Slashdot Mirror


Crushed Silicon Triples Life of Li-Ion Batteries In the Lab

derekmead writes "Batteries rule everything around us, which makes breakthroughs a big deal. A research team at Rice says they have produced a nice jump: by using a crushed silicon anode in a lithium-ion battery, they claim to have nearly tripled the energy density of current li-ion designs. Engineer Sibani Lisa Biswal and research scientist Madhuri Thakur reported in Nature's Scientific Reports (it has yet to be published online) that by taking porous silicon and crushing it, they were able to dramatically decrease the volume required for anode material. Silicon has long been looked at as an anode material because it holds up to ten times more lithium ions than graphite, which is most commonly used commercially. But it's previously been difficult to create a silicon anode with enough surface area to cycle reliably. Silicon also expands when it's lithiated, making it harder to produce a dense anode material. After previously testing a porous silicon 'sponge,' the duo decided to try crushing the sponges to make them more compact. The result is a new battery design that holds a charge of 1,000 milliamp hours per gram through 600 tested charge cycles of two hours charging, two hours discharging. According to the team, current graphite anodes can only handle 350 mAh/g."

123 comments

  1. Jesus Christ, it's a Li-ion... by InvisibleClergy · · Score: 5, Funny

    get back in the car, this Safari is over!

    1. Re:Jesus Christ, it's a Li-ion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wake me when you see Lion-O.

    2. Re:Jesus Christ, it's a Li-ion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The car is a Tesla! They're already inside!!!

    3. Re:Jesus Christ, it's a Li-ion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what if I drive a GMC Safari?

    4. Re:Jesus Christ, it's a Li-ion... by ajlitt · · Score: 1, Troll

      If it's a Fisker Karma there's fire inside too.

    5. Re:Jesus Christ, it's a Li-ion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The next version of OSX is going to be Fire Lion.

  2. I'll believe it when I see it for sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Lithium battery developments come almost as fast as "new cure for cancer"...and few of them get out of the lab.

  3. But...it can never replace gasoline. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    As we know from recent experience, Lithium is flammable, and something flammable, even explosive, can NEVER replace Gasoline, which is safe and has never burned anybody.

    Surely they realize the futility of their methods, and we can go back to our safe and harmless internal combustion engines?

    1. Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. by YodasEvilTwin · · Score: 1

      As we know from recent experience, Hydrogen is flammable, and something flammable, even explosive, can NEVER replace Gasoline, which is safe and has never burned anybody. Surely they realize the futility of their methods, and we can go back to our safe and harmless internal combustion engines?

      FTFY

    2. Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      As we know from recent experience, Hydrogen is flammable, and something flammable, even explosive, can NEVER replace Gasoline, which is safe and has never burned anybody. Surely they realize the futility of their methods, and we can go back to our safe and harmless internal combustion engines?

      FTFY

      Give it some time... The Universal Ingredient Label

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Letting your sarcasm go whoosh for a moment...

      The energy density of a lithium-ion battery is currently about 1/6th that of gasoline and this improvement will take it up to nearly 1/3rd. But of course, gasoline isn't recharable. And the energy density of gasoline is highly unlikely to improve further, while batteries certainly will. So it is no exaggeration to say that this development basically seals the deal for electricity vs gasoline. My next car will most certainly be all electric, and it will be a beast.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Excuse me... "will take it up to nearly one half".

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    5. Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Letting your sarcasm go whoosh for a moment...

      The energy density of a lithium-ion battery is currently about 1/6th that of gasoline and this improvement will take it up to nearly 1/3rd. But of course, gasoline isn't recharable. And the energy density of gasoline is highly unlikely to improve further, while batteries certainly will. So it is no exaggeration to say that this development basically seals the deal for electricity vs gasoline. My next car will most certainly be all electric, and it will be a beast.

      It's a nice development, but keep in mind that they haven't proven the reliability of this design yet. Can it match the current charge and discharge rates, and number of recharge cycles of standard anode technology?

    6. Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. by sodul · · Score: 1

      We should keep the overall efficiency of the fuel and the engine in mind. The traditional gazoline engines only have a 30%to 40% efficiency in the best case (40% to 50% for diesel), while electrical engines are usually over 90%. Add to that the electrical car can get energy back when breaking while it is pure loss for gasoline, and you have now an electrical car that has a longer range than a gasoline car.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_efficiency

    7. Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming 50% efficiency at 47MJ/kg or 37/Liter vs. 3MJ/kg or liter you've still got better range per unit vehicle mass or volume with hydrocarbons than your 95% efficiency electric motor. Half of 40 is > all of 4. Regen helps, but EV is at least as inefficient as a generator as it is as a motor, and you aren't going to overcome a 5x better adjusted energy density once rolling resistance is finished with you. You would have better luck with electric trains where braking losses and ICE inefficiency are at a higher ratio to rolling resistance.

      Bottom line, most manufacturers aim for 100 miles range as a psychological number to solve "range anxiety". Show me a car that cannot go 100 miles on a single tank of gas.

    8. Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. by sodul · · Score: 1

      The model S goes 265 miles with current battery technology, if you take the claim from the summary that goes to about 750 miles. You need a high end diesel car to get close to this kind of range.

      Of course I do not expect a 800 miles electric car anytime soon. The cars will probably stay in the under 300 miles range while getting the prices down to a more affordable level ($30k range). The other big issue is charging. It probably takes 10m on average to fill a tank (my costco has long lines), but the infrastructure for an 'electric station' is much much cheaper than for gasoline (no underground tank, expensive permits, electricity get delivered 24/7, etc...) so there would be more charging stations around. Restaurants could start providing charging stations in their parking lot, some public parkings in SF have them, etc...

      If you can charge 2h worth of driving in 10/20m then this even becomes a viable solution for long trips like from SF to LA. Not as convenient as Gasoline, I admit, but that's assuming gasoline will not go up to $10/gallon in the next 5 years (it is 1.67 euro/L in France, so $8.1/gallon today).

      Overall: tripling battery capacity will probably allow for cheaper 200m+ range cars electric cars, maybe a wireless charging technology will allow you to recharge while you sit down at a starbucks without even pulling out a wire (don't mind the billing issue, that's easy), and you end up with something that is cheaper and easier to use than a gasoline car.

    9. Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. by Doodlesmcpooh · · Score: 1

      Ford GT40 (new one) has a range of 80 miles per tank according to Jeremy Clarkson.

    10. Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article? Is says it lasted 600 Cycles.

    11. Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. by Darkk · · Score: 1

      The article said they tested this 600 times so we don't know how many recharge / discharging cycles it can do before it degrades.

    12. Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. by Darkk · · Score: 1

      Yep. It will happen in a few years. Gas isn't going to be around forever and China is now the biggest consumer so it will be a matter of time before gas shortages and prices going up. By then for those with electric cars will be happy.

      My next car is going to be all electric so hopefully soon they will get this into production.

    13. Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      I think you are being pedantic.

    14. Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are being hasty

  4. Not online?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'It has yet to be published online.' what is this the stone age?

    1. Re:Not online?!?!? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I love every fourth fall.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  5. this is getting old by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In recent years I've read, right here on Slashdot, about a couple of new li-on breakthroughs that we were told would be giving us 10x improvements, And at least one was claimed to be easily applied to current manufacturing techniques. So why should I believe this? And why should I get excited about a 3X "improvement" when we;ve already been told about 10X improvements?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:this is getting old by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      If you want to only hear about consumer products go somewhere else.

      This is slashdot.

    2. Re:this is getting old by LodCrappo · · Score: 1

      10 x 3 = 30

      --
      -Lod
    3. Re:this is getting old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's several areas which are ripe for improvement in batteries.

      1) Power density.
      2) Recharge cycles.
      3) Charge time.
      4) Charge efficiency.
      5) Shelf drain.

      Even if a certain technology gives a 10x improvement on one of those, it may turn out to have a negative impact on one (or more) of the others, and therefore not be worth marketing.

      Example:
      My new battery technology improves cuts charge time in half! It also cuts power density by a factor of 3. In certain, specific scenarios it might still be worth using one of these new batteries, but in general, it's won't be.

    4. Re:this is getting old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually (10 * underpants) * 3 == profit. Duh.

    5. Re:this is getting old by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Because this is how we improved Carbon-Zinc and Alkaline dramatically.

    6. Re:this is getting old by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Laptops today have around 5-6 hours of battery life. Even 5 years ago, 2 1/2 hours was a long time. So, I'm seeing that several of these technologies have helped a great deal.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    7. Re:this is getting old by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lithium ion batteries improve at a rate of 8-10% per year. So, if we take into account that a lot of the lab claims are exaggerated, a "10X" breakthrough that actually provides a 2X improvement and takes 7-8 years to hit the consumer market is pretty much in line with the expected curve.

    8. Re:this is getting old by Guspaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Part of it is advancements in batteries, but the other part is improvements in power consumption. Five years ago, LED backlights were rare, and CFL backlights were common. Today, I'm not sure if you could even find a CFL backlight in a notebook. LEDs are a bunch more power efficient than CFLs, and the backlight has always been one of if not the largest consumer of power on average in a notebook. Even when the notebook isn't doing any other work, it needs to keep the screen lit up for the user to see what's on it.

    9. Re:this is getting old by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      I think you may be talking about Lithium Air with the 10x thing. Those are more meant for cars than general purpose I think as they need a constant influx of air. I'm only 65% sure of that that though, so maybe someone can confirm.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    10. Re:this is getting old by SomePgmr · · Score: 2

      To the credit of whoever submitted the summary, this one was explicit about, "Something worked well in a lab", instead of the usual, "Your Batteries Will Soon Be 3x's Better!"

    11. Re:this is getting old by jkflying · · Score: 1

      What we actually need to do is compare old battery packs to new ones, that's the only thing which will give us reliable density improvements. Looking at all of the other improvements doesn't actually affect the physical density of the battery, which is what this technology (and the previous "breakthroughs") claim to achieve. Most laptops still come with in-a-metal-tube battery cells, which are much heavier and have big air gaps that don't need to be there. Compare this to your cellphone battery and you'll see what I mean. Getting rid of those "can" batteries is going to be the first step to making battery packs smaller, lighter and higher density.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    12. Re:this is getting old by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      That's not really the case for a lot of laptops though. Any tablet convertible, any ultrabook, any macbook, any Chromebook, anything with an integrated battery, they're all lithium polymer. I suspect that if you add up all lithium polymer laptops, they'd be a rather large part of the notebook market.

    13. Re:this is getting old by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      This one gives me the sense it will be rapidly commercialized.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    14. Re:this is getting old by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      6) Resisting catching fire and exploding

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    15. Re:this is getting old by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Something that would be new is using Li instead of Pb in the original 12V car battery. What is the hold up on that?

      --
      I come here for the love
    16. Re:this is getting old by MrBeau · · Score: 1

      Pb is cheap, reliable, safe, doesn't need a complex battery management system and weight is not a big concern.

    17. Re:this is getting old by MrBeau · · Score: 1

      CFL and LED are very close in luminous efficacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy

    18. Re:this is getting old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Li-poly is pretty much everywhere now. Maybe really cheap laptops still use the cylindrical cells.

    19. Re:this is getting old by justthinkit · · Score: 1
      weight is not a big concern
      .

      So how would you explain the use of "space-saver" spares? They are chosen for their aesthetics?

      --
      I come here for the love
    20. Re:this is getting old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it really is just crushed silicon, you can go scoop up a bunch from your local beach, process it a bit, crush it a bit, then use it as an anode. Since our entire technological civilization is built around silicon, it's pretty darn cheap to process.

    21. Re:this is getting old by a_hanso · · Score: 1

      Someone should invent a generator powered by stories about battery breakthroughs.

    22. Re:this is getting old by Khyber · · Score: 1

      No, they are not.

      We've got LED kicking the pants off of CFL by roughly triple the photon flux density per watt.

      Wikipedia is not reliable. Those sources are way outdated. We've got 1W diodes pumping 150 lux/W and Cree has already smashed past 200 lux/w and did that last year. Arrays of these diodes pump out huge amounts of light.

      ~designs horticultural LED and interior LED lighting

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    23. Re:this is getting old by sodul · · Score: 1

      They are 'space' savers, not 'weight' savers ? The spare tires are usually in the trunk where you want maximum storage while the 12V battery is under the hood, where things are crammed but most consumers would rather see that the space is fully used rather than seeing a lot of empty space where the engine lives.

    24. Re:this is getting old by MrBeau · · Score: 1

      Cool. I stand corrected. Maybe update WP?

    25. Re:this is getting old by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      Have they fixed that one for hydrocarbons?

    26. Re:this is getting old by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I refuse to update that place. They'll as always cite 'original research' and wipe it out. Had it happen many times.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    27. Re:this is getting old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because most of those improvements have been making their way into the market and these will too. Look around you... things (including your batteries) are improving dramatically. Your smartphone today uses dramatically more power than it did several years ago yet still has a similar battery life.

      The reason you don't 'see' these improvements making their way into your devices is because they usually don't come with a tag that says "this device implements that new technique that you heard about on Slashdot a year ago to improve battery life", they just implement it. The battery is just peripheral. It supports those increasingly power-hungry capabilities that devices like smartphones have. When a company releases a new product, it is those capabilities that are advertised -- not the newfangled battery design. The battery is just expected to be able to support the increased power consumption (and it usually does).

    28. Re:this is getting old by MrBeau · · Score: 1

      I wanted to update the page but they, understandably, do not except press reports. I can't find an independent source for the Cree results. Can you provide me with a source for the 150lm/W diodes? A datasheet maybe?

    29. Re:this is getting old by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Go look all over alibaba.com - most of the newer 1000w spotlights are pushing 170,000 lumens or more, for 170l/w.

      It's already been mainstream for well over a year.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    30. Re:this is getting old by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Cree has this page crowing about one of their their CXA series modules being 108 lm/W at 85c and 119 lm/W at 25c. I haven't found anything higher. Here's the datasheet.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  6. Turnabout or retirement program? by overshoot · · Score: 1

    Well, it's nice to see silicon winning back some ground from the Carbon Assault. The question is whether its new future in power systems makes up for losing its long-time prominence in microelectronics or whether batteries are just a consolation prize.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Turnabout or retirement program? by jkflying · · Score: 1

      We can recycle our batteries to be turned into electronics and our electronics to be turned into batteries. What a beautiful coincidence.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    2. Re:Turnabout or retirement program? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      And last time I checked, silicon doesn't burn merrily like graphite does.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  7. I went to one by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    You're rather off-topic. But I just wanted to say I went to one. However, I was the only one who came!

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:I went to one by YodasEvilTwin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Jacking it in the bathroom is nothing to be proud of.

    2. Re:I went to one by Jeng · · Score: 2, Funny

      However, I was the only one who came!

      I'm happy for you that you had a good time, but how many people were there?

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    3. Re:I went to one by Nadaka · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you are the only one who came, you need to be a more attentive and generous lover.

    4. Re:I went to one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand you're a first class dick.

  8. Sand Cars by brouiller · · Score: 1

    I never would have thought my first electric car would be powered by sand!

    --
    In life you hoped to do what you could but mostly you did what you were told and that was the end of it.
    1. Re:Sand Cars by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      I never would have thought my first electric car would be powered by sand!

      Who needs a sand car when you've got ornithopters?

    2. Re:Sand Cars by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      I never would have thought my first electric car would be powered by sand!

      There have been other modes of transportation that have been powered by sand.

    3. Re:Sand Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On Arrakis, its desert power!

  9. Yay, another amazing new advance for batteries! by jandrese · · Score: 1

    Hopefully outside of the lab this translates into more than just "5% better life in real world conditions", or isn't totally unusable because the anodes crumble after 10 discharges or something. There is a LOT of work going into batteries these days, and it seems like some of it has to eventually pan out.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Yay, another amazing new advance for batteries! by mlts · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First question that comes to mind. What voltage are these batteries at? 1000 amp-hours at 12 volts is a lot different than 1000 amp-hours at 120.

      Gasoline gets 12,000 watt-hours as a reference.

      As for these batteries, I am hoping for use in larger applications than just a skinner smartphone.

      One amp-hour per gram is pretty good, assuming this is a twelve volt battery. Compare that to a deep cycle lead-acid battery that weighs about 18 kilograms and gives 150 AH or so. For the same amount of energy as that flooded wet cell, I'd just need a battery that weighed less than an ounce.

      However, the big issue is energy stored per volume. Weight is one thing, but if we can get energy stored per volume even within an order of magnitude of gasoline, the game changes completely:

      We can get rid of internal combustion engines completely for electric motors which do not have major energy losses due to exhaust and heat. Electric motors also have peak torque at 0 RPM.

      Areas where fuel is wasted due to idling will be eliminated. A stopped electric vehicle only needs juice to keep the occupants comfortable and the computer systems going. The drivetrain needs no power unlike a gas or diesel engine which has to keep at a certain RPM level (unless stopped and started.)

      Solar would become a lot more useful because there would be the ability to store that energy for use at night.

    2. Re:Yay, another amazing new advance for batteries! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First question that comes to mind. What voltage are these batteries at? 1000 amp-hours at 12 volts is a lot different than 1000 amp-hours at 120.

      Gasoline gets 12,000 watt-hours as a reference.

      Intensive vs. extensive properties, dude. If you insist on using extensive properties for no good reason, you can damn well tell us HOW MUCH gasoline/battery you're talking about. (Hint to others: it's 1kg) But better, just divide by fucking mass and give us the intensive property of specific energy.

      As for voltage. These are research batteries, so of course they're single cell (you make 4 cells -- do you put them in series and get a single data set? or test them each individually and get 4 data sets? Or if you really only want one data set, why not make only one...). And of course there are no 12V cells. So... I'm not sure which of these facts you missed, but remember it for next time, ok?

      They're some flavor of Li-ion, so they operate somewhere around 3-4V.

      Note that Li-ion can cells currently on the market max out around 300Wh/kg -- you can get somewhat higher with Li-ion polymer pouch cells, but I'm pretty sure the 350mAh/g figure cited as SOTA (~ 1kWh/kg) refers to research batteries, not current production.

      One amp-hour per gram is pretty good, assuming this is a twelve volt battery.

      As I said, that's a plain silly assumption. But yes, >3kWh/kg is amazingly good.

    3. Re:Yay, another amazing new advance for batteries! by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      Nominal li-Ion cell voltage is 3.7 volts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery. Which makes you wonder about the 1,000 mAh/g versus 350 mAh/g figures they quote, since they aren't the normal units for specific energy, specific power, or energy density. They also don't work out right if you assume the nominal cell voltage either.

    4. Re:Yay, another amazing new advance for batteries! by grqb · · Score: 1

      Battery materials are reported in mAh/g because this way they are independent of the battery size. You could stuff say 50g of this material into a battery meant for a car or 1/2g of this material into a battery meant for testing in a lab and you can roughly estimate the energy storage abitlity of the material. Both of these cells will have a voltage of about 3.7V on average. The units of mAh/g tells you about the amount of lithium that can be stored by this particular material so that it can be compared against other materials on an equal basis.

    5. Re:Yay, another amazing new advance for batteries! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand why it's per gram. It's the rating in mAh that seemed odd as that doesn't convey actual energy storage of the cell. I suppose it does make sense as they are only really specifying the anode capabilty and not the cell as a whole.

  10. Won't notice any change by Krojack · · Score: 1

    Companies will reduce the size of the battery two thirds and still charge the same amount of money for it. Battery life will appear to remain the same to the end users.

    1. Re:Won't notice any change by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      You fail econ 101.
      Worst case the devices using this will get lighter and battery life will stay the same.

    2. Re:Won't notice any change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And still charge what they were before for the battery as the market will bare the price...

      You are not paying for a battery because it is 'x pounds and y size'. You are paying to 'last 3 hours'.

    3. Re:Won't notice any change by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      No way they would do that for cars and phones that desperately need more power. Well, Apple might because thinness is their #1 priority.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Won't notice any change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you take more senior level econ courses, you will learn that nearly everything in econ 101&102 is horse shit.

    5. Re:Won't notice any change by alexander_686 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your making the assumption that the cost reduction in using fewer materials offsets the new manufacturing process – which we don’t know (could be high, lower, or the same).

      For years we have been able to manufacture cars that get better gas mileage by switching from steel to aluminum, carbon fibers, etc – but we have never done it because the cost of the lighter materials (both in manufacturing and maintenance) are higher.

    6. Re:Won't notice any change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And if you get to the highest levels of econ you learn that the economy is actually governed by the spirits of millions of aliens killed in a volcano many years ago by Lord Zenu.

    7. Re:Won't notice any change by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      That's Scientology

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    8. Re:Won't notice any change by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Still has about the same accuracy at predicting stuff as high level economics.

      Still, Life would be so much easier if most people at least understood the concepts taught in economics 101&102.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    9. Re:Won't notice any change by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Companies will reduce the size of the battery two thirds and still charge the same amount of money for it.

      You mean, Apple will. The real world will obey the laws of economics.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  11. Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    practical applications are 5 years (and a fat grant) away?

  12. My cellphone battery is almost dead... by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Funny

    My cellphone battery is nearly dead, so please may I squeeze it up between your lovely knockers, my dear? Oh, they're natural? Nevermind...

    1. Re:My cellphone battery is almost dead... by N!k0N · · Score: 2

      crushed silicon ... not _silicone_... easy mistake to make though.

    2. Re:My cellphone battery is almost dead... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      That's not the right material anyways. If you want to see what silicon boobs would be like, watch Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Dictator."

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:My cellphone battery is almost dead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sexism isn't a problem in IT or on Slashdot.

    4. Re:My cellphone battery is almost dead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to fail getting the joke, moron

  13. Batteries rule? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Batteries rule everything around us"

    Man, this submission is the worst rap song ever.

  14. More power, More space, lighter weight by imurd3r3r · · Score: 1

    A lithium battery holding three times the capacity is significant. This could mean that the range of a EV could be three times, all else equal, or the battery could provide three times the voltage with the same capacity all else equal, or simply the size and weight of the battery could be 1/3rd the size leaving room for other components. Considering I race RC cars with lithium batteries in a six minute heat, I'd choose 1/3rd the size and weight.

    1. Re:More power, More space, lighter weight by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

      A lithium battery holding three times the capacity is significant. This could mean that the range of a EV could be three times, all else equal, or the battery could provide three times the voltage with the same capacity all else equal, or simply the size and weight of the battery could be 1/3rd the size leaving room for other components.

      Thanks, Captain Obvious, for clearly explaining the ramifications of "3x" ... :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:More power, More space, lighter weight by Githaron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd choose 1/3rd the size and weight.

      Forget that, I want a smartphone with battery life that is measured in days instead of hours.

    3. Re:More power, More space, lighter weight by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      I'd choose 1/3rd the size and weight.

      Forget that, I want a smartphone with battery life that is measured in days instead of hours.

      We have that already. It's called the RAZR MAXX.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    4. Re:More power, More space, lighter weight by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It'd also be a bomb. Hit it with a hammer, run. Energy dump.

      Also 'crushed' is not a nano-material. Could you imagine nano-granularized silicon?

    5. Re:More power, More space, lighter weight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we have that; my phone usually lasts me .5 days

    6. Re:More power, More space, lighter weight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sitting there, turned off does not count.

    7. Re:More power, More space, lighter weight by Metabolife · · Score: 1

      Wake me up when it lets me drive 3x faster.

    8. Re:More power, More space, lighter weight by Jeng · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the TSA will start to not allow batteries that have a really high energy density?

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    9. Re:More power, More space, lighter weight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Nexus S runs for 2->2.5 days on a single charge. What's my secret? Don't go places where the cell signal blows goats.

    10. Re:More power, More space, lighter weight by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Also 'crushed' is not a nano-material. Could you imagine nano-granularized silicon?

      They crushed nano-porous silicon. So TFA is about a nano-material.

    11. Re:More power, More space, lighter weight by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind they are saying triple the density of the anode, which is only half of the battery, so this is more like a potential for 1.5x improvement in overall battery size. SIlicon is also heavier by weight than the carbon, so this might mean minimal improvment in energy per weight.

    12. Re:More power, More space, lighter weight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hammer - or a bucket!
      http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/01/1847253/fisker-hybrids-get-bad-karma-from-superstorm-sandy

  15. New Miracle batteries since 1901 by tp1024 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Breakthrough paradigm shifting innovative batteries have been around at least since 1901 and none of them worked.

    http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/05/the-status-quo-of-electric-cars-better-batteries-same-range.html

    (ctrl+f -> miracle batteries)

    Technology changes incrementally and not on public demand.

    1. Re:New Miracle batteries since 1901 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What a fucking stupid article. They inappropriately compare the "range" of a 1901 car with a top speed of 25 MPH and a Nissan Leaf with a far greater top speed.

      Nowhere in the article do they attempt to do the incredibly easy task of getting into a Nissan Leaf and driving it at a constant 25 MPH to determine its range at the same top speed of the 1901 car. As their own article states "driving faster uses more 'fuel'

    2. Re:New Miracle batteries since 1901 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the hoopla is because it is published in one of Nature's open access journal. Nature is slightly more respected than other sources of info.

    3. Re:New Miracle batteries since 1901 by tp1024 · · Score: 1

      The point is, it isn't even published as of right now.

      All they had to show for their super duper battery were two vials of approximately 0.1g of the stuff, but already claim it's cheap, easy to produce by the tons, durable etc.

      The whole thing is as fake as it gets and I wonder what gullible fool fell for it.

  16. B.R.E.A.M. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    get the 'lectrons

  17. For big surface area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a big surface area, study the structure of a Mentos(tm) in a bottle of Coke(tm). You can get a first hand account here. The uncoated Mentos has pits that allow a carbon monoxide bubble to form (actually more than one since there is more than one pit). Probably that structure would make a good anode for generating electricity too!

  18. Re:First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that Dice has taken over, perhaps they'd consider unbanning you?

  19. so...... by Budgreen · · Score: 1

    my phone battery might last me past lunch some day?

    --
    The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
  20. Mandatory XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mandatory XKCD
    http://xkcd.com/651/

  21. And the cathode...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So to this point, the limiter has been the anode, but just barely. In order to make this "discovery" meaningful (and it's not really a discovery, they've been working on silicon anodes for at least a decade now), you need a cathode that can keep up.

  22. no, I'm talking about this by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Back in January 2008 /. ran this article:

    http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/08/01/16/027236/nanotech-anode-promises-10x-battery-life

    Pretty much the same battery and the same concept as here, but with the promise of 10X improvement. There have been other articles just as promising, but we never really get the promised stuff. And don't get me started on the story about the new 200 mpg motor for electric car that was posted many years ago and "only two years before we will see it in cars". /. just posts too many of these stories as if they were real.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:no, I'm talking about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we'll get this stuff at the same time they finally allow that really spiffy superhydrophobic coating we saw a year or two ago into the public market. Then we can have that electric car that almost needs no maintenance and rarely ever needs to be washed either.

      Also anyone considering placing bets on which tech we'll see first as consumers?

  23. Which is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Title says 3x life, summary seems to indicate 3x power density.

  24. I need this NOW! by wannabegeek2 · · Score: 1

    Droid 4 owner here... I need a battery made with this technology NOW. Maybe then a charge would last a whole work day.

    --
    Never ascribe to malice or conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
  25. Model Aeroplanes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pssh. model aeorplane batteries that put out 2200mAh weigh around 75g each. x3 for the required voltage and that's around 200g of weight. to reduce that to 2g x3 = 6g would be immensely awesome.

  26. Expanding sponges in our batteries by mattr · · Score: 1

    I had read about the expansion phenomenon in the past. Does this mean that within every current Li-Ion battery there is a spongelike anode that is growing and shrinking in size whenever it charges? I don't think people realize that usually. Interesting.