Science news sorta; tesla 90 second battery change.

[Failhorse]

Ref: http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/21/tesl ... -than-gas/

Honestly this has been my idea since the 90s. A little tweaked though. A big concern with EV cars is the battery. Esploding, dying, whatever. But it was also a way to monetize an EV. Basically with a tesla you can sit for 15 minutes for a free charge. Or spend 80 bucks and get a fresh battery pack. Still cheaper than gas. Monetizes the EV's so station owners (though tesla will own all of them for now.) can make some money.

The bigger implications. You never get stuck with a battery that will die overtime. Or lose 20% of its charge. I thought this up in High School. Fresh battery swaps take the weight of expensive replacement off the owner. And the company can take the batteries back and properly refresh them (recycle,) and put them back on the road.

But this also gives current gas station owners a revenue source and a reason to offer charging stations. Or we wait 50 years for Tesla and other EV companies to open 100,000 charging stations around the country on their own. Which would equal about a trillion dollars. lol.

[GoDM1N]

I'm a fan of electric cars, but not because they're environmentally friendly (because they're not, at least not the ones we're making now with lithium) but because they're much cheaper in fuel cost. I think this idea kills that. The appeal of the Volt is that you can get 1,000-3,000+ miles between fill ups (Vs the 400 miles you get from the abomination known as the Prius). Maybe if they can get the cost of replacing the battery down, or better yet come up with something better than lithium batteries.

[Beartato]

This is a pretty novel idea. I wonder a bit how the economics of it works out. I mean, the batteries themselves aren't cheap items and I don't suspect all of the offering entities would be owned by the same company. By that I mean, if people aren't swapping at the same station each time, you could have one station with a decreasing battery inventory and one with an increasing inventory. How do you negotiate the balancing of the inventories between the two businesses? Not saying it'd snag the process, just something I'd be interested to see a solution for (because I like learning about solutions to minutiae).

GoDM1N, you'd definitely need to back up that Li-ion battery claim. The couple of life cycle analyses I've pulled up about them have shown that they create a smaller environmental impact than a combustion engine for a comparable car. Of course, it all depends on how you set up the LCA and what factors you consider and how you weight them.

[Balubish]

Cool Idea but. First of all, not everyone can afford that car, and u only need to tank up for gas every 800km or so and an electric car u can only go about 100km then battery change, and the next and the next and the next and the next and the next and next to reach 800km for an example. But still very cool enginering

[GoDM1N]

GoDM1N, you'd definitely need to back up that Li-ion battery claim. The couple of life cycle analyses I've pulled up about them have shown that they create a smaller environmental impact than a combustion engine for a comparable car. Of course, it all depends on how you set up the LCA and what factors you consider and how you weight them.

The British did a thing on this about a year ago. They found that while a electric car by itself does less damage, as soon as you replace the battery in a electric car with a new one you've done the same as a normal car would. It takes a lot of work and resources to make a battery for the car and if you count what it takes to make the batteries the electric car will cause more damage over its life time than a big v8 4x4. In addition, what do you plan to do with the used cells? Some of the battery can be reused but the parts you cant are very damaging to things like drinking water. If the electric cars of today were the norm we'd have stacks of used batteries piling up and we'd have to use more energy keeping them in a safe place. This all adds up to make the electric a good idea, but far from perfected. The batteries need to last more than 100,000 miles, and/or they need to actually be eco friendly themselves.

Also again I'm a fan of these type of cars, I want a volt as well as one of these but don't have the money to buy them.

As far as your other question they'd most likely have a system that keeps everything balanced in the areas. For example they'd say "Okay no station should have more than this many batteries" and then go around and take batteries from ones with too many, and give to ones with less.

[Beartato]

As I said before, it's hard to argue without a source. It all depends on how assumptions are made for such studies. At some point you have to decide how to compare the presence of lead in traditional car batteries vs. the presence of lithium in batteries for electric cars, as one example. Different groups are coming to different conclusions via LCAs.

I will mention that I don't suspect Li-ion batteries have as large an effect on drinking water as do gasoline powered cars. In my state, at least 90% of gas stations have some degree of groundwater pollution underneath them. Believe it or not, gas stations and dry cleaners form the bulk of sites requiring environmental clean-up during or at the end of their life. And then you can add in all of the major oil spills that have happened in the past: Santa Barbara, Exxon-Valdez, Chevron in Ecuador, Shell in Nigeria, the BP spill in the Gulf. Then you can start looking at the deadly explosions at oil refineries in Texas City and Anacodes as a start.

So to wrap it up: It's all about your assumptions. What the report writers decide to include and exclude.

[GoDM1N]

"Effects of exposure to Lithium: Fire: Flammable. Many reactions may cause fire or explosion. Gives off irritating or toxic fumes (or gases) in a fire. Explosion: Risk of fire and explosion on contact with combustible substances and water. Inhalation: Burning sensation. Cough. Laboured breathing. Shortness of breath. Sore throat. Symptoms may be delayed. Skin: Redness. Skin burns. Pain. Blisters. Eyes: Redness. Pain. Severe deep burns. Ingestion: Abdominal cramps. Abdominal pain. Burning sensation. Nausea. Shock or collapse. Vomiting. Weakness.

Effects of short-term exposure: The substance is corrosive to the eyes, the skin and the respiratory tract. Corrosive on ingestion. Inhalation of the substance may cause lung oedema. The symptoms of lung oedema often do not become manifest until a few hours have passed and they are aggravated by physical effort. Rest and medical observation is therefore essential. Immediate administration of an appropriate spray, by a doctor or a person authorized by him/her, should be considered.

Routes of exposure: The substance can be absorbed into the body by inhalation of its aerosol and by ingestion. Inhalation risk: Evaporation at 20°C is negligible; a harmful concentration of airborne particles can, however, be reached quickly when dispersed.

Chemical dangers: Heating may cause violent combustion or explosion. The substance may spontaneously ignite on contact with air when finely dispersed. Upon heating, toxic fumes are formed. Reacts violently with strong oxidants, acids and many compounds (hydrocarbons, halogens, halons, concrete, sand and asbestos) causing fire and explosion hazard. Reacts violently with water, forming highly flammable hydrogen gas and corrosive fumes of lithium hydroxide.


Metallic lithium will react with nitrogen, oxygen, and water vapor in air. Consequently, the lithium surface becomes coated with a mixture of lithium hydroxide (LiOH), lithium carbonate (Li2CO3), and lithium nitride (Li3N). Lithium hydroxide represents a potentially significant hazard because it is extremely corrosive. Special attention should be given to water organisms.



What are the health effects of lithium in water?

The amount of lithium in the human body is approximately 7 mg. Lithium has no known biological use, and it is not readily absorbed by the body. Most lithium is excreted directly upon uptake. Although lithium is not an essential element, it may influence metabolism. Upon oral intake lithium is mildly toxic. Physical tolerance differs between individuals. In the 1940s some patients that applied lithium chloride as a salts replacement died.
Lithium carbonate is applied in psychiatry in doses pretty close to the maximum intake level. At 10 mg/L of blood one is mildly poisoned, at 15 mg/L one experiences confusion and speech impairment, and at 20 mg/L there is a risk of lethality.
Coming in contact with lithium, like other alkali metals, leads to internal blistering. "

Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elemen ... z2WzizR7eP

But there are dangers. If the battery isn't made well, energy can be released very quickly in an uncontrolled fashion.
Abraham said the biggest threat is the possible penetration of the thin barrier made of synthetic material -- about as thick as a sheet of paper -- that separates the two electrodes and prevents the quick release of energy.

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2006/08/71659

Or something like a car wreck.

And the main material is lithium. An element found in abundance in South America, where the cheapest extraction method evaporates salty brine in ponds lined with toxic PVC, and in lithium-rich regions of Chile where mining the material uses two-thirds of the area’s drinking water. According to a little research, lithium is the 33rd most abundant element; however, it does not naturally occur in elemental form due to its high reactivity. Lithium metal, due to its alkaline tarnish, is corrosive and requires special handling to avoid skin contact. Breathing lithium dust or lithium compounds (which are often alkaline) can irritate the nose and throat; higher exposure to lithium can cause a build-up of fluid in the lungs, leading to pulmonary edema. The metal itself is usually a handling hazard because of the caustic hydroxide produced when it is in contact with moisture causing an explosion.

http://www.downtoearthnw.com/blogs/down ... aner-coal/

The study is a life cycle analysis of the global warming impact of the production and operation of EVs, driven for 150,000km (93,750 miles), compared with the production and operation of conventional cars. The scientists include so-called "well to wheel" data, taking into account the energy needed to refine and transport oil into petrol or diesel.

One of the findings is that the energy intensive manufacturing of EVs mean that some cars make almost double the impact on global warming as conventional cars. This is mostly because of the raw materials and energy needed to build the lithium-ion batteries.

Electricity from coal, which is the most polluting way to generate power, drastically reduces the environmental advantage for EVs. Because China, for example, generates almost all its power from coal, life cycle analysis of EV cars in China shows they are far more polluting than conventional cars. However in a country like Norway, where most power is generated from hydroelectricity, EVs fairly quickly begin to outperform conventional cars in terms of their overall environmental impact.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22001356

One thing to remember from that BBC report is that they base it over 100,000 miles, if they replace the battery they lose some of that 25% gain they talk about later on. Idk about you guys, but my car now has 170,000 miles on it, and the model I have commonly last 250,000 miles

Many electric cars are expected to need a replacement battery after a few years. Once the emissions from producing the second battery are added in, the total CO2 from producing an electric car rises to 12.6 tonnes, compared with 5.6 tonnes for a petrol car. Disposal also produces double the emissions because of the energy consumed in recovering and recycling metals in the battery. The study also took into account carbon emitted to generate the grid electricity consumed.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/he ... 6073103576

Even if we did have these elements in abundance, we would need to mine and drill for them. Those are precisely the activities that environmentalists and short-sighted government policies have been blocking for decades in coal, oil, shale, and natural gas. Besides, “peak lithium” may arrive long before “peak oil,” as the Argonne National Laboratory estimates that we only have enough lithium available to manufacture car batteries through 2050 — less than 40 years from now. A lithium “crunch” could occur by 2017 — which also hardly lends confidence to the reliability of the electric car as a long-term solution.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/13/e ... after-all/



I'm not saying oil is clean by any means, just that when you look at what it takes to make a EV vs a normal car, you're not gaining much and could be losing more. I think what is really needed is something better than Li-ion batteries to make a real improvement.

Also heres another interesting fact http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/scien ... s.climate/

[Beartato]

Thanks for the effort you went through. I'm still working my way through this. Only thing I can mention right now is that the form of lithium in batteries would have different characteristics than pure lithium metal. I looked up that lithium ion batteries usually contain lithium cobalt oxide, although there are other types out there. There doesn't seem to be much info out there on the health effects of this compound (which sadly is pretty normal for common industrial compounds), but I did see that it is reactive in acid, which leads me to guess that ingestion would be a dangerous point of exposure. I'll also venture a guess it's inflammable with air because it is already oxidized.

I'll take a look at the rest when my time frees up again.

[Maringue]

Thanks for the effort you went through. I'm still working my way through this. Only thing I can mention right now is that the form of lithium in batteries would have different characteristics than pure lithium metal. I looked up that lithium ion batteries usually contain lithium cobalt oxide, although there are other types out there. There doesn't seem to be much info out there on the health effects of this compound (which sadly is pretty normal for common industrial compounds), but I did see that it is reactive in acid, which leads me to guess that ingestion would be a dangerous point of exposure. I'll also venture a guess it's inflammable with air because it is already oxidized.

I'll take a look at the rest when my time frees up again.

This is the advantage of having a chemist around, you don't have to go look this up. It's not the lithium in the batteries that's dangerous, it's the other heavy metals that they use like cadmium. Whatever they are using as the ion pair for lithium in the battery is usually very, very toxic crap. That's why there's a big push to recycle batteries like that instead of trashing them.

Also, these cars require a lot of neodymium for the magnetic systems that recharge the battery like the brakes. Guess where the two biggest deposits of neodymium are on the planet? Eastern Congo and Tibet, two places that look the Middle East look like pre-school class as for as Geo-political conflicts go.

[Failhorse]

OH god. neodymium.... I'm not a chemist. But I make guitars. And my pickups have that blood for metal shit in them. A sad state as this shit is rarer than printer ink. But they use it to make bucky balls: (ref: http://www.supramagnets.com/5mm/12-orig ... 73316.html)

What no one takes into account into what Tesla is also doing. First. Catching up on 50 years of neglected battery research. Second: cutting out the unnecessary car dealership. 2 things we really need. Ford wanted his cars to be electric but oil was cheaper. 90 years of bullshit from Oil/Car companies put us way behind. We can't even get natural gas cars in the states, when we're basically floating on the shit.

[Maringue]

OH god. neodymium.... I'm not a chemist. But I make guitars. And my pickups have that blood for metal shit in them.

It's the strongest naturally occurring magnet and an even better electromagnet for the pickups.