digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at sciencedaily.com

New Nanowire Battery Holds 10x The Charge Of Existing Ones

sciencedaily.com — Stanford researchers have found a way to use silicon nanowires to reinvent the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries that power laptops, iPods, video cameras, cell phones, and countless other devices. A laptop that now runs on battery for two hours could operate for 20 hours, a boon to ocean-hopping business travelers.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bonj, on 12/22/2007, -3/+17Awesome, a full day's laptop charge without the bottle of methanol.
  • TJ11240, on 12/22/2007, -0/+74The biggest problem people have with electric vehicles is range. And now with new battery technologies like this, EV's could become more competitive with IC engines.
    • SickMonkey, on 12/22/2007, -0/+21Battery packs are the heaviest and most expensive components in electric cars. If you can reduce their current weight by 90%, you would greatly reduce their cost while also increasing their range and efficiency. A 90% reduction in weight would result in a battery pack that weighs less than a full tank of gas. It also makes the concept of a 500 mile rechargeable car a reality.
      • McMaster88, on 12/22/2007, -17/+0Fuel Cell is the future. Forget EV's, they are not the future, they will be big for about 4-6 years, so make your money on them while you can, but overall there will be cars running on hydrogen and/or water.
        • BigW, on 12/22/2007, -0/+15With batteries like these, I'm not so sure. EV's might be competitive with this kind of power source.
        • GfunkGbuss, on 12/22/2007, -0/+15Converting to all fuel cell vehicles would be stupid versus all EV vehicles. We already have a system for transmitting electricity throughout the country, and if you combine them with renewable forms of electricity generation (such as off-shore wind farms), you'd be set for years.
        • JP42, on 12/22/2007, -0/+13Fuel cells are a distraction created by politicians and oil companies. They are just to give the public the perception that progress is being made, while buy more time for the oil industry. They are 8 times less efficient than EV's right now and over a 100 times more expensive. EV's are the way to go:

          http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=647

          Also check out the documentary 'Who Killed The Electric Car?'
        • Fordi, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1EVs won't be a good option until we can have infinite recharges, fast charging, low cycle loss, and high power density. These lithium nanowires are a damned good start. Supercapacitors to take short-term charge and regenerative breaking, and slowly feed that juice into a battery system also helps (almost 0% cycle loss, fast charging, good power density, but high storage-term losses)

          Meanwhile, fuel cells are a good idea, but hydrogen is not. The most efficient hydrogen extraction/consumption cycle has losses over 50%, and hydrogen in any form is dangerous to transport and store.

          Acta catalyst-based cells could perform better (since as they are now, have around 10% losses), but only after (1) The US changes away from corn-based ethanol production, or moves to cellulose-based butanol production, and (2) Acta-based cells get better output levels (presently in the milliamps).
        • scrogger, on 12/23/2007, -1/+0one simple reason why you're so wrong that everyone keeps forgetting is the EV's excluding the transmission, have only 3 moving parts (eg Tesla) ... no repair bills etc etc,. There are many more.
        • rarson, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1"no repair bills"

          Ha ha ha ha! You're new to electric motors, aren't you?
          • scrogger, on 12/23/2007, -1/+0guess you're new to reading! you're replying to my comment, hit that link not the one you did. And sure, maybe some repairs, but 400 plus moving parts, vs 3? I'll take my chances. Also depends on what kind of motors you're talking about, I was talking about AC induction, more reliable
          • rarson, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1No, actually sometimes the "Reply" links don't show up. Don't ask me why.

            So how many cars use an AC electrical system? I'll give you a hint: zero.
          • scrogger, on 12/23/2007, -1/+0well, you're right about the reply links - like now, doesn't show up so I can't reply to your last comment in a nested reply - but that's about it.

            I didn't say AC electric system (as in the whole car?), I said AC motor and try at least one - the tesla roadster - uses a water cooled 3 phase AC induction motor - link - http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=45
      • Jason4000, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2I would be happy with a battery at the current size that has a 1500 mile range. That would satisfy your long distance business guy and vacationer. Recharge it at the hotel and then you have more than a full day of travel with it. I would wonder if recharge times are proportionally longer because of this new found battery capacity.
        • Fordi, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1It depends on how these new cells deal with high-voltage charging. Theoretically, you just have to supply the right amount of energy to the battery, but how that energy gets divided (between voltage, current and time) is all dependent on the specs of the cell.
        • scrogger, on 12/23/2007, -0/+11500 miles?! well I'd be happy with the Hope diamond. You only need a 500 mile range - though this technology would give you the 1500. 500 miles is about 7 hours of driving which you couldn't do all at once. Go 5 hours - 350-400 miles, break and eat for one hour, a half recharge somewhat fast from 1/4 to 3/4 full and go another 350-400 miles. Recharge fully overnight. 700-800 miles in one day is plenty for anyone.
      • jayemee, on 12/22/2007, -4/+3My only complaint with EV is that they're so quiet. If not for some rigorous last minute road checks I'd be dead by now.

        There's my input. EVs: put bells on them.
        • masterofsw, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3I ride my bike on the road all the time. All modern cars are extremely quiet.
          The only way I can hear them coming is from the road noise due to the tires, not the engine.
          • Fordi, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2You think that until you see an EV pull off. I saw my first one start and go a few weeks ago, and I felt almost gypped by the lack of a 'chchchcvroomrumblerumblebrumble...'
          • grumpyrain, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Because of the expense of current generation batteries, the capacity of current EV batteries is limited, and other 'tricks' are employed to increase range. These include low rolling resistance tyres and more aerodynamic body shapes to reduce drag. Consequently, I would expect an EV to make less noise than a normal car with the engine switched off rolling down a hill.

            But lack of noise is just as much a 'problem' for hybrids, many of which don't switch the engine on until they have started moving.
    • stoanhart, on 12/22/2007, -0/+14Also cool is that these batteries apparently don't loose their capacity over time, like regular LiIon batteries.

      I just wish someone, anyone, would bring one of these technologies to the market already! I've been hearing about these revolutionary 10x, 100x, 1000x better, faster, lighter batteries for five years now!

      I want to convert my car into a DIY serial hybrid. I need a decent battery. I'm not going to blow a bunch of cash on expensive, low-density batteries that need replacement!
      • Xanium4332, on 12/22/2007, -0/+6Amen to that, not only to batteries, but to everything...
      • Fordi, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2Man, I know serial hybrid is cheaper to build (and much cheaper to convert to all-electric down the line), but they're horribly inefficient compared to their parallel kin. Basically, you save a little when you let the ICE help push, rather than converting its entire output to generator fodder (generators have a 20% loss, minimum).
        • stoanhart, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Actually, they are much more efficient. Think of it this way:

          Parallel Hybrid:
          - Full size ICE => Lots of weight
          - Full Drive train => Even more weight
          - Some even turn the drive train with the electric motor, so => Lots of friction
          - All use the drive train when running on ICE (long distance trips) => Lots of friction

          Also, driving on an ICE for a good chunk of the time sucks: the average car will turn something like 30% of its energy into forward motion. Electric motors are +90% efficient, with very little heat or noise (lost energy). Batteries don't lose much when (dis)charging;these super-capacitors we keep hearing about are usually 99% efficient. As a bonus, you can implement advanced traction control on a computer, removing heavy gears.

          Now you just need a small motor to produce electricity. There are very small, innovative diesel engines that have 40-50% efficiency, especially if they only need to run at a set speed for which they can be optimized. The power draw of a medium-sized, weight reduced car at about 120 km/h should not really exceed what a 10-15 hp ICE could produce.

          Imagine a car that could drive long distances at highway speeds and get around town on a 15hp engine. On top of that, with a good battery you could recapture energy using regenerative breaking. The best part is you don't loose performance: with a nice big battery, you could get amazing power, acceleration, and speed for a good solid hour or more before you have to drive "normally" again. Who ever exceeds an hour of aggressive driving? Most of us only do it to pass!

          I think serial is much better. And it's so modular! As you said, converting to a full-electric is a synch: just take out the generator!
        • swanny89, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Generators are a hell of a lot more efficient than the engine in your car. A generator runs at a set RPM that has been optimized for the best power generation. The engine in your car has to produce power at all kinds of RPMs so that you can get the car moving before next Thursday. And since electric motors can output torque better than ICEs I would even take a car that had a continuously running generator coupled to a high-performance motor.
      • scrogger, on 12/23/2007, -4/+0"10x, 100x, 1000x better" oh really,.where? sure you're not getting confused with super capacitors?
    • LeeSoong, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1So, combine the new cheaper solar panels with improved batteries and low cost LED lighting - and you have a house that can run for 3 nights on one day's worth of solar charge.

      The future is now - homes can become free of electric utility bills.
  • notthemama, on 12/22/2007, -2/+112I'll consider it awesome when someone actually releases a product using this technology. We've been seeing such breakthrough announcements for battery technology for 10 years but batteries are still mostly crap.
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/22/2007, -7/+2there's some credibility if it's from stanford
      • cowsgonemadd3, on 12/22/2007, -1/+6Dont get your hopes up until its being used....
    • CalamariAce, on 12/22/2007, -5/+4Remember that it is not always the best product in the market that wins...
    • Pritchard, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2People get greedy. Some prick has some sort of patent that prevents anyone from making a move. Stuff sucks like that at times.
  • Shananra, on 12/22/2007, -1/+175For the love of god, quit reporting all these massive leaps in battery technology and put one on the market already!
    • AlexFinn, on 12/22/2007, -4/+0Amen to that!!
    • EmperorAwesome, on 12/22/2007, -2/+3Saw it in the feed and said this doesn't ***** exist.
  • krnldmp, on 12/22/2007, -2/+56Interesting. Last week it held 20x.
    • metalwolf, on 12/22/2007, -2/+2lets not hope its a trend. Next week it may hold 5x.
    • Xanium4332, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5it's been going for a whole week, so it's gonna have ran down a little...
    • VincentVega12, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5They've raised the chocolate ration too!
  • sesstreets, on 12/22/2007, -0/+12Cool, well, as long as maybe this new nanowire can prevent them from assploding.
    • elnerdo, on 12/22/2007, -2/+8The opposite, really. What people don't realize is that batteries are REALLY FREAKING DANGEROUS. The more energy you put into the battery, the more energy will be unleashed when it breaks. Think about how dangerous Li-ion batteries are already. Multiply that by ten.
      • spyd3rweb, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Pocket nuclear device?
      • grumpyrain, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1If they put these into laptops, you are still only going to get 5-6 hours battery life. They will just make the battery a hell of a lot smaller and cheaper rather than stuffing more capacity into them. The place this will be of most benefit is in PHEVs. And before you start saying how much more unsafe it is in vehicles, remember the alternatives (petrol, diesel, LPG, CNG, Hydrogen) also require safety measures to prevent combustion.
        • elnerdo, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1All of those require oxygen to react, and therefore the speed of the reaction is limited. They can't explode.

          People's gas tanks almost NEVER explode. Gasoline is an incredibly safe fuel source (diesel is even safer!). Even hydrogen is fairly safe (except for the part about it being highly compressed).
  • royall64, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3Perhaps Santa will deliver these to all the good little boys and girls in Christmas, seeing as it's already available on the market and works perfectly.
  • macwac, on 12/22/2007, -5/+6Wasn't this posted yesterday???
    • cw1242, on 12/22/2007, -3/+10I wouldn't know, I actually have a life.
  • TheAtomicMoose, on 12/22/2007, -4/+49The New and Improved Taser: Now with more viral videos per charge.
  • megaton, on 12/22/2007, -10/+5"New Digg Submission Process Yields 10x Less Front-page Dupes" ... Dugg down as inaccurate.
  • tbenathan, on 12/22/2007, -6/+12I do not believe this whatsoever; they have been talking about making battery improvements since the creation of the StarTac and there have been none since.

    I'll believe it when I see it. Till then, it's vaporware.
    • GfunkGbuss, on 12/22/2007, -4/+5NiCad, NiMh, and LiPoly (Li Ion) ring a bell? Batteries have been improving the past ten years by leaps and bounds, so who's to say they won't continue to do so?
    • itsthebrod, on 12/22/2007, -2/+2Yes. I'm positive you're more knowledgeable on the topic than those Stanford scientific researchers. Where did you get your PhD on the topic and what university are you currently doing research on batteries and nanotechnology at?
    • grumpyrain, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Actually all three of you are right. Battery technology has really improved, most noticeably in mobile phones where size, weight, charge time and talk time have improved tenfold in the past 10 years. 10 years ago, laptops weighed more and had about half their current battery life. And now there is a real market for hybrid vehicles, another industry is starting to pump money into high capacity, light and fast rechargeable batteries. That said, there has been many snake oil smoke and mirror merchants in the industry with products that never eventuate, and a degree of skepticism is important.
  • Feep, on 12/22/2007, -1/+11I'm pretty sure every engineering technology announcement posted on Digg since its inception could technically be classified as vaporware. I estimate about one in fifty will EVER see market realization...

    Good luck, nanowires.
  • DASK, on 12/22/2007, -0/+7Article misunderstands the science. It's just the anode with higher capacity. Without a change to the cathode, the battery will have about 15%-25% more gravimetric capacity.
  • cuoops, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2source - http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january ...
  • mllawso, on 12/22/2007, -10/+3Im in ur batteries, increasing your wattage via quantum interactions.
  • RationalXubrnce, on 12/22/2007, -1/+10 Articles about battery technology are starting to remind me of articles about cancer cures. In both cases I have read over and over about some great new technology that is going to revolutionize everything and in both cases nothing ever comes of it. this must be the fourth new super battery I've heard about in the last decade. I hope this time it makes it to market.

    And if parts of the battery swell 4x in size what does that do to the overall size when charged?
    • Evi1d33d, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3I think the internal size is just 4X smaller when not charged.
      • djrocksteady, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1probably that, and a nano wire that swells 4x times is still tiny, not an issue.
  • TStanNY, on 12/22/2007, -8/+5Nice. The old nanowire-batteries I used were crap.
  • HappyScrappy, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1If we applied all the battery miracles we see on the internets to one battery, they would last at least 5,000x as long as they do right now!

    It remains to be seen which of these actually will pan out.
  • gamebalance, on 12/22/2007, -10/+1Great but I not have laptop yet.
  • BigPapaCherry, on 12/22/2007, -12/+0Buried because this poster is dumb and can't an article on the EXACT same thing was posted earlier this week... dumbass
    • scrogger, on 12/23/2007, -0/+0doncha just love it when someone calls someone else dumb - and twice no less - and then writes garbage?!! .... "and can't an article on the EXACT same thing" ... what the hell language is that?
  • Dylson, on 12/22/2007, -8/+1I bet this will be in the next ipod and macbook from apple. Digg me down for being optimistic but i really think it will.
    • mhender, on 12/22/2007, -3/+2It's not exclusive to Apple you slut. If its in there it will be in all laptops.
      • loggedout, on 12/22/2007, -2/+1Apologizing on Dylson's behalf for being "too" specific.
      • Dylson, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Buried for calling me a slut, you hoe bag.
  • cw1242, on 12/22/2007, -0/+18To all those who are undoubtedly going to claim dupe---shut up. This article goes into much greater detail concerning the technology and processes. This type of technology is much more important than half the other crap that goes up on here so keep your self-righteous cynicism to yourself. How do you think stories make it to the front page---PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED. Just move on next time.


  • CaviMike, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1*crosses fingers*
  • Artagnan, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1This would be purely amazing. Imagine being able to use my MacBookPro at school for a whole day without worrying about the charge, and being able to do everything without being tied down to an outlet! Imagine being able to use your iPod for a whole day! This would be incredible...and worth paying for too. I'd pay up to 4x the price of a regular battery for this technology.
    • LowFuel, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2You're currently tied down to an outlet? That's kinda kinky.
    • mhender, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3"Imagine being able to use your iPod for a whole day!" Do you not interact with anyone that you have to have your iPod on for 12 hours at a time?
      • metalwolf, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1With the people that are at my school, I would. I prefer to interact with people who have something smart or interesting to say.
        Come to think of it, why do I even read Digg then? /sarcasm
        • mhender, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2"I prefer to interact with people who have something smart or interesting to say" is a sad excuse for "I have no friends because I think I'm better than everyone else"
          • metalwolf, on 12/23/2007, -0/+0I actually do have friends. Most guys at my school are class clowns and are only concerned with making everyone else laugh and annoying the teacher. And I imagine you are friends with everyone, even the geeks and nerds, cool guy.
    • TheSmiddy, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1i can listen to my iPod for about 25 hours before it runs out.

      it's crazy, it just keeps going, once it hits empty it still goes for a good 4 or 5 hours.
  • SilverBlade2k, on 12/22/2007, -0/+9Amazing, but we all know what's going to happen to it. Whoever holds the patent for it will sell out to an Oil company, who will in turn just bury it.
    • Archimboldo, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Eh? What would an oil company gain by us not having better batteries to store energy? The same amount of energy still gets used - just in bigger chunks.

      Not that the world isn't out to get us, spies aren't lurking behind every corner, and secret groups aren't conspiring to stifle everything. Just sayin' ...
      • apeweek, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2This is what happened to the NIMH battery. NIMHs were used in the original GM EV-1 car, but they quickly vanished from the market after the patents were sold to Chevron-Texaco. The few remaining electric cars with NIMHs are still going strong with over 100,000 miles on the odometers, but no replacement EV-sized batteries have been allowed to be made, until very recently (I think they know now that Li-Ions will steal the market if they don't relent.)
        • Fordi, on 12/23/2007, -0/+3Give me the specs for those EV-size batteries, and I'll bet I can make higher capacity ones from stock cells.
          • apeweek, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2I've been tempted to do this myself - cheap nimh AA cells have shown up on the surplus market from time to time (I drive an EV, a very old one - picture here: http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/775 )

            Of course, we're talking about LOTS of little cells - each one has about 2 watt-hours - so a 26 kwh battery pack needs 13,000 AA-sized cells.

            Cobasys (the company formed by the oil companies to manage the NIMH patents) still makes those large NIMH batteries very hard to get. Here's their FAQ page where they talk about how 'no distribution channel' exists for large NIMH batteries: http://www.cobasys.com/pdf/faq/faq.html

            They pretend its because NIMH batteries are dangerous, but of course every other battery tech (much more dangerous than NIMH) is readily for sale.
          • Fordi, on 12/23/2007, -0/+3@apeweek:
            Ok. You'd need 1500 of http://www.all-battery.com/index.asp?PageAction=VI ... hooked up 300 parallel/5 serial. Pain in the ass, and terribly expensive, but it'd work. Total cost, $19,488 (for 60 of the 25 packs of 14Ah with free shipping).

            If you can rebuild your vehicle's electrical system to take other voltages or can put together a cheap DC-DC converter, you can use more esoteric combinations, for example, http://www.all-battery.com/index.asp?PageAction=VI ... has 252Wh on it alone. Still around $18k, but a lot less work to assemble.

            In short, it's never goin to be cheap as long as you need it rechargable.
          • apeweek, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1The expense is why NIMHs will just be bypassed for better batteries. For my next EV battery pack, I'm considering these Chinese LiFePO4 batteries: http://everspring.net/product-battery.htm
          • Fordi, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1They *really* need to work on their website's design. That's particularly awful.
  • vanodorf, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1To-date, battery capacity has doubled every ten years.
    According to this, a 10x increase would take 30+ years.
    Although it's about time some breakthrough in batteries came about, I can't help it but be skeptical.
    • Fordi, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Because of the nature of battery improvements (punctuated equilibrium, rather than continuous improvement), you have to apply your Moore's law-like approach to the last advancement in battery technology, i.e. lithium ion. They were first developed in 1960, but first commercially available in 1991.
      1991+30 = 2011. QED.
      • coolmanmax2000, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1OMG I CAN'T WAIT 3 MORE YEARS!!!!!! I NEED TO CHARGE MY FLUX CAPACITOR
  • mhender, on 12/22/2007, -3/+2"A laptop that now runs on battery for two hours could operate for 20 hours, a boon to ocean-hopping business travelers."
    Uh. Most overseas flights have outlets in the armrests / seat so you can plug your electronics in.
  • Dissipate, on 12/22/2007, -4/+2If this doesn't work out someone is going to blame the 'international Jewish bankers' conspiracy.
    • coolmanmax2000, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Who told you about that??? Who do you work for???
  • digitallysick, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2Just enough juice to run my powerbook G4 for an hour...
  • BluesFan, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1I'm surprised they let this out,then again we are running out of oil.So now I'm wondering how are they going to rob us blind now, besides for selling us $50,000 electric cars?
  • soot, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5Cool, I can't wait to see this on shelves in fifteen years after the technology's been patented and all the dragged out infringement lawsuits are dealt with.
  • ashlocke, on 12/22/2007, -0/+8The question is, will they cost 10x-20x as much as the existing ones?
    • gquaglia, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Probably
    • carlosos, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Even if it costs so much more than it still might be worth it for some devices.
  • BluesFan, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Who's laughing now energizer bunny!
  • vidar808, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Sadly the first generation will have a recall that wont be for just smoke and fire. It will blow up houses and take down planes.
  • retop56, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1this story has been reported 3 times. GET OVER IT AND PUT ONE ON THE FREAKIN MARKET PLZ
  • Farmer77, on 12/22/2007, -0/+9What's going to come first,
    this Nanowire battery or Duke Nukem Forever?
    • Fordi, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Affordable solar cells.
    • coolmanmax2000, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Cold fission, which is to say, neither because its not going to happen
      • coolmanmax2000, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1er fusion lol, not that cold fission is remotely possible either
  • tuzziel, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Does that mean that the "Tesla Roadster" now have a 3000 miles range?
    • Fordi, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1No, it means the Tesla Roadster will have a lighter power stack. Adding capacity for 3000 miles would leave charging time in the range of *days*.
  • DestroyFascism, on 12/22/2007, -3/+1lol yup....
  • abadonn, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Stories like this creep up every few months, I'll believe it when I see it at Target.
  • astromatt, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1I would just like to point this out in the photo caption. "Photos taken by a scanning electron microscope of silicon nanowires before (left) and after (right) absorbing lithium. Both photos were taken at the same magnification. (Credit: Courtesy Nature Nanotechnology)"
    The 5micron scale bar in the left image sure makes it look like the right image is at a much higher magnification... there is another scale bar on the left image, but it's not clear enough to be certain...

    • scrogger, on 12/23/2007, -0/+0sure it's clear enough - both scale bars on the right are the same length and are listed as 2 um .... only problem is that on the left pic, the 5 um bar is about 5 times smaller than the 2 um bar. And no way in hell, they are taken at the same mag - the wires on the right are about 10 times wider than on the left. way more than expanding 4-fold. All in all very confusing.

      This is the url btw:

      http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january ...
  • HairyPoter, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1you do not expect duracell and others to release a battery that will last 10 times more isn't it? Or you think these guys will like to decrease their profits by the same rate? hydrogen car? water car? air car? really?
  • aelias, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1I've seen battery technology that will hold 100X the charge of these! And they can be recharged in ten seconds! It's amazing! Electric cars with 100,000 mile range are just around the corner!
    • romeov, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1100x?! Ha, and who's the vice president future boy? Jerry Lewis?
  • pitlord, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1It's about time. Unfortunately, the big power companies will pay big money to squash this technology and keep their strangle hold on the world's energy dollars.
    I don't think we're going to let them get away with it this time.
  • brokengun, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Has anyone heard anything lately about super capacitors? I know Maxwell Technology has been making some innovations and putting stuff on the market, but is there a system that will allow them to be used as battery substitutes yet? Also, why are all those science journals so expensive to buy? I always wanna read further about this stuff, but I don't want to pay $30.
    • coolmanmax2000, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Many libraries/colleges/highschools pay for subscription services to internet archives of those journals and as a patron/student of those facilities you should be able to access them for free.
  • chrismag1979, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Nano what? Bet they're expensive
  • jabberwolf, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Isn't this the same as A123's phosphate lithium nano technology?!?!

    At least their's is bio-degradable.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.