The Silicone battery; Fuell Cell vs. Battery electric vehicles
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 @ 21:41:41 PST 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.
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.