Recent Comment
Share
Ultracapacitors could be the key to making electric and fuel cell vehicles more affordable and efficient, but a lack of funding is standing in the way of their production. EEStor, a company that has made breakthroughs in ultra-cap technology, has acknowledged that they won't meet their goal of producing any this year because they haven't raised enough money.
The company signed an exclusive contract with Canadian manufacturer ZENN and said it has negotiated another deal with Light Electric Vehicles Company, but it seems we will have to wait a bit longer to see the fruits of these contracts.
Not all is lost though. Two other companies working on ultra-cap technology have recently received funding or new contracts. Apowercap Technologies received a $5 to $20 million commitment form EastOne Group and Maxwell Technologies signed contracts with Van Hool and Golden Dragon Bus to install their ultracapacitors in buses.
It's frustrating to know that the technology is ready to be installed, but funding is keeping it from being used. We'll be anxious to hear more from these companies about their progress.
via AutoblogGreen and Venturebeat
Hits: 15324
Comments (21)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Johanna, November 05, 2008
I sure would like to know where you get this information from EEstor hasn’t made any press release and you failed to quote or give any first hand information from EEstor. I hope you haven’t made the same mistake as everyone else on the web and write news from news which really isn’t news.
-
- +0
-
-
written by november, November 05, 2008
the latest information about EEStor seems to originate at TheEEStory.com. The latest blog post on the topic covered here with regard to funding is found here: http://theeestory.com/articles/80
It says EEStor is still anticipating delivery of it's first production prototypes to Zenn Motor Company in 2008...with regular production beginning in 2009.
In the big picture, EEStor's financial condition is almost completely insignificant compared to whether or not they can actually deliver a device with the energy storage they claim. It's not uncommon for start-ups to struggle with maintaining control of their business when greedy shark VC's are involved.
And yes, there's a large number of people hoping EEStor doesn't deliver because it would disrupt several established industries.
It says EEStor is still anticipating delivery of it's first production prototypes to Zenn Motor Company in 2008...with regular production beginning in 2009.
In the big picture, EEStor's financial condition is almost completely insignificant compared to whether or not they can actually deliver a device with the energy storage they claim. It's not uncommon for start-ups to struggle with maintaining control of their business when greedy shark VC's are involved.
And yes, there's a large number of people hoping EEStor doesn't deliver because it would disrupt several established industries.
-
- +0
-
-
written by hyperspaced, November 05, 2008
I will just point some numbers here about energy storage mediums:
We have energy density (how much energy can be stored) and we have power density (how fast this energy can be given when requested).
For example, on your TV remote you don't want high power densities, because the remote requires little power.
On a car on the other hand, you seek high power densities for acceleration. You would also want high energy density, so the car can travel enough kilometers.
Ultracapacitors are the champions when it comes to "power density", so your vehicle will be more responsive to the "gas" pedal (it can also "get back" energy from braking better and faster). They are ideal for vehicle use from this aspect. Unfortunately, ultracapacitors have very small energy densities of less than 30 W.h/Kg.
Here comes EEStor: They claim that they have increased the energy densities up to 300 W.h/Kg (for comparison NiMH batteries are in the ~100 W.h/Kg range with considerably less "sparkiness"). A 100Kg supercapacitor array would give you 30KWh of energy. Combined with a lightweight chassis and a good kinetic energy recovery system and you have a winner.
Imagine if the supercapacitor research gets more funding...
We have energy density (how much energy can be stored) and we have power density (how fast this energy can be given when requested).
For example, on your TV remote you don't want high power densities, because the remote requires little power.
On a car on the other hand, you seek high power densities for acceleration. You would also want high energy density, so the car can travel enough kilometers.
Ultracapacitors are the champions when it comes to "power density", so your vehicle will be more responsive to the "gas" pedal (it can also "get back" energy from braking better and faster). They are ideal for vehicle use from this aspect. Unfortunately, ultracapacitors have very small energy densities of less than 30 W.h/Kg.
Here comes EEStor: They claim that they have increased the energy densities up to 300 W.h/Kg (for comparison NiMH batteries are in the ~100 W.h/Kg range with considerably less "sparkiness"). A 100Kg supercapacitor array would give you 30KWh of energy. Combined with a lightweight chassis and a good kinetic energy recovery system and you have a winner.
Imagine if the supercapacitor research gets more funding...
-
- +0
-
-
written by scam alert, November 06, 2008
EEscam has no prototype yet people continue to hype them. They are a typical scam outfit that now blames lack of funding for their delay. What a joke! They could have unlimited funding if they had ANYTHING to show. The claims they make are nothing short of ridiculous. If true would change the world as we know it. Sorry folks, they are a scam. They will never deliver a product that is anywhere near what they claim to have. Don't count on it and continue with your work. Just an unethical distraction. Don't feed the troll.
-
- +0
-
-
written by El_Kabong, November 06, 2008
What is your source of info, Scam Alert? An article published by GM?
Those yokels have sunk their future hopes in the Chevy Volt (a slug of a car with an 80 mile range at 40 mph--that's just silly) and they are desperate to see harm come to ANY new technology they don't control.
I've yet to see any statement from EEStor claiming a delay due to lack of funding.
Those yokels have sunk their future hopes in the Chevy Volt (a slug of a car with an 80 mile range at 40 mph--that's just silly) and they are desperate to see harm come to ANY new technology they don't control.
I've yet to see any statement from EEStor claiming a delay due to lack of funding.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Victor Jackson, November 06, 2008
It is sad that funding is not where it needs to be yet for this technology. Maybe that will change soon.
www.ultracapacitors.org is a good website with information on the technology.
VJ
www.ultracapacitors.org is a good website with information on the technology.
VJ
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bob Wallace, November 06, 2008
The folks at Google would write a 10 million dollar check in a heartbeat if it was demonstrated to them that the product was for real.
They've been very generous with NanoSolar, Tesla, and geothermal startups, among others.
There's lots and lots of money available for new promising green technology. The drilled-geothermal people report money falling from the sky.
(I'm not sure the Eestor guy is a scam artist. I suspect that he's not as objective as he should be. He's got the optimism that a good researcher should have, but he probably doesn't have a workable product which he hoped to have by now.)
----
And Kabong, you need to get your facts straight. Doesn't do the conversation any good to have people posting incorrect information as fact....
They've been very generous with NanoSolar, Tesla, and geothermal startups, among others.
There's lots and lots of money available for new promising green technology. The drilled-geothermal people report money falling from the sky.
(I'm not sure the Eestor guy is a scam artist. I suspect that he's not as objective as he should be. He's got the optimism that a good researcher should have, but he probably doesn't have a workable product which he hoped to have by now.)
----
And Kabong, you need to get your facts straight. Doesn't do the conversation any good to have people posting incorrect information as fact....
-
- +0
-
-
written by CurtW, November 06, 2008
The same B.S. gets recycled over and over. EEStor has already said publicly they would begin supplying ZENN in 2009 - there is NO NEW DELAY. As for a scam? Really? C'mon, you think Lockheed Martin and Kleiner/Perkins are going to sink money into something that's a scam? You really think they do no due diligence?
EEstor technology is a game changer - and it's up to the impacted industries to adapt or die. Marketplace Darwinism.
EEstor technology is a game changer - and it's up to the impacted industries to adapt or die. Marketplace Darwinism.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bill Good, November 06, 2008
The reason this technology is being squelched is because the US GOV ie (Lockheed Martin ) considers this to be so important that it would benefit our national security. Or maybe this sounds to good to be true, so I'm creating conspiracies to satisfy my fantasies, or maybe I own $50,000 of stock and I don't want the price to go down. But in all reality the technology is sound and don't think with nano technology combined with some type of separator technology be it barium titanate or something else ( other technologies are being explored ) we're going to live in the past with outdated battery technology (chemical) when we can solve this one. I have a gut feeling this is being kept under wraps. Remember the Manhattan project? Wonder if you could go back in time and invest in some new technologies that came along, like power companies or oil companies ( ironic they may be what's keeping the super capacitor tech down). I've seen Zenn stock as low as $2 or less. If this thing worked out that could easily hit $20 within a week and maybe hundreds if the Chinese don't sell a knockoff through the black market. Just Dreaming.
-
- +0
-
-
written by mark, November 07, 2008
Based on all the spec information, presentations, multi-year timeframe, abundant VC partners, uncounted delays and demos and prototypes I'd have to say that EEstor is most very likely a total bunch of bullshit!!! Again, that's based on the vast info...
-
- +0
-
-
written by Eco, November 07, 2008
Do I want EESTOR to be for real? Of course, who would not?
Do I think they are? No.
Compare the Volt, and EESTOR. The Volt actually exists, in prototype form, that people have seen, touched, driven, and experienced. EESTOR, which claims to be closer to production than the Volt, had allowed NONE of this, not even to their financiers who admit they have not seen, touched, or experienced the device.
Prove me wrong, and I'll say I'm wrong.
Do I think they are? No.
Compare the Volt, and EESTOR. The Volt actually exists, in prototype form, that people have seen, touched, driven, and experienced. EESTOR, which claims to be closer to production than the Volt, had allowed NONE of this, not even to their financiers who admit they have not seen, touched, or experienced the device.
Prove me wrong, and I'll say I'm wrong.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Will, November 07, 2008
q) What's the difference between a functioning Eestor energy storage device, and Bigfoot?
a) Some people have actually seen Bigfoot!
a) Some people have actually seen Bigfoot!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bill Good, November 08, 2008
Hey eco, check out LockheedMartin.com and search Eestor. Lockheed doesn't make agreements without due diligence. They could possibly want this interest to go away, since there interest is military. If you know anything about batteries, you'll understand that this is not rocket science, it's just one snag from being the greatest advancement in solving the problem with storing electricity. Which is the reason we're still dependent on fossil fuels. The energy is there (solar) we just can't capture it and utilize it in a competitive way with the cost of fossil fuel energy. Batteries just can't do it because of their limitations (chemical dependence), but with nano technology coupled with capcitors that never wear out. Well that's why they call it a disruptive technology. Follow the research starting with barium titinate (ti-n-nate)polymers /Georgia tech and see how far they have come with this in such a short amount of time. With this technology electricity could be transported like oil which would eliminate the infastructure problem with the distribution of solar, wind, thermal etc. We wouldn't be at war if it weren't for oil. 10 billion a month and maybe we wouldn't be near economic meltdown. The next best thing to this is eliminating the IRS with a fair tax. getting off subject, go to fairtax.org.
-
- +0
-
-
written by El_Kabong, November 08, 2008
REad all about it at http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/
There's been talk of a better bsttery doubling it's range to 80 miles. I still say it's a slug and smart people will dump their GM stock while they can.
There's been talk of a better bsttery doubling it's range to 80 miles. I still say it's a slug and smart people will dump their GM stock while they can.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Skeptical, November 10, 2008
They only have to have enough money to build one. If they could just show that one works, they'd have so much money flowing in they wouldn't know what to do with it. They could even keep the thing hidden inside a black box as long as they demonstrate that it works. Unfortunately, they have done none of this and I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that they have anything.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bill Good, November 11, 2008
Critics claim that the small companies that are past the initial funding stage and are preparing themselves for an IPO need project funding rather than tax breaks. They argue that such a tax break would in fact leave them vulnerable to acquisition by larger firms, who will be better placed to enjoy the chance to write off R&D against tax.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bill Good, November 11, 2008
For the skeptics...The EEStory invites skepticism
To me the most damming failing of the EEStory is the failure to produce evidence that a single tested prototype exists, despite the claim that EEStor will begin to deliver mass produced EESUs next year. Those guys at EEStor are so good, they can go from research to production without any need to do product development. A number of reputable scientists and engineers have questioned the claims made by Richard Weir.
Capacitor expert John Miller raised a number of fundamental issues about EEStir technology. Miller asserted that EEStor was attempting to violate no less than three laws of nature:
1. When you make something that you want to work, if its made
up of lots of constituent parts , its usually lower reliability. And
if you read the patent they have there, he's talking about putting
together 10s of thousands of parallel connected capacitors. And any one of them fails, means the system fails. And they will fail,
Capacitors fail by dielectric breakdown. They will fail. Now you can get around that on capacitors that have what's called self clearing mechanisms. But Barium Titanate does not have self clearing mechanisms. So once you have a breakdown, it's a short. So calculations that I did..... well I also was also hired by EPRI. The Electric Power Research Institute to write a position paper on this and I did. Apparently they were getting a lot of questions from their customers..utility customers...is there anything there? [with eestor] The reliability is just not practical when you don't have self clearing.
2. [H]e's operating at the breakdown strength and you
never do that with a capacitor because you always have avalanche breakdown. The rule of thumb is you drop it down an order of magnitude in voltage and your energy goes as the voltage squared so that's 100 times lower.
3. [T]he third problem with this is [the] thermal management issues. He's talking about charging this thing in his patent and all his publications ...charging it very quickly. Even if it's 99.9%
efficient, the energy that 10th of a percent energy lost during that process over the 5 minutes he's talking about would cause the whole thing to melt down. It's too compact. It's incredible, it's twice the energy density of lithium ion batteries, the highest energy density battery. You just can't put that heat in there and expect the thing to survive. [laughing] It's ceramic material, the temperature would rise so great it would melt down. The metalization what he's talking about, low temperature metalization....that would all melt.
Miller continued his evaluation of Weir by saying:
He can be very sincere and believe what he's doing is what should be done. But has it been reviewed by other people? No, I don't think so. Does he have the combined intelligence like the people at Penn St. that have been spending many many careers on dielectric studies. That's why I'm saying, what's all the hub bub and all the big noise?
Charles Barton .
To me the most damming failing of the EEStory is the failure to produce evidence that a single tested prototype exists, despite the claim that EEStor will begin to deliver mass produced EESUs next year. Those guys at EEStor are so good, they can go from research to production without any need to do product development. A number of reputable scientists and engineers have questioned the claims made by Richard Weir.
Capacitor expert John Miller raised a number of fundamental issues about EEStir technology. Miller asserted that EEStor was attempting to violate no less than three laws of nature:
1. When you make something that you want to work, if its made
up of lots of constituent parts , its usually lower reliability. And
if you read the patent they have there, he's talking about putting
together 10s of thousands of parallel connected capacitors. And any one of them fails, means the system fails. And they will fail,
Capacitors fail by dielectric breakdown. They will fail. Now you can get around that on capacitors that have what's called self clearing mechanisms. But Barium Titanate does not have self clearing mechanisms. So once you have a breakdown, it's a short. So calculations that I did..... well I also was also hired by EPRI. The Electric Power Research Institute to write a position paper on this and I did. Apparently they were getting a lot of questions from their customers..utility customers...is there anything there? [with eestor] The reliability is just not practical when you don't have self clearing.
2. [H]e's operating at the breakdown strength and you
never do that with a capacitor because you always have avalanche breakdown. The rule of thumb is you drop it down an order of magnitude in voltage and your energy goes as the voltage squared so that's 100 times lower.
3. [T]he third problem with this is [the] thermal management issues. He's talking about charging this thing in his patent and all his publications ...charging it very quickly. Even if it's 99.9%
efficient, the energy that 10th of a percent energy lost during that process over the 5 minutes he's talking about would cause the whole thing to melt down. It's too compact. It's incredible, it's twice the energy density of lithium ion batteries, the highest energy density battery. You just can't put that heat in there and expect the thing to survive. [laughing] It's ceramic material, the temperature would rise so great it would melt down. The metalization what he's talking about, low temperature metalization....that would all melt.
Miller continued his evaluation of Weir by saying:
He can be very sincere and believe what he's doing is what should be done. But has it been reviewed by other people? No, I don't think so. Does he have the combined intelligence like the people at Penn St. that have been spending many many careers on dielectric studies. That's why I'm saying, what's all the hub bub and all the big noise?
Charles Barton .
-
- +0
-
-
written by Gren, November 19, 2008
Wow. Rich stuff. I'm going to stick my head back in the sand, and hope when it pops out next, Estor have a product that works. We need it bad. For now, I ride my bike short haul, and drive gas the distance.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ben, June 22, 2010
OK, so it's now 2010 and still nothing to show - that's some delay. And for the record, Lockheed Martin didn't sink any money into Eestor, they just agreed to get exclusive rights to use the technology in military applications - for free.
Who wouldn't sign such a deal, even if it was a 100:1 long shot, for the price of the trivial brand damage they'll suffer if it never pans out, and in return Eestor get to say "we've got Lockheed Martin on board".
Who wouldn't sign such a deal, even if it was a 100:1 long shot, for the price of the trivial brand damage they'll suffer if it never pans out, and in return Eestor get to say "we've got Lockheed Martin on board".
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Either (a) they don't have a product that has proved itself to potential buyers. Can you imagine companies like Toyota, Honda, GM not finding a few million to get a major breakthrough battery ready for their new cars?
Or (b) the people running the company are business idiots who aren't adequately demonstrating their product to potential buyers.