Battery Development Off The Beaten Path

Roland Piquepaille writes "Let's face it. Our computing devices are going faster year after year. But our laptop batteries don't show the same performance improvement. They still work only for a few hours, just a little bit more than ten years ago. Several companies want to change this, according to this UPI report, 'Nanotechnology improving energy options.' For example, mPhase Technologies plans to introduce smart batteries based on millions of silicon nanotube electrodes. These nanobatteries, to be introduced before the end of 2005, will last longer than traditional ones and will be respectful of our environment. Meanwhile, Konarka Technologies wants to reduce the weight of batteries with its flexible solar-fueled nanobatteries. You'll find more details and pictures in this overview."

Comments

Re:Why not nuclear batteries?

[AKAImBatman]

Why is this marked as funny? I stated the same thing but with an explanation and diagrams of how it would work. Nuclear batteries (actually radioisotope batteries since there's no actual nuclear fission occurring) are a very real, very useful, and very ignored technology. RTGs are the first generation technology. SRGs (Stirling Radioisotope Generators) are second generation, and promise to be smaller, lighter, and more powerful.

Re:Price?

[Stumpeh]

Check the nanotech article linked from the overview. Apparently they will be "Inexpensive to mass produce", which sounds like marketing speak for "bloody pricey for the first few years at least"...

Actually, they aren't.

[Moderation abuser]

This post was meant for battery power vehicles, but the tecnology applies to small devices as well. Battery technology is massively in advance of where they were 15 years ago. Viable battery powered vehicles are hear now. They're just still bloody expensive.

The current battery technologies are:

Lead acid: 200 year old technology. Give this a performance index of 1. It's cheap and simple.

NiCd: Heavy metals but good high current. Performance of 2x the lead acid. Performance 2.

NiMH: Getting rid of the heavy metals. Lighter as well. Performance of around 3x that of a lead acid battery.

LiON: Light, performance 5 x that of a lead acid battery.

They obviously get more expensive the more advanced they are. You can expect to get around 70-80miles out of a lead acid battery. Multiply that by the performance factors for the newer technologies.

New technologies, still up and coming. Used in small scale applications, mobile phones, laptops.
Li-Poly. Lighter and can handle more cycles than LiON but not much more power.

Lithium Sulphur batteries (Li-S) promise to more than double the capacity of LiON batteries, 10X that of a lead acid battery. That's a 700-800 mile range on a single charge, not even Diesel vehicles get that. I think these will do the job of killing petrol vehicles. Superior performance, superior range.

Basically. You don't discard the batteries when they wear out. Trade them in at 100,000 miles and get a "new" or refurbished set.

This *is* all nifty technology but still expensive due to manufacturing capacity.

Re:Actually, they aren't.

[Moderation abuser]

They do to a large part.

They'll work down to -40C. The charge time *will* still be an issue if you're doing seriously large milages over a short period, but they charge faster than existing batteries.

With a 700+ mile range, charging them overnight isn't going to be as big an issue. Certainly for commuting I'd only have to charge up every 2 weeks or so.

The guys pioneering them are here:
http://www.sionpower.com/

benefits of lead acid

[sdedeo]

The one time I had to make a consumer choice between the various designs was when building a bicycle light. I ended up going with lead acid for two main reasons:

1. Lead acid is somewhat forgiving, and can theoretically last forever if you are mostly careful not to do a deep discharge. Most other designs have a finite number of cycles.
2. Price. It's an old technology. Car manufacturing has driven the development, and you are pretty certain to get a functional battery that does what it's supposed to.

There are two downsides.

1. No deep discharge. Once the voltage starts to drop a little, you better get back home to recharge or the battery will be dead (not sure of the chemistry involved.)
2. Low temperature functioning. Lead acid batteries cool down as you draw current from them. If you take them out for a midnight ride in the winter, you will find your voltage dropping much quicker than you expect. NiCads actually generate heat as you discharge them, and so can keep functioning even in freezing conditions.

As I understand, for these second two reasons, most commerically available bicycle lights are now NiCad. This should mean you can go for a three hour bicycle ride and draw twenty watts of light. However, it does mean that you have to replace the batteries every other year or so (depending on usage.)

Re:Because consumers can't handle them.

[macemoneta]

"Really, you want to put plutonium, polonium, or other dirty bomb materials in the hands of the general public? The same public that currently tosses NiCd batteries into the trash when they're done with them?"

Yes, the same public that tosses Americium-241 into the trash. Just because it's radioactive, doesn't mean it's a problem. Your backyard is radioactive. Your bar-b-que is probably more radioactive, as is the granite building you probably work in. The irrational fear of radiation has been holding back R&D for decades.

Even just using an alpha emitter like Americium, chemically bonded into a plastic and successively sandwiched between photo-electric cells to provide a "wireless" charger for existing battery technologies would be an immense (and safe) step forward. These technologies have been known and patented for a long time. Unfortunately, the monster movies of the 1950s have raised a generation that associates radiation with Godzilla, and prevents any rational use.