CryoSolplus is made out of water, paraffin, surfactants and a touch of anti-freeze. It was developed by researchers at one of Germany’s Fraunhofer institutes, and it promises significant benefits over both air and water cooling.

Most importantly, the researchers say, it extends the life of electric car batteries. When these batteries can account for as much as half the cost of the vehicle, the importance of better coolants becomes obvious.

“The main problem we had to overcome during development was to make the dispersion [the coolant] stable,” said Tobias Kappels, a scientist at the Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety and Energy Technology.

At the moment, not all electric cars employ cooling, including those where the battery gets swapped out at service stations for charged replacements. But most of those that do tend to use air, which is not very good at absorbing and conducting heat, forcing engineers to leave large spaces between the battery’s cells to allow circulation. Water is better at dealing with heat, but requires a limited supply to be carried around in a tank.

Space-saving

According to the Fraunhofer scientists, the tank can be much smaller with CryoSolplus, as the substance is around three times better than water at absorbing heat. In other words, compared with both air and water, it’s a big space-saver.

The reason it’s better at absorbing heat is the use of paraffin: as the heat comes in, the paraffin droplets melt; as it leaves, the droplets solidify again. This is where the surfactants, or ‘stabilizing tensides’, come in — they stop the paraffin from collecting and clogging up the pipes.

CryoSolplus is still very much in development, so don’t expect it to be cooling your car’s battery just yet. The researchers are still optimizing its heat capacity, heat transfer and flow capabilities, and they’ve not actually conducted field tests in a car yet.

However, the Fraunhofer folks seem adamant that the substance will keep battery temperatures “within an acceptable range even in extreme driving situations.” As a summer drive can push today’s electric car batteries well over the 95 degree (35C) ‘comfort zone’ upper limit, that would mean much longer-lasting batteries than the ones found today.

And in turn, that may mean cheaper and greener electric cars.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Green IT Q1: Cleantech Breaking Out — and Bracing for Hard Times
• California Rules Show Opportunities in EV Charging
• Report: IT and Networking Issues for the Electric Vehicle Market

Part of the reason for the oversupply of EV batteries is simple: The market for electric cars is looking like it’s going to be a lot smaller than predicted, at least in the short term. The crunched market is something battery maker Ener1, which had a deal with electric car maker Think, and Johnson Controls, which has a battery partnership with Saft, have discussed publicly. Johnson Controls is looking to end, or expand, its deal to work on EV batteries with Saft, because it wants to pursue the power grid battery market. And Ener1 cut its losses on its investment and partnership with Think, partly because the EV market was looking slower than expected. Think eventually went bankrupt.

At the same time that the EV market is looking tiny, battery makers have been expanding capacity substantially for making EV batteries and new battery makers have been moving into the EV market. But Lux says even if oil prices jump to $200 per barrel, which could cause the EV market to grow substantially by 2020, five of the leading battery makers — LG Chem, GS Yuasa, SB LiMotive, AESC, and Sanyo — would have enough capacity to manufacture far more than needed to cover that market. That means there will be dozens of battery makers with way too much supply, particularly if gas prices remain low.

In fact, Lux predicts there will be only a few winners in the EV battery market, and some of the ones already ahead include LG Chem, SB LiMotive, and Chinese makers China BAK, China Aviation Lithium Battery (CALB), and BYD. Lux also gives Envia Systems props for its innovative technology and GM backing — there will be room for small, innovative tech developers to do licensing deals and be acquired, says Lux.

On the other hand, Lux says A123 Systems and Ener1 face “an uphill climb” — marking both of them as “caution.” Lux also issued caution takes for International Battery, K2 Energy Solutions, Valence Technology, Leyden Energy, Electrovaya, and gave a “strong caution” to Altair Nanotechnologies (ouch).

There are a few ways for these battery makers to survive the coming market crunch and consolidation. One is to find new partnerships — because the market is so immature, the partnerships that are already in place are relatively tenuous. Another survival method will be to find battery markets outside of pure EVs, like hybrid vehicles, e-bikes, and the power grid.

But there will be a significant amount of losers in the market. As an anonymous president of a battery material company says in the Lux report:

“If someone wants us to build out capacity, what happens if no one use it? If we return to just phones and laptops, then my investors are looking for new management because we’re bankrupt.”

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Opportunities for the future of batteries
• Green IT Q1: Cleantech Breaking Out — and Bracing for Hard Times
• Cleantech third-quarter 2012

Today the MIT Clean Energy Prize has named the 24 semifinalists (hat tip Mass High Tech) who have a shot at winning the grand prize and basking in that spotlight in May. These teams — selected by a panel of judges from academia, industry and government — represent what the contest organizers see as “some of the most promising clean energy technologies and business ideas coming out of universities this year.”  What are the ideas for cleaning up the transportation sector? They range from renewable fuels to bike sharing tech. Here’s a look at the five teams that made the cut in the MIT Clean Energy Prize transportation category.

Agavenol: This team out of Arizona State University envisions using drought-resistant agave plants as a feedstock for ethanol in Southwestern states, “avoiding transportation of feedstock from the Corn Belt states.” The group aims to combine “current agricultural strategies with novel biotechnological research,” in order to improve agave plants and “related processing” as a feedstock. As part of the business model described on its web site, Agavenol offers training in agave planting, growth and harvesting.

Bio-re: Coming out of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Bio-re describes itself as, “Thinking for the future…A future where renewables are the norm.” We’ve reached out to the team for more details on the project.

IRIS Engines: This group, representing Johns Hopkins University, aims to develop a more efficient internal combustion engine that mimics the iris of an eye. By switching up the internal structure in such a way — allowing its diameter to expand and contract – the company says it can build a powerful two-stroke gasoline engine at costs comparable to today’s typical four-stroke engines, with up to twice the efficiency.

ViaCycle: In bicycle-loving Copenhagen, a contest for bike-sharing concepts late last year drew a whopping 127 concepts from five continents. In the MIT Clean Energy Prize, just one group working on tech for this type of mobility-on-demand system (explained in depth on GigaOM Pro, subscription required) made the cut: ViaCycle, out of the Georgia Institute of Technology, which says it has created an “advanced bicycle sharing technology that allows easy deployment of affordable sustainable transportation.”

The ViaCycle team’s system uses GPS to track the bikes and allow administrators to set boundaries on the usage area, and enables users to unlock a bike via text message (rather than having to manually check out a key). According to an article this week in the Chronicle of Higher Education, the team already won a $50,000 grant from Ford and the system is set for deployment at Emory University this year.

Vecarius: This team out of MIT describes itself as “a seed-stage company that seeks to leverage advanced materials, power electronics, energy harvesting, and energy storage technologies to increase the energy efficiency of vehicles.” Cool stuff.

Accenture, which surveyed 1,850 consumers in North America as well as Germany, France and Italy, notes that just over a third of the respondents (36 percent) named higher gas prices as a reason to purchase a greener car. Responses from participants who have driven a hybrid or electric vehicle (EV) suggest today’s green car makers need to step up their game in order to really impress consumers on factors beyond fuel economy.

While I’m generally impatient to see fuel economy improvements with each new generation of vehicles (although how to measure and rate that efficiency is a tricky question for plug-in models), Accenture’s survey respondents who have driven hybrids and EVs were pretty happy with their fuel efficiency. Respondents rated fuel efficiency “very good to excellent.” By contrast, they rated “the ride, performance, style and maintenance as good at best.”

In a market where these models are going up against other mid-range to high-end vehicles, and a time when most consumers (according to today’s survey) want more than a leading fuel economy rating, that may not be good enough for mass market success.

This survey comes as the latest indication of an important role in next-gen green cars for information technology — an area where many automakers are already racing to develop cool services and platforms (To learn more, come check out the panel I’m moderating at our Green:Net conference on April 29 in San Francisco on Connected Cars.)

According to Accenture, however, automakers (original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs) probably won’t be able to beat out the competition going solo. To create vehicles with “distinctive capabilities,” Luca Mentuccia, managing director of Accenture’s Automotive group said in a statement today, both automakers and their suppliers need to start building strategic partnerships.

Image courtesy of D.so’s photostream Flickr Creative Commons.

Related reports on GigaOM Pro (subscription required):

How to Build Better Apps for Electric Vehicles

The App Developer’ Guide to Working with Ford Sync

Announced Thursday afternoon, the web site allows users to compare vehicles based on Global Warming and Smog scores — snapshots of how a car’s fuel consumption, carbon-equivalent emissions and contribution to smog (through production of certain volatile organic compounds) compares to all other vehicles in that model year. By state law, these scores now appear on an Environmental Performance label displayed in the window of cars manufactured since January 2009 and brought to market in California. Now they’re also available online in a ranking system similar to the side-by-side comparison tools offered by the federal FuelEconomy.gov site and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Green Vehicle Guide, but with a couple key differences, including increased emphasis on vehicles’ contribution to climate change (relative to FuelEconomy.gov, at least), more integration of rebate an incentive info and a more slick interface.

California ARB Chairman Mary Nichols described her agency’s new site in a statement as signaling a major shift for consumers. “Until now, decisions about car buying were based solely on what functions the car needed to serve,” she said, as opposed to how “clean” a vehicle is and what rebates, tax breaks and other incentives are available for different models.

One could quibble with the idea that car buying decisions have ever been solely about function (it’s an elite group that can ignore the price tag, many consumers do factor in fuel efficiency, and it’s a rare driver who doesn’t give a hoot about the form of a car). But on my first perusal of the site, DriveClean does seem to provide a valuable service — one that will grow as more data becomes available. “Since this program is new,” DriveClean explains, some cars are still missing Global Warming scores, but that information will be added down the road.

In a nod to the point raised this week by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. — that driving habits affect the cost assessments for different vehicles — DriveClean provides an option to customize fuel consumption, emission and cost estimates according to your location and city vs. highway mileage. If you’ve ever shopped around for a greener vehicle, how did you research and compare your options?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Locating data centers in an energy-constrained world
• Ups and downs for cleantech in Q1
• How a Snapshot of a Green Data Center Can Be Misleading

According to the DOE’s announcement this morning, the $5.5 million for the X Prize Foundation comes from the agency’s pot of stimulus funds, and will help expand education and outreach efforts for the competition nationwide. The DOE also plans to provide technical expertise “to ensure that each of the competition designs is reviewed correctly and consistently.”

This isn’t the first time Washington has gotten giddy over the green car contest, which requires teams to submit a viable business plan for building 10,000 cars. The Senate passed a resolution last year praising the foundation for helping “break the addiction of the United States to oil and stem the effects of climate change.”

The DOE also awarded a nearly $3.5 million grant last year to help with the education and outreach component. At the time, then-Assistant Secretary Andy Karsner called it “one important way the Bush administration is leveraging private sector expertise to educate and engage the public about utilizing clean, cutting-edge technologies to transform our transportation sector.”

The Obama administration’s DOE can use similar language with a bit more cred, having finally doled out funding under a long-delayed green car manufacturing loan program, raised the bar on fuel efficiency for cars, and just handed out some $33 million for cutting-edge green vehicle tech development, among other things. Announcing today’s award, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said, “This funding will support cutting-edge, American innovation that can help us fundamentally transform personal transportation and address the global climate crisis.”

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Ups and downs for cleantech in Q1
• Cleantech: a question of national security
• What the Solyndra case says about the government and cleantech

Acer is reportedly doing just that, says Digitimes, and they’re adding to the growing trend of phone makers who are joining the Android army.

The company’s focus will shift from Windows Mobile to Google’s operating system, with at least half of their 2010 phones running Android. Palm and Motorola have already enlisted at the expense of Windows Mobile, but neither was a particular big player when compared to other WinMo licensees. What I find fascinating about all this is that we’re not hearing phone makers switch to Android from any other platform besides Windows Mobile. That insinuates Android is seen as the future by several handset makers, because they don’t feel that Microsoft’s mobile OS can compete with Apple’s or RIM’s. It leaves them little choice and could set up two or three big mobile platforms owning the market majority.

But Windows Mobile clearly isn’t headed for the morgue just yet. LG is on-board as a recent licensee and plans over 50 handsets running WinMo. Version 6.5 of the operating system hits handsets next week and I’m already taking an early look at it. I can’t say more until next week, so stay tuned. And next year, Windows Mobile 7 offers Microsoft another chance to reinvent itself as a leader in this space. In fact, some analysts are already expecting that to happen — yesterday, iSuppli forecast that by 2012, WinMo will regain the second place worldwide smartphone market share it lost last year. iSuppli bases this on Microsoft as the only player to offer a “complete set of services that can assist clients in their customization and software integration efforts.“

Back in the day, that might have been a strong selling point, but from where I stand, that’s not enough. If it were, would handset makers be jumping on the Android train one by one? Again, we can intelligently debate which OS is best for us, but at the end of the day, you can’t argue there’s a growing trend happening right before our eyes.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How scribbling on an iPad makes your work life easier
• How to deliver the next-generation web experience
• The fourth quarter of 2012 in mobile

Earlier this year, we saw the writing on the wall telling us that net neutrality is important to the current FCC chair. Four open Internet principles were discussed, enabling consumer’s rights to access legal content, applications, and services of their choice. Also included was a provision to attach non-harmful devices to networks — something we’ve heard about, but haven’t seen much of with Verizon’s “Any Apps, Any Device” initiative. Even if we had seen some activity on this front, it’s not enough based on two new principles added today by Chairman Genachowski, with emphasis added by me:

“The first would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management. The second principle would ensure that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement. The Chairman also proposed clarifying that all six principles apply to all platforms that access the Internet.”

That last phrase bears repeating — all six principles apply to all platforms that access the Internet. Although I haven’t kept up with all of the net neutrality nuances, this is the first time I’ve seen explicit broadening to include all web-enabled devices. Obviously, that means traditional mobile device like phones. But it also includes non-phone devices that contain Wi-Fi modules — think of Apple’s iPod Touch and Microsoft’s ZuneHD, for example. All of the newest Blu-Ray players that offer integrated Netflix streaming would apply here. Internet radio devices, web-connected home security systems and cameras with integrated wireless connectivity all fit the bill. The list is practically endless now.

Device categories aside, how would such an initiative affect mobile device users?

• It wouldn’t be easy for wireless broadband carriers to deny certain applications or services in situations where they offer their own competing services. The Slingbox for iPhone client works over 3G outside of the U.S., while residents here can only enjoy it over Wi-Fi, for example. The carrier might be concerned about bandwidth constraints, but it’s no coincidence that they offer their own streaming television service for $15 to $30 a month.
• The market for unlocked phones might open up beyond what it is today. Yes, we have different carriers with different network technologies — CDMA and GSM. And even within the same technologies, carriers use unique frequencies for data today, making it difficult to switch a handset from AT&T to T-Mobile, for example. You can make the switch for voice, but you’ll likely lose your fast 3G web connection. All of this is very different outside of the U.S. where consumers can move their devices among carrier networks far more easily. We still have the frequency issue to deal with of course, but I’m hoping that our national 4G plans offer a sliver of hope towards common frequencies.
• Some of the services we pay for today could be reduced in price or be free. I think loosely about text messaging here, which essentially cost the carriers nothing. They do generally cost the consumer though. Alternative methods to send a message, such as by using Google Voice and the web, could mature and proliferate with competition.
• Legal file sharing and peer-to-peer services could explode. Today, most non-technical consumers don’t even realize that these alternatives exist. That’s partly because they’re not aware of the capability and partly because some of the most efficient methods — like BitTorrent — simply aren’t readily supported on some networks. And by “readily supported,” I mean that torrents are outright blocked. While I don’t expect to see folks seeding large HD movie torrents over wireless broadband, freedom offers possibilities for smaller file shares and various new P2P services.
• Wireless broadband plans might finally drop in price or offer more choices. Today you get choice A or B with most wireless broadband services. Plan A is a minuscule 250MB to 300MB for around $40 a month. Plan B is a much larger 5GB plan for around $60 a month. Which is the “better deal” on paper? Obviously it depends on your wireless demand, but Plan B only costs 50% more yet it offers up to 20 times more supply. So more folks gravitate towards the “better deal” only to pay for 5GB even if they use far less. While the new principles don’t address this aspect — it is, after all, part of the specific business practice of the carriers — it wouldn’t surprise me to see some future aspects tackle this consumer-unfriendly business model.

Want more info on the new proposals that will guide future broadband communications law? Hit up the new http://www.openinternet.gov/ site that just launched. There you’ll find all of the information the FCC is gathering for a more open Internet, can sign up for updates and even join in on the discussion. What’s your take on the new initiatives?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Ups and downs for cleantech in Q1
• Cleantech: a question of national security
• What the Solyndra case says about the government and cleantech

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Ups and downs for cleantech in Q1
• Opportunities for the future of batteries
• Waiting for the EV market to materialize

While Congress moved rather hastily when it implemented the original legislation, as well as when it tripled the budget and carved the extra funds out of a clean energy loan guarantee program, we can still learn from how the program played out. Here are five lessons we see for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, cleaning up the national vehicle fleet and helping boost the market for greener cars.

Green Tint + Stimulus = Fast Pass on Capitol Hill: Help consumers, the environment, an ailing industry, entrepreneurs and the U.S. economy in one fell swoop — that was the basic pitch for cash for clunkers. Add in the fact that legislators were in a hurry to leave for their August vacation, and you have a formula for a very speedy $3 billion trip through Congress.

The problem with this, of course, is that some of the gloss on these supposed benefits doesn’t hold up when you take the time for closer inspection. Some economists have argued that the rebates have condensed vehicle purchases into a narrower time frame, rather than spurring additional sales, and others predict that the hundreds of thousands of consumers opting into the program will now be making car payments instead of buying other goods and services.

It’s the Economics, Stupid: Former President Bill Clinton updated his famous campaign line, “It’s the economy, stupid,” with a cleantech twist this month at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas. He suggested modeling a set of incentives for electric vehicles after cash for clunkers, saying the high level of participation in the program “proves that Americans will bite if you make it economical enough.”

While Clinton didn’t get into specifics, the Obama administration’s efforts to promote greener cars have so far focused mostly at offsetting the sticker price (through a $7,500 tax credit for plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicles, for example.) But that might not be enough to spur a sustainable leap to greener vehicles. For evidence, look to the success of Japan’s more comprehensive approach to boosting hybrids and the results of a new study on Canadian rebates for hybrid buyers. However, making Americans “bite” at plug-in vehicles over the long term might require other regulations affecting vehicle cost, such as fuel prices.

Consumers Are Interested in Fuel Economy Gains, Next Time Set A Higher Bar: The cash for clunkers legislation that passed as part of a military spending bill in June included only modest MPG requirements (the feds would kick in $3,500 towards new vehicles getting as little as 18 MPG, depending on the trade-in), but it beat out a competing proposal that wouldn’t have taken fuel efficiency into account at all in the criteria for trade-in vouchers. As it turned out, many consumers opted to make bigger fuel economy gains than required.

Crunch the Data Before the Program Starts: For a program to reduce carbon emissions and stimulate the economy effectively, you’ve got to take a hard look at the numbers before the program begins. With cash for clunkers, those calculations didn’t come out until the 11th hour of the program. And they didn’t come from Capitol Hill or the Government Accountability Office, but rather a University of California-Davis professor who determined that each ton of carbon dioxide saved through the fuel economy improvements produced via cash for clunkers will end up costing ten times more than the going rate for carbon reductions.

Take What You Can Get, Expand Later: Automakers stepped up production to meet increased demand, and car dealerships made enough deals in the first week of the program that the Obama administration said cash for clunkers would be suspended unless Congress refilled the program’s coffers. For nascent cleantech sectors looking for a boost from Uncle Sam, cash for clunkers shows how putting an early allocation of government funds to work quickly and effectively (by the policy makers’ standards) can help pave the way to additional aid. So sectors or companies hoping for more funding than they’ve gotten so far under the stimulus package or other government programs may see an additional boost if they demonstrate that initial awards have been wisely spent.

Photo credit Flickr user ThreadedThoughts

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Green IT Wrap-up: Q1 2009
• The fourth quarter of 2012 in cleantech
• Cleantech and investment in 2013