Batteries Becoming Limiting Step For Portable Toys

grqb writes "Reuters is reporting that strong growth for portable devices such as laptop computers, game and music players, PDAs and mobile phones is expected to pressure battery manufacturers to improve their products, which are quickly becoming the limiting step in portable technology development. The lithium-ion battery technology that is commonly used hasn't changed in several years. The race is on to find battery technologies that are lighter and have increased life, but major breakthroughs don't seem to be on the horizon other than the lithium polymer battery, which can squeeze roughly 10-20% more life than lithium-ion. Micro fuel cells that run off of methanol are touted to be the next major wave for portable power, although logistics and price still make these fuel cells long shots, which is why Nokia recently dropped development of this technology."

Comments

Batteries?

[superpulpsicle]

I thought DRMs and other proprietory license BS is holding the market back.

Re:Batteries?

[Gogo0]

You dont need as much battery life if you cant play your mp3s or videos on your portable devices.
DRM improves battery life!

Obvious solution

[nizo]

Bring on nuclear batteries. Or is the Duracell lobby to strong for them to ever be legal?

Re:Obvious solution

[BlogPope]

I'm sure the Duracell lobby will run out of energy soon.

Its the Energizer lobby you have to watch out for. They keep going, and going, ...

Re:Obvious solution

[MillionthMonkey]

These offer long life at the expense of low power. They are good for pacemakers and things in inaccessible environments where the wattage requirements aren't high but the replacement cost is huge. They are not suitable for consumer electronics stuff.
A radioactive source with sufficient power to run a laptop would require significant cooling, especially when the laptop was shut off. For an idea of what it would be like, think of the RTG devices that we attach to space probes in the outer solar system. (Or that are scattered across the former Soviet Union.) Those things usually generate several hundred watts.

Re:Obvious solution

[horos2c]

.. that's the old technology, which is at .1-.5 % efficient (that's right .001-.005)

Because of this inefficiency, there is lots and lots of waste heat, which causes the problems that you speak of.

If the nuclear battery mentioned on slashdot truly reaches its supposed 200 times efficiency, this is *80%* or thereabouts efficient, which means that there is a lot less material to radioactively decay.

Second of all, the batteries studied operate off of beta decay, which essentially means that they give off an electron. Electron == electricity, so the chances of needing lots of cooling equipment are probably not true.

So.. I haven't done the calcs yet, but nuclear batteries would probably be more feasible than you are thinking from an engineering standpoint.

On the other hand, tritium and strontium-90 are *damned expensive*, and would be so unless there was a circuit that connected supply (the nuclear power industry) to demand (the batteries) and even then, its doubtable that the nuclear power plants could produce enough strontium and tritium to keep everybody happy...

horos

Re:Obvious solution

[MillionthMonkey]

So.. I haven't done the calcs yet, but nuclear batteries would probably be more feasible than you are thinking from an engineering standpoint.

You obviously haven't done the calcs. Efficiency is not even the major problem here. The problem is that ionizing radiation is an extremely deadly form of energy- a median lethal dose in humans is about several watt seconds per kg of body mass. And to get even a tiny little bit of heat, you need an enormous amount of radiation.

Say we use a radioisotope to power a space heater. Efficiency is not an issue in a heater, since all it needs to do is trap the radiation in enough shielding so that all the energy is converted to heat. If the decay mode yields 10 MeV of energy, 100 watts will require 62.4 trillion decays per second, or 1700 Curies (Ci)- something nominally similar to 1700 grams of radium. For comparison, total leakage in the Three Mile Island incident was approximately 13 Ci. (Chernobyl leaked millions.) If your laptop were running on a 1700 Ci source, it wouldn't be on your lap.

Pu-238 is the sort of isotope used for generating heat via decay. It generates about a half watt per gram. You'd need to run around with several hundred grams of it to power your laptop. The Am-241 in smoke detectors generates 114 milliwatts per gram. You'd need to scrape clean about 10000 smoke detectors to get a gram of Am-241 together- and about ten million smoke detectors will generate enough power to run a laptop. In fact all the smoke detectors ever sold in the world probably contribute something around 1 kilowatt of heat to their surroundings.

The Problem: Batteries don't last long enough.

[AKAImBatman]

The Solution: Nuclear Batteries

The market is practically screaming for a battery that doesn't run down in a short period of time. At the very least, nuclear radioisotope technology could be used to create batteries that have longer lives and recharge themselves. If the full potential of this technology were used, then our devices could be powered for YEARS without replacing the battery. Potentially, the battery could even outlast the device!

I realize a lot of people have concerns over the safety of nuclear batteries. But before you run off half-cocked, consider a few points:

1. They use the radiation for power. As a result, the batteries would be designed to capture as much of it as possible. In the case of Alpha and Beta radiation, that can easily reach 100% even if power isn't realized for all of the radiation.

2. You're probably sitting on a highly unstable, very dangerous bomb right now. See that Lithium-Ion battery in your phone? It just happens to be a powerful explosive.

Re:The Problem: Batteries don't last long enough.

[Have Blue]

One of the problems with a nuclear battery is that the energy it produces is constant regardless of whether or not the device is operating. That means something has to be done with the energy when it's not being consumed, and that means it gets emitted as heat. That is a problem, to say the least, for anything meant to go inside a container (such as a pocket).

Re:The Problem: Batteries don't last long enough.

[AKAImBatman]

And the (tiny) problem of smashing the battery open by mistake and releasing enough radio-elements in the environment to poison your entire neighborhood for decades doesn't bother you?

Depends on the design. A thero-electric battery (e.g. Pielter or micro-Sterling) could easily be encased in a steel cladding that would prevent the materials from ever being released short of being heated to a molten state. This probably wouldn't work for beta-voltaics, but a strongly sealed battery would achieve the same effect.

Did you know people with pacemakers who die are cut open to recover the darn thing before they're buried, to avoid exactly what I just described, on a much smaller scale?

Did you know you have this wrong? The pacemakers are recovered to be refurbished and reused. Plutonium is very expensive, so Pace Maker receipients were required to sign a contract that allowed the device to be retrieved after death. AFAIK, there are no concerns about contamination due to the fact that the pacemaker casing would easily outlast the life of the plutonium power source. Linky

Re:The Problem: Batteries don't last long enough.

[nEoN nOoDlE]

you just pinpointed why these batteries will never reach market... because they last too long. There's no profit in something that doesn't break and doesn't need to be renewed.

Re:The Problem: Batteries don't last long enough.

[killermookie]

But here's the catch...

If manufacturer's create a battery that lasts for years...how is that good business?

Right now, if you use items that suck up a lot of battery power, you have to buy more. That's more profit for the manufacturer.

If they produce a product that you only have to buy ever 3 years, then either the manufacturer will lose profit as less batteries are being sold or the cost of these batteries will be so enormously high that it'll be out of consumer range prices.

Imagine if the razor companies created a blade that lasts for 3 years. Fat chance! Blades are their cash cow!

Re:The Problem: Batteries don't last long enough.

[AKAImBatman]

Someone is trolling with a bot. The bot picks up highly rated posts from previous articles and then reposts them to places where they seem really odd.

I have something of a theory on why they are doing this. I think the purpose of the bot is to cause the moderators to use up all their points, thus ensuring that trolls get time in the limelight. The previous version of this scheme were all the "Please help me mod down this trash" posts.

Re:The Problem: Batteries don't last long enough.

[fearofcarpet]

2. You're probably sitting on a highly unstable, very dangerous bomb right now. See that Lithium-Ion battery in your phone? It just happens to be a powerful explosive.

Not to nit pick, but lithium ion batteries are made from inorganic metal complexes (that are not explosive), polymer/electrolyte blends (again not explosive), and graphite (I sure hope that isn't explosive). The "explosive" element comes from the heat generated from rapid discharge, much like car batteries which are made from lead and aqueous sulfuric acid (not even flammable), but will most certainly explode if shorted. The "unstable" aspect arrises from the lithium "fingers" that tend to grow between the electrodes which causes, you guessed it, rapid discharging of the battery. At any rate an equal mass of an actual "powerful explosive" (high explosive if you prefer) would make the battery look like a match flame.

I'm not knocking the nuclear battery idea, just pointing out that ALL modern batteries are explosive, so don't poo on lithium-ion batteries for being batteries - they can't help that.

They aren't becoming the limiting step

[SoCalChris]

They have been the limiting step ever since devices started using batteries.

Re:They aren't becoming the limiting step

[Mr2cents]

So you're saying that back then, people had more realistic expectations?

Recharge time is where it's at.

[johndierks]

I'd like the advancement in battery technology not to come in weight or longevity, but in recharge time.

I wouldn't care if my laptop battery only lasts 3 hours if I can recharge it in 5 minutes.

On the other hand

[fembots]

PDAs and mobile phones is expected to pressure battery manufacturers to improve their products

Battery manufacturers are expected to pressure PDAs and mobile phones fanboys to stop producing inefficient and power-hungry products.

He said "Becoming"

[yotto]

Seriously, Batteries have been the limiting factor in toys since I was a kid, and that's a /long time/. Remote control cars were and still are a joke, and handhelds are just as bad. "Good" mp3 players measure their battery life in hours, not days and even my cell phone can't hold a charge for the entire weekend, and all it is is a battery with a phone attached.

"Becoming?"

Err....

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

We're already having problems with enough PE being stored in batteries for them to explode occasionally... Is everyone certain that MORE energy being stuffed into chemically based batteries for toys that children play with is a good idea? I mean, there comes a point where selling something 'new' increases its danger level a bit higher than we're willing to go, right?

Re:Err....

[Trailwalker]

I mean, there comes a point where selling something 'new' increases its danger level a bit higher than we're willing to go, right?

Doesn't stop sales of autos, propane grills, pesticides, and other "dangerous" items.

Sales are reduced only when the item is declared dangerous on a TV "view_with_alarm" news segment.

Is it just me?

[Hrodvitnir]

It seems to me that most of the devices we have nowadays would have a pretty good power life with current batteries if they didn't have a plethora of "extras." When you combine a phone, PDA, and mp3 player together and then connect it to the internet, you're taking 4 different devices and trying to run them all on the same battery.

IMO, consolidation of devices and extra features that most people can do without are what's causing the energy crunch in small electronics.

LiPolys

[caseih]

I've been using Lithium Polymer batteries for quite some time on my electric remote control airplanes. They are amazingly light weight, pack a lot of energy and can handle enormous current loads. My airplanes draw up to 10 Amps of steady current from my 7.4V 1500 mAh batteries, although typical flights use much less, about 12 to 14 minutes per charge of constant flying.

The downsides to LiPoly are the same as LiIon. They are expensive and don't have an operational lifetime that is very long. They wear out just sitting on the shelf. I anticipate having to replace my airplane batteries every year or so. LiPoly batteries also take a long time to completely charge. Filling an empty 1500 mAh battery takes almost one and a half hours at 1.5 A charging current. Also if a LiPoly is every discharged below a certain voltage, the cells are ruined.

Get a fat kid and a treadmill...

[GillBates0]

The race is on to find battery technologies that are lighter and have increased life

Place said kit in motion on said device and harness generated energy.

The added advantages of this apparatus are it's rapidly diminishing weight and exponentially increasing life with regular use.

Not the battery

[dmf415]

Or its the Power Consumption of the device that is the single limiting factor of portable devices.

Battery technology...

[satguy]

...has swallowed large amounts of R&D money since batteries were first invented/discovered. Yes, improvements are most often incremental, and differing technologies offer different qualities (Li-On maintains voltage 'til almost complete discharge; GNB (now Exide) Absolite batteries work down to at least -60 C. with a normal 20-year service life), NiMH avoids NiCd's memory effect, but stop working at 0 C./32 F.).

Demand for tiny, high-capacity stored power sources has never been greater than today, and the R&D budgets are ever rising, but forecasting when the next serendiptuous discovery of a new technology will occur is not easy...

Re:Battery technology...

[fearofcarpet]

Demand for tiny, high-capacity stored power sources has never been greater than today, and the R&D budgets are ever rising, but forecasting when the next serendiptuous discovery of a new technology will occur is not easy...

All the belly aching around here... Sheesh. We're working on it, ok? The DOE, DARPA, Office of Naval Research, Air Force, etc etc etc are handing out money for battery projects and I assure you that the next new battery technology will NOT be serendipitous, rather it will be the result of years of (frustrating) research building on discoveries dating all the way back to wet towels and copper discs.

Battery technology is slow to develope because it is not easy to pack a bunch of electrons in a tiny space wedged up against a huge electron sync and then ask them to not only sit there and like it, but to merrily hop back up the hill after being discharged, then sit around on the electrode until we ask for them again. You can't just stuff them in a box - they repel each other. They are happiest when they can delocalize over a network of big positively charged nuclei, but the problem with electrons is happy = low potential = low half cell potential = the need for many cells = big form factors... You get the idea.

Now take all that and add to it Nature's silly idea of charge balancing. When electrons flow they create a chrage imbalance that must be exactly balanced by positive charges. Now positive charges don't grow on trees like electrons, they tend to be HUGE by comparison and they like to swim. Now batteries with liquid electrolytes just aren't pratical so we have to use various glassy polymers and "gels" (or dry cell or whatever) that are fabulous ion conductors, but crappy electron conductors. It took years of research to find a medium that lithium ions could flow through without getting stuck right away and what we ended up with isn't even that great...

Battery technology will have to move in one of two directions and be coupled with dramatic cuts in power consumption by portable devices. First, fuel cells. These are great because you harvest electrons from REDOX reactions rather than stuffing them into lithium intercalated graphite or whatever hideously unstable electrode configuration is demanded by the charged state. Of course they can't be recharged and right now they suck because, and where have I heard this before, the best ion conductors (which you still need for fuel cell batteries) only perform well at a balmy 80% humidity and (and I'm not 100% sure on this) about 50 deg. C... The other option is "nanotechnology" (hang on, have to smack myself for using a buzzword) which could allow us to tuck thin films or tiny spheres or scrolls or whatever into very small spaces. This is important because it allows us to use very small half cell potentials to produce large open circuit voltages by wiring up thousands of teeny-tiny cells in our "nanobattery" (smack, smack) arrays.

So either go out and invent safe nuclear batteries or tiny hamsters that can fit on tiny hampster wheels that can fit inside my iPod and go weeks without hamster food, or accept the fact that battery technology is a real bugger... I mean we (scientists) aren't that lazy; some problems are just harder than others to solve. Why can't we get all over the electrical engineers to make lower power consumption devices? Can we harp on Taiwan for not trying hard enough to bring OLEDs to market? Maybe we should just build robots that turn us into batteries...

Re:Nuclear batteries won't work

[AKAImBatman]

Thereby making it trivial for anyone with Wal-Mart access to put together a "dirty bomb"?

Repeat after me: Dirty bombs don't work. They are a media scare and nothing else. Campaigns of FUD are designed to fool idiots into believing that everything they read in comic books is true.

Good. Now go here, read, and understand.

Re:Nuclear batteries won't work

[Jeremi]

Repeat after me: Dirty bombs don't work. They are a media scare and nothing else. Campaigns of FUD are designed to fool idiots into believing that everything they read in comic books is true.

Now repeat after me: What is the objective of terrorism? To make people afraid. Do "dirty bombs" make people afraid? Yes. Therefore, they work just fine.

The limiting factor is modularity

[ArmorFiend]

When I was growing up, all devices used one of four types of batteries. If you were going to take your portable music streaming device camping with you, you might go to one of roughly 100,000,000 battery retailers and buy some extras. This, with 1980s level technology!

Then, they decided to make a different, wonky-sized battery for every device. So the game boy, Palm, cell, and iPod all need different wall warts to charge their different batteries, and making these 'portable' devices portable on the road is a major PITA.

We should take a clue from the past and use standarized sized batteries. Whenever I can I buy devices that use standardized batteries, and I charge them, and whoa, it works. I don't have to pay for millions of chargers. If I need high performance batteries for my camera, I shell the $ for them, but if I'm going for a long bike trip, I put the good batteries in my bike light.

Apperantly Joe-sixpack-2005 is not smart enough to read the 'batteries included' label that Joe-sixpack-1980 had no problems with.