New Cobalt-free Li-ion battery reduces costs with similar design and performance
news.utexas.edu
news.utexas.edu
I just hope that other technologies that are better for longer duration storage don't get overlooked for investment and development on industrial scales.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/09/jeff-dahn-claims-new-po...
I think stationary storage batteries are great, but only for short duration storage (1 day) rather than long duration storage (months).
I am somewhat skeptical that it can work, but flow batteries are still in their industrial infancy, and with the right sort of cheap stuff to add to water this could potentially scale very well for some sources.
I also strongly agree that we will likely build renewable sources to match their output to the seasonal minimum needs, rather than have many TWh of storage, it I have been so wrong in the past that I no longer want to cut off potentially promising avenues.
I see our future as being one of electrical energy abundance at nearly all times, and only a few times a year will there be a crunch to limit consumption; however as we get used to that abundance, conservation could get more difficult, and also people will get far more clever with time arbitrage of energy demand. And once there's a huge market for arbitrage, people will get more clever to serve that economic need, in ways that we have not yet anticipated.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/say-hello-to-th...
The same argument could be applied to solar panels (25 year warranty) or fibre optic cables. But as so many solar panels are required they will be producing them for decades before the market is saturated. Of course after decades the old ones have indeed started dying, so it isn't an issue.
Sure, I can do the math on that.
Gasoline has about 45 MJ/kg[1]. 1 kg of lithium contains 868x10^23 atoms, or 13.9 megacoulombs if each atom donates a single electron. Since a joule is one volt-coulomb, every electron must average out (nominal) to 3.24 volts. Todays li-ion batteries have a nominal voltage of ~3.65 V, and the nominal voltage of li-air batteries are 2.91 V.
The actual voltage of li-air is ~90% lower than the required voltage to reach raw parity with gasoline, which makes sense given that the theoretical limit of li-air batteries is 40.1 MJ/kg (.9 * 45 = 40.5).
Reaching the same power density as gasoline in vehicle engines (=<9 MJ/kg) isn't too bad (very close to 10x best current consumer batteries, closer to weirder chemistries), but parity with the real power of gasoline is a very hard ask. Donating more than one electron per lithium would require some serious re-evaluation of what we know about chemistry. If you only have one electron per atom, you have almost no weight left over for other materials to use to develop a voltage difference with. A battery that exceeds gasoline's full heat energy would need some very exotic materials- either lighter atoms[2], different ways of storing electrons[3], or ways to store energy besides electrons[4].
[1] divide by 5 for a realistic engine efficiency. At that rate, a gallon of gas provides 9.4 kWh- enough to get a Tesla model S over 35 miles.
[2] there are none, besides hydrogen, which itself isn't really helpful. It's not very good for electrochemistry.
[3] preferably, in a different state than me. Electrons hate each other. A 3 Ah battery has 11,000 hateful coulombs in it, each electron within a less than a nanometer of the others around it. That's a 10^9 on top and a 10^-9 on the bottom. Not positive on the math on that but I'm reasonably sure it's in the thousands of megatons. It is rapidly trying to change chemical and then geographical state.
[4] preferably on another planet from me. If you're storing energy with a different force than the electromagnetic force, you're pretty much guaranteed to be doing some real fuckery to subatomic particles, and they are not going to be happy.
So, GP's comment of "develop the tech that seems impossible as the biggininng" (typo included) is the important part. It might be that in the future, because the motors and other moving parts become increasigly efficient (& are already much better than a combustion engine) then less energy is required for the same resulting work. Even more so, the ingenious ways that energy can be 'reharvested' to flow back into the system could in fact allow us to develop something that seems impossible...simply because we're harvesting energy and pouring it into our Lion dependant system better than Gas ever can.
The resulting work is more important than the efficiency. Teslas have exceptionally low air drag, which is great for driving range.
However when you go from 80 to 90% system efficiency, you only increase range by 12%. Once youre at 99%, you really cant improve any more. 99% to 99.5% means the motor outputs half as much heat but goes hardly any farther.
Maybe because the cost of devices have skyrocketed and the battery dont last any longer... And in addition to that, you can no longer replace batteries.
The iphone 11 has a 3110 mAh battery. The iphone 3 had 1220 mAh. I don't even remember the last time my phone died on me unexpectedly.
That is not exactly true. OLED can be very efficient. Not just in Dark Mode, but you need to be aware of those pitfalls and optimise for it. Since in overall package the Display is roughly the same power but you get much better quality.
Not to mention there are at least 3 - 5 years roadmap of technology in the pipeline that makes it even more energy efficient and thinner. ( Thinner equals potential for larger battery )
On top of that processors are faster, applications and sites are hugely more intensive to render, and the hardware (mainly antennas) suck up much more energy.
The ARM11 in the iphone 3 used <1 watt. The A13 in the iphone 11 uses 6 watts.
But of course modern smartphones do a lot more, and I spend lots more time with my smartphone as well.
Batteries aren't a feature to most people.
Also there's lots to be said about the scope of what most 'phones' do these days. The batteries are powering serious computers rather than just phones.
I don't think you're wrong, I just am not entirely clear on what claim you're making. I'll venture based on context that the cost you're talking about is either electrical charge or time, but it's very unclear what benefit you're talking about.
One could equally argue that the fact we don't have a million mile battery already suggests that there may be intractible problems to solve.
Dahn's research is so well respected because he was incredibly good and thorough in measuring tiny amounts of heat and voltage changes in batteries so that you could trace their degradation over a much smaller number of cycles, then try them out at longer scales. Tesla has been funding much of his lab. There are very few people who can do this kind of research outside his lab, and IMO he's a wizard who will end up with a Nobel if he makes a few more big contributions.
The bottom line is that the only way to really tell if a battery will last a year or a decade is to watch it for a year or a decade. No amount of technology lets you forecast the future with perfect accuracy, and battery longevity testing takes time. That's the only reason we don't have a million mile battery.
That would be a good argument if batteries had been stuck for decades at a much lower limit. But the fact is their lifetime has been steadily increasing, and will reach a million miles within a few years at most.
A 1 million mile battery is kinda like fusion. Once it happens there is no going back so I don't think that failing to solve this problem is a blow to EVs.
I don't know whether to believe this, but he has the motive, opportunity, and is definitely present at the crime scene.
I think "free truck" operated to design specifications constitutes cost effective.
There is a prototype cybertruck, and Tesla is about to announce the location for the factory to build them. It will be either Tulsa, OK or just outside of Austin, TX.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adma.2020027...
attempts to mimic the performance of the leading lithium-ion battery cathodes, nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) and nickel-cobalt-aluminium (NCA) by carefully synthesizing the cobalt-free hybrid nickel-manganese-aluminium (NMA) to mimic the crystal structure of NMC and NCA. In all cases, the largest fraction of the cathode is nickel, and cobalt/manganese/aluminium are essentially dopants. The authors note that manganese and aluminium produce opposing effects on the crystal structure of lithium-nickel-cobalt oxides, and go on to say:
>Strikingly, a natural combination of Mn and Al in high-Ni layered oxides, i.e., LiNi 1−x−y Mn x Al y O 2 (NMA; suggested by us earlier [8] ), has not been reported to our knowledge.
It is definitely surprising that the missing "third leg" between NMC and NCA has not received more serious attention, if that is true. Manganese and aluminium are both far more common than cobalt.
Nice try King Leopold II, fool me once...
Uh, what warlords? The huge majority of cobalt goes to china and the slightly smaller majority is directly influenced or controlled by china. This has nothing to do with the DRC, it's because of foreign interference.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2013/06/chinese-minin...
Not to mention that one of the first effects of the liberalization required by the IMF and UN was to cause the state to sell off all its mining equipment and effectively destroy all local non-artisanal mining.
> from the proceeds of their rare-earths
Yeah can you give me any answers to any of these questions:
1. Which rare earth is in batteries?
2. Which rare earth is mined in Congo?
3. Is cobalt a rare earth element?
> oust violent barbaric war-lords?
Maybe update your priors to more recent than a decade ago
Selling the country or its mineral rights is not how to feed the people.
Your comment is abhorrently condescending and shallow. Yes, you have highlighted a historic atrocity and grievance of the region - why is this a reason why the west shouldn't try to help these people? In your mind, are the people of the DRC "beyond" help? That's an awfully charged and deconstructive opinion my friend.
That other people agree with you with downvoting my comment makes me extremely disappointed in the level of discourse here on HN.
It was nice "discoursing" with you :)
To have a conversation you have to get past those labels.
In fairness your discourse made conversation impossible. Reflect and rebound.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_t...
However, it's painfully evident that the UN is incapable of keeping the peace or trying to stabilize the region. In short, I'm trying to start a discussion here as to how nations with some sense of diplomacy and interest in these minerals could mediate in a meaningful way. There simply must be a better way. Not to be blunt, but we need a similarly over-regulated private offering equivalent to the "public" option of german healthcare. Curious if an impact fund of some kind could cooperate with NGO's and the UN? The formation of some kind of demilitarized zone? There has to be a way to improve this situation and prevent more of their own people being killed?
Mostly in order to prevent China from coming in and clearing house like they have in other regions of Africa.
Tú no puedes comprar las nubes Tú no puedes comprar los colores Tú no puedes comprar mi alegría Tú no puedes comprar mis dolores
BTW it reads "you can't buy the wind, sun, rain, ..."
Can you articulate how their lives get better?
I felt the same way when Epstein got arrested. What happened to those poor girls he employed on his private island?
/S
Doubling the size of a AA battery seems cheaper than improving the efficiency?
Phone batteries, car batteries, drone batteries. Maybe commercial airline batteries one day.