hybrid car charge

The benefits of hybrid cars

hybrid vehicle combines energy from a gasoline engine and an electric motor to increase efficiency. Hybrid automobiles increase MPG compared to standard vehicles (50+ for the vehicles addressed in this article), while lowering CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. The benefits of hybrid cars include financial savings even above and beyond the $5000-$6000 in savings on gas (over 5 years) that the cars in this article average. For example, hybrids help to avoid road tolls such as London’s congestion charge. Hybrids typically offer features with advantages over standard cars, such as regenerative braking, electric motor drive/ assist and automatic start/ shutoff.

Regenerative braking refers to energy produced from braking and coasting that’s normally wasted, which is stored in a battery until needed by the motor. During electric motor drive/ assist, the electric motor kicks into gear, providing additional torque for such things as hill climbing, passing or quickly accelerating.  For automatic start/ stop, energy is conserved while idling, as the engine is shut off when the vehicle comes to a stop, and is re-started when the accelerator is pressed.

Whereas a normal hybrid car simply combines an electric motor and a gas engine, a plug-in hybrid can run only on electric power, when charged, and can be recharged without using the gas engine. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV’s) have high capacity batteries, and charge by plugging into the grid, storing enough electricity to significantly reduce gas use.

There are two basic types of plug-in hybrids: extended range electric vehicles and blended plug-in hybrids. Extended range electric vehicles work by having only the electric motor turn the wheels, and can run only on electricity until the gasoline engine is needed to generate electricity to recharge the battery that powers the electric motor (or the gas engine can be eliminated entirely, on short rides). Blended plug-in hybrids work by still having both the gas engine and the electric motor connected to the wheels, both propelling the vehicle most of the time.

Electric vehicles (EV’s) drop the gas engine entirely, becoming much more environmentally friendly. The MPG goes way up, but the cost tends to go up as well, and the driving range goes down. These factors; the MPG, cost and range are tied to how efficient, how much capacity, the battery has. The higher the capacity of the battery, the higher the cost, MPG and range. Although EV’s emit no tailpipe pollutants, it remains important that the source for the energy from the grid that charges the vehicle’s battery remains green (i.e. renewable energy) as well.

Hybrid cars take numerous different forms, including the types mentioned above, and then compete against standard gas cars, flex-fuel vehicles, diesel vehicles, etc… European sales of standard hybrid vehicles have increased, but with roughly half the cars in the EU being more fuel efficient diesel engines, EV’s and plug-ins are the more popular choice. These cars can better compete in the global market, in terms of fuel efficiency.

The global hybrid market is still dominated by Toyota, in particular their Prius line, including the Prius Plug-in. The Prius remains California’s most popular car, as a testament to its global popularity. The Prius gets around 50 MPG, costs $25-30K and has a driving range of 540 miles on a full tank of gas. The plug-in model costs $30-35K and gets 95 MPG running on electricity only or 50 MPG running on both electricity and gas, with a driving range of about 600 miles.

The Tesla Model S and the Nissan Leaf are examples of successful electric vehicles. The Tesla Model S with a 60 kW-hr battery pack gets up to 102 MPG’s, costs around $70K and has a driving range of 208 miles on a fully charged battery. The Nissan Leaf costs $30-35K, can get 80 miles on a full charge and hits 128 MPG’s.

(*All figures are as of 2015.)

nuclear power plant

Nuclear – one necessary energy supply to fight climate change

Nuclear energy is necessary to fight climate change and decrease fossil fuel use. Wind and solar are often distributed energy sources which are always intermittent and variable. Nuclear, however, is continuously available and represents a much more concentrated source of energy than renewables, with a much higher production capacity. Both nuclear and renewable energy’s contribution to energy production on the planet must increase to a combined energy production level which is a little more than what coal alone currently provides.

In order to significantly cut down on the share of fossil fuels in the world energy mix, at least double the production of that which is illustrated in the chart above is needed by 2035. (A total of 40% of the world’s energy mix for renewable and nuclear energies combined is needed to reach significant GHG targets. Only 20+% of renewable and nuclear combined is projected in 20 years – by 2035).

In order for the entire planet to achieve at least 25% greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction by 2025 compared to 2015 levels (a reasonable, yet challenging, GHG reduction goal for the planet), nuclear energy is going to have to augment truly clean, renewable energy in the effort to dramatically reduce fossil fuel use. Once it’s at the operational stage, carbon dioxide emissions from a nuclear reactor and the power plant’s site are minimal. Other than reduction of emissions, nuclear offers, by far, the most energy dense resource available.

Fossil fuels are more energy dense than renewable energy sources, but 1 kg of coal can only keep a light bulb lit for a few days, while the same quantity of a nuclear energy source will keep the same bulb lit for well over 100 years. Nuclear does this without any CO2, or most other GHG, emissions from the nuclear plant.

Current reactors, 1st and 2nd generation plants, rely on water and uranium. Therefore, these nuclear plants still deplete water supplies, create nuclear waste, use a fuel source that can be enriched to convert the material into a bomb, and represent a source of potential danger, as in the Fukushima disaster (although this risk is dramatically minimized in a 3rd generation plant).

A safer, cheaper, and still energy abundant and emissions-free design that uses relatively benign energy sources and relatively much less water than previous designs and operational plants, is being envisioned in 4th generation nuclear, and is currently available in 3rd generation designs.

Using a small fraction of the water as previous designs, the 4th generation nuclear plant designs are safe, cost-effective, environmentally-friendly and still offer tremendous potential for energy production. Molten salt reactors using depleted uranium, nuclear waste from other plants, or thorium, are being designed as 4th generation nuclear plants. 4th generation designs (and many 3rd generation plants, both planned and operational) are autonomous, smart plants that are even being designed to run on different fuel sources.

Thorium, instead of uranium, is being looked at as a fuel source, as it is abundant, much less radioactive than uranium, and also creates by-products from burning the fuel source, that can just be used again in the reactor. Thorium reactors are being designed with low up-front capital costs, and little manpower is needed to run and maintain 4th generation plants, due to the advanced computer technology set to be deployed in the plants.

Thorium, and depleted uranium, have a very low chance of being developed into a nuclear weapons, produce less radioactive waste, are abundant fuel sources, and are safer, cheaper and cleaner.

Thorium, in particular, is being looked at by developing nations like China and India because of the relatively low cost, increased safety, abundance of the material, and tremendous energy potential of this energy source. The U.S. has huge amounts of thorium, in places like Kentucky and Idaho, and there are large quantities in countries like India, Australia and Brazil.

The U.S., Europe and even some of the aforementioned developing countries also have large stockpiles of depleted uranium, with more being produced every day, which would work in many of the 4th generation designs. 3rd generation nuclear plants are already operating, and some 4th generation plants are projected to be developed and ready for operation by 2025. 4th generation nuclear promises to produce abundant, low-cost energy safely, and with little environmental impact.

coal plant

Carbon Cap and Trade: putting a price on carbon

Carbon cap and trade systems are plans in which countries, provinces, states and even cities set regulations (a cap) on the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions industries/ power plants can emit, and then implement an Emissions Trading System (ETS). Companies included in cap and trade systems, often companies that operate power plants, have a limit (cap) on the amount of GHG emissions they can produce that is set by the government. Governments may either “grandfather in” GHG allowances (essentially give away credits based on past GHG production) or auction allowances off. Companies with extra carbon credits because their plants go under the limits can then trade their excess carbon allowances to companies that need to buy carbon credits to avoid going over the limit.

Auctions for carbon permits (one carbon permit is usually = to 1 metric ton of GHG pollution) are an essential part of the carbon cap and trade system, helping to establish a price on carbon, and are  much more effective than the system where credits are just ‘”grandfathered in”. The cost of carbon permits is essentially the price of carbon. As GHG emission credits are auctioned off, a price on carbon is established. Companies can also keep carbon credits for future use in trading or for their own allowances. For companies that run over their GHG emissions limits and don’t cover their allowances, a heavy fine is imposed. Carbon cap and trade systems are designed to lower the cap annually, gradually reducing the allowable limit of GHG pollution for those industries targeted by the cap and trade system.

There are trades that offset GHG emissions; trades for credits with companies that have forestry projects and that are reforesting areas or that limit deforestation, or companies that have livestock projects that incorporate sustainable practices, or companies that invest in clean coal technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) or other carbon sequestration measures. To make cap and trade systems even more effective, there should be more offset credits allowed for trades with companies that implement GHG emission saving and energy efficiency technologies like renewable energy, integrative gasification combined cycle (IGCC), and anaerobic digestion (AD), combined heat and power (cogeneration) (CHP) etc…

For some companies, it might make more financial sense and be more cost-effective to make the effort to reduce emissions through emission saving and energy efficiency technologies and/ or expanded use of renewable energy, and then sell their allowances to companies that are over their GHG limit. However, usually most companies tend to buy carbon allowances if it’s cheaper to buy them than to try to lower emissions. Carbon permits can be invested in by businesses, industries, or even the public in some regions, via a carbon futures market.

Carbon cap and trade systems are in effect in about 40 countries and 25 states/ provinces/ cities globally. The largest market for cap and trade is in the EU with the European Union Emissions Trading System. The EU ETS covers more than 11,000 power plants and industrial stations in over 30 countries, as well as airlines (for flights within Europe until 2016). The primary focus of the EU ETS is to fight climate change by lowering GHG emissions.

The EU ETS remains the largest (and first) international trading organization for trading GHG emission allowances. The EU ETS has successfully put a price on carbon, with its system of trading allowances of GHG emissions, and has also watched GHG emissions fall by a few percent annually since it began in 2005. The cap, or limit, set on GHG emissions will be, on average, over 20% lower on all power plants and industries by 2020 from 2005 levels (when the program started), as the EU continues to make efforts to reduce pollution.  Clean, energy efficient, low-carbon technologies like CCS, IGCC, CHP and AD, as well as renewable energy, have grown in popularity throughout Europe, in part, because of the rising price of carbon resulting from cap and trade programs.

All countries deal with cap and trade differently. Most have cap and trade for industry and power sectors. South Korea has cap and trade for heavy industry, power, waste, transportation and building sectors. China has six provinces testing out cap and trade, and along with South Korea, represents a very large carbon market (with just those 6 provinces China is a large market, the entire country represents the single largest carbon market, by far). The U.K., Ireland, Iceland and the Scandinavian countries Norway, Sweden and Finland have legislated both a carbon tax and cap and trade programs.

The nine state agreement in the U.S. northeast (the Regional Greenhouse Gas InitiativeRGGI) is another major carbon cap and trade trading pact, and is, at least partially, based on the pioneering EU program. These states have auctioned off carbon allowances to industries in RGGI states, and have thereby collected well over $1 billion from carbon cap and trade programs, much of which has been reinvested in energy efficiency, renewable energy and other clean energy programs. Since carbon cap and trade has started in the U.S. northeast, GHG emissions have steadily dropped. Like the EU, this in part due to investment in clean energy technologies, but also because some companies in the U.S. northeast have switched from dirtier fossil fuels like coal to cleaner natural gas generators in power plants, or to renewable energy.

Some carbon cap and trade markets are:




The U.S. Northeast region:



“To comply with the federal Clean Power Plan’s requirements for cutting carbon pollution from power plants, states have several options—including joining RGGI or similar schemes such as California’s cap-and-trade system.” – from: Cap & Trade Shows Its Economic Muscle in the Northeast, $1.3B in 3 Years (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative offers blueprint to all states as they begin to think about how they will comply with Clean Power Plan.) By Naveena Sadasivam, InsideClimate News

The RGGI states and California are ahead of the curve as far as complying with the Clean Power Plan.

California, Quebec:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rosaly-byrd/an-introdu put a quotaction-to-carbon-cap-and-trade_b_6737660.html

Please also see: Carbon Tax – a levy on pollution whose time has come

cap and trade


Combined heat and power

Combined heat and power (cogeneration) – making the most of energy

Combined heat and power (CHP, also known as cogeneration) is the simultaneous production of power (electricity) and heat from: natural gas (dominantly), coal, oil, biomass, biogas and waste heat (recovery), among other sources. Waste heat can be heat from waste incineration, waste heat from power production and/ or industrial/ commercial/ even residential waste heat. Fuel sources vary from project to project, country to country.

For example, in Iceland, the dominant source for CHP is geothermal. Over half the energy use in Iceland, which has the highest energy use (per capita) of any nation in the world, is geothermal, and much of it CHP. This is energy production for electricity and heated water/ steam for fish farms, pools, etc… and also for geothermal district heating and space heating in general.


CHP can be seamlessly integrated in a number of energy technologies. Often, systems are developed exclusively for onsite generation of electrical and/ or mechanical power, in addition to HVAC and water heating. CHP is most often developed with a gas turbine and  a heat recovery unit or a steam boiler with a steam turbine. CHP exists in industrial and commercial buildings, institutional campuses, municipal facilities (district energy systems, wastewater treatment facilities, etc…) and is also implemented for residential properties.

CHP significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 1/3 to ½ or more, and is significantly more efficient, requiring less fuel to produce a given energy output. CHP can produce electricity and thermal energy on site, avoiding the grid and avoiding energy losses that occur via standard transmission and distribution, as well as power outages. The high efficiency inherent in CHP saves consumers money on their utility bills, offering a reliable source of high-quality energy.

From: http://www.greencitytimes.com/


Community Solar

Community solar and net metering – pushing renewable energy forward

Community solar refers to energy generated by a solar farm that is invested in by a relatively small portion of the estimated 85% of residential customers who can’t have solar panels on their rooftops or property due to their roofs being physically unsuitable, because the roof/ property is often in shade by another building or trees, because they are renters, or for some other reason. The solar farms are constructed by individual developers, or a group of investors (the construction can also be done by the utlity itself), in select areas that are suitable for community solar, have a demand for the service, and can range from a few dozen panels to thousands. The customer invests in a few or more of the panels, receives credit for the power they consume at a fixed rate (usually fixed) per kilowatt-hour that is then deducted from their utility (electric) bills.

Net metering, on the other hand, is for residential customers who have PV systems on their rooftop/ property that may generate more electricity than the home uses when the sun’s out. The PV systems are connected to the grid via the owner’s service panel and meter. The owner of the PV system is credited when excess energy is generated than is needed for the home, i.e. times when the meter moves “backwards”. The customer then pays the “net” of the meter moving in both directions – forwards to measure power purchased (when the home demand is greater than the power generated by their PV panels), and backwards when power is returned to the grid. The net consumption is then charged on the utility bill.

Both community solar and net metering encourage power consumption in homes by means of solar energy. Both are great ideas for states in the US (where both of these ideas have found some success), and for countries all over the world. Both represent concepts that enable renewable energy to reach more of the public (illustrated more in the case of community solar) and make solar more desirable (highlighted in the case of net metering). Whether the purpose is to spread clean energy or to reap the financial benefits of the solar boom, both community solar and net metering are undeniably positive ideas.

From: http://www.greencitytimes.com/

Gasification Applications Chart

Gasification – syngas from fossil fuels and environmentally friendly versions

The creation of syngas (or synthetic natural gas) is a technology based on coal gasification for the majority of plants, although it can also be based on biomass or other, fossil, fuels. Since it is also usually based on a nonrenewable fossil fuel, and usually involves the emission of greenhouse gasses like CO2, it can’t be described as a “green” technology. However, when coal gasification is used in conjunction with carbon capture and storage (CCS), or a green technology like integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), or when syngas is created using biomass, the technology is certainly “greener” than burning a fossil fuel. IGCC is a fairly new technology that uses a gasifier in converting coal and biomass into syngas, and has come to be known as “clean coal”. Syngas plants use coal gasification for the most part, but to make the production of syngas greener, use of IGCC or biomass must be implemented.

Lignite, a brownish type of coal, is most often used as a source in the process of creating syngas. Gasification uses the coal, steam and oxygen to create syngas — mostly hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The syngas can then be burned directly to create energy used to generate electricity or heat homes and businesses, convert the syngas into “substitute natural gas”, or can be used to create products including methanol, nitrogen-based fertilizers and hydrogen for oil refining and transportation fuels. Coal gasification is sometimes called “clean coal” because it can create energy with less harm to the environment than traditional fossil fuel use.

A significantly more environmentally friendly version of gasification, other than coal use, is available in biomass. Biomass gasification uses a feedstock as in agricultural residues (like wheat and straw), energy crops (like switchgrass), forestry residues and urban wood waste (for example, from construction sites).

The leading region in the world for syngas production is Asia/ Australia, in particular China. China mostly uses coal for its syngas production, relying on their vast coal deposits, thus still producing significant quantities of greenhouse gas emissions. China is trying to rely more on domestic sources for gas and less on importing liquefied natural gas. A significant number of gasification plants are found in India, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore.

The Africa/ Middle East region also produces a significant quantity of syngas, more than Europe. However, production of syngas in Europe uses a wider selection of feedstocks, technologies and products than other regions. The coal-based units primarily utilize IGCC technologies. There are petroleum, natural gas and biomass plants that produce either power or chemicals. A fairly new plant in Swindon, England illustrates the advancements that European nations are making with gasification. Methanization is used to transform gasified biomass into grid-quality syngas, the biosynthetic natural gas then providing power to the grid.

Most syngas production in North America lies within the United States. These plants include: natural gas facilities that primarily produce chemicals, coal and petroleum plants that produce either power, chemicals and fertilizers or syngas, including a couple of IGCC plants. In Canada, gasification is used to produce hydrogen and power to upgrade synthetic crude oil from the tar sands.

From: http://www.greencitytimes.com

Poplars AD plant

Anaerobic digestion – a proven solution to our waste problem

Anaerobic digestion (AD) can used for farms, businesses and municipalities as a productive solution to a growing waste problem throughout the world. Instead of waste simply ending up in landfills, or being incinerated, waste (and purpose grown crops) could be turned into energy. AD is the process of turning agricultural waste (such as livestock manure), or municipal, commercial and industrial waste streams (such as food processing waste), into energy using micro-organisms to transform waste into a productive material used to create biogas and digestate.

An anaerobic digester generates biogas (or biomethane) which is burned on-site to generate heat, power or both (so, combined heat and power – CHP) or to generate biogas for use as an energy source for the grid (or biomethane used for heat or transportation). Also produced in the process is digestate, which is a source of nutrients that can be used as a fertilizer. Organic waste finds a purpose as it is put in a digester, such as a biomass plant, along with various types of micro-organisms to produce methane, the useful part of biogas. The anaerobic process also occurs naturally, in addition to the man-made construct in a biomass plant.

AD in a biomass plant is a cost-effective way to produce renewable energy. AD also leads to less landfill waste and is a constructive way for farms, businesses and municipalities to dispose of waste. When used for heat or transportation, as biomethane (biomethane can be used in place of diesel, given modifications to the vehicles in question), there are tremendous greenhouse gas reductions.

The entire bus fleet in Oslo, Norway, is run on biomethane from sewage treatment and organic waste, and they see a dramatic (around 70%) reduction in GHG emissions compared to fossil fuel burning vehicles. Food waste and other waste processed through AD also reduces GHG emissions substantially. Energy produced by AD has a very low carbon footprint.


The AD plant at Cannock, Staffordshire, England (called the Poplars AD plant) is an example of a successful, large-scale AD plant. The £24 million project treats commercial and industrial food and waste to create around 6MW of renewable energy for the national grid. The Poplars plant shows that large-scale AD can be successful.

From: http://www.greencitytimes.com

Cellulosic biofuel

Cellulosic biofuel – one fuel option

Ethanol is traditionally made from food crops like corn and sugarcane, but it can also be made from cellulosic feedstocks, non-food crops or inedible waste products. Examples of sources for cellulosic biofuel are crop residues, Miscanthus, switch grass, paper pulp, packaging, cardboard, sawdust, wood chips, rice hulls, corn stover and the byproducts of lawn and tree maintenance.

Technically, almost all plants have the lingocelluloses needed to produce ethanol from cellulosic material. Once glucose is freed from the cellulose using enzymes, fermentation produces ethanol, similar to how ethanol is traditionally produced from 1st generation biofuel sources. Lignin is also produced in the process, which can be burned as a carbon-neutral fuel for local processing plants, businesses and perhaps even homes.

There are tons of cellulose containing raw materials that could be used to produce ethanol that are simply thrown away each year in the U.S. alone. Examples of this are over 100 million dry tons of urban wood wastes and forest residues and over 150 million dry tons of corn stover and wheat straw. That material plus just a fraction of the other paper, wood and plant products that could be used to create ethanol instead of garbage would be enough to make the U.S. independent of foreign oil. This theme is true in other parts of the world as well.

Financial concerns stop cellulosic biofuel from really taking off and providing a consistent source of fuel. This type of ethanol production involves an additional step, the breakdown of the raw material into glucose with enzymes, which translates into a higher cost. However, the raw material is abundant, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from cellulosic biofuel can be up to 90% compared to fossil fuel petroleum, significantly greater than those obtained from traditional 1st generation biofuels. Cellulosic raw material can be easily grown in land marginal for actual agriculture or simply be diverted from landfills, in order to make the production of cellulosic biofuel more cost-effective. Cost-effective processes, such as using inexpensive enzymes to break down the cellulose, are being researched and developed as well.

From: http://www.greencitytimes.com

algae farm

Algae Farms – the Future of Biofuel

Most biofuel in the world today is sourced from 1st generation crops like corn, sugarcane, soybean or other crops from traditional sources. In reality, most current biofuel sources are inadequate to meet rising global demands. In addition, much of current biofuel is derived from food products, needed to address hunger from the global food crisis.

One solution to producing biofuel, especially ethanol, without using crops that are usually designated as food, is to use algae. Algae, especially microalgae, production is becoming more and more economically feasible. This is because of its exceptionally rapid growth rate. Algae grow 20–30 times faster than many food crops, contain up to 30 times more fuel potential (in the form of oil) than soybean or even palm oil, and algae farms can be located anywhere.

One great feature of algae that makes it ideal for biofuel production is that up to 60% of its mass is oil. Another is that algae requires CO2 to grow, so it essentially sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere as it grows. Algae reproduce quickly, needing only sunlight and water, are non-toxic and biodegradable. As algae grows, the oil is harvested for fuel while the remaining green mass by-product can be used in fish and oyster farms.


Algaculture has proven, based on current algae production technologies, that it can provide future global energy needs while being economically viable and sustainable. Algae production also creates useful co-products, such as bio-fertilizers. If the production of these products is made part of the goal of algae farms, biofuel production from algae will become more economically competitive sooner. Algae offers a great source for a more sustainable transportation fuel, but also offers a range of other benefits and co-products, such as carbon sequestration and fertilizer.

From: http://www.greencitytimes.com

next-gen battery

advanced next-gen batteries for 2015 and the future

New battery chemistries that represent a higher energy capacity are being developed in li-ion batteries. Li-ion batteries that can double the capacity of current batteries, last up to 20 years and charge in minutes, often while cutting costs, are being introduced to the market. A few examples of such new technology are li-ion sulphur, li-ion metal, li-ion silicon, li-ion cobalt oxide, li-ion manganese oxide and li-ion phosphate. Batteries based on li-ion solid-state chemistries could revolutionize battery technology for electric vehicles, grid storage and much more.

Other advanced next-gen battery types have varying degrees of research, and are at different levels of marketability. Li-ion batteries remain the most prominent in today’s market. However, sodium-ion batteries represent a much cheaper, more abundant material that could produce a less expensive battery with similar performance to li-ion.

Vanadium flow batteries have high capacity storage, a long lifespan (up to 20 years), can be idle when solar and wind aren’t producing and then discharge instantly. They have the unique ability to charge and discharge simultaneously and to release large amounts of electricity quickly. As they are inexpensive to scale up, vanadium flow batteries represent an opportunity for reliable, affordable large-scale energy storage.

Lithium-vanadium phosphate batteries are a next generation battery solution which shows promise, as they can extend the range of electric cars to compete with gasoline ones. These batteries not only have greater power than batteries found in the latest electric vehicles (such as lithium-manganese oxide), but also greater safety than the batteries found in cell phones and laptops..In addition, recharging lithium-vanadium batteries is faster than batteries currently used in EV’s.

Unlike vanadium flow batteries, which currently supply a great battery alternative, lithium-air batteries mostly theoretically represent a great battery alternative. Lithium-air batteries could triple the range of electric cars and could give electric cars the same range as gasoline ones. However, whereas vanadium flow batteries can charge and discharge repetitively with no problem, lithium-air batteries have been notoriously difficult to re-charge.


New batteries are being made from everything from graphene & silicon, magnesium & zinc, sodium & aluminum, manganese & vanadium – all which show great promise. Advancements in next-gen batteries will help add renewable energy storage to the grid, get used in our cell phones and laptops, and help extend the range of electric cars to compete with gasoline ones.

From: http://www.greencitytimes.com