Slashdot Mirror


New Rechargeable Battery Uses Water

fergus07 writes "Scientists at Stanford have developed a battery that uses nanotechnology to create electricity from the difference in salt content between fresh water and sea water. The researchers hope to use the technology to create power plants where fresh-water rivers flow into the ocean. The new 'mixing entropy' battery alternately immerses its electrodes in river water and sea water to produce the electrical power."

36 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. Re:ALready an energy shortage there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow, two fallacies in one!

    A sweeping generalization AND a stunning ignorance of the hydrologic cycle.

    Well done good sir, well done *slow clap*

  2. Re:ALready an energy shortage there. by Ferzerp · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wait, you actually think water is disappearing, going poof? Where do you think this water is going? Water is not something you use up and then there is no more. You see, it evaporates, and then it rains down again clean. Now it may not be where you expected it would be, or it may end up unfit for use in areas with contaminants, but the water is still there.

    You realize there are nearly inexhaustible supplies under the ground right? If you suck it out faster than it seeps back down, guess what, the water still exists. We could potentially use it faster than we harvest it, but to assert that water is a scarce resource is very, very misleading. You can always expand your collection techniques.

    Or are you suggesting we are in danger of locking up *all* of the hydrogen and oxygen on the earth in to other compounds?

    Oh, you know that salt water? Let it evaporate, and magically you have more fresh water. :P

  3. WARNING by Skal+Tura · · Score: 2

    It's gizmag ... Prepare to be annoyed with ads

    1. Re:WARNING by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the warning. I was about to Read The Fancy Article.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:WARNING by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 2

      Oh, thats what the "F" stands for...

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  4. Think Smaller by retroworks · · Score: 3, Funny

    Like, recharging your flashlight at the urinal.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Think Smaller by Inda · · Score: 3, Funny

      Next week on Slashdot:

      New lemon orchard used to power city.

      Clever academics have found a way to harness the power of a standard lemon with an old copper penny and some scrap zinc. Could this scale?

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  5. Re:Great News for Environment! by snookerhog · · Score: 2

    I would gladly trade this for the aging coal power plant that currently sits on the banks of my local estuary. I am inclined to believe that this will be better for my local environment than the coal burning.

  6. Just think of the possibilities! by naich · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We could use the generated electricity to power desalinisation plants.

    1. Re:Just think of the possibilities! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We could use the generated electricity to power desalinisation plants.

      I think you are trying to be funny, but this actually makes sense, and there are proposals to do exactly this. Here is how it works:

      • Step 1: Concentrate brine in large evaporation ponds
      • Step 2: Generate electricity from the osmotic difference between this brine and normal seawater
      • Step 3: Use the electricity to split seawater into fresh water and brine
      • Step 4: Recycle the brine back into the evaporation ponds
      • Step 5: Profit!

      The reason this works is that you are effectively collecting the solar energy that shines on the evaporation ponds.

    2. Re:Just think of the possibilities! by Xacid · · Score: 2

      I see what you did there...

    3. Re:Just think of the possibilities! by trout007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not that this would be ecologically feasible but what if you dug a tunnel from the pacific ocean to death valley (-300 feet). Then you could get some power out of the potential water drop. Then as the water floods the valley it's so hot it would evaporate and you could keep letting the water in. The evaporated water would rain on the next mountain down wind and create arable land.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    4. Re:Just think of the possibilities! by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2

      Interesting, but what's the advantage of this over condensing the vapour from the pools directly?

    5. Re:Just think of the possibilities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      San Andreas Fault thinks your tunneling is cute.

    6. Re:Just think of the possibilities! by SEWilco · · Score: 2

      Because, of course, if your fresh/salt water plant is next to a fresh water river, there isn't any source of fresh water nearby, so you have to desalinate the salt water.

    7. Re:Just think of the possibilities! by DirePickle · · Score: 2

      The first law of thermodynamics is you don't talk about thermodynamics.

  7. Isn't this already in practice elsewhere??? by dr.Flake · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know the plans to put one of these into service are almost finalized in The Netherlands, spanning the "afsluitdijk"
    http://wikimobi.nl/wiki/index.php?title=Zoet/zout_watergrens

    But i think the Norwegians beat us all to it:

    http://www.statkraft.com/energy-sources/osmotic-power/

    --
    Why are other peoples sig's always more witty ???
    1. Re:Isn't this already in practice elsewhere??? by arielCo · · Score: 2

      Depends on how wide your definition of "this" is. Let's quote TFA for convenience:

      Making electricity from the difference in salinity (the amount of salt) in fresh water and sea water is not a new concept. We've previously covered salinity power technology, and Norway's Statkraft has built a working prototype power plant. But the Stanford team, led by associate professor of materials science and engineering Yi Cui, believes their method is more efficient, and can be built more cheaply.

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    2. Re:Isn't this already in practice elsewhere??? by wjousts · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...spanning the "afsluitdijk".

      Cat just jump on your keyboard?

    3. Re:Isn't this already in practice elsewhere??? by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...spanning the "afsluitdijk".

      Cat just jump on your keyboard?

      Appropriately enough, the language sounds like a cat expectorating a hairball.

  8. Re:Great News for Environment! by MadKeithV · · Score: 4, Funny

    Toyota already did with their Prius. I think the official term is "smug".

  9. Bass Akwards! by CatsupBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After the battery is discharged, the salt water is drained and fresh water is added to begin the cycle again.

    This is awesome, we can use up all our fresh water and would have an unlimited supply of salt water!

    1. Re:Bass Akwards! by CatsupBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do know that there is an amazingly simple way to separate the salt from the water, right? It is called evaporation.

      The concepts of desalination are certainly quite simple, its the economics that are complicated.

    2. Re:Bass Akwards! by LateArthurDent · · Score: 2

      You do know that there is an amazingly simple way to separate the salt from the water, right? It is called evaporation.

      The concepts of desalination are certainly quite simple, its the economics that are complicated.

      He means natural evaporation. Oceans are under the Sun all the time. You can't "use up" fresh water by intercepting water that's about to fall on the ocean and making it into salt water. That is happening all the time anyway, those rivers are constantly dumping fresh water into the ocean. Luckily, water evaporates off the oceans and comes back down as fresh water as rain, filling up those rivers and continuing the cycle.

  10. Also deep wells by scharkalvin · · Score: 2

    In Florida most drinking water is obtained from wells. Deep wells tend to be brackish and require desalination of the water to be usable. It would seem then that a combination use of waste water and deep well water would work. Also the battery sounds like it acts as a desalination device during discharge so it might serve the purpose of both desalination and power generation.

  11. Re:Great News for Environment! by wjousts · · Score: 3, Informative

    From TFA:

    Because river deltas and estuaries are sensitive environments, the Stanford team designed their battery to have minimal ecological impact. The system would detour some of a river's flow to produce power, before returning the water to the ocean. The discharge water would be a mix of river water and sea water, and released into an area where the two waters already meet.

  12. Re:ALready an energy shortage there. by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think he's talking about taking water and sending it to Arizona where it then evaporates in the desert and doesn't actually make it to the end of the river. I'm guessing of course. But as for these "inexhaustible" supplies under ground, you should read about the supply in the midwest which requires drilling to new depths because it is being depleted. Should you think going deeper is always an option, you may want to read the recent stuff of fracking to see how the deeper water is being deliberately contaminated. There are solutions to these, problems, but what we are doing vs what we could be doing don't really match.

  13. The Silver Electrode is very expensive? by davonshire · · Score: 2

    From the article:

    "The Stanford scientists are currently working on modifications to get the battery ready for commercial production. For example, the silver electrode is very expensive, and they hope to develop a cheaper alternative."

    I'm really at a loss on this. How expensive can a silver electrode be, if you're producing enough power to charge for it? Silver while pricey (currently ~ $39.00/oz) It's just a tad more expensive than Lithium (currently ~ $31.50/oz) and if this thing really worked. they'd pay for the silver they used in a very short order. 50Megawatt would be around $3000.00 / hr at just $0.06/kwh.

    It's gotta be cheaper than building a power plant and running coal to it all day.

    Just my 6 cents worth.

    DS

  14. Congrats, props from me by DriedClexler · · Score: 2

    In learning about thermodynamics I had learned that, where there's a gradient, you can extract energy, be it a gradient of temperature, electrical field ... or even chemical concentration. But it's one thing to know it's theoretically possible, and another thing to actually pull it off in a way that extracts meaningful energy. Good work, scientists and engineers.

    --
    Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    1. Re:Congrats, props from me by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      You comment is funny for me. Just a bit ago I posted a comment about how every single person who brings up thermodynamics on Slashdot doesn't know what it means. And then here I find, possibly the first, comment about thermodynamics on Slashdot with a an actual clue.

      Well done.

    2. Re:Congrats, props from me by DriedClexler · · Score: 2

      Glad to hear it! But I didn't know I was saying something all that insightful or demonstrative of thermodynamics understanding.

      It is kind of counterintuitive that you'd be able to extract energy just because there's a difference in concentration between two bodies, but it makes more sense once you've read about the Gibbs paradox (esp. Jaynes's handling) and how you can power a mechanical device by using membranes that differ in their permeability to the different constituents of the mixture.

      But man, if even that level of understanding is rare for thermo, God help us all (in the secular sense).

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
  15. As always, it's a scale problem. by tacokill · · Score: 4, Informative

    So, 13,000 gallons per second of fresh water flow and we can get around 100MW. Let's go on a math exercise, shall we?

    The average combined cycle plant is (at a minimum) around 400MW. Not including co-gens, etc. Just normal power plants sitting out in the middle of nowhere. Fukishima is around 4900MW. Fukishima isn't really fair because it is, by any measure, a large nuke plant. But, 400-1200MW is not an unreasonable range for "typical" power plants in the US, regardless of the technology used (coal, nuke, combined cycle, direct fire, etc)

    At 400MW, you are talking 52,000 gallons PER SECOND of water flow. That, by any measure, is a shitload of flow. At 1200MW, we are talking 156,000 gallons per second.

    For comparison, I just looked up the flow rate of the Mississippi river at the high water dam near Lake Itasca. Going thru the Upper St Anthony's falls lock and dam, the flow rate is around 90,000 gal/sec.

    So for ONE reasonably sized power plant, you would need fresh water flow that is the equivalent of the Mississippi River.

    As I said, it's a scale problem.

    1. Re:As always, it's a scale problem. by gurudyne · · Score: 2

      Uh, you are looking through the telescope the wrong way. That flow you quoted is at the UPPER end. From the same site you linked to, the flow is 50 times greater at the Delta, where you find the OTHER side of the cell, salt water.

      --
      Hey, Mom! Is it beer, yet?
    2. Re:As always, it's a scale problem. by holmstar · · Score: 2

      For a large-ish 2000MW plant, it would need 260000 gallons per second of fresh water. At the MOUTH on the Mississippi (where it meets the ocean), that would make up about 5.8% of the over all flow of the river. Not as big of a deal as you are suggesting

      If you diverted a quarter of the flow (probably possible, if not practical), you could supply a plant that provides over 8000MW. It would certainly be a big facility, but that's also a lot of electricity.

  16. Re:Hurray for environmentalists by ep32g79 · · Score: 2

    Environmentalists have a bad name because the industries that are doing all the damage find character assassination easier than actually cleaning up their mess.

    Rigggght.... It's all a big conspiracy against environmentalists perpetrated by the big bad corporations. Environmentalists have never done anything to damage their own character

  17. Re:Hurray for environmentalists by Belial6 · · Score: 2

    I have never met a single person that identified themselves as an environmentalist that actually was one. Every single person I have met that actually was an environmentalist would not self identify as one.