Battery Energy Density close to Gasoline finally

[lubricatosaurus]

" Such a high energy density would be comparable to that of gasoline -- " --- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151029152629.htm

It just got interesting. (Great, I just bought a Li-Ion based hybrid too, and its already obsolete.

)

 

[Kawiguy454]

...the typical problem with cramming that much potential energy into a small package is possibility of breakdown and fire.

And I was reading about flying cars in 1982 "Science" magazines being just around the corner.

Gasoline in a steel tank is as simple and old school as it gets. Its just wishful to think electricity will compete on that level.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Kawiguy, it does sound extreme, no doubt.
Gives us reason to hope. They claim to have it down, we'll see.

I remember a few years ago a safety risk analysis of carrying an explosive liquid around in a tank while driving. The analysis basically said we'd never accept the safety risk if gasoline cars were a new thing invented today. Instead, we grandfather the risk in.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
I remember a few years ago a safety risk analysis of carrying an explosive liquid around in a tank while driving. The analysis basically said we'd never accept the safety risk if gasoline cars were a new thing invented today. Instead, we grandfather the risk in.


I've seen that remark before but it's really not true. A liquid fuel that is not atomized is relatively safe compared to a battery that can discharge it's entire energy capacity in a matter of a few seconds.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Kawiguy454
...the typical problem with cramming that much potential energy into a small package is possibility of breakdown and fire.

And I was reading about flying cars in 1982 "Science" magazines being just around the corner.

Gasoline in a steel tank is as simple and old school as it gets. Its just wishful to think electricity will compete on that level.


Quote:
From the article: Other issues that still have to be addressed include finding a way to protect the metal electrode so that it doesn't form spindly lithium metal fibres known as dendrites, which can cause batteries to explode if they grow too much and short-circuit the battery.


I worked for one of the world's largest automobile battery manufacturers back in the late 80s and 90s, and we had mechanical (not chemical) batteries then that equaled the energy density of liquid fuels. The problem then is the same, under a short circuit condition the thing became unbelievably dangerous. Liquid fuels can be safely transported, handled and stored as long as they stay a liquid.

Another thing is that as toxic as gasoline is it doesn't come near the dangers of the energetic materials required for high energy density batteries. Fighting vehicle fires is a lot different when a bunch of batteries are involved.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Quote:
While the results, reported in the journal Science, are promising, the researchers caution that a practical lithium-air battery still remains at least a decade away

 

[MolaKule]

That's good to hear, but the fact remains there will be a need for increased power generation to recharge these batteries.

I still think we need distributed nuclear reactors of the 10 MW to 100 MW capabilities.

 

[A_Harman]

Read the whole article. No value for energy density was quoted. You know the whole thing is just based on a science fair experiment that a university researcher did when they say "successful batteries are 10 years away". That's the same thing as saying never. The big hole in logic in the article was they kept using the term lithium-air, then in the last paragraph, they said that Nitrogen makes the battery electrodes break down. What element makes up 78% of air?

 

[Oldmoparguy1]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
" Such a high energy density would be comparable to that of gasoline -- " --- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151029152629.htm

It just got interesting. (Great, I just bought a Li-Ion based hybrid too, and its already obsolete.

)
"There's still a lot of work to do," said Liu.

You think?

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
That's good to hear, but the fact remains there will be a need for increased power generation to recharge these batteries.

I still think we need distributed nuclear reactors of the 10 MW to 100 MW capabilities.


I wonder where all the electricity will come from to charge up the batteries? Lots of cheering going on without much thinking.

 

[JHZR2]

Metal air batteries always have better densities, especially gravimetric, because they got rid of the mass of an entire electrode.

But make the other one too thick and diffusion/mass transport becomes a big issue, especially at higher rates and low states of charge.

Not much new here to be honest. I've seen my share of claims of improved metal air batteries, but we're not there yet.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I still think we need distributed nuclear reactors of the 10 MW to 100 MW capabilities.

Maybe the electric car purchasers should get off the grid and buy gasoline generators to charge their electric cars, instead.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Metal air batteries always have better densities, especially gravimetric, because they got rid of the mass of an entire electrode.

But make the other one too thick and diffusion/mass transport becomes a big issue, especially at higher rates and low states of charge.

Not much new here to be honest. I've seen my share of claims of improved metal air batteries, but we're not there yet.


You know your advanced batteries. However, you really took the (lithium-)air out of my balloon. :

Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
That's good to hear, but the fact remains there will be a need for increased power generation to recharge these batteries.
I still think we need distributed nuclear reactors of the 10 MW to 100 MW capabilities.
I wonder where all the electricity will come from to charge up the batteries? Lots of cheering going on without much thinking.


Old problem with nuclear is getting them approved to be in somebody's backyard. With modern engineering, I hear they're safe though. Natural gas and coal will have to round it out.
.... at least until I perfect fusion; I'm workin' on it.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
That's good to hear, but the fact remains there will be a need for increased power generation to recharge these batteries.

I still think we need distributed nuclear reactors of the 10 MW to 100 MW capabilities.




Actually expansion is slow enough that this will work in step to balance renewables availability. Reality is that large dispatchable energy storage is necessary to balance the stochastic renewables against fairly sinusoidal loads. So this is a prime way to prevent the renewables from having to be idled.

The tech to do that dispatch is long standing with smart meters and dispatchable air conditioners which have been in use since at least the mid 90s.

 

[DeepFriar]

Quote:

The tech to do that dispatch is long standing with smart meters and dispatchable air conditioners which have been in use since at least the mid 90s.


I tried the interruptable air conditioning in Florida in the late 80's. Call me spoiled but I canceled it after one Summer. It just was off long enough to become uncomfortable and then take time to recover. I often wondered how much the utility could be saving using such a system. Would likely be much more tolerable in a dry rather than the humid environment where I was. Much more workable, in my opinion, are those schemes where individual items can be controlled such as refridgeration, water heaters, pool pumps, etc.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Quote:

The tech to do that dispatch is long standing with smart meters and dispatchable air conditioners which have been in use since at least the mid 90s.


I tried the interruptable air conditioning in Florida in the late 80's. Call me spoiled but I canceled it after one Summer. It just was off long enough to become uncomfortable and then take time to recover. I often wondered how much the utility could be saving using such a system. Would likely be much more tolerable in a dry rather than the humid environment where I was. Much more workable, in my opinion, are those schemes where individual items can be controlled such as refridgeration, water heaters, pool pumps, etc.


In humid Florida I'd imagine it wasn't good. At our beach house it worked just fine.

For cars there would need to be an override for mission critical use, but still, the concept in a different implementation, does exist....

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
.Actually expansion is slow enough that this will work in step to balance renewables availability. Reality is that large dispatchable energy storage is necessary to balance the stochastic renewables against fairly sinusoidal loads. So this is a prime way to prevent the renewables from having to be idled.

The tech to do that dispatch is long standing with smart meters and dispatchable air conditioners which have been in use since at least the mid 90s.


It may not solve the problem of varying wind levels spinning windmills during the day randomly, but at least electric cars plugged in at night across the country would mostly suck on the grid during off-peak hours. Wind power variability is another issue completely, not in this thread.

 

[DeepFriar]

I had the opportunity over the Summer to visit TVA's Raccoon Mountain Pumped Storage Facility which is one clever way to take advantage of our off-hours power while using it as a "battery" if you will, for supplementing during peak periods. Talk about turbines under pressure! In both directions too.

 

[leeharvey418]

To me, the most glaring omission from the press release and article was that there was no mention of recharge rate. It's all well and good to say that you can put 200 kWh worth of battery in a car with no weight penalty, but it's pointless if that battery takes hours to recharge.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
I remember a few years ago a safety risk analysis of carrying an explosive liquid around in a tank while driving. The analysis basically said we'd never accept the safety risk if gasoline cars were a new thing invented today. Instead, we grandfather the risk in.


I've seen that remark before but it's really not true. A liquid fuel that is not atomized is relatively safe compared to a battery that can discharge it's entire energy capacity in a matter of a few seconds.
Hereabouts "electric cars" can now carry a license plate which is supposed to warn safety folks that it's "electric". In point of fact it was just another low number plate scheme.