In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:13:23 -0800: Hi, [snip] > >The article mentions laptop and cellphone batteries, but the silence is >deafening wrt automotive. For good reason. The cost of lithium. > >Before any "bettery" concept will become economically feasible for >automotive, IMHO -- it would seem that they will have to get away from >lithium as the electrolyte.
When fusion becomes our main power source, much sea water will need to be processed to extract the Deuterium. Lithium could be a byproduct of that extraction. (Even though the concentration is very low). > >The Tesla's Roadster runs on 6,831 lithium ion batteries, similar to >what is used in laptop computers. The company boasts on its Web site >that the car can go 245 miles on a single charge and costs two cents per >mile to operate. Assuming no explosions, such as have consistently >plagued this kind of battery for the bast 15 year, that is. Not to >mention, this car costs $100,000 to buy, and the batteries are at least >half of that cost. However if this technology is as good as they say it is, then one should be able to get the same range as the Tesla, with only 1/10 of the batteries, i.e. only $5000 worth. That would extend the Lithium supply, and also make the vehicle much more affordable. In fact due to the reduction in weight, the range would probably be somewhat greater. I suspect the nanowires have an additional advantage, namely that the increased surface area should significantly decrease charge time. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
