Slashdot Mirror
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."
Do you need nano-tweazers to replace your battery then ??
This is the sig that says NI (again)
I have always wondered why nuclear batteries have not been used in more electronics. They last practically forever!
"Here's a spoiler: You're will die alone."-Triumph the Insult Comic Dog
Does anyone else see a problem with a battery that requires a voltage change in order to provide power? Will we need old fashioned batteries for our new high-tech batteries?
if you think this is bad, you should have seen my last sig
"These nanobatteries, to be introduced before the end of 2005, will last longer than traditional ones and will be respectful of our environment."
What odd grammar. "Can you not see I am respectful of the environment?! Do not disrepect the spirits of your elders, buy Mr. Power Extra Subueteo Batteries now!"
... you insensitive clod!
I for one welcome our new [insert main topic] overlords.
I think these new battery developments has more than just applications for longer-lasting batteries for laptops, PDA's and cellphones.
It could also mean substantially lighter battery pack units for hybrid drivetrains. A big issue with hybrid drivetrain cars is the fact the battery pack does take up quite a lot of space and also contributes to the deadweight of the car. By switching to these newer battery technologies they could reduce the size of the battery pack, which means more interior space and possibly even better fuel efficiency since when the gasoline engine is running you use less fuel because the car is now lighter.
I didn't see anything about the proposed cost of such a battery. I would guess it would be prohibitively expensive.
That said, CPUs and other components are designed these days to eat up less and less power, so perhaps there isn't even a need for more efficient energy storage?
Patriotism - the last resort of scoundrels.
Maintaining the same life in devices that have exponentially grown in power consumption sure seems like improvements to me.
-/bin/true successfully doing nothing day after day.
Conventional (electro-chemical) battery technology is pretty much at a dead end. The energy density of a battery is not far off from that of dynamite, which means that there really isn't any further you can go while keeping the result stable. (A fuel cell is really a highly UNstable battery, but extra safeguards can make it usable technology)
Since many useful applications are now limited by battery life, this is an area where a technological breakthrough is highly overdue...
With computers getting faster and faster, doesn't it seem like batteries ARE getting better, simply to keep up with the higher power requirements of new devices. Sure you still only get 2,3, or 4 hours of battery life... but would a battery from 1990 even provide half as long a life as a battery from 2000 or 2004?
Sig!
Batteries have been in development for the better part of two hundred years (ignoring posible evidence of even earlier batteries used for electro plating in greco-roman periods) the fact that after this much time the tech is for the most part a a platue is expected, to be fair the advances that we are having now are very impressive when you think about how much work has gone into this field.
electric computers on the other hand are just over 50 years of serious development, advances should be more rapid in this field.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
Fuel cells? I can see the headline now:
"Man drops his cell phone and dies in explosion."
I took a class on ubiquitous comuting last year and what we studied about battery power suggested that the technology existed for more powerful batteries, but the current technology was entirely too dangerous to use with portable devices since they get beat up considerably. We don't have this danger level for the rest of the tech industry. If we did, I imagine that computers in general would be far less advanced.
Actually, the energy density of dynamite and other explosives isn't that much. Gasoline has more energy density. Forget about computers, if we could get a battery with the same energy density as gasoline, at a reasonable price, that would mean practical electric cars.
Super-iron battery
An article in C&ENews (16/8/99) describes a new high-energy battery developed in Israel using iron as the cathode material. The new batteries store 50% more energy than the alkaline battery which uses a zinc anode, manganese dioxide cathode and potassium hydroxide electrolyte. The new cathode material which replaces the MnO2 has been termed 'super-iron' by Stuart Licht, Baohui Wang and Susanta Ghosh its inventors, however, it is not iron metal but an iron(VI) compound. iron(VI) is an unusual high oxidation state of iron which is strongly oxidising, an important property of a cathode material in a battery. These ferrate(VI) compounds have formulae such as K2FeO4 or BaFeO4. In operation the iron(VI) is reduced to the more stable iron(III) according to the cell reaction:
2MFeVIO4 + 3Zn -- FeIII2O3 + ZnO + MZnO2
The problem with using iron(VI) compounds before has been their stability. However, the researchers discovered that they were stable for months in KOH if the iron(VI) compounds were free from nickel(II) or cobalt(II) impurities. The material has a high energy density and a high electrical conductivity so it can be discharged rapidly. The cathode is also compatible with nickel hydride anodes and shows some degree of rechargeability. It is a long way from laboratory to supermarket, but we may well see 'super-iron' batteries on the shelf in the next millennium.
(Science 285, 1039, 1999)
******
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.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
... some one from the Uk spy services went to Exide batteries because their spy radios were hampered by the fact that the current charge density / weight / volume of batteries was too low and resulted in low battery life or a spy radio that was bigger and heavier than the spy who was supposed to carry it...
The Exide mas was asked if they could increase the charge density somehow, the response was immediate, "Yes."
The spook was somewhat nonplussed, as this was not the answer he was expecting, so he then asked if Exide could do it, why didn't they?
This response was also immediate.
"We sell more batteries."
That was 60 years ago, why does anyone think anything has changed?
(esp when detroit is now producing SUV's that get worse mileage than 50 year old 500 cubic inch big block engined cars)
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
In 1985 you might be able to get plutonium from your local corner store, but here in 2004 it's a little harder to come by!