The internal combustion engine, especially in the private automobile, has been identified as one of the nation's chief sources of air pollution. Unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, ozone, and "photochemical smog" are all largely traceable to this source. Hence, attention has increasingly been directed towards the search for economically and technologically feasible alternatives, especially for urban transportation.
The October announcement of a radically new battery concept by Ford Motor Company followed to be on the heels of a bill, submitted Senator Magnuson of Washington and Representative Ottinger of New York, to authorize the Department of Housing and Urban Development to sponsor research and development—up to $2 million per year for five years—on electric powered autos. The two actions have aroused speculation concerning the prospects of electric vehicles as an answer to increasing urban air pollution. In short order, General Motors let it be known that it, too, had an electric car in its R&D stable, and soon thereafter, the President of the Chrysler Corporation told the American Petroleum Institute that his company was to looking at batteries and fuel cells to supplement rather than replace the combustion engine.
It is only fair to say that none of the companies appeared to think the electric car was around the corner. The mid-seventies or 1980 would be more likely.
Ford called its battery, based on liquid sodium and liquid sulfur with a solid ceramic electrolyte, a "major breakthrough." It may be—although for general use the high temperatures required, of 500° F and higher, present problems in safety, maintenance, and start-up. And General Motors, which has a high-performance, high-temperature, lithium-chlorine battery under development, took observers for a spin around the test track in a compact car powered by zinc-silver batteries, the most energetic and expensive type now commercially available ($15,000 per car). The car, with a trunk loaded with batteries, has a maximum range of forty miles, although a light vehicle designed for lower-speed operation would have done better.
Several other types of rechargeable or refuelable batteries are designed to operate at normal temperatures and are potentially both cheaper and more energetic than the zinc-silver battery. Zinc-air, zinc-oxygen, and lithium-halide batteries are all in advanced engineering development at various laboratories. A refuelable magnesium-air battery developed by General Electric will be used by the US Marine Corps for military purposes within the next few years. Any one of these may prove to be practicable for use in such vehicles as city buses or delivery trucks.
Looking slightly further ahead, there is a possibility of the development within the coming decade of a refuelable lithium-air or lithium-oxygen battery, or possibly a rechargeable version utilizing a non-aqueous electrolyte. As envisaged, its performance (measured in terms of stored energy per unit weight) would be approximately three times better than Ford's projected sodium-sulfur system, five times better than today's lithium-halide batteries, ten times better than current zinc-silver or zinc-air systems, and forty to fifty times better than the best conventional lead acid batteries. High power (for acceleration and hill climbing) could be obtained by combining such a unit with a relatively small nickel-cadmium battery "booster."
A battery with this much energy capacity would not only be attractive for powering trucks, buses, and taxis in an urban environment, but would make possible an electrically powered automobile with roughly the performance and range of today's standard V-8's. Assuming such batteries were leased rather than sold, to permit the recovery of valuable lithium metal ($8 to $10 per pound), the electric car might also prove to be economically competitive.
The battery recharging could probably be done largely at night, thus equalizing the load on electric power generating equipment and reducing overall power costs (per kilowatt-hour). However, a drawback to the average potential customer—as distinguished from fleet-owners—would be the need for recharging equipment capable of providing several times the power normally available to a private dwelling if a full battery recharge is required within, say, one night. Hence the most economical solution may be for batteries to be recharged at central locations (e.g. service stations). If less charging were needed, an overnight "topping off" would still be feasible at home.
Such possibilities may seem far-fetched, but if the recent rate of progress in energy-conversion technology continues (under heavy NASA and Defense Department sponsorships) a high-performance battery such as lithium-air or lithium-oxygen might be available in the laboratory as early as 1970. A decade thereafter might be a conservative estimate for the time required to translate such a development into practical vehicles on the streets.
A version of this article appeared in print in the January 1967 issue of Resources magazine.
