Researchers Invent Everlasting Battery Material | Hacker News Reader

Researchers Invent Everlasting Battery Material

eweekeurope.co.uk

60 pointspwg18 comments

Here's a bit better article: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/11/wessells-20111124.ht...

This is a very early lab result, loooot can still go wrong from here. However 40k cycles is pretty awesome (side note: "everlasting" is an annoying headline writer hack statement)

Key point: this is not for electric cars, this is for grid storage...

"Much recent research on batteries, including other work done by Cui’s research group, has focused on lithium-ion batteries, which have a high energy density; however, energy density really doesn’t matter for storage on the power grid. Cost is a greater concern."

"We decided we needed to develop a new chemistry if we were going to make low-cost batteries and battery electrodes for the power grid."

—Colin Wessells

> Key point: this is not for electric cars, this is for grid storage...

Yes - and your link is much better on this. The first article seems quite off with insinuations such as 'could the days of the humble lithium ion battery be numbered'... As far as I know one of the main advantages of lithium-ion is their light weight - hence their use in weight-critical devices (phones, cars, etc.). I didn't see anything in either of these links mentioning weight, but I assume a potassium based battery is likely to be much heavier than a lithium-based battery...

Plus it is annoying to hear the Li-Ion chemistry described as "humble". It is more of a stuck up diva. Charge over 90%? Rapid degradation. Discharge under 10%? Rapid degradation. Operate at room temperature? Rapid degradation. Even if you keep the battery at 50% charge inside a fridge it will still rot apart in three years. And this is not even mentioning the extremely fickle charge controllers that can make the cells catch fire. Li-ion batteries also have horrible energy volume (MJ/L) and have been central to planned obsolescence in consumer electronics.

Calling it an 'Everlasting Battery Material' seems a little bit misleading... Even the first paragraph acknowledges that it has a potentially useable life of 30 years as opposed to forever, and as with all batteries, it would depend on how it is used.

People need to be particularly careful about exaggerations particularly when talking about science, because if the public finds out that they exaggerated, even if it was for completely noble purposes, it diminishes the credibility of the field, something we saw in particular in the field of climate change.

I'm actually pretty curious about what causes battery wear at a fundamental level. Presumably, traditional LI batteries are not "leaking" Lithium. So why does their electron-storage-potential decrease with time?

Here is a good, basic description: http://gizmodo.com/5681005/giz-explains-why-batteries-die

Basically, batteries are chemical reactions. Even though the reaction can be run in reverse (to recharge), no reaction is 100% efficient. Charging and discharging corrodes the anode/cathode and alters the structure. This makes them less capable of accepting ions. The electrolytes oxidize and decompose as well.

There is a neat trick where you can zap an old lithium-ion battery with an electric welder, it does something to the old chunky crystals or something like that.

This is with Nicad batteries. DO NOT attempt to zap a lithium ion battery unless you have a blast shield etc.

Ah yes I see now, my bad. It pays to Google first I guess.

I'm getting tired of hearing about breakthroughs in battery tech. We've been hearing about it for years and still nothing has changed with regards to the batteries in my actual gadgets.

It will be interesting to see how they hold up over time. 40,000 cycles at 17 C is only 98 days. Lithium-ion batteries are also rather cycle insensitive, but die in about two years.

"17 C" ? 17 times the speed of light?

Reversing your math it seems you are implying 17 cycles per hour? Why in the world would you charge and discharge a battery 17 times per hour?

I don't even think it's possible to do that - it takes longer than 3.5 minutes to charge a battery.

I suspect that C is "charge rate", but I'm not sure how that interacts with battery lifetime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_charger#Charge_rate

C is the rate that the battery can be discharged (or charged). A rate of 17C suggests the battery can be fully discharged in 1/17 hours. The actual current/power this produces is dependent on the battery itself.

How does this stack up with the other recent development of greater capacity?

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/09/23/better-li...

It would be good to see these if these techniques can be combined to offer better lasting batteries by both definitions (more power, lasts longer vs more cycles, lasts longer).

Whitepaper: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n11/full/ncomms1563....

Besides energy storage, another breakthrough for solar thermal would be better quality, more efficient and less expensive mirrors.

And I quote: "The researchers have not yet built the revolutionary battery itself"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com