SCiB batteries are useful for a wide range of functions, from electric bicycles and hybrid and electric vehicles, to industrial equipment and renewable energy storage. Toshiba has now opened a US-based technical support center to aid in developing the SCiB, particularly for vehicles, grid storage, and wind and solar power applications.

The SCiB has characteristics that make it very appealing. It performs like an ultracapacitor with rapid charge times, reaching 90% charge in about 5 minutes. It is good for thousands of cycles without extensive capacity loss, and it has a life span of 10 years or more.

With these properties, solar and wind power generation as options for the power grid are actually increased as well as making electric vehicles more enticing. Imagine filling your electric vehicle with power in about 5 minutes, close to the time it takes to fill an average car with gas currently. I see this as a major advancement.

As I read other blogs in my day to day research, sometimes I come across one that sounds just like me. The following is a quote from YahooGreen:

--
Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely excited about Bloom Energy. I honestly think that their technology is a good thing for the world and that it might very well revolutionize the power infrastructure in America and throughout the world. And yes, it will create jobs and make a select few people very rich.

In fact, I think it's so revolutionary that it doesn't need to be inflated by false or misleading claims ...

Annoying press point #1:
The Bloom Box "energy server" works with "nearly any fuel source."

The Bloom Box doesn't run on "nearly any fuel source" it runs on methane or methane or methane. That methane can be pumped out of the ground or captured from landfills, but it's still methane, and as I count it, that's one fuel source.

Annoying press point #2:
Companies using the Bloom Box can "expect a three to five year payback on their capital investment." The average cost per kW/h in California is 14 cents and a Bloom Box produces 100 kW. 100 kW multiplied by 8760 hours in a year times $0.14 per kW means 100 kW of continual electricity consumption over the course of the year will cost a company about $122,000 a year. Add in the cost of the fuel (in whatever form) the cost of maintenance and financing, and I doubt these companies are saving more than $60,000 per year per box.

Annoying press point #3:
Probably what annoys me most about Bloom's press release is that they claim the box "provides a cleaner, more reliable, and more affordable alternative to both today's electric grid as well as traditional renewable energy sources." Again, if it's not an outright lie, it's at least very misleading. The Bloom Box might be more reliable than both, but it isn't cheaper than the grid and it isn't cleaner than solar or wind.

Bloom Energy's technology is fantastic and exciting. It's much cleaner than our current electricity infrastructure and more practical than distributed solar. It's great, but there's no reason to make false claims when your product is this revolutionary.

By telling "60 Minutes" that the device can run on solar power (huh? isn't it cleaner than solar? how?) and saying that it doesn't perform "dirty combustion" they're implying that this is the same order of clean energy as solar or wind power. But it's simply not -- they're turning hydrocarbons into carbon dioxide (and a host of other pollutants, of course) just like every other power plant in the world.

--

To read the whole blog with the original writers comments, follow the related link below.

This sounds great. I have heard about it on several blogs, including one that makes the following claim: "The Air Force, Navy, Army, and Marines, in a joint effort, validated their technology in November, and the results are now being published for the first time."

I have done a little reading myself and want to say, this sounds too good to be true and may not be.

The CEO of GPI is under investigation - click here

The original article also lacks specifics about the people directly involved, names, dates of entry into the project and other simple things that normally add validity. They simply say "The U.S. Government" when asked who verified the claims. Is that Joe postal worker or someone who would understand how to make such measures and claims.

directly from the article is this tidbit too: "...you need to know that while Spitzauer is a great guy with a good heart, he does have a problem with following through in a timely way on his commitments. He does typically come through eventually, but not always when and how he first describes."

"So far, all of his 72 contracts are foreign, guaranteed by letters of credit. None in the U.S. yet."

This is a great concept, I really hope it works, but I am skeptical.

Follow the related link for the original article.

Any time you can reduce the amount of something needed, it is a win for the environment. All of the impact of the item is reduced. In this case, researchers have reduced the amount of silicon in their solar cells by about 99%. This is huge!

With this reduction in material, they also managed to keep the efficiency about the same. The article did not specify the exact values, but this level of material reduction will greatly reduce costs. Another benefit to smaller amounts of silicon is that this design allows flexibility in the panels by using silicon wire instead of wafers.

Lets keep our fingers crossed this continues to be everything it appears to be.

The original article requires a paid membership. I had to gain this much information from several other overview articles.

See the related link for the original article.

This is an interesting question. I bring it up because of an article I read about cars that cost considerably less than a hybrid and rival a hybrid for gas mileage. There are standard gas vehicles that get 40mpg on the highway. There are cars in this group that have few materials that are difficult to recycle when their useable life ends, unlike the Lithium batteries in a hybrid. These items alone create a lot of back and forth discussion about which is better.

Lets first cover some raw info:
Basic and popular hybrid -
Prius = average of over 40 mpg $30,000 and up

Basic standard engine -
Fiesta = average of about 40 mpg $14,000 and up
Forte EX = average of 30 mpg $19,000 and up
Mini Cooper = average of 32 mpg $19,500 and up

Basic diesel engine -
Golf TDI = average of 36 mpg $24,000 and up

Clearly the hybrid wins in fuel efficiency. However, how do we measure environmental impact when the construction of the vehicle is so far out of touch for the consumer? Consider this, batteries are toxic waste, all cars have one but is it a small manageable battery with a quality recycle and rebuild program in place? What about the battery material, can it be reused?

Currently, Lithium batteries are the most common in a hybrid and the infrastructure to collect and recycle or rebuild is lacking. However, as they are used more, demand may help create this missing element. At the moment, I call a tie for the hybrid vs high mileage gasoline and diesel. I do not have sufficient evidence to really decide one way or the other. You will need to decide for yourself based on your needs. As long as you are making an effort to consider the environment with the decision, you are making a good one, in my humble opinion.

See the EPA website for more information.