiency. Systems using ICEs are typically around 25% efficient, whereas electric drivetrains are around 85% efficient. That's a lot less wasted energy.
Oh, I forgot about MOFs. I don't actually know much about them, so perhaps I should do more research before speaking, hehe. I was just referring to the way Honda is doing it (at least, they were when I last checked). Another method would've been the metal hydride storage, but that requires one to pressurize it too, I believe.
I hope fuel cells pan out well someday, with all these tax dollars going into research. The 50% or so efficiency of fuel cells pales in comparison to the simple battery (not doing any weird addition of "thermal efficiency"), and if it weren't for the rather low energy density and specific energy of batteries, I'd say it didn't merit the funding. But it's still leaps and bounds better than internal combustion engines.
I definitely agree with you that it's the family cars that need to be made electric. However, it simply can't work that way because of cost. The largest cost of a battery electric vehicle is the batteries, and lithium ion cells are not really being manufactured in a high enough volume yet to support a lower cost vehicle. The cost of the batteries alone would probably be about the price of your typical midsize sedan. Plus, these little startups need to find a way to recoup R&D costs, and sports cars have much higher margins than the family sedan. Later, if they can get support, they can start producing vehicles at a realistic cost. Unfortunately, I feel like they are stuck in the sports car stage. After having been abandoned by various levels of government (CARB, I'm looking at you), automakers, and the general public for the fuel cell, the future of the BEV and these companies seems grim. Hopefully Toyota makes the next Prius have lithium ion batteries and gives a little kick to their production.
It's not entirely the fuel cell that gives the energy density; it's the pressurized tank of hydrogen, which is currently a large problem for the fuel cell proponents. Hydrogen storage is no simple task, and researchers are trying to get pressures higher and higher. I think 700 atm is where it's at right now. How would you like that thing to combust?
But gah... it's silly how people get scared after a few incidents where something goes wrong. Just because someone got sick eating an apple doesn't mean apples are unhealthy. Newer lithium ion batteries are different from the ones we commonly use, anyway, and their prices will come down as they get used more often. See this video for an example of how newer cells are becoming safer. And no, that's not HF gas like the Li-polys put out, hehe.
Sadly, with the current infrastructure, that's the way things are. The first problem is that you simply have no outlet that can charge your batteries quickly. Probably the highest power outlet one has easy access to is a 30 amp, 220 V. That's 6.6 kW of power. It sounds like Tesla's battery pack uses 18650s (the cells frequently used in laptops--it's a standardized size). These are 3.7 V, ~2.1 Ah cells. So, 7.77 Wh per cell * 6800 cells = 52 kWh pack. So even if you could dump all of that power into the pack (which you can't because chargers aren't 100% efficient), it would still take you 8 hours. Then, there's also very few charging stations on the road (and these only exist in some states).
The other problem is battery chemistry. The common, older lithium ion cells can't take much current when they charge up. This creates very lossy regenerative braking in addition to longer charging. So even if you did have more power, you couldn't charge them that fast anyway. Now, there are newer cells that can charge quite rapidly. The cells from A123 Systems have a standard charge of 45 minutes and a standard fast charge of 15 minutes. Altair Nanotechnologies and Toshiba also seem to have something along these lines. However, you're still limited by your outlet with them... For 15 minute charge, you'd need more than 200 kW of power.
So the answer is that it is not very likely, provided you have properly implemented protection circuits to correct for bad thermal, current, or voltage situations and have designed a sturdy battery box that permits good heat dissipation. One would also place the batteries in areas that would prevent it from taking the brunt of an impact. These are just some of the simple design considerations, and as a member of an electric vehicle design team, I can tell you it's something we take very seriously and make sure to prevent.
It's unfortunate that the batteries with the highest energy density are so fragile, but there's some hope coming from A123 Systems and some other companies. They have drilled through their cells in demonstrations to illustrate that their cells do not explode under some pretty extreme situations. I don't know if it has been in a commercial or not (I don't watch television much), but they showed us a video in a presentation of their capabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
In case you're curious, the better ultracapacitors store 5-6 Wh/kg, as opposed to 180-190 Wh/kg for standard Lithium ion cells on the market today.
A portion of the tax may go to road maintenance, sure. But do you know how much of your taxes go to subsidies for oil companies?
EEstor is claiming to have a capacitor that blows away everything on the market today. And they have been claiming that for at least a year, I think, with no visible updates. I regard them as vaporware right now; I think the more recent strides in lithium ion batteries are more promising. A123 Systems and Altair Nanotechnologies both already have products out that can take a lot of current for recharging. A123 Systems has shown the large safety advantages of their chemistry in some demonstrations as well (see their website http://www.a123systems.com/ for one of the tests).
I think Toshiba and Sanyo were supposed to be coming out with their safer and faster-charging stuff soon too. They all try to use the "nano" buzzword; they're basically just finding chemistries that have smaller particle sizes and faster reaction rates. We'll see if this turns into something more practical for the consumer in vehicles.
Their batteries aren't as energy dense or have as high the specific energy as the current stuff used in laptops and such. But they have some pretty extreme power densities. If there were a power source for it, the standard fast charge is 15 minutes.
So... wtf is our government? Okay, it's technically supposed to be a republic, but I'm not feeling that whole representation thing out of our current government.
On the high end of notebooks, Apple competes with Dell so-so. I just spec'ed an E1705 to be comparable to the standard 17" MBP in the way a Mac fanatic would (i.e. put in XP Pro, the GeForce Go 7900 GS, the 1920x1200 display -- all this because the lesser offerings don't quite compare to the MBP; never mind that the latter two are better -- and in the case of the GPU, significantly so). The price w/o the instant rebate is $2631, and the standard MBP is $2799. Ok, I didn't quite do it like a Mac fanatic. The more unreasonable ones would price it against an XPS, which is just ridiculous.
The "mid range" notebooks (which really have a CPU too expensive to be considered mid range) are similar, though the E1505 can't quite compare to the $1999 15" MBP. I don't think the Turbo Cache and Hyper Memory cards will work as well as the x1600. The RAM is also peculiarly 533 MHz... So, I think the 15" MBP would at the very least be comparable to the $1837 E1505 w/o rebates.
On the "low end" (again, CPU choice is the issue), the 13" MB looks like a steal compared to the E1405. I had to bump up the RAM and HD size on the MB this time (surprising, because Dell usually offers lower options), but the MB was $1249 compared to the E1405's $1543 w/o rebates. (Even with the instant rebate, the E1405 was $1234).
So it looks to me like Apple competes much more favorably in mid range thin and light notebooks than on the high or low ends (well, it doesn't have a low end product; if there were options to use a Core Solo or even a lower clock Core Duo, it might compete).
Perhaps Apple just needs to grow more before it can offer more competitive rates and more options. I feel like at every level the CPU is one step high and the GPU is one step low, but maybe that's because I'm a gamer, so I tend to value GPU performance over CPU. I bought the E1705 with standard display, GeForce Go 7800, 1.66 GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM @ 667 MHz (alas! 2 DIMMs), and XP MCE w/ CD, and it cost me $1550. Those specs aren't fit for the enthusiast, but I think Dell still has the competitive edge for the gamer.
The desktop line is another beast, and no matter how hard someone tries, you won't be able to compare the two lines. Until I can find good benchmarks comparing Woodcrest to Conroe somehow, you won't be able to make them similar. However, one thing's for sure: there's a big gaping hole in Apple's current desktop lineup for middle range. I hope they decide to fill that gap sometime soon.
Downloaded music, OTOH, is nearly instantly delivered to you, and you have much more freedom over what you buy. You have instant access to far more music than is in any one store, and it is at a much better price. This is the market in which Apple is rising to a monopoly, and Apple severely limits consumer choice by only allowing one to play iTMS songs on an iPod. This isn't necessarily a crime, but it's just bad for the consumer in general.
As far as the other online stores go, AFAIK only MSN Music offers a music download service that could really be considered similar to iTMS ($.99 per track, a la carte downloading). Since MS actually licenses its DRM out, you do have more choice on the hardware end. But my point was, if Apple gains any greater hold on the digital music market, consumers would have NO choice but to use their hardware and iTMS if they wanted to have those conveniences.
That is all.
If I had mod points, I would definitely mod you up for that one, haha.
oops, forget the invisible part... I somehow mistook which DRM you were talking about
Their questionable practices, eh? I'm not sure I see anything wrong with this. It seems like just another way to gain share. I wish there was a link to the complaints.
Apple does a lot of great things and it has certainly done an awesome job of bringing the music industry to online distribution. However, my major beef with Apple is that it is rising to a monopoly and dictating who can play what and where. I wouldn't care so much about the DRM if I actually had access to the music in my OS and if Apple licensed the format to other hardware suppliers (which of course, isn't really a good decision when you're in Apple's position, but still...).
Simply put, Apple is a trust by mating their software and hardware together in one package. In reference to OS X, it probably helps them to support less hardware. However, I do not want Apple closing me off to choosing the hardware I want to use, not for my media player and not in my computer. Am I making any sense?
That's far too simplistic. If you want to hurt the largest consumer of oil in the world, you don't just stop selling to them; you cut production so prices rise. Conversely, if you want to lower your oil prices, you become buddies with the producer and influence their production levels.
I'd love a war on cancer! Too bad that enemy is harder than the Vietnamese or the terrorists... Those damn cancer cells aren't afraid of dying, have virtually infinite numbers, and aren't affected by standard weapons!
So tell me... what countries have become a part of this "American empire"? What nation is really not a nation because the US has taken sovereign control over it (besides Iraq, which needs to develop more widespread support so it doesn't collapse)? There is a big thick line between allies and business partners, and empires.
I don't think Bush is following daddy, but he does seem to be trying to make a Reagan out of himself. I think he wants to be regarded as a hero among his conservative base like Reagan was for "ending" the Cold War (barf... the USSR was collapsing on its own). Too bad he's just a bully; seriously, who came up with the oxymoron "hardline diplomacy"? He should be sacked!
I disagree on this separation. It's true that the Army has a lot of good people, but a significant portion of the rank and file is made of people that joined after making a mess of their lives before. The American military has a very poor reputation in many countries because of the awful things some do both in times of peace and war.
OK, that wasn't detailed enough. I'm not completely certain about the frictional losses in a vehicle, but electric systems have a potential for far less loss than ICEs because their characteristics often permit direct drive. Hub motor efficiencies are in the range of 93-98% efficient at their peak and are connected directly to the wheels. Line losses are going to be minimal, provided one makes good choices with wires. Batteries are in the high 90% efficiency as well (if you use a fuel cell, things won't be so hot, of course). So for a battery electric vehicle, it would be reasonable to get an 85% efficiency. As an example, AC Propulsion's tzero had an AC motor that was 91% efficient at peak (fair for an AC; I've seen better--Unique Mobility's PowerPhase system, for example), and they ended up with peaking at 86% for road load. With fuel cells, cut that in half... (I'm not really a proponent of fuel cells, but they do have some energy storage advantages over batteries).
Er, it's 85% with batteries, not a fuel cell. And AC motors peak in the mid 90% range.
Ethanol is pretty awesome as a renewable source of energy. However, ethanol just cannot meet the energy demand of consumers (see this site for some interesting links to studies). So why not just lower energy demand? Personally, I hope we convert our cars to an electric drivetrain (fuel cell or otherwise) because internal combustion engines are far too limited in their efficiency. Systems using ICEs are typically around 25% efficient, whereas electric drivetrains are around 85% efficient. That's a lot less wasted energy.
I hope fuel cells pan out well someday, with all these tax dollars going into research. The 50% or so efficiency of fuel cells pales in comparison to the simple battery (not doing any weird addition of "thermal efficiency"), and if it weren't for the rather low energy density and specific energy of batteries, I'd say it didn't merit the funding. But it's still leaps and bounds better than internal combustion engines.
I definitely agree with you that it's the family cars that need to be made electric. However, it simply can't work that way because of cost. The largest cost of a battery electric vehicle is the batteries, and lithium ion cells are not really being manufactured in a high enough volume yet to support a lower cost vehicle. The cost of the batteries alone would probably be about the price of your typical midsize sedan. Plus, these little startups need to find a way to recoup R&D costs, and sports cars have much higher margins than the family sedan. Later, if they can get support, they can start producing vehicles at a realistic cost. Unfortunately, I feel like they are stuck in the sports car stage. After having been abandoned by various levels of government (CARB, I'm looking at you), automakers, and the general public for the fuel cell, the future of the BEV and these companies seems grim. Hopefully Toyota makes the next Prius have lithium ion batteries and gives a little kick to their production.
But gah... it's silly how people get scared after a few incidents where something goes wrong. Just because someone got sick eating an apple doesn't mean apples are unhealthy. Newer lithium ion batteries are different from the ones we commonly use, anyway, and their prices will come down as they get used more often. See this video for an example of how newer cells are becoming safer. And no, that's not HF gas like the Li-polys put out, hehe.
The other problem is battery chemistry. The common, older lithium ion cells can't take much current when they charge up. This creates very lossy regenerative braking in addition to longer charging. So even if you did have more power, you couldn't charge them that fast anyway. Now, there are newer cells that can charge quite rapidly. The cells from A123 Systems have a standard charge of 45 minutes and a standard fast charge of 15 minutes. Altair Nanotechnologies and Toshiba also seem to have something along these lines. However, you're still limited by your outlet with them... For 15 minute charge, you'd need more than 200 kW of power.
Now to recharge. To the nearest substation!
It's unfortunate that the batteries with the highest energy density are so fragile, but there's some hope coming from A123 Systems and some other companies. They have drilled through their cells in demonstrations to illustrate that their cells do not explode under some pretty extreme situations. I don't know if it has been in a commercial or not (I don't watch television much), but they showed us a video in a presentation of their capabilities.