[HN Gopher] Argonne: Lithium-Air battery 1200 wh/kg, 1000 cycles
___________________________________________________________________
Argonne: Lithium-Air battery 1200 wh/kg, 1000 cycles
Author : AtlasBarfed
Score : 157 points
Date : 2023-02-23 18:21 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.anl.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.anl.gov)
| Animats wrote:
| Actual paper, paywalled: [1] (Why is this paywalled? It's work
| done by U.S. Government employees and thus cannot be
| copyrighted.)
|
| This is a huge advance if it works. But we've heard this before.
| People have been fooling around with lithium-air batteries since
| the 1970s.
|
| Previous breakthrough announced in 2022: [2]
|
| Previous "breakthrough" announced in 2021: [3]
|
| Another "breakthrough" announced in 2021: [4]
|
| Not clear if this really runs on "air", or whether it needs a
| clean gas mixture. Water vapor has caused problems with previous
| lithium-air systems. That's not a killer problem, though;
| extracting clean oxygen from air is not that hard. Nor is
| removing water.
|
| [1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq1347
|
| [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2022/02/01/how-
| thi...
|
| [3]
| https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210506104801.h...
|
| [4] https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/breakthrough-design-
| offe...
| rsfern wrote:
| Here you go
| https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368171693_A_room_te...
|
| I don't know about Argonne, but at NIST all our papers are
| supposed to have full text up on PubMed within I think a year.
| I try to post to arxiv when I submit to the journal. Ironically
| paywall journals are easier for us from a budget perspective
| because we don't really have dedicated funds for article fees
| like academics get with NSF funding
|
| Edit: I just saw that it's "request full text", which I found
| disappointing
| Animats wrote:
| Right. I've been looking around for the full text, but
| haven't found it.
|
| It's really annoying for papers which could be world changing
| if true. This is either a huge advance or there's some reason
| it won't work in practice.
| rgmerk wrote:
| Commentators thus far seem mainly interested in applications in
| cars, in the event this ever makes it out of the lab.
|
| Frankly, cars are not the big deal here. Existing battery
| technology is good enough for most light vehicle applications,
| and continues to incrementally improve. A lithium-air battery car
| could be even better and would solve most of the edge cases (the
| people who want to tow horse floats across the country at 70mph,
| for instance, or for lightweight electric sports cars).
|
| However, this would be a transformative technology for electric
| aviation.
|
| Delivery drones double or triple their useful range. Air taxis go
| from pushing the limits of structural engineering to being easily
| doable. Short-haul all-electric airliners become plausible.
| geff82 wrote:
| As a private pilot I am SO looking forward to finally be able
| to do away with piston engines and fly electric...
| nlitened wrote:
| Airliners? Just give me a damn iPhone that reliably lasts a
| full day of work.
| squarefoot wrote:
| They could have made it years ago, but in advertising
| dominated by design, being thin wins over battery life any
| day.
| jojobas wrote:
| This is a bit shallow a take. Current batteries may be wrangled
| to provide adequate range to cars, but it comes at a
| significant weight/volume knock-on costs.
|
| A large heavy battery requires increased weights of shielding
| and frame structure, it's almost exponential. Tesla 3 battery
| weighs more than its max payload.
| pengaru wrote:
| > For over a decade, scientists at Argonne and elsewhere have
| been working overtime to develop a lithium battery that makes use
| of the oxygen in air
|
| If only we could have EV batteries instead make use of CO2 in the
| air...
| scythe wrote:
| >With further development, we expect our new design for the
| lithium-air battery to also reach a record energy density of 1200
| watt-hours per kilogram
|
| "With further development". Somewhat misleading title. From the
| published paper:
|
| >The results shown in fig. S9 indicate that this solid-state Li-
| air battery cell can work up to a capacity of ~10.4 mAh/cm2,
| resulting in a specific energy of ~685 Wh/kgcell.
|
| https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq1347
|
| Still impressive, but not 1200 Wh/kg!
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| If commercialized in similar stats, a million mile lifetime
| battery in a Tesla Model S:
|
| 250 kilowatt hour battery ~ 1000 mile range battery would weight
| 208 pounds, although pack would probably be more than raw cell
| weight, let's say 250 pounds. Current Tesla model S is a 1100
| pound pack.
|
| Because you are chopping off almost 1000 pounds in pack weight,
| the car would go even further than current tesla effeciency
| because of the BEV "rocket equation".
|
| The battery uses oxygen from the air, not purified oxygen unlike
| others. It is a solid battery design as well, so it should be
| compact. Materials are claimed to be common.
|
| Of course it can be hard to tell the path to commercialization.
| Usually research cells are very small, a far cry from BEV / grid
| and other commercial scale cells.
|
| Five years ago they were at 750 cycles
| (https://today.uic.edu/new-design-produces-true-lithium-
| air-b...), unreported density.
| java-man wrote:
| Are there any poisoning effects from gases present in the air,
| like water vapor?
| chongli wrote:
| The air intake could have filters, dehumidification, and
| drying via desiccant. I can't imagine they would just run
| plain atmospheric air with all its pollutants through such a
| high efficiency, high energy battery.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| The material resulting from discharge (Li2O) is _very_
| stable. Water (or LiOH) would break down before it on the
| charging process. There isn 't a lot of stuff on the air that
| could contaminate it.
| ttul wrote:
| Assuming a human can carry 20kg with relative ease (say, in a
| backpack or strapped to a bike), this new battery allows one to
| carry around 24kWh - enough to run a North American house for
| several hours. Or to drive an e-bike for 1,000 miles... Really
| stretches the imagination.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Or they could carry about 2 liters of kerosene.
| ttul wrote:
| Kerosene contains 10 kWh of potential energy per liter (about
| 800g). So yes you'd need 3kg of kerosene to provide 24kWh of
| energy. But that is heat energy.
|
| An efficient gasoline generator produces 1.7kWh per liter. So
| for 24kWh, you'd need to consume 14L of gasoline and also
| carry around the generator. I would personally prefer the
| battery option.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _An efficient gasoline generator_
|
| And how much does it weigh?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| The smallest one I can easily find is 10kg.
| rini17 wrote:
| Plus a machinery to convert it to electricity :)
| [deleted]
| riazrizvi wrote:
| Perhaps convert an old lawnmower and power drill to power
| one's desktop PC? Simple and perfectly safe/convenient with
| additional respirator and ear defenders.
| nielsbot wrote:
| Cue this old Nissan Leaf ad: gas powered everything
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn__9hLJKAk
| whitexn--g28h wrote:
| Wow 11 years ago. i switched to an electric car recently
| and still frequently smell exhaust fumes from cars that
| are running rich or burning motor oil. I might be alive
| to see the end of internal combustion engines in cities
| which seems inevitable now.
| screwturner68 wrote:
| Living in a urban area I can see the end of the ICE in
| the next 10-15 years. The game changer in my opinion is
| the ebike, if we can get just a slight shift in thinking,
| eg taking the ebike to the gym or store instead of
| driving an ICE car doesn't stand a chance in the city.
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| It's odd to think about the danger of such concentrated energy
| sources. Right now I'd treat a couple gallons of kerosene with
| way more respect than a battery. But if this battery tech was
| deployed, it could be more dangerous than liquid fuels in
| certain ways.
| Animats wrote:
| > Right now I'd treat a couple gallons of kerosene with way
| more respect than a battery.
|
| Lithium-ion batteries are far worse than kerosene as a
| hazard. New York City has a big and growing problem with
| people charging scooter-sized electric vehicles in
| apartments.[1]
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/nyregion/lithium-ion-
| batt...
| frankus wrote:
| It largely depends on how easy it is to get the energy out
| all at once.
|
| A stick of butter represents about 1kWh of chemical energy,
| and a 2000kg vehicle at 225 km/hr represents about 1kWh of
| kinetic energy. The latter is intuitively more dangerous
| because the energy could easily be transferred (to e.g. a
| person standing in its path) in an instant.
|
| Heck the specific energy of any given piece of matter is c
| squared, but we don't (as of yet) know how to get it out
| except under a few very special circumstances :)
| michaelteter wrote:
| > Assuming a human can carry 20kg
|
| 20 pounds maybe... but 20kg (44lb) would be a serious effort
| for most people.
| d3ckard wrote:
| My kid weights 14kg and my 60 kg wife can still pick him up
| and walk with him. 20 kg with a good backpack is achievable
| to pretty much everyone.
| michaelteter wrote:
| Yes it's possible, but it's not something the average
| person can do for very long.
|
| I can squat 1.5X my own weight, but I still get pretty
| tired carrying a mere 12kg backpack through a long airport
| walk. Sure you can build up to carrying 20kg all the time,
| but it's not normal for most people in the world. And it
| would not be accepted as reasonable by the people in the
| world who could afford it.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| The key is a good pack like that used for hiking with a
| proper frame and a large padded belt, not a normal school
| type backpack that you carry just on your shoulders
| (often just slung over one shoulder). The proper pack
| setup loads your muscles more like squatting. The
| difference is pretty striking. I think 20kg is
| appropriate in that instance.
|
| (Normal guideline is hike pack should not be more than a
| third your body weight to avoid injury, which for the
| average American male would be 60 pounds and the average
| American female would be 50 pounds... there's enough
| margin so that even if you're talking just those in a
| healthy BMI of like 23, there's enough for a 44 pound
| pack for the average height American male and female.)
| brianwawok wrote:
| You need a good framed backpack. Not all backpacks are
| the same.
| ben7799 wrote:
| Soldiers are routinely expected to carry far more than
| this. They may be carrying it in a more effective pack
| and/or distributed over more of their body.
|
| Quick google search indicates plenty of US Troops were
| hauling 90+ pounds of gear around in Iraq and Afghanistan
| due to need to carry a pack + body armor + weapons.
|
| I'm no soldier but I have certainly hiked with a 50lb
| load in a good internal frame pack.
|
| And in any case the eBike example was listed. 50lb is not
| a very heavy load on a bicycle at all. But a battery like
| this would be better used to make an eBike much lighter.
| Today they are comically heavy in ways that creates all
| kinds of extra problems.
|
| If you make the battery 1/4 of the weight of a current
| eBike with a 100 mile range all of a sudden you don't
| have to supersize everything on the bike and make it
| heavy, hard to handle, and un-aerodynamic. It would make
| the whole bike's performance improve even more.
| schainks wrote:
| Are you a parent?
| kzrdude wrote:
| 20 kg is heavy, but I've gone hiking for days with a 16 kg
| backpack and I'm not very big. Stronger people than me carry
| more, and those with better skills for ultralight packing
| carry less.
|
| I think that you are right, it is serious effort, but you can
| carry 20 kg for a full day if you need to.
| malchow wrote:
| Enovix is already at 1,500 cycles w/ 88% capacity retention at
| *889 wh/L per core* (figure ignores packaging, like the Argonne
| figure) at 6C CCCV charge - 1C discharge.
|
| And that is a commercially relevant sized cell that is being
| produced at Fab1 in Fremont.
|
| https://ir.enovix.com/static-files/667425e2-44ef-4ab0-978b-9...
| Retric wrote:
| Volumetric density isn't the issue, for many applications
| weight per kWh is simply too high.
| somewhat_drunk wrote:
| This transition can't happen soon enough, imo.
| mdkdog wrote:
| I'm not holding my breath. I've seen too many "breakthrough's" in
| the lasts 10 years but nothing in the market
| dividuum wrote:
| Can't wait for that Tesa battery ;-)
| dd36 wrote:
| Yep, nothing has happened in the market for the last ten
| years...
| mrb wrote:
| In the last 10 years, the EV market has grown 50-fold from $10
| to $500 billion in revenue.
| multiplegeorges wrote:
| Since this is being developed at a National Lab, do the findings
| automatically enter the public domain for commercialization, or
| can the government license the tech and reap the rewards for
| citizens?
| nvrspyx wrote:
| IANAL, but it appears the default is the former.
|
| > Licenses to practice inventions covered by patents and
| pending patent applications owned by the U.S. Government as
| represented by this Department will generally be royalty free,
| revocable and nonexclusive. They will normally be issued to all
| applicants and will generally contain no limitations or
| standards relating to the quality or testing of the products to
| be manufactured, sold, or distributed thereunder.
|
| But...
|
| > Where it appears however that the public interest will be
| served under the circumstances of the particular case by
| licenses which impose conditions, such as those relating to
| quality or testing of products, requirement of payment of
| royalties to the Government, etc., or by the issuance of
| limited exclusive licenses by the Secretary after notice and
| opportunity for hearing thereon, such licenses may be issued.
|
| In other words, if it would be in the public interest to impose
| royalties, exclusivity, or conditions of use, the Government
| can do so. In this case since it's a high energy density
| battery, I suppose an argument could easily be made that it
| would be in the public interest for the government to impose
| conditions related to quality and testing.
|
| Source:
| https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-A/part-6/sect...
|
| ---
|
| EDIT: With all of that said, it appears that patents related to
| this project, such as [1], have UChicago Argonne LLC as the
| applicant and not a US government agency, so the above might
| not even be applicable in this case. But, again, IANAL.
|
| 1: https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-
| public/print/downloa...
| londons_explore wrote:
| Those kind of rules infuriate me... Some politicians friend
| will manage to argue that it's in the public interest to
| grant an exclusive license in return for commercializing the
| tech. They would argue that without being granted
| exclusivity, nobody will commercialize it. Then one company
| gets to reap all the profits of government work.
| smeeth wrote:
| National Labs usually patent tech like this. Sometimes they
| open-source, usually at the discretion of the researcher and
| funding entity. If patented, they either:
|
| 1. Commercially license to one or more corporate entities
|
| 2. Spin up a start up and license it themselves
| qqqqqqqqqqqq111 wrote:
| This is hazily remembering a presentation when I worked at ANL
| 5 years ago, but commercializable products are owned 1/3 by the
| govt 1/3 by ANL and 1/3 by the team that worked on it.
|
| So I'd guess they will patent this and that's who will get the
| money when they do something commercial (make or license).
| wg0 wrote:
| VR, Self driving cars, Quantum computers, fusion and efficient,
| durable, high density batteries - always a decade away.
| throw93 wrote:
| This is awesome. I hope people realize this came out of public
| funding and not made by a corp. Although eventually some corp
| will make a minor tweak to this and copyright the hell out of it.
| Really excited to see this in a car soon!
| Moissanite wrote:
| > Although eventually some corp will make a minor tweak to this
| and copyright the hell out of it
|
| Patent rather than copyright, but you are most likely correct -
| in fact I fully expect at least one company already has a
| patent which might arguably be infringed by this work,
| regardless of whether that company has ever made an actual
| working battery, or really done any meaningful research
| whatsoever. Such is the insanity of the patent system.
| causi wrote:
| Anytime you see a "battery breakthrough" article, a way to save
| yourself some time is just to check if they've patented it. If
| they haven't, they have zero expectation that it has commercial
| potential.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| https://patents.justia.com/inventor/michael-m-thackeray
|
| It seems there are a few ...
|
| In related news, Michael Thackeray also now is a fellow of the
| Royal Society: https://www.anl.gov/article/michael-thackeray-
| named-fellow-o...
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Does the federal government hold patents? This is from a DoE
| national laboratory, not a university.
| causi wrote:
| Yes they do. Generally they license them for free, though.
| zamnos wrote:
| They do, and in fact, the federal government even has a
| special exception for patents. They (think: the NSA) can file
| a patent, and if the public files a similar enough patent,
| then the older, government one is revealed.
| mabbo wrote:
| There are so many different metrics that are important in a
| battery. wh/kg is a key one, definitely, but the standard Lithium
| Ion battery meets a bunch of important ones.
|
| What's the wh/volume? Maybe it's light but it's huge?
|
| What's the charging rate? Maybe it holds power well, but takes 3
| days to recharge?
|
| What's the discharge rate? Maybe it hold power well, but can't
| release it quickly?
|
| What's the cost per wh to produce? It's a research thing right
| now, so probably it's incredibly expensive- but that always is
| the case with new stuff.
|
| This is the hard part with any new battery announcement. They
| always yell about how this new battery tech wins at one metric,
| while quietly not mentioning that there's a lot more where the
| Li-ion wins out overall.
| scythe wrote:
| I have access to the paper. First, the actual measured capacity
| is 685 Wh/kg, not 1200; the researchers stated they hope to
| reach the latter figure with further development. In order:
|
| - Wh/L is 619, so the battery just barely floats. The absence
| of a dense metal oxide cathode probably makes it lighter than
| the usual lithium battery cell (which have s.g. ~2).
|
| - Charging rate is given as 1 A/g for a 1 Ah/g electrode, so
| these numbers were measured with a 1-hour charge time. Data for
| higher charge rates is buried in the Supporting Information
| (which may be public?)
|
| - Discharge rate is the same.
|
| - Cost to produce is unclear. The electrolyte contains about
| 1-2% germanium (5 wt% of Li10GeP2S2), and the cathode contains
| molybdenum. It is difficult to give the Mo concentration with
| certainty because the specific area of the cathode is given as
| "250 g/m^2" but it should be as "m^2/g". Assuming a simple
| typo, the cathode contains 25 mg of Mo per cubic centimeter,
| which is sometimes written "2.5% w/v". These are rare elements,
| but the concentrations are rather low. The use of toxic
| sulfides (H2S risk) may increase production costs.
|
| Coulombic efficiency, which you didn't ask for, starts at 93%
| and drops to 88% after 1000 cycles, so pretty good but a little
| lower than you expect from a typical lithium battery.
| amluto wrote:
| Wh/kg is an insufficient metric for air batteries. One needs
| Wh/kg at full charge and separately or full discharge, or
| kg/Wh charged and additional kg/Wh per unit Wh discharged, or
| something along those lines.
|
| (kg/Ah discharged could be used to estimate electrons per
| oxygen atom absorbed, too.)
| keanebean86 wrote:
| > 1 A/g for a 1 Ah/g
|
| How does that compare to other batteries?
| MisterPea wrote:
| Wait what?? What's the catch, 1200wh/kg is insane.
|
| Putting the same weight of this into a Tesla Model Y would easily
| give over 1200 miles of range
| nagisa wrote:
| Volumetric density matters too.
| ajross wrote:
| For consumer electronics, absolutely. Not so much for cars. A
| Tesla battery pack is a big sheet just 3" thick. You could
| double that easily without significant effect on the layout
| or design of the body.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Very long cars are going to make a comeback. Parking lots
| will never be the same again! Wonder how well the batteries
| tolerate deformation and if they could be molded into crumble
| zones.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > Very long cars are going to make a comeback.
|
| Not in Europe, a lot of US cars already wouldn't fit in EU
| parking spots (most are 5mx2.3m)
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Parking spaces in US cities can get smaller the closer
| you get to the central business district. Eventually
| they're marked as 'Compact' so hopefully only those in
| compact cars will attempt to use them. If Lithium-Air
| batteries enabled widespread adoption of EVs over ICE
| vehicles, but at the cost of requiring longer vehicles,
| would enlarging parking spaces be an acceptable cost?
| pmontra wrote:
| They might park over the lines of outdoor parking slots
| but they won't fit into single car garages.
| sebnukem2 wrote:
| People driving oversized cars from US in EU have no
| qualms about taking 2 parking spots.
| [deleted]
| BaseballPhysics wrote:
| Probably the same catch as any major battery news: going from
| lab to actual real-life production is a long journey, and it's
| as yet unclear if the manufacture can be scaled up and if it
| can work in real-life applications.
| blake1 wrote:
| The stats are not crazy for an air battery.
|
| But the catch is two-fold. First, are they weighing the battery
| before or after discharging? Oxidizing will change the weight
| significantly. The most honest result would be the average
| weight during the cycle.
|
| The other catch with these air batteries is usually the purity
| requirements on the intake. I recall reading about earlier
| experiments that could not tolerate pollen, dust, and smog, and
| required an energy intensive purification step (maybe involving
| cryogenics) that was a nontrivial power draw.
|
| Those caveats aside, a back of the envelope estimate for the
| energy density would be something like 600-700 Wh/kg.
| _hypx wrote:
| The other issue is that metal-air batteries go by another
| name: fuel cells. You are power-gated by how much oxygen you
| can deliver to the battery. As a result, metal-air
| batteries/fuel cells are either very slow to discharge, or
| have big air pumps to have decent performance.
|
| And of course, they will release oxygen if you try to charge
| them, which implies a way of rapidly expelling air when
| charging up quickly. Many past attempts avoid this problem by
| "mechanically" charge up the battery, meaning literally
| swapping out the spent chemicals with new ones. This of
| course require an auxiliary battery if you want regenerative
| braking or the ability to electrically charge.
|
| And of course, the real catch is that we've already invented
| the metal-air battery in a practical way: hydrogen fuel
| cells. The big advantage with them is that mechanically
| recharging is very straightforward compared to other
| mechanisms. All other attempts are basically reinventing the
| wheel or have a very specific niche in mind.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| > a back of the envelope estimate for the energy density
| would be something like 600-700 Wh/kg.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=current+tesla+battery+energy.
| .. says Tesla batteries are currently in the range of
| 270-290Wh/kg
|
| Is that accurate to you?
|
| As in this is roughly at least twice as good as current
| technology? Seems too good to be true. When can we expect to
| see it hit consumer cars? 5 years? 10 years?
| aquarium87 wrote:
| Except tesla is expecting and has been achieving 10%
| density increases in the last few years. Do this for 8
| years, and you get double, same as the new battery tech
| that's gonna take 10 years.
|
| 1st gen: 276 Wh/kg (2022)
|
| 2nd gen: 305 Wh/kg (2023)
|
| 3rd gen: 333 Wh/kg (2024)[1]
|
| Here is a cool article on all the tech that is scheduled or
| went into these new 4680 batteries and getting the energy
| density up well past 300.
|
| https://cleantechnica.com/2020/09/22/everything-you-need-
| to-...
|
| [1]https://insideevs.com/news/598656/tesla-4680-battery-
| cell-sp...
| redox99 wrote:
| Your info is out of date. The 4680 actually ended up
| being 244Wh/kg[1], which is lower than the Panasonic 2170
| at 269 Wh/kg that they were already using.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XOHetABrag
| Escapado wrote:
| The catch is that this is a tiny lab prototype, where the
| energy density is projected and I could not find it in the
| paper that the cycling was in fact tested for 1000 times and
| even though the starting materials are cheap the article is
| very light on details about mass manufacturing larger cells. I
| don't want to take away from the research and think it's super
| cool and hope it scales well to mass production but it's
| usually a long road from lab prototype to Tesla level
| production facilities.
| mhb wrote:
| > I could not find it in the paper that the cycling was in
| fact tested for 1000 times
|
| _The team established that this shortcoming is not the case
| for their new battery design by building and operating a test
| cell for 1000 cycles, demonstrating its stability over
| repeated charge and discharge._
| cosmotic wrote:
| > long road
|
| But how long? Longer than 300 miles?
| jackmott42 wrote:
| Almost all inventions you hear about in the lab phase like
| this NEVER make it to production.
|
| But sometimes they do.
| boringg wrote:
| Argonne got NMC to market. I wouldn't discount Argonne.
| rhodin wrote:
| If interested in battery technology and Argonne I'd
| recommend this book: "The Powerhouse: America, China, and
| the Great Battery War" [0]
|
| [0] https://www.amazon.com/Powerhouse-America-China-
| Great-Batter...
| moreati wrote:
| For anyone else curious, NMC is probably https://en.wikip
| edia.org/wiki/Lithium_nickel_manganese_cobal...
|
| > Lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxides (abbreviated Li-
| NMC, LNMC, or NMC) are mixed metal oxides of lithium,
| nickel, manganese and cobalt. They have the general
| formula LiNixMnyCozO2. ... NMCs are among the most
| important storage materials for lithium ions in lithium
| ion batteries. They are used on the positive side, which
| acts as the cathode during discharge.
| isk517 wrote:
| To quote Terry Pratchett:
|
| 99 out of every 100 ideas they come up with are complete
| rubbish, but the 100th tends to be an absolute humdinger.
| swayvil wrote:
| Take a commonly held opinion. Something that all the
| smart people hold to be true.
|
| Frame it wisely and wittily enough for fast food. Feed it
| back to those smart people.
|
| That's Terry.
| nindalf wrote:
| Take someone who's achieved something. Someone widely
| admired.
|
| Shit on them. Imply there was nothing impressive about
| what they did and it wasn't worth doing.
|
| That's HN.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _That 's HN_
|
| As opposed to the miracle of selection elsewhere. /S
| perlgeek wrote:
| Most of these inventions don't live up to their initial
| hype, but some do find a niche (for example cell
| chemistry optimized for large temperature ranges,
| optimized for certain safety features, longevity over
| charge density etc.), and ideas from some of them find
| their way into mainstream batteries after a decade or
| two.
|
| It basically never happens that a new cell chemistry
| becomes the market leader in all areas, but all in all,
| batteries to get better and cheaper at a remarkable rate.
| gswdh wrote:
| [dead]
| dotancohen wrote:
| 1000 cycles is about three years of use. I personally charge my
| EV every night, it's better to form a habit of plugging it in
| every night than to forget to check it and not have enough
| energy in the morning.
| jve wrote:
| Discharging/Charging 10% 10 times is 1 cycle.
| https://www.apple.com/batteries/why-lithium-ion/
| woobar wrote:
| Just checked a relatively new iPhone that is 132 days old.
| I charge it nightly, even though it hardly goes below 50%.
| In fact, battery stats for last 10 says that it used on
| average 40% battery per day, and it is pretty typical usage
| for me. It has 111 charging cycles.
|
| Something doesn't add up.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| no, 1000 cycles doesn't mean 1000 charging events will end
| it. 1000 cycles from 100 to 0% will end it, and if its like
| current batteries, you get more than say, 10X as many cycles
| when you only use 10% of the battery per cycle
| andruby wrote:
| In addition to what you said, after the rated cycles most
| Lithium batteries still work and can still hold 70~80% of
| their original capacity.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Once charging/discharge times come down, trickery can be
| used to turn 1000 into 10,000 cycles easily. If you can
| charge fast, you can isolate cells alto charge/discharge
| them individually, only jumping to other cells once the
| first is full. Essentially, it's wear leveling of batteries
| as done with flash memory. At the moment individual cells
| cannot charge/discharge fast enough to fully enable this.
| winter_blue wrote:
| The Model Y battery is 771 kg. At 1200 Wh/kg, we're looking at
| 925 kWh. That's 12 times the current battery (76 kWh). So range
| would be ~500 km x 12 = 6,000 km.
| [deleted]
| jackmott42 wrote:
| parameters that are important:
|
| 1. how fast can you charge it
|
| 2. how much power can it output?
|
| 3. how long does it last time wise, not just cycle wise
|
| 4. how much does it cost
|
| 5. how much space does it take up
|
| 6. what temperature ranges can it handle?
|
| 7. can it handle vibrations
|
| just a few
| boringg wrote:
| doest is suffer from thermal runaway etc.
|
| All these parameters do is help determine its best possible
| use-case for product and if it something to compete against
| incumbents or open up other market possibilities.
| kibwen wrote:
| _> thermal runaway etc_
|
| From the article: _" The main new component in this
| lithium-air battery is a solid electrolyte instead of the
| usual liquid variety. Batteries with solid electrolytes are
| not subject to the safety issue with the liquid
| electrolytes used in lithium-ion and other battery types,
| which can overheat and catch fire."_
| [deleted]
| credit_guy wrote:
| Maybe one catch is that the weight of the discharged battery is
| much higher than the weight of the fully charged one. So, as
| you travel, the battery becomes heavier and heavier
|
| > This new solid enables chemical reactions that produce
| lithium oxide (Li2O) on discharge.
|
| Lithium has an atomic mass of 7 and Oxygen of 16. The reaction
| starts with only Lithium (2 atoms = 14 mass) and ends with
| Li2O, with a mass of 30.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| you could start out 4 times lighter than a modern battery
| pack and end up only 2 times lighter when discharged..
|
| that would be fine!
| frankus wrote:
| This could make things interesting for aircraft, where
| currently they get considerably lighter as they reach the end
| of their flight.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| > Maybe one catch is that the weight of the discharged
| battery is much higher than the weight of the fully charged
| one.
|
| That would add an interesting dynamic during a race!
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Most of the weight of the battery isn't lithium, so the
| effect isn't as bad as you might think.
| joezydeco wrote:
| 1200 miles, but takes 3 days to fully charge.
| thangalin wrote:
| Let's go metric with 2000 km. The 2021 Kona EV has a range of
| about 500 km. The level 2 charger at my house takes 9 hours
| to recharge from empty (i.e., overnight). That's 1.5 days to
| fully charge a battery offering a 2000 km range, in theory,
| which is half your estimate. A DC fast charger can recharge
| 400 km in 50 minutes (80% capacity), equivalent to 4 hours
| for 2000 km. Meaning those batteries will probably take
| closer to 5 hours to fully recharge when using the fastest
| chargers available today.
| joezydeco wrote:
| The article makes no mention of charging time, which would
| lead me to believe it's barely identical and most likely
| worse than current rates.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| A Jackery Explorer model 240 weighs 3Kg, a model 500 6Kg, a model
| 1000 10Kg.
|
| This promises a jump of an order of magnitude (base 10)...
| dvh wrote:
| 18650 battery weighting 45 grams would have 54Wh while typical
| 18650 now have around 10Wh
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| These are lithium-air batteries, meaning you cannot construct
| them into normal, cylindrical batteries as they need air intake
| (and exhaust when charging).
| timerol wrote:
| > "The chemical reaction for lithium superoxide or peroxide only
| involves one or two electrons stored per oxygen molecule, whereas
| that for lithium oxide involves four electrons," said Argonne
| chemist Rachid Amine. More electrons stored means higher energy
| density.
|
| I find it odd and surprising that the limiting factor is
| electrons per oxygen, not electrons per lithium. Oxygen is freely
| floating in the air, while lithium is in a fixed amount in the
| battery. Possibly something about the electrode makes it store a
| limited quantity of oxygen.
| jacknews wrote:
| Most of the energy from burning fuel comes from the oxygen, not
| the fuel:
|
| https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00333
| melony wrote:
| Nominative determinism strikes again!
| jmartrican wrote:
| About time Argonne starts pulling it weight. Its been Livermore
| National Laboratory showing up in my news feeds.
|
| Any downsides to this air battery that wasn't mentioned in the
| article?
| Iv wrote:
| "With further development, we expect"
|
| These are the downsides. These are promises. Not actual
| performances.
| sebnukem2 wrote:
| From the article, now, this air battery is only vapor.
| throitallaway wrote:
| I glanced over the headline and though it was an Argon Lithium
| battery tech.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-23 23:00 UTC)