Skip

You can't top the Nano-Top.
April 1, 2005 12:11 AM   Subscribe

Toshiba develops rechargeable battery that can charge in one minute. The battery can achieve 80 percent nominal charge 60 times faster than conventional Lithium Ion batteries, and only loses 1 percent of its life cycle every 1,000 charges. In comparison to any other type of battery in existence, that is amazing.
posted by Dean Keaton (38 comments total)

 
I bet this battery goes well with the cool refreshing taste of...

Now that that's out of the way, I would love one of these. I'm just wondering what the price tag will be. "Nano-particles" don't sound cheap.
posted by mek at 12:17 AM on April 1, 2005


Now I am become Death, shatterer of worlds!
posted by clockzero at 12:24 AM on April 1, 2005


They don't. As stated on Toshiba's website they will firstly be introduced into commercial and vehicular markets first. That is pretty much saying they will be prohibitively expensive for a few years, but at least we are running out of good excuses to make our next car a hybrid vehicle.
posted by Dean Keaton at 12:25 AM on April 1, 2005


Battery technology has been moribund for a long time and it's a crucial enabling tech. People have been waiting for a battery breakthrough because one really would completely change a lot of things. You probably can't (honestly) overestimate the economic and technological impact of a true advance forward in battery tech. Whether this is that advance has a lot to do with, as you note, how expensive this thing is to manufacture.

On Preview: or what clockzero said.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:26 AM on April 1, 2005




Are you Dianes laddie ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 12:33 AM on April 1, 2005


Wow, this thread jumped the shark early.
posted by mek at 12:49 AM on April 1, 2005


If the radiance of a thousand coppertops
Were to enervate at once into the sky
That would be like the splendor of the Mighty Li+...
I am become quickly rechargable,
The shatterer of Duracell.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 12:49 AM on April 1, 2005


I will dip this into my bottle of Google Gulp.
posted by blacklite at 12:56 AM on April 1, 2005


Ok, let's dicusss the ramifications of a technology like this. Assuming the price dropped to a reasonable level, what effect could this have on the world?
posted by Dean Keaton at 1:02 AM on April 1, 2005


deankeaton: one needs to know all the details behind the technology to know and then the hidden costs need to be exposed.
posted by elpapacito at 1:08 AM on April 1, 2005


True elpapacito, but... it might be more interesting than trying to find rhymes to battery types, that's all i'm sayin. Let's make assumptions.
posted by Dean Keaton at 1:11 AM on April 1, 2005


This sounds like a completely unbankable product. Where's the profit in a battery that lasts?
posted by missbossy at 2:12 AM on April 1, 2005


I dunno, man, that's some pretty fancy shark-jumpin'.
posted by loquacious at 2:12 AM on April 1, 2005


Recharge time doesn't really bother me that much, I just want a battery for my laptop, gameboy and mp3 player that will last through a transatlantic flight.
posted by Tenuki at 2:50 AM on April 1, 2005


My speculation is that Toshiba has solved the electric car roadblock.

Problem 1: Lead acid batteries are very heavy. Solution: lithium-ion batteries are light.

Problem 2: Batteries do not store enough energy to travel long distances and have long recharge times. Solution: fast recharge times means that the inconvenience of stopping every fifty miles for a minute to recharge is no longer inconvenient.

The advantages of electric cars are that the pollution of power generation can be localized and managed. Secondly, any means of power generation can be used, not just petroleum.

If the cost of Toshiba's breakthough battery can be brought down to a consumer-affordable level, this new battery will be a world-changing development.

China and India are just starting to auto up. It will be so much better for everyone if they use electric car technology.
posted by tgyg at 3:34 AM on April 1, 2005


Problem 2: Batteries do not store enough energy to travel long distances and have long recharge times. Solution: fast recharge times means that the inconvenience of stopping every fifty miles for a minute to recharge is no longer inconvenient.

It may even be possible to recharge without stopping; clever application of electromagnetic induction for wireless recharging could enable special "recharge lanes" for highways. Traveling autos would just need to slowly cruise in those lanes for a few minutes whenever they get low on juice.

[/harebrained idea]
posted by PsychoKick at 3:54 AM on April 1, 2005


That actually sounds like a very good idea. You'd better patent it. :)
posted by Vulpyne at 4:21 AM on April 1, 2005


This will revolutionize hand-held cordless power tools, just try using an 18 volt cordless drill over your head for a few hours, and you can see how heavy these tools have become. With small efficient batteries, we might see future power tools operating either directly off the mains and recharging, or in a portable/cordless mode.
posted by Runcible Spoon at 4:32 AM on April 1, 2005


psychokick: that is such a great idea. i would be interested to see if it is possible.

i remember when my father bought a little Honda Insight, the second week they were on the market. He managed to find a little silver one in our little town of Greenville, South Carolina. I remember He, myself, and my younger sister becoming excited about the technology, and watching the gauges on the dash. If I recall correctly, the car recharged it's own battery when deaccelerating and coasting, which was a killer feature. It also cut off instantly at stop lights when put in neutral, and then rev'd back up just as fast when shifted into first. Kinda like a golf cart, and I suppose that it saves a lot of fuel to not idle. Ever.

All this aside, I think that idea about recharge lanes is one of the best ever. Not only would it promote the use of hybrid and electric vehicles, but anything that forces us to perhaps slow down a little bit every now and then is A OK in my book.


sorry about the lack of proper punctuation. it's early.
posted by lazaruslong at 4:45 AM on April 1, 2005


This will revolutionize hand-held cordless power tools

not to even mention hand-held cordless pleasure tools.
posted by quonsar at 5:06 AM on April 1, 2005


Posted and discussed on SlashDot last Tuesday so I don't think it's an April Fool's Joke. In short, A) the charging current demands would be enormous (i.e. think laundry dryer connection), and B) instead of a laptop/cell/PDA application, think acceleration boost for cars; charge up while idling at stoplight, discharge during acceleration after light goes green.
posted by intermod at 5:08 AM on April 1, 2005


> Ok, let's dicusss the ramifications of a technology like this. Assuming the price
> dropped to a reasonable level, what effect could this have on the world?

We'll have to have really really good batteries before sidearms that go "zap" can replace ones that go "bang."
posted by jfuller at 5:26 AM on April 1, 2005


clever application of electromagnetic induction for wireless recharging could enable special "recharge lanes" for highways.

Just like F-Zero!
posted by Stauf at 5:56 AM on April 1, 2005


Stauf! Awesome!
posted by Baby_Balrog at 6:19 AM on April 1, 2005


I have picture in my mind of my children's children bitching because it took 7 seconds for their cell phone to recharge.

Back in my day...
posted by password at 6:24 AM on April 1, 2005


Battery recharge vending machines.
posted by Foosnark at 7:13 AM on April 1, 2005


Highly efficient batteries can be revolutionary because that's exactly what hydrocarbons, most especially oil and its refined and distilled derivatives, are: very, very efficient batteries.

If a pound of battery could store as much energy as a pound of gasoline and tank, and could be recharged as fast as the gasoline could be loaded into a tank, the results would be astounding. In fact, you don't have to get anywhere near the charging speed to get the same result, because it's a lot easier (and safer) to hang more battery weight on a vehicle or motor than you can in tank and load of gas or diesel.

It would be very exciting for engineers of all sorts, because it would create impetus for a lot of other innovations, such as developing jet propulsion systems which could be driven by electrical power rather than internal combustion.
posted by MattD at 7:29 AM on April 1, 2005


MattD - I'm not too sure about the jet, since that's dependent on a lot of heat being produced by the combustion of the fuel (not to mention the expansion of the exhaust gasses) and I can't quite see the same efficiencies coming from a turbofan type electric motor. But I do know there's been experiments with electric power in general aviation aircraft, and I can see where it'd be useful there.

But other innovations? You betcha! We go this route, start using pebble-bed reactors to provide electricity, and we can tell the ME oil magnates to go wallow in their fossil fuels...

JB.
posted by JB71 at 7:48 AM on April 1, 2005


ew, who else wanted to vomit when they saw the charts at the bottom of the first post...
posted by Kifer85 at 8:22 AM on April 1, 2005


The stamina of recharges (1% loss every 1000 charges) is really great - but will there be processes in place to dispose/recycle the battery once it's been recharged 50-80 thousand times?
posted by PurplePorpoise at 9:20 AM on April 1, 2005


intermod wrote: the charging current demands would be enormous (i.e. think laundry dryer connection)

I was kind of wondering this too.

I'm not exactly an electrical engineer, so my basis could be completely off, but wouldn't a 600mAh battery, charged to 80% capacity in 1 minute come to:

0.6 * 0.8 * 60 = 28.8 amps? eep.

And that's assuming a 100% efficient transfer of energy.
posted by joquarky at 10:32 AM on April 1, 2005


0.6 * 0.8 * 60 = 28.8 amps? eep.

It's a bit more complex than that. First, you need to multiply the mAh times the battery's voltage to get mWh, then you need to multiply that by 3600 and divide by 1000 to get watt-seconds (also known as joules), then you need to divide that by the charging voltage and then again by the number of seconds to charge. So, 600 x .8 x 1.5 x 3600 x 1/1000 x 1/120 x 1/60 = .36 amps.

Of course, I probably screwed something up that someone else can correct; it's been a long time since college physics. :)
posted by boaz at 11:35 AM on April 1, 2005


Ah thanks. I thought 28.8 amps seemed a bit crazy =)
posted by joquarky at 11:45 AM on April 1, 2005


As a side note it’s interesting to note that the relative cost of power from a AA cell is about 6000 times more expensive than the stuff that comes out of your household supply
posted by marvin at 11:47 AM on April 1, 2005


This is huge if they can be made cheaply enough, the spin offs in new products is unfathomable.

For example this has the potential to totally revolutionize the mountain locomotive. Right now locomotives in mountain areas are equipped with massive electric radiators to slow down trains. If they could dump that energy to battery banks instead they could save thousands of barrels of oil. Running in the mountains could use barely more fuel than running on flat land.

JB71: we can tell the ME oil magnates to go wallow in their fossil fuels... JB

They'll be making money for a long time to come. Oil doesn't just power things it is also the base stock for many plastics and numerous agricultural products.

30 amps isn't a problem to deal with, you've got cuircuits in your house capable of drawing more than that. Plugs rated at twice that are common. And you can also take 2,4,8, 16etc. seconds to charge doubleing your capcity everytime with the same interconnects. Just because you can load them to 80% in one second does mean your required to. In the time it take the pump to authorise your credit card you could have hundreds of AHs transfered to your car.
posted by Mitheral at 11:50 AM on April 1, 2005


So, looking at that little five axis comparison graphic, it shows these new batteries as having the same "cost performance" as current high capacity li-ion batteries...So..would that be interpreted to mean these don't cost any more per watt-hour than what's available now?

Maybe that's estimated best-case cost to mass produce, and they're trying to show the batteries in the best light with this PR. Who knows what happens when they get to market, I'd assume toshiba can and will charge a premium profit margin. (R&D costs and investors would demand it, yes?)

It really does seem like these batteries would address almost all of the concerns holding back electric cars today.
posted by Larzarus at 5:12 PM on April 1, 2005


i have a question for the big-brained ones out there...

Does this represent the first "real" nanotech breakthrough?

Toshiba said that nanoparticles on the negative lead make all difference...

"...applied to the negative electrode uses new nano-particles to prevent organic liquid electrolytes from reducing..."

i know we've seen buckyballs and teeny-weeny IBM printed on a chip - teeny motors - all the rest of the nano-stuff...

is this first base in THAT brave new world? wow...
posted by PrincessRue at 7:52 PM on April 6, 2005


« Older It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The...   |   Boing is boring? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post