Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Powering Batteries with Soda, Tree Sap
BobB writes "St. Louis University researchers have concocted batteries fueled by almost any kind of sugar, from tree sap to flat soda, and that could be used to power everything from computers to cell phones. Their thinking: If sugar can jack up the human body, why not electronics?"
It's hygroscopic. Of course, if the batteries can deal with that, that's cool.
Sugar is sticky and it can jack up electronics. I don't think that's a good thing...
Funnypics
I recall some previous stories about better batteries than this that could be about the same amount of eco-friendliness. What's up with all the batteries lately? Automobiles could probably be the most worthwhile reason to invent all of these batteries, but that means that it's incredibly likely that the portable power market will become the next oil market.
If people are bothering to create batteries run off food, why would they pick one of the least energy dense macronutrients?
At 9 kilocalories per gram to carbs' 4, fats kick the crap out of carbohydrates with regard to energy density. Strikes me as odd.
The idea is neat and has been around for some time, but the article fails to answer some pretty basic questions. The most important question is if they can actually get these batteries to pump out enough juice to power anything of importance. They said that they got the battery to run a calculator, but calculators are EXTREMELY low powered devices. The fact that you can run a calculator with a tiny primitive solar strip gives you an idea of how little power some calculators actually need. When they get one of these batteries (even a large one) powering a MP3 player, I will be impressed. Until then, I am deeply skeptical that there is anything to this.
The other issue here is size. Even if they can pump out enough juice, they need the batteries to be small to be useful in most modern applications. The batteries for most electronic devices need to very small. There might be a niche market for this sort of thing, but I am very skeptical it is going to make any sort of splash in the consumer electronics field.
There's better coverage of the story at Physorg (via Engadget).
Question: If the fuel cell contains enzymes, couldn't a 2-stage fuel cell be created that has cellulases, thus making waste switchgrass/etc. a potential direct fuel? Why would we need to even bother with cellulosic ethanol then? Or is this even possible?
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
"Sorry mom, I'll have to call you back later, my battery's about to die. I promise I'll call back just as soon as I've shagged my phone.."
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Sugar is sticky and it can jack up electronics. I don't think that's a good thing...
Unless your blood is the nearest source of sugar.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
" If sugar can jack up the human body, why not electronics?"
Next up, caffiene for your cell phone, and cocaine for your PDA!
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Caffeine is not a source of energy, it's a stimulant. It only helps the body to consume energy you already have in reserve. So you cannot build a caffeine battery.
I hate all sigs, mine included.
That's nothing - my clock runs off a potato. (e.g., http://www.unit5.org/christjs/Potato%20Battery.htm )
Sometimes I wonder if the Slashdot editors are really junior high school drop-outs...
And electronics with corrosive/highly-conductive metal-ion/acid water are better?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, even with the -1 redundant it will incur.
SEALED CONTAINERS. Last I've checked, outside of a chem lab I've never seen an open-container battery.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
...trying to charge their batteries with diet coke.
What happens when after a few years of sugar consumption our notebooks get diabetes? You thought the finger-prick was a pain...
Touting MyEclipse AJAX Tools
Offhand, sugars are water soluable, relatively small molecules and probably easy to harness for their energy (the fuel mixture will readily mix to keep the remaining sugar moledules exposed to whatever catalyst and other molecules it is reacting with). Because they're simple molecules, there probably is only one major reaction required to split the sugars and obtain energy.
Fats are not water soluable, more complex chemically and thicker in general. I would think coming up with a stable reaction for the entire amount of fat in the tank would be difficult since they are not water soluable (you would need to mix them in a lipophilic solution) and they are thicker. I would imagine they would be more diffult to handle, especially if the idea is to make they reusable.
Then again, it been awhile since I've done any chemisty. Sounds like an interesting concept.
Way to go SLU (graduated from med school there)!
So can we build a battery out of fat and give it caffeine to stimulate energy output? That would make for one disgusting battery. But we'd have a virtually unlimited natural resource!
Developers: We can use your help.
It seems to me that technology functions by putting a chemical (sugar) into the cell, and it produces electricity by breaking down the sugar. It isn't a directly reciprocating process like a lead-acid battery (i.e. you put electrical power back into it and it produces sugar). Its operation would seem to be more akin to that of a fuel cell than a battery, would it not?
Yes but you are missing the upside of this one. Unlike corn, sugar comes from a variety of sources, many of which are cheaply producable or directly obtainable from nature. For instance, the battery has been shown to use tree sap. You might say, well there's not enough tree sap, yes. But there's an abundance of sugar. Corn is one thing, not only must you grow the corn but you must break it down in a specific process for it to become fuel. This, essentially, means that you don't need to do that process. This is the ability to directly use some food products as fuel without additional conversion. Given how cheap food production has become, I'd say that's not bad.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
If my laptop reacts to a sugar spike at all like my body does, it'll overclock itself for the morning, the hard drives will ramp up to the next RPM standard and then by afternoon the speed stepping on the CPU will drop to the lowest level, the drive will spin itself down at every possible chance and the screen brightness will be minimal.
CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
How uneducated do you have to be to write an article about alternative power storage technologies in which you write the following?
Like, uh, what other fuel cells are these that use enzymes again?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sucrose (not glucose or fructose), as a pure carbohydrate, has an energy content of 4 kilocalories per gram (or 17 kilojoules per gram)[Wikipedia]. 1 gram of hydrogen has about 140kJ of energy.
Whether, in fact, this is a fair comparison depends largely on the efficiencies of the devices extracting this energy, as well as the amount of energy put into producing each of the chemical products for consumption. While hydrogen is more energy dense, can we produce it more efficiently than refining sugar from plant sources?
Using electrolysis to produce hydrogen would require more energy than 140kJ/g, making it energy negative. Refining the sugar from plant sources would likely be somewhat energy positive. However, most hydrogen gas produced today is steam reformed from natural gas. I'm not certain where that would fall out if the natural gas were derived from biomass, instead of underground petroleum-related sources.
One of the obstacles is how to power them.
The answer - make them absorb blood shugar!
Woah, slow down there. You've obviously never had a yeast infection...
Damn those pesky terrorists
Only if you don't apply correct accounting. Total energy yield from photosynthetic organic material is always going to be less than (absorbed solar energy + energy to refine).
Or, if you use the flawed methodology, using pure solar + wind + geothermal to electrolyze water means hydrogen is 100% positive gain.
I think the flawed thinking comes from the fact that with things like oil, (energy to refine) is far less than (energy available), but that doesn't take into account whatever energy went into creating the oil in the first place.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Using a power source like this would be a great boon to any medical devices that currently run off batteries - i.e. pacemakers, infusion pumps,cochlear implants etc. Hell, you could use it to power via induction external gadgets - your cellphone, watch, computer wireless modem, heck - internal computer with computer terminal glasses, etc.
Build in a failsafe so that it doesn't reduce your blood sugar to below a critical level, so that you don't go into a hypoglycemic shock, and you're good to go. This would be really useful to diabetics to maintain their constant blood sugar level at a more physiologic normal value. "Crap - my blood glucose is 250. Anyone need their phone charged?"
..........FULL STOP.
We have already have this for transportation, it is called a Bicycle.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
They do have cars that run on restaurant oil waste.
Like, uh, what other fuel cells are these that use enzymes again?
Well, this kind, for one. Enzymatic fuel cells working on sugar are the norm for pacemakers, with close competition in radioactive batteries. We've had them working since 1981.
How uneducated do you have to be to write an article about alternative power storage technologies in which you write (something parent didn't know about) ?
Apparently not very. Generally it's not a good idea to pretend to be an expert in things with which you are not familiar.
StoneCypher is Full of BS